ForestPines Posted October 30, 2011 Share Posted October 30, 2011 Hello there, There have been a few threads recently about the topic of OO gauge track, and, in particular, the old "why doesn't Peco make more accurate track?" question which has been coming up probably at intervals ever since Streamline was first produced. It set me wondering, though - particularly in the light of comments from people saying "why can't Peco produce an OO-gauge track which is as accurate as their O-gauge bullhead?" I think I even asked this question on one of those threads, but nobody picked the question up to answer. How accurate is Peco's N gauge track? Given there is a similar UK/rest-of-the-world scale divide in N gauge as there is in 16.5mm gauge, is their N gauge track closer to a UK prototype, a continental prototype, or an American prototype? And is there a difference in this arena between their standard and finescale ranges? Given that, percentage-wise, the difference between UK N and non-UK N scales is roughly half the difference between OO and HO, are people generally less bothered about it? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chrislock Posted October 30, 2011 Share Posted October 30, 2011 Hello there, There have been a few threads recently about the topic of OO gauge track, and, in particular, the old "why doesn't Peco make more accurate track?" question which has been coming up probably at intervals ever since Streamline was first produced. It set me wondering, though - particularly in the light of comments from people saying "why can't Peco produce an OO-gauge track which is as accurate as their O-gauge bullhead?" I think I even asked this question on one of those threads, but nobody picked the question up to answer. How accurate is Peco's N gauge track? Given there is a similar UK/rest-of-the-world scale divide in N gauge as there is in 16.5mm gauge, is their N gauge track closer to a UK prototype, a continental prototype, or an American prototype? And is there a difference in this arena between their standard and finescale ranges? Given that, percentage-wise, the difference between UK N and non-UK N scales is roughly half the difference between OO and HO, are people generally less bothered about it? I think the modelling world is screaming out for better N gauge flexitrack from a manufacturer - and why not Peco? The code 55 looks terrible against the development in N gauge locomotives recently, and the increase in interest this has generated in this scale.. While there may be some modellers who still run the old pastrycutter wheels, I suspect that they already have a train set set up with code 80 or possibly 55 to run them on; and if planning a new layout would consider better standards. I see no reason why Peco shouldn't produce code 40 track, with NMRA tolerances. This in turn would encourage manufacturers to produce finer wheel standards, then everyone is a winner ( well apart from ebay traders perhaps!). As it is, the 2FS is the only alternative for the discerning 2mm modeller, and that involves quite an outlay in money and time to achieve anything reliable, especially if steam is the choice of motive power. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Karhedron Posted October 30, 2011 Share Posted October 30, 2011 I agree, I would love some more accurate N gauge RTR track. Even just getting the sleeper spacing right would be a big step in the right direction. As it is Peco, have a virtual monopoly of RTR track in this country. Unless someone started competing, I see little incentive for them to invest in retooling. The problem is the size of the range. Anyone wanting to compete would need flexi-track, crossings and points of several radii to offer enough choice for modellers to actually work with (never mind such exotic beasts as 3-way, curved points and slips). Sadly my skills are more on the scenic side than on the mechanical so I do not feel inclined to try my hand at building my own trackwork. While others have built very smart track from the 2mm society's Easitrack kits, I prefer to invest my modest amount of modelling time on areas where I can at least get a good result. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hayfield Posted October 30, 2011 Share Posted October 30, 2011 I must admit that when I looked into N gauge turnouts for someone what I thought was code 55 track was actually code 80 with 3/8ths burried into the sleepers. I happened to have some N gauge copperclad sleepers and some code 60 rail, I made a simple track gauge and had a go at building a point using a template I printed off Templot. I am waiting feedback on it, but if I were to build more, I would buy code 55 rail and get fiberglass coperclad sleepering rather than the paxoline. Is it worth all the effort in building plain track to match, for a small layout I guess yes is the answer. Building the turnout was quite good fun, I doubt if building plain track would be as interesting Having just built 1 turnout the job those boys at the Model Railway Club have done with Copenhagen Fields is just something else, As for using the finer rail with the chairs, lets just say I will leave it to those who have the eyesight, time and patience Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
