Peco "Streamline" Code 55 "American Outline" track (possible new product?)

[wm3798]

I do remember a story whose details are a bit fuzzy, but where Jerry Britton bought a substantial version of the first run of Atlas 55 for his multi-deck N scale PRR Middle Division and Harrisburg layout, and that so many of the turnouts failed almost immediately that that's part of why he left N scale altogether. And that some agreement was made with Atlas regarding same. So I'm not convinced that any run of Atlas code 55 was ever as reliable as their other products or Peco.

I got to see Jerry's installation, and to be fair, he put a lot of demands on the track that exceeded typical usage.  His staging design required an enormous amount of hidden/inaccessible trackage, and for some reason, he opted to put the track down with track nails through the ties, which, no matter how careful you think you are, is going to affect track geometry, and the finer assembly of the turnouts.  I received a large haul of the turnouts he salvaged after he made the jump to HO, and was able to use most of them with a little attention given to each.  I had a couple of problems where the contact to the frog became disconnected, and I had to touch up the nail holes in the ties, but otherwise, I felt pretty good about using them.



Obviously, I haven't bought any new Atlas C55 in over 10 years, so I can't speak to the current runs.  But the older stuff wasn't nearly as bad as a lot of folks made it out to be.

But yes, Peco US profile c55, done properly and as reliably as their current offerings, will open up a lot of possibilities.

Lee

[John]

I received a large haul of the turnouts he salvaged after he made the jump to HO, and was able to use most of them with a little attention given to each.  I had a couple of problems where the contact to the frog became disconnected, and I had to touch up the nail holes in the ties, but otherwise, I felt pretty good about using them.

I picked up a bunch of the track / turnouts from Jerry at the same time Lee did .. most are still operable, but as Lee noted, the frogs have lost connectivity over time or come off.  My fix has been drill a small hole into the frog from the bottom, then solder a wire into the hole - this is best done with the frog removed from the switch.   I also solder a few copper ties in the appropriate locations to ensure connectivity.  I don't very often replace the closure rails, but when I do, I make it a solid piece all the way back to the frog .. (examples are online here somewhere) ..  The turnouts is generally good, but fragile - especially at the throwbar.  The electrical connections are suspect.

[Mark5]

FWIW, I sent a follow up message to Peco this morning (Steve Haynes, Sales Manager).

If I get a response, I will share.

For anyone that is interested, you can show your interest to Peco here:

https://peco-uk.com/pages/contact-us

Mark

[Mark5]

Here is the response that I received today:

At present we are working on a plan for this, tied in with our need to retool the N Scale Code 55 tracks system generally. It’s quite complex as the profile and design for the track systems will need to reflect the markets they are needed for. The US style track design is unique and would not be suitable for the UK or other markets around the world. But we are working on the basis that we will do it and hope to reveal further news later this year.

This gives me hope!

Mark

[nkalanaga]

The US style would probably be suitable for much of China, at least into the 70s, as their railroads were built to US standards.

[peteski]

The US style would probably be suitable for much of China, at least into the 70s, as their railroads were built to US standards.

I thought that Chinese railways used wide gauge (like Russia).

[nkalanaga]

Nope, the main Chinese rail system is standard gauge, built to US standards.  In fact, they've purchased US equipment in the past, including a large batch of used coal hoppers from a Pennsylvania short line.  And they've sold us more than one steam loco, at least one of which I believe is still in service.

They do have through passenger service to Moscow, but, at least in the past, they changed trucks at the border.

[Dave V]

Calling it "US" standard track is a bit of a snub to both our northern and southern neighbors. Not to be pedantic, but to be inclusive... North American standard would be more correct.

[robert3985]

Calling it "US" standard track is a bit of a snub to both our northern and southern neighbors. Not to be pedantic, but to be inclusive... North American standard would be more correct.

Good point.  However, the "most correct" name for tracks gauged at 4' 8.5" (1,435mm) is just "Standard Gauge", and is the most commonly used distance between the rails for most of the world's railways, which includes Canada, USA, Mexico, Cuba, Dominican Republic, and Jamaica, several South American countries including Panama, Venezuela, Peru, Paraguay and Uruguay, all of Europe excluding Spain (except for their High Speed Rail system), Portugal, Ireland, and Finland, most of the Middle East, excluding Jordan, eight countries in Africa including Egypt, Ethiopia, Algeria, Morocco, Western Sahara, Mauritania, Liberia and Gabon, four countries in Asia, including Laos, China, North & South Korea, and in Japan, only their Shinkansen Bullet Train lines are Standard Gauge...and finally Australia.

In many countries, there is more than one gauge of railroad tracks, which mostly include narrow gauge lines, and in countries who are in the middle of changing the gauge of their main trackage.

I thought this was interesting.

Cheerio!
Bob Gilmore

[BCR 570]

The US style track design is unique and would not be suitable for the UK or other markets around the world.

