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

[davefoxx]

Looks like stamped points; not my preference.  Maybe they’ll look better when painted.

DFF

[peteski]

Looks like stamped points; not my preference.  Maybe they’ll look better when painted.

DFF

Same as all current PECO N scale turnouts use. What (that does not increase the MSRP) would you suggest to use?

Looking at this from another angle, I for example do not care for whatever metal Atlas uses in their C55 turnouts for frogs and points.  Some sort of diecast material double plated (copper then some shiny metal).  Micro Enginnering at least seems to use nickel silver.

[davefoxx]

Same as all current PECO N scale turnouts use. What (that does not increase the MSRP) would you suggest to use?

Looking at this from another angle, I for example do not care for whatever metal Atlas uses in their C55 turnouts for frogs and points.  Some sort of diecast material double plated (copper then some shiny metal).  Micro Enginnering at least seems to use nickel silver.

What does my opinion about stamped points have to do with MSRP, smart a$$?  I stated my opinion that I don’t like the look of those stamped points, because I prefer actual rail for points.  YMMV.

DFF

[peteski]

What does my opinion about stamped points have to do with MSRP, smart a$$?  I stated my opinion that I don’t like the look of those stamped points, because I prefer actual rail for points.  YMMV.

DFF

Oh boy!  And I just gave a reason why I think PECO is going that way.  My are we touchy! I thought I was also allowed an opinion.  I apologize! I guess I just rub some people the wrong way.

I would also prefer real rail points, but this is N scale. Not many commercially produced turnouts have that type of points.   Happy Friday the 13th!

[bigdawgks]

I think you'll be hard pressed to find a better design of points in N scale in terms of reliability over a large range of rolling stock. If your priority is flawless operation from an out of the box part, then I'm going to say Peco's design choices are correct. If you want finer detail, there are other options but expect more effort to ensure smooth operation.

[robert3985]

Oh boy!  And I just gave a reason why I think PECO is going that way.  My are we touchy! I thought I was also allowed an opinion.  I apologize! I guess I just rub some people the wrong way.

I would also prefer real rail points, but this is N scale. Not many commercially produced turnouts have that type of points.   Happy Friday the 13th!

What does being N scale have to do with the points being real rail???

All of my hand-laid turnouts use "real rail" for all the parts that should be rail, and it's certainly not that difficult to do. 

Micro Engineering's turnouts use "real rail" for their points, and a cast NS frog and guard rails, which I assume are investment cast.  Why they don't cast nut & bolt details on the frog and the guard rails is a good question IMO, since it doesn't cost any more to investment cast detailed parts vs same-size non-detailed parts.  Maybe it has something to do with their injection tool?? I don't know.

However, it is absolutely NOT necessary to have some kind of big fancy hinges at the point rail heels.  The prototypes don't.  Micro Engineering just uses NS rail joiners dressed a bit where the point rail heels enter them.  Maybe they cut the joiner down a bit too although they look to be full length.  ME point rail rail heads are full width at the heel and taper down to nearly knife sharp points at the toe, with the point rail being bent just right so the rail foot at the toe is full width giving more material to solder to...in other words, they're shaped mostly like the prototype.

Hey, if it works on the real deal, then why not 1:160th scale??  This could also apply to proportions, which means there is no technical/functional reason the new Peco "Streamline" point rails have to be soooo long.

The compromises that Peco is evidently making in the appearance of their new Code55 American Outline turnouts is nothing more than lack of interest in making them look more realistic. 

Due to decades of making my own and evolving them to be continually more realistic, and looking at ME's simple construction, but much more realistic appearance...and lastly observing the ridiculous amount of time it's taking Peco to bring these to market...either they have people in charge of the project who don't know what they're doing, or they can't see the logic in just taking a little trip to the USA and looking closely at a prototype turnout.

Or, they could just go to www.utahrails.net and download UP Common Standard Drawings that show exactly how a real turnout is constructed, then make adjustments to accommodate N-scale wheels & flanges...or, take a look at NMRA's Standards and Recommended Practices at www.nmra.org

Cheerio!
Bob Gilmore

[peteski]

What does being N scale have to do with the points being real rail???

All of my hand-laid turnouts use "real rail" for all the parts that should be rail, and it's certainly not that difficult to do. 

Micro Engineering's turnouts use "real rail" for their points and guard rails, and a cast NS frog, which I assume is investment cast.  Why they don't cast nut & bolt details on it and the guard rails is a good question IMO, since it doesn't cost any more to investment cast detailed parts vs same-size non-detailed parts.  Maybe it has something to do with their injection tool?? I don't know.

Bob, because I fully expected you would chime in, I specifically stated: Not many commercially produced turnouts have that type of points.

