New member - confused over Peco track

[Stephen Rainsbury]

Hi, I am new to 009 and am a bit confused by the Peco 009 range, so was hoping that somebody could enlighten me.

As I understand it the

Setrack points (turnouts) and curved pieces have a radius of 9" and can cause problems with longer rolling stock, so best avoided if you are not sure what you are going to run.

Irregular (crazy track) points (small) have a radius of 12", and this is fine for most applications, except it looks odd against regular flexitrack.

Mainline points have a radius of 18" which are fine for just about everything, but can look large on a small layout..

Is this a good summary, in which case what you recommend for my preservation line layout (Terminus and engine sheds only) which is going on a 4' x 1'6" board please?

Thanks

[Retiarius]

12

[Stefan Krebs]

Dear Stephen,

The question you raise is not specific to PECO track, but a very valid one that applies to all track.

FREMO (European Module Group) specify a minimum radius of 350mm for H0e, which is required to accommodate even the biggest 750mm narrow gauge engine in H0e; - we're talking 2-10-2 engines. If you envision this sort of engines (models from Bemo, Ferrotrain, Weinert, Panier/ Carocar, etc.) than my advice would be to go to FREMO's web-site and download their standards on track and track clearance, and stick to those. These standards are tried and tested (as you can see and verify on youtube) and designed to cover all European narrow gauge prototypes. That consideration includes train length, which on some narrow gauge lines is substantial (just counted 64 axles on 600mm gauge in a video today, double-headed with pusher, i.e. 3 engines). Too tight a radius, and a long train will be dragged into the curve and fall over.

If you only envision British narrow gauge stock you can built much smaller radii, as the highest number of coupled axles in British narrow gauge is 4, not 5, on engines much smaller overall. In this case, PECO radii tend to cover your requirements, especially as kit - and scratch builds on commercial N-gauge chassis cope with these radii.

Eggerbahn/ Playcraft/ Jouef track has a radius of about 140mm, but their engines only ever had 2 axles. Some small 3-axle engines (ROCO industrial) cope with this radius, but it's not ideal for reliable running.

May I suggest you consider what you want to model as well? Industrial narrow gauge or tram lines have fairly tight radii on the prototype too, often accepting that not every engine or wagon can pass; something you could contemplate. Mainlines like the Swiss Rhaetian Railways or the Furka - Oberalp don't have such tight radii. And if US-American material takes your fancy, e.g. Denver & Rio Grande, you might even need more than 350mm, these engines are big.


Anyway, welcome and all the best wishes
Waldschrat

[B.Meldon]

Please note that the Peco 009 Y point is also 18 inch radius.
As well as the tighter radius the Peco 9 inch points have dead frogs that can casue 009 locos to stall.
(Peco used to make electrofrog 9 inch 009 points but production stopped as long ago as 1981!)
Most 009 and H0e items are ok with 12 inch points, but depending on the overhang some couplings will lock up on 12 inch reverse curves.
(Most items are ok on 18 inch reverse curves.)

Brian Meldon

[Graeme Dunbar]

So many variables and variations! I guess it is impossible to give definitive answers given the wide range of stock, track configuration and modes of operation. It may well be a matter of deciding which compromises best suit your circumstances and potentially doing a mock-up and tests before committing to a final landscaped (and particularly) ballasted version.

Stock physically negotiating curves is just one aspect. There are some instructive videos relating to the Mintrains track, which at 140 mm radius is smaller than Peco. (There is also a demo of Peco 009 setrack that came up in the search.)

http://www.minitrains.eu/mt-acc.html
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=minitrains+track+test

If coupling and uncoupling is going to be a big feature then it makes sense to check the track geometry exhaustively. The nature of rolling stock and particularly the overhang of couplings with longer bogie stock and locos with long overhangs is going to have an effect. What may work when a loco draws a train over pointwork may fail when the stock is propelled by the loco.

