All, I know N scale track is a hot topic, given that we have many choices, but none without some issue. I went with Atlas/Peco Code 80 on my current layout because I had still considered using older equipment and because I wanted it to be robust (I transport my layout to shows and when the USAF re-assigns me). But the appearance is starting to get to me as I take more and more close-up photos. Anyone out there in the "Code 80 but feeling like a Code 55 wannabe" group? I think I want to go Code 55 for the next layout. In fact, if I do end up incorporating my current layout into a bigger one someday, I'll consider ripping out the Code 80 and going 55. On Peco Code 55, I know that the lower web of the rail hangs well below the top of the ties. At flextrack joints, how do you put replacement ties in? In Code 80 I always slide in a few extra ties with the spike detail trimmed off.. That doesn't seem possible in Peco 55. I notice the Peco Code 55 turnouts have spare ties with trenches cut into them for the rail... Are these available seperately? Atlas Code 55 looks the best (along with ME Code 55 which seems to have availability issues). Yet I always her some folks having trouble with the turnouts. What's the real scoop? Frogs too tight? DCC-ready or gaps? If I were building a layout on a hollow-core door with 2" foam base, what's the best way to control the Atlas turnouts (hand or electrical, just something unobtrusive)? Thanks in advance. I know there are a lot of questions here, but as I peer over my version of Central Pennsylvania, the rail height is irking me a bit.
Pennsylvania did use some of the biggest rail. I understand what you are saying. I think with the progression of digital cameras and the ability to take a photo and make an N scale model look as big as the real thing, things like track become a bigger issue. I have been using both ME and Atlas C55, and while I have some ME switches, I am using the Atlas switches. I am not DCC and have not had any problems with the Atlas C55 switches. (I haven't had any problems with the ME C55's either, but you can only get #5's. Thats why I am going with the Atlas switches. Bigger selection.)
Hi OC Engineer, I'm using ME code 55 track, but ME doesn't make switches at the time. Are Atlas switches compatible with ME track?
Dave, Satisfy that desire to use Code 55 by making a small diorama-like test layout. A short loop and a siding or two should give you a good enough feel for how the track lays out and operates. A small test layout will be easy to transport or tear up to make changes or enlarge. Best of all worlds! Good luck and don't forget to post pictures! Darrell, quiet...for now
Regarding Peco ties at flextrack joints...Peco sells their own ties for this as a separate item. The ties have a slot to fit around the rail underneath. I have found Peco code 55 to be excellent track. The drawbacks are price and European tie spacing. If I were building a new layout right now, I'd probably use ME and Atlas code 55, with Atlas turnouts, in visible areas. Possibly peco or code 80 in hidden or staging. Remember, you do not have to use the same track on the whole layout.
Here's something to consider. ME makes really great code 70 track. This could replace your existing code 80, and you could continue to use the code 80 turnouts. Going to the ME turnouts would create aggravations I'm not sure you would want.
Is any one using the ME with the concrete ties. I know that the concrete ties are becoming seen more on the main lines like the joint line?
This topic seems to have cooled off in the past five years, as users gained experience with all the different options. As I've photographed my layout over the past six months, I've found even Atlas C55 looks a little big. But I'm not going to C40! I've had no problem with Atlas C55 switches, and just wish that the bigger numbers were available a few years earlier. I've long suggested that people buy a few pieces of the track they are considering, and spend a weekend building a test layout on a 2 x 4 sheet of plywood. Nothing elaborate--just something to help you get a feel for each option. I had only a small fleet of big-flanged locos, and, by my car fleet today, only a relatively small number of cars with MT pizza cutters. At first I was disappointed about the flange problems with Atlas C55--now it's a distant memory, just like my old Mac G3!
Hmmm...it's beginning to look like my idea of building a simple testbed/skill-practice layout isn't as absurd as I first thought. I initially liked the idea, then wrote it off due to "why expend the money and effort working on something other than what I really intends to build". I've got an "on the dining room table" twice around with a spur, that has a sampling of each Unitrack radii from 11" to 28.25", a crossing, and of course a turnout. Now I'm back to thinking I should put some foam under it, start practicing my stream, hill, and road techniques...add a bit of a learning experience grade...and the transition from Unitrack to Pico 55 that I'm planning on eventually using.
Thanks for the responses so far. I'm probably going to mess around a little with some Atlas Code 55 before I make any decisions. The fact that my current track is working quite well and stands up to shows (and my toddlers) is an important consideration. But I'm thinking if I'm leaning toward Atlas Code 55 for the next layout I can start replacing wheelsets now (that's easy) and keep my eye out for some good track deals out there. The legacy equipment issue is pretty minimal. I have a GG1 (which can't run under its own power on the Middle Division anyway, without catenary!!!) and a few Minitrix bits. The Minitrix engines (K4, I1, etc.) are going to become organ donors for kitbashes anyway. It's always nice to know from the users how these products work and how well satisfied people are with their choices.
