I’ve just about completed my first N-scale layout. I actually started it in 2006, but I’ve had two put things on hold a couple of times due to some family problems. It was slow starting up again and also a little discouraging after learning about all the mistakes I made. I almost quit a couple of times. I learned a lot from the mistakes and now that I’m almost done, I want to build a whole new layout. This time around I’m asking for advice before I make any decisions. I don’t want to make a lot of costly mistakes. I haven’t deigned my new layout yet because I haven’t figured out what I’m going to use yet. I need it to be portable. I plan to move out of town when I retire, that is if the economy ever turns around so it must be under 4x8 ft so that it can fit into the back of my full size pickup truck. I currently have two mainlines with 2 crossovers located on opposite sides of the layout, which isn’t too bad except that I can’t see the far one and sometimes it sticks. I decided that this time, I’m going to pay the extra money for a single double crossover. I have 2 reverse loops using 4 standard Atlas turnouts to make the loop. I want to use a single slip instead of two turnouts for each loop. I don’t quite understand the difference between a single and a double slip except that maybe it’s the difference of an electric frog and an insulated frog? I don’t know. Which one is best to use for a reverse loop and what recommendations for switches, switch machines and track would you go with? [FONT="] My main question is what track and turnouts would you use? [/FONT]
I think the answer will depend on the order of importance to you of the following: a) reliability without fine tuning b) minimal time required to get "up and running" c) reusability d) appearance d) flexibility (i.e. how much freedom you desire in curver radii, turnout selection, etc.) e) low cost If a through c are more important than d through e, then Kato UniTrack is your answer. If a through c are less important than d through e, then Atlas code 55 may be your preference. Those are just two examples. Also, you mentioned portability as a priority. Rather than restrict your layout size, you may wish to entertain a modular approach. I could disassemble my entire 9' x 11' layout and transport it in a single small pickup or van if I had to, thanks to a modular approach. Whatever your choice, remember the absolute top priority is to have fun and not worry too much about the rest.
From what you've described, sounds like you need a door sized layout. Perhaps a plan that would couple two doors? Looks like Jack has some very solid ideas on the rest. Boxcab E50
Two doors sounds interesting, I might have to give that some thought. My layout started out as a door size layout. I even made special hinges so that I could actually hang the door when not in use. That quickly changed when I decided that I wanted to be able run two trains at the same time and I wanted to completely turn a train around from any direction. That meant wider than your average door. I don’t know why, but I decided to use a piece of wood that I had laying around which was a big mistake, because it was only 42x60 inches. Anyway I decided to buy the Atlas code 80 N06 set and modified it for the double loop. It works fine but I’m not happy with the Atlas standard remote turnouts. At first, I was only going to run trains and maybe threw in a couple of built-up structures just for fun, but now I’m more into making it look real. I also want reliability and versatility. I squeezed two main lines, two reverse loops, and two spurs into this little 42x60. I don’t have any room to do anything else, like build a small yard. I have one layout so I’m not in a hurry. I’m taking my time and doing it right. My biggest problem now besides the turnouts is the radius of my turns. I want a passenger train and I can’t have one with my little layout. I’ve heard some people like code 55 Atlas and Peco turnouts. I was a little afraid of code 55 because I read about so many compatibility problems. Anyway, this is my layout right now. I still have a lot to do, but I’m working on it. [FONT="][/FONT]
I'm going to try this again. I hope I don't end up with two of the same thing. Two doors sounds interesting, I might have to give that some thought. My layout started out as a door size layout. I even made special hinges so that I could actually hang the door when not in use. That quickly changed when I decided that I wanted to be able run two trains at the same time and I wanted to completely turn a train around from any direction. That meant wider than your average door. I don’t know why, but I decided to use a piece of wood that I had laying around which was a big mistake, because it was only 42x60 inches. Anyway I decided to buy the Atlas code 80 N06 set and modified it for the double loop. It works fine but I’m not happy with the Atlas standard remote turnouts. At first, I was only going to run trains and maybe threw in a couple of built-up structures just for fun, but now I’m more into making it look real. I also want reliability and versatility. I squeezed two main lines, two reverse loops, and two spurs into this little 42x60. I don’t have any room to do anything else, like build a small yard. I have one layout so I’m not in a hurry. I’m taking my time and doing it right. My biggest problem now besides the turnouts is the radius of my turns. I want a passenger train and I can’t have one with my little layout. I’ve heard some people like code 55 Atlas and Peco turnouts. I was a little afraid of code 55 because I read about so many compatibility problems. Anyway, this is my layout right now. I still have a lot to do, but I’m working on it. [FONT="][/FONT]
Well...."with a question" would be Atlas 80. If you have any older US type engines or any european engines (current or otherwise) you would want to use the code 80 due to the larger wheel flanges. The code 55 looks better but the code 80 functions better.
