Peco Streamline track geometry

[Mark Thornton]

So far my layout has been constructed using Hornby points. I want to
extend it using Peco code 100 stream line points (and flexible track).
Can someone tell me what the track spacing would be if two Peco
streamline (left hand) points were arranged to form a crossing between
parallel track? As far as I can deduce from the information in the Peco
catalogue, this should come out at about 52mm. Given this and the length
and angle information in the catalogue, I should be able to draw the
points accurately.

Mark Thornton

[Bob Heath]

Peco produce a sheet of all the points in full size. Purchase a sheet and
photocopy the points you require and then use them as templates on the
layout to see how things look.
I bought mine from WWW.Sherwoodmodels.co.uk in Nottingham for a few pence.

Bob

Post by Mark Thornton
So far my layout has been constructed using Hornby points. I want to
extend it using Peco code 100 stream line points (and flexible track). Can
someone tell me what the track spacing would be if two Peco streamline
(left hand) points were arranged to form a crossing between parallel
track? As far as I can deduce from the information in the Peco catalogue,
this should come out at about 52mm. Given this and the length and angle
information in the catalogue, I should be able to draw the points
accurately.
Mark Thornton

[Mark Thornton]

Post by Bob Heath
Peco produce a sheet of all the points in full size. Purchase a sheet and
photocopy the points you require and then use them as templates on the
layout to see how things look.
I bought mine from WWW.Sherwoodmodels.co.uk in Nottingham for a few pence.

Peco will send them in return for a large SAE and a label from the
flexible track. I hadn't managed to find a label when I posted the
query, and in these days of the internet the post always seems a trifle
slow (especially at this time of year).

Mark Thornton

[Martin Wynne]

Hi Mark,

Post by Mark Thornton
Can someone tell me what the track spacing would be if
two Peco streamline (left hand) turnouts were arranged
to form a crossover between parallel tracks?

If you use metal rail joiners, the spacing is 2" (50.8mm).
With insulated joiners, slightly more - say 51.5mm.

Post by Mark Thornton
Given this and the length and angle information,
I should be able to draw the points accurately.

The short Y-turnout and short diamond-crossing are 24 degrees.
All others have an EXIT angle of 12 degrees. (This is not the
same as the crossing (frog) angle, which varies between the
different turnout sizes.) The above information bears no
resemblance to any known prototype track.

There is a free demo version of 3rd PlanIt software from
http://www.trackplanning.com which includes full Peco template
libraries which can be printed out.

If you plan to build your own track, there are also some
Peco template files for my Templot software available for
downloading:

http://templot.info/files/index.php?action=view&view=category&catid=24

regards,

Martin.
----------
email: ***@templot.com
web: http://www.templot.com
----------
Say no to ID cards and the database state: http://www.NO2ID.net

[Mark Thornton]

Post by Martin Wynne
If you use metal rail joiners, the spacing is 2" (50.8mm).
With insulated joiners, slightly more - say 51.5mm.

Thanks very much.

Post by Martin Wynne
different turnout sizes.) The above information bears no
resemblance to any known prototype track.

The likely audience isn't that discerning (yet). My children are only 5
and 8.

Post by Martin Wynne
There is a free demo version of 3rd PlanIt software from
http://www.trackplanning.com which includes full Peco template
libraries which can be printed out.

I downloaded that as well as the demo versions of WinRail and XTrkCad.
I'm not very impressed with any of them. They each have what seems to me
to be a very quirky user interface.

Mark Thornton

[Wolf Kirchmeir]

[...]

Post by Mark Thornton

Post by Martin Wynne
There is a free demo version of 3rd PlanIt software from
http://www.trackplanning.com which includes full Peco template
libraries which can be printed out.

I downloaded that as well as the demo versions of WinRail and XTrkCad.
I'm not very impressed with any of them. They each have what seems to me
to be a very quirky user interface.
Mark Thornton

That's a problem with all CAD programs, whether tuned for a specific
project or not. Fact is, if you can't at least sketch a scale plan with
ruler, triangle, and compass, you will find computer-assisted drafting
programs "quirky", no matter what. Ever try Autocad, for example? :-) A
CAD program is a computer _assisted_ drawing rpogram -it simplifies some
aspects of drafting, and reduces the odds of making some kinds of
errors, but otherwise using one to make drawings is a complex a skill as
the old-fashioned way, by hand.

I've tried at least half a dozen (real) CAD programs for various
platforms and of various degrees of sophistication. The only thing they
had in common was the drawing model: to make a drawing, you assemble
lines and curves and other objects. This is not the way most people draw
something, whether they use ruler and compass or just sketch free-hand.
The programs you mention are attempts to specialise the CAD model for
trackplanning, is all.

I agree that WinRail and XtrakCad are "quirky" - but I bet their
designers can produce a track plan from your sketch in no time flat.
It's just what you're used to. :-)

[Martin Wynne]

Hi Wolf,

Post by Wolf Kirchmeir
That's a problem with all CAD programs
...
The only thing they had in common was the drawing
model: to make a drawing, you assemble lines and
curves and other objects.

