Track

Hi all I have a large finished layout in my basement that Ive got bored with, so I am planning on demolishing it and building a new one. The track
is Peco code 100 and includes many turnouts and crossings. Do you suggest I reuse the track and turnouts or go new with Code 75? My stock is all newer Hornby and Bachman. I have had some derailment problems with th newer stock on code 100 points, or is it down to bad track laying Thanks Rob
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

My 5p's worth - new stock on Code 100 should be fine, if its just some of your new stock then check the B2B of those locos. Both Bachmann and Hornby can be slightly incorrect straight from the box.
Cheers, Simon
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
simon wrote:

I'd suggest code 83 or 75 rather than retaining your code 100. Rather than Peco you might like to consider Shinohara (Walthers) or Roco points.
Why? Well, Peco have changed their standards over the years slowly moving from "Universal" to finer standards. I have at least 3 iterations of flageway clearances on my Peco points, the older ones are not always kind to NMRA RP 25. My preference now is for Shinohara (Walthers) points as I still see issues with correct BtoB RP 25 wheels picking the vee.
Peter
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

And let's keep in mind that Peco "Universal" track is not prototypically correct, for either side of the pond.
It's a design unique to Peco and nowhere else.
--
Cheers.

Roger T.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

More importantly, can they ever manage to be correct????? ;-)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

To be fair, theyre often near enough for 00 - will not be drawn on EM or P4 cos got other things more interested in. However the slight clunk at points let alone derail is a hint that B2B needs a check. Got a Flying Scotsman out the other day, the first loco I bought as an adult. Quite a quiet runner despite tender drive. Sure enough the tender did clunk through points and a quick look revealed a missing traction tyre.
cheers, Simon
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
    Folks,     From Broken Hill Prop. Handbook on Steel Shapes of 1962: Aust Std. 107 lb. rail was 6.1875" high, = 157mm = 2.1mm in 1:76 scale. Aust Std. 94lb. was 5.625", 143mm, 1.88mm: Brit. Std. 85lb.5.4375", 138mm, 1.8mm: Brit. Std. 70 lb. 4.875", 124mm, 1.6mm. Rail heights in 1:76 scale are given to one place of decimals only.                 Regards,                     Bill,                      Melbourne.

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

Code 100 is naff, code 75 is less naff, and works well with all recent Bachmann & Hornby products, but remember BOTH are basically European HO products even though they're made in England.
For me Peco code 75 is a reliable compromise especially if well ballasted & nicely weathered, but if time were not an issue I'd hand-build a closer to UK scale OO track - but you can argue that if you're going to do that then you might well consider switching to EM (or Scale 4).
John.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Am sure these are good points (oh a pun), must admit dont know anything about code 75 so happy to leave that part of discussion to other more experienced and knowledgable. However, if your locos have difficulty with Code 100 then wouldnt be suprised if they have difficulty with other varieties of track. Dont know enough details of problems you are having, but under reasonable conditions Code 100 is fine. Would therefore suggest you sort out those locos first before moving to new track/layout which would introduce a new situation and confuse the issue. Take one loco at a time, check B2B, note where and frequency of derailment. Run it slowly over those places, observe and report whats happening.
Cheers, Simon
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

I've always wondered if Peco will ever take the plunge and sell proper 00 scale track as to do so they would be admitting that they have been selling us HO track for 40?? odd years.
Fred X
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 16:00:58 +0000, Fred X wrote:

I'm quite sure Peco would be quite happy to admit that their track is a compromise, after all all 00 track is. I'm also sure that they would be happy to make "proper" 00 track if people were prepared to pay for it. The trouble is that that there is such a vast amount legacy track out there, and most users would baulk at mixing the two and certainly not consider re-laying their entire layout. Let's face it, the vast majority of users don't really give a damn, or Marcway 00 flexi track, which has been available for donkeys years, would be the de-facto standard rather than Peco.
Cheers Richard
--
I have become...............comfortably numb

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

...
Most users want to go in to thier local shop and say, "I'll have 'x' yards of track please" and as 99 shop keepers out of a hundred haven't even heard of Marcway 'x' yards of Pritchards Patent Products track is handed over ...
... and by the time most users actually know the difference and know of the existence of Marcway etc it's to late as they've already got a Peco layout.
--

All the best,

Chris

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 20:08:03 GMT, Chris Wilson put finger to keyboard and typed:

