Code 55 Poll

Interesting concept - note the operative word is "was" -perhaps lack of competition and good sales prompted Peco to stick with their European prototype, now that the competition is tougher and market share could be taken - it may make economic sense for Peco to revisit this. They would certainly be a logical choice to offer a US version of the code55 track line. Unless of course Kato gets into the game

 

No, you must smell something else.
Such a proposal was made several years ago.
Hard to justify a North American only product in the Unitrack range.

 

Can you tell me by what right does the NMRA have to dictate to any manufacturer, or to us for that matter, any of its so-called "standards" it claims MUST be followed or be fined?

There is no State or Federal anything that has bestowed ANY kind of authority to the NMRA, ever!

NMRA doesn't even have a complete Manual yet. I was asked to join and promised a complete Manual along with the Famous HO "Standards" metal gauge. I received a big Manual cover and a few pages, and nothing else! After several letters, that were ignored, and several phone calls (at my expense), I was promised the missing pages would be sent just as soon as the next lot came in from the printer, including the gauge.

The NMRA has never sent me a complete Manual, which was promised and paid for three times!

I have yet to even receive the HO clearence wheel etc Gauge they are so proud of that I have paid for three times in a row.

They have yet to produce any "Standard" for anything, only some recommendations a few Grand Poobas have decided they want all manufacturers in the world to follow.

So when is the NMRA going to send them the necessary money to make all these changes in millions of dollars worth of tooling and retro-fit parts to conform to NMRA "Standards"?

Be thankful you even have something to run at all that you could simply throw a couple of hundred dollar bills down and get off a shelf!

If the NMRA has their way, you will have to have a Jeweler's license before they will allow you to own an N Scale engine, then you can't run it unless you make it "look right" according to their "Standards", and you will have to get a degree in "Run" and be a Certified Electricion before you are allowed to pour any power to it!

Stop and think for your self! Don't get suckered in or be conned out of your good common sense!

If you want to run on .055" rail, then do so! That is fine for you, but do it because YOU want to, not just because you were told by the "NMRA" that is the thing to do, that certainly doesn't make it right! Who died and gave them any authority over your life?

Someone else may have better performance running on .080" rail. Is he an outlaw just because he is a free man in charge of his own life and not a slave to the NMRA?

You guys are straining at gnats! Get your pens out and write to the Manufacturers! Tell them precicely what it is you want, how much quantity you will buy, and how often, and how much are you willing to pay.

We did that, and enough of us wrote in and the manufacturers listened, and we got what we wanted.

[ 22 May 2002, 00:11: Message edited by: watash ]

 

While I cannot disagree with you about the sad state of NMRA Standards Activity, I take exception to your view of the standards that are in place...
A manufacturer benefits from the existance of standards just as much as the modeler.
If the situation with the wheels were taken to its logical extreme, you would have brand M only working on brand M track.... and brand K on brand K track.... and brand A and so on...
The NMRA standards are there to allow free interchange and use of all manufacturers products in each scale.
The flap about Code 55 boils down to this: the NMRA standards have been around for Code 55 track for a long time. MicroTrains alone of all the US Manufacturers has chosen not to accomodate this with all their wheelsets (after commercial Code 55 started to be available). Atlas Code 55 meets the standard... MicroTrains Wheels do not meet the NMRA standards but follow N.E.M. European standards of the early 70s.

 

My point is where are these standards? Who set them up, when, where are they printed out? NMRA hasn't.

If NMRA had STANDARDS, they would have them printed out AS standard practice stating you MUST conform or be closed down and prevented from selling in the USA! That is a standard!

You would have to go to Europe to find anything close.

As I remember, years ago HO started by using European 00 track (Half of 0) 0 was 1:48, 00 was 1:96 over here, but fizziled out, because the 3.5mm 1:87 European was already available and cheap enough to afford, so US HO adopted the 00 track and used it . The NMRA adopted it, and all of us sent them tons of data, drawings, photos and even some samples. (None of which were ever returned I might add, nor were any ever acknowledged, nor paid for!)

N scale sprung up all on its own, and set its own "standards" then had a devil of a time getting NMRA to even acknowledge that there was such a thing!

It irks me to see you guys bow to powers that have profited from all your hard work.

Stick to your guns guys! Don't buy from those clowns who do not care about you! Boycot them! When you hit them in their wallet, it gets their attention really fast, but you HAVE to stick together, and be consistent about it!

Don't expect a company that has already spent heavy money for tooling and assembly on one design of wheel, to simply throw it all away and foot the bill for new tooling just to please a few of you.

So long as you guys knuckle under and wimp out by buying these super-expensive engines that you have to totally re-build inorder to even run them; the company is going to keep on cranking out their junk!

It was the same way with our suppliers. We refused to buy from Hobby Shops who jumped the price up on us, and supported the ones who would talk to us and stock what we wanted to buy and at a reasonable price.

We could write to the company and they would send us test samples to try, then send back when we worked out the problems. We could even buy detail parts from the factory to make up an engine the factory had not tooled up for. Then they did tool those few parts needed to make it.

