Hi... after many years of absence, I am returning to the hobby. This time I am going "N" scale.. I understand that Atlas or Micro Train code 55 is the more realistic track.. Any input on the best product selection for both track and switches would be appreciated... Rosco
I've read very good comments about Micro-Engineering tracks but can't tell you more than that they look very good and are very pricey.I haven't seen any myself.However,I've seen Atlas code 55 and they look very realistic.Their down side is that they won't accomodate deep wheel flanges (older locos and rolling stock) but if you plan on using newer equipment only,you'll be fine.It is also possible to replace wheelsets on most cars but locos are a different problem.
My personal choice is Peco code 55 for my layout.These are based on european prototype but if you don't mind the slightly different tie spacing and general looks,then they are a very good choice.Installed properly,they're almost bullet proof and will give years of reliable service.The choice of turnouts is very good (three different curve radiuses,slips,double crossovers,wyes,etc) and these have a spring lock system that hold them firmly in place on either side.You can install them with Peco's turnout motors wich adapt directly to the turnout or use other types like Tortoise slow motion motors.A good thing with them is that Peco code 55 is in fact code 80 buried a little deeper in the ties to look more like C55,but also allows to use almost any older rolling stock without replacing wheelsets.
Rosco, First off welcome to the forums!
I recently started a room-size N-scale layout that will have about 130 feet of visible mainline track (and a lot more hidden). I have only used Atlas Code 80 on previous layouts but chose Atlas Code 55 this time around because it looked so good in everyone's photography. I just laid down some track over the weekend to test some track arrangements, and boy does that Atlas Code 55 look sweet. I took a few pics comparing my Atlas Code 55 with some Peco Code 80 and Atlas Code 80:
I also will be using some Micro Engineering Code 55 flex because it is the only N-scale concrete tie flex with the correct North American tie spacing. Hope the photos above help a little in your decision making process. Jamie
CLICK HERE FOR THE CSX DIXIE LINE BLOG
Atlas 55 is by far the most economical, most available, and best looking system. Replacement wheelsets are cheap enough...
Lee
Route of the Alpha Jets www.wmrywesternlines.net
Thanks for the info... Have a great day.. Rosco
I regret having laid code 80 even after Atlas code 55 was available. I guess I convinced myself that I couldn't lay code 55 well enough or that somehow code 80 would survive train shows and moves better... All rubish.
So, when I take pictures like this:
I cringe when I see that rail and the oversized ties. I've started stockpiling code 55 for a full track re-lay.
Modeling the Rio Grande Southern First District circa 1938-1946 in HOn3.
In N scale there are indeed many choices of track available.
If you are running older equipment (with larger flanges) your selection will be limited a little. Running DCC will cut the field a little more.
Basically it breaks down like this (or so I understand);
Atlas code 80 - the old standby. It's bullet proof, cheap, easy to find, and DCC friendly. It just doesn't look the greatest (tall rail, oversize ties and tie spacing and so forth). If you don't mind the looks, it is OK. Good ballasting work, painting and weathering the rails can help a lot with the looks.
Atlas code 55 - Looks good, pretty easy to find, decent price, DCC friendly. They offer wye turnouts, # 10 turnouts, various crossings, and they recently added rerailers and curved turnouts. Problem is, older equipment has larger flanges on the wheels and they hit the ties on this track. This may not work for you. If you're buying currently available equipment this will be less of an issue for you, except with Micro-Trains cars. You'll have to get low profile wheelsets for those.
Atlas code 65 track - It's one of those that has the roadbed attached to it, so it has those limitations (fixed radii and such). Also, there's no flex track that I know of in that code. It's new enough that there aren't many options available yet, but who knows. Atlas made it because they wanted a track / roadbed combo, and they made it code 65 so they could avoid the flange issue while still being somewhat close to a prototype rail height.
Peco code 80 and code 55 - Great stuff, lots of track choices (curved turnouts, Stub turnouts, slip switches, and all kinds of stuff), solid and reliable. The code 55 is really code 80 track with a double flange on the lower sides of the rail itself and it's just buried in the ties further. It doesn't have any flange issues so you can run older and large flanged equipment without worry. Problems - wide tie spacing (European tie spacing), expensive, tough to find in some areas, and some say it's DCC friendly while others say no. I think proper gauging of the wheels of your loco are quite important with this track, as the spring mechanism on the turnouts can cause shorts if the wrong wheels touch the wrong point rail. The spring in them snaps the points of the turnout closed and holds them to the rails. I've been told one solution is that you must remove the spring and make a new throwbar in order to use DCC with no issues. I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong on any of this. One last thing.....turnouts are expensive, but they have built in switch machines (the springs).