Marcway don't make track in yards. Marcway make points, which match track produced by SMP.
As it happens, SMP is now owned by Marcway, but the two brands are still sold separately. To the purist, that may be a good thing. But such a blinkered approach to branding and marketing is one of the reasons why very few shops stock Marcway/SMP products and very few modellers have heard of them.
It's easy to knock the likes of Peco, but they do at least have half a clue about marketing. But it's still only half a clue, and a well-run competitor could easily make big inroads into their market. Unfortunately, Marcway/SMP don't fall into this category.
Mark
--
Blog: http://mark.goodge.co.uk
Stuff: http://www.good-stuff.co.uk
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I've been using SMP for over 30 years now, and combined with handbuilt pointwork it is by far the most realistic track around. Peco stuff is rubbish. You use it, and it shouts 'TOY TRAINS' at anyone who knows anything about railway track. SMP is code 65 BTW which is deadscale for 4mm. SMP copperclad kits also use code 65 and they are a good way to learn handbuilt track building but they are not, and do not pretend to be, accurate representations of real track. For that you need to use the Permanent Way Institution's 'bible' - 'British Railway Track' published in 1971 by the BRB. Turns up second hand quite frequently. Not for the mathematically challenged though.
I didn't know Markway had taken over SMP. It's a while since I bought any ready made plastic based SMP.
Alistair W
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Actually, I prefer Atlas flextrack (and settrack, but not their turnouts). It has finer rail fasteners than Peco, and the web is attached to the rail on one side so it's easier to keep a uniform tie/sleeper spacing both on curves and on straights. It's cheaper on this side of the pond, too.
--
Martin S.

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

It's very strange that a British company makes so much specialists track suitable for almost every scale imaginable, including several different types of HO-scale track, but fail lamentably to make a track aimed specifically at the British OO-scale modeller.
I *know* Peco have been asked for a decent OO-scale track (with scale British sleepering) for many years, and I know any number of my customers (self included) would happily pay a modest premium for such a track system. After all if they can produce specialist HO-scale Code 83 track specifically for the American market, something more suitable for the British modeller shouldn't be beyond them.
John.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Yeah, they could produced it in parallel with their HO track so that those who want to stick with their existing track work could still buy it and I'm sure it would be popular. Although I guess it would mean shops like yours having to sell two track systems which probably wouldn't please a lot of shop owners as there are enough different permutations of Peco track as it is. Perhaps we just aren't a big enough market to justify the costs of producing it?
Fred X
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 15:02:11 +0000, John Turner wrote:

I suspect he will have done some market research and possibly concluded that introducing "proper" UK 00 track would split the market, causing them to have increased overheads. I've no idea how much track they sell a year to the UK, probably quite a lot, but lets say that if they introduced 00 track and the drop in sales of their standard track fell significantly they would have to increase the price to cover costs (reduced volumes) - I would guess that track is probably quite price sensitive - leading to further falls in sales. They might conclude that taking the risk is just too great, especially when demand for true 00 track might be quite low. Then there's the cost of developing matching points etc. And, of course, there's the dealers - specialist like yourself may be prepared to hold additional stock, but many wouldn't I expect.
I would guess that are waiting until a rival comes along and starts producing mass-market true 00 track, and then they will react (quickly) - but in the mean time it's probably just not worth the commercial risk, and it could be they know the risks quite well, as they will know what happened when concrete sleeper track was launched.
The reason why they have produced US track is the size of the market, and for 00-9 etc the lack of competition helps - but I'd venture the current 00 track is their bread and butter and upsetting the apple cart would be very risky.
The fact that no one else has launched true 00 UK track speaks volumes.
Cheers Richard
--
I have become...............comfortably numb

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

>Richard
You don't seem to be reading the posts on this thread carefully. SMP have been producing very accurate code 65 UK track for at least 35 years but did not go on to make turnouts RTR, only kits (and their one plastic turnout kit is not brilliant - it's a B6 seldom seen anywhere but sidings). They then went down the road of producing copperclad pointwork kits instead. This is probably why they don't get the coverage of PECO because you have to be a 'modeller' rather than a 'box opener' to use this approach. Personally I find copperclad easy to build, and you can make your own formations for prototype locations. I once made a scissors crossover with a single slip followed by a three way tandem turnout all in one piece. It passed trains beautifully. The trackwork on my current layout which has mostly curved turnouts was built this way and was done from the rating plan for the station. It looks very good indeed and is commented on by visitors. If you don't believe me pm me and I'll send you some photos.
Alistair
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Code 65 at 1:76 represents 4.94" or 125mm. Is this representative of either steam era or present day rail heights? I can't seem to find confirmation through Google.
--
Martin S.

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.