Model Railway Forum banner
1 - 10 of 10 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
285 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
For my first layout in too many years skimpy blog

I had decided to keep it simple with Code 100 peco electrofrog (my last layout circa 1974 had electrofrog farish points - they made OO then - , so I couldn't thing of going back to insulfrog), I have read here and elsewhere of the problems people perceive with peco in general and code 100 in particular but thought it would be simple.

I liked the idea of slow acting point motors though and have bought a job lot of tortoises, hoping to rid myself of huge electical loads from the solenoids as well as the much better looking movement.

But I have only just dropped in that code 100 electrofrog and tortoise dont go too brilliantly - I can't use the internal switching without physically cutting the rails it seems - and confirmed from reading various threads on here. I am not keen on cutting up the brand new points - I'll probably mess it up. But the code 75 come with a built in facility to prevent the need for rail cutting.

So *finally* getting to the point if I use a selection of new (in the last year) hornby, bachmann, heljan stock on code 75 will I need to go through all sorts of rewheeling pain and fettling, or will it work fine.

Thanks in advance - sorry if this has been done to death, nothing much came up on searching for code 75
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
9,844 Posts
QUOTE So *finally* getting to the point if I use a selection of new (in the last year) hornby, bachmann, heljan stock on code 75 will I need to go through all sorts of rewheeling pain and fettling, or will it work fine.

I would turn your question inside out and say that apart from Triang / Hornby or late 70's Lima stock you will be ok. I find that even my Triang stuff will run tolerably well on code 75. My late 70's Lima coaches run along the sleepers. All my recent purchases - Hornby A4, Bachmann V2, 9F, Hornby Gresley coaches, Bachmann Mk1s, Hornby Pullmans are absolutely fine.

I find the flexi track easier to lay; it's less inclined to spring back to being straight.

David
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
214 Posts
QUOTE (TimP @ 1 Jun 2007, 20:49) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>For my first layout in too many years skimpy blog

I had decided to keep it simple with Code 100 peco electrofrog (my last layout circa 1974 had electrofrog farish points - they made OO then - , so I couldn't thing of going back to insulfrog), I have read here and elsewhere of the problems people perceive with peco in general and code 100 in particular but thought it would be simple.

I liked the idea of slow acting point motors though and have bought a job lot of tortoises, hoping to rid myself of huge electical loads from the solenoids as well as the much better looking movement.

But I have only just dropped in that code 100 electrofrog and tortoise dont go too brilliantly - I can't use the internal switching without physically cutting the rails it seems - and confirmed from reading various threads on here. I am not keen on cutting up the brand new points - I'll probably mess it up. But the code 75 come with a built in facility to prevent the need for rail cutting.

So *finally* getting to the point if I use a selection of new (in the last year) hornby, bachmann, heljan stock on code 75 will I need to go through all sorts of rewheeling pain and fettling, or will it work fine.

Thanks in advance - sorry if this has been done to death, nothing much came up on searching for code 75
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
214 Posts
I run a mixture of stock but all with upgraded metal wheels and used to get lots of derailments at both code 100 diamond crossing and double slips. By changing to code 100 i have elinated this problem. If I was starting again I would go code 75 all the way
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,275 Posts
I found with many of the new Hornby Gresley coaches, Pullmans, Staniers and Bachmann Mk1's derailments were quite common on my code 75 layout. This didn't happen with my US stock so I decided to get a back to back guage and compare it with my NMRA standards guage. I found the that by adjusting the wheel back to back the same as I would for US stock and the derailments disappeared. I still get the odd one but it's a piece of track I know I've laid badly.

Ozzie21

QUOTE (theakerr @ 9 Jun 2007, 10:16) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>I run a mixture of stock but all with upgraded metal wheels and used to get lots of derailments at both code 100 diamond crossing and double slips. By changing to code 100 i have elinated this problem. If I was starting again I would go code 75 all the way
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,202 Posts
QUOTE liked the idea of slow acting point motors though and have bought a job lot of tortoises, hoping to rid myself of huge electical loads from the solenoids as well as the much better looking movement.

you'll completely eliminate electrical loads....but vastly increase your requirement for lettuces?


Looking at my very old(?) [relative to many of you]...peco points, there seems to be a lot of difference between check rail clearances, ie wider, that exist with new (code100) points?

A trick I used in the past was to glue in, edge on, slivers of plasticard into the frog gaps to reduce them, preventing the dreaded wheel drop with rigid-chassis locos.

so,have peco (and others?) gradually tightened up their scantlings? (sorry, navy term......forget....senile dementia sets in....erm....)....have they improved their check rail standards over the years?

Because if so, this might be a reason for some points creating probs, (and newer stuff not??)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
763 Posts
Basically , everything made in the last 20 years will run fine on code 75.

If you get the problem Ozzie21 mentions - it would be just the same on code100 and the remedy is the same - check the back to back.

You should not have to rewheel anything for Peco code75. This seems to be one of the great unfounded myths . There is no difference in the flangeway clearance between current code 100 and current code 75

alaisterq
QUOTE so,have peco (and others?) gradually tightened up their scantlings? (sorry, navy term......forget....senile dementia sets in....erm....)....have they improved their check rail standards over the years?

Because if so, this might be a reason for some points creating probs, (and newer stuff not??)

Yes they have. In the early 90s I think. But they never told anyone. Nor did they say what the old and new values were..... (1.55mm and 1.39mm if you really want to know)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,202 Posts
which is likely why I have achieved some indifferent results, running-wise, over the years, re-cycling old peco points where I thought it 'didn't matter?'

does anyone know if the peco code 83 points [for the US market] have different dimensions at the crossings?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,275 Posts
I don't have my NMRA standards book with with but if you go to
http://www.nmra.org/standards/consist.html#standards

you should find what you are looking for.

Ozzie21

QUOTE (alastairq @ 11 Jun 2007, 04:07) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>which is likely why I have achieved some indifferent results, running-wise, over the years, re-cycling old peco points where I thought it 'didn't matter?'

does anyone know if the peco code 83 points [for the US market] have different dimensions at the crossings?
 
1 - 10 of 10 Posts
Top