Thoughts on Peco Code 55 N gauge track (N part 69)…

It seemed relevant to re-deploy the ‘N part’ subtitle with this piece - a reflection on the qualities of Peco Code55 track and their potential for use in a ‘finescale’ N gauge cameo layout…

Peco N gauge track is extremely robust and reliable. Code 55 is their ‘scale’ track, but it is compatible with their ‘universal’ Code 80 streamline and setrack range. It is designed to allow most N gauge wheels of the last 50 years to run smoothly - and as a result is compromised…

Notice in the photo, the inside of the rail, the chairs are a very low profile. This allows deeper flanges of older wheels clearance to pass. The turnouts have a larger clearance between check rail and running rail, resulting in quite a big gap at the frog, exaggerated in their large radius turnouts to the point where most newer 2 axle rolling stock dips in the frog.

With all that said I’m not criticising it - rather trying to make a fair appraisal of its suitability for a finescale approach. As a complete system it is readily available, easy to use and generally reliable - more, it used almost universally. Difficult not to recommend… but…

The biggest obstacle for ‘finescale  use’ is the Code 55 rail height. This gives a ‘mainline’ appearance - which, if that is what you’re modelling, I think, if well laid, ballasted and weathered, is totally acceptable. More, you’re lucky, it’s easy to use! If viewed from a low angle, the short comings of the turnout check rail clearance and low profile inner chairs/clips are somewhat hidden.

Network Rail (Chester) top vs Peco, bottom.

I wondered, though, if you could suggest more of a secondary or even branch line use by disguising the thickness of the sleeper web (above). Would this be enough to reduce the apparent visual ‘weight’ of the track? Branches and secondary lines are where my interest lie, so this seemed a worthwhile experiment - and certainly worth sharing.

A small mock up was created on some foam board offcuts. Working with superglue and acrylic Humbrol shades for speed I had this finished in about 20 minutes, quick enough to satisfy my curiosity without loosing interest half way…

The results are promising - the visual improvement for ‘yard’ or lighter laid branches is there - but the rail height still suggests ‘main’. It was back in N part 46 that I compared the Peco track to the ‘finescale’ Code 40 options from British Finescale - and despite my head wishing I could use some of this Peco track for a Branchline project, my heart still says that despite the faff of building it, the difficulties in laying it, the benefit of the Code 40 are worth all of that because it feels right for the railways I want to build.

So where does this leave me, and leave you?

The former, I have a desire to build a demonstration ‘stepping stone’ project in N - to show how Peco track can be used to develop a finescale approach in tower aspects of a cameo layout presentation… but equally, I’m uncomfortable using this for the GWR Branchline I had in mind.

And the latter, I hope I’ve shown the benefit of working with Peco track to improve its appearance. Painting sleepers and rail sides is such a transformative step there really isn’t am excuse for missing that step in layout construction, no matter how tedious you think it may be, the results will be worth it. Beyond, perhaps packing out the shoulder will allow a lighter look to your ballasting, if using it in a yard or siding…

What’s next? We’ll just have to see… my GWR Branchline train continues to circle its Unitrack and I’m undecided on what its future will look like. Until next time more soon…

Support my work

I love writing and creating material for the blog. If you enjoy what you read and engage with I would be appreciative of any donation, large or small, to help me keep it advert and restriction free. Alternatively, feel free to buy me a coffee, where regular memberships start from just £1.