I bring this up as an individual subject as I am sure there are LOTS of Peco Code 100 turnout users out there. And there are likely LOTS of those users that have experienced derailing problems with them.
There is a relatively simple modification that will improve their performance. It involves the guard rail 'slot' across from the frog area. I'm almost surprised that Peco themselves have not offered some sort of 'fix kit'
The flangeway across from the frog is just a bit too large for the needs of most modern American train models. This excessive width allows the axles to shift away from that outer rail and over towards the frog area. The wheel(s) then encountering the tip of the frog often then ride up over the tip of the frog, resulting in a derail.
There have been a significant number of folks who have shimmed up this flangeway to help prevent this problem. I've seen some folks that report the use of shims of .01".
I'm searching for what might be other suggestions/experiences for a maximum thickness that might be used??
Brian
My Layout Plan
Interesting new Plan Consideration
Fine Tuning Peco Code 100 Curved Switch Check Rails
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tNQSIiZ5ob4
Using brass shim on guard rail,..pretty clean installation.
Interesting observation about backing thru the turnout verses forward picking of the frog.
railandsailUsing brass shim on guard rail,
I know the brass stock was .010" thick. How wide? I didn't see an exact dimension in the video.
Also, the video concerned Code 100 Peco curved turnouts. Does the same problem exist with Code 83?
Dave
I'm just a dude with a bad back having a lot of fun with model trains, and finally building a layout!
Brian,
I have shimmed several peco no. 6 code 100 (or no 6 equivalent - I forget now how they are labeled) with .010" styrene pieces glued in place on the frog guard rails. I am not certain but I believe the peco code 100 turnouts are built to NEM spec - which is the european standard. NEM is slightly different than RP 25 in terms of wheel tread size, wheel tread slope, flange width and depth etc...
In general the code 100 turnouts work fine with most of my equipment, but a few finicky cars caused me to shim the guard rails. Peco code 83 is a different animal and I haven't had to shim any of those turnouts. I use the code 100 in staging tracks only.
Guy
see stuff at: the Willoughby Line Site
wouldn't using the Flangeways guide on an NMRA gage indicate how thick a shim would need to be?
greg - Philadelphia & Reading / Reading
another view point...
When you bought Peco turnouts that were supplied with paperwork in the box they themselves said to glue .010 thou shims to the guard rails if you ran scale type wheels sets. I have shims in mine .010 thou in the older ones. These newer ones with out the adjustable spring tensioner have up to .020 thou. I also now make the guard rail longer so that the end is not almost opposite the tip of the frog. I found once I had the wheel set further over I wasn't getting the short problem as much from the two merging rails at the frog of insulfrog type turnouts. Hope this helps Les
When you bought Peco turnouts that were supplied with paperwork in the box they themselves said to glue .010 thou shims to the guard rails if you ran scale type wheels sets. I have shims in mine .010 thou in the older ones. These newer ones with out the adjustable spring tensioner have up to .020 thou. I also now make the guard rail longer so that the end is not almost opposite the tip of the frog. I found once I had the wheel set further over I wasn't getting the short problem as much from the two merging rails at the frog of insulfrog type turnouts.
Hope this helps Les
This seems to be a lot of screwing around to get a turnout to work, right out of the packaging.
Are these Pecos something special? or of such a good quality? that you go out of your way to fix them?
I've never had a Peco, I know nothing about'em.
I thought it has been mentioned in here that the Atlas turnouts are good to go, right out of the package.
Pecos must be special, as people that have them seem to have endless threads, and videos how to make them work, instead of getting rid of them.
Please! enlighten me! whats the magic of Peco turnouts?
Mike.
My You Tube
hon30critter railandsail Using brass shim on guard rail, I know the brass stock was .010" thick. How wide? I didn't see an exact dimension in the video. Also, the video concerned Code 100 Peco curved turnouts. Does the same problem exist with Code 83? Dave
railandsail Using brass shim on guard rail,
No, the PECO code 83 is a completely different design, a completely different product.
Sheldon
mbinsewiPlease! enlighten me! whats the magic of Peco turnouts?
In my case; a lot ofyears ago ,building my first real layout, my LHS talked me into them. The over center spring,made switching nice,locked points in place,moved with your finger. I still use the org.6, but been buying the altas now. Work just as well, about half price.
