Author Topic: Peco N C55 Unifrog turnouts?  (Read 2493 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

ncbqguy

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 624
  • Gender: Male
  • Respect: +386
Re: Peco N C55 Unifrog turnouts?
« Reply #15 on: November 22, 2020, 12:59:42 PM »
0
It looks like the link is a picture of an HO turnout.   
If the ties on the N version looked like this I will be in for 100 of them (initially)....but I need to see what they look like.
Charlie Vlk

CRL

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 2333
  • Needs More Dirt.
  • Respect: +638
Re: Peco N C55 Unifrog turnouts?
« Reply #16 on: November 22, 2020, 01:09:09 PM »
0
Looking at the tie shape and spacing, the spike size, and the rails themselves, this sure looks like H0 turnout to  me.

It is an HO turnout, but it shows the frog wire which is how Peco does it rather than a “terminal”.

ncbqguy

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 624
  • Gender: Male
  • Respect: +386
Re: Peco N C55 Unifrog turnouts?
« Reply #17 on: November 23, 2020, 03:21:15 PM »
+1
My wallet is safe.  Did an online search for the new part number and a picture popped up of the actual product.   Same OOO gauge tie size and spacing. 
Big missed opportunity to bring N Scale turnouts up to the same performance and appearance level as the cars and locomotives that run on .  Might as well stay with Code 80 track!!!  Ugh!!
Charlie Vlk

peteski

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 33241
  • Gender: Male
  • Honorary Resident Curmudgeon
  • Respect: +5490
    • Coming (not so) soon...
Re: Peco N C55 Unifrog turnouts?
« Reply #18 on: November 23, 2020, 04:05:32 PM »
0
My wallet is safe.  Did an online search for the new part number and a picture popped up of the actual product.   Same OOO gauge tie size and spacing. 
Big missed opportunity to bring N Scale turnouts up to the same performance and appearance level as the cars and locomotives that run on .  Might as well stay with Code 80 track!!!  Ugh!!
Charlie Vlk

While disappointing, I suspect that did not want to change their appearance, to keep them compatible with their remaining line of N scale track.  I think in order for them to change, they would have to redo the entire N scale line of track. Then that would make the current Peco track users (in UK and elsewhere) mad at them.  The other solution would be for Peco to start a whole new line of track with American dimensions, but I don't see that happening - too much money to invest in all the tooling needed for that.
. . . 42 . . .

pedro

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 551
  • Gender: Male
  • Respect: +344
Re: Peco N C55 Unifrog turnouts?
« Reply #19 on: November 23, 2020, 06:35:51 PM »
0
While disappointing, I suspect that did not want to change their appearance, to keep them compatible with their remaining line of N scale track.  I think in order for them to change, they would have to redo the entire N scale line of track. Then that would make the current Peco track users (in UK and elsewhere) mad at them.  The other solution would be for Peco to start a whole new line of track with American dimensions, but I don't see that happening - too much money to invest in all the tooling needed for that.

I’m sure that’s a reasonable line of speculation, but the fact remains that the N scale North American prototype, realistic, reliable track market is completely wide open. Every single choice available suffers some sort of shortcoming. “We don’t want to make people mad” is not a sound business strategy. It didn’t stop them from doing the “83 line” in HO in a very competitive market. I can’t think of a single person that would be “mad” at them for doing the equivalent in N. There would be rejoicing, and they would own the market.

peteski

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 33241
  • Gender: Male
  • Honorary Resident Curmudgeon
  • Respect: +5490
    • Coming (not so) soon...
Re: Peco N C55 Unifrog turnouts?
« Reply #20 on: November 23, 2020, 06:44:28 PM »
0
I’m sure that’s a reasonable line of speculation, but the fact remains that the N scale North American prototype, realistic, reliable track market is completely wide open. Every single choice available suffers some sort of shortcoming. “We don’t want to make people mad” is not a sound business strategy. It didn’t stop them from doing the “83 line” in HO in a very competitive market. I can’t think of a single person that would be “mad” at them for doing the equivalent in N. There would be rejoicing, and they would own the market.

I think you know what I meant by "getting modelers mad".  Peco's main market is in UK, and those modelers don't seem to mind the tie spacing.  I don't think they would be happy if suddenly few new turnouts appeared with different tie spacing.

I'm not sure comparing N scale to H0 is valid.  Anyway, when Peco did introduce c83 American-standard, did they do it small steps (few items at a time), or a whole new line of track products?  I ask because in today's world, where small companies like Peco are likely running very lean, it would be risky to invest a large sum of money in all new tooling for a new line of N scale track.  Everybody is running on shoe-string budget.  Sure, we hear modelers pining for a new line of Peco track, but do we really know how many modelers would buy into it?  It is a risk Peco is obviously not taking, even thought I suspect that they have had many request for such new line of track.
. . . 42 . . .

RockGp40

  • The Pitt
  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 1047
  • Gender: Male
  • Respect: +286
Re: Peco N C55 Unifrog turnouts?
« Reply #21 on: November 23, 2020, 09:58:23 PM »
0
@Gileng4 Take note of this. We've been discussing these.
No farms, no food. Support your local farmer's market!

I stand with Israel.

wazzou

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 6744
  • #GoCougs
  • Respect: +1669
Re: Peco N C55 Unifrog turnouts?
« Reply #22 on: November 24, 2020, 12:11:36 AM »
0
Peco's main market is in UK, and those modelers don't seem to mind the tie spacing. 


Herein lies the problem. 
If they had the stones to invest in and tool a North American product line, they'd own both the U.K. and US markets.
I mean, it certainly can't be lost on them that this is a huge issue facing N Scale modelers that they could very likely solve.
Bryan

Member of NPRHA, Modeling Committee Member
http://www.nprha.org/
Member of MRHA