Best "N" scale trackwork

[Anonymous]

On using Pliobond for track laying, how, exactly are you doing this? Are you pliobonding metal rail to plastic or wood ties, or to brass ties, and how are you soldering, before, after or during pliobonding?

[Anonymous]

On using Pliobond for track laying, how, exactly are you doing this? Are you pliobonding metal rail to plastic or wood ties, or to brass ties, and how are you soldering, before, after or during pliobonding?

[Anonymous]

I find one website that lists Micro Engineering products in detail. Perhaps this will help: http://www.handlaidtrack.com

Wayne

[Anonymous]

I find one website that lists Micro Engineering products in detail. Perhaps this will help: http://www.handlaidtrack.com

Wayne

[Anonymous]

I have used PECO finescale track since it first became available, without any problems either through turnouts or with flanges grounding on the ties.

PECO had a great idea when they brought this track out in that it is actually, well almost code 80 in size. What they did was use a code 80 sized rail and set it deeper into the ties. The rail profile is like a normal rail sitting on top of an I beam.

The way this works is that the top part of the I beam forms the flat bottom of the rail and has the spikes of the rails molded into it on the outside but inside the rail profile is the same but as the spikes don't come up the side of the rail as normal there is greater flange clearance. The bottom part of the I beam is used to hold the rail into the plastic.

Also when joining the rail you slip the joiner on the bottom of the I section and therefore can almost join it directly with the PECO code 80 rail. I say almost as there is a very slight height difference wich can easily be tapered with a few strokes of a fine file.

Hope this makes sense...

[Anonymous]

I have used PECO finescale track since it first became available, without any problems either through turnouts or with flanges grounding on the ties.

PECO had a great idea when they brought this track out in that it is actually, well almost code 80 in size. What they did was use a code 80 sized rail and set it deeper into the ties. The rail profile is like a normal rail sitting on top of an I beam.

The way this works is that the top part of the I beam forms the flat bottom of the rail and has the spikes of the rails molded into it on the outside but inside the rail profile is the same but as the spikes don't come up the side of the rail as normal there is greater flange clearance. The bottom part of the I beam is used to hold the rail into the plastic.

Also when joining the rail you slip the joiner on the bottom of the I section and therefore can almost join it directly with the PECO code 80 rail. I say almost as there is a very slight height difference wich can easily be tapered with a few strokes of a fine file.

Hope this makes sense...

[mls1621]

My neighbor has a section of Micro Engineering code 55 on his layout. The mating to the Atlas code 80 was accomplished by smashing one end of a rail joiner and soldering the code 55 on top. the rail height matches perfectly.

For the record, the Micro Engineering code 55 works well with deep flanged wheels. The spiking of the rails to the ties is close to scale and there is no interference. I have no experience with Shinohara track so I don't know if deep flanged wheels will work with it.

Mirce Engineering offers chemically weathered flex track that looks really good, I've used it on my layout. The turnouts and bridge/trestle track doesn't come pre weathered however and would require painting.

The turnouts available from M. E. are very limited, you'd probably be better off going with Shinohara for those. I recommend finding a Local Hobby Store that has some Shinohara code 55 in stock, a turnout or crossing, and run a deep flanged truck through it to check for clearance.

I can't speak for Shinohara, but I know that M. E. doesn't have a web site.

I hope this is helpful.

[mls1621]

My neighbor has a section of Micro Engineering code 55 on his layout. The mating to the Atlas code 80 was accomplished by smashing one end of a rail joiner and soldering the code 55 on top. the rail height matches perfectly.

For the record, the Micro Engineering code 55 works well with deep flanged wheels. The spiking of the rails to the ties is close to scale and there is no interference. I have no experience with Shinohara track so I don't know if deep flanged wheels will work with it.

Mirce Engineering offers chemically weathered flex track that looks really good, I've used it on my layout. The turnouts and bridge/trestle track doesn't come pre weathered however and would require painting.

The turnouts available from M. E. are very limited, you'd probably be better off going with Shinohara for those. I recommend finding a Local Hobby Store that has some Shinohara code 55 in stock, a turnout or crossing, and run a deep flanged truck through it to check for clearance.

I can't speak for Shinohara, but I know that M. E. doesn't have a web site.

I hope this is helpful.

[Anonymous]

has anyone yet experimented with laying new code 55 butted right up against already installed code 80? or perhaps filed code 80 to meet up with the code 55? Or shimmed the new code 55 to segway into the code 80?

[Anonymous]

has anyone yet experimented with laying new code 55 butted right up against already installed code 80? or perhaps filed code 80 to meet up with the code 55? Or shimmed the new code 55 to segway into the code 80?

[DavidH]

I am using a mixture of Atlas and MicroEngineering code 55 on my new pike. All of the rolling stock has been converted to low profile wheels to cope with the Atlas track. AMI Instant Roadbed is also being used. So far, operation is absolutely flawless. Running up to 25 car trains backwards and forwards at a pretty good clip, I have had no trackwork related derailments. Turnouts are #'s 5, 6 and 7. I consider the code 55 to be MORE reliable than code 80, and the clearances through the turnouts to be much closer to NMRA standards than on Peco. BTW, I am not, as far as I know, gifted with any special tracklaying talents, although I do take quite a bit of care.

