Hornby Magazine "Operation Build It" -Track spacing

[dauntless]

I have the Hornby Magazines from 2013 -2014 covering their "Operation Build It" layout series. They included a full-size track plan (using Peco 75 track). I notice that the track spacing in the station is not 51mm but about 60mm. They have added a short piece of straight between the "back to back" points which inceases the spacing between the 2 lines. Is their any good reason for this? Or just aethestics?

I ask as I am going to use the plan as a basis for my new layout.

[Howbi]

At a track spacing of only 51mm it is most likely that the overhang of long locos and carriages will collide when passing round the curves of double tracks.......HB

 

On Hornby's basic track plan the standard spacing is 67mm.

[Bulleidboy]

I would guess that it's just aethestics. I have the magazines you refer to and will have a look. I use Code 75 track, and have points forming a cross-over, I did not increase spacing by adding a short straight. I have checked and where I have twin track, the centres are 55mm - that is using Peco "medium radius" Code 75 points. HB has advised about long wheelbase rolling stock.

[Howbi]

Just a thought, Dauntless, are your measurements taken from the centre of each track?.........HB

[Chrissaf]

I appreciate that this answer below is not exactly an answer to your question where Peco's 50mm spacing has been increased but just in the Station area. But it is important to be aware of the limitations regarding the restriction on curve radius if you intend using Peco track on your own layout. That is, if you intend to employ 50mm spacing on a layout using Hornby curve radius specifications then you are likely to have clearance issues with rolling stock overhangs.

.

Peco Code 75 track geometry is completely different to that employed by Hornby. Hornby track is designed to accommodate much tighter curves than that recommended by Peco. Therefore Hornby spacing track centre to track centre at 67mm has to be wider to accommodate Hornby curves, whereas Peco design on a basis of 50mm. But when using Peco Code 75 track, there are no set track pieces. All curves are created using Peco Code 75 flexi-track. Because the standard Peco track centre spacing is 50mm, then the minimum recommended track radius (typically**) is 24" which equates to 600mm. In Hornby terms, 600mm is a larger radius than Hornby's 4th Radius @ 572mm.

.

Note** Peco document curve radius down to 18", but 24" is recommended as the minimum to aim for when Peco 50mm spacing is maintained on adjacent parallel curves.

.

So, if you want curves with a much tighter radius and at the same time maintain perfectly parallel track spacing using Peco track, then you need to insert a short straight piece of track where Peco Code 75 points are being used to create a cross-over between ovals. These short Peco straights need to be 80mm long to achieve a 67mm track centre spacing.

.

PS - I use Peco track configured at 67mm spacing. With a range of adjacent curves from R2 to R6 (R5 & R6 are mathmatically calculated radius').

.

 

[walkingthedog]

Chrissaf I think you should have stated Peco Streamline is completely different to Hornby. Peco setrack is the same as Hornby.

 

Edit. Have you changed your post?

 

Edit again. Yes you did.  😉

[dauntless]

I appreciate that this answer below is not exactly an answer to your question where Peco's 50mm spacing has been increased but just in the Station area. But it is important to be aware of the limitations regarding the restriction on curve radius if you intend using Peco track on your own layout. If you employ 50mm spacing on a layout using Hornby curve radius specifications then you are likely to have clearance issues with rolling stock overhangs.

.

Peco track geometry is completely different to that employed by Hornby. Hornby track is designed to accommodate much tighter curves than that recommended by Peco. Therefore Hornby spacing track centre to track centre at 67mm has to be wider to accommodate Hornby curves, whereas Peco design on a basis of 50mm. But when using Peco Code 75 track, there are no set track pieces. All curves are created using Peco Code 75 flexi-track. Because the standard Peco track centre spacing is 50mm, then the minimum recommended track radius (typically**) is 24" which equates to 600mm. In Hornby terms, 600mm is a larger radius than Hornby's 4th Radius @ 572mm.

.

Note** Peco document curve radius down to 18", but 24" is recommended as the minimum to aim for with Peco 50mm spacing.

.

So, if you want curves with a much tighter radius using Peco track, then you need to insert a short straight piece of track where Peco Code 75 points are being used to create a cross-over between ovals. These short Peco straights need to be about 80mm long to achieve a 67mm track centre spacing.

.

PS - I use Peco track configured at 67mm spacing.

.

 

I realise that Hornby spacing is wider. Also that tighter curves need a greater spacing. For me the strange issue is that the "Operation built It" layout plan was designed for Peco 75 track and is built on basically a 6' x 2' board with a straight station layout, plus an optional in-line fiddle board. So no real curved section. Perhaps the wider spacing helps when manouevering a long(er) loco on the "passing loop"?

My planned layout has minimum 24" radius curves so I may go with 50mm spacing (well actually 51mm with insulating joiners on the points) as it reduces the numbers of joints to do (and so the possibilities of failures?)

 

[dauntless]

I would guess that it's just aethestics. I have the magazines you refer to and will have a look. I use Code 75 track, and have points forming a cross-over, I did not increase spacing by adding a short straight. I have checked and where I have twin track, the centres are 55mm - that is using Peco "medium radius" Code 75 points. HB has advised about long wheelbase rolling stock.

