Tim Fahey
Musconetcong Branch of the Lehigh Valley RR
Bob D As long as you surface as many times as you dive you`ll be alive to read these posts.
Apart from cost, various trackage may have features like the 'spring lock' points you find in your Peco turnouts. The Atlas trackage is basic good stuff, but does not have the fine detail, the sprung points, or some of the geometry selection available with other lines. The Shinohara code 100 has been around since the late 60's. It is not DCC friendly, and does not have the sprung points as well. M-E trackage is very detailed, but is limited to #6 turnouts in code 83, 70, & 55. It also seems to be in 'short supply'. The Walthers/Shinohara code 83 trackage is a very complete line, but has had availability issues through the years.
My layout is laid with Atlas trackage, and it is available most of the time. I really like the new Peco code 83, but the cost/availability is a factor. I suspect any new layout will use Atlas products with a few Walthers/Shinohara turnouts.
Jim
Modeling BNSF and Milwaukee Road in SW Wisconsin
The Atlas track is very easy to flex, very "springy" -- it does not hold a curve once bent, but always straightens itself
By contrast, Micro Engineering, Shinohara, and Precision Scale Co flex track is rather difficult to bend, particularly to a smooth curve, but once bent it tends to stay put. I happen to prefer those more rigid makes for my curves, while Atlas is good for the tangents. Ribbonrail track gauges help force the rail to the right curvature.
Appearance-wise, Atlas track holds the rails to the ties with what look like shoe boxes. The other makes do a better job of simulating spikes. The Atlas ties to my eyes also look clunky.
The reason I use so much Atlas is that I bought up all the track (and cork roadbed) that a friend of mine pulled up when his wife made him move out of state about one month after finishing his layout.
Dave Nelson
Tim,
Here's a visual reference for you. The track in the foreground is Atlas Code 83, the track in the rear is MicroEngineering Code 83. Notice the difference in the spike detail.
Don Z.
Research; it's not just for geeks.
Tim
I might suggestmatching the characteristics of your roadbed to the characteristics of your track.
As stated earlier, Atlas flex track is very "springy". It's inexpensive. It's not the most realistic looking. It makes for very smooth curve transitions. But the springiness makes joints on curves and fastening the track near the end of curves critical to ensuring the desired curve is held throughout the piece of track. If you are using pins, nails, or spikes to hold the track down, a roadbed with a lot of "give" is going to be more difficult to keep the track in place. Even if you use glued construction, you are faced with holding the track in place while the glue sets.
At the other extreme is ME flex track. Much more difficult to bend into a consistent curve, especially near the ends of a piece. There is a thread addressing this very issue in the last few days. But once bent into a curve, ME will hold the curve until you do something to change it. So having a roadbed with "give" is not an issue. What is more of an issue with ME track is consistent vertical support. The track is more fragile than Atlas - the rail is not as beefy (for better appearance) and it will pop out of the "spikes" more easily. Even support is more important than for Atlas - especially Atlas code 100 - which can span short gaps or dips in support more easily.
Personally, I don't care for either cork or Woodland Scenics roadbed, and I have expressed my reasons in the past. If using a commercially prepared roadbed, I would choose Vinylbed, Homabed, or True-Scale milled wood roadbed.
My thoughts, your choices
Fred W
Here's another option:
It's ModelPower code 100 and only cost $1.25 or so a stick. I've got hundreds of feet of it on my layout
Jay
C-415 Build: https://imageshack.com/a/tShC/1
Other builds: https://imageshack.com/my/albums