Crossing SG track with NG track

[JulienW]

I would recommend against hand built points, the Peco 12 inch and 18 inch radius 009 points are good products these days.
In my experiance it is a lot easier to plan a layout around these than it is to build your own. You will also find the Peco points are more reliable and robust than hand made track. The plane track is another matter as it is a lot easier to do, but the problem here is you will not find copper-clad sleapers that are the same thickness as the webbbing on the peco points, so again perhaps using the Peco 009 track is the best way forward.

Whilst I would agree with you in part, Peco 12" and 18" points are not much use if, for example, you want a 15" radius point, or a 24", or other 'exotica' like and unequal Y point or double curved point, or a 9" live frog come to think of it, unless you want to chance something that is 20+ years old (and may already have been on 3 different layouts).

Personally I found hand built track a liberation as my rails could go where I wanted them rather than being dictated by what Peco make, and without those little doglegs needed to work within Peco's limitations I found the layout 'flowed' with a more pleasing aesthetic.

Equally, whilst the soldered joints on the tie bar of a hand built point is unlikely to last long under the punishing thwack of a solenoid point motor using a different technique - wire in tube or slow motion servos for example - may be more compatible, as will building the points with pivoting blades rather than relying on flexing soldered joints. That being said not all Peco points will stand up to long term use either, as I has a spate of needing to replace them on an exhibition layout due to multiple failures of the plastic tie bar (with wire in tube operation).

Whilst I'm not for one moment saying building your own points is easy it's certainly not one of those impossible things achieved only by those practicing some black art. It's probably not much more of a step up in skill terms from soldering wires to rails, just a bit tedious when it comes to filing point blades.

[Dave Cooper]

A few years ago, I converted some 16.5mm track to 18.83mm as an experiment in P4. This was quite easy but, I also tried converting an 00 brake van to P4 as well and, this was much more difficult...

Given that my current (limited) 009 stock is to commercial standards, and runs fine on Peco Code 80 track, I feel fairly confident in attempting a crossing at this stage. If it doesn't work out, it's not the end of the world, the cost will be minimal, and I'll probably learn something !

Whether it will have a place on the present diorama is another thing. I think I'll give it a go.

Regards,
Dave 

[Hobby]

The modern stuff will work just fine on code 55/60 as well, Dave, in fact I think I've seen some on code 40 on a layout based on the Welshpool, @JulienW will confirm one way or the other!

[JulienW]

The modern stuff will work just fine on code 55/60 as well, Dave, in fact I think I've seen some on code 40 on a layout based on the Welshpool, @JulienW will confirm one way or the other!

I can't recall the name of the builder (I'm sure I have his details somewhere as I recall inviting him to the NG Midlands that Covid put the kybosh on) but the layout was Castle Caereinion. He had indeed used Code 40 flat-bottom rail fixed to wooden sleepers with contact adhesive and when I saw it at the Welspool gala (2019?) it  seemed to be fine running current wheels (like those from Dundas and fitted to the Farish 08).

My own track building efforts have involved Code 55 on copperclad sleepers and tests with a 4 wheel wagon with Dundas wheels didn't show up any problems.

[B.Meldon]

Perhaps I have just been very lucky, but I have only ever had one Peco 009 point fail in more than 30 years. Including the old 9-inch points on Meanderbahn that were all fitted in 1979 and get a daft amount of use at exhibitions! I use solenoid point motors with a capacitor discharge unit, all secured to a solid ¼ (6mm) plywood track bed, so they do get whacked across. The only one that did fail was on the fixed layout Westdorf and that was down to my stupidity, when fitting an additional switch that I did not use in the end anyway, and the tie bar snapped at the control hole, not the rail. I managed to repair this without lifting it and it is still in use today. I have had two pins snap on the Peco point motors and one point lost electrical connection between the blade and the frog rail through the fishplate pivot on Pitztalbahn about 25 years ago now, we soldered jumper wires to every point, but this was overkill and I have never had another fail like this since. 
(I also have a fully automated 00 layout with peco points with solinoid point motors and capacitor discharge units. Some of the points must have switched thousands of times without any issues, but obvioulsy 00 points are perhaps more robust than 009 points.)

On the other hand, I have also operated a number of 009 layouts at exhibitions with handmade points and almost without exception at some time at each exhibition one or more point has given problems, often the same point on the same layout at each exhibition!
The layout planning thing is all down to what you want I guess. I am happy to fit what I want around the geometry of the Peco 009 points, but I can fully se why others would choose not to do this and build track to fit the plan they want.