IMHO they are not worth it.
mbinsewi This seems to be a lot of screwing around to get a turnout to work, right out of the packaging. Are these Pecos something special? or of such a good quality? that you go out of your way to fix them? I've never had a Peco, I know nothing about'em. I thought it has been mentioned in here that the Atlas turnouts are good to go, right out of the package. Pecos must be special, as people that have them seem to have endless threads, and videos how to make them work, instead of getting rid of them. Please! enlighten me! whats the magic of Peco turnouts? Mike.
Honestly, I think they are a legacy design from the earlier days of the hobby where deep flanges allowed trains to be run on small radius layouts at higher speeds. And there is a market for this product.
Unless you have a lot of older type of equipment with deep flanges, I don't know why someone would want to choose Peco code 100. And since there is a market, even Atlas makes a code 100 snap switch that has an entirely curved diverging route from tangent so you could place it in the middle of a turnback loop and maintain the radius. They also have a code 83 switch that does the same thing, with a 22 inch constant curved diverging route. I used one in my previous layout, which was useful in the urban switching district. Both Atlas products work with more modern flanged equipment out of the box.
There may be other reasons.
Edit: As far as the OP, I think Brian is using what he has on hand from previous accumulations, which is understandable, and the solutions are helpful for similar situations.
- Douglas
Yes I had/have a big inventory of them, and I think the quality is good. they seemed to have found a pretty good design and stuck with it for a number of years. As I looked at Atlas when I was first getting back into collecting stuff for retirement I saw what I seem to remember at least 3-4 different types of turnout designs,...seems they could not adopt a single design.So I chose to go with Peco which had a pretty good reputation over the years. I'm NOT unhappy with my choice, and I do not want to spend gobs of money on changing over brands.
A little tweaking of the Peco (shimming some guard rails) does not seem to be overbearing to me,...I just want to get it right before I place the turnouts in a difficult-to-get-to spot.I believe I can get most all my long cars (passenger & freight) to operate thru these 'compact turnouts' just fine,....and most of my big steamers. I may have to give up my 5 in-a-row driver steamers, but I won't let that bother me,...like many folks, I have too many engines (steam) anyway....ha...ha
Well, do what you gotta do, I guess.
So what about Greg's thing with the NMRA gauge, won't that tell you what you need?
I mean it doesn't actually measure what you need for a shim, but trying different thickness and then trying it with the gauge you eventially should get it right.
What about the guy with the video, in his native tongue, I could barely make out what he's saying, but it did sound like "10 thou" for the thickness? Didn't he?
railandsail Yes I had/have a big inventory of them, and I think the quality is good. they seemed to have found a pretty good design and stuck with it for a number of years. As I looked at Atlas when I was first getting back into collecting stuff for retirement I saw what I seem to remember at least 3-4 different types of turnout designs,...seems they could not adopt a single design.So I chose to go with Peco which had a pretty good reputation over the years. I'm NOT unhappy with my choice, and I do not want to spend gobs of money on changing over brands. A little tweaking of the Peco (shimming some guard rails) does not seem to be overbearing to me,...I just want to get it right before I place the turnouts in a difficult-to-get-to spot.I believe I can get most all my long cars (passenger & freight) to operate thru these 'compact turnouts' just fine,....and most of my big steamers. I may have to give up my 5 in-a-row driver steamers, but I won't let that bother me,...like many folks, I have too many engines (steam) anyway....ha...ha
First off, even though I'm not a fan of european style model track, PECO does have exceptional quality.
As illustrated by the information presented here, the main issue is that the original PECO Streamline product you have was designed for NEM wheels, not RP25 wheels.
And it was designed as "set track" with turnouts matching sectional track curves.
Atlas has gone thru an evolution of product improvement, BUT, the geometry of their product has stayed the same since the original Custom Line introduction, code 100 and code 83, starting in the late 50's?
Atlas has always been "close" to NMRA Standards and RPs, and followed North American prototype and model practice.
I don't know how long ago you bought your PECO track, but the current Atlas product is unchanged for about 25 years now. If you looked at Atlas back then, you would have seen both older and new product still in the market, but not in production. Each improvement replaced, but still interchanges with, the previous product.
