cuyama MILW-RODR: I don't have personal experience, but then again someone already chimed in and started talking HO so I figured why not. I have heard though a warning for Peco track of trip pins catching on the point springs. That doesn't really make sense. If the coupler trip pins are so low that they could catch on the PECO point springs (which are pretty low profile), they'd snag on road grade crossings and other trackwork elements first. The exceedingly simple solution would be to use a coupler gauge to check trip pin height and then correct by bending. Have you ever even seen a PECO N scale turnout? Or any PECO turnout? It might be better for each of us to talk about areas where each of us has actual experience, but that would make for a mighty quiet forum, I guess.
MILW-RODR: I don't have personal experience, but then again someone already chimed in and started talking HO so I figured why not. I have heard though a warning for Peco track of trip pins catching on the point springs.
I don't have personal experience, but then again someone already chimed in and started talking HO so I figured why not. I have heard though a warning for Peco track of trip pins catching on the point springs.
That doesn't really make sense. If the coupler trip pins are so low that they could catch on the PECO point springs (which are pretty low profile), they'd snag on road grade crossings and other trackwork elements first. The exceedingly simple solution would be to use a coupler gauge to check trip pin height and then correct by bending.
Have you ever even seen a PECO N scale turnout? Or any PECO turnout?
It might be better for each of us to talk about areas where each of us has actual experience, but that would make for a mighty quiet forum, I guess.
So, since we can only talk about what we know, I suggest everyone take their Chevy 350 block, have it blueprinted, make sure the machine shop align bores/hones the main and parallel decks the block, set bearing clearance around .0020"-.0022" for best performance/reliability, set crankshaft end play .006-.008", and don't forget to match the cam specs with your heads. Running a small .450" lift cam with heads having peak plow at .550" isn't going to be as good.
So, should I stick talking about WHAT I know?? Or chime in and learn about what I don't.
AlpineModeler I would take Peco. The quality is better.
I would take Peco. The quality is better.
This is Planet Earth! What planet are you from?
ADDENDUM: when I began using Rail Craft Code 55 track back in the '80s I found the lack of switches an incentive to practicing my scratchbuilding skills; I have built switches as long as #20s and as short as #5.75s. I know my switches are reliable because I make them myself!
From the far, far reaches of the wild, wild west I am: rtpoteet
MILW-RODR I don't have personal experience, but then again someone already chimed in and started talking HO so I figured why not. I have heard though a warning for Peco track of trip pins catching on the point springs.
Layout Design GalleryLayout Design Special Interest Group
I don't have personal experience, but then again someone already chimed in and started talking HO so I figured why not. I have heard though a warning for Peco track of trip pins catching on the point springs. Not to be redundant, but Peco C55 is just a double-web version of their C80 track. It tooks like a big 'T' layed over a small 't'. I do personally like the American feel and look of the ME, but as said it is limited.
I personally am also at a stand still with using R-T-R track over handlaid, mostly because I am in N scale, and I don't believe in the soldering to PC 'ties'. If I do go handlaid I will be using wood ties, mostly likely hand cut and hand weathered to save money, on homasote (or varient) roadbed set on OSB sub roadbed (again, saving cost).
80ktsClamp Looks like Micro Engineering has an extremely limited amount of turnouts... HO Code 83 is only in #6, for example.
Looks like Micro Engineering has an extremely limited amount of turnouts...
HO Code 83 is only in #6, for example.
Yes, all my flextrack is ME Code 55, but I go with Atlas turnouts. Not only more variety, but they're more affordable and much more available. Even if all you wanted was a #6 turnout, good luck finding it in stock anywhere!
MICRO ENGINEERING ALL THE WAY ACROSS THE SKY!
* WAY more prototypical
* TRUE Code 55 rail (not the fake Code-80-disguised-as-Code-55 - what a ripoff!)
* North American tie spacing
* 100% compatible with other true Code 55 rail (Atlas)
* ME gives you the choice of pre-weathered or non-weathered rail.
* Made in the USA!
There is no comparison. In my mind, Peco doesn't even make Code 55 track!
Seems lots of good things to say about both tracks. ME seems to be just as superior to Peco, but cheaper which is good.
Question is, what is this talk about interswitching Peco and ME and having to cut away the flanges? I am no expert on railroad terminology so an explanation of this would be great.Thanks!
Dave,
yes, but...
those track level photos are much more "revealing" than our usual bird´s eye view.
No doubt - code 55 track is much better looking!
Sir Madog I guess we are all in agreement that Dave Vollmer´s PRR Juniata Division layout is a mighty fine layout. He used Peco code 80 track to built it. His new extension uses Atlas code 55 track and there is, of course, a vast difference in looks.
I guess we are all in agreement that Dave Vollmer´s PRR Juniata Division layout is a mighty fine layout. He used Peco code 80 track to built it. His new extension uses Atlas code 55 track and there is, of course, a vast difference in looks.
Thanks for the complement! However, I absolutely hate my code 80, especially now since I'm using code 55 on my extension. The code 80 looks so toy-like it's crossed my mind to lay a third rail down the middle just to emphasize my departure from realism.
All kidding aside, there are plenty of issues I'd love to correct on the Juniata Division, enough such that I'm probably just going to start over at some point with a modular layout (using the Enola extension as one module). It will likely be a few years before I can do that, though, as my career is taking up too much time for much more than some loco and car projects.
Here are two pictures to compare between code 80 and code 55 on my layout. Both are painted and ballasted in the same way, so there's no "stacking of the deck." Track-level photos leave no doubt as the superior appearance of Atlas code 55:
Code 80:
Atlas code 55:
Modeling the Rio Grande Southern First District circa 1938-1946 in HOn3.
