Hi,
I am considering going to code 40 on the next layout since it more closely matches the weight of the rail on my considered prototype. Also, for me, excessive N-scale rail height really bugs me completely out of proportion to how much of an issue it really is. What can I say? THe other irrational issue I have is a lack of ditch lights on my locomotives but there is not much I can do about that right now.
I am going to lay some down and do some testing before I go that route (both to see how I feel about code 40 and to see how I feel about hand laying track..) but wanted to get some thoughts. I figure rolling stock to be a non-issue.. I plan to replace the wheel sets anyway and I can just make sure they are low profile.
However, I am concerned that locomotives will have issues and I am not about to turn the flanges down. Less out of being intimidated by the task then out of my inability to afford to lose a loco to a mistake. Have an infant and another on the way doesnt do much for the wallet..
So.. what are folks experience with modern N equipment flanges? I have mostly atlas locomotives right now. I have one life like sw-something and a bachman 2-8-0, neither of which will have a home on the next layout. Probably the only ones I will be looking at using are a pair of atlas MEC early GP-38s and an Atlas B&M RS-3.
Thanks for the input,
Chris
What are you using now? If you're in Code 80, take a look at Code 55 stuff. It may be close enough that it doesn't trigger that gag response... (Disclaimer: "that gag response" is each individual's sensitivity to a specific something. In my case, it's non-realistic trees...) You shouldn't have too much of an issue in c55.
Of course, maybe you're in c55, or you've already looked at it and rejected it. In that case, I leave you to someone who's worked with c40 --since I really go more for operation, I consider myself daring to be working in c55....
Peter
I am using code 55 now and can tolerate it if need be. It still looks big.
At this point I am just trying to figure out if its worth the effort to even run some tests.
Extrapolating from my work in HO and HOn3, anything that runs on code 55 will run on properly fastened code 40. This assumes that you are not using a funky code 55 like the Peco that has extra space for deep flanges. Locomotives seem to either have gross flanges (which won't run on Atlas code 55) or the low profile flanges - there is very, very little made with in between flanges.
How you fasten your rail may make some difference. Soldering or gluing obviously doesn't cost anything in rail height. So when using soldered or glued code 40 rail, you may be able to run stuff that won't run on Atlas code 55.
If you spike your code 40 rail, I would recommend nothing larger than ME micro spikes. Far better are the Proto87 Stores HO scale size spikes (which are also used by N scale guys hand laying track). Either of these should give sufficient clearance with the low profile flanges - they do with HO RP-25 flanges. Besides, using larger spikes with code 40 rail is an invitation to excess insertion force and vertical kinks at the spikes.
FWIW, I believe ME makes code 40 flex track in N gauge as well as HOn3. Care when laying will be required to avoid kinking. For turnouts, you will be on your own.
For more advice, The Balboa Park San Diego Club N scalers have done extensive handlaying, and would be a better source of information.
hope this helps
Fred W
Thanks for the info.
As luck would have it, I have been using Peco code 55..
I do plan to solder and glue the code 40. I think at this point I just need to get some rail and see how it works with the equipment I have. I will get some code 55 rail at the same time for comparison sake.