arran Posted October 30, 2011 Share Posted October 30, 2011 HI All Well there you go then you have spotted a gap in the market, get yourself £250 000.00 and you will be quids in, i dont think. If you cant make code 55 look ok i do think your being picky, a good spray of track colour and well ballasted i think it looks good enough, Ive had people ask if the track work on Law is 2mm !!!! Regards Arran Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Russ (mines a pint) Posted October 30, 2011 RMweb Gold Share Posted October 30, 2011 I think there are different arguments in 2mm vs 4mm - the gauge difference between what it is and what it should be is less, and the N market is smaller than the OO. as a generalisation the scale lends itself to 'railway in scenery' approach rather than one where you are going to be looking at trackwork very closely, that said it'd be wrong to expect N gauge modellers to be content with 'wrong track' I think 2mm easitrack has been proven to be compatible with N points so that at least gives as good opportunity as the SMP/C&L track with peco points in 4mm scale? the worse thing about code 55 (as has already been identified) is that it is code 80 with some hidden, which rules out potentially correcting the sleeper spacing as the base does not allow this. If you cant make code 55 look ok i do think your being picky, a good spray of track colour and well ballasted i think it looks good enough, Ive had people ask if the track work on Law is 2mm !!!! - the worst thing you see on N layouts is oversized ballast, I think this can detract from the look more than the track? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edwin_m Posted October 31, 2011 Share Posted October 31, 2011 Some modern track has more closely space sleepers and the Peco 55 is pretty accurate for this. I think the plain line can be made to look pretty good. The worst thing is the depth and gap of the switch rails on points. These could certainly be improved for modern wheels, also adding the facility to isolate and bond the switch rails as with code 75. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chrislock Posted October 31, 2011 Share Posted October 31, 2011 HI All Well there you go then you have spotted a gap in the market, get yourself £250 000.00 and you will be quids in, i dont think. If you cant make code 55 look ok i do think your being picky, a good spray of track colour and well ballasted i think it looks good enough, Ive had people ask if the track work on Law is 2mm !!!! Regards Arran Sorry I wasn't having a go at users of code 55, however, if you can't see the difference between code 55 and easitrac, regardless of ballasting, then there is no point in me trying to explain it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chrislock Posted October 31, 2011 Share Posted October 31, 2011 HI All Well there you go then you have spotted a gap in the market, get yourself £250 000.00 and you will be quids in, i dont think. If you cant make code 55 look ok i do think your being picky, a good spray of track colour and well ballasted i think it looks good enough, Ive had people ask if the track work on Law is 2mm !!!! Regards Arran I didn't say I was thinking of setting up in business,merely that the market for more accurate 9mm track is out there, and £250 grand for retooling ( perhaps some money saved in material costs, since the material used would be less), should easily be able to be made up, in time. How long has code 55/ 80 been around? I think that customers would be prepared to pay more for track which looked right. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
arran Posted October 31, 2011 Share Posted October 31, 2011 HI Chris I do know the difference between easy-track and code 55 as i'm using easy-track in the yard on the club layout as n gauge with the new finer wheels will run on it. A i dont doubt your correct in saying that there a market for a finer n gauge track, but i cant see it happening anytime soon unless someone takes up the challenge. But Code55 properly weathered and blasted to me for exhibition layouts is the ideal compromise. Regards Arran Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ForestPines Posted October 31, 2011 Author Share Posted October 31, 2011 I have to say that I've noticed there don't seem to be any competitors to Peco at all for N gauge track. Whereas with 16.5mm there are people saying "ooh, Tillig stuff is HO but looks quite nice" there doesn't seem to be anything comparable in N that I've found yet - the continental N gauge track that I have noticed looks very toylike, more so than Peco Setrack even. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