I was also going to mention that I dislike the weird diecast and double plated points and frogs used in Atlas C55 turnouts.  I also fully expected that you would mention Micro Engineereing. Yes,  I was also going to mention Micro Engineering, but since I never examined one of those closely I wasn't sure what the points look like, however, I was pretty certain that points and frogs were nickel sliver casings. To be honest all that seemed just too wordy for a simple reply. But it looks like I should have included that info since I just had to do it now anyway.

[robert3985]

I think you'll be hard pressed to find a better design of points in N scale in terms of reliability over a large range of rolling stock. If your priority is flawless operation from an out of the box part, then I'm going to say Peco's design choices are correct. If you want finer detail, there are other options but expect more effort to ensure smooth operation.

No.  I wouldn't be "hard pressed" to find a better design of points in N-scale.  Just look at Micro Engineering's point rails and mechanism. Simple, realistic and reliable.  I've had one ME #6 on my layout (as a test) for over 20 years and it has never failed to function perfectly...and I did absolutely nothing, except remove the spring and drill a hole in the middle of the throwbar to accept a Tortoise's throw rod underneath.

Peco is waaaay over-complicating it.  Just make it like the real deal except at the throwbar.  The waaay long point rails, the pressed metal/skinny railhead, the huge-o hinges at the point rail heels...it's all totally unnecessary, and reliability has little to do with what they're designing...and it looks like crap.

Cheerio!
Bob Gilmore

[bigdawgks]

I'm going to disagree with you. While your experiences may show what other designs are capable of, Peco are the only switches I've used that work well in ALL conditions. It's certainly not impossible to make points with full rail function, but I have seen many examples where such switches cause problems because of slight defects, or because they're too fragile. And that's the reason why I am glad Peco doesn't follow that design - it requires tighter tolerances and makes any small imperfections more of a problem. Peco track works well even with European stock which typically has larger flanges, which is evidence that one of their design goals is to allow food operation without needing perfect tolerances.

This doesn't invalidate the fact that you can make a working, reliable turnout built like the real thing. But it won't be as foolproof as Peco switches. At least not mass produced and not for the same price point.

[nickelplate759]

I've used Peco, MicroEngineering and Atlas N-scale turnouts.   None are perfect.  I think getting perfect turnouts means building your own.

Peco turnouts need tweaking in the flangeways if you run with finer-scale wheels, but they are robust as all get out.  Yes, the points look a little funny.   I've used them on N-Trak modules with zero reliability issues.

MicroEngineering look the best of the three, have the most prototypical geometry, are the most fragile (I've broken some without really trying to abuse them), and I've had to make adjustments in them to get them in gauge.  ME is the only vendor of these three that will sell you spare parts!

Atlas look pretty good, but have some contact reliability issues, some QA issues, and can also be broken without too much effort (ask me how I know...).   One think I strongly dislike about them is the cutouts in the ties at the ends to make room for rail joiners.  I just cut all those ties off and replace them with flex-track ties.

[peteski]

I've used Peco, MicroEngineering and Atlas N-scale turnouts.   None are perfect.  I think getting perfect turnouts means building your own.

Peco turnouts need tweaking in the flangeways if you run with finer-scale wheels, but they are robust as all get out.  Yes, the points look a little funny.   I've used them on N-Trak modules with zero reliability issues.

Well, this thread is specifically about the possible all new North American PECO track.  I believe the photo I posted recently indicates that the flangeways will most likely not be as "generous" as with their current track line.

[Dave V]

I generally swear by Peco turnouts, but they do have two weaknesses. The first is the aforementioned "tightness" through the flangeways. The second is the point rails get their power pickup through physical contact with the stock rails, which means you need to keep those contact points clean and paint-free. I use NeoLube there as it looks like grease but is actually conductive.

No commercial turnout is as reliable or as realistic as hand-laid. But Peco turnouts have proven more reliable for me than Atlas or even Micro Engineering (though ME is a very close second). I like hand-throwing my turnouts and the internal centering spring in Peco turnouts is a godsend. In HOn3 it means I can install delicate switch stands that don't need to be functional (but look like they could be), while still allowing me throw switches by hand. In N scale, it's sort of the same thing with the Colorado Midland.

Why am I excited about this? If this line actually comes to fruition, I think I'd be building a proper permanent N scale Pennsy layout with it. Something with at least a segment of 4-track main...

[robert3985]

Bob, because I fully expected you would chime in, I specifically stated: Not many commercially produced turnouts have that type of points.

I was also going to mention that I dislike the weird diecast and double plated points and frogs used in Atlas C55 turnouts.  I also fully expected that you would mention Micro Engineereing. Yes,  I was also going to mention Micro Engineering, but since I never examined one of those closely I wasn't sure what the points look like, however, I was pretty certain that points and frogs were nickel sliver casings. To be honest all that seemed just too wordy for a simple reply. But it looks like I should have included that info since I just had to do it now anyway.

