Peco code 55

[Martijn Meerts]

I know there's a couple of topics about this track by now, but there's been a few new people since then, and I'd like some info about it if possible.

 

I really want to start building some Japanese N-scale stuff soon, partially because I just hate to see all the great pictures of people having Japanese layouts and/or modules, and partially because I really need some distraction from my father's Dutch/German layout.

 

While I love the Tomix track, I prefer to keep that for the more Japanese style temporary layouts and probably my Ghibli modules. For the Ghibli modules, I think it might actually look good to have the track out of scale, because everything else is pretty much fantasy and not-to-scale as well.

 

However, for the rest of the modules I'd like to have my track look more to-scale and I also want to do the ballasting with a specific color mixture, which is much easier on non-pre-ballasted track. The obvious choice (being in Europe) is Peco code 55. I'm not too worried about turnout motors, since I'll be using servo's for that. What I'm wondering though, is if anyone has experience with Peco code 55, and especially turnouts and whether they conduct electricity correctly. Also, any known issues with wheel flanges on any trains? Most my trains are fairly new, and I don't think any of them have overly large flanges.

 

And of course, what's the tie spacing like, comparing Peco and Tomix or Kato track for example. I'm not a rivet counter, but too large tie spacing especially seems to look silly.

[Bernard]

Marti - C55, I love the look of it and so will you. The one thing about the Peco C55 is that it's really Code 80. All Peco did was sink the C80 deeper into the ties. It might be possible to use any C80 turnout with that track, all you would have to do is strip back a couple of ties. (Meaning if you want to try the Tomix turnouts with Peco C55 it might work, but you might have to elevate a portion of the track.) As for the Peco switches, they're great, I've never have any problems with them conducting electricity. You can get them with either electrofrogs or insulfrogs. The one thing I don't like about the Peco C55 is the thickness of the ties compared to Atlas and Mirco Engineering track, and I'm not sure of Peco's tie spacing.  As for having problems with your newer trains, you shouldn't have any. I even tested my older Minitrix trains, and to my surprise I didn't have any problems with them either.

Of the 3 manufactures that make C55 (that I know of), Peco is the easiest to work with.

[angusmclean]

Martijn, the only noticeable problem I have is with the turnouts, as Tomix/Kato etc wheels drop into this little hole and wagons coaches and locos give a bit of a shudder, passing through.  Can easily be corrected with a small triangle of old negative film glued into this position. It was the nearest thickness and hard wearing item I could find to solve the problem. The yard-long lengths were easy to manipulate and lay.

 

Angus

[Mudkip Orange]

"Too large" tie spacing is ANYTHING BUT silly. In fact, Japanese ties were traditionally significantly farther apart then US/Continental practice. Some private lines have an even greater spacing.

 

Essentially, for any tie spacing there is a Japanese prototype.

[Claude_Dreyfus]

In my opinion code 80 could well be better in appearence for Japanese stock...in fact anything other than UK.

 

Many will already know this, however code 55 was essentially created to improve the look of the track vs. the 1/148 UK outline stock. European and US stock being 1/160, the track looks about right, whereas the 1/150 Japanese stuff, being a narrow gauge prototype, masks the code 80 quite well.

 

Although code 55 looks great, it does look a little too wide when running Japese 3' 6'' stuff on it....it looks very good under the 1/160 Shinkansen though.  

 

My new layout will use code 80, as I feel it will capture the narrow gauge look better than 55. Code 55 can also be a bit of a swine to cut cleanly, and is not as flexible as the code 80 - due to the increased resistence in the rail by being more flush into the sleepers (ties). That said, the quality of the points/switches in code 55 is far superior to that in code 55...you can, however, mix and match the codes...although there is a slight difference in the height of the rail.

 

If you want to see PECO code 55 with Japanese trains, look at the pictures of Yamanouchi Oshika. The entire scenic section is layed with code 55 and electroc-frog points...