I believe that when they are using the term "US style track design" they are referring to the profile of the rail and the tie spacing.  And yes it should be referred to as "North American" to reflect similar practices in Canada and Mexico.  UK style track has a different rail profile and a less frequent tie spacing.


Tim

[thomasjmdavis]

I thought the major difference between Peco's N gauge track of the past decades and the new "US" track was tie spacing and size, to account for differences between British track standards and US, and to account for the difference between 1/144 (or whatever it is in the UK) and 1/160 'N Scale'.  Which, I imagine, is hardly standard, AAR notwithstanding, given that the wooden ties of a bygone era branchline would be different in size and spacing from the mainline concrete ties of today's railroads.  So, I think it is merely Peco track with closer tie spacing and tie size closer to some arbitrary 'average' US or North American tie of the past century.

In recent years, it seems like getting ANY track at all is difficult.  So, if Peco's new "US" track becomes available in quantities large enough that shops can have it in stock, as opposed to  having to pre-order/back-order and wait for years for flex or a few turnouts, more power to them.

[Mark5]

Tom,

Peco's current N scale turnouts are vastly different than typical North American turnouts (of course - they are based on UK practice).

In HO scale, for this and other reasons (tie spacing etc) Peco came out with their popular "83 Line" track made to North American turnout "geometry".

Mark

[robert3985]

Contrary to popular folk-lore, tie-spacing and size in Britain, as well as most other European countries, is not all that different than the "standards" for North American trackage...which varies from railroad to railroad.

I did an extensive search to see what the actual rail-laying practice in various countries are/were, as well as track profiles in common use since the middle of the previous century, and tie sizes and spacing...and the results of that search doesn't support the unsubstantiated rumor that Peco designed their Code80 and Peco55 N-gauge track to any prototype.

Of course, early on, most British rail WAS quite different than the North American general construction, with tie-plates and spikes being used in the USA, and Bullheads with chairs being common in Britain, but that was waaaay before Peco started designing its N-gauge trackage products.

My conclusion was that Peco designed both of its Code80 and Peco55 N-gauge trackage by looking at N-gauge toy track, because it obviously isn't designed to look like either older British Bullhead trackage nor North American plate & spike trackage...and I am pretty sure that if people would actually DO THE RESEARCH, their conclusion would be the same as mine.

The same goes for standard gauge trackage used in the rest of the world...none of it looks like either Peco80 nor like Peco55, especially when you take into consideration the "spikeheads" molded into both versions' plastic ties.

AND, the only N-scale (not N-gauge) turnouts that closely follow actual North American construction practices (rail placement & curvatures, tie lengths and locations) are Micro Engineering's #6's.  ALL of Atlas55's turnouts are much too short from the point of the frog to the headblocks, and if you knew what a turnout's proportions are, it would bother you because it's very easy to see...once you know what to look for...and we won't even mention the blobs Atlas55 thinks look like spikeheads.

Although I've posted this comparo a few times on TRW, I'll do it again to show how badly Atlas55 turnouts are out of proportion...

Photo (1) - Comparo between Micro Engineering #6 (top) and Atlas #7 (bottom) turnouts showing they're virtually the same length...


Photo (2) - A.R.E.A. Diagram showing prototype difference in length between #7 & #6



Photo (3) - Comparo between Micro Engineering #6 and diagram of prototype #6


However, if you disregard the difference in spikehead appearance and size between Micro Engineering Code55 and Atlas55 flex, and just compare tie placement and tie lengths, you'll find out that neither flex stick is correct.  One stick's ties are just the right length for heavy-use mainline trackage, but the ties are spaced correctly for medium-use yard and branchline trackage.  The other stick's ties are just the right length for medium-use trackage, but are spaced correctly for heavy traffic mainline trackage.  When I chose which flex to use that appeared most prototypical to me for my Transition Era mainline UP trackage, the tie spacing is more obvious to my eyes, so my mainlines are Rail Craft (now Micro Engineering) Code55 flex, and mainline sidings, yard trackage & industrial spurs are hand-laid Code40 (actually 0.044" tall rail)...which is .002" too short for transition era UP mainline 136lb rail that ran Big Boys, Challengers & Turbines.

So, there isn't a brand of track that gets it all correct, even though the information is available so they could if they cared enough...which is why I hand-lay all of my turnouts, with no spikeheads or tie-plates at all.

Cheerio!
Bob Gilmore

[Mark5]

Of course Bob! 

For the curious, this is what Peco's HO "North American" #6 Code 83 turnouts look like:

https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/1541/1303/files/SL-U8361_SL-U8362_turnout_plan_sheet_cdac4338-7777-4612-9ce4-f4af0339f103.pdf?v=1705404979

If they follow that (and NMRA as promised) - that will be good enough for me.

Peco also does code 70 in HO in this line.

Mark

[dem34]

Yeah if Peco just made their existing turnouts with North American tie spacing I really wouldn't think about it, I'd just use that for everything that isn't just a cast away siding.