Peco Individulay Components - Suitable for P4?

Help and advice for those starting in, or converting to P4 standards. A place to share modelling as a beginner in P4.
User avatar
Colin Parks
Posts: 596
Joined: Sun Oct 27, 2013 4:44 pm

Peco Individulay Components - Suitable for P4?

Postby Colin Parks » Wed Mar 12, 2014 6:54 pm

I don't know of this is possibly a stupid question, but can the Peco range of Individulay Pandrol fixing components be successfully used or P4 track construction?

This is asked because I have a fair amount of these components, bought when I had considered converting from 00 to EM (gasp, horror!). So, given the general enquiry made above, specific areas which are of concern, raise the following subset of questions:

The fixings do not appear to have the 1:20 inclined base. is this crucial to success/failure?

Is the recommended Peco code 82 rail compatible with P4 wheels standards?


I would be grateful for any advice, pro or con.

Colin Parks
Last edited by Colin Parks on Tue Mar 18, 2014 8:40 am, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
John Donnelly
Web Team
Posts: 798
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2012 7:03 pm

Re: Peco Individulay Pandrol fixings - suitable for P4?

Postby John Donnelly » Wed Mar 12, 2014 7:11 pm

It has been many years admittedly but my very first length of P4 track was built using these clips and Peco concrete sleepers. Whilst I never got beyond about 4 feet of track, a Hornby Class 58 with Ultrascale wheels had no problems running up and down...

John

taylorc
Posts: 13
Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2010 2:17 pm

Re: Peco Individulay Pandrol fixings - suitable for P4?

Postby taylorc » Wed Mar 12, 2014 7:20 pm

I have used this form of construction for P4 track. I used the Peco clips, Peco wooden sleepers and Peco code 82 rail. The track is on a super elevated curves and has been down now for 25 years. In that time I have not experienced any problems with it.
Colin

User avatar
grovenor-2685
Forum Team
Posts: 3451
Joined: Sun Jun 29, 2008 8:02 pm

Re: Peco Individulay Pandrol fixings - suitable for P4?

Postby grovenor-2685 » Wed Mar 12, 2014 7:22 pm

The fixings do not appear to have the 1:20 inclined base. is this crucial to success/failure?
No.
Is the recommended Peco code 82 rail compatible with P4 wheels standards?
Yes, or you can equally well use the Society stores or C&L code 82 or code 83 FB rail.
That style of baseplate is usually used with timber sleepers, concrete sleepers have the pandrol shoulders cast in and the rail sits directly on the sleeper via a rubber pad.
The Peco clips they sold for use with the concrete sleepers look wrong as they lift the rail to much.
Keith
Regards
Keith
Grovenor Sidings

User avatar
Colin Parks
Posts: 596
Joined: Sun Oct 27, 2013 4:44 pm

Re: Peco Individulay Pandrol fixings - suitable for P4?

Postby Colin Parks » Wed Mar 12, 2014 11:01 pm

John Donnelly wrote:It has been many years admittedly but my very first length of P4 track was built using these clips and Peco concrete sleepers. Whilst I never got beyond about 4 feet of track, a Hornby Class 58 with Ultrascale wheels had no problems running up and down...

John

Thanks John,

I have been wondering how others got on and know the cat is out of the bag! It would be intended that only some plain running line and perhaps a crossover would be modelled with flat-bottom rail. Good news about the compatibility with Ultrascale wheels as I have ordered rather a lot of them!

All the best,

Colin

User avatar
Colin Parks
Posts: 596
Joined: Sun Oct 27, 2013 4:44 pm

Re: Peco Individulay Pandrol fixings - suitable for P4?

Postby Colin Parks » Wed Mar 12, 2014 11:01 pm

John Donnelly wrote:It has been many years admittedly but my very first length of P4 track was built using these clips and Peco concrete sleepers. Whilst I never got beyond about 4 feet of track, a Hornby Class 58 with Ultrascale wheels had no problems running up and down...

