Wanting to upgrade my track incrementally

Mark Truelove Aug 2, 2021

  1. Mark Truelove

    Mark Truelove TrainBoard Member

    72
    53
    5
    I set up a couple small layouts (loops, Inglenook switcher) to work on my track laying and other techniques to try to get these to be flawless runners before I committed to building anything larger. I'm thinking now about making a timesaver and wanted to upgrade my switches (Atlas standard code 80 #4s were the most readily available when I started) to get away from those plastic frogs. However now that I'm aware of a number of other brands, it's not obvious to me that there's anything that's compatible with my existing track.

    Do I need to buy everything in one of these new codes once I settle on a preferred mfr or is there an improved switch out there somewhere that remains compatible with good old atlas code 80 track?
     
  2. John Moore

    John Moore TrainBoard Supporter

    13,396
    12,182
    183
    Kato makes a transition section that hooks to unitrack and then to the Atlas. So it is possible to do a unitrack turnout with an adapter at each end of track to Atlas so unitrack turnouts are an option. It is also good for using unitrack and using the Atlas turnouts or other brands. That part is Kato 20045
     
    Last edited: Aug 2, 2021
  3. freddy_fo

    freddy_fo TrainBoard Member

    1,091
    4,329
    47
    The fleischmann 9178 and 9179 turnouts are really close to the #4s from atlas although I don't have those particular atlas turnouts to direct compare. The Fleischmann turnouts track flawlessly and the powered switching frog was a must for my smaller 2 axle locomotives. The rail is the same height between both brands (code 80) and you can even use the same connectors be it the fleischmann or atlas. The one difference is the fleischmann rail profile is a true I so it is a little thicker on top compared the atlas code 80 which does not flare at the top of the rail. The gauge difference as a result is only a few thousands of an inch but well within the margin of error than any n scale loco/rolling stock can handle. I run code 55 wheelsets over them all the time and never a problem with derailing as long as the points are set correctly.
     
  4. Mark Truelove

    Mark Truelove TrainBoard Member

    72
    53
    5
    That is interesting and I keep looking at unitrack as a different approach, but I don't think I'd combine the two. I thought some of the other manufacturers like ME would intermix with Atlas and pretty much look the same - still discovering!
     
  5. Mark Truelove

    Mark Truelove TrainBoard Member

    72
    53
    5
    Wow I've never even come across Fleischmann before, there is so much informatino here I'm glad I asked, thanks.
     
  6. MRLdave

    MRLdave TrainBoard Member

    1,260
    1,149
    40
    ME should be compatible with Atlas, but I don't think they do a #4 turnout. Peco is also compatible, although their tie spacing is different, and they don't size their turnouts by number. Kato is compatible, you just need to compensate for the molded in roadbed and pull off the Kato rail joiners.......they also have flex track now that should be compatible.
     
  7. CSX Robert

    CSX Robert TrainBoard Member

    1,502
    638
    41
    If you stick with code 80, you can mix pretty much any brand of track - I've used Atlas, Bachmann, Peco, Kato Unitrack, and Tomix FineTrack together with no issues. When you start mixing codes, it gets a little more difficult, but still doable (although Peco code 55 is really double webbed code 80 partly embedded in the ties, which makes it easy to mix with other code 80).

    I think Atlas and Unitrack look fine together. The tie spacing is a little off, but it's close enough that I don't notice. The Kato #4 turnout is virtually a drop-in replacement for the Atlas #4, though sometimes they need a little tuning for reliable operation. Also, there is no need for the adapter piece, you can join Atlas directly to Unitrack.
     
  8. freddy_fo

    freddy_fo TrainBoard Member

    1,091
    4,329
    47
    I'm a big fan of their stuff. Their profi turnouts/points (if you want powered frogs) are the best performing out of the box compared to atlas and kato and have a nice variety of turnouts, double slips etc. I can run my largest locos like big boys and Baldwin centipedes down to my 2 axle locos without any issues. Most of the turnouts use a 430mm/17" radius for the turn portion. The exceptions being their curved turnouts (9168,9169) which are made to go with their tighter radius track pieces.

