So PECO doesn't make Electrfrogs C55 anymore?

[peteski]

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 #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 1950'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.
. . .

No need for me to chime in. You are doing excellent job by yourself, and I agree with you on most points. 

As to your facts #2 and 3, do we know the history or timeline of their N scale track?  I'm asking because I have a feeling that the N scale track was introduced before their H0 prototypical C83 USA-prototype track. If that was the case, then your points do not work.  Also, I do not think that they pulled their N scale track design "out of a hat". They likely just made their track look similar with to the other existing N scale track at the time. All those standard toy tracks offered by Piko, Arnold, Minitrix, Fleischmann, Roco, etc., etc.  So it would be visually compatible. That is the only explanation that makes sense to me.  But if they really pulled that design out of a hat, then that is very sad.

Fact 4:  I disagree.  I thought that the frog and closure rails being a single pieces of tracks was quite attractive and realistic. Reminded  me of handmaid turnouts.  Just like the 1:1 turnouts look. And just like handlaid turnouts, steps have to be taken to prevent electrical shorts.  The Insulfrogs with plastic frog do not realistic at all, and the new Unifrog, while it does feature a metal frog, there are now unsightly gaps between it and the closure rail.  But I have to concede that functionally and in the ease of electrical hookup, it is superior to either of the old designs.

[nstars]

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 1950'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.

Reading this analysis, I feel I have to respond

Fact #1, the reason for the current code 55 with buried rail is very simple, it makes a more prototypical rail size possible even for rolling stock with pizza cutters, which is still very common in Europe. This also aligns with fact #3. And please remember that any rail size above code 40 (including c55) is in my opinion oversized. The code 46 may be correct for 135 lbs rails, but 135lbs rail is rare in real life.
Fact#2, All Peco N scale track was designed and manufactured before the arrival of the Peco Code 83 track.
Fact #3, Peco track models European track with European tie spacing and European tie sizes and does this very well. Designing railroad infrastructure is my daytime occupation and I know that European track and turnouts are quite different in dimensions and construction compared to US track.
Fact #4, This is where I have to agree that improvements of the design is possible although I still do like the reliability of the track. My problem with for example ME track is that it looks great, but falls apart when you look at it.

Concerning Peco US track in N scale I was not joking in my previous message. From reliable sources I do know the design has been made but the success of the C83 track has caught them out. They didn’t have the manufacturing capacity to put it in production. Please remember that Peco is not a big manufacture who has always manufactured everything locally in the UK. Their main market has always been more Uk and Europe and their, perhaps conservative, approach has assured that they can survive as a healthy company.

Marc

[OldEastRR]

All I did was ask if I could find Peco Electrofrog switches somewhere .....

What I find interesting is that two very knowledgeable model rails have two very different answers as to why Peco N ties are what they are. What does Peco say?

For those of you wondering how my story turned out, yes I found some Electrofrogs. I could have gone Unifrog (the new undertie wiring looks workable) but I already have a Unifrog crossing in my mix (along with old Insulfrogs, which have a different geometry from either of the other two types) and wiring THOSE live frogs will be nightmare enough for me.
So I have all 3 types of Peco switches on my layout. Along with the majority ME switches (which I guess is like a Ford or Chevy kind of thing -- you're really for one and really against the other).
Anyhow, I love threads like this that go way off course, bring up knowledge not available before, and DON'T have to be locked because the posters get nasty with each other.

[peteski]

All I did was ask if I could find Peco Electrofrog switches somewhere .....

LOL, you must have forgot that you are on the Railwire Al.  That's how things go around here. 

[Point353]

All I did was ask if I could find Peco Electrofrog switches somewhere .....

Did you get all that you needed?

[James Costello]

All I did was ask if I could find Peco Electrofrog switches somewhere .....

Actually, your first post and the subject of this thread is nothing like that question. 

Language matters.

[bobthebear]

Hi Guys, as I'm over the pond I can answer Fact #2.

The track was designed to look like British track, and it does. Initially, before the Common Market and World Trade, that was their market: Britain. The track was so reliable that everybody wanted it, and the reputation grew. They produce SO much, that there isn't capacity to make an American or Australian, or Russian etc version. Yes, I would like American spaced ties, but, that's life.

Cheers, Bob.

[randgust]

As an electrofrog fan, I felt alarmed until I studied the Unifrog wiring and came to the conclusion (apparently correctly, thanks Max) that minor surgery will make one work just like an electrofrog if you want.    So this has been a worthwhile thread, at least to me.

But when you flip it over and study it in the photos, man, the die work they had to do to get it there... they obviously had to completely re-work the plastic tie strip die completely for the jumpers.   And not fixing the appearance when you actually had the chance?  Sigh.   

