Peco 9 inch radius electrofrog points

[Hobby]

Peco use code 80 for OO9 track and the rest of Europe use code 83, Rod. The Code 80/83 is pretty close to the Real Thing on the more commercial 750/760mm lines I've visited (JHMD, Ziller, Pinzgauer, Saxon lines, etc.), I've measured the rail on them at several locations and it's been around 6.5ins high which equates to 1.9mm in HO scale (just over 2mm in OO) and as code 80/83 is roughly 2mm it's not far out. For older or less heavy rail then I'd have thought that code 55/60 would be a reasonable compromise bearing in mind overscale flanges on most OO9/HOe stock.

With regard to code 75, yes I suspect that the SG stuff is HO rather than OO, though Peco also do a code 75 Bullhead where the sleeper size and spacing is more OO than HO.

[danny]

I think Tillig et al also use code 83 for H0 standard gauge, as does the new Peco 'American' (different pattern of sleepers) H0 track. Out of interest what do Peco use for 6.5mm and 12mm gauges?

[Hobby]

Following on from Rod's comments on the other thread, I believe they use their code 60 for their Z track which would explain the unusual section (it's OO scale third rail rail) and the fact it's slightly bigger than marklin Z which I think is code 55.

[Hobby]

Just been doing some measurements (all in mm):

Marklin Z 1.55
Peco Z 1.61
Peco code 60 1.61
Peco HOm 1.91 (?)
Peco Code 80 2.01
Peco Crazy 2.01
Peco Mainline 2.01
Roco/Lilliput/Tillig HOe 2.03

I could do with someone else measuring the HOm rail to double check, I can't see peco using an odd rail section just for HOm, I only had a single piece of flexi track to measure, I couldn't find my points.

[danny]

Just been doing some measurements (all in mm):

Marklin Z 1.55
Peco Z 1.61
Peco code 60 1.61
Peco HOm 1.91 (?)
Peco Code 80 2.01
Peco Crazy 2.01
Peco Mainline 2.01
ROCO/Lilliput/Tillig HOe 2.03

I could do with someone else measuring the HOm rail to double check, I can't see peco using an odd rail section just for HOm, I only had a single piece of flexi track to measure, I couldn't find my points.

It would seem strange for the H0m to have a smaller section than 009 track. However, on prototype lines gauge and rail weight are not always related. A light hand worked 2ft gauge line would have lighter rail than some heavily used 15" lines. I have some old Gem 00n3 (or is it meant for TT?) track which is stored alongside lengths of 00 code 100 and from a distance it can be hard to tell the difference, so that must have quite large rail section. I could be wrong but I think 12mm gauge is unusual in that, because 00n3/0012/H0m are more popular than TT, it is only produced by Peco with narrow gauge sleepers, the reverse situation to other gauges. I remember seeing a Railway Modeller article a few years ago where a 3mm standard gauge modeller had used H0m track and compromised on the sleepers, much as 009 modellers sometimes use N gauge track where an 009 equivalent is not available. Some of my early 009 layouts used a random selection of N gauge set track curves bought second hand (of which I still haven't used a couple) and the Minitrix ones seemed to have a different rail height from the Peco as there were bumps at some of the joins.

[B.Meldon]

Just been doing some measurements (all in mm):

Marklin Z 1.55
Peco Z 1.61
Peco code 60 1.61
Peco HOm 1.91 (?)
Peco Code 80 2.01
Peco Crazy 2.01
Peco Mainline 2.01
Roco/Lilliput/Tillig HOe 2.03

I could do with someone else measuring the HOm rail to double check, I can't see peco using an odd rail section just for HOm, I only had a single piece of flexi track to measure, I couldn't find my points.

It should be noted when reading these rail heights that the older Arnold N gauge wheel flanges are 2mm deep, so it is easy to see why they do not like the frog depth in the Peco 009 points.

Brian Meldon

[Graeme Dunbar]

It would seem strange for the H0m to have a smaller section than 009 track. However, on prototype lines gauge and rail weight are not always related.

I suspect this is partly due to the degree of fineness of scale of the models as much as relationship to prototype, along with backwards compatibility with earlier models. I wonder how HOm track compares to old Triang TT track in terms of profile and specifications?  I can remember being bowled over by the quality and detail of commercial HOm models at exhibitions a good few years ago when 009/HOe seemed clunky in comparison in many cases.

[Hobby]

The Triang track was big, Graeme, think Super 4 standards, definitely not compatible... However the locos had quite fine flanges compared to their OO scale equivalents, and would work on Peco 12mm gauge track!! Like many OOn3 modellers I used the Jinty and 2-6-2T chassis on 3MM Society track and handbuilt points by 3SMR.

[Elmgate]

I checked a length of PECO H0m track a couple of days ago (but have been unable to post until now). It is indeed code 75, so lower than the 009/N code 80. I believe it to be the same as the 00 standard gauge rail section, which would be logical in view of reducing the number of sections that PECO make. As such, the head is wider than the 009 rail, and IMHO would not look right for that track, although I agree that the height of code 80 looks too large, especially from the side view.

I have used code 60, which was originally made as 00 conductor rail, and this is better for height, but still a little wide for 00 narrow gauge. For more recent models, I have gone back to code 80, but use the more modern mainline track.

All of this is getting away from the original topic of 9" radius points!

[Hobby]

Thanks for that, Elmgate, that would make sense with regard to the Peco SG track...

I find once you've weathered the track the discrepancies are hardly visible unless you are actively looking for it...

[danny]

Thanks for that, Elmgate, that would make sense with regard to the Peco SG track...

I find once you've weathered the track the discrepancies are hardly visible unless you are actively looking for it...

Yes. Remember the code number is 1000ths of an inch, so the difference between code 75 and 80 is only about a scale 1/2". So is the larger 009 rail section purely to allow compatibility with older stock?

[rod335]

I suspect it is to keep it compatible with older product. And, sorry to say, the standard 009 rail section, to me at least, does look grossly oversize in photographs. The narrow rail section, particularly the head, means it doesn't look too bad for overhead shots but sideways on it is very 'mainline'-ish. Not at all suitable for light UK prototypes.