Kato flex track

[Spades]

Dave

Just AWAG.  If Peco brought out a new line of track.  The sales would most likely impact (Cannibalize) PECO existing market share/sales.

[TrainCat2]

I've never had problems getting Atlas c55, but I always buy at least a couple of boxes at a time because I always need rail stock as well as flex track to keep the custom turnouts and crossings compatible.  I do the same with cork.  That probably gets me through the periods of unavailability.

Pretty much the same here. I have a standing order for 150 Atlas c55 track and 150 MIdwest cork each month for the AZ layout. Might as well make sure I can get it now when I can. Just received my third delivery.

[thomasjmdavis]

Pretty much the same here. I have a standing order for 150 Atlas c55 track and 150 MIdwest cork each month for the AZ layout. Might as well make sure I can get it now when I can. Just received my third delivery.

Do you get wholesale pricing on that?  Or on the miles of wire it must take to get that up and running?

[robert3985]

I can't speak for Atlas55's availability since I only bought one piece of flex and one #7 turnout way back when it was first introduced.

I don't buy turnouts, so I can't speak about their availability either, from any manufacturer. I don't worry about availability.

And, since I bought a nice supply of Rail Craft Code 55 way back when, I don't buy much of the new Micro Engineering much-less-nice Code 55 either, except for using it on temporary bridge sections and fiddle yards.

However, my habits were started because of the unavailability of decent turnouts in N-scale and the Atlas Code80 Ntrak Standard when I first got back into model railroading.

I'm not at all sure why some products simply are not made in N-scale, like decent telegraph/power poles or decent scale-sized couplers that actually function, look prototypical and don't slinky down the track...

Maybe I'm so N-centric that I'm not aware that N-scale is such a small market that making a decent, prototypical looking track product is totally not financially feasible.

Peco, who could have really revolutionized N-scale with an excellent, prototypical looking track product when they decided to go the toy-like route with their Peco55 track, should have realized that it doesn't cost any more to do it right the first time...especially with the resources they have with their HO scale North American track products to scale down.  I've given up on finding a logical explanation other than they misjudged the N-scale market.

Even if Peco misjudged the N-scale market, evidently they're doing well enough for them to develop and introduce a new, improved N-scale turnout. So, they can't be doing THAT bad eh?

And then, there's Micro Engineering.  Hopefully the new owners will not ignore the needs of N-scalers as the previous owners did for decades.  Seeing the incompleteness of their N-scale line as compared to other scales should be obvious.  We'll see I guess.

Tell ya what, if I happen to win a Powerball or Megamillions lottery...I'll do it.  Unfortunately, I think that's about the only chance N-scale has of somebody bringing a really decent track product to the market.

Cheerio...sort of...
Bob Gilmore

[Dave V]

Dave

Just AWAG.  If Peco brought out a new line of track.  The sales would most likely impact (Cannibalize) PECO existing market share/sales.

True. I'm guessing few North American HO scale guys were buying Peco track before they came out with their USA prototype line. OTOH, both their code 55 and 80 lines in N scale are already selling quite well over here. So yeah, why compete with yourself?

[peteski]

Dave

Just AWAG.  If Peco brought out a new line of track.  The sales would most likely impact (Cannibalize) PECO existing market share/sales.

Not sure if I follow.  Sure, the sales of their unprototypical (for U.S.) track would take a dive, but the sales of the new track would more than make up for that.  I think they would even sell more of the new track than their old stuff, since some modelers using other brands of track (Atlas, Micro engineering) would likely switch to Peco, especially if the C55 was made like the current c55 track (the most robust flex track on the market).

[Dave V]

Not being especially familiar with UK railroading I'm reluctant to call Peco code 55 "unrealistic." Does their track scale out correctly for UK track (the tie--er, sleeper--spacing and size)? I do understand that the "spike" detail isn't meant at all to represent North American rail spikes but rather a UK-style fastener. Just curious.

[robert3985]

Not being especially familiar with UK railroading I'm reluctant to call Peco code 55 "unrealistic." Does their track scale out correctly for UK track (the tie--er, sleeper--spacing and size)? I do understand that the "spike" detail isn't meant at all to represent North American rail spikes but rather a UK-style fastener. Just curious.

I did a bit of research and found this drawing and these photos.  I don't have a piece of Peco55 track to measure, so, if you'd like, you can do the measuring, conversions and see if Peco55 represents British wooden sleeper track as far as the ties are concerned.

Photo (1)


Plenty of information on Irish rail standards, but very little on British rail standards, except old stuff.

Since I don't have a piece of Peco55 to look at, I didn't do any research about exactly how close Peco's rail attachment thingies were to actual British rail...or what variant of British rail it might represent.

Cheerio!
Bob Gilmore

Photo (2)


Or...this size sleeper:

Photo (3)

[Dave V]

@robert3985 ,

Thanks for that! It looks like what I have doesn’t quite match the diagram. So I am not sure how standard the standard really is.

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

[Spades]

Not sure if I follow.  Sure, the sales of their unprototypical (for U.S.) track would take a dive, but the sales of the new track would more than make up for that.  I think they would even sell more of the new track than their old stuff, since some modelers using other brands of track (Atlas, Micro engineering) would likely switch to Peco, especially if the C55 was made like the current c55 track (the most robust flex track on the market).

