Gidday, Obvious I know but North American track plans refer to numbered turnouts.
In analysing track plans are Peco HO Streamline Small Radius Turnouts a rough equivalent to a No:4; Medium Radius to a No:5: Large Radius to a No: 6 ?
Thanks and Cheers,the Bear.
"One difference between pessimists and optimists is that while pessimists are more often right, optimists have far more fun."
Peco Code 83 track and switches follow US prototype and the switches are either # 5, # 6 or # 8 turnouts.
Code 75 and code 100 track and turnouts follow European prototype with the diverging route being curved, thus it is not easy to determine, which # they are. Peco does not give a hint to that.
Gidday Ulrich, Rather suspected I would get a reply similar to yours. the Peco site is quite specific regarding their Code 83 and previous research has given given me the diverging rails radii for the Code 100.
The reason I asked the question is that I've been approached by the local model railway club which has appeared to have taken on a new lease of life, ( actual modelling had stagnated, and it had got far too political, a bit like the shenanigans you had to put up with this weekend, so I stayed away for quite sometime ) to help advise in setting new standards for layout construction.
The guys had been perusing layout plans and asked me the question I have asked.
As anything from an 0-4-0 Docksider to the latest Modern diesel wizzbang with corresponding large rolling stock will need to be catered for, besides the NMRA standards I'm going to recommend the most generous possible turnouts and minimum radii while still remaining practical.
Many thanks for your reply,
Cheers, the Bear.
They should be on the safe side with the large turnouts. Those 89´ cars with body mounted couplers maybe an issue with those turnouts ...
I was interested in that information as well. There are some published track plans that use the peco products and I am planning on using atlas as I have always had good luck with them and I have a lot of them. Alas it seems I will have to wing it and make my best guess and hope they fit. On a positive note I believe I have allowed for soe extra space so I can absorb some discrepancies should they arise.
It may be a minor point but the Peco No.5 turnouts are 3/4 inch shorter than the Atlas No. 4 (actually a 4.5). Adds a few inches to the overall length of a multiple track yard, but overall not much difference in size.
Also, PECO code 83 track has no sectional components only flex track; just a bit more work to convert to Atlas track.
Co-owner of the proposed CT River Valley RR (HO scale) http://home.comcast.net/~docinct/CTRiverValleyRR/
In code 100, I have found in practical terms that the streamline(vs set track) to be small=approx 4, med=approx 6 and large=approx 8(or bigger). But vs other turnouts they are more compact in that the are a lot shorter overall than say an equivalent Atlas.
Richard
As noted, HO PECO Code 75 and Code 100 products are not exactly equivalent to #4, #5, etc. All have a #4.5 frog, the difference is in the curving diverging leg:Small: 24" radiusMedium: 36" radiusLarge: 60" radiusCurved: 60"/30" radius
They tend to be a bit more compact than the equivalent "straight" turnouts, so I've used them often in designs where space is constrained.
Byron
Layout Design GalleryLayout Design Special Interest Group
I have found it relatively easy to replace Atlas #6 turnouts with Peco "large" code 100 turnouts on my layout. (In other words, I did not have to make significant changes to the tracks already in place on either end of the turnouts.)
Because the diverging route is curved, the route through the Peco turnout is actually a bit smoother for a comparable turnout length.
-- Steve
Gidday Gentlemen, Thanks to all for your replies, much appreciated.
As I stated in my second post to this thread, I'm going to recommend the "most generous as practicable". If someone turns up with an EMD SD70AC and a consist of Auto Max Auto Carrier cars, I'll let you know if we've been generous enough!!
I recommend the Peco Code 83 American style switches VERY strongly. They are MUCH smaller in length than Walthers turnouts so you can fit them in much more easily, and the point spring means that they operate positively as soon as they are installed.
I used #5 turnouts exclusively on my last layout, and had no problem running strings of 33,000 gal propane tanks and 72' centerbeams through them, either forward or reverse.
Michael
Disclaimer: This post may contain humor, sarcasm, and/or flatulence.
Michael Mornard
Bringing the North Woods to South Dakota!
While previous PECO turnouts may have had curved diverging track/route, the new Code 83 USA line has a straight diverging track/route.