    The Fleischmann profi line is all pre-ballasted like kato unitrack but only to the edge of the ties and they lay at the same height as unballasted atlas code 80 flex track. They also sell a ballast product (9479) that is an exact color match for their track so you can extend that out if needs be.

    [​IMG]

    Ties are slightly further spaced than atlas but barely noticeable IMO. They do sell pre-ballasted flex track too but the ballasting can be removed by peeling it away if one ismotivated to go that route (all their other profi track pieces are pretty much stuck with the ballasting they come with). For the price though I'd be inclined to just use atlas flex track unless I didn't want to fuss with the ballasting portion. The other thing I really like is they don't have those funky tie arrangements at the ends of their track pieces to make room for connectors. This gives a nice continuous look between the joined pieces of track. Downside is they are more expensive but there are several different places to get them here in North America so usually anything you need can be had just as easily with a quick internet search.
     
  9. Mark Truelove

    Mark Truelove TrainBoard Member

    72
    53
    5
    That's really what brought me here, investigating just who does make code 80, compatible track. The rest (ties, ballast) is not really meaningful to me at this point, I'm just trying to remain compatible and maybe upgrade to powered frogs.

    For example, ME only makes code 70, 55 and 40 track, at least as far as I can find. I'm assuming that if I can find code 80 track in N scale, which is an NMRA standard, then it should fit together well enough from any manufacturer.
     
    tonkphilip likes this.
  10. Mark Truelove

    Mark Truelove TrainBoard Member

    72
    53
    5
    I just saw this on a Model Railroad Hobby forum, if it's true then joining the rails without stepped edges may be no problem:

    "I used Peco Code 55 (which is actually code 80 with the bottom of the web buried in the ties so only .055" is exposed)."

    Does anyone have any experience with this?
     
    tonkphilip likes this.
  11. CSX Robert

    CSX Robert TrainBoard Member

    1,502
    638
    41
    Yes, I mentioned this above. While I don't have any personal experience with it, I've seen plenty of pictures where others have. Peco code 55 is actually code 80 rail with a double flange on the bottom. The bottom flange is buried in the ties and the top flange is on top of the ties to represent code 55 rail. It joins right up to code 80 track because it really is code 80. Another neat thing about it is it also easily joins up to other brands of code 55 track. At the end of the rail simply file off the bottom flange and the rail up to the bottom of the second flange(you only have to file off enough length to get the rail joiner on) and you have code 55 rail that will join right up to other brands of code 55. In fact, some people will use Peco code 55 to simplify the transition from code 80 to other brands of code 55.
     
    tonkphilip and Shortround like this.
  12. CSX Robert

    CSX Robert TrainBoard Member

    1,502
    638
    41
    Oops, duplicate post.
     
  13. Mark Truelove

    Mark Truelove TrainBoard Member

    72
    53
    5
    Ah sorry I missed what you were saying earlier. That's really helpful!
     
    tonkphilip likes this.
  14. Inkaneer

    Inkaneer TrainBoard Member

    4,325
    1,424
    77
    My $0.25 worth here, (It used to be $0.02 but inflation affects everything except my wallet). Anyway, my recommendation is to use Peco C55 flex track together with Peco C55 switches (turnouts). Do not use the Peco C80 turnouts as they are manufactured to NEMA standards and not NMRA. The C80 switches are an older design and are quite sloppy in the clearances especially in the frog and guardrail areas. In addition, all of the C55 switches have a metal frog whereas the C80 can have a plastic frog (Insulfrog) or a metal frog (Electrofrog).
     
    tonkphilip likes this.
  15. Mark Truelove

    Mark Truelove TrainBoard Member

    72
    53
    5
    I just bought a couple (2) Medium C80 Insulfrog switches to try on my Inglenook, for a couple reasons. People were giving me different answers as to whether they are similar to #6 or some other geometry else, and I just needed to get them in my hands to judge for myself.

