Based on John Allen's Timesaver

Having built the ScaleModelScenery baseboard, I've started loosly laying out some track, just to get and idea of what the plank layout will look like.

I'm hoping that the right hand side smaller board will eventually be some sort of fiddle yard.



 


I'v bought both Hornby and Peco points to try both types out, and the first thing I've noticed with the Hornby ones is that they have a rather large plastic frog, which may or may not be a problem in the future.

I started to remove some of the webbing underneath to attach droppers, and may remove more to bond the stock rails and the closure rails.

I've hit a bit of a problem, as Peco rail joiners don't fit Hornby TT track.

After a bit of research, this appears to be a known problem and is due to the Hornby TT rail profile.

As I am going to need to use Peco  flexitrack for my layout plan and I also have some Peco points I'm going to need Hornby TT rail joiners as they fit both Hornby and Peco track, but nobody has any in stock.

There  are threads on both RMweb and the Hornby forums about this and it appears Tillig rail joiners may work and I've managed to find stock online and ordered some.

Peco on the left with a Peco rail joiner (top), Hornby on the right.




 

Hi Ed,

What code is the Hornby rail? It looks to be substantially bigger than the Peco Rail. Or is that quirk of perspective. If you have any darts around, use the point end to open up the joiners. Then crimp on the rails with some pliers. Or don't bother with joiners if you have wired the track. Or solder in some fish plates.

Nigel

Hi Nigel

Hornby is code 80, Peco is code 55 and Tillig is code 83.

However, the the Peco rails are actually code 80, but partly buried in a slot in the plastic sleepers track to give the lower profile.

I've read that Hornby and Tillig rail joiners should connect Peco, Hornby or Tillig track.

My Tillig rail joiners are on the way, so I'll know in a couple of days.


Ed

Hi Ed,

I remember that Peco code 55. And not fondly. I used Atlas joiners which work on code 80/100. Code 80 to 55 is easy as there are transition tracks. With a steady hand and eyes it's apparently easy to joggle rail joiners with a Dremel disc (cutting a slot in the middle top then bending to taste). Never tried it though. Sounds easy enough. I'll give it a go as I will have some code 80 to 55 transitions coming up.

Nigel

They're really small rail joiners Nigel, I wouldn't be able to cut or bend the Peco ones.

Ed

Hi Ed,

I tried it yesterday. Hit and miss (mostly miss). OK in HO/OO. Even then it needs a vice. One of those nice in theory. I don't use rail joiners unless necessary, preferring circuit board ties (sleepers). Staggered rail joints are prototypical here, an overlap of 3-4 ties is sufficient. WOT if using set track though (although electrical continuity is 100%). Great for flex track. Photo below shows HO scale, N and TT scale are available.

Nigel

I thought it might just about be possible in 00/H0 Nigel.

I don't normally like relying on rail joiners for electrical connectivity, but I must admit my N scale Kato track hasn't had any power problem with feeds only every few feet.

 

Hi Ed,

I like the Kato offerings as well. I just wish they did some longer sections. Their flex track is OK, Atlas is much better. Then again, T-TRAK modules tend to be singles or doubles.  It's when I move to N-TRAK that the issues of using Kato track and Atlas or Peco track together surface.

Nigel

Tillig rail joiners arrived Wednesday, but with a rotten cold and trying to arrange buying a new car, progress has been very slow.


I tried filing the Peco rail a little and opening up the Tillig rail joiner a bit, but it wasn't a good fit and there was a slight step in the rail.


 

It looks like the only rail joiners that fit both makes of track reasonably well are the Hornby ones.

Meanwhile, I've filed a Hornby rail to get a Peco rail joiner to fit.

It's not pretty, but it works.



 

Very easy to see the difference in profile there Ed.

Can't remember what the differences were like between the Code 75 and Code 100 in 00, Peter.

Didn't think they were that different

 

Hi Ed, Peter,

Code 100 - 0.1"
Code 75 - 0.075"

The difference is 0.025", 0.635 mm.

Heads or tails are where the differences are.

Transition joiners are available here for code 100 to code 83, which would sort of get you there,  and Micro Engineering do code 100 to code 70 insulated joiners. Keep in mind anything from here is for flat bottomed rail, not Bull Head rail. I use code 80 N scale track for the club, code 70 at home. Easiest way I've found for joining different codes is not to use joiners, but solder the rails to copper clad sleepers after shimming them underneath with black styrene. The copper clad gives continuity. With a bit of perseverance you can elevate the rails with hard solder. that's in one of my old posts (Mind That Gap). A transition length of 4-5 inches is fine.  I don't know whether they are still available, but Bull Head rail chairs can also be used to elevate the rails with some shims underneath.  There is no difference in code 70 (or any other code) for N or OO.

I'm in the UK next month, I can put some chairs in the post if you want to try them. Needs a solvent with some MEK to get them to stick. CAA also works. I would imagine Copydex would work if you key them.

Nigel

Thanks Nigel.

I'll manage with filing Hornby track where necessary for this small plank layout.

I'm not planning on anything bigger in TT as I've still a lot of work to do on my N gauge layout, however I've pre-ordered some Hornby rail joiners 'just in case' 


Hornby Fishplate Pack – Rails of Sheffield

Hi Ed,joiner.

There is another technique I came across. File the foot off one rail, file the head off the other rail, slide one over the other, fix in place with a rail joiner.

Why am I interested in all of this? At some point I will have code 80 meeting code 55, or even code 40. I do have the luxury of adapter rail joiners or track sections, or even circuit board joiners, hence the interest in how you are doing it. As I will probably hand building the "join" it also opens up the possibility of filing rail bottoms to slope the track. All of my diesels are B-B or C-C so a sheepish gradient doesn't affect running. No worse than a siding at a lower level to the main line.

I used to use a paper-mache technique for gradients using strips of craft paper glued on top of each other.

Nigel

Why will you need three types of rail Nigel?

Hi Ed,

Mainline code 80, which is way over scale but accommodates old clunkers with pizza-cutter wheels. One of the rules in the module club.
Branch line code 55, which most modern stock has no problem with and is pretty close to scale.
Sidings/storage tracks/RIP tracks code 40, which is to scale. This is probably wishful-thinking unless I lay it myself.

I'll use flex track for 80 and 55, but hand lay the code 40, as sleeper spacing will be different.

RTR code 40 turnouts are hen's teeth available, so I'll have to use code 55 ones. Given the 0.015" difference in height there is minimal shimming.

Sidings are generally lower that mainlines, stops stock from running onto the mainline. Branch lines are generally much older than mainlines, and used rail lower in height/weight. Most railways/railroads place weight restrictions on branch lines and sidings. One example would be using a C-C diesel instead of a B-B one (e.g. an SD-9 instead of a GP-9) on lightly laid branch lines or sidings.

I cringe when I look at code 80, as it's equivalent to 227 lb rail in N scale (1:160). One reason the home layout will use code 55.

Nigel

Too complicated for me Nigel, getting Peco and Hornby to connect is enough for me.