[Lawrence]

Marti - C55, I love the look of it and so will you. The one thing about the Peco C55 is that it's really Code 80. All Peco did was sink the C80 deeper into the ties. It might be possible to use any C80 turnout with that track, all you would have to do is strip back a couple of ties. (Meaning if you want to try the Tomix turnouts with Peco C55 it might work, but you might have to elevate a portion of the track.) As for the Peco switches, they're great, I've never have any problems with them conducting electricity. You can get them with either electrofrogs or insulfrogs. The one thing I don't like about the Peco C55 is the thickness of the ties compared to Atlas and Mirco Engineering track, and I'm not sure of Peco's tie spacing.  As for having problems with your newer trains, you shouldn't have any. I even tested my older Minitrix trains, and to my surprise I didn't have any problems with them either.

Of the 3 manufactures that make C55 (that I know of), Peco is the easiest to work with.

 

I agree 

[Martijn Meerts]

As for the Peco switches, they're great, I've never have any problems with them conducting electricity. You can get them with either electrofrogs or insulfrogs. The one thing I don't like about the Peco C55 is the thickness of the ties compared to Atlas and Mirco Engineering track, and I'm not sure of Peco's tie spacing.  As for having problems with your newer trains, you shouldn't have any. I even tested my older Minitrix trains, and to my surprise I didn't have any problems with them either.

 

I believe it's only the code 80 that give you the option of insulfrog or electrofrog. At least, that's what I can figure out after a quick glance at some sites.

 

 

 

Martijn, the only noticeable problem I have is with the turnouts, as Tomix/Kato etc wheels drop into this little hole and wagons coaches and locos give a bit of a shudder, passing through.  Can easily be corrected with a small triangle of old negative film glued into this position. It was the nearest thickness and hard wearing item I could find to solve the problem. The yard-long lengths were easy to manipulate and lay.

 

Angus

 

I don't mind a little bit of wobblyness when a train goes through a turnout. I'm used to Minitrix ones which wobble a LOT (especially the large radius curved turnouts seem to have lots of wobblyness), and Tomix turnouts aren't always entirely smooth either ;)

 

 

 

In my opinion code 80 could well be better in appearence for Japanese stock...in fact anything other than UK.

 

Many will already know this, however code 55 was essentially created to improve the look of the track vs. the 1/148 UK outline stock. European and US stock being 1/160, the track looks about right, whereas the 1/150 Japanese stuff, being a narrow gauge prototype, masks the code 80 quite well.

 

Although code 55 looks great, it does look a little too wide when running Japese 3' 6'' stuff on it....it looks very good under the 1/160 Shinkansen though. 

 

My new layout will use code 80, as I feel it will capture the narrow gauge look better than 55. Code 55 can also be a bit of a swine to cut cleanly, and is not as flexible as the code 80 - due to the increased resistence in the rail by being more flush into the sleepers (ties). That said, the quality of the points/switches in code 55 is far superior to that in code 55...you can, however, mix and match the codes...although there is a slight difference in the height of the rail.

 

If you want to see PECO code 55 with Japanese trains, look at the pictures of Yamanouchi Oshika. The entire scenic section is layed with code 55 and electroc-frog points...

 

 

I hadn't thought of using both, but at actually would make sense. Code 55 for shinkansen lines, code 80 for all other lines. It's a shame code 80 has less variety though, especially the lack of a double crossover is a shame.

 

 

 

That brings up a new question though.. Insulfrog vs. electrofrog. It seems code 80 is available in both, whereas code 55 only has electrofrog. I'd guess electrofrog is the better choice, but does it require some additional wiring? I've been reading a bit on Wiring for DCC about "DCC-friendly" turnouts, and they mention all sorts of stuff about cutting the track, adding jumper wires and making sure the switch machine can set polarity to the frog. The servo decoders and servo's I have in mind to control the turnouts don't have any polarity changing option, although I could add a microswitch to them to allow change of polarity.

 

Does anyone modify their turnouts one way or another?

 

Here's some links to turnouts in general, and peco specific on Wiring for DCC:

 

http://www.wiringfordcc.com/switches.htm

http://www.wiringfordcc.com/switches_peco.htm

[Claude_Dreyfus]

In terms of turnout availability, code 55 is electro-frog only, whereas 80 provides both. There are two schools of thought when it comes to insule vs. electro.