One consideration with PECO Code 83 turnouts is that they are about $9-12 more expensive than corresponding Atlas Customline turnouts. This can add up fairly quickly in complex yards. Of course, the PECO turnouts do have positive attributes as noted in prior posts.
"JaBear"In analysing track plans are Peco HO Streamline Small Radius Turnouts a rough equivalent to a No:4; Medium Radius to a No:5: Large Radius to a No: 6 ?
Gidday, "Texas Zepher" Peco turnouts and track are the preferred "Brand" of choice in this part of the world, might be because of our still recent links to The British Empire". The Club, over the years, has gotten away with almost exclusive use of Peco Smalls, as a new layout is being "planned", I want to Future Proof" it.
"Bayfield Transfer Railway Michael" and "Doc in CT", I haven't physically seen any Peco Code 83 American style turnouts, looks good, curious but in contrast to what I said to "Texas Zepher" , Atlas Code 83 flex track and turnouts seem to have "stolen the march" here.
However as a club, rightly or wrongly, we're sticking with Code 100. Modelling to PRR prototype heavy standards, don't you know.
As for price difference, one of the historical difficulties of living down here is known as "the Tyranny of Distance", even in these days of "instant communications", freight costs ain't cheap..
Thanks and Cheers, the Bear.
Hi there Bear
Our group also in NZ is building a new layout using Peco code 83. The cost was slightly less than Atlas code 83 and a little more that Peco code 100. In my opinion Peco code 83 is far superior to their code 100 and also better than Atlas code 83.
My own layout uses Walthers/Shinohara code 83 but when I start a rebuild soon I will be using Peco code 83.
Cheers
Bill
Thanks folks for all the follow up posts. In my case I am looking to substitute Atlas turnouts for the Peco brand as that's what I have and its lower cost for any additional units. Other track will be a few crossings and flex track. Due to the discussion it looks like I will be able to make things work out ok by changing brands of components.
Hi TZ,
A quick note from Pecoland (UK), we had probs with a curved piont and 80 odd foot coaches at the frog. It was sorted by putting a shim of 10th plasticard onto the inside of the check-rail mold, that was 3 or 4yrs ago and is still working great.
Be in touch.
pick.
PS Anyone using code 75 please note, the point blade/ tie-bar fixing ain't as robust as other codes. I've had to refit a coulpe.
Gidday Bill, Hope its not to cold for you down there, expecting another good frost here tonight.
I have personally thought about using Code 83 myself when I come to build the retirement masterpiece , in fact its what the model railway suppliers in the region recommend to use if you wish to be known as a serious "prototypical" modeller.
However I guess I'm not that serious then. as I've always been a firm believer that anyone should be able to turn up at the club with virtually type of gear as long as its HO American, has clean correctly gauged wheels and correct coupler heights, and more recently DCC equipped. Peco Code 100 allows for those who run "pizza cutter " wheels. We need to promote the hobby,not scare people off. There were was an element at the club who thought that if you wanted to run anything other than 4 axled diesels, short coupled steam, and 40" boxcars, then tough!
To be fair the club also has a Hornby Dublo 2 and 3 rail layout , an N gauge layout and a HO short line logging layout.
However I suspect that your group are more disciplined than the local mob.
Let me state in the beginning I am not a fan of Atlas track. That said, my current 3 deck layout was started in 1983/84 and code 100 Peco was the best solution. The layout today has code 100 peco track and switches because I am too tight to spend the money to replace them. I also in the meantime have scratchbuilt switches (NMRA MMR program) but I haven't the heart or guts or money to replace all the Peco. IN 2012 they are still working great.
Bob
Gidday Bob, It always strikes me how easy misconceptions can be formed even when someone should know better.
Having had access to MR and RMC magazines from the 50s on, though I've only started reading them in the last 12 years, it would be easy to get the(wrong) impression that in the US track was either hand laid, Atlas, or later on, Shinohara. I have noticed that Peco does get a mention from time to time in the "Trade Pages".
Having taken the liberty to "visit " the SF Oklahoma Sub Division on occasion, the mere thought of changing out all the Peco brings a tear to MY eyes, not to mention the slight heart palpitations.
Thanks for your reply.
Cheers,the Bear.