Come On PECO N Gauge Gets No Love!

[Graham Radish]

Compared to OO gauge N gauge seems hugely lacking with track, for example they sell concrete sleeper flextrack in N but no concrete points to match!

 

Why? surely these are quite common in real railways?

[njee20]

Peco points don't really look much like real points, but they look even less like modern flat bottom points, and clearly they think the market isn't big enough. Although I'd buy them.

 

They're transitioning all electrofrog points to Unifrog, but I'm struggling to think of any new N gauge track items in the last 10 years, and if you exclude the 3 ways points you can extend that to the last 30 years!

[Coryton]

Compared to OO gauge N gauge seems hugely lacking with track, for example they sell concrete sleeper flextrack in N but no concrete points to match!

 

Why? surely these are quite common in real railways?

 

Concrete sleepered plain line with wooden sleepered points isn't that unusual though, is it?

[njee20]

Not at all, concrete bearer pointwork is a pretty recent thing, last 20 years or so.

[John M Upton]

What on Earth is unifrog?!? Either the frogs are live or not surely?

[Graham Radish]

Not at all, concrete bearer pointwork is a pretty recent thing, last 20 years or so.

 

Yep this is true, farish make all recent locos from the past 20 years but no track to match, peco are lagging behind bigtime.

Edited January 22, 2019 by Graham Radish

[Pete the Elaner]

What on Earth is unifrog?!? Either the frogs are live or not surely?

Easier to describe it with a link

http://www.wiringfordcc.com/switches_peco.htm

 

Those DC modellers who isolated sidings with pointwork are not able to with these.

It is Peco's solution for not producing 2 different ranges of pointwork.

Not to every modellers taste but sound economic sense.

Edited January 22, 2019 by Pete the Elaner

[Pete the Elaner]

As for pointwork with concrete bearers, the first ones I saw were early this century in Paddington's station throat. Concrete sleeper track has been around for about 40-50 years longer.

Wooden bearer pointwork is more suitable for the vast majority of modern layouts.

 

 

I noticed a layout in last year Great Model Railway Challenge using wooden sleeper track with concrete bearer points & my instant reaction was that whoever chose that combination does not pay any attention to the real railway.

Edited January 22, 2019 by Pete the Elaner

[njee20]

Yep this is true, farish make all recent locos from the past 20 years but no track to match, peco are lagging behind bigtime.

That isn't quite true, there are still a lot of wooden bearer points on UK routes. Ok for those modelling Rugby station post-2008 you'd only want concrete on the main running lines, but wooden isn't technically 'wrong' for a lot of layouts.

 

Furthermore, again Peco is essentially an approximation of real track, particularly the points. If you really want authentic modern points then look to someone like Finetrax, who have some code 40 FB concrete points coming (although they may be BH geometry, I forget), or build your own.

 

I do agree with you conceptually, and I'd probably buy concrete bearer Peco points. I've seen some people repaint the wooden ones, Horsley Fields and Hinksey Yard spring to mind, but I do understand why Peco don't do them. I've also just printed out some Templot to prints to have a go at building some myself

[Ian Morgan]

The S-Bahn route I used to go to work on in Munich was rebuilt and doubled around 2004, and I was surprised that they put in wooden sleepered plain track and concrete sleepered pointwork. Most of the plain track being replaced had old steel sleepers.

[Flying Pig]

N gauge track gets little love, it's true, and the ready to use stuff hasn't kept pace with improvements to rolling stock. However, I don't see medium radius code 55 points on concrete bearers from Peco as that unlikely. Maybe they need a bit of lobbying.

[Coryton]

Easier to describe it with a link

http://www.wiringfordcc.com/switches_peco.htm

 

Those DC modellers who isolated sidings with pointwork are not able to with these.

It is Peco's solution for not producing 2 different ranges of pointwork.

Not to every modellers taste but sound economic sense.

 

I think taste is a bit of an understatement.

 

It maybe sound economic sense but non self-isolating points make all but the smallest DC layouts impractical without having to add polarity switches to each point and extra wiring (or lots of isolated sections along with a lot more switches to throw to run the layout). Some people don't believe in contact through point blades and add polarity switches to points as a matter of course but by no means all (and I suspect those who do are over-represented here compared to the market for points in general).

 

It also makes it hard to lay track out on a temporary basis if you want to have more than one locomotive on the layout at once.

 

Peco seem to have a good idea of the market so they are probably right if they think that non isolating points are the way to go, but it's hard luck for those who currently rely on that behaviour.

[johnofwessex]

I'm a confirmed OO man (person of gender) but in recent years if I'm not reading the text there are quite a few N Gauge layouts in magazines that if I dont read the text I can easily mistake for OO or even O

 

Sadly however N in particular is rather spoiled by the quality of the track & wheels - as sadly is OO at a time when the quality of whats on offer is otherwise of very high quality.

 

Certainly the introduction of Peco bullhead is a step in the right direction for OO but a reworked Streamline with UK sleeper spacing for both OO & N would be great but to the same standards as the existing Code 100 track so suitable for existing stock.

