Track Manufacturer Selection

[Anonymous]

Greetings folks!
I know there was a thread on here dating back to 2002 regarding slecting track manufacturers. I am returning to the hobby after 30+ years, and find the selection is much better than it was, but am sure I haven't 'seen it all'.

I was wondering about people's experiences with various track manufacturers. I think I am now unserstanding the difference between code 100 and code 83! ::grinning::

I'd appreciate any ideas, stiries, experiences with various track, turnouts, etc.

Rick

[jhugart]

Heh. Have you made decisions about what you want to do? For example, you've mentioned code 83 and code 100. Do you want to ballast it yourself, or use something that comes with a 'fake' roadbed? Do you want black ties, brown, or concrete-color?

When it comes to turnouts, do you want snap-action or free-floating points that you control with a slow-motion switch machine? Do you want a turnout that can substitute for a given radius of track, or do you prefer going by frog numbers?

See, we can really get out of hand, here.

In all, I find myself looking at Atlas for basic track stuff, then using Peco or Shinohara as needed. I'm sticking with code 100 myself, so I don't have to worry too much about clearances; though there was a great article -- in a past Model Railroad Planning? -- about a testbed switching layout used to make sure a car was code 83 ready.

[CP5415]

Rick, welcome back to the hobby.

I'm assuming that you are in HO scale?

On my current layout, I have a combination of Atlas & Peco flex track as well as some Atlas sectional track. All of this is code 100.
I have some older loco's & rolling stock from the 60's that have deep flanges on the wheels. After trying code 83 & having them bottom out in the ties, I'll stick with code 100. This is my decision as I don't want to modify the locomotives as they were my Dad's & want to keep them as they were when he bought them.

As for turnout's aka switches, I have a bunch of ancient Shinohara switches that I'm using as well as a lot of recently purchase Peco switches. A friend of mine highly recommended Peco to me & I have not had any problems with them.

I used to have Atlas turnouts but they did not stand up to the abuse I gave them 30 years ago

I hope this helps.

Gordon

[ARTHILL]

Welcome back. I started over last year and now use Atlas Code 83 flex track and Walther's turnouts. They work very well. I have tried a variety of track on my bridges and don't have a clear favorite. I have tried many switch machies and for yards I like the Caboose hand thrown, for close to control panel turnouts I have some Humpyard levers. They are wonderful. For remote I have tortise and they are difficult for me to install. They do work nice when correct. I am not DCC yet, but DCC ready turnouts are good and won't need replacing when you change over to DCC. Keep us posted.

[Anonymous]

Gordon, Jacob:

Thanks for the questions and information. Yes Gordon, HO scale. Jacob, as I am just starting back into the hobby, I no longer have any previous older rolling stock - I am starting fresh. I figured I'd start with code 83 since as I purchase new items I can make sure that they are code 83 compliant. I have seen pictures comparing the 2 (Atlas catalogues and MR magazine) and like the look of the code 83. I'll be modelling the 1960s-70s so brown would work for the ties. I'd rather lay my own roadbed, and yes - I will be using slow-motion remote switches, and in some cases will want a radiused turnout. Hope that helps!

Thanks again for the quick response! I knew there was a reason I missed this hobby and the folks in it!! [:D]

[Icefoot]

Welcome back to the hobby, Rick! I took about 15 years off myself...

I'm currently building a small HO scale sectional track layout using Atlas Code83 Snap Track and Snap Switches. While it is working fine, I'm not sure I'll use it for my big layout currently in the planning stages. I'm leaning more toward flextrack (which I used on N scale layouts before my break in hobby activies) with numbered turnouts (#5, #6, etc) The current layout is an experimental one being built mainly to gain experience for the empire.

I think one of the strengths of sectional track is also a weakness: It is easy to do trackplanning because of a limited set of curve radii and straight section lengths. The weakness is losing some ability to adjust the track to an odd space. Example: you have a corner that would work best with a 16" radius curve, but you only have 15", 18", or 22" radius track sections from which to choose. The 18" and 22" sections are unusable since they would not fit and the 15" sections put the track coming out of the corner at an odd angle and/or location. These things can be worked around, but I found myself making more compromises in trackplans that I liked.

Another weakness of sectional track is the sheer number of rail joints you end up with. As most experienced modeler here will tell you, every rail joint is another chance for electrical failure (resulting in badly running trains). To reduce this risk, soldering the rail joints is a good idea. Which can be a pain with a large number of joints.

The aesthetics of many rail joints is a preference thing but should be mentioned as well. Some people may not like the way all those joiners look on the layout (especially in photos) and others may not even notice them. Personally, I'm not too thrilled with the look of all those joiners.

A real plus for sectional track is the speed of tracklaying and getting trains running. It installs quickly so you can move on to other parts of layout construction. Also, changes in track arrangements can be worked out easily by tossing around the various sections until you get what you want.

Just my observations from working with sectional track for a while. BTW, I'm also helping a friend build an N scale layout using Kato Unitrack. It pretty much eliminates the rail joint objections, but I'm not impressed with the look of the integrated roadbed (although I hear that can be fixed with weathering and light ballasting).

[tomikawaTT]

Welcome back aboard.

Speaking as a person who is in the process of building a monster, my comments on track:
The key difference in flex track is its appearance - all of it is in gauge and can be laid to any desired configuration within reason. I personally use code 100 for hidden track (staging and in tunnels) because I have a lot of it. Atlas is a lot more flexible than Shinohara, but Shinohara has more attachment holes and will stay in a curve once bent to shape. Visible track is code 83 Atlas, mostly concrete ties (because that's what my prototype used.) Code 83 is right for 133 pound rail, a common size in present-day use. Code 100 is actually oversize for any rail ever laid - PRR's 155 pound rail actually scales out at code 93. I haven't used any other manufacturers' products, but would not hesitate to do so if they happen to come to hand.

There have been several threads in this forum about the relative merits of various brands of turnouts. I cannot speak to that area because all of my turnouts are assembled on site from raw rail - I am comfortable doing that, and have a liking for specialwork that would require too many compromises (not to mention break the budget) if assembled from commercial products.

[Anonymous]

Thanks again everyone!

I agree that flextrack is the way to go. I can remember that Waaaay back when - flextrack was just coming out! I purchased 2 3' pieces and was thrilled with what could be done!

I also agree that electrical connections with sectionals can be a pain as well. I intend to more-or-less design the layout with Atlas' freeware with sectional as the design tool - but had intended to use flex in the realization of the plan.

From what I am hearing so far, Atlas code83 will do me just fine for the most part, but I may have to look into some of the alternatives for turnouts.

Thanks again everyone!