Drift is a prerequisite to Railwire thread conclusion. 
That said, if Peco ever did a North American "N" line, I would probably be all over it. I am totally not into the current line though.
It's not thread drift I'm having a problem with. Some of my very best posts have been due to the subjects that appear when the thread's direction drifts from the OP's original intent.
What I am having a problem with is the subject of Peco 55 N-scale track, and the fantasy that they should follow their HO scale American Prototype product's conception and implementation both of which are favorite subjects of mine.
I have written about it so many times here and on other forums that I hisitate to do it again because the evidence is mounting that it's the personification of "beating a dead horse".
I notice
@peteski Peter has not joined in either. Perhaps he is feeling somewhat the same as me.
Oh well...here goes!
Fact #1: Peco C55 N scale track, with the buried second rail foot is a superb design, which...if evaluated the way it should have been, should have allowed Peco to make the very best, the most prototypical looking N-scale track ever made.
Fact #2: Peco CHOSE to design it to look toylike, not because it is necessary, but for some unknown reason. Peco already had the drawings and diagrams to manufacture 1:160th scale track based on real A.R.E.A. drawings because of their HO scale C83 trackage products based on the same drawings. Doing the same in N-scale would have been a logical next step.
Fact #3: Make no mistake, Peco C55 N-scale track representing track with wooden ties, does not look like ANY prototype track anywhere. It is NOT made to look like British Bullhead trackage, nor British FlatBottom trackage, nor any other country's trackage. It most closely looks like what was first available in N-gauge toy train sets back in the middle 1960's. You don't manufacture injection molding tooling by guessing at the dimensions of what you're doing. Peco did it on purpose and they made a very big mistake.
Fact #4: Peco's two turnout types ( Insulfrog & Electrofrog) were ancient and obsolete designs (electrically) when introduced. Their new Unifrog design complies with common sense turnout electrical design that has been around for decades...FINALLY! We're only 19.75 years into the 21st Century. TOOK YA LONG ENOUGH!! Only problems are the plastic guardrails, the weird-looking closure point rails, the funky looking (still) throwbar and the equally funky looking tie spacing/dimensions.
If Peco would have used their head and looked at what was happening to N-gauge...it was turning into N-SCALE with Kadee N-scale couplers, Kadee low-profile wheelsets, Rail-Craft C70, C55 and C40 flex with ultra small spikehead details and North American tie sizes and spacing...they could have, without any extra effort, made their brand-new track products the cutting edge from an appearance standpoint, from a functional standpoint, and from an electrical standpoint. Peco chose to ignore emerging N-scale trends and believe that toylike N-gauge would remain the dominant direction of model trains running on 9mm gauge track.
Since Peco needed to draw their own custom rail anyway, it would not have cost any more to make the railhead width and height, the railfoot width and height and the overall visible height within prototoype A.R.E.A. rail profile dimensions....Code 46 being the height of A.R.E.A. 136lb steel rail.
Since the buried 2nd railfoot is what holds the rails and ties together with the Peco buried 2nd railfoot design, tie plate and spike head details could have easily been made totally prototypical...scale sized spike heads...since they would be purely cosmetic.
Of course, making the ties at least scale length, scale width and spaced a scale distance apart would have been simple. The buried railfoot design may have mandated they be taller than prototypical, but since they're buried in ballast or dirt 99% of the time anyway, we could have lived with that.
Turnouts would have looked a lot like ME #6's, except with more correct visible rail profiles (particularly with a narrower rail head), correct turnout tieplates, reinforcing plates and scale-sized spikeheads. With a bit of extra effort, nickel silver guardrails, frog and triple-planed closure point rails would have been perfect. Additionally, a much more prototype appearing throwbar could have easily been designed...even with the over-center spring keeper mechanism. All with isolated frogs and DCC friendly rail configuration of course.
Finally, with a properly designed injection mold tool, substituting a lower height rail, frog, and guardrails into the injection mold tool would provide .040" tall siding, spur, industrial and branchline shorter trackages, contrasting very nicely with the C46 mainline heavily trafficked trackage.
If Peco would have done that, or if Rail-Craft would have designed and manufactured at least three more turnouts, I probably would have never learned to hand-lay my own turnouts because there wouldn't have been a need for me to learn.
That said (again and again) I think there is a bias in Peco's thinking toward N-scale, and that we are unlikely to see an N-scale equivalent of their HO-scale C83 track products, even if we petition them repeatedly. Too bad, they could corner the N-scale market with a rail product that is truly 1/160th scale.
Cheerio!
Bob Gilmore
