Old & New Peco Streamline track & points.

[melmerby]

Hi all

I have just started building a shelf layout, using (mainly) the code 100 track I had used for a loft layout, 4 houses ago!

There is plenty of recovered track & points in what appeared to be good condition. (they are about 50 years old.)

It has been stored in the dry in cardboard boxes with the 36" lengths in bundles of 10.

 

The first thing I noticed is that with some of the yard lengths the plastic has gone very brittle , meaning any twisting or bending results in sleepers and chairs breaking.

Note this is not universal as two lengths taped together can be different, one is good for re-use and the other is just scrap

Also some are good one end and brittle the other.

Is this common?

 

The other thing I have noticed is that the geometry of the points has changed slightly.

I am using all short radius and a couple of new code 100 three ways.

Overlaying an old point over a new one, just bought, shows the new one to be longer by maybe 8mm, this means using an old point and a new one together doesn't give the correct 2" track spacing, meaning some bodging to get things to fit!

Edited July 7 by melmerby

[5BarVT]

You may also notice that the 50 yr olds have wider tolerances on the wing rail gaps.  Not sure what that does for modern ‘more scale’ wheel sets.

My 90s ‘standard’ peco was more like 70s ‘finescale’.

Paul.

[DCB]

The track base crumbles if exposed to UV light.    My garden line sleepers crumble, same track in the darkened shed is perfect after 40 years   I slide off broken sleepers and slide on replacements sourced from offcuts of track.  Just file the rialends smooth before sliding sleepers on or off.

The Streamline code 100 points did evolve over time.     I have many different versions, generally the older ones are neater and the newer ones more  robust and cheaper to manufacture.  There were some truly awful ones from circa 2000 with plastic springs and no contact tags which I bought new and replaced with second hand equivalents.  (They are fine as non isolating DCC modified with Tortoise slow action point motors but useless to me)   On the earliest I have the base is in two parts with the toe clipping in and having a moulded in  spring mounting.   Later ones had a separate spring mounting  held by a steel clip.  Early ones are  shorter  as they lack  2 sleepers at the toe and  8mm or so straight  rail at the toe, early ones  flow more nicely  when curved road leads to curved road, later ones are more robust.   The Peco 60 plans for small Railways are the early geometry mainly and so need more space or some judicious point pruning.  In any case for single track railways pruning the points for 45mm instead of 52mm track spacing saves length and looks better. Doesn't work with double track if you run Kings and HSTs  on  sub 2ft 6" curves.

[melmerby]

On 08/07/2024 at 10:11, 5BarVT said:

You may also notice that the 50 yr olds have wider tolerances on the wing rail gaps.

Yes, will put some slivers of  plastic if it proves a problem

17 hours ago, DCB said:

The track base crumbles if exposed to UV light.

Never had any UV light, unless it is from  fluorescents

Edited July 9 by melmerby

[melmerby]

I've checked the geometry of the new code 100 points and using them with the SLE99 3 way still does not provide the correct geometry.

Both the "medium radius" 3 way and the "short" radius points are specified as 610 mm radius and 12°  frog angle

 

The 3 way seems to be too short on the curved routes compared to a normal point, so I have had to bodge it a bit.

It's not too important as it's in a sort of fiddle yard.

[DCB]

2 hours ago, melmerby said:

I've checked the geometry of the new code 100 points and using them with the SLE99 3 way still does not provide the correct geometry.

Both the "medium radius" 3 way and the "short" radius points are specified as 610 mm radius and 12°  frog angle

 

The 3 way seems to be too short on the curved routes compared to a normal point, so I have had to bodge it a bit.

It's not too important as it's in a sort of fiddle yard.

I always thought the non asymmetric 3 way was the same length as the Medium radius and same radius as the small the difference being extra straight bit at the toe to take the extra tie bar  My 3 way definitely seems a lot more derailment prone than a Medium.

My boxed Streamline from 1990 ish is still just about perfect, you scared me into digging it out.  I always use recovered track in preference to new as the  new is so much easier to store!   I think I paid £75 for 3 X 25 yard boxes, seemed like a fortune at the time.    I also bought some Steel code 100 GT track  Absobloodylutely useless, Fouls the same flanges as Peco code 75, ends are rough cut and have to be filed or they wreck flanges and the plastic is brittle from new  even without UV  Absolute rubbish.  I would be ashamed to give the stuff away

[kevinlms]

6 hours ago, melmerby said:

I've checked the geometry of the new code 100 points and using them with the SLE99 3 way still does not provide the correct geometry.

Both the "medium radius" 3 way and the "short" radius points are specified as 610 mm radius and 12°  frog angle

 

The 3 way seems to be too short on the curved routes compared to a normal point, so I have had to bodge it a bit.

It's not too important as it's in a sort of fiddle yard.

The 3 way and single/double slip don't conform to the 'rules' of the other point radii. They are a compromise to fit within the length of standard points and so are sharper radius.

[melmerby]

10 hours ago, kevinlms said:

The 3 way and single/double slip don't conform to the 'rules' of the other point radii. They are a compromise to fit within the length of standard points and so are sharper radius.