John

Thanks John,

I have been wondering how others got on and know the cat is out of the bag! It would be intended that only some plain running line and perhaps a crossover would be modelled with flat-bottom rail. Good news about the compatibility with Ultrascale wheels as I have ordered rather a lot of them!

All the best,

Colin

User avatar
Colin Parks
Posts: 596
Joined: Sun Oct 27, 2013 4:44 pm

Re: Peco Individulay Pandrol fixings - suitable for P4?

Postby Colin Parks » Wed Mar 12, 2014 11:04 pm

taylorc wrote:I have used this form of construction for P4 track. I used the Peco clips, Peco wooden sleepers and Peco code 82 rail. The track is on a super elevated curves and has been down now for 25 years. In that time I have not experienced any problems with it.
Colin


Hi Colin,
Even better news as I had intended to use Peco wooden sleepers etc. as you describe. Hmm. Super elevation - dare I chance adding feature into the mix?!


All the best,

Colin

User avatar
Colin Parks
Posts: 596
Joined: Sun Oct 27, 2013 4:44 pm

Re: Peco Individulay Pandrol fixings - suitable for P4?

Postby Colin Parks » Wed Mar 12, 2014 11:10 pm

grovenor-2685 wrote:
The fixings do not appear to have the 1:20 inclined base. is this crucial to success/failure?
No.
Is the recommended Peco code 82 rail compatible with P4 wheels standards?
Yes, or you can equally well use the Society stores or C&L code 82 or code 83 FB rail.
That style of baseplate is usually used with timber sleepers, concrete sleepers have the pandrol shoulders cast in and the rail sits directly on the sleeper via a rubber pad.
The Peco clips they sold for use with the concrete sleepers look wrong as they lift the rail to much.
Keith


Hi Keith,

Thanks for your reply too. I shall support the S4 stores for future purchases of rail then (I only have one packet of the Peco FB rail (bought in error when trying to order their conductor rail!) As mentioned in the previous reply, the track will be based on wooden sleeper (plastic imitation or C&L 'thick' plywood). It remains to be seen what will be the best match the The Exactoscale FastTrack bases that I intened to use for the Bullhead sections of line.

All the best,

Colin

User avatar
jim s-w
Posts: 1845
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 5:56 pm

Re: Peco Individulay Pandrol fixings - suitable for P4?

Postby jim s-w » Thu Mar 13, 2014 10:36 am

They work fine but they don't really look like anything in the real world. Much better to use Colin Craig's bits instead.

Hth

Jim

Image

You can see the peco clip on the far left

User avatar
Colin Parks
Posts: 596
Joined: Sun Oct 27, 2013 4:44 pm

Re: Peco Individulay Pandrol fixings - suitable for P4?

Postby Colin Parks » Sat Mar 15, 2014 11:33 am

Thanks for your reply and photo Jim.

I have been looking into the Pandrol matter further and to complicate things, it seems that four-bolt Pandrol bases (as per Peco's mouldings, for better or worse), were not used on third rail track. Having checked my photos of the Newhaven area, it is apparent that four-bolt Pandrol fixings were/are used. So the Peco fittings would be appropriate for the location, if not up to the standard of other components currently available on the market.

However, all this has now become academic now as further investigations show that 'flat-bottom' track was not laid in the Newhaven area until late 1972. This date the excludes a great deal of my stock, so it's back to good old bullhead track for me. The Peco components will be put back in the drawer!

Colin

JFS
Posts: 746
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2009 3:47 pm

Re: Peco Individulay Pandrol fixings - suitable for P4?

Postby JFS » Sat Mar 15, 2014 9:18 pm

Colin Parks wrote: I shall support the S4 stores for future purchases of rail then (I only have one packet of the Peco FB rail (bought in error when trying to order their conductor rail!)

Colin


Hello Colin - welcome!

Good news that you will not need any FB!

Just noting your comment above, I trust that this time you will also use the Stores conductor rail and pots - they really are first rate!

