What Track is best

[burnthebox]

Hi all you knowledgeable guys, tell me what type of Track system is best to put for a layout, & including the best manufacturer of points for the same track system, I'm leaning towards the Peco code ???? so what's best, thanks in advance,

[burnthebox]

If buying flexi-track, don't forget to get enough joiners, as well......

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]18926[/ATTACH]

 

Broithe, Are Rail Joiners otherwise known as Fishplates, or is there a difference,

[Broithe]

Broithe, Are Rail Joiners otherwise known as Fishplates

 

Yes, but they aren't really fishplates, so Rail Joiners is a better description....

 

You can also get plastic ones, for where you might want an isolated section.

 

Cosmetic plastic fishplates are available for the right 'look'.

 

[Junctionmad]

Just going back to the OPs question

 

" best track "

 

You have to answer that question first. , what does " best" mean for you

 

Quickest to lay , lowest cost , most realistic looking, best running , best for finescale wheels etc , if your goal is unpack boxes and lay track , you are limited to Tillig or PECO.

 

if you decide on peco , I would suggest peco 75 woth electrofrogs. I can't see any point in peco 100 as all stock built in the last 30 years has flanges that will run on code 75. Code 75 is closer to real life sizes. The flange way dimensions of peco 75 and 100 are the same too

 

Personally peco looks incredibly wrong for irish prototypes where 00 is a massive compromise more so then Uk modellers. If you are modelling bullhead track then peco looks really wrong as there is no light between the track and the ballast.

 

Personally , for me " best" , assuming you are staying 00 gauge , is C&L bullhead flexi and hand built points to match the sweep of the prototype , with 1mm flange ways to handle both finescale kit wheels and RTR wheels, ie for example Murphy models 141 are rp25/110 woth a total thread width of 2.79 mm and a flange depth of 0.8mm ( 30 thou ). Interesting the MM 201 has deeper flanges

 

For comparison the proto type thread is around 1.85 mm width. In my opinion peco is " ok " as long as you don't intend to use wheels with more prototypical dimension then RP 25/110 , otherwise the wheel falls into the space infront of the " V" and you get a wheel bump

 

Again it's all down to what you view as " best "

Edited May 4, 2015 by Junctionmad

[burnthebox]

Jesus Junctionmad just when I thought I was home safe you have now awoke a "monster" in track. What I'm looking for on an OO is " most realistic looking, best running, & probably all the other things you mentioned to get my track down with the least amount of problems, as quick as is possible, & happy loco's running all over it, whether it's bullhead or horse head I don't care, I don't know as you may guess anything about RAIL so I'm very grateful for any / all help, thanks again,

PS Forgot to ask what's " Tillig "

Edited May 4, 2015 by burnthebox

[GSR 800]

Certainly in my choice Peco 75 or 100.hornby doesnt seem that bad, Although there flexitrack is a bit of a nightmare as for points im at a loss. If you see track in a magazine is probably a dud,no electrical charge whatsoever! Really peco is the best track,worth the extra few bob:D

[Broithe]

Certainly in my choice Peco 75 or 100.hornby doesnt seem that bad, Although there flexitrack is a bit of a nightmare as for points im at a loss. If you see track in a magazine is probably a dud,no electrical charge whatsoever! Really peco is the best track,worth the extra few bob:D

 

I'm not a fan of the Hornby flexi-track - the Peco seemed a lot easier to use.

[GSR 800]

I'm not a fan of the Hornby flexi-track - the Peco seemed a lot easier to use.

 

as i was lifting my old layouts track which had been done in the time honoured painstaking way.All other track had come off with little or no damage..but then it came to the flexitrack........looked like no40014and all the other americans had run over it!

[Junctionmad]

Jesus Junctionmad just when I thought I was home safe you have now awoke a "monster" in track. What I'm looking for on an OO is " most realistic looking, best running, & probably all the other things you mentioned to get my track down with the least amount of problems, as quick as is possible, & happy loco's running all over it, whether it's bullhead or horse head I don't care, I don't know as you may guess anything about RAIL so I'm very grateful for any / all help, thanks again,

PS Forgot to ask what's " Tillig "

 

It's depends on what your standards are

 

https://www.dropbox.com/s/naq53we4ke05kiq/2015-01-31%2010.41.17.jpg?dl=0

 

That is my idea of the " best " model railway track

 

Tillig is an alternative to peco , more expensive

[Junctionmad]

In 00 4mm is one foot - a tenth of an inch is 2.5 mm, or 5/8 of a foot, which is 5 times 1.5 inches, or 7.5 inches - a bit over-sized.

