Suitability of Peco switches for 'HO' stock

[jonte]

Hi.

I'm a newbie who's in the early stages of building a small switching layout.

I'm using Peco Code 75 track as I had some already - intended for an unfinished 'OO' gauge (UK) layout.

I'm experiencing problems with stock crossing a 'crossover' arrangement I've constructed on a runround loop - the wheels are 'stalling' in the gap between the nose of the crossing 'vee' and wing rail which is especially noticeable at extremely low speeds - essential for switching layouts which I'm sure you'll agree - and in one case, the wheels of a box car are striking the crossing nose (which I think I can sort after some advice from a kind contributor on another forum).

Incidentally, the 'stalling' referred to in my previous paragraph is reminiscent of a ball bearing dropping into a hole in one of those children's toys that you used to get years ago where the challenge was to try and locate four, five or even six ballbearings into their respective holes in a glass/perspex covered board by tipping it from side to side - perhaps you're not familiar with them in North America but they were rather popular here in the UK (I'll try and stop waffling on now ).

The purpose of my post is not to try and iron out each of the issues raised (although all contributions most welcome ), but just to ask, generally, whether Peco is suitable for HO scale or whether I'd be better off plumping for another make (provided of course I can get hold of it in the UK ).

Perhaps I'm being a little too picky here (my wife says she can't see the problem ), however, I seem to have developed an aversion to stock rattling and rolling over crossings.
It just seems to ruin the whole atmosphere.

Don't want to get too far ahead of myself here, but can anybody tell me whether Proto 87 solves this problem?

Provided I muster the courage to cut up a brand new switch in the first place (drop in type) and develop sufficient skill to do so, I would consider it worth the extra hassle and expense if the outcome meant dispensing with the 'shake,rattle and roll' :?

Thanks for looking in and all contributions gratefully received.

Jonte

[MasonJar]

Peco switches are among the best. Highly recommended by my modular club for use on the main and in yards.

I think the problem you are having is the compatibility between Code 75 and your wheels. Code 83 or the standard code 100 are forgiving of most wheels.

Your stalling issue sounds like the flange is lifting the tread off the top of the rail, breaking the electrical continuity.

If that's the case, code 83 or 100 might be a better bet, or you'll have to look to your wheels.

Proto:87 standards will not solve your problem per se, unless you apply it to both trackwork and wheels/trucks on rolling stock and locos. Applying it to just trackwork will likely make your current situation worse.

Hope that helps.

Andrew

[dave_long]

Jon
I think you mean that the wheel drops down in the gap in the frog right? If this is happening your unlucky there is the issue with using large flanged wheels. Have a look at http://00-sf.webs.com/ I built to this a while back it explains what and why.

Dave

[shortliner]

Jonte - Contact Squires 01234 842424 - You need 1/6th" x .005" phosphor bronze strip 10 of 6" strips per pack code is S1220. Strips need cutting to length (You may need to adjust the depth with code 75 track, but they are fine with code 100) and forming around the guard rails on the turnouts between the guard rail and the running rail -Probably on the curving sides only, but you can do both. Squeeze then with fine nozed pliers so that they fit tightly and use CA to fix in position when you have them adjusted properly - They just force the wheels to move over a tadje furher, and should solve the problem - you could add a strip oh .005 plasticard in the bottom of the frog - NB plasticard will prevent shorting- It is particularly noticeable using Setrack turnouts and cures it instantly. NB Squires may have a minimum order charge
Best
Jack

[jonte]

Peco switches are among the best. Highly recommended by my modular club for use on the main and in yards.

I think the problem you are having is the compatibility between Code 75 and your wheels. Code 83 or the standard code 100 are forgiving of most wheels.

Your stalling issue sounds like the flange is lifting the tread off the top of the rail, breaking the electrical continuity.

If that's the case, code 83 or 100 might be a better bet, or you'll have to look to your wheels.

Proto:87 standards will not solve your problem per se, unless you apply it to both trackwork and wheels/trucks on rolling stock and locos. Applying it to just trackwork will likely make your current situation worse.

Hope that helps.

Andrew

Hi Andrew and thanks for replying to my query. I can see the sense in the coarser Codes 83 and 100 respectively. Only thing that strikes me is that the American market supplies Code 70 rail for HO so I wonder if there are problems there as well with RP25 wheels (I'm using Bachmann Premier at present).

With regards to P87, yes I'd have to change the wheel sets of ALL stock hence my use of the word 'expense' - no steam engines thankfully but with a small switching layout I wouldn't require much in the way of stock. Incidentally, I've noticed that the Proto 87 shop sells 'Superfine' HO turnouts (some RTR for a premium) althought the kits appear pretty straightforward.

