Peco OO-gauge Setrack

Just been told today that Peco are to add a 4th radius curve into their OO-gauge Setrack range. The actual radium wasn't quoted but I would guess it would be approaching 24 inches.

A 3rd radius curve is also planned for N-gauge.

Reply to
John Turner
Loading thread data ...

C.J. Freezer gets his wish at last.

Reply to
Kevin Martin

"Kevin Martin" wrote

Aye, and one or two others too I should imagine.

John.

Reply to
John Turner

And 5th radius will be the even better 30 inches, and 6th radius will 32 inches? Two much better curves than any other, if you want to use non-flexible track that is. 30 and 32 would be great for use in staging yards and hidden track though.

-- Cheers

Roger T.

Home of the Great Eastern Railway

formatting link

Reply to
Roger T.

Surely 4th radius would have to be 3rd radius + 67mm, i.e. 505+67 =

572mm which is 22.52"
Reply to
Mark Thornton

"Mark Thornton" wrote

It depends whether the track centre spacing is at 'scale' distance or is widened to allow for the unnatural overhand on tight curves.

John.

Reply to
John Turner

"John Turner" wrote

That should read 'overhang' not overhand.

John.

Reply to
John Turner

Nothing to do with set track radii, but did Peco say anything about a rumoured On30/On16.5 turntable?

Steve Newcastle NSW Aust

Reply to
Steve Magee

"Steve Magee" wrote

Nope.

John.

Reply to
John Turner

As Mark implies, Hornby and Peco Setrack standard spacing is 67mm, or a scale 16ft 9in. This already includes an allowance for overhang.

Reply to
MartinS

"MartinS" wrote

I'm not disputing that, but it's done on small radii curves to avoid vehicles with over (or under) hang colliding on adjacent tracks. When the curve radius increases the need for such an over-scale 6 foot way declines, and Peco have not announced (at least to me) what their exact plans are for this 4th radius.

John.

Reply to
John Turner

In message , John Turner writes

Surely if you don't want such a large spacing between the tracks you would use Streamline, which has a spacing of 50 mm, i.e. 12 ft 6 in?

Reply to
Jane Sullivan

I would expect it's spacing from 3rd radius to be defined by the spacing of a pair of standard settrack points forming a crossover - to do otherwise would need a whole new set of pointwork as well.

James Moody

Reply to
James Moody

You could, but this thread is about Setrack. I can't imagine Peco changing their standard track spacing. We're still talking about a very small radius scalewise.

Reply to
MartinS

"Jane Sullivan" wrote

Agreed in principle but I have a fairly sharp curve on a lifting section of my layout. I laid same using code 75 Streamline, but it would have been so much easier if there had been a suitable rigid section of track available.

John.

Reply to
John Turner

"James Moody" wrote

I assume it will be, but they have not confirmed that.

I know people who mix Code 100 Streamline points with Setrack, so your assertion about the need for new pointwork is only partly valid.

John.

Reply to
John Turner

Streamline points aren't conveniently the same length as settrack straights though, are they? So you'd need a length of flexi (even though laid straight) or a new piece of settrack of the required length to match them up. You've also got the concept of separate railjoiners to explain to the trainset brigade. I'd be very surprised if 4th radius isn't the same distance from 3rd as 3rd is from 2nd and 2nd from 1st...

(I wonder when first radius will be dropped? Given so much stuff states that it won't go around 1st radius, I can't see it being made long into the future.)

James Moody

Reply to
James Moody

"James Moody" wrote

Useful for the toy train market - I think one of the 'Thomas' sets uses first radius curves.

John.

Reply to
John Turner

Atlas makes 15" radius - even smaller. Even at 1:87, many US locos and cars are longer than the British 1:76 equivalents.

BTW Atlas 2nd and 3rd radii are 18" and 22" - not equidistant.

Reply to
MartinS

As also do both Thomas and standard Trakmats. Abandoning 1st radius would require a complete redesign of both. It would also rob Simon Kohler of his excuse for keeping the ancient Class 37 and Class 47 in productuion.

(kim)

Reply to
kim

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.