I'm doing some research before starting in on my first layout and could use a better understanding of the track options out there. I understand that most serious, permanent layouts use flextrack. But I'm expecting my layout plan to evolve a lot as I learn, so I think I'd prefer to use sectional track to get started with, though I might do certain tricky parts in flex or replace old sections with flex as my plans crystallize. As far as sectional track goes, there seems to be a lot of variety in manufacturers as well as whether the track has an included roadbed. Any recommendations for a type that's relatively easy to get started with, but will still help me develop good track-laying skills? I'd like to learn how to lay roadbed properly myself, so I'm tending away from the stuff with roadbed included, but at the same time I'd like the track to run at least reasonably well out of the box while I get started on the layout. Is that possible? Are any of the options more or less compatible with flextrack, in case I want to use flex for particular sections? Cost is a relevant, but not overriding consideration. Also, the loco I'm planning on runs on Code 83 track, in case that limits the options at all.
I built 2 1x7' industrial switching layouts using Atlas snap track over the years and had no problems as long as each section was firmly jointed and the joiners pinched close on the rails to prevent the joiners from sliding-I used needle nose pliers.
I don't recommend snap track for large layouts..
Its better to use flex track and snap track where needed in yards and industrial sidings to fill small track size requirements.
Larry
Conductor.
Summerset Ry.
"Stay Alert, Don't get hurt Safety First!"
Can't help you. Haven't used sectional track since when I laid it out on the living room rug in 1962, and I haven't looked back.
Mark
What size are we talking here N, HO, S, O, G?
For HO (assuming from the mention of code 83 but that still could be N) sectional track, without attached roadbed, there aren't all that many options out there. Atlas and Shinohara come to mind. As far as I know Roco is no longer made.
Hard to go wrong with generic Atlas for experimenting with. Lots of references to get ideas from. Cheap by comparison. The Code-83 track library has many more selections than the former code 100 did. Most notably 26" and 24" radius curves.
I have visited a very large N scale layout built entirely using Kato's Uni-Track, which combines the sectional track with built in ballast/roadbed. The builder did a good job of disguising the slight gaps between the roadbed sections (I think Kato sells a matching ballast). His explanation is that he likes to change the layout so often that the sectional track seemed to make more sense than ripping out flex track, and it gave the entire layout a nicely finished appearance.
The only thing that appeared somewhat toy-like to my eyes was the extreme regularity and repetitiveness of the curve radius. Obviously that was a trade off this guy was prepared to live with and the rest of the detailing was nice enough that it was hardly disturbing -- and this was by no means a display layout but a real working model railroad.
There are other makes of such track both in HO and N. I'd explore whatever make offers the most choices for curve radius and turnout #s. It is possible to weather such track (and even add some additional ballast) just to break up the toy-like regularity and monotony so to speak.
Dave Nelson
Dave,A lot of serious N Scale modelers use Kato's Unitrack simply because its bullit proof.Curves comes in several sizes from 8 1/2 to 28 1/4".
You lost me with "The only thing that appeared somewhat toy-like to my eyes was the extreme regularity and repetitiveness of the curve radius." The reason being I seen the same with flex track on smaller layouts..You can make flowing "S" curves with Unitrack as well..
However,most modelers use Untitrack on smaller layouts due to the costs.
The one thing that flex does well that sectional track can't even touch is spiral easements, those gentle transitions from straight (aka tangent) track to curved track.
Since I am an experienced track layer, I tend to look at sectional track as, "Too many rail joints." However, I will concede that it's easier to lay a truly circular curve with sectional track - provided that the track vendor has manufactured sections in the radii that you want to use. Of course, if you start off with one of the many track plans for sectional track, it will be specifically designed for one manufacturer's products - and will not include easements.
Visually, there isn't much to choose between Atlas sectional and Atlas flex. Combining flex with sectional on built-in roadbed is a construction and operating challenge I will thankfully forego.
Chuck (Modeling Central Japan in Septembe, 1964 - with Atlas flex and hand-laid specialwork)
tppytelAny recommendations for a type that's relatively easy to get started with, but will still help me develop good track-laying skills?
Edmunds in Latvia http://www.edmundsworld.net HO Transition Era modular layout being built with Faller Car System, DCCar, German Style Signalling, Computer Control and Automation
I started with sectional track from a starter set, but as soon as I ran a train around it I knew that it was not for me. I did not like the curves as they looked "TOY LIKE" to my eyes. The trains just went from straight track into a curve with no transition. Real track transitions from straight into the curve very gently as does "FLEX TRACK". Needless to say, I ripped up the sectional track and went to the LHS and picked up some roadbed and flex track and several turnouts.
