Are Peco Code 55 Double Slips and Long Crossings completely pants?

[n9]

Or is it my back-to-backs?

 

These are brand new Peco SL-E390F and SL-E394F, and I've just finished laying sections of track long enough to be able to test them with a couple of locos. But boy am I disappointed.

 

My test locos (also brand new) may or may not be the best to test newly laid track, but they are a Dapol Britannia and an EFE Rail Class 17. (Both running on DC for these initial tests.)

 

They run pretty well everywhere, including on some other quite complex pointwork, but when they get to the frogs on the double slip (set to go straight across) or the long crossing, there's so much vertical bounce in the bogies (including the front 4-wheel whatsit on the Britannia) that it looks like the locos are off doing rally cross. They both make it through the double slip, but the Britannia has a 2 out of 10 chance of treating the long crossing as a double slip and randomly veering off into the wrong exit.

 

If they ran that badly on every point I'd suspect the back-to-backs a lot more.

 

Also, the new long crossings - two of them - both arrived with the same dead guide rail, which I had to fix, also adding to my sense that these aren't the most reliable of products.

 

I've also tried the long crossing with a finger powered cheapo Peco wagon, and it really takes extremely little pressure to coax it into veering off into the wrong exit too.

 

It's my first real go at a "proper" layout, and I think I've done a pretty good job laying the track, so I'd love to hear from long term users of Code 55 double slips and long crossings to know how reliable you've found them.

 

Conversely, if it does sound like a back to back issue, that would also be reassuring to know.

 

Thanks!

 

 

 

[woodenhead]

I've a single slip installed in my station throat, the only time it causes me a trouble is if I forget to set it right and cause a short as I've powered the frogs.  It appears no more lively than other points when it comes to trains going over it.

[Izzy]

Yes is the answer. I had two on my last N gauge layout and they were the catalyst that pushed me to change to 2FS. There are more gaps in them than rail thanks to the N gauge standards. Farish had just produced the standard 20T BR brake van and they would beach themselves in the middle, the wheel base matching the gaps the wheels fell into. So no, it's not you. The best solution is to rip them out and use a pair of ordinary points back-to-back if you have the space in the track plan to do so.

 

Bob

[n9]

13 minutes ago, Izzy said:

Yes is the answer. I had two on my last N gauge layout and they were the catalyst that pushed me to change to 2FS. There are more gaps in them than rail thanks to the N gauge standards. Farish had just produced the standard 20T BR brake van and they would beach themselves in the middle, the wheel base matching the gaps the wheels fell into. So no, it's not you. The best solution is to rip them out and use a pair of ordinary points back-to-back if you have the space in the track plan to do so.

 

Bob

 

Well that's horrifying.

 

Over a year planning my layout, and I've used them precisely because they saved space. I take it that's only the double slips you are talking about, and not the long crossings?

[Izzy]

I never used the long crossings but I would presume they would give a similar experience. I don't know if the  https://www.britishfinescale.com/   products would be better, what actual track standards they use, but they do look far better by a country mile. They sell/make both 1-6 & 1-8 single/double slip kits but I'm unsure as to whether they could be used to replace the Peco, (I rather doubt it), or if you'd have to start from scratch with them to go down that route. Obviously that's what I would do these days, and would have done had they existed back in 2010 and wanted to continue with N gauge. I'm very glad I moved to 2FS but it's not for everyone.

 

An alternative would be to fit thin layers of plasticard into the crossing/frog gaps/K crossings to support the wheel flanges so they don't drop into them so badly. This has been done in the past and can be effective but the danger is then you loose the current collection if it lifts the wheel up off the rail head so getting the right height is obviously key here. I tried it but wasn't happy with the results. You may have more luck.

 

Bob

 

 

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

No need to apologise for what you used in these initial tests, it is a perfectly reasonable expectation that it works reliably in combination.