[Dave Cooper]

As a matter of interest, could you tell me what is the practical 'minimum' radius curve for 009 / N gauge ?

For my shed experiment (if it goes ahead), I'll be using a short wheelbase diesel shunter (Kato chassis), with equally short wheelbase wagons - maybe tippers....

[Dave Cooper]

Something like this - to go from the shed to the wharf

[B.Meldon]

As a matter of interest, could you tell me what is the practical 'minimum' radius curve for 009 / N gauge ?

For my shed experiment (if it goes ahead), I'll be using a short wheelbase diesel shunter (Kato chassis), with equally short wheelbase wagons - maybe tippers....

It is not the loco or wagon wheelbase that is the limiting factor it will be the coupling overhang.
In many cases you will find that bogie vehicles with the couplings on the bogies are better than four wheel vehicles in this regard.

Egger-bahn curves were 140mm radius (about 5 1/2 inch) almost all locos will get round this, but the coupling overhang will de-rail the next vehicle if it is too long.
If you want to have tighter curves or use vehicles with a longer coupling overhang then you will need to fit modified couplings, or use a different type alltogether.

For almost everything that is available ready to run to work with standard couplings in reality you need 12 inch curves and 18 inch reverse curves.  You may get away with 9 inch curves, but these will be quite restrictive on what you can run and may well give problems when propelling.  (I have a layout with 9 inch curves and points and it is very restrictive on what I can run.)

[Graeme Dunbar]

Something that is rarely mentioned when it comes to minimum radius is the angle of curvature. I don't have the facts and figures to support it, but there is surely a difference between a 6 or 9 inch radius curve that is say 5 degrees, 10 degrees  or ??? degrees and one that is a 180 turn or even a 90 degree curve.

Having (possibly unintentional) severe curves over a very short distance and small angle is something that is sometimes seen on layouts in order to get track in the right place.

What I can't get my head around at all is how much effect transition curves would have, i.e. is it preferable to have say a 180 degree turnaround at the end of a  continuous run layout of a constant maximum radius that will fit the space, or go tighter at the 90 degree mark so that the lead in and lead out is gentler. I can see when running at speed this is desirable in order to ease the sideways acceleration, but what if any effect it has at low speed I've no idea.

[Hobby]

I've used 6" curves with four wheel stock with no issues, inuding a loco from Narrow Planet using the Kato chassis. As long as you don't go mad eith the wheelbase you will be OK. Six inch radius looks a bit silly, though, do use the largest radius you can.

[Dave Cooper]

Thanks all

From memory, I used a 'mini'-sized paperclip for the coupling between the shunter and my scratch-built test wagon. It seems to cope with everything I've thrown at it so far - push or pull.

I tried to standardise on 6" radius as a minimum on the 'N' gauge track. I think there was the odd bit of transition in there as well. Not mathematical, but more what looked right. The 0-6-0's are a bit more finicky than the 0-4-0's though...

I'll see if 6" radius works, if not, it may have to be a narrower gauge. 'Z' maybe ??? (Oops, is that a swear word !)     

[Peter Boulter]

I don't think Z gauge would get you any smaller radius curves, I think the minimum is about 5 1/2".
If you want smaller a smaller radius, T gauge will give you something like 4 1/4", the 3mm gauge would give a different sort of layout in 4mm scale. A 9" gauge 'ride-on' railway perhaps.  :)

[Hobby]

Z will get tighter curves but personally I wouldn't bother. Prices for Z mechanisms tend to be higher and there's a lot less choice.

Also its a lot more fiddly than 9mm.

[Tom Haythornthwaite]

What I can't get my head around at all is how much effect transition curves would have, i.e. is it preferable to have say a 180 degree turnaround at the end of a  continuous run layout of a constant maximum radius that will fit the space, or go tighter at the 90 degree mark so that the lead in and lead out is gentler.

Graeme, you can have your cake and eat it too.  First imagine your 180 degree turnaround at the maximum available radius, and then begin the transition curves - leading in a bit from the edges of your space.  You probably wouldn't want to approach the curve with straights along the front and back edges anyway.

[Hobby]

I'd lay strong odds that most railway modellers do not use transition curves. They certainly won't when making a layout using set-track! "K Ottick" (Ron's Layout) which I had and rebuilt used 6" radius curves and the only issue we had was one piece of badly laid track (by me!) which one particular loco didn't like (the rest were ok!), it didn't have transition curves or the space for them!