I learned from the kind Ladies & Gentlemen of this forum site on how to split the roadbed, (Gee Whiz, it made laying the curves SOOOO much easier than not splitting it.) how to sand it smooth BEFORE laying track to take out the bumps and dips and many other great tips. It is my considered opinion, that you will not be disappointed AND you will be further ahead if you go with Flex Track right from the start.
If you do have any problems or make a mistake, there is always someone here to help. There will be at least ONE or more of us who have had the same problem or made that mistake along our own path to MRR enlightenment.
Good Luck.
Blue Flamer.
I understand your reasoning for wanting to use sectional as opposed to flex track but I employ you to consider using both to start off with. Weather your planing on using code 83 or code 100 it really doesn't matter. Going with code 83 rail I think the obvious choice is Atlas not for any other reason other then I think your going to find they have the largest selection of sectional track. I know flex track tends to scare some people away at first but once you have learned to use it you'll see that your fears were unfounded.
That being said the first thing is to go get some good books on track laying and techniques etc. The Realistic Relaiable Track publication just put out by MR is geared more towards the seasoned modeler rather then the beginner but it's a wealth of great information from some serious model railroader who really know what they are talking about. Ok first go get yourself some code 83 Atlas flex and practice making some curves on a piece of scrap plywood. Us a trammel to mark you curve with a pen and then put some cork roadbed down with either some silicone adhesive or just a few brad nails to hold it in place
I have recently been using silicon adhesive to secure track and it works very very well but you can use yellow carpenters glue or just plain old track nails and have some fun making curves you expect to use on your layout. The purpose of this exercise is to show you that you really have nothing to fear when using flex track. Don't worry about changing the track plan etc. Tony Koester one of the premier model railroaders in the country if not the world for that matter suggests you have your track down and work all the bugs out of it before you add scenery. etc. This can also apply to securing track permanently to your roadbed. Leave the track nails in till your happy with everything then remove it and glue it down for good. Oh and a little side note you'll find like the rest of us have nothing is permanent on a model railroad things are always getting changed.
The only way your going to develop your track laying skills is by practicing the correct methods of doing it. Plain and simple no short cuts
Good luck with the new pike and have fun
I like to use Atlas sectional track (or any other brand of sectional track from train sets) as a starting point for my small (4x8 or less in HO) layouts. I use full curves for any curved areas of more than 30 degrees curvature. This allows consistent radius curves on the ends of the layout. Flex track is used on any straight sections, and in any area with less than 30 degrees of curvature. Atlas flex and sectional track matches just fine. Cut the rail lengths of flex to fit with rail nippers, and trim up any remaining burrs with a file.
Taking care to get it right while laying track is important for derailment prevention. Use fresh rail joiners. Make sure your roadbed is smooth - sand the roadbed (cork needs sanding to be smooth!) as necessary to remove any ridges and irregularities. I prefer Homasote as the roadbed because I can use track nails until I get around to ballasting, and because it's ideal for replacement of the sectional/flex with handlaid track later. I put my eyeball at rail level and sight along the rails to detect any kinks (horizontal jogs in the rail). I keep adjusting until I can't find any horizontal irregularities. This is where using flex track instead of small "fitter" sectional pieces really pays off - it's almost impossible to get that perfect alignment without flex track. The difficulty in getting perfect alignment is why I don't like track with built-in roadbed. You are stuck with trying to achieve the correct alignment with a bunch of small fitter pieces. The roadbed sanding should have eliminated most vertical problems, as long as track sections are properly joined.
As implied, I now use sectional and flex track to get trains running quickly. I'll only lay enough to get things running for basic operations - an oval, passing siding, and a few spurs. I even use a rerailer and screw terminal section to get off to a quick start. Then when I'm ready, I'll replace this temporary track with detailed handlaid track.
just my thoughts and experiences
Fred W
Thanks for all the suggestions, they're very helpful. And sorry, I should have specified... I'm in the US, planning for HO scale. The basic idea of my layout is a simple oval with a cutoff that leads to industrial spurs (plan #13 from 101 Track Plans, with some modifications). I can see from playing around with this in Xtrkcad that getting everything to fit perfectly with sectional track will be fussy, so I'll probably at least use flextrack for the long stretch of the cutoff. I do see what people are saying about sectional pieces being overly regular, but I think I can live with that for this layout. Perhaps I'll also use flextrack on one of the main curves just to keep it from looking too perfect.
