LGB vs PIKO track system

A

Andrew_au

Registered
Country flag
Interested in getting your thoughts on the LGB track system vs the PIKO track system.


As far as I can tell, LGB is more popular and available. It's got a reputation for reliability. All my current track is from LGB.

However, LGB track as a system has some quirks:
  • Only R1 and R2 work as "parallel track". There is a large spacing between R2 and R3, and a very large spacing between R3 and R5. This is obvious on the LGB track system diagram - Flexi-track is used to fill in a lot of the curves.
  • Some track lengths are odd. For example:
    • the R3 turnout is 440mm long compared to the standard 300mm unit. LGB does not make a 140mm track section nor a 260mm track section, so an R3 junction cannot drop into a standard sized section.
    • 300 cos(30) is almost 260mm. As mentioned above, the LGB system does not easily support a 260mm track section.
  • Crossings
    • The 30 degree crossing is asymmetric. This seems to be designed to work with parallel tracks and R1 turnouts, but only for right-hand turnouts.
    • The 90 degree crossing has 3 legs the same and the fourth different.
    • The double-slip crossing is 22.5 degrees, but specified to be at R2 radius. R2 is an odd radius that only comes in 30 degree lengths and has no other matching turnouts
From my naive viewpoint, it looks like several of the lesser-used pieces of LGB track were created to meet a single particular purpose rather than as part of a system. Notice how many of the tracks in the track-system diagram require various paddings.


In contrast, the PIKO track system appears to be designed such that any standard radius or angle of track can easily interconnect with any other - see pages 5-7 of the PIKO brochure. Notably, any odd length has a matching track that re-aligns to the standard 300mm. The corner radii seem to be designed for parallel tracks, and have a consistent ~320mm spacing between variations.

The PIKO system is missing a couple of features compared to the LGB system. PIKO does not support 90 degree or 22.5 degree crossings, and does not have equivalents to the LGB 3-way turnout and double-slip crossing. They do support a R5/R7 curved turnout, which like the other PIKO components seems to have a well defined role.


Except for R1, LGB and PIKO curves don't match.
  • LGB R2 is tighter than PIKO R3
  • LGB R3 is a little tighter than PIKO R5
  • LGB R5 is much wider (+50%) than PIKO R7
  • Curiously, PIKO R7 is double LGB R2, but that might be just coincidence

Both systems support flex-track. LGB uses 1500mm lengths with 300mm ties. PIKO uses 3m and 1500mm lengths with 320mm & 280mm ties.

I observe that many auxiliary components - rail clips, switch machines, switch machine relay contacts, power clamps - are visually nearly identical. Pico supports rail clamps as well as joiners, but these can equally be retrofit to LGB joiners. Are PIKO and LGB turnout motors interchangeable?


Other than availability (which LGB seems to win hands-down), is there reason to prefer one over the other? For example:
  • price
  • track wear
  • turnout reliability
  • usefulness of track systems for track laying
 
Hi Andrew,
I have used both track types outdoors and I think some of my mates have used both types of points [manual only] in similar situations without too much bother. generally both types mix and match fairly well but as you have observed there are some 'interesting' differences. The Club I belong to [Hornsby Model Engineers - Home] has used a mixture of manual points [including home made ones] and uses Oz Track flexible track from Pamak Hobbies [Pamak Hobbies] for quite a lot of the layout we have there. Pamak stocks Piko track and can provide more information regarding compatibility, the proprietor, Kevin King, is quite knowledgeable having been in the business for some years.
cheers, Monty
20210522_130023.jpg
 
I have a mix of LGB, Piko and TrainLine45 track. Historically, I ran non-permanent layouts (around the apartment at Christmas, monthly updates on the balcony) and never really had a problem with the geometry combinations when mixing (note, I was primarily using the small radius ones due to space). I've generally found the G-Scale track (and stock) to be forgiving or the small variances so although something looked wrong in the track planning software I was able to achieve it in reality.

So to your last points, I've been happy with the results of mixing and matching and filling in gaps where I need to do. (Pikos curved points are a wonderful addition to the options available, for example).
 
I have mixed Peco, LGB, Trainline 45 and Aristo track with no problems. Where I wanted close parallel track for my storage sidings I cut down the gap between the track by shortening the bit that joins 2 LGB R3 points together. As for the rest of the geometry I find that short cut offs work as rarely does one have the right space to worry about exact geometric relationships between varying sections of the LGB used in that storage area. Of course as ever it is horses for courses and if you worry about future sales of track then you may well require exact geometric layouts.
 
I use mostly LGB track, but I do have some PIKO, as well as ART and a few Train-Line points.

A good Gizzy top tip for parallel curved track is to use PIKO R3 on the inner curve and LGB R3 on the outer curve....
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top