I am about to embark on a journey into 009, and I am wondering about track...
So say I stick with Peco, what is the difference between mainline and standard points, besides the size? Are they both electro-frog, well made? How about the Y points? Do they look okay if I use both? Is there a big difference between the two flexitracks?
There are no fishplates obviously available; are the 00 gauge ones suitable (I assume the rails themselves are the same)?
What is the tightest radius? I appreciate this is subjective, but a guideline to work to would be useful. Similarly, what sort of gradients are reasonable.
Hi Andy
The Peco 009 track uses the N gauge Peco fishplates.
All the Peco 009 points going back to about 1978 are electrofrog; they even did the old 9 inch points with electrofrogs for a number of years before changing to 12 inch.
The 12 inch and Y points (the Y is actually 18 inch radii) are not easy to make DCC ready. The Mainline points are a lot better in this respect.
As I used the 12 inch points on my layouts I adopted 12 inch as the minimum radii. But even then you will find some items of stock will need to be adapted, especially couplings, to ensure they will negotiate even 12 inch curves. Just about everything is fine with the 18 inch mainline points though.
However Meanderbahn has 8 inch curves and 9 inch points and this restricts the locos and rolling stock somewhat. It is possible to make virtually anything go around these tighter curves but the tighter you go the more work and modifications you will need to do.
(For an example of a realistic curve the minimum curve on the Talyllyn works out at 53 inch radii in 009!)
It is also worth remembering that any coupling overhang is double in a reverse curve. (A curve in one direction immediately followed by a curve in the other direction.) But again with the Mainline points this is not so much of a problem.
The pre 2010 Peco 12 inch points had some running problems; this was all rectified when Peco updated the moulding dies in 2010. So if you do use the 12 inch and Y points make sure they are the later type and not old stock.
Unfortunately peco used the same part number for all the 9 and 12 inch points and still do today. The only way to tell if they are the new ones is to look at them. The older not so good points have a fishplate for the blade pivot, the newer post 2010 type has a proper pivot, much like the mainline points.
Many shops will still have the old type, so you will need to make sure you are purchasing the newer type as they are a considerable improvement.
For reliability whatever version of Peco points you use I strongly recommend the use of frog polarity switches as the blade to fixed rail electrical connection can not be relied upon and will fail on you at the most inopportune moment!
Brian Meldon
What Brian said.
Have fun.
John W
Thanks, that is very helpful. I will have to look into frog polarity switches, but I can see how they will be important.
I'm totally convinced that frog polarity switching is vital as it greatly assists smooth running. There have been a number of posts about this subject in the forum.
Bob
What about gradient? I am thinking about 1:20, which is pretty steep in the 00 world. Is that a bad idea?
An absolute scale radius is often practically impossible for space reasons. You'd do better to make a trade-off and conceal the tightest curves by buildings and other scenic objects. That said, the minimum main line radius on the Darjeeling Railway is 50ft, which scales out at 20cms in 009. Sharp curves have consequences for couplings though. The Langley Darjeeling kit has pivoted couplings for that reason.
Whilst I think the new Peco points are much improved over the earlier ones, I have a considerable number of the old 12" radius points with the fishplate link to the point blades on my layout that are over 25 years old and still working well.
In addition, I use a number of them without backup switches and they (usually) don't fail. I think it is important to realise what happens at the detail level between the point blade and the stock rail. If the contact surface is kept clean, by scratching using a tiny pin I think it will work all right. I also take specific care to keep this area clear of paint, glue and ballast. The method is described in the Nixnie layout thread.
Finally, gradients. This depends on haulage capacity of the loco, weight of stock, rolling resistance, curvature etc. I always do running trials before committing myself to a certain gradient in a certain place on a layout. I'd say start with 1 in 30, then increase the slope and see what happens. You may even find it may look ridiculous at 1 in 15. ;)
I don't understand the part of the "fishplate" and pivoting part and how to distinguish an old from new point. Is there someone who can show this with a picture?
Take a look at the 6.5 mm mark in this photo from Hattons:
(https://forum.009society.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.hattons.co.uk%2Fimages%2Fproducts%2FSL-E492_1662_Qty1_1.JPG&hash=a0e2d2d8a3084de1635e0bcbe0d516e5d4c22617)
You may just see the two "fishplates" (rail joiners) that act as pivot-points on the switch blades over the sleeper at that position.