A question on the Atlas line... what exactly is the difference between the various Atlas switches/turnouts? There are the standard numbered turnouts (#4, #6, etc.), but also manual and remote snap switches, which I gather are also considered #4 or close to it. I'm not really clear on the various switching solutions out there. I've got no problem throwing switches manually for starters. But it would be nice to add better switch control later on. What are my options here, and how should they affect my choice of turnouts?
If you're new to the hobby, you're going to find laying out cork roadbed and cutting flex track to fit curves and such to be somewhat frustrating. If you decide you have to use flextrack, there are a couple of companies that make pre-curved roadbed sections that you can lay out first and then add the track to.
However I'd definetely recommend Unitrack. It's code 83 track like Atlas has, however Kato's rail is narrow and from what I can see pretty close to scale or "semi-scale" compared to the broad Atlas and Walthers code 83. Using Kato Unitrack is literally a "snap". It allows you to test out ideas in real space and see how it works...plus it will be easier than flextrack to move to the next layout. Curves come in seven radiuses from 16-7/8" to 31-1/8" for full sections, with shorter sections of 34-1/8" available for use with their no.6 turnouts. The turnouts come with a mechanism attached to operate them manually that is almost unnoticeable, and powered turnouts have the motor hidden in the roadbed unlike the big black box next to the Atlas powered turnouts.
tppytelA question on the Atlas line... what exactly is the difference between the various Atlas switches/turnouts? There are the standard numbered turnouts (#4, #6, etc.), but also manual and remote snap switches, which I gather are also considered #4 or close to it.
I'm not really clear on the various switching solutions out there. I've got no problem throwing switches manually for starters. But it would be nice to add better switch control later on. What are my options here, and how should they affect my choice of turnouts?
Actually, the Atlas Snap Switch is not a numbered frog. It is a 20 degree piece of 18" radius curve set 1.5" in from the end of a 9" straight. The frog is curved and plastic.
Atlas CustomLine turnouts have straight frogs that are numbered. The #4 is 12.5 degrees instead of the 14 degrees of a true #4, making it less sharp. The curved portion of the turnout has a radius of approximately 22" to 24". The #6 turnout has a 9.5 degree frog angle (Atlas rounds it to 10 degrees in their older literature), and the curved section has a radius of approximately 40". These are not substitution radii, but the actual radius of the curved part between the points and frog. Some CustomLine turnouts have metal frogs, some are metal with plastic coating (most #4s), and the older code 100 ones had black plastic frogs.
The simplest Atlas layouts use Snap Track and Snap Switches. Their more complex layout plans use a combination of Snap Track, flex track in some places, and CustomLine turnouts. Not surprisingly, the more flexible geometry of the flex track and CustomLine turnouts tend to permit more realistic track arrangements, parallel track spacing, and more realistic appearance - as compared to Snap Track and Snap Switches, because Atlas track is far from being the most realistic looking track around. That said, Atlas track, especially the code 83 flex and Custom Line turnouts, is a reasonable compromise of cost, appearance, and performance.
my thoughts, your choices
I would like to second Stix's recommendation for Unitrack.
I got back into the hobby a couple of years ago after a 45 year absence and as I only had room for a small layout and not much time to devote to it, I went with Atlas True Track. I intended to ballast but thought it would be a lot simpler to have the roadbed already in place. Anyway I wound up tearing it all up as there were serious electrical problems with the rail joiners and turnouts despite block wiring.
I went to Unitrack and DCC and found the Unitrack to be great. It is very well made.
I also like to experiment to see how something will look and the Unitrack does enable you to do this readily.
I do agree with the others in that for a larger layout, flex would be the way to go.
CN Charlie
My LHS promotes the EZ track over Kato based on their subjective assessment of quality. Haven't purchased either but am considering for one section of double tracked 36-inch curve that has been re-installed 3 times. B B trucks are fine but SD 75s stumble over two joints on the outer track only and derail.
I have filed to level and smooth the joints but I still have a minor kink and height issue. First it is hard to reach now that basic scenery is in place and soldering the rail joiners properly has eluded me in this section.
So,I have considered replacing the flex with the EZ track with the 35-inch radius.
My last layout was all Kato based on others recommendations and it was the single worst thing I've ever done. Keep in mind that mine was n-scale and not HO so my issues may or may not be relevant. I don't know why so many people like it unless they just want to snap it together and play with it on the floor or the table. The turnouts are very poorly designed and finicky at best. I had to modify half of them due to irregularities in construction that led to derailments. Others kept saying that I had wheel gauge issues. If that were true it would have only been an issue with the same cars over and over again yet my problems were with any cars only on certain pieces.