David

[DavidH]

I am using a mixture of Atlas and MicroEngineering code 55 on my new pike. All of the rolling stock has been converted to low profile wheels to cope with the Atlas track. AMI Instant Roadbed is also being used. So far, operation is absolutely flawless. Running up to 25 car trains backwards and forwards at a pretty good clip, I have had no trackwork related derailments. Turnouts are #'s 5, 6 and 7. I consider the code 55 to be MORE reliable than code 80, and the clearances through the turnouts to be much closer to NMRA standards than on Peco. BTW, I am not, as far as I know, gifted with any special tracklaying talents, although I do take quite a bit of care.

David

[Anonymous]

The last time I checked availability for Shinoharo Walthers had all the items listed in the catolog in stock. I don't know if that is still true. The stock on Shinoharo seemed much longer than Peco.

[Anonymous]

The last time I checked availability for Shinoharo Walthers had all the items listed in the catolog in stock. I don't know if that is still true. The stock on Shinoharo seemed much longer than Peco.

[Anonymous]

on my last layout I used hand laid code 55 track with M.E. turnouts. I had trouble with derailments so my new layout is code 80 I used flex track with peco turnouts,planing on replacing the flex with hand laid code 80 as I go along. Hand laying is not hard I used Pliobond and a soldering iron(MESSY) I also spiked some of it. It seems as my steam engines were the most problem on the code 55. Code 80 has made things much more reliable. Also I noticied that all the N-track layouts I saw at the Train shows were using code80 with Peco turnouts.

[Anonymous]

on my last layout I used hand laid code 55 track with M.E. turnouts. I had trouble with derailments so my new layout is code 80 I used flex track with peco turnouts,planing on replacing the flex with hand laid code 80 as I go along. Hand laying is not hard I used Pliobond and a soldering iron(MESSY) I also spiked some of it. It seems as my steam engines were the most problem on the code 55. Code 80 has made things much more reliable. Also I noticied that all the N-track layouts I saw at the Train shows were using code80 with Peco turnouts.

[Wdlgln005]

I think Walthers handles both lines of track. Shinohara code 70 has been a good choice but may have limited availability. Hope you have a good LHS nearby that would help you get the track.

[Wdlgln005]

I think Walthers handles both lines of track. Shinohara code 70 has been a good choice but may have limited availability. Hope you have a good LHS nearby that would help you get the track.

[Jacktal]

Does someone know if Shinohara and Micro-Engineering have websites?I have found plenty under both these names but nothing about model railroading.I would like to find out what is available from these manufacturers. Thanks

[Jacktal]

Does someone know if Shinohara and Micro-Engineering have websites?I have found plenty under both these names but nothing about model railroading.I would like to find out what is available from these manufacturers. Thanks

[Anonymous]

You might want to consider wheel diameter of your rolling stock when you use code 55 track. I have used Atlas code 80 for a small N scale lay out and also had trouble with some of the turnouts. I am working on a new layout also, I am considering Shinoharo rail and turnouts. I think they have a deeper product line and their flextrack stays in place when bending it around a curve. I like their turn outs better also. I have seen them in operation and they seem to be much smoother than Atlas, they cost more but feel they will not cause derailing that I have had with Atlas.

[Anonymous]

You might want to consider wheel diameter of your rolling stock when you use code 55 track. I have used Atlas code 80 for a small N scale lay out and also had trouble with some of the turnouts. I am working on a new layout also, I am considering Shinoharo rail and turnouts. I think they have a deeper product line and their flextrack stays in place when bending it around a curve. I like their turn outs better also. I have seen them in operation and they seem to be much smoother than Atlas, they cost more but feel they will not cause derailing that I have had with Atlas.

[Jacktal]

I am actually working on a small layout on which I have used Atlas code 80 tracks and turnouts.The tracks are not bad but I feel there should be better turnouts.
While working on this layout I've started planning a more satisfactory layout on which I want to use code 55 tracks along with DCC.From what I have collected so far,it seems to me that Peco has both good quality tracks and the widest selection of turnouts,crossovers,etc.But what about Micro-Engineering,Shinohara and other track manufacturers I don't know of?I would like to have the right choice right from the start. Thanks

[Jacktal]

I am actually working on a small layout on which I have used Atlas code 80 tracks and turnouts.The tracks are not bad but I feel there should be better turnouts.
While working on this layout I've started planning a more satisfactory layout on which I want to use code 55 tracks along with DCC.From what I have collected so far,it seems to me that Peco has both good quality tracks and the widest selection of turnouts,crossovers,etc.But what about Micro-Engineering,Shinohara and other track manufacturers I don't know of?I would like to have the right choice right from the start. Thanks