I will be using Peco 75 medium radius points and 24" radius curves so I think I will stick to using the points "back to back" without extra starights for 51 (or 55mm ) spacing.

[Chrissaf]

Edit. Have you changed your post?

 Edit again. Yes you did.  😉

.

WTD it is wise to hold your fire before shooting down my posts in flames [rat a tat tat] 😆

.

In general I hold my posts open, reflect upon what I have written and look for ambiquities, Edit them, review again and further edit as many times as I feel the post needs. So in general, if you see that one of my posts has not been changed for a period of about an hour, then it will be fairly safe to assume that I have finished editing. I have held some really detailed posts of mine open for up to 12 hours and still performed some tweaking edits on them thereafter.

.

The constant tweaking of my posts (via edits) is a result of a slight touch of OCD.

.

 

[atom3624]

I can understand there can be a 'rule of thumb' regarding spacing, which compares relatively well where able with 1:1, and also that it can be difficult to anticipate what may run on some layouts in the future.

 

For many, however, it will be quite clear - design, period, etc - and the gapping can be designed around it.

 

If there's a chance / risk that at some stage, some humongous 80-foot+ carriage will be heaved around at a scale 186 mph, then it should be designed around this.

 

If it's going to be no more than an 0-6-0 saddle or pannier tank hauling 4-wheeled 7-plank wagons, then more and narrower spacing options are available.

 

Al.

[walkingthedog]

It was 10 minutes. That’s a long time.  😀

 

How can you keep editing your posts. I thought there was a 10 minute time limit?

[Chrissaf]

Easy. I use a browser with TABS.

.

Once you save a post in a TAB (with the blue edit button still showing). Move that TAB to one side and open a NEW TAB to continue browsing the forum. As long as the other TAB is open, then the blue edit button in it will remain completely usable. This has got nothing to do with being a Com Mod, any and all forum members can use the same technique. You just have to be careful not to close or navigate away from an 'open' TAB in error, because once closed or navigated away from, the edit function is lost.

.

 

[walkingthedog]

Ah, you don’t get tabs on an iPad. I guess if you make lots of typing errors 6 days comes in useful.  😆

 

Trouble is if you alter something days later it could be too late. Somebody may have already taken your advice and regretted  it. 

[Howbi]

Trouble is if you alter something days later it could be too late. Somebody may have already taken your advice and regretted  it. 

Haha, story of my life........ 😆.........I'll change this later this evening using Chris's method...... 😮.............HB

[Bulleidboy]

I have looked at the plan you propose to build as shown in October 2013 Hornby Magazine's article "Operation Build it". I can see no reason for adding the short straight between the points that are at the "run round" end of the platform. As has already been said the layout is virtually straight. The only "curves" are to allow a track from a point to run parallel with the track next to it. This layout is designed around Peco points - in this case Code 75. As you said  about the track spacing "Or just aethestics" - I really think it is. I have not read all five articles.

[Froggie]

Hello there,

Same as Caiptean, my proposed layout that I'm commencing in November (starting with new flooring so it's going to be a little while before anything is up and running) I too will be using Peco Code 75 with 45mm centre to centre spacing (it really does look better). Minimum radius will be 1.0m (approx 3' 6") with flaring on the curves to allow longer coaches to pass each other. Someone did a dry run on software and it seems that you need to be in the realms of 7ft radius (2.0m) if you wish to maintain the 45mm centre to centre measurement. Perhaps Caiptean can confirm if this is the case?

I did witness that two IEP coaches could not pass each other on 600mm radius curve track with 50mm centre to centre spacing (however, I do concede that the curves were not the best laid and it may well have been 60mm - but it was a little while ago), so you will need to check before finally pinning everything down.

Cheers,

Philip

[Fishmanoz]

Beg to differ WTD but you do have tabs in Safari on an iPad. I regularly have around 20 Open all the time. If you need another, just press the + at the top right. You can open the forum multiple times this way, just as Chris does. 

[Buz]

Hi all

You all seem to have forgotten one practical issue which is probably the reason for the wide spacing.

The need to get 1:1 fingers into a 1:76 environment 😆

Added to which if it's the plan I think it is Beeching scraped it in the 1960's as its a branch line terminus, so there would have been plenty of elbow room to spread things out when the station was originally built.

regards John

[Bulleidboy]

This is a picture of the layout concerned.

 

https://flic.kr/p/2apGdpu

[dauntless]

Thanks to everone who replied to this thread. In the end I will go with 51mm spacing and large radius curves.

David

[dauntless]

/media/tinymce_upload/0e586f6e1413747c3cd7987a4dee99a6.jpg

It's a long time since I asked my original question. I started the project, got diagnosed with cancer, spent a year getting better and carried on designing and building. The initial idea to follow the "Operation Build It" plan triggered a lot of extra thinking. In the end, instead of just a one board layout I went for 4 separate boards 6x2 boards that form a 6' x 10' rectangle with a dual loop plus separate branch line station and a raised coal mine area!!

Attached is a photo of the board that includes the (expanded) operation build it layout. Can you spot the original plan?

Please not too many critical comments as this is my first attempt at a railway layout since is was 14 years old. I have learnt a lot in the process and had a lot of fun. It now is all operational with  NCE DCC control and uses  cobalt digital point motors and runs with NCE control