Switching to N - couple of questions on midsize steam locos & cars

Taymar Dec 28, 2018

  1. WM183

    WM183 TrainBoard Member

    601
    597
    17
    Peco is bulletproof stuff.
     
    Taymar likes this.
  2. DCESharkman

    DCESharkman TrainBoard Member

    4,396
    3,025
    87
    I can second that! I used it on many NTrak modules and 10 years later it is still working just fine. I do not mind the tie spacing because I watch the train not the track.......
     
    Taymar likes this.
  3. MK

    MK TrainBoard Member

    3,496
    4,798
    82
    I'll have to remember that when there's a heated discussion about tracks! :D :D :D
     
    Last edited: Dec 30, 2018
  4. jdcolombo

    jdcolombo TrainBoard Member

    1,183
    269
    31
    David's right. Unless you like to do close-up photography for publishing in model RR mags, you simply won't notice the difference in tie spacing as long as you don't mix Peco with, say, Atlas Code 55. Once it is painted and ballasted, the tie spacing sort of disappears, because attention is usually focused on the moving objects: the trains. I used Peco for years, then switched to Atlas Code 55 for my current layout. It looks great, but there are many days I wish I had stayed with Peco, primarily in switching areas where I now have to control my turnouts with some kind of motor or cable system (I think ground throws look terrible). With Peco, if you're doing switching, you look down, "flick" the points on the switch, and go about your business. If you WANT to automate the turnouts, that's easy enough to do by removing the holding spring (which often interferes with the operation of something like a Tortoise - although this can be overcome with a stiffer throw wire).

    There are only two downsides to Peco. The first is that because the point rails (and frog) rely on contact between the point and stock rails for power, if the ends of the point rails get dirty, you'll have to clean them. That's not a trivial job if you have 100 turnouts. Second, SOMETIMES (not always), the gauge between the stock rails and "guardrails" (they are actually injection-molded plastic) can be a little wide. If your wheels are gauged a tiny bit wide, this can allow the wheels to slide over too far when negotiating the frog and cause them to pick the point. Ususally, just making sure the wheels are in gauge with an NMRA gauge is enough to cure this; occasionally, gluing an .010 shim against the "guardrail" is called for. Really easy to do this - get some .010 x .060 styrene strip; cut a piece long enough to span the guardrail, put the piece next to the guardrail held in place by the ends of a couple of round toothpicks. Put a couple of drops of liquid plastic cement on the "seam" between the styrene shim and guardrail; wait 15 minutes; paint brown. Done. I got in the habit of checking the stock-rail-to-guardrail clearance with an NMRA gauge on every Peco turnout I installed; 90% were fine, but a few needed a shim. This was 15 years ago, so they may have tightened tolerances on new production.

    Other than that, the track is simply terrific operationally in all ways. And another advantage is that because of the track design (the "buried" code 80 rail), Peco doesn't rely on oversized plastic "spikes" to hold the rail. That's not only the source of it's indestructibility; it also means that older equipment with large flanges (e.g., my Arnold S2's, which are still great running engines) would work fine. Put those engines on Atlas Code 55, and the wheels will bounce on the spikes. Today, this isn't much of a problem since everyone has gone to low-profile flanges, but I had some legacy equipment that I had to retire when I changed from Peco to Atlas.

    John C.
     
    Last edited: Dec 30, 2018
  5. Taymar

    Taymar TrainBoard Member

    121
    17
    7
    Great info, thank you. I do have some older steam locos that may well have the larger flanges.

    Awesome advice guys, much appreciated.
     
  6. ogre427

    ogre427 TrainBoard Member

    258
    201
    17

    Thanks for the tip on how to shim the guard rails. I have some Peco HO curved turnouts on a friend"s layout that need this done to them, but I have been procrastinating on the project because I wasn't sure how best to accomplish the task. I will give your technique a try!
     