Very Best Wishes,

Terry Bendall
Forum Team
Posts: 1890
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2008 7:46 am

Re: Peco Individulay Pandrol fixings - suitable for P4?

Postby Terry Bendall » Sun Mar 16, 2014 9:04 am

Colin Parks wrote:it seems that four-bolt Pandrol bases (as per Peco's mouldings, for better or worse), were not used on third rail track.


There are lots of different types of Pandrol fitting. If you look on the website of the Manchester Model Railway Society www.mmrs.org.uk/technical/track.html you will find the articles written by Colin Craig on flat bottom track and if you go to Colin's web site http://colincraig4mm.co.uk/ you will find more information.
I am not sure about which type of Pandrol clip is/was used on third rail installation buy previously BR used the BR3 type of rail fixing which is available from Masokits. When we built Elcot Road, i did not know these were available so I used BR2 type available from Colin Craig.

Flat bottom rail was starting to be used by the GWR, LMS and LNER in the 1930s and became much more common after 1947. Probably many of those layouts set in the popular 1950s period to the end of steam should have far more flat bottom rail track than they do. :)

Terry Bendall

User avatar
Colin Parks
Posts: 596
Joined: Sun Oct 27, 2013 4:44 pm

Re: Peco Individulay Pandrol fixings - suitable for P4?

Postby Colin Parks » Sun Mar 16, 2014 10:07 am

Hi Terry,

From what I have learned, it is the BR3 fitting that should be use with third-rail track. These fittings have a bolt and flange on the outside of the base with no spring clip, avoiding the need for 'awkward' keying between the running rail and the third rail. (Although I do have photos of the four-bolt type of bases being used in such a situation, so perhaps anything goes.)

All the best,

Colin

User avatar
Colin Parks
Posts: 596
Joined: Sun Oct 27, 2013 4:44 pm

Re: Peco Individulay Pandrol fixings - suitable for P4?

Postby Colin Parks » Sun Mar 16, 2014 10:57 am

JFS wrote:
Colin Parks wrote: I shall support the S4 stores for future purchases of rail then (I only have one packet of the Peco FB rail (bought in error when trying to order their conductor rail!)

Colin


Hello Colin - welcome!

Good news that you will not need any FB!

Just noting your comment above, I trust that this time you will also use the Stores conductor rail and pots - they really are first rate!

Very Best Wishes,


Hi JFS, for it is you!

Yes, no FB for me. (Sigh of relief.)

Re. conductor rail & pots, I shall probably use the Stores pots where there are no side-protection boards i.e. where they are visible. Not sure about what to do where they are concealed by the boards. The Peco pots have flat vertical faces which are very convenient for fixing the boards to (gasps of horror all round!) Cost is also an issue: this venture is going to be more expensive than I had originally expected.

Also, there were at least two weights of conductor rails used by the SR/BR. The stuff seen around Newhaven (and probably other secondary lines) appears to have been of a lighter weight than that used on the main lines. No sure what 'weight' of scale rail is appropriate for my as yet non-existent layout!

All the best,

Colin

User avatar
Russ Elliott
Posts: 930
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 6:38 pm

Re: Peco Individulay Pandrol fixings - suitable for P4?

Postby Russ Elliott » Sun Mar 16, 2014 7:58 pm

Colin Parks wrote:Also, there were at least two weights of conductor rails used by the SR/BR. The stuff seen around Newhaven (and probably other secondary lines) appears to have been of a lighter weight than that used on the main lines. No sure what 'weight' of scale rail is appropriate for my as yet non-existent layout!

The lighter section was either 100lb/yd or 106lb/yd section. The nearest model equivalent, for height, is the Peco IL-1 (previously known as FB-3X) 'conductor rail'. This is code 60, i.e. 1.5mm high. The problem is that the foot width of IL-1 is only 1.24mm wide, as opposed to the 1.83mm standard shared by all conductor rails of that era. At 0.75mm headwidth, the IL-1 is also a bit skinny. The etched ear on the Scalefour CRS is designed for the standard 1.83mm footwidth. I cannot envisage a viable ear etch to accompany IL-1. (We were constrained on the diameter of the peg on top of the insulator, because of tooling costs.)

