Peco track question(s)

[thomasjmdavis]

I am planning to model a prototype yard that has several slip switches - and given what is available in N scale code 55 track, it looks like Peco is the easiest solution.  And my thinking is to utilize Peco for the entire yard, as this will avoid any sort of compatibility issue, and the tie spacing will be the same throughout.  Going for reliability first. And in any case, I don't have the skills to build turnouts, much less slip switches.

The question (maybe I should say, first question) I have is which Peco turnouts do I use with the slip switches?  The slip switch is labeled "10 degree" while the turnouts are labeled "small" "medium" and "large" radius.  Looking at the diagrams that Peco is kind enough to provide, it looks to me that the answer is "medium", but I figure best to consult with folks who have done this before.  Any advice would be most appreciated.

[ljudice]

I believe the slip switches are 20" radius which would be closest to the medium turnouts which are like 18"...

Long are 36"....

I used peco code 55 for everything and recommend it without question.

Just read wiring instructions first....

- Lou

[peteski]

It was a good idea to start another thread on this (not continue in the Atlas catalog thread).  I cand answer this questions but you were also worried about compatibility issues.  The answer is "it deoends". On what?  If you find the tie spacing distracting enough, then than can be an issue. Mechanically, again, it depends on how handy you are. If you want to just buy a ready-made solution to couple the Peco c55 to other "standard" c55 track then that doesn't exist. But if you don't mind doing some soldering or filing and shimming,  then there are no issues connecting both types of track.  I'm pretty sure that if you either search here or do a Google search fo connecting Peco and Atlas track, you'll find plenty of solutions.

[Paradise275]

Peco code 55 is really code 80 with part of the track buried in the tie. There is no difficulty joining peco code 55 with Atlas code80 or Peco code 80 for that matter.

Rick

[thomasjmdavis]

I figure that in the past, I've managed to join code 70 to code 55, and ended up with joints that were better than most of my code 55 to code 55, so that won't be much of an issue.  And I think the tie spacing will not be much of an issue if I do the entire yard in Peco, as I can put the change out of sight (but in a place reasonably accessible).  I think the trade off of tie spacing for the slip switches is fair enough.  This is the main passenger terminal, and if a car that I spent 3 days building from sides, cast my own SEAC hatches, painted the interior, goes by, anyone who pipes up with "the tie spacing is off" is going to end up hauling the manure train from the stockyards.

[peteski]

@eric220 has contemplated in here using Peco slip switches at his passenger terminal but in the end decided against them. I don't recall the reasoning but I think it was the tie spacing and possible reliability issues (due to the complex trackwork). Personally I love the looks of complex trackwork and I think Peco track is pretty reliable.

The only problems I have witnessed were occasional broken throw-bars on standard switches, and due to the wide flange-ways, the guard rails needed shimming.  But (if it's even needed) the shimming can be done on the workbench and they you're done.  As far as the throw-bars go, I attribute that to the constant pressure from the overly-thick music wire which was used with a Tortoise switch machines.  The wire put too much pressure on the throw-bar so it eventually broke.  That was on 2 turnouts on a layout with dozens of them (all Tortoise-thrown) and in a span of 20 years.

[eric220]

I do have a Peco double slip in my yard, and I've never had any problems with it.  The decision against using them in the passenger terminal throat was simply that I had the room to get the same job done with #10's.  (The Peco slip switches are around a #6.)

Transitioning between Peco 55 and Atlas 55 is fairly simple, and I've had no reliability issues with it.  As Rick said, Peco code 55 is actually code 80 rail with a double web on the bottom.  Simply snip off about half an inch of the lower web at the end of the rail, file the cut flat, and connect to Atlas code 55 with standard rail joiners.

[robert3985]

@thomasjmdavis , Since you are building a "prototype yard" and evidently from your remarks are doing some other prototype specific detailing, your attitude leans pretty strongly towards prototype looks, and is not likely to change.  You probably attract model railroad friends with similar attitudes, and you can bet that they WILL remark about your choice of ugly Peco 55 track!

Also, since I have the same attitude, I remember very well the days I chose to go with Rail Craft C70 flex, hand build all of my turnouts out of C70 rail...and after I was finished...continually having gnawing thoughts of why I didn't go with C55 for the mainlines and C40 for the sidings and industrial spurs on that set of three Ntrak modules!

I am going to encourage you to go with C55 (REAL Code 55...Micro Engineering flex & #6 turnouts & Atlas 55 turnouts everywhere else) and splice in your Peco "fake" 55 slips where you need them.

Frankly, I don't see that the inconsistency of tie size and spacing on a few slip switches should cause you to choose one of the worst looking track products for the bulk of your yard as being a valid line of reasoning...especially when your customized and superdetailed cars and engines will be insulted running on the stuff!  Track is a model too, so why superdetail everything else except the foundation of your layout...the track???????

