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

[robert3985]

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

@Mark5 - Mark, yup...I agree 100% with you about Peco's Code83 and Code70 American-look trackage in HO scale. 

What puzzles me, is why they didn't do that when developing and manufacturing their N-gauge "Code55" trackage, where because of the embedded rail holding the rails in place, tie sizes and spikehead/tieplate proportions (since they would be merely cosmetic and not used for actually holding the track in place) could have been verrrry close to prototype dimensions.  Ah well...I don't worry about it anymore since who knows what the answer is! 

Cheerio!
Bob Gilmore

[peteski]

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.

I agree with that 100%. All one has to do is take a piece of Peco track and compare it to any other older N scale track (Rapido, Minitrix, PIKO, Bachmann, Atlas or all other brands of vintage N scale track) and you will immediately see the similarity. Not exact, but very similar. I also agree that when the first N scale track was developed, it was not based on any specific prototype (If anything it would have been similar to German track as N scale originated in that part of the world). But at that time N scale was a novelty, not a scale model.

[peteski]

@Mark5 - Mark, yup...I agree 100% with you about Peco's Code83 and Code70 American-look trackage in HO scale. 

What puzzles me, is why they didn't do that when developing and manufacturing their N-gauge "Code55" trackage, where because of the embedded rail holding the rails in place, tie sizes and spikehead/tieplate proportions (since they would be merely cosmetic and not used for actually holding the track in place) could have been verrrry close to prototype dimensions.  Ah well...I don't worry about it anymore since who knows what the answer is! 

I sure hope that when Peco develops the NA C55 N scale track they will use the current N scale C55/70 rail.  That results in the most robust track because as you stated, the molded spikes are purely cosmetic.  Sure, the rail profile is not really very accurate, but to me the sturdiness beats prototypical rail profile. I also believe that even ME and Atlas C55 rails do not have the correctly scaled rail profile.

[Maletrain]

If they really are going to redo N scale track, why not do it to scale, with code 40-ish exposed rail and the "second foot" of double-footed code 70 or code 80 rail embedded in plastic ties?  That would be the robust way to make truly scale track, and it could also be well detailed without affecting robustness or operability.

I did make that comment to them, and today received the reply: "Thank you for your support for this potential new track range. We are looking into this at the moment and hope to have more news in due course."

No mention of any details.  I wonder if they will be at the Springfield show later this month.

[Spades]

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5_ft_6_in_gauge_railway

The SF Bay Area BART system on the list.  It does have a station or two in the People's Republic of Berkley, if that counts.  The other 1 Billion+ nation India use 5'6" as well. 

Fun fact Russia/USSR uses 5' gauge as a result of prominent US railway engineer George Washington Whistler recommendation to the Tsar.  Whistler recommended 5 ft (1,524 mm) on the basis that it was cheaper to construct than 6 ft (1,829 mm) and cheaper to maintain than 1,435 mm (4 ft 8+1⁄2 in).

[robert3985]

...Fun fact Russia/USSR uses 5' gauge as a result of prominent US railway engineer George Washington Whistler recommendation to the Tsar.  Whistler recommended 5 ft (1,524 mm) on the basis that it was cheaper to construct than 6 ft (1,829 mm) and cheaper to maintain than 1,435 mm (4 ft 8+1⁄2 in).

That's interesting!  But, a question comes into my old brain...why would 5' gauge track be cheaper to maintain that 4' 8.5" gauge track??  UP's heavy-use mainline trackage already specifies 9' long wooden ties, I presume to spread the loading out over a larger surface area, as well as spacing the ties closest together as compared to other, less heavily used trackage.  Russian cars and engines could be heavier if for nothing else than the axles are 3.5" longer, not taking into consideration that the boiler diameters could also be wider as well as car bodies being wider too...adding a lot of weight for long trains...increasing the wear on the rails, ties, ballast, etc.  So, why???

Cheerio!
Bob Gilmore

[Mark5]

Given that Whistler died in 1849, that was in the infancy of railroading. 

In the U.S. back then, gauges were literally all over the map. In the Southeast, 5 foot gauge was probably the most common gauge, with "Standard" gauge predominant in the Northeast.

It wasn't til 1886 that most U.S. railroads agreed on the "Standard" gauge that is in use today.

[Dave V]

Given that Whistler died in 1849, that was in the infancy of railroading. 

In the U.S. back then, gauges were literally all over the map. In the Southeast, 5 foot gauge was probably the most common gauge, with "Standard" gauge predominant in the Northeast.

It wasn't til 1886 that most U.S. railroads agreed on the "Standard" gauge that is in use today.

Standard Gauge in the United States really got its boost in 1863 as part of the Pacific Railway Act. Not only would the first Transcontinental Railroad be 4 feet 8 and 1/2 inches in gauge, but so would the United States Military Railways, meaning that as Union forces closed in on the Confederacy, many of those southern railways were re-gauged to standard so as to be integrated into the USMRR system.

[nkalanaga]

The way I heard it the American engineer in charge of building Russia's first railway was a Southerner, so was used to 5' gauge.  It wasn't that it was "better" then standard gauge, that's just what he was used to building.

[Spades]

That's interesting!  But, a question comes into my old brain...why would 5' gauge track be cheaper to maintain that 4' 8.5" gauge track?? 

Cheerio!
Bob Gilmore

I assume because he liked the idea of a 5' foot gauge.  Something he could say. 'That 5' gauge, that was me."

Why did BART go 5'6"?  From there own literature. "“It is now conclusive that the lateral stability of lightweight vehicles in the 800-pounds-per-linear-foot class can be assured through designs incorporating a 5’-6” gauge track,” the pamphlet says. “This is the most effective and most economical design measure by which the desired stability can be obtained.” 

You can find it here: https://www.bart.gov/news/articles/2022/news20220708-2

While economical in an engineering sense, BART last 6 miles long South Bay extension works out to a 2.1 billion dollars/year(s) a miles.  Remodeling an existing BART station is now 230 million dollars.  The engineering is sound.

[nkalanaga]

The engineering is sound, but the lack of mass-market trucks increases the cost, not to mention the difficulty of getting new equipment to the site.  In the long run, standard gauge would have been cheaper, although gauge shouldn't affect remodeling the stations.

[peteski]

Here is an update:

I spoke with PECO's Head of Sales Steve Haynes at he recent show in Springfield. For more about that conversation see this post.

I just received email from Steve with the photo he promised. He wrote:
Dear Peter,

Thank you for your recent email and thank you for visiting our booth at Amherst.

Please see the attached image of the 3D models that had been prepared. Whilst this project is still "live" it is taking some time to prepare. Once we have made some firm decisions, we will be giving out further updates.

Kind regards,

Steve Haynes
Head of Sales
Pritchard Patent Product Co Ltd



Looks like these are 3D printed  prototype with the ties and rail painted the appropriate colors. The points ant throwbar appear to be actual items, probably the same parts PECO uses for their current production switches.

[Dave V]

I hope if this does happen, the turnouts come with the Unifrog.

[chessie system fan]

I had the same thought.

[garethashenden]

I hope if this does happen, the turnouts come with the Unifrog.

I would be very surprised if Peco introduced a new product line with anything other than Unifrog.