Grapevine, Texas NTS 2023 - Announcements

[thomasjmdavis]

The only drawback to the new "American" code 55 Peco track is that I've completed collecting all the original Peco code 55 track I need for my upcoming big passenger yard.  However, when I get to buying the scale miles of flex for the rest of the layout, I will definitely consider the new Peco.

On handlaying track...yes, I could learn to do it, but I wonder how long it would take to get proficient enough to build multiple double slip switches and double crossovers- things included in the Peco line (and in an earlier day, Shinohara). The cost of the jigs to do it will buy you several of the Peco version (well, at the pre-pandemic prices I paid for mine).

[Mark5]

FWIW, I think the turnouts at the show were "mock ups" to generate interest (I read that somewhere  ).

Hey all, I have some information on this,
     Peco had a booth at the this weekends NMRA National Show in Dallas which I attended. It was manned by two people, one of them a design engineer. Amongst all their other track offerings, He had on display rapid 3D prototyped track and switches for a planned future line of N scale track built to American standards. [snip] He did relate they planned on using the new uni-frog concept as they have recently released in HO. [snip] Sending a design engineer with the prototype to the NMRA National show looking for opinions tells me, Peco is serious about releasing a quality offering. Given their history of manufacturing complete lines of componants, I believe their future system will warrant serious consideration.
     Hope this answers some of your questions
          Jim

https://www.therailwire.net/forum/index.php?topic=56405.0

I think if Peco actually does give us "American Profile" C55 track, then they will "sweat the details" and it will be a quality product like their HO C83 line.

Mark

[Rivet Miscounter]

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.

I'll confess, my experience with Peco is from a club I belonged to in the early 2000's.   So this predated the proliferation of low-pro and metal wheelsets for the most part.  So after researching a bit I do see the issues with turnouts that others have mentioned so for me that would be a concern.

I do not recall mating to other track being that much of a hassle, and I was involved in a lot of track laying with various brands.  I guess I'll agree it wasn't as easy as simply slipping on a rail joiner.

In Free-MoN, they don't use rail joiners between modules, so it's a non-issue from that standpoint, but the turnout issue (not NMRA standard) precludes the use of Peco.

Standards aside, (or not?) I think an important comment to them is to make sure that their turnouts function well with the popular/proper wheelset that are currently on the market or otherwise broadly in use.   I don't know exactly what that means, but I feel like it wouldn't take this forum very long to formulate a list of wheelsets that meet the spirit of what I'm trying to convey.

If the turnouts address that NMRA/wheelset issue, then I would likely use Peco for any home layout that might happen.  And I guess if the turnouts are compliant and the webbing is no longer, that might bring Peco back in the fold for Free-MoN. (the third issue was regarding the Euro tie spacing which is also obviously solved.)   But the counterpoint would be that without the webbing, the durability would not be there as it was in the past, so then Atlas or ME would be on equal footing I guess.

[ridinshotgun]

In Free-MoN, they don't use rail joiners between modules, so it's a non-issue from that standpoint, but the turnout issue (not NMRA standard) precludes the use of Peco.

While Freemo-N is growing ntrak is bigger and they do use joiner tracks and peco 55 is prohibited by most clubs mostly because of the track profile and the need of joiner tracks but also the prototype is not NA.  Those that insist on using it have to use special end pieces of atlas or ME code 55 for the joiner track sections to connect to with other modules, which I've seen cause problems (usually it's length of off by just so much) just as bad as the clubs that are now using those stupid kato expandable track sections as joiner tracks cobbled together with flex track.

If you want to talk freemo-n then switches leave a lot to be desired and most anyone I operate with hand lays their own switches with code 55 now. Almost the only switches that there are issues with are PECO because of the use of scale tread wheels.  If the have a real Code 55 US prototype that works I can see it being popular with the Freemo-n builders but not if it is the code 80 dress up with the same old switch design.

[daniel_leavitt2000]

Sigh... half these announcements remind me of Charlie. I miss his insights here.

On the Peco track, is this their weird double groove track they used for their Euro style C55 track? If so, that's an instant no for me.

Bachmann is certainly interesting. I would love to see those gondolas and coil cars. I'll be happy if the coil car is almost as good as the Red-Caboose model. I really want to see them do this in N:
[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

[C855B]

... I really want to see them do this in N:
<C36-7>

Interesting. Curious as to your interest here. It essentially is/was an export model - 90% either sold or resold to non-US entities.

[Philip H]

Interesting. Curious as to your interest here. It essentially is/was an export model - 90% either sold or resold to non-US entities.

He wants the Conrail . . . .

[C855B]

He wants the Conrail . . . .

[...sigh...] Of course he does.   

[mike_lawyer]

With regard to Peco turnouts, the only thing I do not like about their American Code 83 line is the funky Unifrog.  The tip of the frog is isolated, then there is ANOTHER insulation joint further away from the frog on the stock rails.  Makes no sense to me why the point has a small isolation gap and then the stock rails are further isolated.  It makes the frog look kind of funky.  Better to just have a cast frog that is electrically isolated.

[Tristan Ashcroft]

I really want to see them do this in N:
[C36-7]

Has anyone heard how the Aurora Miniatures C36-7 (HO) is coming along? 

Ya know, because Bachmann...

[daniel_leavitt2000]

Has anyone heard how the Aurora Miniatures C36-7 (HO) is coming along? 

Ya know, because Bachmann...

All I know is there is no chance of seeing Aurora in N, while the B-Mann has a decent chance of ending up here eventually. The first thing I noticed from the drawing is that they seem to be using the same 5-step pilot for all models, which Conrail did not use. It will be interesting to see if the Atlas or Bachmann B23-7 pilots would work. This may finally mean I can retire my C36-7 kitbashes, and maybe we would even see C30-7 and C30-7A shells made available by someone.

[Mark5]

All I know is there is no chance of seeing Aurora in N, while the B-Mann has a decent chance of ending up here eventually. The first thing I noticed from the drawing is that they seem to be using the same 5-step pilot for all models, which Conrail did not use. It will be interesting to see if the Atlas or Bachmann B23-7 pilots would work.

Bachmann probably tooled these up mainly for the Chinese model train market:
[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

Bachmann might not even be aware that GE had 4 and 5 step pilots. 

I think N&W's C36-7s had 5 step pilots.

What is odd to me is that on N&W's C30-7s, they had either 5 step or 4 step - seemingly with no rhyme or reason. It's as if they grabbed whatever was closest at hand. 

[C855B]

Bachmann probably tooled these up mainly for the Chinese model train market: ...

Yes. China Railways had 422 of them.

[GaryHinshaw]

Was there any info on the timing of the JTC/Vlk coupler release?  The photo suggests that 10 packs are already available, but there is no info on the JTC web site yet, nor in any of the usual online outlets.  JTC has a solid track record for delivering, so this news has my full attention.

[lock4244]

That UP 588 is an interesting choice (initially I thought it was a foob), an ex ATSF C30-7 rebuilt to C36-7 (C36M) in 1999. One of 36 delivered in ~April 1999 and retired March 2000... never knew these existed in the UP fleet. Four ex CR 6600-6609 series and the balance ex ATSF. Many were part of the Conrail lease fleet (CRL). Fascinating (to me at least). When GE's were still interesting 

https://utahrails.net/up-diesel-roster/up-diesel-roster-07.php#c36-564