 

Somewhere around 5 or 5.5 inches seems about right, in real life.

 

Code 75 is about right for typicall main line bull head rail, with code 82 -85 being right for the heavier sectioned flat-bottomed track. Historically irish non important sidings were laid with around equivalent code 55 light weight flat bottomed rail

[DiveController]

That is my idea of the " best " model railway track

Oh, Lord, JM! it's a beautiful thing but I'd have to practice to be the signalman, let alone the engineer:trains:

Edited May 5, 2015 by DiveController

[Weshty]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]18928[/ATTACH]

Oh, Lord, JM! it's a beautiful thing but I'd have to practice to be the signalman, let alone the engineer:trains:

 

Gentle Jesus, Is that MODEL track???

 

That's the most impressive I've seen in a long time. Where is this from. It's even got an array of point control bars on the right. I've never seen that on a layout before.

 

We're not worthy.....

[Warbonnet]

Yep, it's either Birmingham New Street in P4 or Liverpool Lime Street (also in P4, or possibly EM) Two cracking layouts featuring hand built track.

[Junctionmad]

It's not Birmingham new street. ( which is another amazing layout ) it's has diesel era track work , I can't remember where it came from , ( may have been templot club forum )

 

I merely post it to illustrate , that there is a considerable range of what people view as " best". Track

 

Personally for me, I'm in between, I like track that matches the prototype better then peco , but equally thAt can be implemented in a normal lifetime , that's why I experimenting with c&l and hand built 00-SF. ( also it's cheaper then others methods ), but then I , personally, have no desire to " get trains running quickly " ( and right now I can't anyway )

 

The concept of " best" track is similar to asking what's the " best " car. You really have to proscribe the question with the key requirements you feel are important , then out of that falls the answer of " what's best for you "

 

Ps: I'm surprised for new build anyone is still considering PECO 100 .

Edited May 5, 2015 by Junctionmad

[burnthebox]

Hi & thanks one & all for your contributions, this is great, the kind of thing this site is all about. Junctionmad why are you superised to find anyone building for the first time with Peco code 100, & if I can I'll be hoping to use the nickel silver with the intention it'll be down pernanently, is there something, or maybe lot's of things I'm missing out on ! thanks again,

Paul

PA I have seen that photo , I think on the cover of a model railway magazine

[Junctionmad]

Junctionmad why are you superised to find anyone building for the first time with Peco code 100, & if I can I'll be hoping to use the nickel silver with the intention it'll be down pernanently, is there something, or maybe lot's of things I'm missing out on ! thanks again,

 

Given how out of scale PECO 100 is, and the fact any produced in recent history ( and most certainly anything with wheels to RP25/110) will run well on PECO 75. Why build using an seriously out of scale product. I can fully undertand if you have 40 year old stock etc , thats a different story

 

same story re electrocfrog versus insulfrog, etc. ( though the distinction is less stark here)

[irishthump]

Given how out of scale PECO 100 is, and the fact any produced in recent history ( and most certainly anything with wheels to RP25/110) will run well on PECO 75. Why build using an seriously out of scale product. I can fully undertand if you have 40 year old stock etc , thats a different story

 

same story re electrocfrog versus insulfrog, etc. ( though the distinction is less stark here)

 

For me it comes down to availability, it's easier to walk into your local shop and get your hand on code 100.

The difference in scale really doesn't worry me. Sure the track is the wrong gauge after all!

 

What do you mean regarding Insulfrog vs Electrofrog?

[Junctionmad]

The difference in scale really doesn't worry me. Sure the track is the wrong gauge after all!

 

What do you mean regarding Insulfrog vs Electrofrog?

 

Yes but simply that the gauge is out, doesn't then mean everything else should be out. Im sure wed all prefer it was 21mm, but we are where we are. My comments were based on the look of the track. Code 100 was brought out because at the time flanges were ridiculously deep and you needed that rail height to ensure they ran. today thats not the case. Imagine if you locos were 33% over scale !!. In fact with PECO 75 and some bodging of the points, weathering , good ballesting etc PECO 75 can look extremely well

 

what I mean, is that in a new build Electrofrog should really be the default choice, ( and modified to have polarity switching down by the point motor ) given the choice as it provides better electrical pickup ( as well as looking marginally better too).