In that scenario Peco spends more on new tooling and makes less profit with idle tooling, increased warehousing and distribution cost.  This is all speculation.

[peteski]

In that scenario Peco spends more on new tooling and makes less profit with idle tooling, increased warehousing and distribution cost.  This is all speculation.

Ok, I understand.  Thanks.

But if the current N scale tooling is prototypical (or  close) for British track, the old tooling would be far from idling.  They would still sell the old track in Britain, and maybe in continental Europe.  Only the U.S. sales would diminish, with the new American-specs track picking up slack.  My speculation is that overall Peco would be selling more track than they currently are.

[bigdawgks]

I'm going to chime in here because I have some kowledge of British N gauge modelling.

I will say that Peco's wooden sleeper flex track is only margianally representative of a subset of British prototype track. At best it is a decent representation of flat-bottom rail with wooden sleepers, but that only makes up about 1/3 of the most common types of track seen in the UK. More modern lines use concrete sleepers, and many older lines (pre dieselisation) were built with bullhead rail; these sit on steel chairs and have a noticible gap between the bottom of the rail and top of the sleeper. I believe Peco offers flex track with concrete sleepers but they definitely don't have anything representative of bullhead rail in N. For prototypical bullhead track, there's a company that produces kits for code 40 bullhead flextrack & turnouts, but because they require assembly I believe only modellers who seriously care about prototypical accuracy usually go for it.

I think most British N gauge modellers are happy with Peco track, but for those who want real prototypical accuracy I think they would rather lay their own track. The fact of the matter is that British rolling stock is of the wrong scale for 9mm track anyway (being 1/148, which would put scale standard gauge at around 9.6mm), and if you really care so much about the track looking correct you're probably going to want to use 2mm FS as a standard instead, in which case you're hand building all your track to a slightly wider gauge anyway.

[John]

Yeah, that's what I mean. The military does crap like that with manpower. They keep you undermanned and then--because you can't let the mission fail and you somehow make do for a while--they come in and say "See? You didn't need those billets in the first place." And then they cut those positions...because they never filled them.

Amen Brother!!!

[peteski]

That was some very good info bigdawgks - thanks!  Most of us (on this side of the pond) don't know many details about British railroads or scale models.

And while we have some good historical info about early American prototype N scale models (from Arnold and Trix), we know nothing about how the track was designed.  Instead of using real railroad track for reference, they mught have just pulled the dimensions out of a hat.  Somethgin that looked good to them.

It also seems that the tie (sleeper) spacing in most of the currently produced Code 80 tracks from European manufacturers (Peco included) use tie spacing and other dimensions that are very close to the early (again European, since that is where N scale originated) N scale track.  I suspect that as other companies started developing their versions of N scale track, they just followed the original design (for visual and operational compatibility).

I also suspect that Kato imitated Atlas track (which in turn was based on the European design). Kato tie spacing is closed than Atlas', but the tie length is very close.  Or maybe Kato's track depict Japanese prototype?

It would be nice to interview one of the early N scale designers who were responsible for track design, but they might have passed on by now.

[robert3985]

That was some very good info bigdawgks - thanks!  Most of us (on this side of the pond) don't know many details about British railroads or scale models.

And while we have some good historical info about early American prototype N scale models (from Arnold and Trix), we know nothing about how the track was designed.  Instead of using real railroad track for reference, they mught have just pulled the dimensions out of a hat.  Somethgin that looked good to them...

@bigdawgks Thanks for that information!  Your observations are pretty much the same as what I found several years ago when I was attempting to find what prototype early N-scale track might have been modeled after...and didn't find any.

This, of course, dispels the persistent rumor that circulates among N-scalers that early N-scale toys were modeled after...first "British prototype track" and second "European prototype track"...this from people who evidently haven't actually observed British track nor European track.

So @peteski Peter, I vote that early N-scale designers "...pulled the dimensions out of a hat."   I came to that conclusion a long time ago when I got bombed by various posters about my claim that early N-gauge (not N-scale) Code80 track, and all Code80 track that followed were designed as toys, and not as models.

Now, if some manufacturer would simply go outside with a tape measure, a camera and a notebook and look at real track, or spend 30 minutes looking for real track drawings online...maybe they'd be able to produce "model" N-scale track instead of just continuing to perpetuate fugly toy N-gauge track.

Railcraft/Micro Engineering is the only company that has nearly done it right in N-scale...Atlas55 to a much lesser degree.  Hopefully, the new owners of Micro Engineering will see the potential and logic of producing more N-scale turnouts etc., while keeping the prototype proportions intact as well as keeping the rail attachment furniture at least as good as old Rail Craft standards.

Photo (1) - Rail Craft Code55 Painted, Echo Yard:



Photo (2) - Rail Craft Code55 Painted, Ballasted, Weathered with a U.P. CA-1 bringing up the rear of the Evanston Local headed home to Ogden...The BEST N-scale Track ever made![/b][/i]



Unfortunately, I don't have high hopes for future track products that will match original Rail Craft Track, even from ME.

CHEERIO!!!
Bob Gilmore