With gradients, things to be wary of are:
- transition from level (or other gradients)
- gradients on curves
- gradients at points/turnouts
A combination of two or more of the above could be particularly troublesome.
I was intending to keep steep gradients away from points and at least somewhat obscured. It is the pulling ability that worries me.
Quote from: tedp on February 20, 2013, 08:53
An absolute scale radius is often practically impossible for space reasons. You'd do better to make a trade-off and conceal the tightest curves by buildings and other scenic objects. That said, the minimum main line radius on the Darjeeling Railway is 50ft, which scales out at 20cms in 009. Sharp curves have consequences for couplings though. The Langley Darjeeling kit has pivoted couplings for that reason.
Wow!
Another question (not unrelated to the gradient question), what clearance should I allow height-wise from the top of the rails?
That depends on the maximum height of stock you are going to use. If you are planning a Ffestiniog-type layout you'd need much less than when using other stock, but you may run into the same problem the full size railway did if you want to run anything else.
I myself have a very big loading gauge - my stock is up to 32mm wide and chimney height on the locos is up to about 45mm. Vertical clearance on structures is at least 50mm.
I'm using the older crazy points on my little layout, as they were leftovers. At the time I bought them in 2007, they were the only game in town!
They seem to work absolutely fine and with DCC. The only beef I have is that insulating rail joiner causes the track from the frog to lift slightly, giving a very slight waddle to the stock as it goes over.
I keep hearing about people having trouble with DCC, but I seem to be pretty immune!
In terms of radii, I stick with the Roco radius of 291.6mm as a minimum for Roco & Liliput stock. My little layout (pretty much a huge pizza), has two curves slightly sharper than that and the big 0-8-0's don't like it. Nor does the Halling 5090 railcar. So just as well it's for my collection of HF 110's!
If you aim for a gap of 51 mm, floor to ceiling then even a big Gmeinder will fit under it. I checked as that's what I'm ultimately going to be running on my big layout. My little pizza layout was built in part as a test track for all these things. It includes a ramp that takes the loco from ground level up to 54mm in a distance of just about 130 cm.
The big diesels (& 0-8-0) will haul 4 bogie coaches up this, and this on a Roco standard curvature almost the entire way. The little HF110's haul 3 two axled coaches or goods vans up it as well. Two bogies seem to about their limit. I have tried a Liliput U class as well, that hauled three goods vans no problem. Even the ZB D11 made it up the slope with three vans but took a long as it keeps losing power.
I have posted an "aerial" shot of the layout on rmweb: Here (http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/blog/503/entry-11388-track-laying-completely-complete/)
Good luck!
Here is the photo from RM web:
(https://forum.009society.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.rmweb.co.uk%2Fcommunity%2Fuploads%2Fmonthly_04_2013%2Fblogentry-9103-0-77701900-1364832296_thumb.jpg&hash=a16d9ef6f48423673dd6575e0e90bc4280e0a715)
How do you get on with the rear coupling on the Liliput U class on the tighter curves?
I found that it tended to pull some of the stock off the track on 12 inch curves so I modify all my locos to have a swinging and self centralising rear coupling like this one:
(https://forum.009society.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi663.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fuu358%2FM-e-l-l-o-w%2FLiliput%25200-6-2%2F0-6-2RearCoupling.jpg&hash=41b517820f70f0cf160808cc503661c006bf6b9f)
(https://forum.009society.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi663.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fuu358%2FM-e-l-l-o-w%2FLiliput%25200-6-2%2F0-6-2RearCoupling2.jpg&hash=e738cf000569eeddcf158888394a35358c3bf062)
The DCC point thing is all about eliminating short circuits by constantly powering the point blades from the fixed rail and insulating them from the frog that does need to be switched.
Peco 009 Points:
Here is a photo showing the pre 1981 Peco 9 inch electrofrog 009 point on the top and the 1981 to 2009 Peco 12 inch 009 point below.