 

Insule, as it's name suggests, effectively insulates the track it is switched against, as the frog of the point is plastic. Whilst it does insulate, in my experience you have three main flaws.

• If the point has not been assembled as well as it could be during the manufactoring process, you can get some seepage. Occasionally we have trains that are held by the points start moving because there is some contact that undermines the insulation. In short, they are not 100% effective...
  
• The isolated section can result in stalling, especially if you are running short wheel-base stuff at slow speed. They are, for me, a definite no-no for shunting
  
• Quite simply they don't look as good. They can be rescued with a little silver paint over the frog, however the plastic frog is still too coarse
  

 

As mentioned, the big advantage is that they are easier to wire-up...and a little cheaper. We use them in our fiddle yard as stuff is not running extra slow, and it can be given a shove if stalling occurs...which is almost unheard of, especially with the fly-wheels in so many motors now.

 

Electro-frog requires additional isolating sections to prevent short circuits. As you will gather, you cannot use the point alone to isolate a track, it has to be governed by a section. Yamanouchi Oshika is fully electro-frog out the front, and as a result has a lot of section switches. We actually add power to the frogs as well on our electros to aleviate the frequent issue of the blade not making full contact and thereby loosing the juice to the track. You will be pleased to know that our method is compatible with DCC, despite the layout normally running DC (the main running lines can be converted to DCC within about 5 minutes).

 

That said, despite some of my earlier comments, you can wire an insule frog as an electro-frog - with all the isolation section, which increases the reliability of the point, but effectively means your better off getting the electro-frog if only for the appearence.

 

I'm not an expert in wiring, so therefore will consult our electrics guru tomorrow night for more details, if you're interested.

 

Another thing I would recommend, is the use of a Capacitor Discharge Unit (CDU). We use one of these for every six turnouts, the motors we use are by SEEP. The CDU helps as the SEEP motors can occasionally lack the power to fully throw the blade, and also the PECO points can decome very stiff if stuff get caught in the mechanism, which is effectively a spring and cam-type set-up. The CDU just gives a little more 'oomph' when switching.

[Claude_Dreyfus]

If you want to see PECO code 55 with Japanese trains, look at the pictures of Yamanouchi Oshika. The entire scenic section is layed with code 55 and electroc-frog points...

 

 

 

Actually, that is not the case. The scenic section is a mixture of code 55 and code 80. You can see this in the picture below, where the double-tack main line is code 55 and the sidings beside are all code 80. Although the tracks have been ballasted and weathered, the difference is clear...

[Martijn Meerts]

In terms of turnout availability, code 55 is electro-frog only, whereas 80 provides both. There are two schools of thought when it comes to insule vs. electro.

 

Insule, as it's name suggests, effectively insulates the track it is switched against, as the frog of the point is plastic. Whilst it does insulate, in my experience you have three main flaws.

• If the point has not been assembled as well as it could be during the manufactoring process, you can get some seepage. Occasionally we have trains that are held by the points start moving because there is some contact that undermines the insulation. In short, they are not 100% effective...
  
• The isolated section can result in stalling, especially if you are running short wheel-base stuff at slow speed. They are, for me, a definite no-no for shunting
  
• Quite simply they don't look as good. They can be rescued with a little silver paint over the frog, however the plastic frog is still too coarse
  

 

As mentioned, the big advantage is that they are easier to wire-up...and a little cheaper. We use them in our fiddle yard as stuff is not running extra slow, and it can be given a shove if stalling occurs...which is almost unheard of, especially with the fly-wheels in so many motors now.

 

Electro-frog requires additional isolating sections to prevent short circuits. As you will gather, you cannot use the point alone to isolate a track, it has to be governed by a section. Yamanouchi Oshika is fully electro-frog out the front, and as a result has a lot of section switches. We actually add power to the frogs as well on our electros to aleviate the frequent issue of the blade not making full contact and thereby loosing the juice to the track. You will be pleased to know that our method is compatible with DCC, despite the layout normally running DC (the main running lines can be converted to DCC within about 5 minutes).

 

That said, despite some of my earlier comments, you can wire an insule frog as an electro-frog - with all the isolation section, which increases the reliability of the point, but effectively means your better off getting the electro-frog if only for the appearence.

