I've got the go ahead that I will have a new layout when the attic that my layout is in becomes my bedroom (1 year). So, I want to get the track completly squared up. So, here are my 4 considerations:
Atlas code 80 (what I currently have)
Atlas code 55
Micro engineering code 70
Kato unitrack
Now, my thoughts here. The unitrack is an outside underdog, as the radi are preset. The disadvantage of Micro engineering is that it seems to cost a good deal. Atlas code 80 is okay, and I guess the turnouts will perform good with ground throws (custom-line). Atlas code 55 is a little more realistic.
I highly value all you folks ideas, and thanks in advance to all replys.
Sawyer Berry
Clemson University c/o 2018
Building a protolanced industrial park layout
There is no best.
The one that suits your purposes best is the best for you. For me it was Atlas 55. Doesn't mean it is the best for you.
Jeff But it's a dry heat!
NKP68 wrote:Atlas 55 is what I would suggest. This is what I am currently using. It is a little more difficult to lay due to its size but it is worth it!
The OP should just be aware that the flanges on older engines and most stock Micro-Trains cars will hit the molded-in spikes on Atlas C55.
Layout Design GalleryLayout Design Special Interest Group
cuyama wrote: NKP68 wrote:Atlas 55 is what I would suggest. This is what I am currently using. It is a little more difficult to lay due to its size but it is worth it!The OP should just be aware that the flanges on older engines and most stock Micro-Trains cars will hit the molded-in spikes on Atlas C55.
Thanks all who have replied so far. cuyama, what about the atlas engines in my sig. (Atlas classic GP30 and GP9).
Any Atlas engine built since the 90's should run fine on the code 55 trackage. MT wheel sets need to be replaced with MT 'low profile' wheel sets or get the special Atlas metal wheel sets for MT trucks(the standard Atlas wheel sets are too tight). Your Atlas GP9 and GP30 should be fine.
Jim
Modeling BNSF and Milwaukee Road in SW Wisconsin
I am using Atlas c55, and I love the stuff. It looks fantastic, it's as easy to work with as their c80 flex, and they have a wide selection of turnouts (#5's, 7's and 10's) plus a full range of sectional track for fillers. It's priced to be the most economical of all the code 55 systems.
If you're using Caboose ground throws, I suggest you get the variety with the electrical contact. Atlas c55 turnouts have frogs that can be wired to route power, which virtually eliminates stalls of even tiny locomotives. Also, it's possible to recess the ground throw below track level, which helps minimize the overscale size of the CI throw.
I cut a small block of homasote and sink it about 1/4" below the foam surface, and secure it in place with some liquid nails. I use a track nail pushed up through the bottom of the slide bar on the switch throw to transfer movement to the throwbar on the turnout.
A less expensive alternative is to use a micro slide switch, a double pole single throw. This can be rigged up with a throw bar to both physically and electrically throw the switch. I paint the slide switch silver to resemble a line side electrical cabinet.
If you're just beginning your collection of N scale equipment, don't worry about the flange issue. The problem is with the wheels that don't comply with NMRA standards (Micro Trains in particular) The track is in compliance, and most other newer rolling stock will work just fine. You can also purchase replacement wheelsets to replace those MT pizza cutters...
Lee
Route of the Alpha Jets www.wmrywesternlines.net
Wait till you get my bill!
CLICK HERE FOR THE CSX DIXIE LINE BLOG
From the far, far reaches of the wild, wild west I am: rtpoteet
R. T. POTEET wrote:None of the above!!!I have been using Rail Craft/Micro Engineering Code 55 since 1983; in the words of that '70s era cigarette commercial - the brand name escapes me at the moment - "I'd rather fight than switch!"
Another vote for ME code 55. The only problem is getting the ME c55 turnouts - they're as rare as an honest politician. The cigarette brand was Tareyton and the pic used in ads was of a person with a black eye holding a cancer stick (not a smoker but my late parents were).
de N2MPU Jack
Proud NRA Life Member and supporter of the 2nd. Amendment
God, guns, and rock and roll!
Modeling the NYC/NYNH&H in HO and CPRail/D&H in N
jackn2mpu wrote: R. T. POTEET wrote:None of the above!!!I have been using Rail Craft/Micro Engineering Code 55 since 1983; in the words of that '70s era cigarette commercial - the brand name escapes me at the moment - "I'd rather fight than switch!"Another vote for ME code 55. The only problem is getting the ME c55 turnouts - they're as rare as an honest politician. The cigarette brand was Tareyton and the pic used in ads was of a person with a black eye holding a cancer stick (not a smoker but my late parents were).
I used all Kato on my layout based on recommendations of the owner of the train store near me. While it was very easy to develop a track plan with it due to it's ease of use, and I definitely wouldn't have come up with my track plan without it, it's use is one thing I regret. I'm not sure what the hype is about Kato track or why many people talk highly of it but I can absolutely say from experience that it's junk. It is extrememly hard to ballast if you want to go for more realism. Their switches are complete junk. I was sold on their so called reliability but they are junk. They are extrememly sensitive to anything getting in them. If you look inside of one to see how they work, you'll wonder how they function at all. It's the most improvised rigged system I've ever seen. As an engineer I can truly say that's the last way to do it that I would have ever thought of.
Trains derail easily on them but there is no consistency with them. i've had to physically modify several of them with a dremel to make them reliable. It's hard to describe why without actually showing it. Now that I've finished them, they work fine.
If you want high detail, you can't add ground throws that do anything. You can create something to be a static display of course. All in all if I had to do it again I'd go with Peco Code 55 but that's just me. I'd also use good old cork roadbead rather than the newer foam stuff you glue down.
Just my opinions.
fredswain wrote:I personally don't like the Woodland Scenics roadbed. I prefer the cork. I had a much harder time making it look nice. That's just me though. I'm sure many people love it.
I used it on my first layout, and it looks rather nice. Besides, I already have a good deal of it. And to shape, you only need a pair of scissors.