 

me it comes down to availability, it's easier to walk into your local shop and get your hand on code 100

 

personally i find most shops in Ireland have so little that I want , that I mail order almost everything, no wonder my parcel motel bill is creeping up

 

 

All this may be too " rivet counting" for some, but personally , I always find it perplexing that people want absolute scale realism on the loco and rolling stock, but compromise widely elsewhere and especially track. I suppose it comes down to whether you model railways or model trains .

Edited May 5, 2015 by Junctionmad

[Junctionmad]

here an interesting challenge for track nerds.

 

 

identify the model track make and gauge, left to right ( apologies if you've seen this before) Note all track is commercial , in that its not specially hand built. ( i.e. all components are commercial )

 

Edited May 5, 2015 by Junctionmad

[burnthebox]

Giving that I don't know what this is, RP25/110, I give up now.

[Noel]

here an interesting challenge for track nerds.

 

 

identify the model track make and gauge, left to right ( apologies if you've seen this before) Note all track is commercial , in that its not specially hand built. ( i.e. all components are commercial )

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]18930[/ATTACH]

 

Guess:

 

1,2,3 - don't know

4 - Peco streamline code 75 - 4'8" 1/2

5 - Peco streamline code 100 - 4'8" 1/2

 

I've used code 100 because I started the layout 22 years ago and had some old stock with big wheel flanges (e.g. Triang + Dublo + early Hornby). If I was starting out again today I'd probably use Peco code 75 due to ease of use, availability and ability to run most rolling stock produced in the last 20 years. I'd retire my old Dublo, Triang and Hornby stock to static display on shelves.

 

Agree there is no general answer to "best", rather the best suited to a users overall requirements, time, budget, general appearance, etc.

 

Code 75 points + crossings: http://www.peco-uk.com/page.asp?id=tempc75

Edited May 5, 2015 by Noel

[Junctionmad]

Giving that I don't know what this is, RP25/110, I give up now.

 

see http://www.nmra.org/sites/default/files/standards/sandrp/pdf/RP-25%202009.07.pdf

 

most RTR loco wheels are RP 25/110, i.e. ,110 inches tyre width. or about 2.8mm ( 2mm thread width) , always useful to know as you need twice the crossing flange way gap plus 0.2mm to run a wheel through a point without bumping, so for PECO the flange way is at 1.3, hence its happy with wheels that are 2.625mm or greater ( to a point ) . Finescale wheels, with tyres under 2.5mm will struggle. p4 wheels have a tyre with of 2mm, S4 has 1.8mm

 

thats why 00-SF , with a flange way of 1mm and a overall gauge of 16.2mm at the check rail, is an attempt to build points that handle RTR Rp 25 wheels as well as some finer scale wheels typical of kits and scratch builds etc

Edited May 5, 2015 by Junctionmad

[Junctionmad]

Guess:

 

1,2,3 - don't know

4 - Peco streamline code 75 - 4'8" 1/2

5 - Peco streamline code 100 - 4'8" 1/2

 

I've used code 100 because I started the layout 22 years ago and had some old stock with big wheel flanges (e.g. Triang + Dublo + early Hornby). If I was starting out again today I'd probably use Peco code 75 due to ease of use, availability and ability to run most rolling stock produced in the last 20 years. I'd retire my old Dublo, Triang and Hornby stock to static display on shelves.

 

Agree there is no general answer to "best", rather the best suited to a users overall requirements, time, budget, general appearance, etc.

 

Code 75 points + crossings: http://www.peco-uk.com/page.asp?id=tempc75

 

hazzard a guess at the gauge at least not all are 16.5mm

[Noel]

hazzard a guess at the gauge at least not all are 16.5mm

 

Well the two RHS are 16.5mm pretending to be 4'8"1/2

[Junctionmad]

just forget about the prototype gauge issue, 4mm track is produced in 16.5mm ( 00) 18,2mm (EM) and 18.82mm (P4)

PECO track of course is actually H0, i.e. 3.5mm/foot

 

also grade track as " best looking "

Edited May 5, 2015 by Junctionmad

[Georgeconna]

Just for the record, I have used a mix of Peco 100, Peco Setrack (I'm lazy and it saves cutting rail!) and even Hornby straights for some sidings (you can pick up secondhand ones cheaply at exhibitions here in England and it's cheaper than yards of Peco), all without obvious problems.

 

Peco Setrack Special curves (33" or so radius) was particularly useful to lay a fairly inaccesible curve on the layout.

 

I agree with others - buy it from your local shop - if you're buying a lot, they usually offer something off - maybe not to Rails or Hattons level. Better to support them, so that they're still there the day you need something quickly!!!!

