What N-scale track is the "prefered" track, flex or sectional, and what code is best?

[Anonymous]

I'm starting my first layout and want to use a quality track that will give me very little trouble.

[DSchmitt]

With sectional track you are restricted to the manufactured curve radii. The most commonly found in N scale are Atlas 9-3/4", 11" and 19".

With flex track you have more freedom in design.

With flex track there will be fewer joints which means less potential for electrical problems.

I use both types depending on the situation.

Code 80 has been the N scale standard. Code 55 is better looking, but more delicate and many people find it harder to work with.

There is also the problem that shallow (more prototypical) wheel flanges are needed to run on the smaller rail. Good quality equipment made in the last few years will work on code 55, but the flanges on cheap equipment and older equipment are often too deep.

Peco code 55 is an exception. It is really code 80 but clever design makes it look smaller and it is more rugged than code 80 and as easy to work with.

I use Peco 80 for main lines and Peco 55 for other tracks.

[Anonymous]

Interesting comment about Peco code 55. I'll have to look into that. I'm in the planning stages of my first, also. Planning to use flex.

[Anonymous]

Ok, so I did a little reading, and from what I can tell, the Peco code 55 track is indeed closer to code 80, but a part of the track is embedded in the ties. Since the little plastic "railroad spikes" aren't responsible for actually holding the track in place, they can be made smaller, and as such are less likely to interfere with flanges. The thicker rails are also described as being less delicate than regular code 55.

That sounds nice, but apparently the turnouts are a little bit of a problem. Designed more according to British standards? Curved frogs, etc. Not that big of a deal to some of us, but if I wanted to use, say, Atlas code 55 turnouts with Peco flextrack, how difficult would that be to connect given the interesting design of the Peco track? If part of the track is embedded in the ties, does it still flare out at tie level to look "normal?" Does this design require pure soldering to connect, or a special rail joiner?

[Anonymous]

Kind of like asking the "best" beer to drink -- it's really a personal choice depending on your experience.

[DSchmitt]

QUOTE: Originally posted by troub

Ok, so I did a little reading, and from what I can tell, the Peco code 55 track is indeed closer to code 80, but a part of the track is embedded in the ties. Since the little plastic "railroad spikes" aren't responsible for actually holding the track in place, they can be made smaller, and as such are less likely to interfere with flanges. The thicker rails are also described as being less delicate than regular code 55.

That sounds nice, but apparently the turnouts are a little bit of a problem. Designed more according to British standards? Curved frogs, etc. Not that big of a deal to some of us, but if I wanted to use, say, Atlas code 55 turnouts with Peco flextrack, how difficult would that be to connect given the interesting design of the Peco track? If part of the track is embedded in the ties, does it still flare out at tie level to look "normal?" Does this design require pure soldering to connect, or a special rail joiner?

I have not done this, but one method is to place a joinier on the larger rail and soldering the smaller rail to the joiner making sure the rail heads line up properly. This should work with any code 80/code 55 connection. Of course it is probably not that easy. Probably some modification to the end joiner that the smaller rail is solderd to would be necessary.

There may also transition rail joiners available. Micro Engineering makes transition joiners for a number of rail size combinations

[Bikerdad]

There are joiners available for connecting Peco to Atlas.

[Anonymous]

This could be a loaded question as I'm sure everybody has their favorite.
I've always like the smaller, more to scale of the Code 55 or Code 40 rail.
However, I'm using Kato Unitrack on my currant small N-Scale layout and I'm very happy with it. It is 100% bulletproof and the fact that I don't have to mess around with ballast is really nice. I always paint the sides of the rail and this alone really helps cover up the over-size rail.
In the past I've also used Atlas Code 80 and Peco track with good results.
Good luck,
gtirr

[bcammack]

Quality track that gives little trouble = Kato Unitrack

[DSchmitt]

Kato is excellent quality, but as with other sectional track systems the geometrics is limiting if you use it exclusively.

However it is easy to mix it with other brands of sectional and flex track. The conector/rail joiners are a snap fit. They are easily removed and replaced with Atlas code 80, Peco, and possibly other brands of metal rail joiners.

I have built layouts using a mix of Peco Code 80 and code 55 switches, Peco code 80 and code 55 flex track, Atlas code 80 sectional track and code 80 flex track (I often use Atlas code 80 flex instead of Peco because it cost less), and Kato track . My choise of track in a given situation depends on what fits to get the result I want, and ease of construction.

[Anonymous]

Atlas code 80 for flex track is good. Peco code 80 turnouts are also very reliable. My only complaint about these is they are short on looks (rail too big, ties too fat).
But if that doesn't bother you, they are reliable.
The Peco and Atlas code 80 turnouts have gauge problems in their turnouts.
If you get an NMRA standards gauge, and make sure all your wheels on all your engines and cars are properly spaced, AND you do the same on the Peco or Atlas turnouts, you will have flawless operation. Otherwise, you will have derailments at turnouts once in a while. The usual problems with these turnouts is that the
guiderails are too narrow at the frog, so trains "pick" the frog. Usually I fixed this by cementing a .010" shim of styrene into the guide rails.

If you want to go a step up in expense, I would go with Micro Engineering track and turnouts. You can use either Code 70 or Code 55. The Code 55 looks more in scale, but you might find Code 70 easier to work with.

I am using only ME Code 55 on my new layout. It is by far the best track ever. The turnouts are "almost" perfect. I still have to file and fiddle a bit to make
them truly in gauge all the way through the point rails. But other than that, they are trouble-free.

[Anonymous]

Originally posted by troub

That sounds nice, but apparently the turnouts are a little bit of a problem. Designed more according to British standards? Curved frogs, etc. Not that big of a deal to some of us, but if I wanted to use, say, Atlas code 55 turnouts with Peco flextrack, how difficult would that be to connect given the interesting design of the Peco track?

A better question would be do i want to realign my track. Have you seen the cross section of an Atlas turnout- the 'straight' section is not straight at all- it deviates from the end points by about 1mm (sorry cant convert that to US dec Inches) but peco switches at least ARE straight and true- worth the expense I suspect as a couple of 'cheaper' Atlas switches are continually derailling LL SD7's for me _yes old but enjoybale and in' spec' for my era.

What this means is 'realigning' the entry/ exit tracks to maintain a trouble-free tangent- as I have one just off a bend I have arrnaged that OK- but for 'space' savig I have used an Atlas automatic switch off a Peco LH curved one and the Atlas mis-aligment is causing tyhe problems AFAIK.

Worth considering, cheers dave

• Reply
• Edit