Boxcastle Bray

B.Meldon · March 25, 2025, 10:51

When planning a layout there are a few things that I would recommend:

Only use electriofrog points.
Avoid reverse curves that are less than 18" radius.
Avoid any curved track where you are going to couple items together.
Limit grades to 1 in 30.

In each case have leart this the hard way!

Mike Oehlers · March 25, 2025, 11:20

Brian - I am thankful for you having made those mistakes/miscalculations for us and sharing those experiences - invaluable!

Thanks for the tips - I realise that I am going to have to learn about frogs, electrical wiring and control systems - it's the bit I'm looking forward to the least. Fortunately, wife is an electrical engineer...

Do you have any experience using code 55 rail for making your own OO9 track? Will RTR stock not fall foul of the reduced rail height?

Thanks for your help.

Mike Oehlers · March 25, 2025, 11:57

I've found a bunch of useful articles on track codes/heights in the section on Trackwork - should have looked there first!

B.Meldon · March 25, 2025, 13:40

Quote from: M Oehlers on March 25, 2025, 11:20Do you have any experience using code 55 rail for making your own OO9 track? Will RTR stock not fall foul of the reduced rail height?

It all depends on what locos and rolling stock you are going to use. For example some older chassis, like the N gauge Arnold 0-4-0 and 0-6-0 have wheel flanges that are too large for the Peco 009 points, never mind code 55! There is still a very wide range of wheel profiles and flange sizes in use, even on 009 and H0e ready to run items, because of this going with code 55 can be limiting on what you can use.
I just use the Peco 009 points and track and turn down the Arnold loco wheel flanges!

Graeme Dunbar · March 25, 2025, 16:28

This is going a bit off topic, but is still related to the question.

Code 80 rail is 80/1000th of an inch or a touch over 2 mm tall and code 55 is 55/1000th of an inch or about 1.4 mm tall.

The rim of the wheel flange may hit the sleepers if the wheels are too coarse or if the rail is too fine. However it may not only be the top of the sleepers that get in the way. The rail fixings, spikes, chairs or whatever it is the little lumps of plastic on Peco 'Crazy' track are supposed to represent are really quite chunky. It is far from being a definitive value, but I get a measurement of something like 1.2 mm from the top of the rail to the top of rail fixing. If the flanges did indeed foul them it would mean the rail had an 'effective' code of something like code 47.

I can't say for certain that the flanges would touch the top of the rail fixings. On some really coarse wheels I've seen, the flanges are as such an angle that they may actually slope away so much as to ride inside the rail fixing and still potentially touch the tops of the sleepers.

I think this may be the part of the reasoning behind Peco code 55 N scale track. The difference between code 80 and code 55 is buried completely in the track base which allows the rail fixings (chairs etc.) to be low profile and purely cosmetic and so reduce the working height of the rail very little.

It may be that actual code 55 rail (not code 55/80) that is 'sweated' or soldered neatly onto PCB sleepers without solder blobs doesn't reduce the working rail height all that much compared to code 80.

Without more accurate measurements I think all that can be said is that with neater, lower profile rail fixings rail of a height a bit less than code 80 may be workable with newer stock at least.

Mike Oehlers · March 25, 2025, 17:28

Brian and Graeme - lots to think about - thanks again.

So, without resorting to building my own track (eek!) and points (triple eek!), it seems like the most obvious route is to just use Peco set track rather than crazy track as the points work better. Bury the track (well, the sleepers) within the quarry areas to reduce the height of it all and hope that the slightly reduced width (of code 80 rail) helps.

Might taking out every other sleeper from Peco set track reduce its rigidity too much?

The Egger track looks very industrial and "crazy" - any thoughts on using that within the quarry areas? Can you make small bends in it (so it looks like it's really dodgy) without stock derailing? I'm predicting a "why don't you try it and run some stock over it? response, which I may do if I can find some old Egger stuff to abuse...

Graeme Dunbar · March 25, 2025, 18:52

I'm not sure what you mean by Peco set track.

For 009/HOe Peco produce:

009 Setrack - straights, curves and dead frog points. Most people appear to be of the opinion that conductive frog (Electrofrog) make for better running.

