Hi ChrisO, cant advise you about track but someone will,post some photos when you get started
![]()
And welcome
1 - 20 of 79 Posts
QUOTE (wolverton bloomer @ 1 Feb 2009, 16:28) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>>>>Snip
Ive found that as far as track is concerned Peco is best in terms of looks and availability. I use streamline code 75 which is fine scale but code 100 is available too, which is closer to hornby set track. (OO and HO) They are both compatible with Hornby track and are nickle plated so stand up to "damp" conditions much better than steel track (hornby set track) which will rust. You say you are using the garage for your model railway, is it heated or does it get damp?
>>.Snip
**** Steve, if only you hadn't said "best looking" - it took me ten minutes to pick myself off the floor and stop laughing.
![]()
![]()
![]()
Peco (and Hornby for that matter) track is/are perhaps the most inaccurate model of anything ever produced.
Wrong in sleeper width, length, spacing, position and size of turnout timbers relative to frog and other parts etc etc... wrong check rail spacing, wrong check rail length... and it goes on.
However it is indeed the only readily available track so they get away with it.
*** Chris.
C&L is a far more accurate track than SMP but as DWB said it is bullhead rail and not so appropriate for anything much after WW2. The difference is in the sleepers and chair detail - SMP is a lump, C&L has a proper chair and wedge and also the C&L rail profile is much more accurate.
Re both C&L and SMP, there are no RTR points for it so you would have to make your own unless you buy SMP or C&L made to order...
As far as ready to lay track systems... There really isn't that much choice readily available in UK so Peco really is it unfortunately. Hornby and set-track in general is toy track and best avoided if a realistic model railway is your intent..
If you have mainly models which are less than 20 years old use Peco code 75 as Steve mentioned, ( however a small correction, it is solid Nickel Silver, not plated).
Code 75 looks better and is actually easier to lay well than code 100 as the finer rail profile bends more naturally and doesn't try to kink on curve joints like code 100 does. (BTW the word code refers to the height of the rail in inches - code 100 is 0.10 " high, code 75 is 0.075 " high). Code 75 is closer to the real thing than code 100, but neither are really accurate.
ALl the odels you list will be OK on both C&L, SMP and Peco 75. If the odd item doesn't like the lower rail profile sell it - it'll be old and tired anyway... Better to have a better looking track than toy-sizes rail to run old badly detailed models.
Joining 75 and 100 is easy - just solder them together.
Use Electrofrog turnouts and modify/wire as per the very frequent advice on this list... this will give best running and best reliability. Where possible use large radius, use medium where large won't fit and avoid small radius totally.
regards
Richard
Ive found that as far as track is concerned Peco is best in terms of looks and availability. I use streamline code 75 which is fine scale but code 100 is available too, which is closer to hornby set track. (OO and HO) They are both compatible with Hornby track and are nickle plated so stand up to "damp" conditions much better than steel track (hornby set track) which will rust. You say you are using the garage for your model railway, is it heated or does it get damp?
>>.Snip
**** Steve, if only you hadn't said "best looking" - it took me ten minutes to pick myself off the floor and stop laughing.
Peco (and Hornby for that matter) track is/are perhaps the most inaccurate model of anything ever produced.
Wrong in sleeper width, length, spacing, position and size of turnout timbers relative to frog and other parts etc etc... wrong check rail spacing, wrong check rail length... and it goes on.
However it is indeed the only readily available track so they get away with it.
*** Chris.
C&L is a far more accurate track than SMP but as DWB said it is bullhead rail and not so appropriate for anything much after WW2. The difference is in the sleepers and chair detail - SMP is a lump, C&L has a proper chair and wedge and also the C&L rail profile is much more accurate.
Re both C&L and SMP, there are no RTR points for it so you would have to make your own unless you buy SMP or C&L made to order...
As far as ready to lay track systems... There really isn't that much choice readily available in UK so Peco really is it unfortunately. Hornby and set-track in general is toy track and best avoided if a realistic model railway is your intent..
If you have mainly models which are less than 20 years old use Peco code 75 as Steve mentioned, ( however a small correction, it is solid Nickel Silver, not plated).