    They are a nice quality step up from the base Atlas pieces (setrack, as it were) that I've been using. Their dimensions are just about identical to Atlas #4, although the turnout angle is slightly less, which may be where the #6 analogy comes in, however they're nowhere as long. e.g. If I were building a siding ladder the tracks would be a bit closer together than with Atlas #4.

    If you're saying the C55 are even better the I can't wait. I've been assured that the double-flanged track will connect with C80 without a hitch.

    Unfortunately the in-stock options have been a bit spotty lately, waiting on Peco deliveries, so I went with what I could find locally for now.
     
    tonkphilip likes this.
  16. Inkaneer

    Inkaneer TrainBoard Member

    4,325
    1,424
    77

    See my post (No. 14) above regarding the C80 switches. There are a lot of them for sale on Ebay. There is a reason for that and it is not good. My favorite hobby store has them in stock. Forum rules prevents me from disclosing their name but they are well known in the hobby and located out East near Baltimore. They are a full line hobby store and carry all kinds of woo woo woo.
     
  17. porkypine52

    porkypine52 TrainBoard Member

    1,131
    301
    35
    Mixing all different grands of trackwork can work for some people. I'll pass. I'm using ATLAS code 55 and MICRO-ENGINEERING code 55 on the main and in yards. Just got my hands on some ME code 40. May be tried on some sidings up front for visual effect as lighter siding rail. Jury is still out on this one NOW. Will standardize on all visible trackwork, and not skip around on brands. On NON-VISABLE, helix, storage yards and long tunnels, why use expensive, can be hard to locate, but looks GOOD, track work, when old fashion code 80 works just fine? And I still have PLENTY. Why use the fancy/detailed track where it can't be seen? When you are designing and laying trackwork, do the BEST you from the beginning, go on to other matters and have your Railroad run right, from the git-go. Not have to make excuses for the trackwork. NO #4's--#5's--or #6's turnouts on the INDIANA RAILWAY. #7's in yards and sidings and #10's out on the Main. If you are going to run BIG STEAM and big diesels make allowance for them. And now I have discovered HAND LAID track work. Just when you think you have the answers..........LOL LOL
     
  18. tonkphilip

    tonkphilip TrainBoard Member

    244
    306
    18
    Mixing track types: I have used Peco-Code55 and ME-Code55 for 30+ years. Peco-Code55 is arguably the most robust track available because the bottom part of the rail is buried in the ties and onlythe 55/thousandths of the rail is visible. I file the bottom flange off the PecoC55 when I need to join to MeC55. It should be much easier to join to Atlas Code80 as the rails will be similar heights, probably by using Peco rail joiners and a quick swipe of a file to even the rail joint. I minimize these transition joints between track types by keeping different track areas to either ME55 or PecoC55. PecoC55 will also work with all wheel types including the older deep flange, Pizza cutter wheels. PecoC55 is very easy to use and the turnouts are high quality and very reliable. MEC55 is also good track and has a very prototypical appearance but takes more skill to install. The availability of track types varies from time to time, so you may be constrained by what is actually available. Generally, KatoC80 and AtlasC80 are the most available. - Tonkphilip
     
  19. Inkaneer

    Inkaneer TrainBoard Member

    4,325
    1,424
    77
    There is a lot to be said for consistency here. That seems to b e problematic in this hobby as sources of supply are not always dependable. But consistency is something that should be the goal. I opted for Peco C55 track and switches and while the tie spacing is not in accord with US prototype it is not noticeable. But add in another track brand and now the noticeability factor increases.
     
    Shortround likes this.
  20. tonkphilip

    tonkphilip TrainBoard Member

    244
    306
    18
    - I agree with Inkaneer on consistency. If you can buy what you need all with one brand, it will look better and operate more reliably. - Tonkphilip
     
    Shortround and mtntrainman like this.

Share This Page