Yeah, the horse is beaten thoroughly.   No amount of grumbling will fix that one now.   I've always defended manufacturers knowing just how much it costs for precision die work.   But most will take the opportunity to fix a litany of ills, even Bachmann.

But  extricating and cleaning a Kato is just...so...much...worse, to accomplish the same switchable hot frog.

At least unlike many other products I have loved that seem to have gone extinct (Traincat!!), this isn't so bad after all.

[basementcalling]

So this thread begs the question, which might best be the start of a new thread, Why hasn't a N scale manufacturer of American prototype track come along and taken advantage of this huge market opportunity to construct, market, and sell prototypically correct N scale track for N scale?

Railcraft/Micro Engineering tried. Good flextrack, hard to find turnouts.

Atlas has made an effort with their code 55 line to criticism and complaints, some even valid, mostly about their turnout construction.

Kato and Bachmann, don't get me started about their sectional track offerings and prototype.

[dem34]

So this thread begs the question, which might best be the start of a new thread, Why hasn't a N scale manufacturer of American prototype track come along and taken advantage of this huge market opportunity to construct, market, and sell prototypically correct N scale track for N scale?

Railcraft/Micro Engineering tried. Good flextrack, hard to find turnouts.

Atlas has made an effort with their code 55 line to criticism and complaints, some even valid, mostly about their turnout construction.

Kato and Bachmann, don't get me started about their sectional track offerings and prototype.

Because the people that are interested but not die hard into prototypical turnouts won't pony up the extra cash for it. The people that are die hard into prototypical turnouts would probably hand lay anyway. TLDR: Niche market if people buy your product as is.

[peteski]

So this thread begs the question, which might best be the start of a new thread, Why hasn't a N scale manufacturer of American prototype track come along and taken advantage of this huge market opportunity to construct, market, and sell prototypically correct N scale track for N scale?

Railcraft/Micro Engineering tried. Good flextrack, hard to find turnouts.

Atlas has made an effort with their code 55 line to criticism and complaints, some even valid, mostly about their turnout construction.

Kato and Bachmann, don't get me started about their sectional track offerings and prototype.

My guess is that:
1. It is very expensive to make the complex molds to manufacture track, and also draw new rail.
2. Manufacturers do  not  think there is large enough market to recoup their  investment in a reasonable amount of time. After all, N scale is only about half of H0 market (at least as I understand). Most N scale manufacturers are fairly small companies with small budgets, and they do no think new line of track woudl be profitable.

[wazzou]

My guess is that:
1. It is very expensive to make the complex molds to manufacture track, and also draw new rail.

The point made up thread though is valid in that apparently they had to make new molds for the ties in order to get these wire traces in place, couldn't they utilize the same rail embedded in the plastic as done currently but do so with North American tie spacing and Sizing?

[peteski]

The point made up thread though is valid in that apparently they had to make new molds for the ties in order to get these wire traces in place, couldn't they utilize the same rail embedded in the plastic as done currently but do so with North American tie spacing and Sizing?

Why no, because then the new turnouts (using US tie spacing) would look out of place when used with their existing flex track, crossings, and other turnouts.  No modeler would like that.  Plus, I believe their main market  is still UK.

[MichaelWinicki]

So this thread begs the question, which might best be the start of a new thread, Why hasn't a N scale manufacturer of American prototype track come along and taken advantage of this huge market opportunity to construct, market, and sell prototypically correct N scale track for N scale?

Railcraft/Micro Engineering tried. Good flextrack, hard to find turnouts.

Atlas has made an effort with their code 55 line to criticism and complaints, some even valid, mostly about their turnout construction.

Kato and Bachmann, don't get me started about their sectional track offerings and prototype.

I think if you were ask Atlas or Micro Engineering they would probably say they're already adequately supplying the market that wants a prototypical look. 

And to a point they are.

I think Atlas is pretty close.  If they tweaked their turnout line a bit I think they would be near perfect. 

I'm not a fan of "burying" part of the rail within the tie– just makes the tie that much (unrealistically) thicker.

[Dave V]

Why no, because then the new turnouts (using US tie spacing) would look out of place when used with their existing flex track, crossings, and other turnouts.  No modeler would like that.  Plus, I believe their main market  is still UK.

I think this point keeps being missed, when it was in fact very well stated by one of our UK members:

Hi Guys, as I'm over the pond I can answer Fact #2.

The track was designed to look like British track, and it does. Initially, before the Common Market and World Trade, that was their market: Britain. The track was so reliable that everybody wanted it, and the reputation grew. They produce SO much, that there isn't capacity to make an American or Australian, or Russian etc version. Yes, I would like American spaced ties, but, that's life.

Cheers, Bob.

Peco is a UK company and they make a lot more than track...virtually all of it (save for the HO North American track line) UK-prototype.  I really do think it's just that simple.