JFS
Posts: 746
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2009 3:47 pm

Re: Peco Individulay Pandrol fixings - suitable for P4?

Postby JFS » Sun Mar 16, 2014 8:13 pm

Colin Parks wrote:Hi JFS, for it is you!

Re. conductor rail & pots, I shall probably use the Stores pots where there are no side-protection boards i.e. where they are visible. Not sure about what to do where they are concealed by the boards. The Peco pots have flat vertical faces which are very convenient for fixing the boards to (gasps of horror all round!)
Colin


Hello Colin,

Indeed, 'tis I, thinly disguised!

As I recover from the shock of your proposal. I am mindful of the many yards of continuously boarded juice rail through my platforms, I am looking at your boards on NH - and I am thinking again...

Very Best wishes,

Terry Bendall
Forum Team
Posts: 1890
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2008 7:46 am

Re: Peco Individulay Pandrol fixings - suitable for P4?

Postby Terry Bendall » Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:36 am

Colin Parks wrote:The Peco pots have flat vertical faces which are very convenient for fixing the boards to


When we were building Elcot Road we made use of the good offices of a friend of Simon's who was able to supply the official Railtrack information about conductor rail fixings and supports. There is also lots of good information on the CLAG web site, where some of this information orginates. It may of course have been different in the period you are modelling but these are some of the key points:

Conductor rail is positioned with its centre line 405mm from the running rail gauge face at a height 75 mm above it.

Insulators one sleeper clear of conductor rail fishplate joints and clear of fish plate joints on running rails

Insulators evenly spaced. Maximum spacing not to exceed 4.6 metres – every six sleepers except where the curvature of the track is less than 400 metres (20 chains) where maximum distance should not exceed 3.8 metres, every fourth sleeper.

Ramp ends supported not less than 305mm and not more than 750mm from the end of the conductor rail.

Protective boarding supports spaced between 1.6 metres and 2.4 metres apart and inside edge of boarding is 100mm from the conductor rail centre line and boards should extend between 12mm and 25mm above top of the conductor rail.

Supports not on the same sleeper as conductor rail supports. Boards extend 150mm beyond end of conductor rail on plain track, and at tips of rail on points.

Single protective boarding provided in the following situation:

Between conductor rail and running rail where the running rail is used for a single rail track circuit and not used for traction negative return.

On the outside of the conductor rail where it is within 1 metre of an authorised walking route.

On the outside of conductor rail located in the cess where the distance between the nearest running line and the adjacent shunting line is less than 3 metres

On the outside of CR at equipment locations within 3 metres of the electrified line or where there is entry or exit from line side buildings within 1 metre. Where this happens boarding should extend for a minimum of 1 metre on each side of the equipment and be a minimum of 2.5 metes in length.

Between the conductor rail and adjacent point rodding or signal wires where these are les than 1 metre from the gauge face

Double protective boarding provided as follows:

On the approach side of signal post telephones for a minimum of 8 metres where the CR is on the same side of the track as the phone;

For a minimum of 2 metres at the ramp ends of CR which terminates less than 3 metres from the edge of any road or crossing

At stations and raised walkways where the CR is adjacent to the platform

At locations where regular coupling or uncoupling takes place

For a mimimum length of 2 metres at the ramp end of the CR adjacent to any authorized walkway

Boards nominally 8 inches wide x I inch thick. (Railtrack says 175mm x 38mm) Brackets are 2 ½ inches x ½ inch. Pockets are screwed to boards to fit over brackets. Modern style is jiggled bracket. Board supports not on same sleeper as CRS except at point timbering. Board length between 15 feet and 21 feet. Supports on sleepers each side of joint in board and on first sleeper after end of ramp.

