Seeking photos of painted/weathered Peco code 55

[mark dance]

Here's a few...


Mike Raddemacher photo














Tim Horton photo





lots more here: https://www.flickr.com/gp/27907618@N02/wrw3k2

md
Yes; I am a bit of a fan of their track

[wazzou]

IMO, it never looks bad taken from an angle, its more the directly perpendicular shots where the fleas come out.
I've used it and won't rule out using it again. 
We, as N Scalers are just caught in a bad spot because the "best looking turnouts" are spotty at best on availability and only come in a #6, the second best aren't very reliable long term or in some cases, straight out of the packaging and the most reliable ones don't match in tie height and spacing with the best looking flex track options.

[nkalanaga]

The old "Bullhead" rail in chairs.  Do they still use that on new track, or have they gone to all T-rail like the rest of the world?

[MDW]

Mark’s awesome Columbia & Western pictures & videos convinced me to switch from ME to Peco.   

Michel

[davefoxx]

Yes, if it’s good enough for @mark dance and the Columbia & Western, then it should be good enough for the Colorado Midland 2.0.  Well done, Mark!

DFF

[chicken45]

Quite possibly!  I see more experimentation in my future (again, you're welcome, @chicken45 )!

Tell me more, daddy!

[randgust]

I'm really glad to see the Peco getting some loving.   Mostly because it is so incredibly rugged and forgiving about flanges, if you still have some legacy stuff hanging around.

And if you can paint the shiny brown ties and do the rail just like you would any other model, well, you've seen the results here.   

The real challenge, and it can be done, is that in many situations the ties age toward grayish on a cinder roadbed.   You've got to pre-paint the ties.  There's no way you can put a wash or something over that brown plastic.   And you've got to bury the ties up to the tie-tops in whatever, dirt, ballast, etc, which in many cases means you don't really need roadbed for industrial track, spurs, or logging lines - it's already thick enough for was probably was no more than a 6"-12" lift to start with if that.

If you really look at track like any other model, the tendency on any well-used main line is for the ballast to break down over time and develop a 'dusting' in and over the ties.   It's REALLY pronounced on some, like my ATSF basalt ballast in '72, less so elsewhere, but the number of locations where you'll see fresh black creosote ties on white limestone ballast (where tie size and spacing really do stand out on a model) is surprisingly rare.  But generally you'll see a darker-grayish tie on equally weathered ballast, where the colors are much closer.   Mark's work is EXACTLY that.

One of my overall modeling philosophies is that color and texture perception is more important than detail perception, and this is a real example.

Some of you saw this T-trak module at Altoona, this is some of my fresher work.  The turnout is Kato, the end adapters are Kato, but everything else here is Peco C55.    Shot outside in sunlight this weekend.



And, yes, I painted up the Kato turnout to match including the cinder fill color and individually painted ties.   Yeesh, what a PITA!    I'm modeling the 1920's on this PRR secondary line, but it was upgraded in that period for the new coal traffic to Lackawanna, NY.  So the main has nice PRR ballast and the sidings and spurs haven't seen much since the track was laid in 1864.

[CRL]

For those having issues with n-scale rail height, I offer this prototype perspective.

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

[CRL]

And this perspective for well buried rail.

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

[Dave V]

Thanks guys!  And of course, I always love seeing photos from the incomparable @mark dance !

Rail height is certainly less of an issue in modern railroading.  As for what I'm doing...I don't know the exact rail size used by the Midland but there are some photos that look like 40-57 pounds in spots.  No way I'm getting down to that size in N without square music wire and handlaying...but that's OK.  To the extent I can trick the eye with paint and ballast, that's a good thing.

[Point353]

As for what I'm doing...I don't know the exact rail size used by the Midland but there are some photos that look like 40-57 pounds in spots.

According to the following data, the CM 2-8-0 locos required anywhere from 55 lb to 73 lb rail - which would be about code 30.
https://www.steamlocomotive.com/locobase.php?country=USA&wheel=2-8-0&railroad=cm#12470

[garethashenden]

The old "Bullhead" rail in chairs.  Do they still use that on new track, or have they gone to all T-rail like the rest of the world?

Most mainline routes have been relaid with flatbottom rail starting in the early '60s. There are still plenty of sidings around that have old bullhead rail, and London Underground uses bullhead for the deep tube lines.

Peco track is neither British nor American in design. Its unlike any prototype track I'm aware of.

[nkalanaga]

CRL:  That's been my thought for a long time.  Code 55 rail is 8.8 inches in N scale - a little too tall.  But most N scale track doesn't have tie plates, and modern tie plates can add up to an inch above the top of the tie.  So, total visual height isn't that for off for a modern mainline.

The biggest problem, appearance wise, is that most C55 rail is made to the original HO standards, back when it was designed for narrow gauge use, and the railhead is about twice as wide as it should be for N.

From the side, that doesn't show, and, while true N scale rail could be made, I have another pair of  questions about it.  Would the narrower railhead affect contact, and traction, enough to be a problem?

[DKS]

Would the narrower railhead affect contact, and traction, enough to be a problem?

It actually improves both, especially contact.

[Dave V]

According to the following data, the CM 2-8-0 locos required anywhere from 55 lb to 73 lb rail - which would be about code 30.
https://www.steamlocomotive.com/locobase.php?country=USA&wheel=2-8-0&railroad=cm#12470

That's good news for me then!  Code 55 at least isn't more than twice the right size, LOL.  The code 70 I use in HOn3 is definitely too big for my 40-57 lb RGS rail but that's not what keeps me up at night (no, that's my hopeless addiction to caffeine that does that, LOL).

I'm always intrigued by these discussions.  So much knowledge and so much precision.  In the end, though, I need appearance to take a back seat to operating reliability.  There are some very talented folks here who rightfully say "Por que no los dos?" but I've found that whatever talents I have in this hobby are not universal across the subdisciplines and do not generally extend to tracklaying.  Peco code 55 seems like a good compromise...not as rigidly geometric as Unitrack with a more realistic rail profile, but still damn near bullet-proof...and the tie size/spacing compromises and rail clip detail seem like a reasonable trade-off.  And I knew I could count on you guys to show me how well paint/weather/ballast covers virtually all sins!