Peco 00 gauge sleeper spacing

Nothing for me destroys the illusion of reality on a model railway depicting British prototype as much as the size and spacing of the
sleepers of Peco streamline track. It just doesn't look like proper chaired bullhead track. And nothing - at least for me - so identifies the character of the Victorian railway system like the 'built-like-a-dreadnought' nature of chaired track.
There are dodges around this, of course ... like cutting the webbing between the sleepers and readjusting the spacing (but this doesn't address the chair issue), or buying the more expensive C&L track. And of course you could say that if you really want that sort of realism, you should move up to EM or P4. But for me the gauge isn't the issue. If you don't have something to compare the width of two relatively tiny lengths of rail, it's actually fairly easy to confuse 00 for the larger, more accurate gauges. I would point to the number of exhibitors who remark that people confuse their 00 layouts for EM because they've used one of the two dodges I mention above.
That said, for someone residing as I do in the U.S., can somebody enlighten me as to why Peco do not produce proper chaired track for 00 gauge? Their 0 gauge track is chaired, and C&L have shown that it is perfectly possible to do it in 00 ... so why not a line of Peco Dreadnought (tm) 00 gauge track to satisfy those who want that, well ... built- like-a-dreadnought look for their layouts? Yes, I'm certain that by making the track look more un-British (for lack of a better word), they knew they could sell the track on the Continent and in the U.S. (and they do indeed sell bundles of it here). But surely another, more accurate line would sell well in the U.K. ... I'd imagine that modelers would snap it up in bushels.
Thoughts?
Dave Richtmyer Ann Arbor, Michigan
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

<snip>
That could be due to Peco (oo at least) track being flat bottomed .......
Just a thought,
Jeff.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Dave"

That's because Peco's largest market is North America. While Peco track looks nothing like any track on both sides of the pond, it's sleep spacing and "chair" type is closer to North American than UK.
-- Cheers Roger T.
Home of the Great Eastern Railway http://www.highspeedplus.com/~rogertra /
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Yes, I more or less asumed that the decision was based on the $ they could rake in the North American market. Lots of North American modelers (and, for all I know, Central and South American modelers as well) use Peco because it is reliable, even if it doesn't look anything like North American track (though you are right, it looks closer to North American than U.K. prototype). But now that they've gone ahead with their code 83 line supposedly specifically designed after U.S. prototype (and I say "supposedly" because I've seen other North American modelers grumbling that the points are less than authentic), one would think that they would now do a line of authentic 00 as well. I mean, it's not as if they don't have *lots* of other lines of track ... what's one more line that might well do very well? But then again, I'm not on the Peco Board of Directors ... :-)
Cheers,
Dave
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Atlas track has been greatly improved in recent years, both Code 100 and Code 83. I wonder if it's reclaimed some of the N.A. market from Peco?
--
Martin S.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

What's the difference between code 75 and code 83? 0.008 of an inch rail height. Since Peco are now touting their code 83 line as based on North American prototypes, it would make sense for them to change their code 75 line to be more like UK track and change the sleeper spacing to that of OO.

--
Jane
OO in the garden http://www.yddraiggoch.demon.co.uk/railway/railway.html
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Precisely my point ... I'll second that!
Dave
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Jane Sullivan" wrote

It's been suggested to Peco on numerous occasions that they should consider a genuine fine scale OO track, rather than the current HO scale offerings, but the response has been one of indefference. I think they're unlikely to bother as long as UK modellers continue to buy their current offerings.
I think it would really take a serious competitor to enter the market with a comprehensive range of ready-to-use track & pointwork, to generate the kick up the rear end necessary to convince them that sitting on their laurels is not the way forward.
I suspec the 83-line range has been introduced at the behest of Walters in the USA. They are, I believe, the main distributors of Peco in the USA and I suspect they wanted a range of 'scale' USA prototype track to be able to compete with other manufacturers in an increasingly bitter and competitive market. The difference between Peco's code 75 and code 83 track is significantly more than just 0.008 inch in rail height - the sleepering is significantly different as is the point geometry.
John.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

But Walthers already do a code 83 line, made for them by Shinohara of Japan, and it has a lot more items in it than what Peco are proposing to do, such as a No. 8 scissors crossover, and No. 10 switches/points/turnouts, although where you can get these from in the UK, dog only knows.

--
Jane
OO in the garden http://www.yddraiggoch.demon.co.uk/railway/railway.html
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Jane Sullivan wrote: [..]

Yes, and Atlas also has a very good code 83 line. In addition, Micro-Engineering makes a superb line of prototypical track, the best I've ever seen - I doubt that anyone can hand lay track to match it. That's Peco's competition. They also have a price problem IMO.

Well, Peco does have to make enough of the commonly desired stuff to warrant tooling for the rarer stuff. Not many people want to build a #10 crossover... :-)
I can quote on Walthers track if you're really interested. Mail me off-group: there is no e in the correct address.
HTH
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

True, but, then, not many people have got the space I have for my garden railway. I was thinking of using them for the crossovers between the fast and slow lines just before the main line staging yard, where trains can still be running at full speed.

Thank you. I'm definitely interested, but to start with I only want a couple for playing around with. Ideally right hand No.10 but if they're not available (the Walthers web site says "out of stock"), No.8 will do. It's not worth sourcing just a couple of items like this from across the pond, which is why I was wondering if there is somewhere in the UK I can get them from.
I want to see how they, and all the associated wiring and switching will stand up to the rigours of a British winter. I'm not going to attach an electric point motor to them, but rather one of those pneumatic ones from Del-Aire (who have gone out of business, but I've got a stock of them).

--
Jane
OO in the garden http://www.yddraiggoch.demon.co.uk/railway/railway.html
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Dave wrote:

Their OO/HO track was originally designed to cater to both British and US customers - sort of "we're right, the prototype is wrong" theory.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Greg Procter" wrote

British and Continental Europe if I recall correctly. Peco has never been particularly big in the USA, although it does have its adherents.
John.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I dunno about the USA, but in most Canadian model shops it's displayed right alongside Atlas, even if they don't sell any other UK imports.
--
Martin S.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
John Turner wrote:

I read it in a book somewhere, I think a CJFreezer tome. It seemed authoritative at the time. (196... :-)
"Continental Europe" is a big place, with many different track standards and I would hesitate to pick any one track configuration that would represent the total. Flat bottomed rail might be one commonality over most of Europe - regularly spaced sleepers another, but that's about it!
Regards, Greg.P.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Errr ......... what IS the correct spacing for Wooden Sleepers in the UK ?
Keith
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Keith Lanham" wrote

Don't think there's such a beast, certainly sleeper spacing traditionally varied towards the end of a 60 foot length of track with sleepers closer together below a joint. On the other hand I believe there is a standard 'size' for a sleeper, but don't ask me what it is.
Incidentally we don't have 'sleepers' below pointwork, for some reason they are referred to as 'timbers.
John.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You're right, but a good "average" sleeper spacing is 2 ft 6 in between centre-lines. Sleepers are 10 inches wide by 8 ft 6 in or 9 ft long depending on when they were laid.

Timbers are 12 inches wide.

--
Jane
OO in the garden http://www.yddraiggoch.demon.co.uk/railway/railway.html
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Jane Sullivan" wrote

And the length varies depending upon their position in the pointwork.
John.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 20:05:29 -0000, "John Turner"

And the timbers can be wider than 12" if the angularity of the chairs on the timber is such that the bolt holes would be too close to the edges - 14" is usually the next size up.
Jim.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Polytechforum.com is a website by engineers for engineers. It is not affiliated with any of manufacturers or vendors discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.