Distance from centre line of CR to inside edge of boards is 100mm Top of board pockets is 240mm above top of sleeper.

CR on each side of track has overlap of 12 timber bays (Sleepers?)

Ramps - (These sizes are the 4mm equivilant)
Two bend type 1 in 48 slope for 32 mm and I in 24 for 8mm End is 1mm below top of rail.
Single bend type 1 in 48 end is 0.84 mm below top of rail

Bonding cable is approximately two inches diameter and it is joined to the conductor rails using lugs which are bolted to the rails. Bonding cables are laid on the surface of the ballast with a distance of six inches between them. Cables may be run under the track but only one cable is permitted in each sleeper gap.

All of the prototype measurements would need to be adjusted to suit the particular situation.

On Elcot Road the boarding is made from brass strip 2.5mm x 0.3mm. The fixings are from nickel silver strip 1.0mm x 0.3mm this being the smallest size stocked by Eileen's Emporium. For single boarding the supports were bent to shape, soldered to the board and everything painted before gluing the supports to the tops of the sleepers. For double boarding squared off U shaped supports were made and these were soldered to the inside board with everything being painted before fixing. The outside board was then soldered in position after fixing using a low melt solder. Bonding cable was made from some very thin insulated wire stripped from a scrap length of thin multi core cable. Temination plates were soldered to the wire and these were then glued to the conductor rail.

The pictures of Elcot Road on the Scaleforum 2013 Retrospective will show some of the thrid rail and boarding. We don't claim to have got it all right but it is a reasonable representation. Certainly some of the fixing brackets don't conform to the prototype information because of the position of CRS. The Bachmann 2EBP and the MLVs worked quite well on the th1rd rail sections but the underside of the pick up shoes had to be scraped a bit to give clearance.

Terry Bendall

User avatar
Rod Cameron
Posts: 744
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 12:01 pm

Re: Peco Individulay Pandrol fixings - suitable for P4?

Postby Rod Cameron » Mon Mar 17, 2014 2:50 pm

Useful info Terry, many thanks. :)
Rod

User avatar
Colin Parks
Posts: 596
Joined: Sun Oct 27, 2013 4:44 pm

Re: Peco Individulay Pandrol fixings - suitable for P4?

Postby Colin Parks » Tue Mar 18, 2014 7:22 am

Russ Elliott wrote:
Colin Parks wrote:Also, there were at least two weights of conductor rails used by the SR/BR. The stuff seen around Newhaven (and probably other secondary lines) appears to have been of a lighter weight than that used on the main lines. No sure what 'weight' of scale rail is appropriate for my as yet non-existent layout!

The lighter section was either 100lb/yd or 106lb/yd section. The nearest model equivalent, for height, is the Peco IL-1 (previously known as FB-3X) 'conductor rail'. This is code 60, i.e. 1.5mm high. The problem is that the foot width of IL-1 is only 1.24mm wide, as opposed to the 1.83mm standard shared by all conductor rails of that era. At 0.75mm headwidth, the IL-1 is also a bit skinny. The etched ear on the Scalefour CRS is designed for the standard 1.83mm footwidth. I cannot envisage a viable ear etch to accompany IL-1. (We were constrained on the diameter of the peg on top of the insulator, because of tooling costs.)

Hi Russ,

I shall probably have to go with the Scalefour components as they are the closest available - although for secondary lines a tad heavy. I was only really thinking aloud re. using Peco parts. I will have plenty of reclaimed Southern Region elements when I decommission my 00 layout. I can see now that the third rail parts will have to be put in the drawer along with the Peco Pandrol fixings!

All the best,

Colin

User avatar
Colin Parks
Posts: 596
Joined: Sun Oct 27, 2013 4:44 pm

Re: Peco Individulay Pandrol fixings - suitable for P4?

Postby Colin Parks » Tue Mar 18, 2014 7:23 am

Rod Cameron wrote:Useful info Terry, many thanks. :)


Ditto!