 

When I was able to resume railway modelling with an indoor layout, I tested all the relevant Peco track pieces in combination with the traction and vehicles and movements I wanted to operate; and the end result was that only the large and medium radius points were unconditionally reliable, and I planned around that. (This was in OO, but is equally applicable to any scale and gauge.)

 

This may be a reflection of my track laying capability and the condition of my models: but the only thing that matters for any individual is what can be made to work to the required standard. There are compromises in RTR and RTL products and these have to be understood and worked around.

[n9]

13 hours ago, Izzy said:

I never used the long crossings but I would presume they would give a similar experience. I don't know if the  https://www.britishfinescale.com/   products would be better, what actual track standards they use, but they do look far better by a country mile. They sell/make both 1-6 & 1-8 single/double slip kits but I'm unsure as to whether they could be used to replace the Peco, (I rather doubt it), or if you'd have to start from scratch with them to go down that route. Obviously that's what I would do these days, and would have done had they existed back in 2010 and wanted to continue with N gauge. I'm very glad I moved to 2FS but it's not for everyone.

 

An alternative would be to fit thin layers of plasticard into the crossing/frog gaps/K crossings to support the wheel flanges so they don't drop into them so badly. This has been done in the past and can be effective but the danger is then you loose the current collection if it lifts the wheel up off the rail head so getting the right height is obviously key here. I tried it but wasn't happy with the results. You may have more luck.

 

Bob

 

 

 

Very helpful! Is there a thread or some other info on that Plasticard solution? I can probably work it out otherwise. Also all my stock is new (at least new in the sense of often decades old tooling still getting banged out as new.)

 

I've had my eye on British Finescale, to the point I already decided I'd go with it instead of Peco on my next board, provided ofc I can get them to play nicely with each other. I'm too green to understand the 1-6 and 1-8 terminology other than it must be related to size and/or radius. But if it works, swapping out this shoddy stuff could be the better answer.

 

I tweaked some of back-to-backs (all on the 17, only the easily accessible ones on the Britannia) and things have improved. The Britannia derailed on the long crossing once in about 20 tests. (I can now see that many many more tests need to follow.)

 

But the rally cross effect on the double slip and long crossing remains, and I can clearly see now that every single Peco point suffers from this - even the new Unifrogs - and it's only on account of shorter or longer frogs that the result is either pot hole or Paris-Dakar.

 

I find it staggering.

 

 

58 minutes ago, 34theletterbetweenB&D said:

...I tested all the relevant Peco track pieces in combination with the traction and vehicles and movements I wanted to operate; and the end result was that only the large and medium radius points were unconditionally reliable, and I planned around that. (This was in OO, but is equally applicable to any scale and gauge.)

 

This may be a reflection of my track laying capability and the condition of my models: but the only thing that matters for any individual is what can be made to work to the required standard. There are compromises in RTR and RTL products and these have to be understood and worked around.

 

It's become abundantly clear that absolutely nothing can be taken for granted, and I need to do an awful lot more testing than I'd though. In fact I've stopped laying track, and it's now Test City; I'm wiring everything, testing every single route, and doing it with a lot more locos and stock.

[Izzy]

25 minutes ago, n9 said:

 

But the rally cross effect on the double slip and long crossing remains, and I can clearly see now that every single Peco point suffers from this - even the new Unifrogs - and it's only on account of shorter or longer frogs that the result is either pot hole or Paris-Dakar.

 

I find it staggering.

This is just the result of the one size fits all track standards used with OO & N and you will now probably understand perhaps why so many modellers like myself have over the years used finer standards such as EM, P4, 2FS etc. which have evolved to overcome these issues for those that wish to use them. 
 

British Finescale are actually producing 2FS points for the 2mm association now making going 2FS even easier. With the drop-in wheel conversions for some diesels it’s now really little different to using Wayne’s points with N gauge. Perhaps slightly more expensive than standard N using Peco, but less frustrating and more rewarding regarding the final looks and running quality whilst taking little longer. But perhaps I’m biased here.

 

Check out the 2mm area here to see what’s possible.