I am shooting for a high level of detail and it takes far more time to ballast Unitrack than it does any other system. I am not satified with just giving it a wash as no matter what you try, unless you ballast over it, it still looks like molded in roadbed. It is possible to make it look nice through ballast but is far too much effort.
It is also very hard to detail the turnouts. Don't even think about Caboose ground throws. While not impossible to integrate, it would definitely not be easy. I also didn't like the limited ability to use just any curve that I wanted. The turnout selection is also quite small as are crossovers. I ended up changing to Peco Code 55 after debating it vs Atlas Code 55. The Peco is the more expensive option but it has worked out very well for me.
I do have a small HO switching layout that uses Atlas Code 83 and it looks and works great. All of my old HO rolling stock works on it just fine too. The flexibility is far greater with their track than with Kato. If you want to just snap something together and aren't concerned with abolute realism and don't need a large selection of turnouts, then the Kato may work just fine. I wanted more than that though.
Understand the scenic considerations. My possible application is a curve in the background so the most it will have is ballast. The scene elements are the focal points.
hi
some remarks and questions. Do I read you well?
You seem not so sure about the trackplan; you must be able to change it later, so it has to be done with snaptrack.
BTW I do not like the trackplan at all, and I am pretty sure you will change it very soon.
Using flextrack, and forgetting about the scenery at first, gives you the oppertunity to change your plan at low costs. You'r in good company; David Barrow is doing the very same. In the mean time you can learn a lot about track-laying. And even learn about using easements and code 83, code 70 and code 55 track.
I asume you understand the differnces between the numbered switches. We apply two different kind of switches.
1) for a diverging route switch the curve extends through the switch, which is nice for going into a curved section of track.
2) crossover switches (the standard numbered); in a crossover the tracks form the dreadful S-curve. To avoid it the tracks curve in the points, but are straight afterwards. So using two of those switches in a crossover creates a long enough straight to avoid derailments.
In the past Roco build truncated switches, the untill the points part only and by buying the proper extension you could have the type of switch you wanted.
My local hobby shop owner told me once he was losing a lot of clients because he was often not able to give a proper advice. Some never returned because using flextrack turned out to be to difficult, others never returned because they didn't like snaptrack, and thought they were not well advised. If you want evrything running in 15 minutes go for snaptrack. My 8 yrs old youngest does it with my old Marklin stuff, it still runs like a breeze.
Why do you want remote controled switches on your pike? Do like the prototype, switches into spurs were operated most of the time by muscle-power. For a learning experience it is a great project however.
keep smiling, have fun Paul
fwright Actually, the Atlas Snap Switch is not a numbered frog. It is a 20 degree piece of 18" radius curve set 1.5" in from the end of a 9" straight. The frog is curved and plastic.
Here is a photo of the curved section of an Atlas Snap Switch. It has straight lines digitally drawn close to the edges. Notice how it is easy to see the bow in the rail. This means the track is curved.
Here is a photo of an Atlas Snap Switch Frog. It has straight lines digitally drawn along the edges of the track. Notice the track is exactly parallel to the lines. This means the track is straight.
All the tight curvature in an Atlas Snap-Switch happens before the frog. The frog itself is straight. This is done with the low resolution mode of the camera. The higher the resolution the easier it is to see. High resolution images are too hard to deal with on the forum.
Texas Zepher fwright Actually, the Atlas Snap Switch is not a numbered frog. It is a 20 degree piece of 18" radius curve set 1.5" in from the end of a 9" straight. The frog is curved and plastic. I have heard this many times. I don't know where it originally came from (I presume from the dimensions of some Bachmann and other toy turnouts), but examination of an actual Atlas snap switch (which anyone can do and see for themselves) proves it is not true. Here is a photo of the curved section of an Atlas Snap Switch. It has straight lines digitally drawn close to the edges. Notice how it is easy to see the bow in the rail. This means the track is curved. Here is a photo of an Atlas Snap Switch Frog. It has straight lines digitally drawn along the edges of the track. Notice the track is exactly parallel to the lines. This means the track is straight. All the tight curvature in an Atlas Snap-Switch happens before the frog. The frog itself is straight. This is done with the low resolution mode of the camera. The higher the resolution the easier it is to see. High resolution images are too hard to deal with on the forum.