Peter, Although I'm not 100% sure, since I only have access right now (since I am not fully moved in to my new residence) to an ME #6 that is still in its package, it appears to me that only the frog and guard rails are investment cast.  The point rails look as if they're filed or machined Code55 rail since they're shiny and not a darker color, like the frog & guard rails are, due to oxidation over the two-plus decades they've been in the package.

Here's a photo I took today off of ME's updated website of one of their new-production #6's, which has visible soldered wiring between the stock rails and the adjacent closure rails and a different throwbar arrangement over what I've got in the package since mine is way before these were DCC/DC friendly (with just a brass throwbar). 

Photo (1) - Overhead photo of Code55 ME #6 turnout from their website:


Note the small, tie-sized throwbar in comparison to Peco's grossly oversized version...both having spring-action.  Absolutely no need for Peco's fugly over-built design IMO.

Note that the ME point rails are a scale 16'6" long, which is a scaled-down prototype length...a fact I did not know until about 3 minutes ago when I measured the one on my test module which I remembered is accessible.

Yes, I am aware that you specifically stated that "...not many commercially available turnouts have that type of points." so, I clarified that #6's are commercially available from Micro Engineering.

When I brought my own hand-made turnouts into the conversation, I was illustrating that it is not a complicated operation to make closure rails out of "rail" since I do it with just a file, and it wouldn't be a difficult thing for Peco to automate, milling them instead of filing them.  I would think it'd be an easy CAD/CAM design & production process.

Since you like to comment about track and turnouts, it would be a good thing for you to purchase a bit of Micro Engineering stuff, just to see with your own eyes how much more prototypical it looks than any other N-scale track product...ANY other.  I have samples of Atlas55, Atlas80, Peco55, Peco80, Kato Unitrack and, of course, both Rail Craft and Micro Engineering in Code70, Code55, and Code40...all of which I will NEVER use for my own layout and/or modules other than my Rail Craft Code55 & Code40 flex.  If I ever build a staging yard or have invisible trackage, then I would maybe use Micro Engineering #6's and flex to conserve my stash of Rail Craft flex & speed things up.

Yeah, I am a track Nazi for sure, although not quite as extreme as Ed @ednadolski ....yet! 

Cheerio!
Bob Gilmore

[robert3985]

Thought I'd add to my comments and make it clear that I am excited that Peco is at least investigating producing American Outline N-scale trackage that is supposed to look much more like North American prototype rail than their Peco55 line.

No, it isn't as good as I had hoped, since their HO Code83 American track is pretty fabulous, I had hoped they would follow suit with their new N-scale trackage, but, it IS definitely a move in the right direction.  Which is both good and bad.

It's good because it looks a lot better than their present oddly-tied Peco55...even if the painted 3D models are what we finally end up with.  I don't see a problem with their flex...the details being unclear from the photo, but I don't see big rectangles holding rail to ties...or cosmetically being rectangles instead of scale-sized tie plates and spike heads if they go with the embedded rail protocol.

Even the turnouts look better, just because of the more prototypical tie size and spacing...a vast improvement.

However, it's bad if they don't fix the cosmetic problems with the turnouts, because the mechanicals need work...as I have previously specified.

I have also laid and used Atlas55, Atlas80, Peco80, Peco55, Micro Engineering Code70, Micro Engineering Code55, Micro Engineering Code40 flex, and the respective turnouts & diamonds (when available and needed) for these types of N-gauge and N-scale track.  I agree that there is no "perfect" commercially available turnout available in N-gauge, much less in N-scale.

I've hand-laid trackage in both Code55 and Code 40, making turnouts in Code70, Code55 and Code40...and, even though the turnouts look and function better than most commercial turnouts, ME #6's being the exception, hand-laid turnouts AND trackage are also not quite "perfect".  At least not yet.   

I consider all trackage that adheres to the toy-like tie size and spacing of early mid-1960's toy sets to be N-gauge, and those brands that have proper tie spacing and dimensions as N-scale.  So, in my world, all Peco trackage and turnouts are N-gauge because of the toy-like tie dimensions and spacing, even if the visible rail is only 0.055" tall.

Atlas55 and Micro Engineering are the only two companies that produce N-scale trackage & turnouts, which also includes Micro Engineering Code70 trackage & turnouts even with their high rail.

Atlas55 trackage & turnouts have several problems.  The flex has that damned loose-rail, which is gaining a reputation for such a sloppy fit in the ties that it regularly goes way too widely gauged and causes random derailments. Cosmetically, the giant cubical blobs that hold the rail to the ties have always been a problem functionally (pizza cutter flange interference) and always have been fugly.  Atlas55 turnouts suffer from the fugly rail attachments, and also the cast and plated frogs and point rails...the plating eventually wears off, exposing a copper plating, then that wears off and there's dark mystery metal underneath.  Then, there's the deteriorating jumper solder joints.  Lastly, ALL of their turnouts are much too short because Atlas decided to design them not to prototypical proportions, but so they'll fit into their sectional track without special spacer sections.  This is especially evident on their #10's.  Their #7's are actually about a #6.3...being virtually the same length as ME's properly proportioned #6.

