So a few years ago I bought an N scale "Terrain for Trains" Pre-built layout shell and the associated track pack from internettrains.com . As a newbie, I made several mistakes, mainly, buying from internettrains.com, and buying the $120(!) track pack which contained Atlas track and turnouts.
I have given up on the Atlas track. I simply cannot run anything well on it. So I bought $40 worth of code 55 flex track and ripped all the previous track up.
The flex track is more than enough to do the entire layout, but I need new turnouts, code 55 good quality ones that roughly match the size/radius of the Atlas Manual turnouts.
Any suggestions?
(also, Making my own isn't an option, not buying the tools to make only 8 turnouts)
Thanks in advance.
You could use Peco turnouts. Peco also offers coide 55 track and is pretty reliable, but I doubt that they have the same geometry the Atrlas turnouts.
Code 55 track requires careful tracklaying to get a reliable performance - could that be the cause for your problems?
corksean12(also, Making my own isn't an option, not buying the tools to make only 8 turnouts)
Not saying you should make your own, but you ought to own a pair of needlenose pliers, a soldering iron, a pair of rail nippers, an NMRA gage, and a file. They're basic model railroading tools and all you really need to handlay.
Sir Madog You could use Peco turnouts. Peco also offers coide 55 track and is pretty reliable, but I doubt that they have the same geometry the Atrlas turnouts. Code 55 track requires careful tracklaying to get a reliable performance - could that be the cause for your problems?
PECO Code 55 is very robust (since it is actually heavier rail buried in the ties) and very easy to install, in my experience. Atlas Code 55 requires a bit more care. I don't believe he has laid any Code 55 yet, he ripped up Code 80 Atlas.
Unfortunately for the original poster, there are no Code 55 turnouts that exactly match the geometry of the Snap-track type Atlas turnouts I think he is replacing. To make any Code 55 turnouts work on the pre-formed layout base, some trimming of turnouts might be necessary.
PECO Code 55 turnouts have curved diverging legs, are thus very compact, and might be the easiest to make fit. Atlas Code 55 turnouts are great-looking, but are only available in larger frog numbers than the Code 80 track for which the pre-formed layout base was designed. And if he bought Micro Engineering Code 55 track, they offer only #6 tunouts, which certainly won't fit.
So back to the original poster, what kind of C55 track did you buy and whose turnouts where you expecting to use when you bought it?
ByronModel RR Blog Layout Design Gallery
Layout Design GalleryLayout Design Special Interest Group
Midnight Railroader Not saying you should make your own, but you ought to own a pair of needlenose pliers, a soldering iron, a pair of rail nippers, an NMRA gage, and a file. They're basic model railroading tools and all you really need to handlay.
A big +1 on that.
A few dollars spent on quality tools will serve you well for a very long time, and not just for modelling/layout building.
It's Atlas flex track. How close would the Atlas #5 turnout be? It is a pre-formed layout but I think there is enough wiggle room to have slightly different turnouts.
Just to be clear, It was code 80 snap track that I replaced, and it performed poorly because some places were made up of several tiny pieces of track where 1 larger piece should have been, I guess they where just trying to squeeze money out of me...
corksean12 It's Atlas flex track. How close would the Atlas #5 turnout be? It is a pre-formed layout but I think there is enough wiggle room to have slightly different turnouts.
No so close, unfortunately, certainly not a "drop-in" replacement. The Code 55 #5s are significantly longer and not as sharply angled. It's probably possible to make them fit with a lot of trimming. The downside might be that you might be forced to make some of the flex track curves even sharper than the 9 3/4" R SnapTrack of the original in order to accommodate the larger turnouts.
PECO C55 "small" turnouts are a bit shorter, although still not quite as sharp as the Atlas Code 80 you are replacing. You would need to shim each connection between the Atlas C55 and the PECO C55, they don't line up perfectly.
Atlas also does not offer the same variety of pre-fab bridges in Code 55 as in Code 80. If the bridges from the track kit are still OK, you may need to keep those and shim between the C55 and C80, but that will be only in a few spots.
corksean12 Just to be clear, It was code 80 snap track that I replaced, and it performed poorly because some places were made up of several tiny pieces of track where 1 larger piece should have been, I guess they where just trying to squeeze money out of me...
I'll leave it to you to decide if they were trying to "squeeze money out of you". You bought a sectional track layout. Sectional track has to use lots of little pieces (short curves, short straights) to fit things together where flex track can use a larger section. You received exactly what you bought.
It takes some care in construction (even some soldering, usually) to make a layout built of those small track components work well. Most experienced modelers don't bother with sectional track, using flex instead.
Flex track won't cure all the ills by itself, you'll still need to take care to lay the track without kinks, make sure that the ends of segments of track are well aligned, etc.
In addition, the Atlas C55 turnouts don't come with any manual or powered means of holding the points one way or the other. So you'll need to add ground throws or switch motors. In addition, the frog is unpowered, so if you have very short wheelbase locos that can be a challenge.
PECO C55 have a built-in spring to hold the points in position and they have powered frogs. This adds slightly to the complexity of gaps and feeders, but it avoids the potential dead frog problem and eliminates the need for a seprate means of controlling the points.
Finally, if the Atlas C80 switches you removed are still operable, you could reinstall those either with new C80 flex track or by shimming every joint with the C55 flex track you bought. Not ideal, either.
The pre-formed layout bases seem like a good idea, but they can be a lot more limiting than newcomers realize. Good luck.
Just another item of curiosity on this turnout issue... what might the sentiments be on situating a turnout so that the mainline track is on the diverging leg? I have a spot where it may work better for smoother track flow even if it does not follow common practice in reality.
Mill BayJust another item of curiosity on this turnout issue... what might the sentiments be on situating a turnout so that the mainline track is on the diverging leg? I have a spot where it may work better for smoother track flow even if it does not follow common practice in reality.
IMHO you give priority to performance on the layout.
The problem with the diverging track is speed restriction. For a shortline or branchline where speed is generally low, this may not be an issue. But for a high speed line I imagine the railroad will reorient the track so the mainline goes straight or else use a very high frog number.
Enjoy
Paul