 

Bob

[Steven B]

Peco's code 55 large radius points/turn-outs have similar issues with the wheelsets dropping as they move from point rail to frog/common crossing.

 

As mention above, it's possible to improve matters by packing the hole with plasticard or lining the check-rails/points with extra material such that the wheelset is better supported.

 

Switching to the British Finescale track is a option, but ultimately the problem will remain until Peco decide to catch up with modern wheel standards rather than making something that's so backward compatible it works with 1970s pizza cutter wheels better than what's currently on sale (including their own kits!).

 

 

SB

[n9]

58 minutes ago, Izzy said:

This is just the result of the one size fits all track standards used with OO & N and you will now probably understand perhaps why so many modellers like myself have over the years used finer standards such as EM, P4, 2FS etc. which have evolved to overcome these issues for those that wish to use them. 
 

 

From here, it's very hard not to be cynical, because it very much looks like the result of no progress in 50 years. If I buy something marketed as "Finescale", I expect it to be fine and to scale, as well as to be fit for purpose, but what I'm actually getting is Crapscale. And none of this stuff is cheap. It should work. And much more than satisfactorily as a bare minimum. I don't expect to pay close to 100 quid on a double slip (yes, that's what it costs to buy them around here) and then spend weeks or months modifying it so that it actually does what it's supposed to.

 

I will absolutely be looking at 2FS and alternatives, but sadly it's probably too late for this first board.

 

51 minutes ago, Steven B said:

Peco's code 55 large radius points/turn-outs have similar issues with the wheelsets dropping as they move from point rail to frog/common crossing.

 

As mention above, it's possible to improve matters by packing the hole with plasticard or lining the check-rails/points with extra material such that the wheelset is better supported.

 

Switching to the British Finescale track is a option, but ultimately the problem will remain until Peco decide to catch up with modern wheel standards rather than making something that's so backward compatible it works with 1970s pizza cutter wheels better than what's currently on sale (including their own kits!).

 

 

SB

 

Yes, I've seen now for myself that it applies to every single Peco point to varying degrees - the longer the frog, the worse it is.

 

Are there any posts showing exactly what to pack and where, as well as where to line the check-rails? I'd prefer not start from zero with trial and error if people have already been there. Thanks!

[woodenhead]

To be fair, Peco make points that will work for the majority of RTR and kits in N, OO and O, it has to allow for this in it's design and to be frank, they've done a pretty good job of that over the years.

 

Unless you build your own stuff and make everything to the same standard then you have to make allowances for the outliers.

 

I wouldn't call Peco cr*p but I can see where Wayne's finescale stuff comes in and it does make a visual difference to the trackwork.  But many exhibition layouts use Peco track reliably, building your own is not for everybody.

[n9]

 

3 hours ago, woodenhead said:

To be fair, Peco make points that will work for the majority of RTR and kits in N, OO and O, it has to allow for this in it's design and to be frank, they've done a pretty good job of that over the years.

 

Unless you build your own stuff and make everything to the same standard then you have to make allowances for the outliers.

 

I wouldn't call Peco cr*p but I can see where Wayne's finescale stuff comes in and it does make a visual difference to the trackwork.  But many exhibition layouts use Peco track reliably, building your own is not for everybody.

That's probably a much fairer and more balanced assessment than mine. But it still leaves me with N gauge locos bouncing unrealistically across pointwork. If the design isn't flawed, then perhaps that says something about the principle driving it, and I'd absolutely call the results I'm seeing with Peco's double slips and long crossings cr*p.

[woodenhead]

4 hours ago, n9 said:

 

That's probably a much fairer and more balanced assessment than mine. But it still leaves me with N gauge locos bouncing unrealistically across pointwork. If the design isn't flawed, then perhaps that says something about the principle driving it, and I'd absolutely call the results I'm seeing with Peco's double slips and long crossings cr*p.

Thing is, O gauge stuff does the same, a plasticard insert being the same answer, it's the consequence of tolerance for RTR where there is no universal wheel standard.