When that kit hit the Hobby Shops, it was a decent price because we had helped them save money by using a lot of their original parts so they could amoratize costs.

When greed set in and people like Walthers started trying to corner the whole US market by forcing the Hobby Shops to buy a quota or nothing, we were the ones that got stung. Then our companies sent all our manufacturing over seas so they could cash in on the cheapo labor force there, we really got kicked in the face.

The customer was no longer right, he was just a nickle mine for the greedy con men to exploit! Too many of the rich kids went ahead and forked over the big bucks, so the companies said, hey we can really milk this, so they have!

That is pure and simple why you pay over $200.00 big ones just for an engine that you all agree is NOT worth the box it is in! It is a mystery to me why you guys let them con you this way!

You would probably be just as willing to buy a new $40,000.00 car, then have to take it to a shop to have tires that of the right size (that hold air), working headlights, re-paint it, and add more doors on it before you have the car that was advertized in the first place!

Are you happy now? You should be, you now own a plastic throw-away car you have over $60,000 tied up in that will depreciate $1650.00 as soon as you sign your name to it, and it is actually worth only $12,900.00.

Get an amortization schedule (from your bank) and find out how much you will actually pay for any new car on today's market when you have paid the last payment! You will faint!

You are doing the same exact thing when you flop down $350.00 for an HO 4-6-6-6 engine, or a $275.00 N scale diesel engine.

My Dad would give me a whuppin' if I wasted money that foolishly!

But he's dead now, and its your money! Go ahead and pay these prices and watch the price go higher. The companies really want to know how much can they milk out of you before you decide enough is enough!

Please help the poor starving companies out, morgage your house, rent out your wife and kids, work over-time and take in toilet holes to wash at night. The companies will be glad to keep raising the price to keep you happy!

Now do you guys get my point?

Don't buy ANYTHING from the company that has the big flange wheels, at ALL! NOTHING! He will get the point. Don't buy rail that is not what you want either! Complain in writing to these companies, and do it often! Make some noise about it like I do!!

Buy ONLY from the companies that give you a fair shake!

Anyone for model airplanes?

[ 22 May 2002, 18:27: Message edited by: watash ]

 

Watash is correct. There are no NMRA "Standards" beyond the standards gauge that the NMRA has made available for the different scales.
I have been an NMRA member for a few years now and, so far I haven't see any published "Standards" yet.
I have all of the "Recommended Practices" in my quick reference liberary and, while I choose to follow many of them, it is because I wish to, not because someone told me to.
This is a hobby and it is what we make of it in order to have a good time that makes it such a fun and fullfilling pastime.
I model as close to the prototype as I can and have fun doing it, however, I expect that everyone in this hobby should take part in it to whatever degree and level that he or she feels happy and comfortable with.
As I have said in another post, Code 80 and high profile flanges will be with us for a long time and, if you wish to use them or go with the code 55 and low profile wheels (or any combination therof) then go for it and enjoy your hobby.
Be thankful for all the choices we do have in this great hobby.
Happy Modeling!
Cheers.

Terry

 

Splitting hairs between Recommended Practices and Standards is a waste of time. The RPs are as good as standards, and absent any Standards, function the same way.
The pace of change in the NMRA activity in this area is not a threat to any manufacturer who follows the RPs...
NMRA has no enforcement division so I don't understand the rant on this. The manufacturers had a role in the NMRA in the beginning and could continue to do so. At the Long Beach Convention the N Scale Coupler issue was brought up and after discussion with modelers and manufacturers, approached the NMRA to begin establishing some standards.... but nothing came of it. Hence, we have a gradual movement away from the Rapido but no clearcut set of dimensions to work off of....everybody has to reinvent the wheel and can make arbitrary changes (the RDA coupler, for example) without any disclosure to the industry or public.

 

nchooch, have you ever heard of the Baker, Sergent, or Wilson couplers?

The Sergent and Wilson were real honest to goodness SCALE knuckle couplers. NOT at all like the K-D.

Those two I know for sure will couple to a scale dummy coupler, because the knuckle has its pin in the same place as the real one! K-D has its pin in the center, and a hook on the knuckle lip, so there is no way it will uncouple unless you open the knuckle first. Both the Wilson and Sergent will open when you release the lock, and will re-couple exactly like the real ones do!

I am not sure of the Baker. I have heard of it, but never seen it in action, or even a picture of it. There must be some still around in someone's scrap box. My understanding is that it would couple with a dummy too.

I would very much like to see a Baker, or photo of one.

 

Alan,
From my observation, I am beginning to think that Peco isn't as available in many parts of the states as it is in Jolly E or in Canada. To me it is clear that the way Peco has made their code 55 is way superior to any other method. I personally don't care if they are a billionth of an inch out, or are not right for some inconsequential reason. They work well, are robust, don't suffer from kink like the other code 55's, and will spring back to the straight, unlike the other 55's. In other words, they are sort of dummy proof, my kind of track.