  7. Taymar

    Taymar TrainBoard Member

    121
    17
    7
    Are the ties on the Peco code 55 track spaced closer together, or further apart than on the Atlas code 55 please?

    Also, does the extra stiffness from the deeper embedded rails make it tricky to connect flex track curves?

    thanks!
     
  8. WFOJeff

    WFOJeff TrainBoard Member

    583
    260
    17
    I prefer Atlas Code 55 for the visual/realism.

    I think atlas is closer than PECO but I don't own any PECO.

    You can always buy track ties and PCB from online supply sites and then allow a merge together Peco and Atlas.
     
    Taymar likes this.
  9. jdcolombo

    jdcolombo TrainBoard Member

    1,183
    269
    31
    The ties are further apart. Here's a link to a blog post that includes a photo of the major flex track options (Atlas Code 80, Peco, Micro Engineering Code 55 and Atlas Code 55): https://theuniverseas.com/bvmodels/n-scale-flex-track-comparison-guide/

    Peco flex is stiff, not springy (so is Micro Engineering flex). Doing curves isn't tricky, but it does require a bit more planning and technique than springy track (like Atlas). When doing curves, I would "pre-bend" the flex into the approximate curve radius, using my track centerline as either drawn with a pencil or, if using a cork roadbed, via the cork after the cork was laid. Then I'd cut the end rails even (when you form a curve with flex, the ends of the rails will end up different length, since the outside rail has longer to travel than the inside rail). Then I would lay it and smooth out the curve as necessary by pushing on bulges until the curve was smooth when I sighted down the track. Track laying is a whole different topic. Everyone has their favorite method, but I use PL400 construction adhesive. Put a 1/8" bead down on the track centerline, flatten the bead to paper-thin with a putty knife, then put the track down. You have about 5 minutes to adjust the track alignment before the PL400 sets up. And PL400 is sort of "rubbery" - that is, it has some give to it, so that expansion/contraction from temperature/humidity changes won't cause the bond to break. But using stiff flex requires a different overall technique than using springy flex.

    John C.
     
    Doug Gosha and Taymar like this.
  10. jdcolombo

    jdcolombo TrainBoard Member

    1,183
    269
    31
    HO scale turnouts might require a slightly wider shim than N scale. In N, a strip of styrene that is .060 wide perfectly matches the height of the plastic guardrail. Not sure if that would be true in HO. Of course, you could always use .060 and just make sure the top of the shim is even with the top of the guardrail when gluing it. It's the top that matters, since that is what the wheel flange will contact.

    John C.
     
    Doug Gosha and ogre427 like this.
  11. Taymar

    Taymar TrainBoard Member

    121
    17
    7
    Thanks John, that picture was a big help. The few pieces of atlas flex I already had are code 80. Would Peco turnouts and micro-engineering flex be suitably compatible, or would I run into the same difficulties as connecting the turnouts to the Atlas flex? Interesting to learn it's not springy like the Atlas stuff.
     
  12. jdcolombo

    jdcolombo TrainBoard Member

    1,183
    269
    31
    You'd have the same problems connecting Peco turnouts to ME Code 55 flex. Here's my rule of thumb:

    Atlas Code 55 and ME Code 55 - completely interchangeable.
    Atlas Code 80 and Peco Code 80 or Code 55 - completely interchangeable.
    Atlas/ME Code 55 and Peco Code 55 - NOT interchangeable, except with a lot of work that's not worth it in the end.
    Peco Code 55 and Peco Code 80 - completely interchangeable, but don't know why you'd want to. Code 55 looks better and the turnouts are almost all powered frogs, which I think is a necesssity in N scale.

