Hornby locos from the 80's - stability on points

[inspiredron]

Apologies for a rather long first post. I am advanced in years but a model railway newbie!
I have been inspired to look at resurrecting some kit that my father in law put together in the 1980’s (and maybe some from earlier) for the benefit of our grandchildren who are now of an age where they can appreciate and be trusted with a model railway.
I have put together an 8ft x 4ft baseboard and, using SCARM, have designed a layout and am ready to order new track, given that the old track is mostly past its useful life and too fragmented and distorted for re-use.
The projected layout is essentially a double oval using second and third radius curves (I am more confident of getting smoothness with Setrack than with flexible) and using flexible track lengths for the straight sections. I have included four sidings and a terminal station within the oval and some cross-overs using back to back points for switching between the inner and outer ovals.
There is a reasonable amount of rolling stock and 4 Hornby locomotives – an 0-6-0 Tank engines (GWR 8751), another 0-6-0 Tank (BR 47606), a 4-6-0 steam (BR 45192) and a Co-Co Diesel (BR D1738 Class 47 with illuminated route boards IV03).
Points are clearly one of the more expensive track items and I therefore investigated the possibilities of re-use of some of the old ones which are a mixture of Hornby and Peco basic (2nd radius) and just a very few Peco medium radius (SL95/6 type). I have set up a very roughly put together test track to check out the serviceability of the points and also the controller (Hanmmant & Morgan Duette with an add on extra H&M DC controller).
On my test track I experienced a lot of dirty track (wheel?) issues which should be curable but it appeared that the two larger locomotives, particularly, had some difficulty in negotiating 2nd radius points without relatively frequent derailing. This may well be partly because the test track has not been assembled carefully enough and it is certainly not pinned down.
As a result of the apparent difficulty in negotiating 2nd radius points I revamped the SCARM plan to use Peco Streamline medium radius points which has the disadvantage that the usable siding space is significantly reduced and a pair of SL96 points for a crossover needs a short straight between to maintain the (65mm) 6ft way dictated by Setrack 2nd and 3rd radius curves .
Today I rang the Peco advice line to clarify how best to cope with the difficulty I am experiencing with second radius points. I was disappointed to be told that it is unlikely that old locomotives will reliably negotiate any points because of the old manufacturing tolerances arising from cast wheels rather than machined wheels. The chap also told me that replacing the wheels, while possible and economic on rolling stock, is not worthwhile on locomotives.
Obviously I don't want to spend around £200 on track to then find that the old locos won't go round without causing huge frustartion to the kids with derailment and sticking on the points. Neither am I anxious to add another £200 - £350 on replacing the locos. If it is likely to work my first preference would be to use 2nd radius points (eg ST241) for the sidings and to maybe use SL96 or Hornby 8072. I completely understand that it is vital that pointwork needs to be very carefully aligned if derailments are to be avoided so wonder if the Hornby express points (which maintain the correct 6ft way) could be easier than adding the short piece of straight that Peco neds for a crossover.
I would be really grateful for any comments on the suitability of the old locos and whether I need to avoid 2nd radius points
Cheers
Ron

[Dad-1]

Without actually working on it I couldn't comment on the derailments, but a few comments
on old stock may either frighten you or get you fired up to solve !

Older locomotives and even rolling stock had wide tyres. Peco points have a reduced separation of
tracks at the 'V' and will frequently short out as the wide wheels bridge the, about, 1.0 mm gap.
Hornby set-track points have something nearer to 2.0 mm and while perhaps not getting rid of all
the problem will be a huge improvement.
I suppose derailing shouldn't really be a problem with the right points. Those earlier locomotives were
designed to run around tighter curves than modern stuff and also had a somewhat narrower back to back
measurement. It could well be the derailing is being caused by the wheels catching on the check rails
of more modern Peco points. Older stock also had much deeper flanges a fact that older track was designed
to accept.

So first I'd look at opening the gap between the insides of wheel flanges to 14.35 to 14.5 mm. Anything less
will not run happily on modern track. I don't think the radius of turn on points is the problem, as I said older
items were designed to be happy on 1st radius curves..

Best to go through one adjustment at a time .....

