A long time ago I experimented with making PECO Code 100 track look better. At the time I ordered lots of it (back in the late 2000's) so i'm sticking with it. Back then I cut the webbing out from between each sleeper and spaced them out. I tried the same thing again today - it takes ages to do this, but it's only in the scenic part of the layout. I think the extra time will pay off. (ed: later proved wrong!)

Out of the box the sleeper the gap between sleepers is 4mm. I did a little research and found that a more appropriate gap would be 6mm. So I build a small jig for making the spacing a bit easier.

Of course this does nothing for the other out of scale dimensions of the sleepers, but it's an improvement and I don't want to go to the expense of new track or putting on new scale sleepers that I know are available. I suppose OO is a compromise in itself, so no point getting too fussy.

Of course this does nothing for the other out of scale dimensions of the sleepers, but it's an improvement and I don't want to go to the expense of new track or putting on new scale sleepers that I know are available. I suppose OO is a compromise in itself, so no point getting too fussy.

Next mini-project was butchering PECO large radius points so that the centrepoint to centrepoint measurement was 47mm (which i've read is closer to the real thing) rather than the standard PECO Streamline geometry 55mm. I have never done this before, but as with most of what i'm doing, i've read about it. Many of the points in the scenic section will need to be similarly treated, and the big test will be the double crossover on the north bay.

I didn't bother to put rail joiners on as i'll need to isolate the frogs anyway. I think the overall effect more than justifies the time spent. I have tried to match up the sleeper spacing too. I am pleased with the overall effect - even if because of the experimenting I didn't get any real momentum going today. As usual...