G45 Track LGB or Peco?

homestyal

homestyal

Registered
I am currently in the process of moving house which gives me the opportunity to plan my next garden railway.

I will have to lift my LGB track but I'm thinking of replacing it with Peco G45 on my new garden layout.

I am planning not to "power" the track as my engines will be real steam or battery powered. (I'm finished with LGB loco and track cleaning!)

So my questions are:
  1. Does Peco G45 give a better performance and appearance outdoors?
  2. What options for are available for electronically switching the points?
  3. Or should I stick with LGB powered track used only for switching?
I'd appreciate your ideas.

Thank you.
 
1/ Peco isn't as substantial but, in practice, I've not heard of any problems.

2/ I've read reports that Peco point motors aren't too good outdoors and Peco themselves offer an adapter to take LGB point motors. I guess that means there's a demand for them.

3/ Powering the track for any purpose isn't a good idea with any non-insulated stock.

One down side of Peco is the very limited range of pointwork, just one left and one right hand example of otherwise the same geometry.
 
Do you mean Peco's code 332 rail (same height as LGB) or their finer code 250 stuff?
I believe that some stock (eg: LGB) designed for running on code 332 can possibly have flange depth problems on code 250....?

As Neil says, if you go with Peco code 250 you are pretty much limited to what they produce, while staying with code 332 means you can mix and match from a wide variety of track makers (LGB, Piko, Aristo, AMS, TL45, Theil and so on).

Jon.
 
Zerogee said:
Do you mean Peco's code 332 rail (same height as LGB) or their finer code 250 stuff?
Jon.
Click to expand...

Peco don't do code 332, only code 250.

Other than that I agree with Neil, Peco G45 (code 250) is reasonable track but not as robust as code 332 from the likes of LGB, Piko, AMS etc. and only one radius of point in Peco's range. Never encountered any flange problems with code 250, but some folk have tried to use gauge 1 track (code 200) and had troubles.
 
ntpntpntp said:
Peco don't do code 332, only code 250.
Click to expand...

Ah, OK.... I thought they did the code 250 for gauge 1 use, and a version of code 332 for G that had the same rail height as LGB but a different cross-sectional profile? Or am I getting mixed up with Tenmille track (I've never used either Peco or Tenmille, so I may be confusing them)....

Jon.
 
Unless you have a particular reason for going outside of LGB style code 332, e.g. initial cost, scale or sleeper appearance, I'd stick with LGB and/or its compatibles. There is a wide range of track work without the need for expensive handmade for special needs, say, like curved points. There is also the matter of onward sale some day, LGB and its like are readily marketable and more easily obtained 2nd hand at a reasonable cost. Max
 
Hi Jon, yeah I think it's Tenmille that do code 332 with a different profile.
 
Zerogee said:
Ah, OK.... I thought they did the code 250 for gauge 1 use, and a version of code 332 for G that had the same rail height as LGB but a different cross-sectional profile? Or am I getting mixed up with Tenmille track (I've never used either Peco or Tenmille, so I may be confusing them)....

Jon.
Click to expand...
You are thinking of Tenmille. They do a code 332 but it needs adaptors to mate with LGB and its like. I have some. Max
 
ntpntpntp said:
Hi Jon, yeah I think it's Tenmille that do code 332 with a different profile.
Click to expand...

You're entirely right, Nick, I stand corrected! ;)

Comments re the code 250 track still apply, though, and I'd second Max's thoughts on the subject......

Jon.
 
What Neil says about limited range is true. I only use Peco flexi. I find it very easy to lay etc'. It would be nice if they even included a 'Y' point, a crossover doesn't look that hard to make up, unless very long. As for less substantial than LGB, that could be debatable, as it is not as heavy a section therefore must seem less substantial. I've had no trouble in over five years since I started.

On the looks stakes, I think it is way out in front for realism with narrow gauge stock.

For point motors I've never bothered with Peco, I don't think they are designed for outside use. I always use LGB, they are certainly second to none in my book. The vast majority of my track is second-hand sourced from Evil-buy.
 
I've got some odd bits of Tenmille; as usual it was at the right price, S/H. Unfortunately when it got used I didn't appreciate the significant difference in profile; as a result I've had to file a lead-in on the inner face of the adjoining rail in some places to eliminate jolts; jolts that in one case, on curve, was severe enough to de-rail a light vehicle. (I use bolt-on fish-plates which masks the profile difference when the track is being laid and tends to centre the rails in relation to each other, causing the step between the Tenmille and the other rail).
Mixing the other brands has not been a problem.
 
I kept all my LGB and Peco Track and used it in my new Larger Line. But I predominantly prefer Peco G45 for its finer look, having converted all my Points to live Frog. As and when I needed new Track I have bought Train Line 45, the points having Live Fogs is a great step forwards for the LGB Profile Rail. I use LGB and Aristo Curves to give me perfect 4ft minimum Radius on my Curves. A real Mish Mash I tnink you will agree, but when properly laid, ballasted and weathered the differences are hardly noticeable. Plus I have no problems with running.
JonD
 
Have a look at Accucraft flexitrack - same profile as LGB

Trackshack have some good deals :nod::nod:
 
Rhinochugger said:
Have a look at Accucraft flexitrack - same profile as LGB

Trackshack have some good deals :nod::nod:
Click to expand...
There is one issue with the Accucraft track. I have a considerable amount of it BUT it is not strictly Code 332 being v slightly taller than LGB. This means that there is a distinct step where it joins to LGB. Not too much of a problem when stock is running from the Accucraft but a real wrecker of skates when running onto it plus a source of derailment for even heavy stock.
I was forced to file a chamfer wherever the two met.
If laying it again I would ensure that I laid all the Accucraft in a single block to reduce the work. The Accucraft track is harder than LGB and needs quite a bit more effort to file down.
Also, it stays bright compared to LGB which quickly weathers.
Good price from Track Shack though and quick delivery too.
 
I must say all the Accucraft/AML track I have matches perfectly with LGB and I've been very pleased with it. Overall the same code 332; a very slight difference in the heights of the head and foot but doesn't cause any problems at all with matching the height at the rail head, and no derailments or skate wear.

AML on the left, LGB on the right:

DSCN4556a.jpg


However a friend did have slight problems with a batch he had a few years ago - yes it was very slightly taller with a more rounded head, but a few quick taps with Mr Hammer sorted it!
 
Last edited:
KeithT said:
There is one issue with the Accucraft track. I have a considerable amount of it BUT it is not strictly Code 332 being v slightly taller than LGB. This means that there is a distinct step where it joins to LGB. Not too much of a problem when stock is running from the Accucraft but a real wrecker of skates when running onto it plus a source of derailment for even heavy stock.
I was forced to file a chamfer wherever the two met.
If laying it again I would ensure that I laid all the Accucraft in a single block to reduce the work. The Accucraft track is harder than LGB and needs quite a bit more effort to file down.
Also, it stays bright compared to LGB which quickly weathers.
Good price from Track Shack though and quick delivery too.
Click to expand...

Yes, I am skate free - never have liked fish :emo::emo::emo:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom