Hello all.... I've been inexorably, slowly moving toward laying track on the HCD layout detailed in this thread... http://www.trainboard.com/grapevine/group.php?discussionid=1255&pp=10&do=discuss I've been working on all types of things that are actually going to be part of the layout, but I've hesitated actually putting 'down' and wiring track for a couple of reasons... !) I've decided to add a couple of inches to the 'other' side of the door (the side that will be more difficult to see when the layout is in it's normal 'resting' position in the room) This will allow me to do a number of things... add a team or 'set out' track off of the mainline w/o 'crowding' things... i'll be able to wrap a fascia around three sides-with curves at the two forefront corners...this will really let the layout look like a peninsula when I'm able to add a 'wing' on either side-for staging, and perhaps, a reverse loop situation, allowing trains to exit/enter and change directions It will also assist when adding the final legs (the layout is up on temprary legs)...allowing them to be removable w/o unsightly mounting hardware visible 2) after considerable thought, I've decided to keep this little layout as DC (for now)...I'll wire it so that it can be easily converted to DCC (by just changing power...) Although I really had intended to incorporate DCC (a first for me) into this...I've realized I don't really need it for a layout this small...really, only one train can be run on one 'loop' at a time I can provide seperate blocks for both of the loops, the team/set out track, and provide for blocks for the two division/ interchange tracks at the two junctions... The simple signalling I want to install can be powered by a function of the turnout motors, so the only thing that I believe I'll be losing is possibilty of 'sound' in the form of 'surroundtraxx' that I intended to install on this one (I'm just not a fan of 'on board' sound in N scale 3) I'm still not completely convinced that the Atlas code 55 track is the right way to go (even after accumulating the track and turnouts...) I keep returning to the possibility of Peco code 55....yes, I know that the tie placement isn't nearly as nice as the Atlas US prototype...both in tangent track and switches... Is it possible to hear from those of you who DO run on Atlas code 55...your experiences with it? Kinks? maintenance? tracking problems? sincerely, Bruce
Bruce, Track is like religion, politics Ford and Chevy. There is no right or wrong selection. The right selection is what is right for you. In the past I have used all sorts of track, from sectional code 80 to Micro Engineering Code 40. They can all work very well. There are also many different types of model railroads. I know guys who only lay track, set up a couple structures and run ops, never caring about how the track looks or scenery, just how reliable it is for moving and cutting cars all session long. There are others that paint the details on the ties, ballast and scenic to museum quality standards. Look at Jerry DeBene's "ATSF Line Started" or Jim Reising's "The New Oakville Sub" threads here and you get the other side of modelling. The point is that it is not the type of track that makes these layouts, it is the guys behind the layouts making them great. Right now, I am in the ME camp for track because I am using Fast Tracks to build the turnouts I want for my layout. The decision was made not for the track, but for the ability to have #12 turnouts for my high speed crossovers. As I said you choose the solution that works for what you need.
When I first started in the hobby 25 years ago, I used Atlas Code 80 with Peco Code 80 switches. Honestly, everything worked well, and once ballasted and painted, the track looked OK. Then I migrated to all Peco Code 55 when I built a new layout in a spare bedroom. Again, after ballasting and painting, I thought the track looked fine, and I still like the fact that you can operate Peco switches by hand without any external switch linkage. But over time, particularly as I began to take photos of my layout, the tie spacing on Peco's track began to bother me. So for my new basement layout, I went to all Atlas Code 55. Unless you have older locomotives or MT rolling stock with large-flange wheels, Atlas Code 55 ought to work just fine. I've laid over 100 turnouts and about 300 pieces of flex; a few of the turnouts needed some minor work for trains to run smoothly, but 95% of them have worked perfectly out of the packaging. The track itself is more delicate than Peco, but the tie spacing is prototype, and since this is probably my last permanent layout, the more delicate nature of the Atlas track isn't an issue for me. The downside is that those 100 turnouts also needed 100 Tortoise switch machines (yes, I could have used something else, but the Tortoise is an elegant all-in-one solution for throwing the points and powering the frog). If you'd like to see some photos of the track on my basement layout, go here: https://picasaweb.google.com/jdcolombo/NewNKPConstruction If I had the inclination to build my own turnouts, probably the absolute ultimate in track would be MicroEngineering Code 55 flex track with Fast-Tracks hand-built turnouts using ME rail. I just didn't want to hand-build my turnouts, and sometimes ME Code55 flex can be hard to get. I really don't think you'll have any regrets with Atlas or Peco - it really comes down to personal preference. John C.
I appreciate the replies... if you view the link to the layout's progress and all the extras, including the mini-mesa build...I think you'll better understand that I want complete accuracy...i don't tend to settle for 'just ok'...or 'it looks good 'enough''... The Atlas, the little stretch I ballasted and weathered for the mini-mesa diorama, looks GREAT...it was MUCH more delicate than the Peco and Atlas code 80 i had worked with in the past...and that raised this concern... I'm soliciting experiences like yours...what kind of issues are you having SINCE laying the track?... All my equipment is equipped to run on the Atlas code 55, that's not a concern... I'm evaluating the sturdiness and longevity of running and maintaining the track... Thanks, Bruce
Hey Bruce - if you are looking for something that is 'strong' - i.e. can take rough handling, low maintenance and easy to work with, and if you have any need to join two sections without taking much hassle of 'perfectly' aligning benchwork - you can go for Atlas code 80. If you are looking for authentic looks (accurate down to 1:160 ratio) then go for Atlas Code 55. If you want code 80 durability in code 55 looks (with little more tie thickness) - go for Peco code 55, provided you are not much bothered about the differences in American and British prototype look. If you decide to go for Peco, you will also have an option of modelling 'heavy rail' and 'light rail' with peco code 80 and code 55 respectively, without much hassle of track width transition between two heights - they are designed to 'snap' with each other. For absolute accuracy of looks for American prototype, I would vote for Atlas code 55, more so because they now have some very interesting sectional pieces including long, curved turnouts, wyes etc. But if you want more exciting, ready made sectional tracks like 3 way turnouts, double slip cross overs, etc. then again you need to look at Peco (both code 55 and 80 - they have options). Another consideration might be the type of turnout control you want to use. For slow-mo tortoise, Atlas Code 55 is ideal, Code 80 is OK, whereas Peco is absolutely not suitable, because peco turnouts are spring driven. For solenoid machines, the spring loaded peco turnouts give more reliability, especially for electro-frogs. code 55 - both atlas and peco might give you some trouble in adjusting the wire of your knuckle couplers, especially if you install one on your own. Half a mm below the level it should be, it might get stuck between ties. Not sure if the above note is too long or is confusing - but this is what my considerations would be before zeroing in on the 'code of choice'. hope it helps...
Zero issues since laying the track, except for a couple of kinks that developed as a result of laying the track in summer and not leaving enough gaps to account for contraction in winter (basement dries out; wood contracts, track ends move closer together; if not enough gap space, kink develops). Turnouts operate flawlessly; track itself is fine (haven't ballasted it yet, though). John C.
The sturdiest and most reliable code 55 track is Micro Engineering. It will work fine with the Atlas code 55 turnouts and is USA prototypical ties.
David.... I had not realized the the ME code 55 is compatible with the Atlas turnouts/switches.... I appreciate all your comments...I'm glad to hear positive experiences with the Atlas code 55.... There's no doubt that it's the best 'looking' track...this is a section of flex that I used for my little photo 'prop'...but my experience with this little section gave me a little concern about it's structural 'integrity'...I noticed, because it IS a 'finer' code, that careful, careful attention needs to be paid to super smooth and level subroadbed before gluing the track...this section revealed EVERY fault... hence my concern... Thanks again, Bruce
I used Atlas code 55 on my layout and was surprised by how much more painstaking I needed to be with the subroadbed (WS foam). The track easily distorts vertically and I've had to redo several sections of track where I was too aggressive in my gluing down/pinning of the foam. I suspect this would be a non-issue with cork. I also had about a 25% fail rate on Atlas turnouts (mostly #5's but a few #7s). This was the most disappointing aspect of all. The new runs of turnouts seem to be fine however. I also had no idea at the time that I'd need to replace the wheelsets on most of my rolling stock to low profile sets. I went with Atlas metal lo pro wheels as a result. However, my track stays remarkably clean, so maybe I would have gone the replacement route regardless. Of course I joined Trainboard AFTER my steep learning curve All things considered I really like how the track looks and all my NTrak buddies comment on it when they come to visit. Despite the aggravation it's the most realistic option out there IMHO. Bob
Atlas Code 55 I have used most all track with the exception of KATO and Atlas code 65 and for my latest layout i chose Atlas Code 55. I have had it in use since 2005 and have had no issues, did have a couple of the first generation #5 turn outs that needed a little work on the frogs, but was very minor and all is still working great :thumbs_up:
Bob.. i had the SAME problem with cork!...lol... there was a small section on this prop that required me having to weigh 'down' the track while soaking ballast (the track was starting to 'un-glue' from the cork)... after everything dried rigid, I noticed a 'massive' dip in one rail along a 2 inch section here...! Since this is a photo diorama, I'm not worried about it here...but, because of this, I really was concerned about it standing up to the ballasting process...with the level of soaking it's going to recieve...because there's no easy way to 'spike' it to the roadbed, I plan to glue it...I just may have to use a different type of glue to adhere it to the cork...something that's not water soluable... thanks, Bruce