brossard Posted October 31, 2011 Share Posted October 31, 2011 I think your best bet for good track is the 2mm Society http://www.2mm.org.uk/index.shtml but you would still need to make your own points. I haven't seen any RTR track in N, 00 or H0 that I would call "correct". It's not just about sleeper or timber (for points - not the same thing) spacing. A look at any book on permanent way will tell you that there are dozens of designs of track. John Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chrislock Posted October 31, 2011 Share Posted October 31, 2011 I think your best bet for good track is the 2mm Society http://www.2mm.org.uk/index.shtml but you would still need to make your own points. I haven't seen any RTR track in N, 00 or H0 that I would call "correct". It's not just about sleeper or timber (for points - not the same thing) spacing. A look at any book on permanent way will tell you that there are dozens of designs of track. John HI John. I am actually building a small layout in 2FS at the moment, but would switch back to RTR track if better track were available. I actually have a crossing jig to build turnouts to 9mm NMRA standards, but came to the conclusion that I might as well build to 9.42mm . This has been a challenge though, because it has meant a fait bit of scratchbuilding as I don't run diesels and therefore cannot just drop in wheel sets from the association. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave777 Posted October 31, 2011 Share Posted October 31, 2011 I'm with Karhedron on this (seems to happen a lot actually, we seem to be N gaugers of a like mind), I've given Easitrac a good consideration having chatted to the folks on the 2mm stand at Ally Pally and taken another look at Peterborough. Yes it looks excellent, but the cost and handbuilding points puts me off, and with limited time I prefer to put my efforts elsewhere. Peco gets me to about 80% of what I want to achieve. And, I have to say, I do find the simple plug-and-play nature of Peco to be very valuable. Yes it's starting to look dated now compared with some other N gauge products, but the good aspects still easily outweigh the negatives. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
brossard Posted October 31, 2011 Share Posted October 31, 2011 Chris, I always applaud those who are willing to construct their own points. I've been doing it in 4mm (so I'm not aware of the crossing limitations you refer to). Once you can get across this barrier it is so liberating to be able to design more realistic track formations without relying on the shapes provided by PECO. John Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hayfield Posted November 1, 2011 Share Posted November 1, 2011 I have only seen 1 crossing jig, that was a 7mm one at the club and in the end it was never used. I am not a N gauge modeller, but what I have seen with N gauge RTR track using code 80 rail and thick sleepers is that its out of proportion. OK you can bury the sleepers but you are left with either out of scale rail sticking up or the rail being buried in the ballast. Like John (the other one) I can build track, however there is no way I would build yards and yards of plain track so without the support of the model trade I guess that you have to put up whith what is on offer. What about Atlas ? do they use code 55 rail Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Russ (mines a pint) Posted November 1, 2011 RMweb Gold Share Posted November 1, 2011 I have only seen 1 crossing jig, that was a 7mm one at the club and in the end it was never used. I am not a N gauge modeller, but what I have seen with N gauge RTR track using code 80 rail and thick sleepers is that its out of proportion. OK you can bury the sleepers but you are left with either out of scale rail sticking up or the rail being buried in the ballast. Like John (the other one) I can build track, however there is no way I would build yards and yards of plain track so without the support of the model trade I guess that you have to put up whith what is on offer. What about Atlas ? do they use code 55 rail you could build in code 40 rail, then it would match the easitrack 2mm plain track- but with N gauge checkrail clearances? - this works with the recent standard of flanges, but not older ones. Its something I am very tempted to try. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chrislock Posted November 2, 2011 Share Posted November 2, 2011 Russ - I think there are quite a few N-gaugers who are moving in this direction. For me it's probably not worth it as I said, but the attractions of matching easitrac flexitrac to N gauge points made with code 40, is quite appealing. I think anyone who takes this route would be well advised to test at each stage with not just gauges but the stock they intend to run. I suspect recently produced Farish and Dapol might run ok. Even Union Mills tenders with wheels turned down to run on finescale track can give problems when passing through some code 40 points. Regards, Chris Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ForestPines Posted November 4, 2011 Author Share Posted November 4, 2011 Thanks, everyone, for their input. I'm not sure the question I originally was trying to get at was answered, but things are a little clearer. I had gathered that N gauge trains can run on 2mm plain track, so Easitrack could be put alongside Peco points if the points had their gauge eased slightly at the ends to match the plain track; but I don't think that will be a suitable road for me to go down. What I am puzzled about still: is the Peco track realistic for anything? Most importantly: is it more accurate if you consider it a 1:160 scale product, and if so, what is it a model of? Or do 1:160 modellers think it's just as poor as British modellers do? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chrislock Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 Of course, at a scale if 1/160 9mm track is damn nearly spot on, but its the rail height and thickness which is the problem. and for me sppoils the illusion. I'm not sure about the sleeper spacing, I bought a circle of Kato as a test track for N, and that appears to use more delicate rail. Unfortunately it sits on those old Triang-style plastic grey bases, which I guess is for strength, because one issue of easitrac is its flimsiness, prior to laying. Users are resorting to adding PCB sleepers here and there to strengthen it, especially on turnouts. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Flying Pig Posted November 5, 2011 RMweb Premium Share Posted November 5, 2011 Unfortunately it sits on those old Triang-style plastic grey bases Shame, that: http://home.comcast.net/~j.sing/Peavine_Layout_Overview.html#Kato_Unitrack Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Revolution Ben Posted November 5, 2011 RMweb Gold Share Posted November 5, 2011 Hi all, The Kato Unitrack article is interesting, and the appearance he achieves is impressive. However, what is also interesting is that Kato Unitrack is designed for the Japanese market, which is nominally 1:150 scale, and the sleepers look far more "British" than most other track systems.... yet in the US Kato Unitrack is popular and no one seems to mind too much - or am I mistaken? cheers Ben A. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Flying Pig Posted November 5, 2011 RMweb Premium Share Posted November 5, 2011 I'd guess plenty do, Ben, as there are ranges like Micro Engineering and even Fast Tracks to cater for them. I've browsed the Micro Engineering list before but for some reason I'd completely forgotten about it until your post. It looks very attractive, but I'd guess the sleepering would be wrong for British N scale and there's only the one size of plain points ready to use. The proprietor of my local model shop told me a while back that they sell a lot of Unitrak, though I suspect that this is for reasons of quality and convenience rather than increased realism. It can look very good in a UK context though as davetheroad's Castlerock illustrates. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Karhedron Posted November 5, 2011 Share Posted November 5, 2011 Whilst none of the RTR track systems are perfect, at least we are lucky to have a range of options. This allows to people to choose what area they compromise on. For me, Peco code 55 is acceptable when well ballasted and weathered. I have great admiration for those with the time and skill to build their own track but with my limited time, this route is not for me. Perhaps I would be willing to take the plunge if easitrac points could be supplied with pre-made frogs and blades as this seems the hardest area to get right DIY. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chrislock Posted November 6, 2011 Share Posted November 6, 2011 Shame, that: http://home.comcast....l#Kato_Unitrack Yes I've heard about modellers using Kato and filling or bringing the ground level up to track level - and he does that very well. However the points still look unconvincingly clumsy to my eye, are the motors on top of the board or are they inside the point base? The track does indeed look more pleasing to the eye though. I think I would use it in preference to code 55 especially having seen that example. I wonder what is to be gained though by using Kato in preference to, say, easitrac - which is not that difficult to put together and generally newer N stuff will run well on it. And it doesn't have that banked up look. Turnouts do remain an issue though - it seems you opt for RTR with oversized blades - or you make your own! Anyone used Fleischmann track? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.