And again, for clarity, the PECO code 83 product is nothing like the older code 100 product, PECO code 83 is actually very similar to Atlas in geometry.
DoughlessI don't know why someone would want to choose Peco code 100
One reason some of my clients choose PECO Code 75 (or Code 100) is that the components are more compact for the same track arrangement versus PECO Code 83 or Atlas Code 83/100. And for the lighter rail, in the case of the C75. For many of them, PECO C75/100 runs trouble-free without shims.
Layout Design GalleryLayout Design Special Interest Group
I believe that I just used 0.010 thick Evergreen strip. If you use plastic liquid cement, you need to make sure that the strip is held firmly against the guard rail until the cement sets. CA would probably work better.
maxman I believe that I just used 0.010 thick Evergreen strip. If you use plastic liquid cement, you need to make sure that the strip is held firmly against the guard rail until the cement sets. CA would probably work better.
As I mentioned above I liked my old Tenax7 adhesivehttp://cs.trains.com/mrr/f/88/t/260881.aspx?page=1
I was a Tenax user and I liked the way it flowed into the smallest gaps, and its speed of setiing up.I believe it would have served me well in my recent attemps to bond styrene strips int the guide rail gaps / flangeways on Peco turnouts. The stuff I used took too long to set up, allowing the styrene strip to soften ever so little with the resulting no-bonding of a portion of the strip due to its wedged toothpics losing their grip. I liked the old Tenax 7 and have NOT discovered a replacement,...but then I have been away from that portion of the hobby since it went out of business,....and my case of the stuff all evaporated without the bottles even being opened!
I was a Tenax user and I liked the way it flowed into the smallest gaps, and its speed of setiing up.I believe it would have served me well in my recent attemps to bond styrene strips int the guide rail gaps / flangeways on Peco turnouts. The stuff I used took too long to set up, allowing the styrene strip to soften ever so little with the resulting no-bonding of a portion of the strip due to its wedged toothpics losing their grip.
I liked the old Tenax 7 and have NOT discovered a replacement,...but then I have been away from that portion of the hobby since it went out of business,....and my case of the stuff all evaporated without the bottles even being opened!
How does one get the CA to flow like a thin liquid and only invade the spaces you want? Perhaps I need to study this CA subject in more detail, as I have just not been a big fan, having encounter a number of situations that have not lived up to expectations.
railandsailHow does one get the CA to flow like a thin liquid and only invade the spaces you want?
CA comes in various viscositys. You need to get the thin stuff.
And you can't just use it from the bottle. You have to put a small quantity of it on a disposable surface, and then use a small pointed object (like a straight pin) to apply it at the desired locations.
I made a couple of CA applicators that hold different amounts of CA.
One is a simple sewing needle stuck eye first into a wooden handle. It is great for tiny amounts of CA. It's just the same as using a pin but I find the handle makes it easier to hold.
I made the other one by grinding off the top of the eye of a needle and sticking the pointy end into a wooden handle. The remaining part of the eye forms a wye and it holds a bit more CA than the first one, but not so much that it flows everywhere. You can vary the amount that it will hold depending on how far down you grind the eye.
The wooden handles make the needles easy to handle, and when I put them down on the workbench they won't glue themselves to the cutting mat because the tip stays above the surface.
Thanks for those hints Dave. I'm going to give those a try.
Meantime I've order a few samples of the metal shim material in 2 sizes. I'm thinking that the really firm edge of the metal shim should preclude and idea of making the shim taller than the adjacent track which could interfere with track cleaning cars, etc.And with proper CA usage perhaps the metal shim could be 'winged out' on its ends rather than looped around the existing guard rail?...if better??
I'm pretty much convinced that I want to go the metal shim route. But I was not finding a ready made strip of metal at first. Finally I have found two candidates from K&S http://www.ksmetals.com/29.html 815020 & 815021 Both of these are 1/64” thick (.015”),...nice compromise between .010” & .020'. One is 1/16” (.0625”) tall which would make it slight proud if its bottom edge were sitting on the tie plates. The other is 3/32” (.093”) tall which I figure would be sitting on a slight slot cut into the plastic ties/tie plates with a hand held cut-off wheel rubbed back and forth.
