N Scale sound in locos sound terrible to me

[CRL]

DKS - Very nice! But where are all the ambulance chasing attorneys in the second scene? 🤪

RANDGUST - I think a layout based sound effects system is the most viable current technology for N-scale. If, at sometime in the future, a split system is developed that has on board speakers producing only high frequency sound (which is directional) but mid and lower frequencies (non directional) are sent to larger speakers below the layout, then that might be a more effective system. It should still be kept to ambient sound levels because the effect is ruined if the subwoofer is shaking the layout.

BG - From what I understand, Peco does make some HO track using US prototype tie spacing, but all their N-scale track uses British prototype tie spacing. Peco tends to bring out products in HO, followed by N-scale. Hopefully, they’ll get around to making US prototype tie spacing in N-scale, but if not, I can live with it. Fifer Hobby has a decent video showing the difference between the 3 major code 55 flex track brands.

I don’t think you can truly judge how track looks until you weather and ballast the track. When this is done with Peco code 55, the entire lower web of the rail is not visible, including the rail joiners. You also have to consider durability. Several years ago, a friend built a layout using Micro Engineering Code 55 track, but tore it up and rebuilt with Peco code 55. The ME track kept popping out of the spikes due to the temperature changes in his garage layout. No such issues happened with the Peco code 55.

[peteski]

DKS - Very nice! But where are all the ambulance chasing attorneys in the second scene? 🤪

RANDGUST - I think a layout based sound effects system is the most viable current technology for N-scale. If, at sometime in the future, a split system is developed that has on board speakers producing only high frequency sound (which is directional) but mid and lower frequencies (non directional) are sent to larger speakers below the layout, then that might be a more effective system. It should still be kept to ambient sound levels because the effect is ruined if the subwoofer is shaking the layout.

Rigth!  That doesn't work for me at all.  While I'm a fan of N scale sound (when using quality components), loud sound with lots of low frequency (from  a subwoofer) suddenly makes it sound gimmicky and unrealistic. I don't expect or want a full range gut-vibrating sound seemingly emanating from a tiny 5" long model.  Besides, if this type of sound equipment was used during an ops session where there are at least half a dozen locos running at the same time on the layout (all in one room), that would be totally impossible to put up with, even for short time. 

It still makes sense to me to have sounds played at very low levels. That makes an ops session more enjoyable, and with the horn and bell (again at low levels) enhancing the operating experience.

[CRL]

Have you noticed it’s always the guy with the worst taste in music that blasts it through the worst sound system? Same goes for the guy running the sound board at most concerts.

“Now Kenny he's been mixing sound all evening
Sometimes I think that boy
He ain't got no ears”

Lyle Lovett — Closing Time

[jdcolombo]

Rigth!  That doesn't work for me at all.  While I'm a fan of N scale sound (when using quality components), loud sound with lots of low frequency (from  a subwoofer) suddenly makes it sound gimmicky and unrealistic. I don't expect or want a full range gut-vibrating sound seemingly emanating from a tiny 5" long model.  Besides, if this type of sound equipment was used during an ops session where there are at least half a dozen locos running at the same time on the layout (all in one room), that would be totally impossible to put up with, even for short time. 

It still makes sense to me to have sounds played at very low levels. That makes an ops session more enjoyable, and with the horn and bell (again at low levels) enhancing the operating experience.

Amen.  I've been to train shows where the HO modular layout guys set up a subwoofer system for their locomotive sound.  After about 5 minutes, it drove me crazy.  And it was totally inappropriate even for HO scale to have the sound you'd hear from 10' away blasting away at you.  When it comes to model sound, less is more.

John C.

[CRL]

Even though I don’t like sound in N-scale, I’m in full agreement that any sound must be kept at ambient levels to stand any chance of being realistic. Train horns can be slightly higher, but not much.

[robert3985]

...BG - From what I understand, Peco does make some HO track using US prototype tie spacing, but all their N-scale track uses British prototype tie spacing. Peco tends to bring out products in HO, followed by N-scale. Hopefully, they’ll get around to making US prototype tie spacing in N-scale, but if not, I can live with it. Fifer Hobby has a decent video showing the difference between the 3 major code 55 flex track brands.

I don’t think you can truly judge how track looks until you weather and ballast the track. When this is done with Peco code 55, the entire lower web of the rail is not visible, including the rail joiners. You also have to consider durability. Several years ago, a friend built a layout using Micro Engineering Code 55 track, but tore it up and rebuilt with Peco code 55. The ME track kept popping out of the spikes due to the temperature changes in his garage layout. No such issues happened with the Peco code 55.

Years ago, in answer to those who erroneously claim that Peco 80/55 and other C80 N-gauge track is designed after "British prototype tie spacing", I did some research, which quickly showed that C80 and Peco 80/55 track does not look like ANY prototype track anywhere.  It's designed using the same proportions as the N-gauge toy track used in the first N-gauge trainsets produced in the '60's.  The claim that the too short, too tall, too wide, too widely spaced ties on Peco track looks like British prototype track is wrong.  Just look at photos of British prototype track.

I have been using both RailCraft and Micro Engineering flex on portable modules and sections since the early 1980's...over 30 years, and I have both stored and transported my modules and layout sections in non-temperature controlled garages, storage units and trailers in both boiling Summers and sub-zero freezing Winters (Utah weather) during that time, and I have NEVER had a problem with expansion/contraction caused by extreme temperatures.

