Model Railway Forum banner
1 - 18 of 18 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,841 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I have finished the baseboards to my new garage layout and started track laying. The design works mainly as intended but there is one detail that I'm still pondering over. This is the entry to the station sidings from a loop off the outer main line. I have tried several arrangements with point plans and even used old code 100 points to check. I am sure that I will end up with an arrangement that works but what would be perfect for the situation is something in between a peco long wye point and the short version.

The long wye point has a radius each side of 6ft and the diverging tracks make an angle of 12 degrees. The short wye point has a radius each side of 2ft and the diverging tracks make an angle of 24 degrees. What I really need is a wye point with a radius of about 4ft each side and the tracks emerging at about 18 degrees.

This got me thinking about the general question of point geometry. If you could get peco to make one more design of point what would it be? I know that many people don't like peco points and would ask for improvements or complete redesign but that's not what I am asking about. What point with new geometry in the present style would you ask for?
 

·
In depth idiot
Joined
·
7,683 Posts
No contest: eight foot radius LH and RH. (2,3,5,8, Fibonacci series.)

For your particular location, is there any mileage in curving a straight point to make an assymetric 'Y'? It is possible to put a gentle curve into the large radius point (either direction) without adverse effect on running reliability, provided the point is installed glued down on a stable level base. Cut through the webbings on the inside of the curve you wish to introduce, and ease to shape, sighting along the rails to avoid any kinking.

I like Peco points for their robust 'fit and forget' reliable performance with RP25 wheeled stock. But as you correctly anticipated, I do so wish they would try putting the code 75 rail components onto sleepers to match SMP and C&L. Just the present large radius is all I would ask for as a 'try out'.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,841 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
Thank you 34C. I know that peco points can be 'tweaked' in this way and have done it before but this leaves the matter of the angle between the emerging tracks unchanged. I have now worked out that the answer is to have the entry a little further along the loop, which is gently curved, so that this makes the angle slightly larger and further back so that it will go behind the platform. However. that shortens by about two wagons the length of train that can stop in the loop with the points returned to normal - a pity.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
233 Posts
A pair of curved radius turnouts that form a genuine parallel crossover (L&R), with at least 72" for the outer radius. This would allow space saving crossovers in curved throats, the current types do not form a parallel crossover (yes, I have tried it)
BTW, like many others, I use Peco code 75 for the mainline (after tweaking the timbering) and C&L in the yards for a much lighter appearance, looks nice.

Have been using code 75 since its introduction without mishap.
 

·
In depth idiot
Joined
·
7,683 Posts
QUOTE (72C @ 29 Oct 2007, 14:51) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>A pair of curved radius turnouts that form a genuine parallel crossover (L&R), with at least 72" for the outer radius. This would allow space saving crossovers in curved throats, the current types do not form a parallel crossover ..
Have you tried an opposite hand large radius turnout inside a curved turnout? Nominal 60" rather than the 72" curve radius you are looking for, but it does form a reasonably parallel construction with the diverging routes trimmed back to enable 44mm track centres. You would have to sight along a rough tangent to the curve to see where parallels were not quite maintained, and could possibly slightly ease the curvature on the curved point to true this up - but I have never tried bending a curved point.

The RTR alternative might be Tillig, whose points are advertised as offering flexibility.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
233 Posts
QUOTE Have you tried an opposite hand large radius turnout inside a curved turnout? Yes, the only answer is a truly parallel parallel crossover for both L&R, Tillig make them but as much as many like their product I dislike its propensity to go out of gauge.
 

·
In depth idiot
Joined
·
7,683 Posts
QUOTE (72C @ 29 Oct 2007, 17:05) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Yes, the only answer is a truly parallel parallel crossover for both L&R, Tillig make them but as much as many like their product I dislike its propensity to go out of gauge.
Which brings me back to why I really, really want a UK sleepered OO RTR track range from Peco. Their stuff works...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
233 Posts
A few weeks ago a visitor watched my HO layout and asked 'why was I using P4 track?' the truth was that I use Peco on the mainline and C&L 00 in the sidings, the idea is to emphasise the lightly laid sidings.

This illuminated the dull 40w lamp inside my brain and so I tried my son's Bachmann 76000 and it looked good on the C&L but not so good on the Peco.

So why not a real left field proposal.

Peco should make 00 track with bullhead rail and 4mm spacing for the timbering.


This may sound stupid because it is nothing more than EM/P4 track with 16,5mm gauge but is it really such a bad idea?