(https://forum.009society.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi663.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fuu358%2FM-e-l-l-o-w%2FNGRM%2520On-Line%2F9inchand12inchpoints.jpg&hash=ac05e8e2c237721e172444fb69f76c0386e38101)
I do not have one of the newer 2010 onwards Peco 12 inch points to photograph. There are several differences that make the newer points a big improvement on the point shown above like longer check rails with a more gradual start, more constant curve through the point and the rails moulded nearer to the point of the V in the frog, but the easiest one to spot if it is the later type is where the moving blades connect to the fixed rails, the older type has a simple fishplate joint where as the later one have a proper pivot.
Could someone please post a photo similar to the above of one of the re-tooled 12 inch points for comparison.
Brian Meldon
(//)
There is a photo attached to this, of the latest version. The key visible difference is a small pad that the point blade rests on.
The question is how do it put it where this writing you're reading is now?????
Question answered!!!
My (new version) U classes, seem to do OK, although the coupling is very short. I have not experienced any kind of derailments as yet due to the length (or rather: lack there of) the coupling.
In fact I have more hassle with the little Roco's due to their overly long and very floppy (i.e. non self-catering) couplings. A real pain!
A few years back there was an article on this in 009 news
Hmmm, yes I have seen the evolution of the railway carriage..
One thing I have noticed is that my older stock of Liliput (2095 & coaches) seems to have a lot more play on the bogies so needs to go through the points more rapidly than the older stock.
If I go too slow then the track shorts for too long and the DCC booster turns off the power!
I can both hear and see it. The booster gives a little yelp, and the red light on the front blinks!
I dont think speeding up is the way to solve your shorting problem! One of these times it could cause problems especially if you have a few locos on the layout. I would sort out the reason for the shorts and eliminate by replacing wheelsets or trucks/bogies. I assume you havent wired the point blades to the stock rails and fitted a switch so the wheels are shorting on the point blades
Peter Smith
My thoughts too. It sounds as if the backs of the wheels are shorting against the point blades and your points are not "DCC friendly". See the red and blue rails here:
http://www.newrailwaymodellers.co.uk/electrics-dcc-wiring-a-layout.htm (http://www.newrailwaymodellers.co.uk/electrics-dcc-wiring-a-layout.htm)
Quote from: Allscales on April 08, 2013, 18:57
Hmmm, yes I have seen the evolution of the railway carriage..
One thing I have noticed is that my older stock of Liliput (2095 & coaches) seems to have a lot more play on the bogies so needs to go through the points more rapidly than the older stock.
If I go too slow then the track shorts for too long and the DCC booster turns off the power!
I can both hear and see it. The booster gives a little yelp, and the red light on the front blinks!
Making the 12 inch (and Y) Peco 009 points
Quote from: Allscales on April 07, 2013, 20:26
Question answered!!!
My (new version) U class, seem to do OK, although the coupling is very short. I have not experienced any kind of derailments as yet due to the length (or rather: lack there of) the coupling.
In fact I have more hassle with the little Roco's due to their overly long and very floppy (i.e. non self-catering) couplings. A real pain!
The problem is not that the coupling on the Liliput U class is too short it is that the overhang from the rear driving wheels is long. What may happen is that the overhang will start to push on the coupling loop on the next vehicle.
A test on your layout would be to try and push one of the Liliput wagons into the siding on the left in your layout photo using the rear coupling on the 0-6-2.
As to the Roco 0-6-0 tender loco the coupling on the rear of the tender can be fixed in the central position with a tiny drop of super-glue as there is very little overhang it does not need to move from side to side.
The front coupling does need to move from side to side. It is actually easy to make the front coupling self centralise by adding a section of elastic band behind the C clip of the coupling. You will have to very carefully remove the lower axel retaining plate and then add a section of elastic band behind the C clip in the coupling pocket.
The same can be done to the rear coupling of the tank loco, but this has a smaller pocket so the ends of the C clip on the coupling need to be shortened.
The elastic bands as used by Royal Mail in the UK just happen to be exactly the correct width for this job.
Personally I do not like the chunky couplings that come with these loco so what I do is use the other type of coupling that come with these locos (the cone and clip type) cut off the cone and fit a Greenwich coupling head at the correct height. This looks a lot better and the coupling outriggers that come with the locos can also then be fitted.
I will post some photos when I get a chance.
Brian Meldon
I have started a new thread with the photos and basic instructions about improving and self centralizing the Roco HF110 coupling here:
http://www.009society.com/forum/index.php?topic=1109.msg6535#msg6535
Brian Meldon