Define best.......it makes a difference.
All of the different commercially available track out there has some drawback. It's unfortunate that there is no clear winner in the N scale track world.
Micro Engineering makes an awesome looking code 80 #6 turnout, but they aren't DCC friendly (have to be converted) and they only come in #6 (they can be kinda fragile too).
Atlas makes a nice code 80 turnout is several styles and radii that are all DCC friendly, but the rail looks large and the tie spacing is kinda far apart, so it doesn't look just right.
Peco makes a bulletproof code 80 turnout that is DCC friendly and comes in several styles and radii, but the tie spacing is European, so it also doesn't look quite right.
Kato makes an excellent product, it suffers from not only all of the problems that Peco does, but it also has the roadbed already on it, which can be a real drawback.
Personally, I went with Atlas code 55 for all of the visible track (because of it's good looks) and Atlas code 80 in the hidden areas (it's bulletproof, what can I say!) with a touch of Micro Engineering code 55 bridge track for those areas.
pcarrell wrote:Personally, I went with Atlas code 55 for all of the visible track (because of it's good looks) and Atlas code 80 in the hidden areas (it's bulletproof, what can I say!) with a touch of Micro Engineering code 55 bridge track for those areas.
Ditto for this bit of common sense, Philip!
Atlas Code 55 looks promising the more you check out price, prototype realism, and broad selection.
Conemaugh Road & Traction circa 1956
Chartiers wrote: For code 80 I would say Peco is the sturdier and better aligned. Atlas tends to be a little fragile but cheaper in cost.
Atlas can be easier to find too, though Peco has a better seletion of turnouts (incuding curved!).
True, just about everyone carries Atlas products. I have recently come across several "versions" of the same Atlas turnout so it's probably a good idea to get all your turnouts from the same place. I got turnouts from three different sources and the point area of the turnouts were slightly different: the point rails on one were flat and smooth, one had point rails that had a bottom lip, and one didn't have any indent in the stock rail where the points are suppose to recess. Maybe old new stock?
pcarrell is correct - all options have their pros & cons. I have a medium size N-scale layout with over 30 Atlas turnouts and a few Peco. I have used only code 80 Atlas Flex track for the layout. A few points:
- Initially cost and availability were my biggest factors - Atlas being the cheapest. That being said I have had no problems with any of the Atlas track or turnouts.
- I do agree the Peco products are better quality and will use more in the future. I have since found a good source for Peco about an hour away plus they have a great web-site. www.modeltrainstuff.com.
I am sure I will offend some/many with this but here goes - The visual impact of rail height and tie spacing do not enter into my decision process. - I love to run trains and like good scenery. If the track is weathered and ballasted well, combined with decent scenery how many people really look at the layout and say "you know - the spacing of those ties is off a couple hundreths of an inch"? I have finished the track laying portion of the project and my son & I have started with the scenery. I am sure when complete the type of track used will have no negative impact on the visual "wow" factor.
That being said - code 55 is good looking but when you factor in my 8 year old son and I have had zero derailing problems with code 80 - code 80 is my choice by a mile.