Ok, I'm still learning how to post. I tried twice last night to reply, but my post vanished. I may end up with 3 post that are the same, so forgive me. Two doors sounds interesting, I might have to give that some thought. My layout started out as a door size layout. I even made special hinges so that I could actually hang the door when not in use. That quickly changed when I decided that I wanted to be able run two trains at the same time and I wanted to completely turn a train around from any direction. That meant wider than your average door. I don’t know why, but I decided to use a piece of wood that I had laying around which was a big mistake, because it was only 42x60 inches. Anyway I decided to buy the Atlas code 80 N06 set and modified it for the double loop. It works fine but I’m not happy with the Atlas standard remote turnouts. At first, I was only going to run trains and maybe threw in a couple of built-up structures just for fun, but now I’m more into making it look real. I also want reliability and versatility. I squeezed two main lines, two reverse loops, and two spurs into this little 42x60. I don’t have any room to do anything else, like build a small yard. I have one layout so I’m not in a hurry. I’m taking my time and doing it right. My biggest problem now besides the turnouts is the radius of my turns. I want a passenger train and I can’t have one with my little layout. I’ve heard some people like code 55 Atlas and Peco turnouts. I was a little afraid of code 55 because I read about so many compatibility problems. Anyway, this is my layout right now. I still have a lot to do, but I’m working on it.
Nothing wrong with your posts, it's your current "New Member" status (Less than 10 posts) that is the issue. I have approved all your posts... :thumbs_up: :thumbs_up: :thumbs_up: :thumbs_up:
No contest. ME Code 55 weathered, probably Atlas switches except for the staging area where Rob De Rebel is building me a couple ladders. The ME has no compatibility problem, and is also available in concrete ties (which my prototype uses) and perhaps most important, comes weathered. This last eliminates a lot of pain-in-the-butt fine painting and subsequent cleanup. There are those who say it is difficult to curve; I rather like the fact that once curved it stays put. Perhaps most importantly, it looks fantastic.
Atlas code 80 functions better than code 55 yeah oK! Starting over, well if manufacturers got the wheel flanges at .017 I would use code 40. I may still use it on the engine terminal I going to build. but until then its code 55. Rob
ACK! Stay WAY AWAY from Peco turnouts! They are nothing but a problem! They are very finicky and can be a pain to wire correctly. Also, they are sensitive to dust/dirt and you will find yourself constantly fixing the connectivity across the frog.
Yes....and the current Minitrix, Dapol and european Bachmann trains have large flanges that are not suitable to code 55 track. Mainline stuff is ok, but the turnouts can be a big problem. Also, the large flanges are very sensitive to balast riding on the inside web of the track. I have a large selection (50+) european engines and they are nothing but a problem is run on lower rails. Unitrack seems to work fine, but any of the non-kiddy configuration track will cause problems. I would prefer to use code 55 on my layout, but it is just not practical.
Yes. Very dependable and are generally considered the "industry standard". The Peco turnouts are very picky and can be troublesome to wire. If you have a specific need for them, the non-conducting turnouts can useful....however in normal situations, they simply make for a dead spot on your layout. Atlas switches are generally idiot-proof. (I can see the jokes coming already) Another consideration is the availability of Atlas equipment. It's cheap and you can get it at most hobby shops. You will be hard pressed to find Peco at your local shop.
By starting over I will assume you mean not using your old track. If someone was producing a complete line of C55 track I would go with it. Since nobody is, I’d probably stick with my current combination of Atlas, Peco, Kato, and Shinohara most of which is C80.