There is one thing to be said about modeling in those smaller scales. It is more about creating the atmosphere than going for detail, which we won´t be able to see from the usual bird´s eye view we have. It is a question of taste and choice, whether we want to go for over-sized details, or just omit them.
That's funny David. It's actually not denial at all. It's true. Let's see one of your hand laid turnouts. I'd better be able to count every spike and see every tieplate or else it's nonprototypical! Real railroads also don't solder their rails to circuit boards! I will agree with the pizza cutter flanges though. Then again none of my pieces still have them except for the things that are 25 years old and no longer run.
I actually switched over to O scale a few years ago due to the amount of detail available there but I've still got the good old n-scale layout and still like it and work on it from time to time. Each size fits a different need for me. I personally found fine detailing to be the most enjoyable thing to me so O scale was a natural fit but it isn't a shot against N scale in the slightest. I'll always have a special place for N scale and n-scale is what allows me to run modern equipment in a more realistic setting with longer trains. On larger scales, fine track details really stand out and things like rail code, tie plates, and spikes are quite apparent. Especially if they are wrong. On smaller scales, what matters most is a believable track color as fine details don't matter as much. A tie that is a little large or spaced slightly far just doesn't look bad. Many different n-scale tracks look very nice when detailed. The only ones that really stick out use code 80 rail but it's the rail and not the ties that are so obvious. Then again it's all about the big picture and track is just a part of it.
BTW: My O scale track is handlaid on real wood ties that are stained. No circuit board soldering here! It also has individual tie plates and spikes. I never would have done that in N scale. Then again I also never would have started an N scale track company either! My website is crude and in need of a serious update but show me someone else who has put this much effort into making 3 rail look like it's only got 2. Look closely. I really don't think I cut corners or take the easy way out!
www.deltatracksystems.com
Joe,
'Fredswain' summarized it very well. I had 110 PECO turnouts on my last layout and 90+ on this one (I'm trying to simplify )and can vouch for their reliability. They are worth the money.
Ernie C
I've used everything from Atlas code 80 to Kato (absolutely hated it), to Atlas code 55 to Peco code 55. My favorite in terms of ease of use is the Peco code 55 and my current n-scale layout uses it. I dabbled with Atlas code 55 but I have too many older pieces that don't run on it due to wheel flange sizes and I have no desire to convert many of them. They do run on Peco code 55 though.
The big disadvantage with Peco is price. It is fairly expensive. It is reliable and easy to work with though. As far as looks are concerned, n scale is so small that any nonprototypical things are really nonissues. I have my track painted and weathered and it looks just fine. If you could enlarge code 55 track to a truly lifelike size, you'd see that even it is far too large to be truly prototypical and todays heavy mainline rails are actually closer to code 40 in scale. It doesn't matter though because you can't see it.
Peco switches are a bit different and while they are not "dcc compatible" which is a joke of a term anyways, they do work very well. Derailments are never an issue with them as long as they are level and since the points are spring loaded, they stay in place well even without a switch motor or ground throw installed. Try that with any other switches! With their electrofrog turnouts, once you know how to wire them, there is no special polarity reversing needed for the frog when using dcc. I find this to be an advantage. They also have a large variety of switches including curved switches.
One interesting thing about them is that regardless of which switch you use, whether it's a short radius, medium, long, or curved, they all use the same #6 frog. You can't visually tell though and it doesn't affect operation in the least.
Standard Atlas code 80 will plug right up to it with a standard rail joiner. Just a couple of quick hits with a small file across the railheads and the joint is smooth. Atlas code 55 will also mate right up. Take that file out and file off the bottom flange on the Peco piece. Hit the rail heads again and you're done. It is very simple to work with.
As a warning about their flextrack, unlike Atlas flextrack where only 1 rail slides when bent, on the Peco, they both do and they are a bit tighter than the moving Atlas rail. I've seen some people have issues getting smooth consistent bends out of them but I've never had an issue. Some are just used to taking Atlas flextrack and instantly and quickly bending it to their desired shape. The Peco takes a bit of finesse but it isn't difficult to do.
Sir Madog I assume you are talking about code 55 track & turnouts. Peco track is a fine product, but it matches European prototype. The rail itself is actually "embedded" into the ties and thus jas a different profile than all other code 55 track, making it difficult to join with track of different brands.
I assume you are talking about code 55 track & turnouts. Peco track is a fine product, but it matches European prototype. The rail itself is actually "embedded" into the ties and thus jas a different profile than all other code 55 track, making it difficult to join with track of different brands.
As a person who has actually worked with PECO C55 in N scale, respectfully disagree. PECO C55 is unusual in that the rail has two bases. But I find that these two bases make it fairly easy to join it to other Code 80 or Code 55 with a bit of filing and/or shimming.
That having been said, I wouldn't want to do it at every turnout-to-flextrack joint. But for a few locations, it's not too onerous.
As noted, ME has only a #6 turnout, pretty limiting in my view.
But fine-looking layouts can be built from a number of brands of track, including Atlas Code 55. Atlas has a wider variety of turnouts than ME, but the smallest is a #5. PECO C55 has smaller turnouts with curved diverging legs that work well for tighter spots.
Best of luck.
Byron
Hold my beer... ya'll watch this!
It depends on your criteria. Peco track is built with wider tie spacing to match European prototypes while Micro Engineering track is built to match the American prototype. I believe both track products are top notch when it comes to flex track performance, although Peco has the advantage when it comes to turnouts in both variety and performance. Jamie
CLICK HERE FOR THE CSX DIXIE LINE BLOG
Was wondering with modeler's experience what brand has better appearance and quality?
I know both are superior brands, but was looking to get positive/negative feedback on both.
ThanksJoe