Colin Parks

User avatar
Colin Parks
Posts: 596
Joined: Sun Oct 27, 2013 4:44 pm

Re: Peco Individulay Pandrol fixings - suitable for P4?

Postby Colin Parks » Tue Mar 18, 2014 7:31 am

JFS wrote:
Colin Parks wrote:Hi JFS, for it is you!

Re. conductor rail & pots, I shall probably use the Stores pots where there are no side-protection boards i.e. where they are visible. Not sure about what to do where they are concealed by the boards. The Peco pots have flat vertical faces which are very convenient for fixing the boards to (gasps of horror all round!)
Colin


Hello Colin,

Indeed, 'tis I, thinly disguised!

As I recover from the shock of your proposal. I am mindful of the many yards of continuously boarded juice rail through my platforms, I am looking at your boards on NH - and I am thinking again...

Very Best wishes,


Hi JFS,

No, do not think again. I am in danger of corrupting your mind re. third rail fittings! Whilst I could get away with such vile deviations in 00, I fear the consequences of repeating such bodgings in P4. (Note to self: must find out if S4 members can be black-balled from the society for even thinking about using Peco accessories.)

It is all going to be more expensive than I had anticipated.... :-(

Colin

JFS
Posts: 746
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2009 3:47 pm

Re: Peco Individulay Pandrol fixings - suitable for P4?

Postby JFS » Tue Mar 18, 2014 8:21 am

Colin Parks wrote:
Hi JFS,

No, do not think again. I am in danger of corrupting your mind re. third rail fittings! Whilst I could get away with such vile deviations in 00, I fear the consequences of repeating such bodgings in P4. (Note to self: must find out if S4 members can be black-balled from the society for even thinking about using Peco accessories.)



Hi Colin,

Well steady on, I am only talking about the "hard to see bits" between the platforms!!! (though J S-W has shown us that the digital camera gets everywhere...)
Remember what Bro. Rice said about the tyranny of perfection - getting something done is about making the most appropriate bodges - sorry - compromises - it is just that hereabouts we eschew compromises which the non-believers make everyday. In my experience within this Society, the different compromises we all make cause us to vigorously debate with each other in pages such as this. To the "outside world" of course, we are all jumping about on the same pinhead!

Speak it quietly, but in my Area Group, our Coordinator does not even use the right gauge of track - well he didn't, until a few of us took him outside and showed him the light... Now he is busily converting his stock :D

But it is all great fun, no real blood get spilled and we all learn loads in the process so nothing stands still for long!

Very Best Wishes,

User avatar
Colin Parks
Posts: 596
Joined: Sun Oct 27, 2013 4:44 pm

Re: Peco Individulay Pandrol fixings - suitable for P4?

Postby Colin Parks » Tue Mar 18, 2014 8:36 am

Hi Howard,

I shall make my final decision re. track parts once I have a plan on which to base a layout - then it will be easy to see what can be seen and what cannot. It did cross my mind to construct a layout viewable from either side, which would make the concealing of bodged parts rather difficult!

All the best,

Colin

User avatar
Colin Parks
Posts: 596
Joined: Sun Oct 27, 2013 4:44 pm

Re: Peco Individulay Components - Suitable for P4?

Postby Colin Parks » Tue Mar 18, 2014 8:41 am

Note: The topic title has been edited to reflect the general direction of the discussion.

Colin

Terry Bendall
Forum Team
Posts: 1890
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2008 7:46 am

Re: Peco Individulay Components - Suitable for P4?

Postby Terry Bendall » Wed Mar 19, 2014 7:15 am

JFS wrote:though J S-W has shown us that the digital camera gets everywhere...)


Yes it does. :( Have a careful look at the cover picture of Scalefour News 184 and see what is missing from the track in the foreground. (It has now been fitted by the way.)

The picture does however show the BR2 type flat bottom rail fixings used in the bay platform and the conductor rail quite well and you can see the bullhead rail used in the sidings.

Terry Bendall


Return to “Starting in P4”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests