ONLINE
STORE
"ASK THE BACH MAN"
FORUM
PARTS, SERVICE,
& INFORMATION
CATALOGS AND
BROCHURES

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
September 15, 2019, 04:12:47 AM
Home Help Search Login Register
News: Please read the Forum Code of Conduct   >>Click Here <<
+  Bachmann Message Board
|-+  Discussion Boards
| |-+  Large
| | |-+  Will Bachmann Big Haulers or Spectrum run on Peco code 200 track
« previous next »
Pages: [1] Print
Author Topic: Will Bachmann Big Haulers or Spectrum run on Peco code 200 track  (Read 1509 times)
buhlig

View Profile
« on: May 26, 2018, 09:33:08 AM »

Looking for some help here. I have a customer that has a lot of the Big Haulers and Spectrum G Scale. Will they run on Peco Code 200 track?
Logged
Hunt
?
MBB


View Profile
« Reply #1 on: May 26, 2018, 02:33:51 PM »

Bachmann Large Scale Big Haulers and the Spectrum (1:20.3) will run on Peco Gauge 1 Code 200 track.
Logged
armorsmith


View Profile
« Reply #2 on: May 27, 2018, 05:18:14 PM »

Hunt, I gotta ask the question.....is that from personal experience? I know folks that have experienced issues running on code 215 aluminum. I am not sure that a blanket statement that because it says Gauge 1 on the track all products will perform on that track.

My recommendation is to confer with Peco.
Logged
Hunt
?
MBB


View Profile
« Reply #3 on: May 27, 2018, 10:25:35 PM »

Bob,

Peco Gauge 1 code 200 track is not aluminum. Nevertheless, answer to your question - Yes. Two different layouts, neither mine.
 
Do you know folks that have running issues with Bachmann large scale on brass code 332 and code 250 track. I do.




BTW Bob , what information did you receive from Peco Technical Advice Bureau?

(Per my undated tech notes -  Peco has no information code 200 track cannot be used with Bachmann large scale.)
Logged
Hunt
?
MBB


View Profile
« Reply #4 on: May 27, 2018, 10:33:10 PM »

 buhlig  (aka -Bill Uhlig)

Should your customer have issues using Peco Gauge 1 Code 200 track with his Bachmann large scale. The Peco track code is not the problem.
Logged
armorsmith


View Profile
« Reply #5 on: May 28, 2018, 12:11:57 AM »

Hunt,

My comments are relative to mathematics. If the 'pizza cutter' flanges on the Bachmann LS wheel sets have issues on a code 250 rail that is .250 inches high, then I would assume that the same wheel stets would have difficulties on a smaller code 200 rail that is .050 (near 1/16") smaller. Now if Peco is 'calling' it's track code 200 and in reality it is something different, that is a different discussion. Another item that will make a difference as well is the size of the 'spikes' that are molded into the tie strip of the track. Some manufacturers are thicker (taller) than others.

As for running Bachmann LS wheel sets on code 332, no I don't have any issues at all. In fact the Bachmann 31mm wheel sets are my default when replacing plastic wheel sets on all but Lionel rolling stock. Lionel I replace the truck with a USA Trains truck frame and Bachmann wheel sets.

Material of rail does not make any difference relative to the code of the rial. Code 250 is code 250 ....  .250 inches tall. The cross section will likely differ slightly dependent on the manufacturer, or why rail joiners will not necessarily play well with all track.

As for do I know folks personally? No, I do not. However over my 10 or so years in LS and reading every forum that is dedicated to LS, there have been numerous threads discussing the smaller code rail with the over size flanges on most manufacturers factory rolling stock, especially Bachmann. I can personally speak to some code 215 brass rail that I acquired probably 40 years ago that averages between .210 and .220 high, and even with hand laid spikes Bachmann wheel sets will bump on some spikes depending on the thickness of the spike head. The rail had been purchased for an 0 gauge mainline layout that never developed and the rail has been collecting dust since. I am considering doing a mining branch that will use the rail with 0 gauge wheel sets on mining cars. A big heavy but the rail is free.

I am not interested in a debate, only offering a caveat to test before committing to a large dollar purchase of track. If it works for you then that is a wonderful thing. However I tire of folks jumping with out testing and then complaining that things don't work.
Logged
Hunt
?
MBB


View Profile
« Reply #6 on: May 28, 2018, 01:23:30 AM »

". . . test before committing to a large dollar purchase of track."
 Bob --- On that, we agree. Also, I am not spending any more time on this.




Bill Uhlig, CYA -  test the Bachmann "stuff" on Peco Gauge 1 code 200 track before investing much time and money.
Logged
Kevin Strong


View Profile WWW
« Reply #7 on: May 30, 2018, 12:03:56 AM »

It's not the height of the rail that's the issue. It's the distance from the top of the railhead to the top of the spike detail that holds the rails to the ties. In many cases, there's actually more clearance on code 250 track than there is on code 332 because the spike detail on the code 250 track is much finer than on the code 332 rail, which is often over-engineered for durability, due to the vast majority of it being sectional track and needing to stand up to being assembled and disassembled.

Having said that, the deepest flange I've measured in large scale is just shy of 3/16", on an ancient LGB loco trailing wheel. I have yet to run that loco on any code 332 or code 250 track and have that flange bounce on the spike detail.

I can't speak to Peco's code 200 track.

Later,

K
Logged

Hunt
?
MBB


View Profile
« Reply #8 on: May 30, 2018, 06:27:06 PM »

Found more notes on Peco Gauge 1 Code 200 track

 0.135" from railhead to top of rail chair and a check rail to stock rail clearance of 0.105"
Logged
Pages: [1] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  
Powered by SMF | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!