I have heard this many times. I don't know where it originally came from (I presume from the dimensions of some Bachmann and other toy turnouts), but examination of an actual Atlas snap switch (which anyone can do and see for themselves) proves it is not true.
The information comes from Atlas's own track planning documents. These state (paraphrased) that the Atlas Snap Switch comes with a 10 degree section of 18" radius, which when added to the curved path of the turnout is the equivalent of a full section of 18" radius. In addition, Atlas states that the curved path of a Snap Switch can be substituted for a piece of 18" radius (when the 10 degree fitter piece is added) and the straight path for a 9" straight. Atlas also mentions the 1.5" inch offset.
Now it could well be (and you photos would suggest) that the Snap Switch is not exactly an 18" radius but a substitute for. If the frog is indeed not curved through the diverging path, the curved portions of the turnout are actually going to be sharper than 18".
Of course, this wouldn't be the 1st time Atlas planning information was a little off. Their #6 turnouts are said to be 10 degree frogs (slightly less than #6) in their planning documentation, but have been measured at 9.5 degrees (actual #6) - which makes sense in light of their 19 degree crossings. Many of the Atlas track plans using Snap Track and Custom Line turnouts have angular mismatches of 2.5 or even 7.5 degrees at joints. The Morgan Valley is a prime example of the latter, which is why the text recommends substituting flex track where the larger mismatches occur.
A final possibility is the design has changed over the year but the substitution geometry is still within a degree or two. And the code 83 version could be different from the code 100, too.
You have piqued my interest; I'll take a look at my code 83 Snap Switch tonight. I specifically bought it to substitute into an 18 " radius curve.
yours in having fun
fwrightTexas ZepherfwrightAtlas Snap Switch ... The frog is curved and plastic.I have heard this many times... proves it is not true.The information comes from Atlas's own track planning documents. These state (paraphrased) that the Atlas Snap Switch comes with a 10 degree section of 18" radius, which when added to the curved path of the turnout is the equivalent of a full section of 18" radius.
Texas ZepherfwrightAtlas Snap Switch ... The frog is curved and plastic.I have heard this many times... proves it is not true.
fwrightAtlas Snap Switch ... The frog is curved and plastic.
Texas ZepherThe Code-83 track library has many more selections than the former code 100 did. Most notably 26" and 24" radius curves.
Texas
Where did you see 26in radius Atlas Sectional Track? Current product listing on the Atlas site stops at 24in.
Alan
Co-owner of the proposed CT River Valley RR (HO scale) http://home.comcast.net/~docinct/CTRiverValleyRR/
Well, I use sectional and flex as needed. Sectional has, in my eyes, three major disadvantages.You're limited to predetermined radii, you end up with a lot of joints, and there is no way to create easements.
Flex track has the advantage of making a proper easement and fewer joints for electrical continuity, as well as setting a curve to fill space as needed, or having buildings where you want them rather than where the track goes. Yes, once you solder up all the joints, they're equal in conductivity, but sectional requires a lot of soldering, and every joint is a potential problem.
Flex is more work if you use it for all spurs and siding, and it always seems that my leftover cuts are the wrong length for what I'm currently doing. I have a small box of "flex-sectional" track. I guess I should build a shelf time-saver with all the pieces.
On my layouts, I use as much flex as possible, resorting to sectional for spurs, sidings and bridges. I use code 55 and use Atlas and Peco almost exclusively. All dual gage is hand made. ( N and Nn3 scale)
Keep in mind, if you use flextrack, that at virtually every joining of two pieces you're going to have to trim and file at least one rail to length. It's not that easy. Yes you get better with practice but laying out cork roadbed and laying flextrack isn't well suited for someone who may change their layout a few times before coming up with the final plan. I know on my layout I've enjoyed being able to make changes and try different ideas using the Unitrack.
I've used Bachmann EZ-track and it's pretty good, I particularly like the variety of pieces (No. 4-5-6 turnouts, up to 36" radius curves) and the 36" straight tracks. Note that unlike Kato and Atlas, EZ track is designed to have ballast added after installation, the roadbed isn't mean to simulate ballast.
EZ-track is code 100, Atlas and Kato are code 83. In HO Kato Unitrack rails have a very narrow profile that are to my eye pretty close to scale, at least closer than the fairly wide Atlas code 83.
I "paint" the sides of the rails with Neo-Lube so they're a dark gray, then paint some of the individual ties with different shades of brown and gray, leaving some black. I find it looks good even before adding ballast to the sides or a final layer of weathering.