I'm pretty much convinced that I want to go the metal shim route. But I was not finding a ready made strip of metal at first. Finally I have found two candidates from K&S http://www.ksmetals.com/29.html 815020 & 815021
Both of these are 1/64” thick (.015”),...nice compromise between .010” & .020'. One is 1/16” (.0625”) tall which would make it slight proud if its bottom edge were sitting on the tie plates. The other is 3/32” (.093”) tall which I figure would be sitting on a slight slot cut into the plastic ties/tie plates with a hand held cut-off wheel rubbed back and forth.
I got a sample of each of these strips in, and I'm convinced that the smaller one is the one to use,...the part# 815020....1/64" thick, 1/16" tall.
Upon reviewing again this subject of problems with derails in Peco turnouts, I'm now pretty satisfied that the large size/radius Pecos are not so venerable to this derail problem. BUT the mediums and certainly the smalls are, particularly with steam engines. So now I am pretty much convinced that I will have to shim many of my Pecos.
I likely may have to do my 3-ways? Does anyone have particular experience with these??
Looking at the photos, I wonder if copper tape would be worth a try to build those up. After a dab of paint, I would think it would be invisible.
Brent
"All of the world's problems are the result of the difference between how we think and how the world works."
Note sure what 'copper tape' is, but I suspect it is too thin to be viable.
I'm getting ready to do a little 'mass production' of the shimming of my Peco turnouts on my layout,...certainly most of the tighter radius ones that my steam engines may have to traverse,...and thus that are inaccessible in staging areas. Tighter radius I am defining as the Code 100 Peco smalls, mediums, small wyes.
I have decided to utilize .01" thick styrene material, and super glue it in place. I hope to find black styrene locally so I don't have to paint the ones on the upper decks.
As I reviewed a few of the discussions I had started on this subject of shimming, I discovered these 2 comments that I thought was very helpful,..
1) I believe that I just used 0.010 thick Evergreen strip. If you use plastic liquid cement, you need to make sure that the strip is held firmly against the guard rail until the cement sets. CA would probably work better. 2) I made a couple of CA applicators that hold different amounts of CA. One is a simple sewing needle stuck eye first into a wooden handle. It is great for tiny amounts of CA. It's just the same as using a pin but I find the handle makes it easier to hold. I made the other one by grinding off the top of the eye of a needle and sticking the pointy end into a wooden handle. The remaining part of the eye forms a wye and it holds a bit more CA than the first one, but not so much that it flows everywhere. You can vary the amount that it will hold depending on how far down you grind the eye. The wooden handles make the needles easy to handle, and when I put them down on the workbench they won't glue themselves to the cutting mat because the tip stays above the surface.
1) I believe that I just used 0.010 thick Evergreen strip. If you use plastic liquid cement, you need to make sure that the strip is held firmly against the guard rail until the cement sets. CA would probably work better.
2) I made a couple of CA applicators that hold different amounts of CA. One is a simple sewing needle stuck eye first into a wooden handle. It is great for tiny amounts of CA. It's just the same as using a pin but I find the handle makes it easier to hold.
Offered on another forum. Has anyone else experienced this solution??
Bend Guardrails Years ago when I built my Buffalo Line I used Peco code 100 curved turnouts in a few of my staging yards for the ladder. Discovered that when backing long trains into the tracks that cars would derail at the frogs. So I measured the gap between the guardrail discovered that it was a bit too wide so I then got a small length of styrene about .010 less than that measurement. Been so long ago I do not remember the sizes. Anyway I would put the piece of styrene in the gap then using a pair of square nose line mans pliers gently squeeze between the rail and guardrail as the plastic they use is fairly soft . When the styrene spacers is tight I stop and remove the piece and the guardrail is now closer to the rail with no white styrene shim to deal with. You don't have to move the entire guard rail just the section directly across from the point of frog. Have never broken a Peco doing this and 29 years later they are still in service with no derailments. Nice thing is this can be done easily when the turnout is in place and ballasted !