 

Leslie

 

Track is crazy price in the shops here, Stems from Getting charged for Delivery from the UK to Ireland whereas the UK shops get free delivery from Peco.

 

I worked in marks and even it was cheaper ordering it from the UK instead of buying it with a few bob off as a staff discount. shame really but mind the pennies as they say.

 

Model Basboards Dave stocks Peco track now and I believe is competitive with the price.

 

Nice one on the Point Building never heard of that before.

[Railer]

Is it possible it get Peco C75 points that have concrete style sleepers, or do they even make them?

[BosKonay]

Yes and they look great tho only in medium radius at the moment.

[Broithe]

Is it possible it get Peco C75 points that have concrete style sleepers, or do they even make them?

 

http://www.peco-uk.com/imageselector/Files/Instruction%20sheets/Code%2075%20Concrete%20Sleeper%20Eng.pdf

[Mayner]

Is it possible it get Peco C75 points that have concrete style sleepers, or do they even make them?

 

Concrete sleepered points are relatively rare on full sized railways. The point work in Drogheda railcar depot is the only installation that comes to mind.

 

 

Yard crossovers on concrete bearers Drogheda Depot

 

The mould set up costs would probably be prohibitively expensive for all but standard point and crossing formations which are relatively rare in full sized practice.

 

Crossover Down to Up Main on Drogheda custom formation on crossing timbers

 

One of the stranger things is the apparent lack of demand/competition in the UK for a more realistic OO gauge track system. In addition to Code 75 in recent years Peco developed a NMRA compliant Code 82 track system for the US market, most likely in response to loss of market share to competitors.

 

A combination of SMP flexible bullhead track and Marcway points is a good alternative for modellers of the steam age railway, but there appears to be no really suitable flexible track system to represent flatbottom track on timber or concrete sleepers used from the mid-1950sp onwards.

 

Code 82 rail has effectively displaced Code100 in HO and Code 55 displacing Code 80 in N Gauge on models of American railways.

[Railer]

Great post John. As you rightly pointed out (excuse the pun), very few points have concrete sleepers, only noticed my self over the last week or so when actually looking at real track. Cross overs are wooden due to the cost as most of these are custom made up for the location they are used in and not built to standard sizes in general.

 

Have to say though after picking up two Peco concrete medium points, they look great and the difference to Hornby and Lima set track I've been using for year is unreal. C75 is so fine in comparison it gets rid of some of that narrow gauge look. Just forgot about some fishplates and the way the sleeter are installed right to the end leave no room for a fishplate which is a pain.

[Dave]

Just forgot about some fishplates and the way the sleeter are installed right to the end leave no room for a fishplate which is a pain.

 

All Peco flex track is like that, you just cut out the sleepers and fit the rail joiners.

Afterwards I cut the chairs off some sleepers and slide them under the gaps. Once ballasted you wouldn't notice.

[Noel]

Just forgot about some fishplates and the way the sleeter are installed right to the end leave no room for a fishplate which is a pain.

A variation on Dave's fix is I leave the last sleepers connected but shave off the chairs and leave a little indent so the thickness of the fishplate doesn't push the rail up. I'm a bit fussy about constant sleeper distances at rail joins. I hate gaps.

[Junctionmad]

A variation on Dave's fix is I leave the last sleepers connected but shave off the chairs and leave a little indent so the thickness of the fishplate doesn't push the rail up. I'm a bit fussy about constant sleeper distances at rail joins. I hate gaps.

 

The prototype of course has two sleepers close together at fishplate joins, rather then equal spacing. So if your modelling bullhead 60 ft rail-panels, then there are sets of closely spaced sleepers around the layout !

 

It should also be pointed out that typical point work timbering was both heavier ( wider) and more closely spaced then plain trackwork

 

But maybe I'm rivet counting !!!!

 

good trackwork isn't about life and death, it's much more important then that

[DiveController]

Code 82 rail has effectively displaced Code100 in HO and Code 55 displacing Code 80 in N Gauge on models of American railways.

I was thinking of using Code 82 due to easier availability and I suspect the difference scale wise between Code 75 and Code 82 must be minimal, not sure if the rail, chairs etc. is the same on these or not?

[DiveController]

A variation on Dave's fix is I leave the last sleepers connected but shave off the chairs and leave a little indent so the thickness of the fishplate doesn't push the rail up. I'm a bit fussy about constant sleeper distances at rail joins. I hate gaps.

Any photos? ……. (if I promise not to criticize the white balancing etc.)

Edited May 16, 2015 by DiveController