On the modules and layouts my customers have wanted to use Peco80 turnouts and trackage on, I haven't heard of any functional problems when first installed.  However after some years of use, I've had to replace several Peco80 turnouts due to the spring-throw breaking...sometimes the spring itself, sometimes plastic parts.  I'd estimate I've been able to fix about half of the breakage problems in place, the rest needed a new turnout.  All my Peco customers wanted Insulfrogs to direct voltage in the direction the turnouts were thrown, and in operating on these modules and layouts, it is a royal PITA to have to clean several turnouts' rails at the point toes so that the points and adjacent stock rails would be electrically contiguous.

I haven't experienced any frog/guardrail problems with Peco turnouts, but, they're not correctly spec'd, and although the problem has a pretty easy solution, the problem is in the design, not a random quality control happenstance.

Micro Engineering flex is stiff, which I love, but others hate.  I like it to go exactly where I want it and stay put.  When bending it, the ties get either compressed or spaced out too far, so, you have to adjust them before gluing down.  However, the tie plate and spikehead detailing is the very best presently made, and in photographing your models, will add something "extra" to the realism, even if you or your friends don't immediately recognize it.  ME turnouts are fabulous and I have never had a problem with them that others say they seem to have.  I wish the investment cast NS frog had nut & bolt detailing as well as the guard rails which would be sooo easy to do. I wish they'd chop the rail joiners they use for point rail heel hinges in half and that they'd extend the headblock ties at the throwbar full length on either side so you could just snip off the ones you wanted to be short. But, truly, the only really negative point about ME turnouts is that they only have one size.  But, they're developing a #8, which is an excellent choice.  Now, we just need a #4 Wye and a couple of curved turnouts...and maybe a diamond or two. Additionally, their #6 is perfectly proportioned, even the point rails are exactly a scale 16'6" long...perfect.

As far as robustness is concerned, how do you measure that??? Any rail that isn't soldered to PCB ties, but held in place and in gauge with tiny bits of plastic is NOT going to be "robust" IMO, which means both Atlas55 and ME Code70/55/40 aren't going to be as robust as Peco55 with its embedded rail, nor as robust as hand-laid PCB trackage with a PCB tie every 5 ties.  If robustness were my main goal, I'd go with hand-laid trackage in Code70. But, I haven't had an issue with ANY turnout I've used on either my layout or customers' self-destructing.  They all seem about equal from a durability standpoint with the rare breakage of Peco80 Insulfrog overcenter spring throwbar mechanisms.  On the other side of the coin, I have never had a problem, nor have I ever seen a problem with ME's over center spring mechanism.

My own turnouts are thrown with Tortoises underneath, so I'm not flicking their point rails with my fat fingertip.  Yeah, Peco's and ME's with their over-center spring mechanisms are handy, but...if you are heavy-handed you're probably gonna eventually break one or more during the lifetime of an operating layout, which can be a loooong time.

Hand-laid?  The main problems with hand-laid track is no tie plate/spike head details, and the COST, which with the PCB ties and laser-cut wood ties, is considerably more expensive than commercial flex.  Hand-laid turnouts, on the other hand, are much LESS expensive than commercial turnouts, especially if you don't use the laser cut ties and just insert separate ties, either wood or Styrene, then cut them off to their proper length. However, hand-laid turnouts suffer cosmetically from no tie plates/spikeheads...just bare ties.

Mechanically, both the track and turnouts are very durable...except at the throwbar on the turnouts.  This is a weak point and with short continuous closure/point rails in Code55 (and bigger), solder joint breakage can be problematic, even with fat HO scale tie throwbars.  The point rail toes are very slim, not much meat for solder to stick to, so making the combined closure rails/point rails as long as feasible is necessary...which degrades realism IMO.

So, I hope Peco isn't settled on the mechanical configuration yet of their new American Outline turnouts...they are a big improvement for sure, but, they have some very definite cosmetic flaws too, and now, before starting full manufacturing, is the time to fix those flaws.  If they don't...we're stuck with them forever...which is the "bad". 

Finally, why do a half-a$$ed job anyway???  If it's worth doing, then DO IT RIGHT PECO!

Okay, rant finished...

Cheerio!
Bob Gilmore

[Mark5]

No reason to get too excited or unexcited yet - these "mock-ups" were put out as a "tease" over two years ago and it'll probably be at least three more years before any concrete info is available.

While I agree that hand laid turnouts are the best (in my experience) - that is not a skill set that all modelers have or want.

I am still hoping they do get around to bringing that Peco "Streamline" Code 55 "American Outline" track to us.

Mark