 

 

[n9]

8 minutes ago, woodenhead said:

Thing is, O gauge stuff does the same, a plasticard insert being the same answer, it's the consequence of tolerance for RTR where there is no universal wheel standard.

 

 

Yeah, I can see that there are reasons for it. I don't think it makes it less daft though that after all this time it isn't solved. A bit like the Rapido couplers that should have gone the way of the Dodo, as I believe they have done in other markets. [Completely OT - did the Tantalums work out OK after you wired them to the right terminals?]

[woodenhead]

45 minutes ago, n9 said:

Yeah, I can see that there are reasons for it. I don't think it makes it less daft though that after all this time it isn't solved. A bit like the Rapido couplers that should have gone the way of the Dodo, as I believe they have done in other markets. [Completely OT - did the Tantalums work out OK after you wired them to the right terminals?]

They are fine where correctly wired, the 04 is going to be getting the Kung Fu treatment instead as it's chip does not support stay alives without circuitry.  I've been having fun this week with Hydraulic sounds in N gauge Dapol locos not having F0 operate the lights, Rmweb to the rescue to identify the speed steps set up was causing an error and once I swapped to the normal 28/128 step option they were fine.

 

Just ordered some three more projects and then I think I am done with the diesels for a bit.

[n9]

3 minutes ago, woodenhead said:

They are fine where correctly wired, the 04 is going to be getting the Kung Fu treatment instead as it's chip does not support stay alives without circuitry.  I've been having fun this week with Hydraulic sounds in N gauge Dapol locos not having F0 operate the lights, Rmweb to the rescue to identify the speed steps set up was causing an error and once I swapped to the normal 28/128 step option they were fine.

 

Just ordered some three more projects and then I think I am done with the diesels for a bit.

Good stuff! My Britannia will be getting the sound treatment and Tantalums - athough it's running extremely well even on DC. But I guess I might as well put them in anyway. Got all the gear from YouChoos a while ago. Now I'm just waiting to have enough layout down to make it worthwhile fitting!

[Flying Pig]

1 hour ago, n9 said:

Yeah, I can see that there are reasons for it. I don't think it makes it less daft though that after all this time it isn't solved. A bit like the Rapido couplers that should have gone the way of the Dodo, as I believe they have done in other markets. [Completely OT - did the Tantalums work out OK after you wired them to the right terminals?]

 

Time has actually made things worse.  Old fashioned steamroller wheels will negotiate the gaps more smoothly.  The (welcome) advent of better looking wheels requires narrower gaps for smooth running, but backward,compatibility militates against this.

 

The major issue on Code 55 diamonds and slips is the obtuse crossings in the middle, where the gaps are very wide, which allows wheels the oportunity to go the wrong way.  Indeed, as far as I can tell from pictures, Peco have left out some of the checkrails altogether on the slip for practicality of manufacture: code 55 rail is quite clumsy (much too wide) and with that and the oversize flange gaps a lot of the clearances for prototypical components just disappear.

 

There was a consultation a few years back about better ready to run track in N (mostly on the N Gauge Forum) which in the end led to the Finetrax kits.  These show that it is possible to make good-looking track which accepts current UK rtr N gauge stock, but I have no personal experience with them.  Clearly the demand wasn't sufficient to make a ready to use range viable.

[n9]

9 hours ago, Flying Pig said:

 

Time has actually made things worse.

If that's not an argument to call time on backward compatibility, especially on newer ranges of track, I don't know what is.

 

9 hours ago, Flying Pig said:

There was a consultation a few years back about better ready to run track in N (mostly on the N Gauge Forum) which in the end led to the Finetrax kits.  These show that it is possible to make good-looking track which accepts current UK rtr N gauge stock, but I have no personal experience with them.  Clearly the demand wasn't sufficient to make a ready to use range viable.

Can you really class the Finetrax stuff as "kits"? In looks like you mostly push a handful of rails through chairs on pre-moulded webbing and pretty much job done - barely a step up from the basic modelling skills needed to tweak and lay flex track, no?

