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…
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.
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.
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…
 |
| 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.
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.
Morning James. An interesting post, I've found code 55 a bit frustrating to use in the past but I've got some points and track in stock and am going to use it on my next project. I take pictures of my layouts with my phone more often these days and the coarse rail looks very obvious. I will try and source a small quantity of code 40 for a micro layout in the future. I follow the US practice for weathering track, humbrol dark brown aerosol spray and then a lightish grey dry brush for the sleepers, painting rails sides by hand in N gauge nearly drove me mad! Thank you for the advice on code 55. Take care
ReplyDeleteThanks Tom - I was out riding the Ffestiniog yesterday so sorry for the lack of response. The big problem I still think is the turnouts. They’re a realism killer - more, they’re not great operationally either… which is a shame.
DeleteI've experimented with embedding Kato Uni track the same way
ReplyDeleteHi James - do you retain or disguise the plastic ballast?
DeleteHi James - I too have used Kato Uni-track, in my case on a scenic test track. I used card to reduce the shoulder and blended it with extra ballast. With some judicious painting and weathering, it came out ok!
DeleteSeems like an awful lot of extra work!
DeleteThe result of all this experimenting is that I decided that I can’t live with the comprimise and I will continue to use and encourage the use of the British Finescale Code 40.
I should say, that is just my choice. We all make decisions on what we can and can’t live with and where to put our energy and efforts.
DeleteIndeed. A bit of extra work, but I was surprised how good the Kato track could be made to look. More recently, I've built a few micro shelf layouts with Code 55 and am also keen to try Finescale - Paxton Road has been a major inspiration!
DeleteGreat stuff!
DeleteFidley, my N gauge BR(W) BLT, uses Peco Code 55, and I'm as pleased with the results now as when I laid, painted and ballasted it nearly 20 years ago. I can't remember what I did to try to disguise the sleeper height, but it may have involved bits of card. I'll have a look in the morning and see if I can figure it out. I found the tendency of the flexible track, once bent into a curve, to more or less stay bent very useful given that Fidley's baseboard is made of foamcore.
ReplyDeleteI honestly don't know how much, if any, more layout (and therefore track) building I'll do in N, as I need to concentrate on getting enough stock and a fiddle yard sorted before next April, but Code 40 would certainly be appropriate for my 50s/60s era modelling.
Nice post, James, and is making my grey cells (both of them!) do their thing.
Cheers, Simon.
I can understand why people use it - it’s just sad, that for me, it doesn’t cut it for the kind of emotive scene, viewed at eye level, that I have in mind.
DeleteFascinating post as always James. With a bit of work, the visual improvements are obvious.
ReplyDeleteI really like the idea of a "stepping stone" layout. I think there are lots of us out there that don't have the confidence (or in my case ability!) to go down the true finescale path, but still have a desire to improve standards. Such a cameo would be very encouraging to me and no doubt lots of others.
PS - apologies for the duplicate post.
Thanks David. I’m struggling to see how I can construct a stepping stone layout - it doesn’t really interest me a great deal, and the more I play with the Code 55 turnout I have here, the more compromised a decision it seems to be - and perhaps the step here is to demonstrate how easy it is to work with Code 40? The more I do in that way, the more confident I am in sharing my experiences to help encourage and inform others…
DeleteI totally understand that. Perhaps you're right... we always fear stuff until we give it a try. Ultimately, Peco track is what puts me off from N gauge. That's why I've been so inspired by Paxton Road et al. Plain track seems within reach, but I'll admit, points scare me!
DeleteBest bet is buy a turnout and have a go - I’ve solved most of the concerns I had now, with their installation on Cwmbach. Time will tell if the method is robust.
Delete