Best manufacturer for HO track?

[dinwitty]

I've been down the track trail and for me now my quality goes up and its to be the best detailed layout as finescale as possible to a point. ME sounds best for detail, I have the CV ties, I like them.

As far as the layout being an art form, in an old MR (or RMC) is an article about an artists who really played on the dimensionality concept, He had a heavy coal railroad with steam, and the steamers
looked "heavy" but they were really small 2-4-4-2's, and had sharper curves than you would expect
for an articualted to handle like a 2-8-8-2, say like he used 18".
The effect was amazingly good and being an artist, his backgrounds matched to suit.


The club I was in made their own turnouts and the reverse power never made it up to the frog, and the frog was all rail.
The points always had the same polarity to the main rail.
The rails were cut about halfway of the point rails (not the pivoting point rails) and all contacts were soldered and using PC ties.

Use what you like but all rail for me.

[Anonymous]

I'd like to add a vote for Micro Engineering code 83, and point out another important point--your layout will be more reliable if you use the same brand in all visible areas. The thickness of the railhead and rail web (bottom) vary significantly across brands, even when the rail height (as indicated by the code number) is the same. Thus, if you try to join ME code 83 to Atlas code 83, the difference in railhead width will create a point where wheels moving from the ME rail to the Atlas rail can "pick" the wider Atlas rail and derail. The difference also makes rail joints more noticeable.

Have fun,
Chris

[olequa]

Don't overlook Central Valley's tie strip system. They provide strips of connected plastic ties to which you glue your rail. It's like handlaid but easier and it is very well detailed. See cvmw.com for details.

[Anonymous]

Ive got my entire system on Peco Number 6 and Number 8 electro frogs, with Atlas Code 100 flex-track. I really like it! However, I think in the future, I might keep just the Code 100 for mainlines and relay the passing loops, yard and spur lines with Code 83 as this would look a lot better.

[jockellis]

G'day, Y'all,
This question probably elicits s much favoritism as Apple vs Microsoft, but to be around for so long, all have to be pretty good. I would bet a layout's visitors will never know that apple code 83 looks better than orange's. By the time you get the ballast down and everything looking the way you want it, the ties will be a small part of the pallet on which you've painted your masterpiece. My only reasons for using Atlas are their layout books and the amazing number of angles they have for their diamonds. I'm making No. 19 now and am about, maybe, 65 percent done with about half the scenery down. When a layout is put together, it is much like an Impressionist painting, more than the sum of its parts. Fuzziness becomes reality and everything seems to work together to give an illusion of reality.
Jock Ellis
Cumming, GA US of A

[Anonymous]

Yourself! metal rails & balsa wood works well if you are up to working hard.

[DigitalGriffin]

Spiking may be a problem as you are using foam and most likely will have to go with some sort of adhesive/caulk. From what I read, foam doesn't hold the spikes very well with a lot of pressure is put on them.

Someone please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, as I haven't tried it.

~Don

[jfugate]

The most realistic flextrack is MicroEngineering, because the spike head and tie detail is superb. Ballasted and weathered, ME flextrack looks better than handlaid.

Atlas code 100 flextrack is the cheapest, and is what I use for staging and other hidden trackage areas. However, the spike head detail is hugely out of scale.

ME flextrack holds is shape as you curve it, which is handy. Atlas track does not hold it's shape. I use gray latex caulk to lay my flex track, and with Atlas track, I have to use pushpins and masking tape to make it stay put while the caulk is setting up.

[Anonymous]

i use atlas code 100 track and like it . the turnouts work wery well i like custom line the best even though the are not electric. just my opinion though. soon to start my new layout the New England Central RR

[lyctus]

I have always been a strong Peco fan, firstly code 100, and latterly, code 75. As I am sometimes a bit klutzy acheiving first class joins with flex track on curves have just bought a bunch of Atlas code 83 set track to play around with. I am particularly keen to see how it stacks up against the Peco I already have in flex track, and I expected compatability problems(code 75/83) but I have just this hour joined Peco code 75 flex to Atlas code 83 set track, and aside from different coloured ties (black vs dk. brown), the match is fantastic. No detectable rail height difference at the join and I have got packs of 22"Rad. curves and 24"Rad. curves which are fine by me. Sure will beat fiddling around trying to get perfect joins in the flex track on curves. Now that Peco have released code 83, it all looks good from here..Peco/Atlas and a bit of simple cosmetic work on the joins to cover up the set track tie moulding, a solder joint to ensure good electrical continuity and train heaven !
But, the question begs an answer, how come Peco code 75 matches up with Atlas code 83 with no transitional joiners or packing ??