It sounds like you may have done this to some extent already, but my advice would be to find a retailer who carries all of the options and buy one piece of each. By seeing them in person you may determine the tie spacing of Peco is a no go or that you prefer the springiness of Atlas C55 to the rigidity of ME C55. A loop of Unitrack could always be handy for test running locos or for running a temp layout while you construct your main one. Seeing trains run is always a great motivator during frustrating construction times. My personal opinions probably jumped out in the paragraph above that I dislike Peco's tie spacing and that I prefer Atlas over ME. ME track looks fantastic, but in my experience I could never get straight track to be straight or curves to be smooth. Obviously others here have had great success so I have no doubt the real problem lies with me But Atlas works and looks just fine to me. If your layout has a lot of turnouts I'd strongly consider the Fast Tracks system. My current switching layout only has 5 turnouts so I just with Atlas #7s. However if I needed maybe twice as many I would have tried making them myself. But back to my main point - if you lack hobby shops or train shows locally to find all or most brands in person, try to find an online shop that has them all because they will charge you a special shipping fee for the 3' sections. But I'd guess for $25 you could get a section of each shipped to you.
DaveWonders, Yes, I'm definitely familiar with the look of all the track available....I've just never seen the Atlas code 55 up close and personal until aquiring it... laying and ballasting it on the mini-mesa threw me for a loop when I saw the variances in track level... I'm glad to hear that folks who are using it are not having any REAL issues.... I hear ya' on the Unitrack!...lol. I used Kato track to work out the trackplan I ended up using...it was necessary for me to see a train (especially with long passenger equipment) navigate the curves before I commited to the plan...Isimply constructed the plan with Unitrack right onto the foam...added a couple of inches in radius, then drew easements into the plan...the two 180 degree curves are superelevated.... Here are some pics of the basic layout and table....you can see the portable mini-mesa that I constructed as a learning tool for carving the large central one that will ultimately fill and dominate the layout... I can take this little trial piece outside to use for photo purposes.... and, of course, the Unitrack is set up inside the cork roadbed to test and run equipment as I finish it... I'm about to add a small extension to the other side of the layout... Another thing I'd like to do BEFORE I lay track is to cut and apply the fascia.. does anyone here have recommendations on material for this? Bruce
Nimo mentions a lot of the discrepancy in his note. PECO is made in UK and the sleepers (as we call them) are to UK spacing. While the company exports world wide, their main market has always seemed to me to be for use with UK outline stock. In OO/HO, they make a code 83 which is advertised as being nearer to the US spacing, but I don't know of - have never seen advertised - an equivalent in N. So, in N, you're stuck with Peco code 80 or 55 where the spacing is wrong for US outline, or another brand of yor choice which is more accurate. Regards, Pete Davies
I have had 0 problems after laying Atlas Code 55. As with any track, it needs to be laid perfectly to avoid derailments, etc. later on. Be very careful when you ballast to make sure there are no ambient pieces of walnut or rock adhering to any ties or the inside of the rail. As to vertical bumps and such, sand down the cork, run your finger or a straight edge over it and then remove what you hit. If you are going to solder any joints or feeders, do it slowly and correctly. IMHO Atlas Code 55 is the best looking track out there. Never force any fit. If it does not fit on its own, you will have a problem later on as with any track. As to it being less durable or sturdy than other track sizes or brands, I have only one question; Are you running fifteen pound engines with five pound cars behind it? I really don't understand the concern with sturdy. You can have a much easier time in laying track by using Kato Unitrak, but then we get into a good looking track vs. a bulletproof track assembly system. As in life, everything is a trade off.
I picked Atlas 55 for my HCD, and I didn't have a clue what I was getting myself into. See, I happen to be impatient, heavy handed, and half of my chromosomes are from my great ancestor klutz. At one point or another, every one of my turnouts has given me a cursing fit, which was probably my own fault. However, with the right amount of tinkering and some better aimed heavy handedness, after two weeks (and learning how to properly install CI throws) all issues were ironed out. I am now quite proud to say that I am the owner of fault-free trackage, that can be run on for hours and hours without a single hiccup. It may not have been a cake walk to get there, but I am there, and it was worth every minute the stress shaved off my life I have my track laying somewhat documented on my nameless and aimless thread (link in signature) so you can see how this amateur did it, and still managed to wind up with perfect results Overall, I highly recommend