Geoff T.

[Bufferstop]

There's one benefit from Triang/Hornby's habit of wringing every drop of revenue they can get out of old tooling. Later versions of the same models used the same chassis and axles, only the new finer wheels were different. So there are various supplies of parts that can be used to get your old locos running on modern track. Try dealers like Peter's Spares for replacement wheels and axles, non runners and ones with badly damaged body or valve gear from train fairs and swapmeets usually have an undamaged set of wheels. If all else fails, for a price, you can by finer standard wheels with the correct diameter axles from Markits in whatever diameter and spoke count that you want.

[Edit] to correct Google predictive spell checker's Artificially Unintelligent late changes. Corrected gearfrom to bedroom well after I had typed it.

[inspiredron]

Thanks for the responses, Geoff and bufferstop. That is all most helpful. Oddly, as I recall, the Hornby points that I have seemed to cause more issues than the Peco but I will revisit that with the benefit of your collective wisdom. When I did my tests I did see a lot of arcing but I put that down to dirty track/wheels and had not spotted the possibility of short circuiting at the frogs. interesting what you say about Hornby track being more tolerant. I had formed the opposite opinion from what I had read on this site, though there was mention that newer Hornby points were much improved over the older variety. Myold ones have an oblong clear topped box alongside the point with a white plastic spring strip inside that provides the cushioning for the changeover - a much less decisive arrangement than the positive springing in the Peco variety.
I had a quick look at Peters last night and was amazed at the variety of spares that are there. It seems that I need to investigate how the wheels are actually fited to the locos with aview to possibly increasing the distance between the inner wheel faces.
I have been in touch with the secretary of our local Club and have arranged to go there an 10 days time to check out my locos on their Code 100 Peco Streamline test track which will be a better test - even if it does not include the setrack 2nd radius points. Also I hope that the basic Thomas set that we gave to one of our younger grandchildren last year may still be in working order to see the difference with a modern loco.
Thanks again
Ron

[Bufferstop]

One thing more to do Ron any old track that looks usable, check with a magnet (nicked from the fridge door) if it sticks, junk the track, it's galvanised steel. It's almost impossible to keep clean enough, repeated cleaning leads to holes in the plating and the spread of rust. Hornby were late to stop using it, Peco dropped it over twenty years ago.

[Mountain]

My thoughts if one has older locos is to keep a few steel railed items of track and use them on inclines so the older locos which have magnahesion can take advantage of it, as there is quite a difference in pulling power up inclines when such locos are on steel rails. I do admit that nickel silver track is superior, though I am one who would try to make use of things until they have ended their usefulness, so I'd be inclines to relegate them for secondary sidings, especially for wagon or coach storage for behind the scenes use.
While nickel silver rail may not be the ultimate material to use, it is certainly the best all round material to use. Easily soldered and fairly easy to clean. It turns brown when used in the great outdoors adding further realism. However the shiny yellow colour of the material is not as realistic as steel rails when they have been shined up, but like you mentioned above, steel rails do tend to have more electrical contact issues then NS.
One issue of steel is that if it has had more then just a thin surface rust to it, it is hard to bring back to life electrically speaking, while NS is fairly easy to bring back to life and even if brown from outdoor use it can be brought to life, though where the rail joiners need electrical contact or is soldering is required, all the brown needs removing from the sides and underneath, which is not so easy... Also to note, steel is not suitable for outdoor use, even if one is working with live steam in a larger scale. I've heard stories of garden railway enthusiasts reversing trains into steel railed sidings (Which the main lines were NS) only to think the loco has left the rails. On examination, they found they had no rails. Just a pair of brown stains where the rails used to be!
The only reason that I changed from steel to NS, was that I went from a layout in a damp garage which with steel rails had a layer of rust that needed a clean prior to running. I didnt really find steel to need that much more cleaning then NS if one had a dry environment, as NS tends to tarnish fairly quickly when not used for a few weeks. (Most of my running on a layout didnt happen daily but was more like every other week. I used to have the largest layout available in the space I had and the most possible track crammed in... But even in NS it would take the best part of half an hour to clean prior to running, so these days my view of building a layout is small is beautiful!)