[Graham Radish]

I'm a confirmed OO man (person of gender) but in recent years if I'm not reading the text there are quite a few N Gauge layouts in magazines that if I dont read the text I can easily mistake for OO or even O

 

Sadly however N in particular is rather spoiled by the quality of the track & wheels - as sadly is OO at a time when the quality of whats on offer is otherwise of very high quality.

 

Certainly the introduction of Peco bullhead is a step in the right direction for OO but a reworked Streamline with UK sleeper spacing for both OO & N would be great but to the same standards as the existing Code 100 track so suitable for existing stock.

Don't tempt me, im seriously considering switching to OO gauge, farish make some beautiful models but oo gauge is where its at for the majority of people i think. I only have space for 2ft6" x 5ft5" baseboard so not sure if much can be done in OO with those dimensions? id prefer some sort of tail chaser over end to end

[meatloaf]

Don't tempt me, im seriously considering switching to OO gauge, farish make some beautiful models but oo gauge is where its at for the majority of people i think. I only have space for 2ft6" x 5ft5" baseboard so not sure if much can be done in OO with those dimensions? id prefer some sort of tail chaser over end to end

 

I love my shunting plank, but I do sometimes miss the tail chasing running sometimes. Maximum space I can come up with is 9ft x 38", just wide enough for 2nd radius oval , but long enough for a nice shunting layout too, so I get to do both

[Graham Radish]

Suppose i could do a single track tailchaser going into a tunnel, then in the middle a train maintenance depot with trainwash/sheds/refuelling, also i addition to this a small raised section somewhere, but yea, you are right, sometimes having the tailchaser running is great! and of course for running in new trains its a must.

Edited January 23, 2019 by Graham Radish

[Dunsignalling]

I think taste is a bit of an understatement.

 

It maybe sound economic sense but non self-isolating points make all but the smallest DC layouts impractical without having to add polarity switches to each point and extra wiring (or lots of isolated sections along with a lot more switches to throw to run the layout). Some people don't believe in contact through point blades and add polarity switches to points as a matter of course but by no means all (and I suspect those who do are over-represented here compared to the market for points in general).

 

It also makes it hard to lay track out on a temporary basis if you want to have more than one locomotive on the layout at once.

 

Peco seem to have a good idea of the market so they are probably right if they think that non isolating points are the way to go, but it's hard luck for those who currently rely on that behaviour.

Part of the general direction of travel towards catering for DCC users.

 

However, for DC, so long as you are switching the frog polarity, making a siding self isolate is easy and requires only one short extra wire.

 

Frog switching is a good idea on permanent layouts, if only as insurance. Blade contacts usually do fail (or at least play up) eventually, they are just the weakest link in the chain. Replacing a dud point can be a real problem if it is in an awkward-to-access position, and Murphy's law states it will be. All the making good after laying a new one is even more hassle. 

 

Fit frog rails with isolated joiners (as normal if polarity switching the frog) then take a second feed off the frog switch output to the corresponding rail in the siding  

 

With point normal both siding rails have the same polarity so nothing moves. Point reversed, both rails fed correctly. 

 

Doesn't help for temporary setups I'm afraid.

 

John

Edited January 23, 2019 by Dunsignalling

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

N gauge track gets little love, it's true, and the ready to use stuff hasn't kept pace with improvements to rolling stock. However, I don't see medium radius code 55 points on concrete bearers from Peco as that unlikely. Maybe they need a bit of lobbying.

 

Lobby away, but is it effective?

 

Preamble: when Bachmann kicked off the superior OO we now enjoy with models such as the WD 2-8-0, N class, BR std 4MTT, 16T minerals, BR mk 1s, getting on twenty years past, then Hornby followed, and Heljan bowled up in OO: then the lobbying for better RTR OO track followed after a few years. much of it directed at Peco, since they had - then as now - a near lock on better RTR track in the UK with well established and dominant distribution.

 

Argument: it was only the arrival of a credible competitor in the form of DCC Concepts proposing better OO track with - crucially - RTL points that stirred Peco into action. It was not rocket science - the proven approach of C&L, Marcway, SMP and many track building modellers was in plain view, often in their own national magazine - or too expensive. Their code 83 was  produced in response to competiton in the substantial North American market; and somehow they can afford to tool up and produce endless narrow gauge which sells in a small fraction of OO/HO volumes.

 

Conclusion: to move Peco in this matter it needs a competitor willing to bet their shirt on producing superior N gauge track.

[rob D2]

Don't tempt me, im seriously considering switching to OO gauge, farish make some beautiful models but oo gauge is where its at for the majority of people i think. I only have space for 2ft6" x 5ft5" baseboard so not sure if much can be done in OO with those dimensions? id prefer some sort of tail chaser over end to end

The truth is that it was estimated that N gauge is 10% of the market of OO I believe, that’s why not much time or RD is really spent on it.i moved from OO to N about 15 years ago but rapidly moved back because of the sheer lack of “ stuff “

[Flying Pig]

Lobby away, but is it effective?

 

 

For a couple of points on concrete bearers it might be. Much easier for Peco than the tandem point they tooled up a few years back, if they can be convinced there's a worthwhile market.

 

An improved track system is another matter entirely.