Set track or Streamline?

[RSR Engineer]

If I might put a quick oar in here: When I planned my old layout, I printed a stock of Peco's point templates and drew and cut out a number of curved paper strips of various set radii at 52mm intervals (Streamline standard track spacing). This was done by pasting together strips of computer printout (as we had in those days - late 1980s) and drawing concentric curves lines with a pencil held in a Meccano trammel. (You do, of course, need space for this - perhaps the garage floor.) I was then able to juggle the points and cut the curves to length to see what would fit best. I would certainly not recommend doing the curves between the points "freehand"; it would be all too easy to slip below your intended ruling radius. Then, if you can, paste the whole lot on big sheets of (say) wallpaper to get a full-size, scale 1:1 plan.

The new layout, as described in the thread, was planned on the computer and transcribed to the baseboard by grid reference.

Regarding secondhand track, I've had mixed results. If the previous owner ballasted it or painted the rails or otherwise "treated" it, you can get a real pig in a poke. If it's clean, it'll usually do for sidings, hidden loops etc. Maybe it's just me but the rails must slide through the chairs fairly easily, otherwise it's the devil's own job to keep the sleepers parallel. À propos, I found that Roco and Lima flexible are absolutely dire because of the way the sleepers are joined.

Cheers,
Artur

[Mountain Goat]

For general running so one can run as much as possible (Older and newer models), I used code 100. I did open up point flangeways a bit to do this as some older models needed it. (Older locos and stock have deeper wheel flanges but only open up the point and crossing flangeways as a last resort as it is a bit of a compromize).
Streamline (Flexible track) or settrack? Well. Both are compatible with each other if one takes point angles etc, but this is what I tended to do to get the best from both systems. As overall streamline will be much cheaper to buy and has the advantage of making the track look more flowing and less rigid, I would use this under normal circumstances, however, if one is wanting (Or needing) to use sharper curves of 1st or 2nd radius for dock scenes or just because one has an area where one does not have the space (1st radius will only take smaller locos or larger older designed locos), then I use settrack (I tended to switch to Hornby as it was cheaper then Peco and their modern track is just as good though I used Peco points) because settrack holds the curve well while if one curves flexible track that tightly, it is trying to spring out so where the rail joins are it can be a problem.
Don't get me wrong. Flexible track can curve much tighter still. Countless 7mm narrow gauge layouts have been made to turn 180 degrees on 2ft wide (60cm wide) boards. I have done so on my layout though I have changed to soldering on PCB sleepers which hold the curve rigidly, so the rails do not spring out.

But in general my advice is:-
For sharper curves - settrack.
For everything else - streamline.

I also mixed settrack poinrs with various angles and lengths of streamline points to suit the location. See if one can get a track planning sheet from Peco as these have their points printed onto paper in real size form so one can cut them out and see what fits best in the location one has. It saves costs in the long run in buying a couple of sheets to plan things out if one has no points to begin with to compare.

[RSR Engineer]

Do I understand you correctly, MG? You say you opened up the point flangeways? Did you just deepen them (which is what it sounds most like) or did you also reduce the B2B of frogs and checkrails? The latter would surely be risking derailments.

Cheers,
Artur

[Mountain Goat]

A little bit of both as the width of the flangeways was a little too narrow for a Triang hall I had, and the depth was also deepened. It was the Hall class that I had issues with. Once adjusted they all ran through it ok, including Mainline and early Bachmann locos. (When I used the layout last that I had when in 00 gauge).
I used part of a broken hacksaw blade which sligtly widened up and added depth to the flangeways but go easy. Just a bit at a time. Maybe use old points first to experiment on before doing anything costly, as points are not cheap! Points were all Peco code 100 insulfrog which I used in those days as I was young and was still learning. I did not know what electrofrog was except that it cost 10p extra per point! I used insulfrog on advice from a model railway shop. If I had known back then, but to be honest, I rarely had any point stalling issues. If I did it was loco pick up adjustment time as 99% of the time any frog stalling was due to one of the wheel pickups not being adjusted correctly (Or the point itself was not sitting level as I did have two points bend upwards at the frog... Corrected with a trackpin carefully hammered into the centre point of the frog flangeways where they crossed), as no matter how good electrofrog points are, without the wheel pickups making healthy contact locos will stall eventually give them the opportunity!

Looking back, the only real issues I had were with curved points and when I bought a rake of the then new out Bachmann Mk1's which came in just before I abandoned the layout. They ran so terribly, I sold the whole lot for £10 each when I had bought them for £18.50 each less then a month earlier so I ended up with an £80 loss. I decided that despite their appearance not being exactly finescale, Lima Mk1's behaved and could even be run nearly flat out through my pointwork when thw train is reversed. The Bachmann coaches could not do that going forwards!

I did find a solution to those Bachmann coaches but it would have been to change the bogies to bogies which which had the couplings mounted onto the bogies, but it would have cost me £4.50 extra per coach and I had already gone over budget in my mind as coaches back then were normally £10 - £12 each. So the £18.50 each I had paid... to add another £4.50 each was a "No".
Later all coaches started to have the close coupling system with the bendy nem pocket couplings and I decided enough was enough and changed scale.