That's not the way Templot works, it does all that for
you and is nothing like CAD. In fact it is not a drawing
package at all.

Experienced CAD users nearly always stumble when they
try Templot, but *modellers* don't. The user interface
mimics the laying out of printed paper templates on
a baseboard - something all track builders can identify
with. The difference is that Templot gives you an infinite
number of different templates to play with.

If CAD is a mystery to you - try Templot instead!

But if you know about CAD, prepare to be mystified!

http://www.templot.com

p.s. sorry, no, there isn't a free demo. But there are
over 400 step-by-step screenshots in the tutorials
section of the web site.

regards,

Martin.
----------
email: ***@templot.com
web: http://www.templot.com
----------
Say no to ID cards and the database state: http://www.NO2ID.net

[Bruce Fletcher]

Post by Martin Wynne
Hi Wolf,

Post by Wolf Kirchmeir
That's a problem with all CAD programs
...
The only thing they had in common was the drawing
model: to make a drawing, you assemble lines and
curves and other objects.

That's not the way Templot works, it does all that for
you and is nothing like CAD. In fact it is not a drawing
package at all.
Experienced CAD users nearly always stumble when they
try Templot, but *modellers* don't. The user interface
mimics the laying out of printed paper templates on
a baseboard - something all track builders can identify
with. The difference is that Templot gives you an infinite
number of different templates to play with.

I bought Templot about a year ago. The initial learning curve is very
steep and some concepts appear quirky at first glance. But the results
are great.

[Wolf Kirchmeir]

Post by Martin Wynne
Hi Wolf,

[...]

Post by Martin Wynne
p.s. sorry, no, there isn't a free demo. But there are
over 400 step-by-step screenshots in the tutorials
section of the web site.
regards,
Martin.
----------
web: http://www.templot.com
----------
Say no to ID cards and the database state: http://www.NO2ID.net

Sorry, if I can't try before I buy, I don't buy.

[Martin Wynne]

Hi Wolf,

Post by Wolf Kirchmeir
Sorry, if I can't try before I buy, I don't buy.

Your choice.

Do you apply that rule to CDs, DVDs, Microsoft software?

regards,

Martin.
----------
email: ***@templot.com web: http://www.templot.com
----------
Say no to ID cards and the database state: http://www.NO2ID.net

[Wolf Kirchmeir]

Post by Martin Wynne
Hi Wolf,

Post by Wolf Kirchmeir
Sorry, if I can't try before I buy, I don't buy.

Your choice.
Do you apply that rule to CDs, DVDs, Microsoft software?

CDs: I buy in terms of the music and/or performer, which I know about
before I buy.

DVDs - there are very, very few movies I want to see more than once.
I've bought an unseen movies maybe three times in my life - from a
used-tape dealer's remainder bin, at about the price of a blank tape. :-)

MS Software - you're kidding, right?

[Mark Thornton]

Post by Wolf Kirchmeir
[...]

Post by Mark Thornton

Post by Martin Wynne
There is a free demo version of 3rd PlanIt software from
http://www.trackplanning.com which includes full Peco template
libraries which can be printed out.

I downloaded that as well as the demo versions of WinRail and XTrkCad.
I'm not very impressed with any of them. They each have what seems to
me to be a very quirky user interface.
Mark Thornton

That's a problem with all CAD programs, whether tuned for a specific
project or not. Fact is, if you can't at least sketch a scale plan with
ruler, triangle, and compass, you will find computer-assisted drafting
programs "quirky", no matter what. Ever try Autocad, for example? :-) A

I don't think that suffices to explain the quirks. Things like the
choice of what points on an object should snap to a grid for example
(especially if the object has been rotated). When you drag an object to
a new position, the object shouldn't instantly move by a large amount as
soon as the dragging starts rather it should maintain the same relative
position to the mouse pointer as when the drag started.

If using pencil and paper, suppose I have a left and a right turnout on
two parallel tracks with turns going inward. Now I want a Y positioned
at the place where the tangents from those turnouts intersect, and then
want the correct amount of straight track added. This is trivial with a
pencil and ruler. OK perhaps the problem is that this is how
mathematicians draw (I have a PhD in maths and have spent the past 25
years in software).

Post by Wolf Kirchmeir
I agree that WinRail and XtrakCad are "quirky" - but I bet their
designers can produce a track plan from your sketch in no time flat.
It's just what you're used to. :-)

I don't doubt that.

Mark Thornton

[Wolf Kirchmeir]

Mark Thornton wrote:
[...]

Post by Mark Thornton
If using pencil and paper, suppose I have a left and a right turnout on
two parallel tracks with turns going inward. Now I want a Y positioned
at the place where the tangents from those turnouts intersect, and then
want the correct amount of straight track added. This is trivial with a
pencil and ruler. OK perhaps the problem is that this is how
mathematicians draw (I have a PhD in maths and have spent the past 25
years in software).

