Peco Code 80 Setrack crossing error

[Wingnut]

Hi David,
I have just bought your wonderful software and noticed an error in Peco Code 80 Setrack Library, the crossing ST7 seems to be set at an incorrect angle  ...hope this is helpful 
Regards
(Another) David 

[David]

Hi David,

Are you sure it should fit like you indicate?
The catalogue I have here says that the angle of the crossing is 25 degrees, while the turnout's angle is 22,5 degrees.

So it looks like it could not fit in the way you want!

On the other hand, I don't see what part in the Peco Setrack library should make up for the 2,5 degrees!

You might need to force it into place by rotating it just slightly, while increasing the tolerance for the distance, as shown in the attached example. It might be too much though for N gauge.

Anyway, we'll check the geometry once again!

David.

[Wingnut]

Hi David
The reason I believe this to be so, is that the Peco setrack N gauge planbook shows two plans where this is possible. Plan No12 on page 11 of my copy shows it should be possible. Surely Peco would not produce a piece that does not fit without the need to "persuade" it into place.
Regards David

[David]

Hi David,

According to the template sheets that Peco has for these particular parts, it seems that their AnyRail counterparts are correct.

BTW, I don't think that the plan you refer to is impossible to make, even if the geometry that AnyRail uses is correct. In practice, there's usually quite a bit of wiggle room when laying the actual track. Making use of tolerances, and switching off the 'snap' feature will usually resolve this. Naturally, one doesn't want to make too much use of this feature though!

Nevertheless, we'll go on trying to solve this mystery!

David.

[Chris]

Hi David.

According to the template sheets that Peco has for these particular parts, it seems that their AnyRail counterparts are correct.

If what we are talking about here is the ST-250 crossing, it is indeed 22.5 degrees. Ref. Peco catalogue 2004, p.16. (I thought straight away that 25/22.5 was too close and could be a typo.)

Hope that helps resolve the problem.

Best wishes to all,
Chris.

[David]

No, it's the N gauge ST-7, not the H0/00 gauge ST-250!

David.

[Chris]

No, it's the N gauge ST-7, not the H0/00 gauge ST-250!

Sorry, I should have read the whole thread. I have looked at several track plans on the web that use the ST-7. One of them (Track Plan 14 on http://www.osbornsmodels.com/setrack-217-c.asp) uses two ST-7s to form parts of two double track junctions in conjunction with standard turnouts. That would only be possible is the angle is the same as for the turnout. I also came across a model rail forum where someone was complaining that they could not get the AnyRail SL-7 to fit into their layout. Of course, every dealer's page shows it as 25deg, but that would be because they just copy the catalogue and have not measured it independently. Unfortunately, unlike Marklin's (and others') catalogues, Peco does not show parts in plan and it is not really possible to make a good measurement off the page from they photos. So, after 90 minutes exploring, I am at a loss to explain. maybe an email to Peco is called for?

With best wishes,
Chris.

[David]

Peco does have template sheets, where the parts are printed 1:1
We've used them to verify the geometry of the parts, and they seem to be 100% correct.

Anyway, we'll try to lay our hands on the actual parts and measure them up ourselves!

BTW:We've tried to contact Peco in the past, but until now we've had no other clue than these template sheets.

David.

[Wingnut]

Hi again Guys
really I did not mean to cause all this trouble  It just seems odd that this part is labled as one thing and included in track plans that it could not fit without a bit of heath robinson...I think I'll trawl the net and see whaat there is to see about this  Honestly, I'm like a dog with a bone 
regards David

[David]

Hi David,

No problem. We really strive to make AnyRail as accurate as we possibly can. That also means that when there's any doubt about the exact dimensions of the library objects we want to make sure it's OK!

David.

[Chris]

Hi (AnyRail) David.

Another take on the ST-7 saga. I found my Setrack Planbook and that has just added to the confusion.

Plan 10 (attached) clearly shows the ST-7 having the same angle as a turnout and the turnout having the same angle as a ST-3 (siding at the bottom of the plan), namely 22.5 degrees. In addition the ST-7 is seen as part of a circle occupying 22.5 degrees of the circumference.

As you say, the catalogue states that the ST-7 has an angle of 25 degrees and this is also stated in the Planbook. The catalogue confirms that there are 16 ST-3's to a circle, which ties up with the fact that a turnout can be used as part of a circle. In my opinion Peco has created a lot of confusion by mis-defining the crossing, either at a systemic error or as a typo (25 being, in fact, 22.5 mistyped).

Personally, if I was in your position, I would go ahead and redefine the crossing; there is just too much evidence that the catalogue and all the websites that copied from it are wrong.

Hoping I haven't added to the confusion, best wishes,
Chris.

[David]

Hi all,

The real crossing is underway from the UK to here.
I'll measure it up exactly, and report here!

We've had a similar issue with Fleischmann curved turnouts. They were a mathematical nightmare, and would simply not fit in the plans presented in the catalogue. In the end, it turned out that those plans were wrong in theory, but would fit in practice.

Let's see what happens in this case!

David.

[Chris]

Hi David.

The real crossing is under way from the UK to here.
I'll measure it up exactly, and report here!

Well, that appears to be the only solution to the problem.

Best wishes,
Chris

[David]

Well, finally the Peco Code 80 crossing and turnouts came in.
In the attached picture, it's quite clear that the crossing is really 25 degrees.
Also, it says so on the crossing's package.

Hope this resolves the issue!

David.

[Chris]

Well, cannot argue with that. The straights are definitely not parallel. The puzzle is, then, why have Peco made the crossing in such a way that none of their Setrack plans will work without straining the track to join up. has anyone tried making up the layout I sent earlier?

Best wishes,
Chris.