 

In retrospect, knowing now what I've learnt about Peco Code 55 track, I'd almost certainly have gone with British Finescale stuff.

 

And afterwards, knowing then what I'd learnt about Finetrax, I'd be able to comment on whether it had been a good decision!

 

Returning to the gaping gaps and bouncy locos, while I have a lot more testing to do, I can add that my 55 hides the problem very well (on points and long crossings - double slip testing is next) because of the extra balance provided by the three axles per bogie, so I suspect Co-Cos generally will give the impression of running smoothly.

Edited October 13, 2023 by n9

[Flying Pig]

12 minutes ago, n9 said:

Can you really class the Finetrax stuff as "kits"? In looks like you mostly push a handful of rails through chairs on pre-moulded webbing and pretty much job done - barely a step up from the basic modelling skills needed to tweak and lay flex track, no?

 

Last time I looked at the points you had to plug in all the chairs but I see that is no longer the case.  They still require a bit of assembly though (even soldering) which makes them kits, even if simple and exceptionally well-designed kits.

[Harlequin]

23 hours ago, n9 said:

If that's not an argument to call time on backward compatibility, especially on newer ranges of track, I don't know what is.

 

Can you really class the Finetrax stuff as "kits"? In looks like you mostly push a handful of rails through chairs on pre-moulded webbing and pretty much job done - barely a step up from the basic modelling skills needed to tweak and lay flex track, no?

 

In retrospect, knowing now what I've learnt about Peco Code 55 track, I'd almost certainly have gone with British Finescale stuff.

 

And afterwards, knowing then what I'd learnt about Finetrax, I'd be able to comment on whether it had been a good decision!

 

Returning to the gaping gaps and bouncy locos, while I have a lot more testing to do, I can add that my 55 hides the problem very well (on points and long crossings - double slip testing is next) because of the extra balance provided by the three axles per bogie, so I suspect Co-Cos generally will give the impression of running smoothly.

 

Is it too late to change? It might seem like a big upheaval/cost now but think about the long term effect of the Code55 on the quality of your layout and the way it makes you feel...

 

[n9]

1 hour ago, Harlequin said:

 

Is it too late to change? It might seem like a big upheaval/cost now but think about the long term effect of the Code55 on the quality of your layout and the way it makes you feel...

 

That really is the question isn't it! Certainly I've already bought 95% of the track, and spent just over a year getting to where I am.

 

I don't have a clear answer yet. I think mainly it's because I'm so green.

 

So I'm addressing that in part through extensive testing so I can get a much clearer picture of what I'm really letting myself in for. I'm currently thrashing all 10 of my locos across every combination of the track so far laid. It's a long and convoluted process because I don't have the point motors in yet, and springs are removed from the points, so that requires manual propping of tie bars as well as manual switching of wires. And some locos aren't chipped yet so there's alternating between control methods too. As a prerequisite, I also had to finish temporarily connecting up all of the wiring, for which I'm already eternally grateful to Wago - those connectors are nothing short of brilliant!

 

(I had a massive scare too! Having spent all day testing on DC, flicking my locos back and forth along stretches of track, I switched gear to test my brand new 42 on DCC in the same way... Completely forgetting it had momentum...! It was already half way over the edge of the board before I managed to somehow grab it!)

 

I haven't at all looked at what the implications are with 2FS yet either, nor if Finetrax comes with its own set of problems.

 

All things being equal, and if I had a lot more experience, I'd probably jump ship. But the fact that this is my first layout, in which I'm probably going to make a lot more mistakes yet, is a strong argument to stay the course and live and learn from an entire start-to-finish process.

 

In short, the jury is still out.

[Izzy]

28 minutes ago, n9 said:

 

I haven't at all looked at what the implications are with 2FS yet either, nor if Finetrax comes with its own set of problems.

