Grapevine, Texas NTS 2023 - Announcements

[Chris333]

I only used them a few times and always had derailments. There are a bunch of articles on how to make them more reliable.

There were problems with the flangeways in the frog area.

[peteski]

Friend's layout (built over 20 years ago) has all Peco turnouts (bot insul- and electro-frog).  They are very reilable with most equipment.  But they do have very wide (and deep) flangeways, so for example some newer Kato steam locos (like FEF-3) with narrower tread and low flanges look a bit odd when the wheels drop down into the flangeways, but they don't derail.  Also adding a shim inside the guardrails helps, but it was not needed on all the turnouts.  One problem he observed is couple of broken throwbars (in all those 20+ years).  He thinks it is due to the fact that part of the throwbar is thinner underneath to house the snap-spring.

Hopefully the new turnouts will be closer to NMRA specs.  I'm a bit disappointed that those are insul-frog.  Black lastic frogs just don't look very realistic.  Hopefully they will produce electro-frog (or that new insulated metal frog they use now) version in the future.

[Spades]

JTC coupler coming to life and Peco releasing Code 55 Noth American style.  Charlie Vlk would have enjoyed the NTS.

[MK]

JTC coupler coming to life and Peco releasing Code 55 Noth American style.  Charlie Vlk would have enjoyed the NTS.

I bet he's looking down and smiling!!!!! 

[mike_lawyer]

Friend's layout (built over 20 years ago) has all Peco turnouts (bot insul- and electro-frog).  They are very reilable with most equipment.  But they do have very wide (and deep) flangeways, so for example some newer Kato steam locos (like FEF-3) with narrower tread and low flanges look a bit odd when the wheels drop down into the flangeways, but they don't derail.  Also adding a shim inside the guardrails helps, but it was not needed on all the turnouts.  One problem he observed is couple of broken throwbars (in all those 20+ years).  He thinks it is due to the fact that part of the throwbar is thinner underneath to house the snap-spring.

Hopefully the new turnouts will be closer to NMRA specs.  I'm a bit disappointed that those are insul-frog.  Black lastic frogs just don't look very realistic.  Hopefully they will produce electro-frog (or that new insulated metal frog they use now) version in the future.

Yep, hoping they make an insulated metal frog that can be powered.  It would be nice if they make it to NMRA specs.

[mplsjct]

I don’t have any Peco insulfrog turnouts here, but those photos look like a hybrid unifrog/insulfrog to me.

I’d be interested in seeing the underside.

[Mark5]

It would be nice essential if they make it to NMRA specs.

I think they conformed to NMRA on the HO N.A. line, so hopefully yes. 

[ridinshotgun]

So is the PECO Code 55 going to be real code 55 or the looks like code 55 but is really code 80 that takes finagling and effort to make it work with real code 55 stuff?

If that latter thanks but no thanks.

[nkalanaga]

More info, from another topic:
https://www.therailwire.net/forum/index.php?topic=56405.msg777293#msg777293

"It is still early in its development, but they are planning on code 55, not code 80 just buried deeper in the ties such as their current offering. and it looked much better. "

[peteski]

More info, from another topic:
https://www.therailwire.net/forum/index.php?topic=56405.msg777293#msg777293

"It is still early in its development, but they are planning on code 55, not code 80 just buried deeper in the ties such as their current offering. and it looked much better. "

The whole point of Peco code 55 beging excellent track was that it was extremely robust (while also still being compatible with pizza cutter wheels).  If the new C55 rail is sitting just on top of the molded ties, those features are lost.  I guess I'm ok with not being pizza cutter compatible. but I would have liked if they retained the strength of the half-buried rails.

[Rivet Miscounter]

The whole point of Peco code 55 beging excellent track was that it was extremely robust (while also still being compatible with pizza cutter wheels).  If the new C55 rail is sitting just on top of the molded ties, those features are lost.  I guess I'm ok with not being pizza cutter compatible. but I would have liked if they retained the strength of the half-buried rails.

This.   They just eliminated their competitive advantage.

I’m curious why anyone would view the buried webbing as a negative?  I’ve honestly never heard that viewpoint before.

[mplsjct]

Another vote for the buried rails, as mentioned, this makes the track robust in strength.

In my particular experience, when it becomes necessary to pull up track ( as I make mistakes planning), the strength of the Peco track makes it reusable, where as other brands will leave the ties on the roadbed, and the rails separating, or a little of both.

It sounds as though they are soliciting opinions, either way, I’m excited about this new development.

[basementcalling]

This.   They just eliminated their competitive advantage.

I’m curious why anyone would view the buried webbing as a negative?  I’ve honestly never heard that viewpoint before.

Only drawback I ever had with it is that it does make it harder to join current Peco C55 to ME or Atlas code 55 track. But that's doable with a little cutting and filing, or crimping and soldering of rail joiners. NBD in my book.

I'm still thinking learning to hand lay turnouts may be the ultimate way to go, however, as then no matter the size turnout needed, you can roll your own rather than be restricted by manufacturer size offerings based on their popularity from smaller layout spaces.

[ridinshotgun]

Only drawback I ever had with it is that it does make it harder to join current Peco C55 to ME or Atlas code 55 track. But that's doable with a little cutting and filing, or crimping and soldering of rail joiners. NBD in my book.

I'm still thinking learning to hand lay turnouts may be the ultimate way to go, however, as then no matter the size turnout needed, you can roll your own rather than be restricted by manufacturer size offerings based on their popularity from smaller layout spaces.

Maybe NBD for you but I don't want the hassle especially if it is at the price point they are putting out.  Not worth it if the have a code 80 profile. I have other things I can spend that time on when building modules. I'll stick with my Atlas or ME code 55 which take all of 10 seconds to insert into the rail joiner and hit it with a dab of flux and then a soldering iron.  If you are following any kind of module standard PECO code 55 is excluded in most due the specific fact of it issues interfacing with standard code 55.

[pedro]

L

As they say, “never look a gift horse in the mouth.”  It’s unfortunate the throwbar and head blocks seem to have been directly reused from the standard line. The ties don’t match. That huge gap for the throwbar is… not ideal.