Hi,
I've been busy planning my next layout that will use ME c83, C70 and c55 where suitable. But when I estimate the amount of track in my helix I get scared, their is also quite a lot in the staging yards. So my question is this. Do you guys use a cheaper alternative on hidden tracks? Like for example using Atlas C83 in the Helix would cost about half as much, same thing with the staging yard.
Another question, how does Atlas C83 match ME C83 track?
Magnus
Magnus,
Someone I know is tearing out a triple-decker layout he worked on for 7 years, in part because he had over 50 turnouts in hidden areas that all started failing at once.
My advice, in that light, is not to go for cheap, but to go for reliable and robust when you're talking hidden track.
In N scale that would mean code 80 Peco or even Unitrack. The reason is that you cannot afford derailments or turnout failures in hidden track, no matter how "accessible" you think it is.
When a kink developed in my tunnel I replaced it with Unitrack. Never had trouble again. And no one sees it.
In HO, code 83 should be fine; just use the best switches you can. Maybe throw in a few re-railer sections here and there too. Tony Koester uses code 100 track in hidden areas. Why not? Nothing's more reliable, right? And if no one sees it, it doesn't matter how toy-like it looks. Heck, if it were more affordable, I would recommend hidden Unitrack in HO too; it's bullet-proof.
Modeling the Rio Grande Southern First District circa 1938-1946 in HOn3.
As someone who has been there, done that, may I add.........
- you might want to use Atlas c100 track in hidden areas. It is a relatively inexpensive quality track, and the bigger rails may help with potential derailments.
- put in some Atlas rerailers wherever you can. Again, they are not all that expensive and could stop a mess from happening.
- if you must have a turnout in a hidden area, make sure that you can get to it - or at least the switch machine - at all costs. Trust me on this one, I learned the hard way.
- all of the above is sound advice but absolutely meaningless if your track is not laid with care and precision and all joints soldered. Oh, and don't forget to throw in some feeders every 6 feet or so!
Mobilman44
ENJOY !
Living in southeast Texas, formerly modeling the "postwar" Santa Fe and Illinois Central
On my previous layout I used Atlas & Shinnohara Code 83 track and turnouts in visable areas and Atlas code 100 track and turnouts (# 6) in staging. I also placed Atlas rerailer sections every 6 feet in the staging yard. Great reliable operation.
My new layout is all atlas code 83. (I buy my flex track in the bulk pack of 100) Atlas track is not as finely detailed as Micro Engineering, but is is very reliable. I am building my layout for operation and enjoyment and not for photography.
Jim, Modeling the Kansas City Southern Lines in HO scale.
I use Atlas code 100 for all my hidden trackage (so far). I also install re-railers at each end of staging yards, and in intermediate locations for other hidden track. My "helix" has 24-inch straight sections every half-turn, so each track has a re-railer every half turn:
Mark P.
Website: http://www.thecbandqinwyoming.comVideos: https://www.youtube.com/user/mabrunton
Hi guys,
Thanks for the words of wisdom.
All turnouts will be hand laid using the Fast tracks jig and will be #8's. They are as reliable as they could be. Their will be a minimum of them in the hidden part and mostly or only at the staging yards which should be easy to reach.
I've used Roco c83 and Atlas c83 in the past and found both to be reliable. They are much cheaper then ME especially the Atlas so in hidden parts maybe I'll use that. I plan to have NO turnouts in the helix where they might cause problems.
The point about rerailers is probably a good investment.
Agree totally with all of the above. My hidden trackage (all of my trackage so far) is laid with Atlas code 100 flex - except for one back-in staging yard which provides a home for some Italian-made code 100 brass flex at the extreme stub ends and another partially laid with raw rail (some of it brass) spiked directly to a pine board without benefit of ties.
I have used all hand-built specialwork in the to-be-hidden areas, but experience has proven to me that my hand-builts are absolutely bulletproof. I have never had a commercial turnout that dependable - and now I never will.
Note to the above. All of that brass rail is located where it will never be under a powered locomotive.
Chuck (modeling Central Japan in September, 1964)
I'm a devotee of Atlas c55 for my visible trackage, but down in the bowells of the layout, good ole Atlas c80 super flex with Peco streamline turnouts are the order of the day. I also added re-railers at the mid point of each track... probably should have put one at each end...
All the turnouts are near the front edge of the layout, so they're easily accessed from the aisle.
Lee
Route of the Alpha Jets www.wmrywesternlines.net
Like the other posters, I recommend atlas code 100 in staging/hidden areas with peco code 100 switches. Mine have been down for several years and have been bullet proof.
I differ with other posters on the necessity of rerailers. I went with the common wisdom and put them in lots of places. They haven't saved me any derailments (in heavy use). Probably because I was very careful with my installation of the hidden track. The reraliers have a big drawback which didn't come to light until they were in place for a while: They are hard to clean with conventional cleaning cars. The outside part of the rerailer is higher than the rail and holds the cleaning cars (I use CMX/draggers) pads off the rails. Nothing like a stalled train where you can't see it or reach it. If I had it to do over, no rerailers.