Years ago when I built my Buffalo Line I used Peco code 100 curved turnouts in a few of my staging yards for the ladder. Discovered that when backing long trains into the tracks that cars would derail at the frogs. So I measured the gap between the guardrail discovered that it was a bit too wide so I then got a small length of styrene about .010 less than that measurement. Been so long ago I do not remember the sizes. Anyway I would put the piece of styrene in the gap then using a pair of square nose line mans pliers gently squeeze between the rail and guardrail as the plastic they use is fairly soft . When the styrene spacers is tight I stop and remove the piece and the guardrail is now closer to the rail with no white styrene shim to deal with. You don't have to move the entire guard rail just the section directly across from the point of frog. Have never broken a Peco doing this and 29 years later they are still in service with no derailments. Nice thing is this can be done easily when the turnout is in place and ballasted !
I'm kind of leery of doing that on older plastic of older Pecos? Perhaps I should experiment??
I do have quite a number of curved (I call them double curved like Peco does) turnouts on my plan,..just worked out like that with a relatively small layout with lots of tracks. At first I thought I would not be using that many since the outer radius is something like 60 inches, but as I got into the full scale track planning mode, I grew to really appreciate their handiness. Being that both radi (60 & 30) were rather large I thought I might not need shims on them? Your posting has me second guessing,...
I have a bunch of Evergreen styrene . So I found out what fit tightly in a non modified Peco . Then subtracted .010 from that and that's what I used as a spacer when I bend the guardrail. The line mans pliers I use have a fairly wide square jaw end . You only need to move the guardrail about .010 and only the portion leading up to the point of frog and the point. I've done Peco's that have been in place for over ten years and have yet to have a failure.
Bending Experiments
Over the past few days I've been looking at this 'bending the guard rail' idea, and thus far I am not that enamored with the idea. Certainly it would save a lot of time, but I've run into a few problems.
Spacer Piece: First off I though it would be wise to find a good solid piece (metal) to place between the track and the guard rail such that I didn't over-bend the guard rail. I found in my closest approximation that the stock gap is about .050". I happen to have a nice piece of tough steel plate that measures about .030" thick. Using this plate thickness would leave me with a .030" gap which II felt was just right considering that I had done previous experiment with .010" and .020" shims into that .050" gap,....equals .040" or .030" gap on finished turnout.
I had a number of different sets of pliers, including several sets of line-man pliers, and I had an older screwed up turnout to experiment on. I started off squeezing the guard rail with one face of the pliers and the metal rail itself with the other. First off I needed to lightly round off the very sharp edges of one squeezing face of the pliers as they would dig into the relatively soft plastic of the guide rail. Sgueezing directly against the metal rail did NOT appear to be any problem with dislodging the rail, nor marring it up. But even with the smooth face (no 'teeth' in that direct gripping area of my pliers), I still marred up the plastic guard rail (admittedly it was the outer surface of my flangeway), but is still was a little unsightly.
I subsequently discovered that I was NOT getting my flangeway slot down to the dimension of my spacer piece (.030"), but rather to only about .040". What might be the problem? I thought perhaps like a lot of bending exercises it need to be over-bent slightly to end up with my desired slot dimension. I subsequently inserted a slightly thinner piece of metal and achieved that goal,...but it was not a nice smooth looking guard rail any longer, and it had actually peaked up in a few spots that would need filing down.
I was (am) getting discouraged with this ideal and went back looking at the metal shim idea. While this looks really slick, it not as easy as it looks to get a good firm (non-glued) fit. https://youtu.be/tNQSIiZ5ob4 ..and the metal shim is not readily 'trimmable' like the plastic shims.
I believe I may return to some plastic shim experiments,...wish Evergreen made black plastic strips.
These are the locos I have chosen to run my guard rail shimming test with.
the test Loco lineup:
1) 4-8-2, IHC, C&O Mountain (made in Solvenia). Has a very very mild case of cookie cutter wheels. I have quite a number of these locos as they run very well, they were relatively cheap, etc
2) 4-8-2, Bachmann, C&O Mountain. Has modern small flange wheels.
3) 4-8-4, Bachmann, Northern Santa Fe, I have 3 of these but was not able to get them operational for this test
4) 4-8-4, Broadway Ltd, Northern Santa Fe,
5) 2-10-4 BLI ,T-10, C&O Blueline model
6) 2-10-4 BLI, T-10, C&O paragon 3 model
7) Number of long articulated locos, but did not test these as they likely wouldn't have problems because of their articulation.