009 'Crazy' track. Peco no longer call it this but Irregular sleeper track. It is the original version of their 009 Streamline range. (I think Streamline is just their way of saying flexible track range.) It includes flexible track and left, right and Y points which have conductive frogs. The points are less 'crazy' than the track.

009 Mainline track which has regularly spaced and aligned sleepers and more detailed rail fixings representing some sort of rail clip or chair and is also part of what they call their Streamline range. The range also includes larger radius points which are also electro frog.

The code 55 track is N scale and finer in appearance than their N scale set track and a little more so than their N scale Streamline track.

If you would like to disguise the appearance of the 009 track then as you say, ballasting, and weathering the ballast helps a lot, as does painting the sleepers to tone them down to reduce the plasticky appearance and painting the sides of the rails in a muted rusty grimy colour.

https://peco-uk.com/collections/oo-9-9mm/track

Mike Oehlers · March 25, 2025, 20:08

Sorry - I meant streamline - confusing myself with the set track/crazy track duopoly.

Despite how it sounds, I am getting somewhere - honest!

Thanks again.

Mike.

JulienW · March 26, 2025, 11:09

Quote from: Mike Oehlers on March 25, 2025, 17:28Brian and Graeme - lots to think about - thanks again.

So, without resorting to building my own track (eek!) and points (triple eek!), it seems like the most obvious route is to just use Peco set track rather than crazy track as the points work better. Bury the track (well, the sleepers) within the quarry areas to reduce the height of it all and hope that the slightly reduced width (of code 80 rail) helps.

Might taking out every other sleeper from Peco set track reduce its rigidity too much?

The Egger track looks very industrial and "crazy" - any thoughts on using that within the quarry areas? Can you make small bends in it (so it looks like it's really dodgy) without stock derailing? I'm predicting a "why don't you try it and run some stock over it? response, which I may do if I can find some old Egger stuff to abuse...

All of the Peco HOe/009 points have pretty much the same construction. The 'Set Track' have the disadvantage of having 'dead frogs' (common crossings) which short wheelbase 4 wheel locos will not like, especially at slow shunting speeds, but their 9"(23cm) radius can be useful in industrial settings.

Peco used to make 9" electro-frog (live frog) points but they have not done so for probably 40 years, so whilst they do turn up 2nd hand they often need repairs, and on the slim chance you find some unused examples they are likely to be somewhat expensive!

As to using standard N scale points, again I'm not sure Peco currently produce 9" radius live frog points for N.

Taking all that on board I would try to use the live frog (electro-frog) points. The "irregular sleepers" (formerly "crazy track") left and right hand points have a 12" (30cm) radius. The Y point has a 15" (46cm) radius with irregular sleepers and the 'Mainline Sleeper' points also have a radius of 15" (46cm).

There are other ranges available, and I wonder if you have seen the IMON (ex-Shinohara) range of Code 60 track. The only UK source I know of is Scale Link. I used one Shinohara point a on an 009 layout with standard peco track and the 2 seemed to be compatible.

The one major drawback in using Peco (or any other) points is that you are limited to whatever they have produced, yet in the 'real world' tracks would be laid where they needed to go rather than being 'forced' into using a set range of 5 points (in the case of Peco).

If you are able to use a soldering iron, files and saws (razor saw or jeweller's piercing saw) then building your own track and points should be achievable, especially if you can get yourself a set of track gauges. Anything for N will do the job like these, these, or these, and these 3-point track gauges might also be useful.

Rails can be those stripped out of old flexitrack, and for copper clad sleepers I've used the 3mm scale ones from here

There are a range of 009 point templates available as a PDF - just drop me a message with your email address and I'll send you out a set made by Keith Angus.

The key thing is to get the track gauge that matches the code of rail, as if the rail head is 'sloppy' in the gauge (say using code 40 rail in a code 80 gauge) then the rails could end up closer, or further apart) and things may derail.

Until you try how do you know you can not do it?

That then opens up the possibility of track work that 'flows' rather than having dog legs and the like to meet up with the rail ends of the Peco (or whoever) points, and if a situation needs a 3 way point then so be it - they are not much harder to make than a 'normal' point.