As I say, Andrew, I'll try anything to improve running.

Regards,

Jonte

[jonte]

Jon
I think you mean that the wheel drops down in the gap in the frog right? If this is happening your unlucky there is the issue with using large flanged wheels. Have a look at http://00-sf.webs.com/ I built to this a while back it explains what and why.

Dave

Got it in one , Dave, that's right.

Thanks for the prompt. Plenty of food for thought here - just got to sort it out as its driving me to desperation

Jon

[jonte]

Jonte - Contact Squires 01234 842424 - You need 1/6th" x .005" phosphor bronze strip 10 of 6" strips per pack code is S1220. Strips need cutting to length (You may need to adjust the depth with code 75 track, but they are fine with code 100) and forming around the guard rails on the turnouts between the guard rail and the running rail -Probably on the curving sides only, but you can do both. Squeeze then with fine nozed pliers so that they fit tightly and use CA to fix in position when you have them adjusted properly - They just force the wheels to move over a tadje furher, and should solve the problem - you could add a strip oh .005 plasticard in the bottom of the frog - NB plasticard will prevent shorting- It is particularly noticeable using Setrack turnouts and cures it instantly. NB Squires may have a minimum order charge
Best
Jack

Hi Jack.

That's really helpful. Beast 666 wrote that WFRM had experienced similar problems on Widnes and thet they had solved the problem using the very method you've described bujt with plasticard. I wrote and asked what grade of card he'd used but I'm still awaiting a reply as I believe he's away this week so your post is most helpful.
Thank you and best wishes,

Jonte

[shortliner]

TBH I would have used plasticard, but I found it easier to bend the PB strip so that it matched the shape and the bit that was bent around the end of the guard rail actually gripped it and more or less held it in position while I was adjusting them

[jonte]

TBH I would have used plasticard, but I found it easier to bend the PB strip so that it matched the shape and the bit that was bent around the end of the guard rail actually gripped it and more or less held it in position while I was adjusting them

A sound idea, Jack.

Thanks.

[jonte]

Dear All

Reading another, earlier post on here, I discovered that the Peco Code 83 range is probably more suited to railroading having been engineered to NMRA standards.

However, I think its probably a little too coarse for a switch layout?

Your thoughts appreciated.

Jonte.

[jonte]

Jon
I think you mean that the wheel drops down in the gap in the frog right? If this is happening your unlucky there is the issue with using large flanged wheels. Have a look at http://00-sf.webs.com/ I built to this a while back it explains what and why.

Dave

In your opinion, Dave, would the RP25 wheels of HO conform to these standards?

If so, I shall give serious consideration to purchasing the gauges (Ihave quite a bit of C&L Code 75 left over to make a test point . On the topic of scratchbuilding, what method did you use for ensuring a smooth ride at the points where the switch rails nestled against the stock rails e.g. use of a joggle or gauge widening of the stock rails at these points?

Jonte

[dave_long]

Jonte have a look at Harrington its on here and rmweb that's built with Pecos code 83. Its good for modern spurs and where there will be heavy traffic.

Regarding SF goto rmweb and look at eastwood town that uses fully soldered sf turnouts. I used a mix of plastic sleepers and pcb board.

[jonte]

Jonte have a look at Harrington its on here and rmweb that's built with Pecos code 83. Its good for modern spurs and where there will be heavy traffic.

Regarding SF goto rmweb and look at eastwood town that uses fully soldered sf turnouts. I used a mix of plastic sleepers and pcb board.

Thanks for the info, Dave.

Jonte

[MasonJar]

Dear All

Reading another, earlier post on here, I discovered that the Peco Code 83 range is probably more suited to railroading having been engineered to NMRA standards.

However, I think its probably a little too coarse for a switch layout?

Your thoughts appreciated.

Jonte.

Jonte,

From my point of view, you've answered your own question. If this is to be an operational switching layout (which I assume it is) functionality in trackwork will come before appearance. With the Peco Code 83 North American style, the appearance only suffers a little. But trying to create a reliably running switching layout to Proto:87 (for example) will be much more of a challenge - not impossible, but requiring more emphasis on trackwork and rolling stock than you might care to commit to.

Andrew

[jonte]

/quote]

Jonte,

From my point of view, you've answered your own question. If this is to be an operational switching layout (which I assume it is) functionality in trackwork will come before appearance. With the Peco Code 83 North American style, the appearance only suffers a little. But trying to create a reliably running switching layout to Proto:87 (for example) will be much more of a challenge - not impossible, but requiring more emphasis on trackwork and rolling stock than you might care to commit to.

Andrew[/quote]


Wise words indeed Andrew.

Thank you.

Jonte