    Personally, I like the looks of the Code 55 rail height. And Peco's Code 55 switches have better tolerances and construction, IMHO, than Peco's Code 80 track line. But . . . If you have some Atlas Code 80, you CAN hook that to Peco (either Peco Code 80 or Peco Code 55) easily. On my very first layout, I used Atlas Code 80 flex with Peco Code 55 and Peco Code 80 switches with no problems. The tie spacing is almost the same. Atlas Code 80 flex is cheap and springy. The only downside is that the VISIBLE rail height profile of the Atlas flex is noticeably bigger than Peco Code 55. Again, you may not care if you're not doing close-up photography for RR magazines. A layout using Atlas Code 80 flex and Peco Code 55 switches would be operationally excellent - and after painting/ballasting the track, you'd forget about the tie spacing.

    John C.
     
    Doug Gosha likes this.
  13. Taymar

    Taymar TrainBoard Member

    121
    17
    7
    Thanks again John, very much appreciated. Think I'll have a go at ballasting a small test section of the Peco and see how it goes. My ballasting skills are not the best unfortunately.
     
    Last edited: Jan 2, 2019
  14. jdcolombo

    jdcolombo TrainBoard Member

    1,183
    269
    31
    FYI. Here's a photo that shows Peco Code 55 track, ballasted and painted, from my old bedroom layout:

    IMG_5094.JPG

    John C.
     
    Doug Gosha and Taymar like this.
  15. jdcolombo

    jdcolombo TrainBoard Member

    1,183
    269
    31
    And here's a shot from my new layout in my basement with Atlas Code 55:
    IMG_3665 (1).jpg

    There's not much question that the Atlas Code 55 looks better in photos. But if you're doing operations or just running trains . . . not sure it matters.

    John C.
     
    Doug Gosha and Taymar like this.
  16. Taymar

    Taymar TrainBoard Member

    121
    17
    7
    Thanks again John. I would like to do some macro photography of the layout, but it won't be for any kind of public submission like a magazine.

    I got my basic oval and two Atlas turnouts today, I do like how it looks but several of my locos and rolling stock wheel flanges catch on the ties. The peco code 55 doesn't suffer from this issue, correct?

    It was great to finally run an n scale loco on something other than a 2 foot straight of test track. I'm blown away by how smoothly these things run vs. my Z scale steam locos. I'm also loving the extra detail afforded in N, especially the side rod linkages and valve gear.

    Massively appreciate all the help and advice I've received here guys, thank you all again.
     
  17. Doug Gosha

    Doug Gosha TrainBoard Member

    3,595
    7,664
    80
    I think it would be great if they would permanently mold creosote smell into the ties, regardless of tie size. If the ties are concrete, a permanent "new concrete" smell.

    :D

    Doug
     
  18. MK

    MK TrainBoard Member

    3,496
    4,798
    82
    I know you're asking John but the answer is yes the Peco Code 55 doesn't suffer from this since the rails are embedded into the ties on the outside. Gives you the Code 80 clearance inside but the looks of Code 55 outside.
     
    Taymar likes this.
  19. Taymar

    Taymar TrainBoard Member

    121
    17
    7
    Awesome, thank you! It seems that Peco looks like the best way to go for my needs.
     
  20. Taymar

    Taymar TrainBoard Member

    121
    17
    7
    I have another track question please guys...

    Trying to get to grips with turnouts and DCC. I've connected the two Atlas #10 turnouts I have together as a rudimentary double slip and tried to run a DC loco (2 truck Shay) through them a few times using 'DC emulation' mode on my Digitrax controller. It wouldn't make it through at low speed, and I did see sparks a couple of times which can't be good.

    From what I can gather from reading online, it sounds like you either have to use an insulated or unpowered frog (more chance of stalling?) or wire up an additional switch that flips the polarity of the electrified frog depending on which way the turnout points are set.

    I'm not sure how a DCC system running in DC emulation mode behaves here, but I'm getting the impression that I shouldn't be bench-testing the turnouts as-is while feeding them from a piece of connected track, and should instead get this additional switch in place.

    Does that sound about right or should these work without any additional wiring? I'm exclusively running steam locos with longer wheelbases (though I suppose the Shay behaves more like a diesel when it comes to power pickup and wheelbase length.)

    thanks again for the help & advice.
     

Share This Page