[mikebonellisr]

I run on DCC,use Atlas code 100 flex and both shinohara and peco electrofrog turnouts with either caboose ground throws or tortoise motors.I've been running since 1985 with very few track problems....it works for me!.

[Anonymous]

The easiest track to get and works great is Atlas code 100. That is what I use for my layout. The price is much cheaper than the other manufactures out there. How much is a 3' flex track of Shinora, Walthers, Micro Engineering, or Atlas code 83 track compared to Atlas code 100. Also the price of those turnouts are much more than the Atlas 100. I just stick to the cheapest but works perfect. Atlas

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Trainnut1250

Jon,

A couple of methods for flex track. One is to drill holes in the ties and insert the spike as if it were holding the rail down, second is to spike the rail directly in the space right next to the tie. The spikes are cool because you can get rid of the nail heads in the middle of the ties and you can apply holding force right where you need it. For hand laid track you can spike directly through the wood tie and use the spike head to secure the rail. Some predrill, I haven't found that to be necessary.

Thank you that cleared up all my questions

[Anonymous]

Jon,

A couple of methods for flex track. One is to drill holes in the ties and insert the spike as if it were holding the rail down, second is to spike the rail directly in the space right next to the tie. The spikes are cool because you can get rid of the nail heads in the middle of the ties and you can apply holding force right where you need it. For hand laid track you can spike directly through the wood tie and use the spike head to secure the rail. Some predrill, I haven't found that to be necessary.

[Anonymous]

so they instead of using the middle of the tie they put the spikes right next to the rail?

[jrbarney]

Metallica,
They are miniature versions of the spikes that actual railroads use to hold rails in place. Modelers may not use them in every tie unless they are going for detail, in which case they might also use tie plates, etc. Model spikes are probably not exactly scale in the smaller scales, but represent a practical compromise.
Bob
NMRA Life 0543

[Anonymous]

What are these spikes you guys are talking about. I use atlas track nails to keep my track down.

[R. Vollmar]

I've found that Atlas Code 83 track is relatively easy to lay in that both rails will slide through the ties. This saves a lot of rail cutting under conditions where good accuracy is difficult to achieve. Atlas Code 100 and most of the other rail I've worked with have only one or no rails that slide and consequently you end up doing a lot of cutting. R. Vollmar

[Anonymous]

Micro Engineering flex. It looks the best. Most prototypical railhead shape. They have code 83, DCC freindly switches that look great as well. Only drawback is the cost and the flex is stiffer than Atlas or Shinohara. This has not proven to be a problem on my new layout. I have discovered that as I spike the track down I can get rid of all the little kinks (rather than trying to get perfection with it just laying there). Pre bend to the rough shape as close as possible and then set the final curvature as you spike it dowm. For those on Homasote, I recommend the Walthers code 70/83 spikes. More of a sharp point than the Micro Engineering, longer as well to hold things tight

The DCC modifications to "regular" switches are time consuming and tedious (don't ask me how I know this). I would recommend avoiding them if possible by buying either Walthers, Peco code 83 or Mirco Engineering lines of DCC friendly switches. Many have good luck with the Peco insulfrog. Peco's code 83 line has ties that are quite heavy looking, but a small price to pay for smooth operation.

BTW: IMHO The "DCC freindly" is just a euphemism for the way switches all should have been wired in the first place. Especially power routing turnouts. This is a benefit of the DCC revolution.

My two cents,

[Leon Silverman]

Shinohara code 83 track is marketed under Walther's Brand name. Shinohara sells code 70 and code 100 under its own brand name.
DCC ready generally means that the frog is all metal and the divergent rails have to be gapped. Insulated frogs eliminate the need to gap these rails but it is possible for the treads of the trains to bridge the gap between the two rails and cause a momentary short. Alternately. you can still have an all metal frog if it is gapped beyond the frog and jumper wires are used to connect the rails that are now electrically isolated from one another. The bridging of the two rails will usually will not affect DC operation but the circuit protection on DCC systems has to be very sensitive to avoid frying the electronics with a short but relatively high voltage spike or surge. Consequently, this momentary short will shut down a DCC system.

[ereimer]

personally i think Peco looks best

best info i've found on DCC and turnouts is here
http://www.wiringfordcc.com/switches.htm

peco code 83 insulfrog turnouts seem to work very well with DCC with no modifications .

please note that my advice on this is just from reading as i don't have anything built ... yet

[electrolove]

I'm building a HO scale model railroad. I have finished my benchwork and is working with the foam right now. I need some advice. I wonder what manufacturer is the best when it comes to track?

I'm thinking of using Peco or Shinohara code 83 or is there other good brands?

I also wonder what turnouts is the best to use with dcc? Can someone please explain what dcc-ready means?

Thanks in advance.