Also, I will bet that if you look at prototype photos of the yard you're building that much of the tracks' ties are buried in ballast anyway...which is the case in most prototype yards...so....just bury the ties as best you can on the Peco crap...which should (to my way of thinking) pretty well hide their gross, out of scale, disproportionate ties...and retain a prototype look both on the Peco stuff as well as on the rest of the yard...without having to totally hide the ties anywhere else they may be prototypically exposed.

I think this will save you years of having to make excuses for why you decided to go with crappy looking track...and in your own mind have the satisfaction of making it look as good as possible with off-the-shelf track products.

Just sayin'....      

Cheerio!
Bob Gilmore

PS - I also don't think you'll be giving up ANY reliability or durability (unless you're dropping anvils on your track!) using ME & Atlas C55 products.

[ljudice]

I'm not interested in knocking Atlas Code 55 which is very nice looking - nor open the pro/con debate on Peco Code 55, which has been discussed a million times here.

I use Peco Code 55 EXCLUSIVELY and frankly could care less if anyone visiting disagrees with my decision.
(no one visits me anyway!   

It is not nearly as nice as the ME or Atlas products - but it is extraordinarily reliable - bulletproof.  It is strong and forgivable.  Turnouts have a positive locking action which I have found leads to ultra reliable operations - like backing 40 cars through a ladder.

Manufacturing is consistent - reflecting quality.  There are no "good ones" and "bad ones". 

And you can glue it down and pull it up and re-use it - OVER and OVER.  I've had Atlas Code 55 turnouts fall to pieces when shifting them in setting glue.  Heck, I've had them fall to pieces opening the package. 

Oh, and availability.  Peco track is ALWAYS available. 

So for me - it's a no brainer.  Peco has saved me a lot of money by being reusable and is VERY reliable.


- Lou

[Ron McF]

The "small", "medium" and "large" radius Peco C55 turnouts all have the same crossing angle of 10 degrees, which I think is the same as most of their crossings and slip switches.

Info can be found here:
Large radius (nominal 36" radius): http://www.peco-uk.com/product.asp?strParents=3309,3310&CAT_ID=3315&P_ID=17101
Medium radius (nominal 18" radius): http://www.peco-uk.com/product.asp?strParents=3309,3310&CAT_ID=3315&P_ID=17112
Small radius (nominal 12" radius): http://www.peco-uk.com/product.asp?strParents=3309,3310&CAT_ID=3315&P_ID=17145

Note that the diverging route is actually 'straight' (unlike their C80 turnouts), and the nominal radii are just that - nominal.

I have a yard built with Peco C55 turnouts, and to get an acceptable track spacing I added short lengths on straight track between the turnouts in the ladder.

Regards,
Ron

[peteski]

The "small", "medium" and "large" radius Peco C55 turnouts all have the same crossing angle of 10 degrees, which I think is the same as most of their crossings and slip switches.

Darn, that's pretty clever!

[jdcolombo]

I'm not interested in knocking Atlas Code 55 which is very nice looking - nor open the pro/con debate on Peco Code 55, which has been discussed a million times here.

I use Peco Code 55 EXCLUSIVELY and frankly could care less if anyone visiting disagrees with my decision.
(no one visits me anyway!   

It is not nearly as nice as the ME or Atlas products - but it is extraordinarily reliable - bulletproof.  It is strong and forgivable.  Turnouts have a positive locking action which I have found leads to ultra reliable operations - like backing 40 cars through a ladder.

Manufacturing is consistent - reflecting quality.  There are no "good ones" and "bad ones". 

And you can glue it down and pull it up and re-use it - OVER and OVER.  I've had Atlas Code 55 turnouts fall to pieces when shifting them in setting glue.  Heck, I've had them fall to pieces opening the package. 

Oh, and availability.  Peco track is ALWAYS available. 

So for me - it's a no brainer.  Peco has saved me a lot of money by being reusable and is VERY reliable.


- Lou

I used Peco Code 55 for 15 years on three different layouts.  Then I built my current layout with Atlas Code 55.  I like the look of the Atlas track, but I honestly miss the Peco switches, which were just easier to use, particularly for local switching areas.  No need for an external switch machine or actuating linkage.  Flick the points and you're good - and when you are running a local train doing switching at a number of industries, that's a far easier interface than having to look down at a track diagram and figure out which toggle switch runs which turnout.

I was at Indy this past weekend and Peco had a nice booth there with both N and HO stuff.  They were heavily touting their HO Code 83 track built to North American specs, and it looked terrific.  It's too bad they don't make a version of that in N.

John C.

[thomasjmdavis]

their HO Code 83 track built to North American specs, and it looked terrific.  It's too bad they don't make a version of that in N.

John,

I think the Law of N Scale Production applies here.  Granted, that would usually read as "No manufacturer will market a given car or engine until one of us kitbashes or scratchbuilds one"  But a clear corollary would be that Peco will not market North American track in N until AFTER I buy a whole bunch of slip switches from the current product.