So Peco's published specification is wrong?

[DCB]

10 hours ago, kevinlms said:

The 3 way and single/double slip don't conform to the 'rules' of the other point radii. They are a compromise to fit within the length of standard points and so are sharper radius.

I think the non asymmetric 3 way is non standard in that it has  the length of  the 3ft (Medium)  radius point but its minimum radius is 2ft  and its not quite symmetrical. in the way the outer roads curve away.    The slip is 2ft radius on a similar length to the 5ft Large radius point.   Is that what you are saying @kevinlms  I used to know the dimensions or the 1/12th scale dimensions off be heart when I designed my layouts on an A3 or A4 pad with a pen ruler and compass at a scale of 1"to 1 ft.       
I am not a great believer in spec sheets ,  The minimum radius through a set track left or right standard point is a lot less than 17.5"   second radius, but spec sheets usually claim its 2nd radius  It is overall, fits the same space as a 2nd Radius curve but has a straight bit on the end which means the middle through the blades has has to be sharper to compensate.     Its that straight bit which has grow longer and changed the dimensions of code 100 streamline over the past 60 odd year

[melmerby]

Sorting through my code 100 track, I discovered seven lengths of Graham Farish Formoway.

One has gone brittle like some Peco track, the other six seem OK.

 

None of this track has been exposed to sunlight, I was used on a loft layout where I had some fluorescents but they were not on for long periods

The track was OK some years ago when I inspected it and has been in thick cardboard boxes which themselves were out of the sun.

Edited July 11 by melmerby

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

1 hour ago, melmerby said:

None of this track has been exposed to sunlight, I was used on a loft layout where I had some fluorescents but they were not on for long periods

If it was anything like 'lofts I have known', there will have prolonged high temperatures in summer. Further factors to consider, components of other polymers used in construction and insulation, fluxes used in pipe soldering. In a long ago shared rented house I found a railway layout on the loft flooring, which was some sort of chipboard with a plastic top. The Peco track base was melting in various locations, don't know why. (I salvaged the rail for soldered track construction, the landlord hadn't even known it was there; not too surprising considering the general state of this very low rent accomodation.)

[kevinlms]

On 10/07/2024 at 22:43, melmerby said:

So Peco's published specification is wrong?

Depends what you mean by specification. The overall length is correct, but what fits within the frogs to point blades varies. AFAIA Peco have never given that dimension or detailed specifications, so what's published, isn't exactly wrong.

 

The closest I've seen to a listing is this one and note it says NOMINAL radius and not the actual radius. It also needs updating to cover new types.

 

https://caldernorthern.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/pecoturnoutdimensions.pdf

[tynewydd]

You can ask the Technical Bureau at Peco if you have further questions on the geometry. When I did this a few years ago to gain data for improving the templates in XtrkCAD, they explained that the radius dimensions they usually share online are not literally true because the curved parts are compound curves - easing the diverging rails. They then kindly gave me measurements they had taken from the molds of the ends. 

[melmerby]

17 minutes ago, tynewydd said:

You can ask the Technical Bureau at Peco if you have further questions on the geometry. When I did this a few years ago to gain data for improving the templates in XtrkCAD, they explained that the radius dimensions they usually share online are not literally true because the curved parts are compound curves - easing the diverging rails. They then kindly gave me measurements they had taken from the molds of the ends. 

The thing that has changed is the whole point. By improving the design over the years they have ended up with different measurements.

e.g. a SL91 now isn't the same as a SL91 40 or 50 years ago.

They have been completely redesigned meaning the new point is longer than the old one and mixing them messes up the geometry.

 

I've got a load of old, perfectly good points but have had to buy a couple of new ones to get the track layout I want.

That's when I found mix & match old & new can cause problems.

 

Back to the SL99 3 way, that doesn't meet the standard geometry at all, meaning a SL99 + SL91 doesn't give the correct 50.8mm track centres.

 

[Free At Last]

1 hour ago, melmerby said:

Back to the SL99 3 way, that doesn't meet the standard geometry at all, meaning a SL99 + SL91 doesn't give the correct 50.8mm track centres.

 

I messaged Peco back in 2017 regarding this. I was joining two slips together but the track centres wouldn't match with the standard turnouts. I had to file a lot of rail and also remove a sleeper.

I asked why they didn't fit their track gauge and sent them pictures, this was their reply.

 

Quote

I see what you mean! If there was a reason for this, it is now lost in the depths of history. Unfortunately it looks like your only options are to continue shortening the rails as you are, or to live with the one or two millimetre discrepancy. When the double/single slip comes up for re-tooling we'll try and correct this.

 

Edited July 17 by Free At Last

[Bittern]

On 12/07/2024 at 04:19, 34theletterbetweenB&D said:

Further factors to consider, components of other polymers used in construction and insulation, fluxes used in pipe soldering

That can be a problem in poorly ventilated conditions even if they're not in contact - I've had plastic components crumble within 18 months when stored in a watertight electronics box. I am now rather  cautious about putting dissimilar plastics in close contact or in an enclosure unless I am very confident  they are compatible or someone will keep an eye on the parts