Code 100 peco and Hornby

[Railway man 123]

I am building based on a plan in the track plan book. I was wondering can you use a mixture of code 100 peco or can it be the same as the Hornby track and work with the plan. Any help would be great.

[Railway man 123]

ps is any cheaper or does it look better

[LCDR]

Hornby track is to the same geometry as Peco "Set Track" and to similar track sold by other manufacturers. 

This means that you can mix types.

They are all about the same price and appearance.

[AndyMac1707817969]

Peso setrack has the same geometry as Hornby track so they are interchangeable. All setrack is code 100. Their Streamline track is the only track that is available in anything other than code 100. Code 100 streamline track will connect to setrack and Hornby track no problem but the geometry is different. Track spacing etc from streamline track is much closer than setrack but a lot more realistic to the real world but too close together for coaches etc to be able to pass on curves where the radius is too small.

Lots of information on other forums as to the comparisons between different manufactures especially when it comes to points.

[Chrissaf]

Railway man 123,

.

This previous thread provides a full comparison of PECO vs Hornby track codes and associated PECO track part numbers.

.

https://www.hornby.com/uk-en/forum/another-b2b-question/?p=1

.

Supplementary links for information.

.

Peco ST (Set Track) Code 100 Track Parts

https://peco-uk.com/collections/peco/setrack+100

.

Peco SL & SL-E (StreamLine) Code 100 Track Parts

https://peco-uk.com/collections/peco/100+oo-ho-16-5mm

.

Peco SL & SL-E (StreamLine) Code 83 Track parts

https://peco-uk.com/collections/peco/oo-ho-16-5mm+83

.

Peco SL & SL-E (StreamLine) Code 75 Track Parts

https://peco-uk.com/collections/peco/oo-ho-16-5mm+75

.

[DBfan]

 Peco Set Track points are more reliable than Hornbys

[The Duke 71000]

Track codes and NEM standards. What it all means !

Why is it that Britain appears to be the only country in Europe still having problems with track codes and NEM standards ?

 

The problems of still using multiple track codes in Britain causes confusion to particularly the beginner, as implied by "Railway man 123's" original question on this thread !

 

The problem was effectively generated for Britain, by the NEM Standards Conference, now 30 years ago in Germany. The then major manufacturing players (in Europe) were all German companies, but they had the courtesy to invite all European based companies including Hornby to that conference. Hornby it seems declined the invite to Britain's continued detriment, and confusion.

 

The conferences main issue was that all manufacturers up until the conference had a policy of "user loyalty". Which means that all companies deliberately had different track, wheels and coupling standards intentionally designed to make it awkward for the user to intermix different manufacturers parts !

 

The conference first recognised that "user loyalty" had become detrimental to the continued business health of many manufacturers. The solution therefore was to introduce track, wheel and coupling standards that everyone would abide by to the continued financial health (at least on the technical front) of all European manufacturers.

 

Advances in production technology then becoming apparent, were also recognised as becoming a threat to those who could not afford to upgrade to computer aided production technology, but if standards could be agreed it would be helpful to everyone.

 

Therefore it was agreed that the then general approximation to code 100 track (100/1000ths of an inch high rails) would be reduced to 75/1000ths of an inch (Code 75 a 25% reduction) as a more realistic height. But the width of the rail was also reduced in scale by 25%, and this immediately causes technical issues with pointwork. Therefore it had to be agreed what the new measurements would be for flange-ways between check rails and running rails. These new standards were agreed, so everyone present then moved to the issue of wheel profiles to cope with the new track measurements. They too were agreed.

 

The other major item was of course couplings and the method of attachment. As no one was willing to adopt any other companies coupling as a new standard. Someone therefore suggested a standard attachment that everyone's coupling could be connected too. So was born the NEM coupling pocket, but because Hornby were not present the pocket height was standardised at a suitable height for purely HO not OO.

 

As a result of that conference, new track, wheels and coupling pockets quickly became standard on all new European produced models. The Europeans effectively dumped the old equipment and forgot about them. Customers quickly learnt that the new standards allowed them to intermix different manufacturers goods, but that they would have to upgrade their track system as old wheels on new rails present technical issues i.e. derailments in points. 

 

Code 83 (83/1000ths of an inch high rails) was introduced around 25 years ago as a result of the Americans learning about what had been agreed at the NEM conference in Europe. So Code 83 was decreed as a suitable refinement for their market (not Europe/Britain), as the real railway track in North America tends to use a larger heavier type of rail than in Europe.

 

It must be noted that as the British company Peco are a manufacturer of many model track systems, which are exported all over the world, in many scales, this also includes track to various "code" sizes.

   

So Britain has continued almost oblivious to the changes set (30 years ago) at the NEM Conference, to the continued detriment and confusion of all in Britain. And continues to produce for the home market old fashioned code 100 track in addition to code 75. And NEM pockets on rolling stock that do not match the agreed height in some cases, or even the pocket size. Is this a clear case of playing "The Island Monkey" ?

 

Indeed as far as I'm aware Hornby's code 100 track is still produced by Roco (Austria), although Roco themselves no longer use it, as they moved over to code 75 as agreed. This problem may also explain the odd situation whereby all Hornby's locomotives have wheel profiles for code 75, but back to back measurements set for old code 100 track. So running Hornby locos on either code 100 or code 75 can cause minor problems in points. This means I have to alter all the wheels on my Hornby locos using a current code 75 back to back gauge. To ensure I don't get derailments in pointwork on my exhibition layout, which obviously doesn't use long outdated overscale code 100 track !!!

 

The Duke 71000 

[96RAF]

 Peco Set Track points are more reliable than 

 

Used to be the case but recent intel suggests new Hornby points are just as reliable if not better than the same geometry Peco items.

[LCDR]

Use both Hornby and Peco points, and both give good service. 

[Souty Train Guy]

Hornby points have a larger plastic frog than peco, so smaller 0-4-0s are likely (always for me) to stall on Hornby points

[Ruffnut Thorston]

I don't think "made in China" Hornby track is made by Roco?

 

Back to back measurements are different for different track codes (heights of rail) ???