Regarding the physical appearance of the track, there is a lot of compromise, particularly with the dimensions of the rail itself, being over-scale. A lot can be done in the way of ballasting that tones it down. There is one 009 layout (the name escapes me) that uses Kato N-gauge Unitrack and it is very hard to spot that it has a pre-ballasted plastic base and has N-scale sleeper spacing. Peco N-gauge points are used by a good few, especially where geometries not available in 009 are wanted. Clean, pristine and neatly tamped ballast on "Crazy" track is likely to make it stand out, but well melded in it might not be that obvious where "Mainline" and "Crazy" track are used in different places. A preservation era railway may even have a variety of track styles. Using cut-down standard gauge sleepers and even standard gauge rail profile is not unheard of.

[Hobby]

The simple advice is to use the largest radius that you can. With 9" radius its not just that larger stock won't go round it (though an awful lot does!) but more that it looks damn stupid when it does go round! If you only have a small space (say less than 4ft) then using Set Track (not just Peco, as mentioned above, Roco do a 10.5" set track which is very good) is a sensible option, but then you should really use appropriate stock. So you wouldn't populate it with the 2-10-2T tanks mentioned earlier or large Colonial Locos but more likely small 0-4-0s or 0-6-0s and short coaches and wagons (bogie and 4 wheel).

[Graeme Dunbar]

Is this a good summary, in which case what you recommend for my preservation line layout (Terminus and engine sheds only) which is going on a 4' x 1'6" board please?

Another dimension to your plans to think of to go along with the sort of stock you want to run - what sort of preservation line do you fancy modelling? It could be a busy tourist line taking passengers from A to B, an industrial museum that carries passengers as just one of its attractions, the early days of a group of enthusiasts making a start on preserving a line, an estate railway... Are the visitors/passengers there to see the stock or travel somewhere?

That would in part inform your choice of points. Long bogie coaches (e.g. Peco L&B) over mainline points and short 4-wheel coaches (e.g. Peco freelance open) over small radius points. Small open coaches, originally for workmen whose employers didn't mind them getting wet would fit a line with industrial origins or a short line where the "passenger experience" was being in the open in a sheltered location, but probably not for long distances crossing a moor or up the side of a mountain.





(Hattons web site)

[Stephen Rainsbury]

...
If you only envision British narrow gauge stock you can built much smaller radii, as the highest number of coupled axles in British narrow gauge is 4, not 5, on engines much smaller overall. In this case, PECO radii tend to cover your requirements, especially as kit - and scratch builds on commercial N-gauge chassis cope with these radii.

May I suggest you consider what you want to model as well? Industrial narrow gauge or tram lines have fairly tight radii on the prototype too, often accepting that not every engine or wagon can pass; something you could contemplate..

I really only have a 6'x6' Office in which I work do any modelling so the layout will have to be tiny, probably a 4'x 1'6" baseboard with detachable fiddle yard, so tight radii will help. I am looking for a preservation line so I can use any stock that I get plus only run short trains, meaning I can keep the platform length short so it doesn't dominate the board. I have a few locos in mind, such as the two Peco 0-6-0 shunters, but until Kato chassis are available again it will probably be a Roco "Leo" to get started with as they are only

[Stephen Rainsbury]

If coupling and uncoupling is going to be a big feature then it makes sense to check the track geometry exhaustively. The nature of rolling stock and particularly the overhang of couplings with longer bogie stock and locos with long overhangs is going to have an effect. What may work when a loco draws a train over pointwork may fail when the stock is propelled by the loco.

Regarding the physical appearance of the track, there is a lot of compromise, particularly with the dimensions of the rail itself, being over-scale. A lot can be done in the way of ballasting that tones it down. There is one 009 layout (the name escapes me) that uses Kato N-gauge Unitrack and it is very hard to spot that it has a pre-ballasted plastic base and has N-scale sleeper spacing. Peco N-gauge points are used by a good few, especially where geometries not available in 009 are wanted...

Thanks Graeme, these are all points (pun) that I hadn't considered and something I need to bear in mind. I have printed out Peco templates and tried laying them out on the board, but without knowing if stock will actually roll on them is another thing. I am about to order some track so I can experiment, so thanks for helping me know what to look for.