 

I'm not an expert in wiring, so therefore will consult our electrics guru tomorrow night for more details, if you're interested.

 

Another thing I would recommend, is the use of a Capacitor Discharge Unit (CDU). We use one of these for every six turnouts, the motors we use are by SEEP. The CDU helps as the SEEP motors can occasionally lack the power to fully throw the blade, and also the PECO points can decome very stiff if stuff get caught in the mechanism, which is effectively a spring and cam-type set-up. The CDU just gives a little more 'oomph' when switching.

 

The whole isolating and power routing stuff is no problem. The entire layout will be computer controlled, and thus it will be divided in blocks.

 

The reason I'll be using servo's to throw the switches, is because servo's are strong and reliable. They don't really require all that much power either, so that means I won't need any additional electronics.

 

It would be greatly appreciated if you could check with the "electrics guru" about how (if at all) the turnouts have been adjusted and wired. I'd really like to build modules that'll last, so making sure all the track, turnouts and wiring is as optimal as possible is rather crucial ;)

 

 

As for the picture, it's interesting that the code 80 looks like it has smaller track spacing than the code 55, even if that's not the case. It does make it more interesting using code 55 for shinkansen and code 80 for the rest.

[Mudkip Orange]

The others are right about Code 55 representing 1435mm versus Code 80 representing 1067mm.

 

I tend to think in terms of 1435mm because while I'm technically a freelancer, my layout/operating schemes and ideas are borrowed liberally from the Kansai-area private lines - many of which are standard gauge.

[Martijn Meerts]

I'm a freelancer as well really, I have too much stuff from all over the place and various era's to stick to 1 particular region now. I think it would look good to have a visual difference between shinkansen lines and narrow gauge lines, kinda like you often seen different track used for mainlines and branch lines.

 

It would even be possible to cut out some ties/sleepers from say peco code 80 flex, and create a branch line with really wide tie spacing.

[Mudkip Orange]

I think it would look good to have a visual difference between shinkansen lines and narrow gauge lines

 

I think the best way to go about this would probably be to use wood for the narrow gauge lines and concrete for the shinkansen. Otherwise you end up with the counter-intuitive situation where the high-speed line uses lighter, lower-profile rail than the narrow gauge.

[Martijn Meerts]

I think it would look good to have a visual difference between shinkansen lines and narrow gauge lines

 

I think the best way to go about this would probably be to use wood for the narrow gauge lines and concrete for the shinkansen. Otherwise you end up with the counter-intuitive situation where the high-speed line uses lighter, lower-profile rail than the narrow gauge.

 

There's that of course.. Problem is, all the turnouts and other non-flex-track all have wooden ties/sleepers =)

 

Looking at the picture Claude posted though, I don't really think that main line looks like it has a lower rail profile, just doesn't look as narrow as the non-mainline bit. Might be completely different when seen in real life though.

 

That brings up an interesting point though, why does no one seem to offer turnouts without concrete ties/sleepers? =)

[Mudkip Orange]

I had this conversation with qwertyaardvark in another thread, in the US at least all concrete-tied railroads have wooden-tie turnouts, whether you're talking BNSF or light rail.

[KenS]

I had this conversation with qwertyaardvark in another thread, in the US at least all concrete-tied railroads have wooden-tie turnouts, whether you're talking BNSF or light rail.

 

While wooden-tie turnouts are commonplace on U.S. railroads that otherwise use concrete ties, concrete tie turnouts are used by Amtrak (on the Northeast Corridor) and BNSF at a minimum, and probably others.

 

The only citation I can find for BNSF is an old Railway Age article (c. 1991), but here's a c. 2003 article mentioning Amtrak's use of concrete tie turnouts from Railway, Track and Structures.

 

I agree, however, that using wooden-tie turnouts with concrete-tie track is prototypical. Which is good news for those of us using Unitrack. 

[Martijn Meerts]

Got my Peco catalogue today, they sure do have some good looking turnouts =)

 

It's a shame de code 80 is rather limited, would've been nice to see a double crossover there as well. I quite like those catch points though.

 

Guess I'll just have to order some stuff at some point.