On the other hand, I have stored friends' modules in the same conditions which used C80 Atlas track, and they had major problems...particularly with the loose rail, which most regularly broke out of the plastic ties.

I have also had friends who built their layouts in non-temperature controlled attics, sheds and garages, and had major expansion/contraction problems with their C80 rail, but after cutting expansion/contraction joints every 6 to 8 feet, all of their kinking and rail-popping problems disappeared.  Also, well-ballasted track has much fewer expansion/contraction problems too, especially using white glue instead of matte medium.

In my experience, my RailCraft/ME flex in C70/C55/C40 is just as durable as Peco55 as long as I'm not walking on it, or dropping anvils and sledgehammers on it.

As for appearance, I certainly CAN judge the way trackage looks before I paint, weather and ballast it.  Painting/weathering/ballasting doesn't change the basic misproportions of C80 and Peco 55 track, although painting/weathering/ballasting can hide some of their flaws, they will NEVER look as prototypical as equally well painted/weathered/ballasted Micro Engineering C70/C55/C40 flex, or even Atlas C55.

Photo (1) - Atlas C80 flex I laid on my friend Nate's N-gauge layout, properly painted/weathered/ballasted:


Photo (2) - RailCraft C55 flex laid with exactly the same technique and materials as the previous photo on my layout at Echo Curve:


Although frankly, the first time I laid Peco 55 track for a friend, I was quite surprised at how much more I liked the way it looked than I expected.  The same for Atlas and Peco C80.  However, it still doesn't hold a candle to RailCraft/ME C70/C55/C40 flex or even Atlas 55, laid with the exact same techniques, including the same real-rock Highball ballast mixture.

The main question I have about Peco55 is why Peco did not take the opportunity to actually build their N-scale track to a prototype's proportions.  The technique makes it possible to make strong rails that could protrude a prototypically high .046", have scale-sized tieplates and spikeheads, along with scale-sized ties (length, width and spacing).  Too thick ties would be easy to conceal in ballast, or...since Peco had custom rail drawn, a less tall profile could have easily been ordered.  It seems like a huge lost business/marketing opportunity to me since the overall costs would have been identical to their crappy looking present C55 N-gauge trackage.

Unlike N-scale sound, which is limited by the physics of small speaker size, making prototypically detailed N-scale track isn't rocket science.  Just walk out to your local mainline right-of-way and take a few measurements rather than sit at your drafting desk and guess at the proportions when designing the new product.

Although I am convinced that sound in N-scale will get even better, I'm not waiting for it, but including it now in every engine I'm running on the layout...on RailCraft/ME C55/C40 and handlaid C40 rails....   

Cheerio!
Bob Gilmore

[CRL]

Cost of tooling is huge, so not surprised they may not want to produce multiple prototype rail. Keep in mind Peco is a British company as is their customer base. Pretty sure they wanted their new track to be backward compatible with what equipment their customers had — pizza cutter wheels on locomotives being the main concern. Lack of fake spikes on the inside of the rails is an accommodation and probably drove the decision to use the buried bottom rail web. Having never been to England, I just assumed it was British prototype. The tie size and spacing still doesn’t bother me and I find the Peco N-scale code 55 or be a pleasure to work with, so it remains my preference.

[CNscale]

Earlier in this thread:

Overall, I’d rather have no sound than annoying (to my ears) sound since it would be detrimental to my enjoyment of the visual effect.

With respect for those who feel otherwise, I promise to not scream “that sound sucks” as your sound equipped loco goes by. I reserve the right to mutter it under my breath.

Speaking of the enjoyment of the visual effect, we likewise promise not to so scream ...  (while similarly reserving the right to mutter) when viewing your Peco code 55 track. 

[CRL]

Earlier in this thread:


Speaking of the enjoyment of the visual effect, we likewise promise not to so scream ...  (while similarly reserving the right to mutter) when viewing your Peco code 55 track. 

No problemo!  But you may have problems seeing the ties when I finish with ballest and a heavy layer of desert southwest dirt/dust. My standard mutter when viewing 98% of the layouts & modules I see is “not dirty enough”.

[jdcolombo]

I used Peco Code 55 for 15 years, until switching to Atlas Code 55 for my curent layout.

But I miss my Peco, particularly in switching areas where you could just flick the points and set your turnouts, instead of having to look down at a track diagram and flip DPDT switches until you found the one that operated the turnout you needed; or instead of using HO-scale-sized ground throws that looked terrible; or trying to McGyver something from a slide switch or other mechanical device to throw the points.

Plus the stuff is indestructible.  We still use it on our Ntrak modules, because it is the only thing that will stand up to the constant abuse.  We have Peco Code 55 switches on the modules that are 20 years old and still working like a champ, even after being stored in a trailer parked outside enduring temperature swings from -20 to 95.

I like the look of my Atlas Code 55, and I can't say I've had any serious issues with it (I don't like the plated turnout points and frog; and the turnouts themselves are relatively fragile) but I miss the operational simplicity and robustness of the Peco.

John C.

[jagged ben]

I check in on this thread and now it's about track?

[CRL]

I think code 55 Peco track sounds better than Atlas or ME code 55. 

There - fixed it. 

[jagged ben]

Hahaha

[MVW]

I check in on this thread and now it's about track?

Yep. Next up is politics. 

Jim

[Steveruger45]

Yep. Next up is politics. 

Jim

Yep, and after that the really hot subject of .... track cleaning and perhaps how the different methods make track sound better