Micro Engineering - Awesome looking track. Problems - turnouts have a spring like the Peco ones so it has those same issues, can be hard to find, very expensive. Great track available in weathered or non-weathered in code 70, 55 & 40. They also offer bridge track or the rails and ties seperately if you want to spike your own. Turnouts are only offered in #6 though.
Kato - easy to use, easy to find. Problems - not much flexibility (no flex tack), expensive. This stuff is DCC friendly.This is another of those that have the roadbed attached, so it has those issues. Also, the tie spacing looks a bit wide to me, but maybe that's just a personal preference. Turnouts have a nice built in switch machine that offsets the price some.
Bachmann EZ Track - about the same as Kato, but has a high track profile and it's not the best constructed stuff in my experience. It's a roadbed attached track.
Model Power - Don't bother with it as it falls out of gauge easily. Great source of headaches if you're looking for one.
Shinohara - Code 70 turnouts and other code 70 products. I have a code 70 3 way turnout and I've seen a code 70 double crossover (works of art!).
Arnold - Not worth the time or money if you ask me. Expensive and not realistic looking.
BK Enterprises - Makes parts for handlaying track and offers some assembled turnouts (curved, stub, wye, and regular) and crossings. Offers a code 70 #12 turnout and code 55 #12 turnouts. Offers code 40 products. I have no experience with this product so I'll refrain from comment.
Life Like - Much the same story as the Bachmann track.
Roco - Extremely limited selection and not very realistic looking IMHO.
That's all I know of. I looked at almost all of these when beginning construction on my new layout, and personally, I chose to use Atlas code 80 for all my hidden track and Atlas code 55 with some Micro Engineering code 55 bridge track thrown in for good measure on the bridges of the layout.
Now since Micro Engineering just came out with a DCC friendly version of their HO stuff a little while ago, N scale might be comming soon.
Check out this link for more info as to DCC issues. The main subject is HO scale, but most of it also applies to N as well.
http://www.wiringfordcc.com/
As to how to control those turnouts.......
If you went with the Atlas code 55 like I did, you could use the Caboose Industries ground throws that are power routing. The frogs on the code 55 turnouts have a lug to wire to on the side of the turnout that makes a live frog setup very easy. I chose to bend the lugs 90 degrees to hide them in the roadbed, then wired them and placed them on the layout. Be careful bending those as they can snap off easily.....don't ask me how I know. As for the ground throws, a friend of mine wrote this article and I'm finding that it does a nice job of making those oversize throws look less intrusive. I was going to go with tortoises originally, till I saw the projected bill, and that was the end of that. Then I looked at the old rod system, but not only did I not like the looks of those on the front of the layout, but they don't hold the point rails closed tightly. That could lead to derailments. I found this slick little setup by Dan Crowley, but it doesn't power route, so I passed on it. The one that I almost went with, and may still for harder to reach turnouts that can be seen on the layout, is the slide switch method. There are several methods of doing this, from the more visible, to the more subtle, like in the top part of this article. The beauty of those is that they look good and they power route. I would mount those in small cutout boxes in the fascia to keep up a nice clean look.
Just my (Sorry, I went long.......)
I'd go with Atlas code 55.
My current layout is in Atlas code 80, mainly because I had a large amount on hand from a previous layout attempt. I also don't think Atlas had their code 55 line out, or had just announced it when I started my current layout.
As pcarrell correctly stated, Atlas code 80 is bulletproof and looks just 'OK'. I also have to sympathize with Dave V regarding seeing it in my pictures too.
I'm in the midst of a layout make-over and have tried to dress up the code 80. Here are my best attempts so far. I think it's better than it looked before, but I'm still not totally satisfied with it:
In my experience with the Pecos and DCC, the problem isn't with the points or the spring, it's with the frog. On the insulfrog, that is the plastic frog version, the diverging rails come very close together, in fact, the inside rail of the diverging route actually crosses the path of the inside rail of the straight route, allowing the wheel of a locomotive on the straight route to briefly contact the wrong rail. Usually it's not enough to cause a dead short, but it does cause a brief interruption and a "buzz".
The fix is pretty easy, just dab a little clear nail polish on the offending point to provide that extra millimeter of insulation.
I believe this becomes more of a problem over time, and using an abrasive track cleaner may be more responsible for the problem than the track itself.
Ultimately, my entire layout will be changed over to c-55 by Atlas, so eventually the problem will go away completely!
Thanks for the insite on that Lee. I knew someone would set me straight!