Well, your comment supports a conclusion I arrived at quite a while ago:
if you can sketch a scale plan with paper and pencil, you don't need a
track planning program. You can draw a couple dozen plans by hand in the
time it takes to master the program. A track planning program may be
useful for (semi-)professional layout designers, or for a club
contemplating a large layout, and will ceratinly give pleasure to people
for whom layout design is a hobby in itself. But I wouldn't recommend
them for most modellers, especially anyone who thinks such a program
will simplify the planning process or will make up for a lack of dafting
skills. It won't.

As for Templot: I've looked over the website, and while the program
undoubtedly produces beautiful templates (lovely screen shots, Martin!),
I don't see any advantage over the the method I've used: build the
turnouts in place as you need them. Just use a larger minimum radius for
turnout location to prevent too tight closure radii. Eg, for a roughly
#4 turnout, use a 30" radius. Draw a tangent at #4 angle to the curve,
that gives you the approximate location of the frog, measure back for
the points. File point locations on the two stock rails and spike them
in place, setting them at 2x gauge at the marked frog loaction. Then
build frogs in place, add curved closure rails (with wing rails
included) and guard rails. Insert the point-rail assembly. If necessary
(eg at crossovers), cut electrical gaps. Done. The slow part is filing
and fitting the point rails. :-)

[Martin Wynne]

Hi Wolf,

As for Templot, the program undoubtedly produces
beautiful templates (lovely screen shots, Martin!)

Thanks for the kind words.

... I don't see any advantage over the the method
I've used ... Eg, for a roughly #4 turnout, use a
30" radius ... Draw a tangent ... that gives you
the approximate location of the frog ...
Done.

And the prototype is?

And you can do that on a curve, or on a transition curve, or
to create a curved crossover?

And correctly set the switch deflection angle, blunt nose,
check rails, timbers and rail-joint positions?

It's your choice not to use accurate construction templates
of course, but daft to say that they don't offer any advantage.

It's a constant mystery to me that folk will bang on about
some tiny discrepancy on a locomotive - but then happily run
it over track which they made up as they went along, without
any reference to the prototype at all!

regards,

Martin.
----------
email: ***@templot.com web: http://www.templot.com
----------
Say no to ID cards and the database state: http://www.NO2ID.net

[Wolf Kirchmeir]

Post by Martin Wynne
Hi Wolf,

As for Templot, the program undoubtedly produces
beautiful templates (lovely screen shots, Martin!)

Thanks for the kind words.

... I don't see any advantage over the the method
I've used ... Eg, for a roughly #4 turnout, use a
30" radius ... Draw a tangent ... that gives you
the approximate location of the frog ...
Done.

And the prototype is?

North American standard practice.

Post by Martin Wynne
And you can do that on a curve, or on a transition curve, or
to create a curved crossover?

Sure, no problem. All it takes is two or three three-point gauges, an
NMRA gauge, and frequent sighting along the rails before you spike 'em
down or solder them in place. Plus a six-wheel truck (bogie) just for
the fun of flicking it with your finger and seeing it eel its way
through the trackwork. :-).

Post by Martin Wynne
And correctly set the switch deflection angle, blunt nose,
check rails, timbers and rail-joint positions?

North American standard practice. NMRA data sheets provide the basic
data. BTW, if you build the points minimum length or greater, the switch
deflection angle will be within acceptable limits automatically.

Post by Martin Wynne
It's your choice not to use accurate construction templates
of course, but daft to say that they don't offer any advantage.

Well, an advantage for the nit-picking rivet counter crouching down with
his nose an inch from the track maybe, but not for me. All I care about
is smoothly flowing trackwork, and reliable operation. Don't need
templates for that. :-) The single most effective creator of prototype
illusion is the flangeway - keep flangeways as narrow as possible
consistent with our over-scale wheel standards, and the turnout will
look very, very nice at normal viewing distances of about 200-300 scale
feet and up.

Post by Martin Wynne
It's a constant mystery to me that folk will bang on about
some tiny discrepancy on a locomotive - but then happily run
it over track which they made up as they went along, without
any reference to the prototype at all!

To each his own. :-)

BTW, I have a CNR road foreman's handbook, which lists the hardware
needed for turnouts from #4 to #30 in 1/2 number increments. That's a
lot of data. :-) A bit of trivia that may be of interest: The maximum
speed at which a train could go down the diverging branch of a turnout
was reckoned at roughly twice the frog number, so a turnout with a #30
frog could be traversed at 60 mph.)

One thing I'd like is a set of nicely done plastic (not metal) rail
braces (the kind kind that go outside the rail opposite the
switchpoints) and other turnout hardware.

If I wanted to enter some trackwork in a model contest, I'd certainly
follow some specific railroad's practices as accurately as possible -
make fake railjoiners (fishplates), rail braces, and all, too. I just
don't feel very competitive these days. :-)

Post by Martin Wynne
regards,
Martin.

Happy New Year!