10 years ago it would have a really stupid idea because we had no rolling stock worth using but things have really changed and we can buy top notch OO models but we are forced to either:

1. Run on HO track
2. Convert to EM/P4

OK, a third option, run the stock on 00 track with bullhead rail and 4mm spacing for the timbering. I could do this with C&L plain track except C&L don't make RTR turnouts and I want to able to walk into my local hobby shop and buy 00 track that is good as the Bachmann. Heljan and Hornby rolling stock.

Would it sell? I think it would outsell all other Peco products despite being 2mm too narrow because the buying public want a decent 00 track (not an HO product) and no amount of campaigning from either the EMGS/P4S will ever make the vast model-buying public change.
 

·
In depth idiot
Joined
·
7,683 Posts
QUOTE (72C @ 1 Nov 2007, 08:52) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>So why not a real left field proposal.

Peco should make 00 track with bullhead rail and 4mm spacing for the timbering.

This 'better OO track' topic has had quite a lot of coverage on various online forums, including this one. Regrettably the business with the resources and presence in the UK market seems immovable. Best bet has to be an overseas business looking for an expansion opportunity and sweeping the board with a significantly better product, as Bachmann did to Lima.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,841 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 ·
72C has just taken this thread exactly where I didn't want it to go!, although he was only responding to a hint in the previous answer by 34C (where do those two names come from?). I was asking about points with new geometry. I'm surprised that no-one suggested a crossing with one line curving through it, so that both tracks of a double junction could curve continuously through it. However, this would mean two new items as you would have to have a left and right version.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
233 Posts
QUOTE 72C has just taken this thread exactly where I didn't want it to go!, although he was only responding to a hint in the previous answer by 34C (where do those two names come from?).

Unfortunately an open forum has a nasty habit of producing responses that you neither want or expect.


There is no connection between 34c and myself despite any inference to the contrary, our locations are merely reflected by our shed codes.
 

·
In depth idiot
Joined
·
7,683 Posts
QUOTE (Robert Stokes @ 1 Nov 2007, 10:32) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>72C has just taken this thread exactly where I didn't want it to go!, although he was only responding to a hint in the previous answer by 34C (where do those two names come from?). I was asking about points with new geometry. I'm surprised that no-one suggested a crossing with one line curving through it, so that both tracks of a double junction could curve continuously through it. However, this would mean two new items as you would have to have a left and right version.
Mines a BR steam shed. Hatfield, 34C. Sorry about encouraging the tangent.

The problem with what you suggest is that of all set track, the fixed radius. For saleability the radius of the continuously curving route has to be something that most people can accomodate. That's going to be 36" radius at best, and using Peco's geometry, puts the first crossing of the diamond very close to the end of the piece of track, making it difficult to anchor the rail strongly and provide space for a rail joiner.
 

·
Just another modeller
Joined
·
9,983 Posts
I totally agree with that statement: "The problem with what you suggest is that of all set track, the fixed radius"

Hmmmm

Firmly resiting the temptation to join the silent chorus in the background that's chanting "Make them better looking, more reliable and get the check rail distances correct" I really think that being nice to them, the best new product Peco could introduce would most certainly be either a curvable turnout or a range of wide radius curved turnouts.

Robert, I think that without a qualifier on range - "set-track" or not, its impossible to give you a clear answer. "Set track" is a straight-jacket for modellers, making tracklaying easier for the novice but forever preventing the creation of realism!

Personally I mention more/gentler curved turnouts or a turnout with some flexibility as it would do more than any other thing to add to the available combinations possible - starting many station designs even a few inches into a curve will make things much more prototypical and allow better flow and better usable length for modellers with restricted space. Running, operational flexibility of the layout and overall realism will all benefit!

Curved turnouts (and very gently Y types) were once far more plentiful than straight ones in many areas on the prototype for exactly the same reasons.

Regards

Richard
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
536 Posts
On my wish list for Peco would be a "00" streamline live frog scissor crossing - similar to their N gauge ones.
Hopefully it would be more compact and space saving than trying to make it yourself from four points and a crossing??
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
710 Posts
A streamline scissors crossing with either single or double slips as the access points, a feature of many a large station.

Heres wishing,Livefrog as well please


David
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
36 Posts
Hi all I would like to see more curved points as space is tight for a lot of us, I can not have long str8 sections to put points on. As most loco's need second radius curves now, there should be more choice, second to third and third to fourth radius, it would help a lot. Also some concrete sleeper code 75 flexi track please.
cbpete
 
1 - 18 of 18 Posts
Top