Code 75 looks better and is actually easier to lay well than code 100 as the finer rail profile bends more naturally and doesn't try to kink on curve joints like code 100 does. (BTW the word code refers to the height of the rail in inches - code 100 is 0.10 " high, code 75 is 0.075 " high). Code 75 is closer to the real thing than code 100, but neither are really accurate.
ALl the odels you list will be OK on both C&L, SMP and Peco 75. If the odd item doesn't like the lower rail profile sell it - it'll be old and tired anyway... Better to have a better looking track than toy-sizes rail to run old badly detailed models.
Joining 75 and 100 is easy - just solder them together.
Use Electrofrog turnouts and modify/wire as per the very frequent advice on this list... this will give best running and best reliability. Where possible use large radius, use medium where large won't fit and avoid small radius totally.
regards
Richard
3
**** Steve, if only you hadn't said "best looking" - it took me ten minutes to pick myself off the floor and stop laughing.
Richard,
Glad to give you a giggle.
![]()
As I dont have the patience and were withall to build my own points and am a relative newbie to this hobby I'm not so bothered about the track being totally 100% accurate but that it looks acceptable, is easy enough to lay, is available and had RTR points etc.
Ive pointed out in the past that Im not a "rivet counter", near enough is good enough. I respect those who do demand 100% accuracy out of common human respect, but this hobby is about comprimise after all. Afterall, who can really make a model of a prototype location and be accurate regards scale distances etc in a limited available space?
Thankyou for correcting me regards nickle silver track being solid not plated.
![]()
I will be in touch via PM regrding fitting sound to my Bachmann class 55.
![]()
Regards
Steve
Richard,
Glad to give you a giggle.
Ive pointed out in the past that Im not a "rivet counter", near enough is good enough. I respect those who do demand 100% accuracy out of common human respect, but this hobby is about comprimise after all. Afterall, who can really make a model of a prototype location and be accurate regards scale distances etc in a limited available space?
Thankyou for correcting me regards nickle silver track being solid not plated.
Regards
Steve
3
A very useful and informative photo Alastair - thanks for posting it
![]()
David
David
QUOTE (wolverton bloomer @ 1 Feb 2009, 20:47) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>****
Ive pointed out in the past that Im not a "rivet counter", near enough is good enough. Regards
*** Nor am I really, but do notice when they are missing.
![]()
![]()
But... I always raise an eyebrow when I see modellers carp about the shape of a window or the curve of a nose or a tumblehome or the thickness of a windscreen wiper on a loco, then happily run it on track thats "sort of totally not right".
My negativity to Peco isn't for any other reason than they could do better if they bothered trying, but simply show no respect at all for the UK modeller by ignoring scale accuracy when all around them go the extra mile to make loco's and stock ever better all the time.
(Yet they very quickly totally retooled to make the US market happier with their code 83, which is not bad at all for US prototype track.)
I do often wonder whether modellers have a vision filter that cuts out all below the chassis rail.
regards
Richard
PS: Yes, I know I over generalised re the dates for Bullhead - I was trying to keep it simple. I photographed a lot of it still in use in UK when I visited relatively recently!
Ive pointed out in the past that Im not a "rivet counter", near enough is good enough. Regards
*** Nor am I really, but do notice when they are missing.
But... I always raise an eyebrow when I see modellers carp about the shape of a window or the curve of a nose or a tumblehome or the thickness of a windscreen wiper on a loco, then happily run it on track thats "sort of totally not right".
My negativity to Peco isn't for any other reason than they could do better if they bothered trying, but simply show no respect at all for the UK modeller by ignoring scale accuracy when all around them go the extra mile to make loco's and stock ever better all the time.
(Yet they very quickly totally retooled to make the US market happier with their code 83, which is not bad at all for US prototype track.)
I do often wonder whether modellers have a vision filter that cuts out all below the chassis rail.
regards
Richard
PS: Yes, I know I over generalised re the dates for Bullhead - I was trying to keep it simple. I photographed a lot of it still in use in UK when I visited relatively recently!
2
1 - 20 of 79 Posts