Guy
see stuff at: the Willoughby Line Site
Larry
Conductor.
Summerset Ry.
"Stay Alert, Don't get hurt Safety First!"
Less expensive maybe, but not cheaper.
Paul
Here is January 2008's "Tunnel Construction" with many useful pics & thoughts...
http://cs.trains.com/forums/1314682/ShowPost.aspx
Conemaugh Road & Traction circa 1956
PMeyer wrote: Less expensive maybe, but not cheaper.Paul
Paul,That was $1.00 cheaper over the Atlas track..A savings of $100.00 in club funds.
So everyone agrees. Use cheaper rails on hidden track. I will go with Atlas c83 there then along with my very reliable hand laid turnouts. Anyone disagreeing?
I will also, and this have always been the plan, use about 36" radius on the helix to maintain good performance. I will never make the track so it's more then say, 12" away, that will keep problems to a minimum when it comes to fixing things.
Do rerailers get in the way of the CMX clean machine, I love min and can not accept going without it.
Thanks everyone for contributing.
Has anyone used the roadbed track in tunnels?
I ask because I have alot of Power-loc track, and I could probably use it in a hidden area in a future layout. Also, I've actually neve had a problem with that track, unlike the track with the railjoiners.
Vincent
Wants: 1. high-quality, sound equipped, SD40-2s, C636s, C30-7s, and F-units in BN. As for ones that don't cost an arm and a leg, that's out of the question....
2. An end to the limited-production and other crap that makes models harder to get and more expensive.
Lillen wrote: So everyone agrees. Use cheaper rails on hidden track. I will go with Atlas c83 there then along with my very reliable hand laid turnouts. Anyone disagreeing? I will also, and this have always been the plan, use about 36" radius on the helix to maintain good performance. I will never make the track so it's more then say, 12" away, that will keep problems to a minimum when it comes to fixing things. Do rerailers get in the way of the CMX clean machine, I love min and can not accept going without it. Thanks everyone for contributing. Magnus
Magnus, I will echo everyone else, code 100 for hidden staging yards. About the CMX and rerailers, no I run two of the CMX cars in a dedicated work train that gets all over the railroad, including staging, and never had any problems. Those suckers are so heavy, it would take a Sherman tank to derail them I suspect.
Bob
Brunton wrote: I use Atlas code 100 for all my hidden trackage (so far). I also install re-railers at each end of staging yards, and in intermediate locations for other hidden track. My "helix" has 24-inch straight sections every half-turn, so each track has a re-railer every half turn:
Brunton, I don't see anything between the track and plywood on your helix. Makes me wonder about possible sound effects. Does this create an annoying sound when train running or is it comforting knowing your train is still moving while out of sight?
Mark
Packer wrote: Has anyone used the roadbed track in tunnels?I ask because I have alot of Power-loc track, and I could probably use it in a hidden area in a future layout. Also, I've actually neve had a problem with that track, unlike the track with the railjoiners.
Some of the MRR mags have pixs in them of Powerlock Track with what I belive is Woodland Scenics on it.
-Morgan
pastorbob wrote: Magnus, I will echo everyone else, code 100 for hidden staging yards. About the CMX and rerailers, no I run two of the CMX cars in a dedicated work train that gets all over the railroad, including staging, and never had any problems. Those suckers are so heavy, it would take a Sherman tank to derail them I suspect.Bob
Bob has pointed out how my post about the CMX might be mis-interpreted. My CMX runs over the re-railers fine, it just doesn't clean them very well because it doesn't make good contact.
The stalled trains I'm referring to are smaller wheel base steam hanging up on the dirty track (reraliers) while navigating hidden trackwork.
Bob are you experiencing this problem? Maybe I need another CMX??
Modeling B&O- Chessie Bob K. www.ssmrc.org
bogp40 wrote:I agree with the rest on the Atlas flex. My only question, since you are using code 70, will using 100 be too much of a transition. I only ask this because I have never jumped 2 sizes of track. Maybe Atlas code 83 to your 70 may be a better choice. Do you guys see any potential problem that Magnus may run into?
Hi Bob,
I decided to use C83 on the mainline and c70 on sidings and in yards possibly. So their shouldn't be to much problems right.
I decided on C83 because a number of people here told me it would be the better option for a B&O mainline. Please don't tell me that is wrong? I'm also a bit concerned that some of my European engines will not accept C70 but they do run fine on C83. Not that I use them much but it is nice to be able to run them.
I believe I've read somewhere that Atlas C83 and C100 is the exact same height when measuring with the ties, is this correct? Because that would make it a no-brainer to go to C100 Atlas track in the Helix and the hidden staging. Most importantly, how does it match ME c83?
I have a spot on my 28-year-old module where code 70 connects end-to-end with Code 100. The Code 70 is soldered to the tops of flattened code 100 rail joiners. The only other concession to the .030" difference in rail height was the tapered shim under the code 70 ties.
I have never had any hiccups at that pair of joints.