 

Peco can be mailordered from Railroad Model Craftsman adds, and probably from some in the MR in both HO and N. Also, there are several listings for Peco track and turnouts on ebay ever so often in both scales.

It may not be as popular as Atlas, because it costs a little more. You are paying for quality with Peco, so it probably balances out in the long run. At least Peco has an excellent track record and I have heard no complaints other than cost.

 

Peco is great track rsn48 and watash, but you are right availability can be an issue - Rio Grande and N scale supply usually have a pretty good stock of it at reasonable prices. For the quality you get it is worth the premium price. In the long run I would bet it is more economical to spend a little more on the Peco track which has no flange interference problems except with the most egregiously oversized wheels, than to convert huge fleets of freight cars wheels and the riskiness of turning down locomotive wheels.

My point is that Peco 55 track exceeds the "recommended practices" in wheel compatibility, while Atlas barely meets it. In this case the NMRA has done little to promote compatibility between brands, in fact the recommended practices have contibuted to incompatibility by giving atlas an excuse to market a compromised product, and MT reason to squeeze more money out of us for new wheels.

Recently in N scale supply I layed out some Peco 55, ME 55, Atlas 55 And Atlas 80.
The Peco flexes as well as Atlas 80, and looks much better - tie width and spacing is less objectionable on the Peco 55 too. I did not find the tie differences of ME, A55 and Peco 55 to be that great at a 2 ft distance either. My mind has been made up, when I am ready too make the switch from Unitrack to a permanent layout Peco will be it. Unless someone comes out with a better product. The fact that Peco is European prototype does not bother me.

As has been mentioned above a true breakthough product would be a code 65 - 70 track with US tie spacing, that is durable, easy to use, competitively priced and AVAILABLE.

My contention is that the NMRA has done little for the advancement of N scale - in fact has been a hinderence in the track/wheel area. The market place is what has driven the greatest advancements.

"N Modellers Rudely Avoided"

[ 24 May 2002, 12:25: Message edited by: ajb ]

 

I've been following this "discussion" and have been quite amused by the lack of knowledge about the NMRA or about PECO's track work.
On the NMRA front if weren't for their 'reccomended' standards, which they came up with the first ones way back in the early bronze age of model railroading (1938-39) we would still be in the situation that nchooch discribed earlier(and yes it did happen). We have the model railroading we have to day because the NMRA was able to get those who modeled and those who produced to come together and 'agree' on a set of standards and as you can see these 'recomended' standards allow a new comer to come in to this hobby and produce a product that anyone in that chosen scale can, with little trouble, use.
Now on the PECO front I'll try to be clearer on this one. PECO's code 55 is "NOT" compatable with Atlas or any other code 55 out there, it is compatable with PECO's own code 80 . If you'll look at a sample of their track you'll see that it has a double bottom and no spike heads between the rails this allows them to give you the look of code 55 without the hassle of having to change your entire collection, a nice side benifit is that this method of theirs makes for very robust track work.
So without the NMRA most of you would not be model railroaders today!!

 

N scale is a young man's scale, I'll keep out of it.

[ 25 May 2002, 08:47: Message edited by: watash ]

 

Your family history is unfortunate but your dispute with the NMRA does not advance this discussion.
I doubt that you are going to get resolution on a fifty year old dispute, but am confident that this is not the forum to pursue it in....
As an employee of a manufactuer and an N Scaler since 1965, I can tell you that the NMRA is not all it could or should be.....but I am not going to condemn all the Standards and RPs it has established for its lack of perfection.

 

I use Peco Code 55 throughout, except for bridges which are Kato products with their Code 75 rail. There could be up to .005" difference in railhead height, but aside from a slightly audible "clickety-clack" it causes no problems.

[ 25 May 2002, 14:45: Message edited by: Hank Coolidge ]

 

This is what I got when I tried to vote.
Error
An error has occured:
Died at CGIPath/ubb_lib_secgroups.cgi line 311.

Anyway, I use Peco and ME code 55. Mains and branches get PECO. Yards get ME. I haven't tried Atlas yet. Only place where there is a larger code rail is on a Kato bridge just like Hank. For turnouts it's a crazy mix between Peco, ME and scratchbuilt. I like the ME's and the scratch built ones the best because the Peco turnouts seem less precise.

[ 28 May 2002, 06:28: Message edited by: ByronV ]

 

For some reason, the polls act "weird" from time to time, and you get the "green screen of death."

 

Currently I am using ME code 55 track and turnouts, but I would consider atlas code 55 even if it was necessary to change wheelsets on freight cars and locomotives. If it looks better, Do it!

 

For Atlas to arrogantly obsolete whole fleets of locmotives and freight cars in the name of progress is just plain ridiculous, especially when other manufacturers as stated above can make more realistic track that exceed those "recommended practices" without the flange interference problems.

This could easily be used as an argument in favor of Rapido couplers. When Atlas switched, there were no complaints of No Rapidos, just the exploding problem. And anyway, the reason the Atlas track had spike head problem is because they tried to make the older customers happy with the sliding rail. For those who can easily handle it, ME is superior.
Bill Pearce