All choices have their own drawbacks and restrictions on what’s possible, but given your dissatisfaction right at the start of your N gauge experience I’d be tempted to suggest this isn’t going to go away. Many accept the downside of what you’ve encountered and just live with it to be able to use N. If you were only using diesels I say going 2FS would be a fairly simple choice but if steam locos are involved then it’s a rather harder decision because conversion of RTR steam isn’t so easy. 
 

In get the impression you live outside the UK so costs are rather higher for you and the investment made in the Peco track is substantial so exploring all your options with what you have seems a very good idea. You’ll either find a compromise that works for you or it will confirm that you need to travel a different road.

 

Bob

[DCB]

No matter what scale or gauge turning the corner on Long crossings is an issue.  Even 12" to the ft locos have done it.   12" to the ft switch the crossing nose on high speed long crossings.   

The  bouncing is curable by adding shims to the flangeways to support the flanges but only if you standardise your flange depth.   Back in the 1950s Hornby Dublo built crossings where the flanges supported the wheels across the rail gaps.    Triang  Trix  1950 Grafar  etc  flanges are too deep to run through these points.    Peco then introduced  "Universal" points with similar rail section but lacked the "Shelf" which supported the wheel flange.   Grafar  Triang etc got through or would have if their back to back set right, Hornby Dublo  banged and crashed  where they ran through their own points with barely a flinch
Peco have continued this style to this day in a variety of  gauges.  
You could go fine scale but you may have to re wheel or stop using some of your stock, or, like Network Fail, try to avoid long crossings, short crossings and slips.

[n9]

9 hours ago, Izzy said:

All choices have their own drawbacks and restrictions on what’s possible, but given your dissatisfaction right at the start of your N gauge experience I’d be tempted to suggest this isn’t going to go away. Many accept the downside of what you’ve encountered and just live with it to be able to use N. If you were only using diesels I say going 2FS would be a fairly simple choice but if steam locos are involved then it’s a rather harder decision because conversion of RTR steam isn’t so easy. 
 

In get the impression you live outside the UK so costs are rather higher for you and the investment made in the Peco track is substantial so exploring all your options with what you have seems a very good idea. You’ll either find a compromise that works for you or it will confirm that you need to travel a different road.

 

Bob

 

8 hours ago, DCB said:

No matter what scale or gauge turning the corner on Long crossings is an issue.  Even 12" to the ft locos have done it.   12" to the ft switch the crossing nose on high speed long crossings.   

The  bouncing is curable by adding shims to the flangeways to support the flanges but only if you standardise your flange depth.   Back in the 1950s Hornby Dublo built crossings where the flanges supported the wheels across the rail gaps.    Triang  Trix  1950 Grafar  etc  flanges are too deep to run through these points.    Peco then introduced  "Universal" points with similar rail section but lacked the "Shelf" which supported the wheel flange.   Grafar  Triang etc got through or would have if their back to back set right, Hornby Dublo  banged and crashed  where they ran through their own points with barely a flinch
Peco have continued this style to this day in a variety of  gauges.  
You could go fine scale but you may have to re wheel or stop using some of your stock, or, like Network Fail, try to avoid long crossings, short crossings and slips.

 

Thanks both of you for the tips and fleshing out some of the detail. There is certainly a lot to think about, and I'll be doing just that while I finish up testing and evaluating what I have. But yes, there is the added complication of being overseas, with scant British outline stuff available. There is some Peco stuff around, but just about everything else I end up getting shipped from the UK or from Germany.

[AndrueC]

I have a code 80 Streamline diamond crossing where one of the guard rails has no power. Thankfully it doesn't seem to be an issue. What I've noticed about Streamline in code 80 (don't think I ever noticed it on Settrack but maybe never really looked) is that there is a large gap at the frogs such that a wheel is unsupported as it crosses. It's quite shocking how much a small wagon can tip over if you press down on the corner as it crosses the frog. And a test bogey I use when laying track won't roll through a Streamline turnout of any kind at significant speed without derailing.

 

To be fair to Peco none of this seems to be an issue when running 'real' rakes so perhaps it's of no importance 🤔

Edited October 16, 2023 by AndrueC