[Stephen Rainsbury]

.. If you only have a small space (say less than 4ft) then using Set Track (not just Peco, as mentioned above, Roco do a 10.5" set track which is very good) is a sensible option, but then you should really use appropriate stock. So you wouldn't populate it with the 2-10-2T tanks mentioned earlier or large Colonial Locos but more likely small 0-4-0s or 0-6-0s and short coaches and wagons (bogie and 4 wheel).

Yes it is 4', and I am more attracted to smaller preservation line style locos, so I should be able to use short radius, but as I am planning a linear layout rather than a continuous oval there should not be many extended curved sections, so hopefully it won't look too false.

[Stephen Rainsbury]

Another dimension to your plans to think of to go along with the sort of stock you want to run - what sort of preservation line do you fancy modelling? ...

.. industrial origins or a short line where the "passenger experience" was being in the open in a sheltered location, but probably not for long distances crossing a moor or up the side of a mountain.

Precisely that, something built at the back of an industrial complex, or closed down rural line that has been re-opened by people working on a shoe string using third or fourth hand locos and either dubious old stock they have have either resurrected from scrap or scratch built, such as toast rack or open coaches form anywhere in the UK.

I expect to have various trucks and wagons lieing around waiting restoration or maybe used with a simplex by the volunteer permanent way crew. I had the idea of a scratch built simplex on a passive chassis, in a fixed rake with a powered crew wagon and a couple of odd trucks pressed into use for ballast and tools.

[Stefan Krebs]

Dear Greame,

Thanks, interesting youtube link; very educational.

Dear Stephen,

You say, small office = small radius. Not necessarily, if I may say. Of course, if you must have everything on one board, then your statement is true. But, as with marmalade, spreading thinly makes it go further.

Say, your writing desk is 1,2m by 0.8m, you could set a layout on top, about 7cm high, and either use a higher chair, or shorten the legs. A hinged worktop from a kitchen shop becomes your new desk top, fold it up and it's playtime. But if you take the same 0.96 sqm and spread it around the room it becomes a strip 13cm wide, wide enough for a bit of meandering, a passing loop, and a bit of landscaping; but you get 7,2m running length (at 6' = 1,8m). You'll struggle to fit that sort of length onto your table-top. If you have shelves running the train behind a row of books or records pushes these out by about 4cm, hardly noticeable in most cases, a lift-bridge crosses the door, and maybe a bridge across the window. Of course, if you can clear a shelf-board you have a bit more room for a station.

You could contemplate a board under the ceiling that you lower down for operations, or one folded against the door sash..

Not my ideas, but some suggestions to broaden your mind; as a student I had a 1,2m by 1m board at 1.4m above my bed; student digs aren't that spacious either.  :laugh:


Think laterally
Waldschrat 

[Stephen Rainsbury]

...
Not my ideas, but some suggestions to broaden your mind; as a student I had a 1,2m by 1m board at 1.4m above my bed; student digs aren't that spacious either.  :laugh:

Thanks for the ideas, I will put them to the home office (wife) who also uses the room :-)

You can see from the photo below what I mean by limited space. The paint pot isn't normally there, my second monitor is missing, and the stuff on the shelves is pretty much what I use on a daily basis. The two equipment racks are probably going soon but that still only gives me a very small space which will be difficult to work on comfortably.

The only easy space is just to the right of the bench where you can see one of my synthesizers, that is normally in its flight case but the stand is ideal for a layout when I am not recording. I didn't mention that we also use the room as recording studio did I ::)

Directly behind where I sit is my wife's desk, which if anything is more packed and definitely off limits   :(

I might be able to sling another shelf under the current lower one, but if I am working on A4 paper the monitors normally go back flat against the wall.

[Stefan Krebs]

Looks pretty normal to me.   8)

What's life without a little challenge?  :laugh:

If you build the size of the synthesiser you can swap places; one in the flight case, the other on the stand.  :P


Cheers
Waldschrat

[Stephen Rainsbury]

If you build the size of the synthesiser you can swap places; one in the flight case, the other on the stand.  :P

That's the plan.  At one point I was thinking of building the layout in an old (rectangular) guitar case, but it would cost more than the rest of the layout to replace so I decided against that :-)