RussellD Posted August 11, 2011 Share Posted August 11, 2011 Please note that the following is not a criticism but an observation. I bought some more Peco code 100 flexible nickel-silver track for my layout as I had run out. When I took it home it didn't look somehow "right". After comparing it with some of the same track I had bought a year earlier it appeared to me as if the design had changed. The sleepers on the new piece looked thinner and didn't line up with the spacing on the old piece. However, it was definitely code 100 as the rail heights were the same. The underside of the track looked different as on the new piece it was hollowed out underneath the sleepers. The new piece had 2010 stamped on it so I thought they may have recently changed the design. This is a bit annoying as I will now have to try and match the new and old styles of track on my layout without the "join" being obvious. The moral of the story is to buy all the track you need in one go but unfortunately I don't have the funds to do that. Has anyone else noticed this change in the design of their track and can confirm/deny this is what has happened? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
devonseasider Posted August 11, 2011 Share Posted August 11, 2011 Have you tried contacting Peco? I imagine they would know . . . . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
37255 Posted August 11, 2011 Share Posted August 11, 2011 Bought a couple of lengths in the local model shop recently and the bloke said something about expecting the new type in shortly... Didn't really matter as I only needed a bit to hack about for an abandoned siding, but I guess that's the same thing? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Red Fox Posted August 11, 2011 RMweb Gold Share Posted August 11, 2011 Maybe it's the new Peco steel sleeper track? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pacific231G Posted August 12, 2011 Share Posted August 12, 2011 Have you tried contacting Peco? I imagine they would know . . . . Probably worth an email to their technical advice bureau. info@pecobeer.co.uk If the mismatch is mainly the sleeper spacing that can be adjusted though it's a bit of a chore. It's probably unnecessary in any case as prototype track does vary quite a lot. Sleeper spacing, for example, is often wider in sidings than on main lines. NR have just been doing some weekend trackwork on the Greenford branch and I've noticed that the new track does look significantly different from the existing stuff and the joins definitely show. However, once it's ballasted and weathered you'll probably find the difference isn't actually that noticeable. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RussellD Posted August 12, 2011 Author Share Posted August 12, 2011 It was definitely wood sleepers as you can see the "grain". I may contact Peco but the difference shouldn't be too noticeable when the track has been laid, painted and ballasted. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
coachmann Posted August 12, 2011 Share Posted August 12, 2011 The OP mentioned the sleepers were thinner. From this I get the impression the newer track will sit lower than the older version? This prompted me to wonder if the Code 75 has been altered in a similar way.....? It will afterall affect all the points as well. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craigwelsh Posted August 12, 2011 Share Posted August 12, 2011 The OP mentioned the sleepers were thinner. From this I get the impression the newer track will sit lower than the older version? Rail heights were the same.. They haven't attempted proper chairs have they to make up the difference? A side by side comparison photo would be useful I guess. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RussellD Posted August 12, 2011 Author Share Posted August 12, 2011 Rail heights were the same.. They haven't attempted proper chairs have they to make up the difference? A side by side comparison photo would be useful I guess. Yes they have attempted to model three hole rail chairs on the sleeper mouldings and as you say the rails were the same height. I will try taking a picture to show the difference. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Gwiwer Posted August 12, 2011 RMweb Premium Share Posted August 12, 2011 The changeover began with points and crossings a couple of years ago now. The old design of points with a top-mounted spring in a little box held by two tiny lugs and which could be oiled and maintained easily gave way to the current iteration where the spring is mounted beneath the tie-bar and is impossible to access once the track is laid. The plastic base on those points was subtly different from the earlier ones. Electrical transmission through these points is by blade contact alone and tends to be less reliable than the earlier version which had locking tabs as well. I recently purchased a few of yards of Code 100 wooden base as I had to relay an area on the layout. These all came with the new thinner, slightly softer and paler brown mouldings. They join readily to older track but the base is just different enough to create a step at the join unless some fancy work is done with underlay to smooth it out. I find the new bases marginally less robust and easier to flex, and while the new should never be directly compared with the old (which has been laid for several years now and has weathered a bit as a result) the different sleeper colour requires more attention from the paintbox to get it looking "right". Having said all of that I still find Code 100 to be a superb track system and being asked to cope with Australian outdoor conditions on my layout is testing any product's resilience. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
coachmann Posted August 15, 2011 Share Posted August 15, 2011 Slightly off-topic, but has anyone bought some Peco Code 75 of late? I wondered if this track has changed as if so I'll try out one of the new points. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.