B.Meldon · March 26, 2025, 11:53

Quote from: JulienW on March 26, 2025, 11:09The "irregular sleepers" (formerly "crazy track") left and right hand points have a 12" (30cm) radius. The Y point has a 15" (46cm) radius with irregular sleepers and the 'Mainline Sleeper' points also have a radius of 15" (46cm).

The Y point and the 'mainline' Peco 009 points are quoted by Peco as 457mm radius. That works out as 18" radius. (Not 15")

To put these curves into the real world settings. The Ffestiniog and Welsh Highland curves work out at about 23" radius and the Talyllyn railway with its side buffers works out at about 52" radius in 00 scale!

It is all about reasonable comprimise when it comes to model railways. In general the larger the radius to closer it will be to the rear world, but the more room it will take up on a modle railway.

As mentioned I would always avoid points with dead plastic frogs and stick with electrifrogs only.
The last of the Peco 009 9" radius electrofrog points were made in 1980!! So that is 45 years ago now!!
They are very hard to find in hood order now, they were also longer than the 009 set track dead frog points that are made today.

As well as dead frog points I would also strongly recomend that you plan your layout with out any diamond crossings or any dual gauge crossings.
All the available diamond and dual gauge crossings have two dead plastic sections on each rail, so can casue double the problems you get with dead frog points! You may well also find four wheel locos with a wheel base that placed both wheels on the dead sections!!

Mike Oehlers · March 26, 2025, 18:38

Gents - Julien & Brian - many more thanks to you both for your continued advice - its what I need and it is making more sense to me, know that I have also read through many of the "trackwork" articles on here too.

I can see that avoiding cross-overs and too many points will make my life easier, as will sticking to the Peco track, with electro-frogs to start with.

Does it sound sensible (with my quarry setting) to perhaps use the Peco track into the quarry and yard (and fiddle yard and out-of-sight track), but then have some hand-made track winding its way around the quarry internally and not encountering any further point work? I've seen a diagram somewhere showing how you can join code 55 and 80 rail by filing off some of some (~ 1mm?) of the rail.

Out of interest, is there anybody out there that hand-builds spec 009 points to order?

Cheers

Mike.

I want to try to make the track - full confession, I've see a soldering iron once or twice - but now I don't want it to take over the work effort for this project.

Hugh Norwood · March 26, 2025, 20:21

I don't make my own track, but I would suggest you make up a short length just as a test to see how difficult/easy it is. Regarding the difference in rail heigth between codes, perhaps rather than filing off some of the rail how about simply raising the lower track to match the "taller" track?

We have a member in the S Yorks group (Allen) who made his own track in code 80 for his first layoaut and is now making track in code 55 for his next one! He makes it look dead easy, I must say!

Graeme Dunbar · March 26, 2025, 20:26

If you want code 55 rail in the quarry then you could possibly use Peco N scale code 55 and disguise or bury the sleepers.

Quite a lot of industrial track was ballasted that way and all sorts of stuff was used as ballast. An obvious one for a quarry would be quarry dust.

https://becster.com/threlkeld-quarry-mining-museum/

Likewise, if you wanted to use code 80 track then any form, Crazy, Mainline or N scale would do if the sleepers are hidden. I've seen Kato N gauge Unitrack used and it is hard to tell because it is well hidden.

The 'hint' of what the sleepered track can be made by exposing short sections of perhaps just a few sleepers or even just the ends of the sleepers visible and modifying the track so those sections have the 'correct' sleepering.

Mike Oehlers · March 26, 2025, 21:00

Hugh - I'd seen a picture of the filing method in either the thematic track tab on this site or in the Bob Bernard NG Modelling in OO9 scale book, but your suggestion does sound so "Occamly" simple that it is far more up my street!

Mike Oehlers · March 26, 2025, 21:08

Graeme - I'd planned the sleeper burying and there is a sand quarry near me - I shall go there soon.

One of the visual effects Ive been thinking of is having kinks in the track - as you can see in the photo you posted, on the empty siding on the right, adjacent to the last wagon, but I fear derailments and the like.

Something to test on a test bed.