Code 55 may have destroyed my interest in N-scale forever

Just a couple of things I would be concerned about. A couple of pages back you mentioned that the majority of the problems shows up with your heavy steam engines and 86' box cars were also a problem but not as bad. In looking at your radius for your curves, they are probably too tight for such big equipment no matter what track you use. In the one photo you can see the overhang of the box car. No doubt finer scale code 55 rail did nothing but worsen that. At 33" wide i am guessing somewhere in the 15" range for the outside track and getting smaller as the tracks go inside. My layout is 30" wide at the ends and i used 13.75" as my largest radius. Even with super elevated curves I rarely run freight cars longer than 65' and even then those look kinda bad on the curves visually. I can get the longer stuff to run on my code 55, but it's a pain sometimes and not worth the frustration. Not telling you how to do it in any way, just trying to help. Obviously code 80 or Unitrack will make those radius more forgiving for the bigger the equipment.

 

Johnny,

A whole new layout. I like what I'm hearing. Now we are talking.

Looking forward to how this all turns out.

 

And yet, you've already told us:

It seems obvious to me that this particular problem has more to do with the construction of the module, than the Atlas C55 track. Simply put, 1x2 timber (if that's what it is) [edit - OP has since stated that 1x3 timber was used] will not stop twisting in a layout like that; and even a small amount of twisting could result in rails sliding from their joiners, and then damaging adjacent rails when they push back the other way but miss the rail joiner.

Regards,
Ron

 

I agree with Ron - just too flimsy to move - even to work on.
AL

 

Just why would you not think the 1X4 would be stronger? Sounds like you're just gonna do what you're gonna do,so why ask for advice? Four other guys just also told you the same thing about your benchwork..If you had just screwed a piece of 1/4 inch plywood to the bottom,it would have been 10X stronger..

 

I think the problem is more a lack of RIGIDITY than strength. Thicker timbers would have significantly reduced the amount the table could flex. (Even so, I doubt that 1x4s would totally prevent flexing on a table of this size.)

I assume that with Kato track (in common with other sectional track types) the rails are fixed to the ties, and unable to slide back and forth. With Atlas flex track, one rail is designed to slide very easily, and even slight flexing of the table will cause that to happen. Perhaps if you had ballasted the track, effectively gluing the rails in place, some of these problems might have been averted.

Regards,
Ron

 

Well it really depends on how you pick it up. If you pick it up from the corner then yes it does twist, but if you pivot it up from the middle to the upright position then move it vertically it doesn’t twist. I learned that pretty fast. The 1x3 remains straight and never ever bends. The twisting is only in the corners and it is pretty stable as long as your not forcing it. Beside it needed to be constructed the way it was to be portable enough to move it up and down stairs.

Anyway structural construction is something I do well and understand. I laugh at people who overbuild and the only excuse would be that a 2x4 usually cost less than a quality straight 1x3, but in the case of weight versus portability then you have to pay the price. You just can’t be stupid on how you handle it. Its just plain ignorant to think it has to suport a full grown man because it only needs to support the weight of the track and scenery that's on it.

I had the layout upstairs in a small 9 x10 train room and there just wasn’t anyway to work on it so on weekends I would move it downstairs and set it up right to do the wiring and servo alignments. Also anytime a servo would come lose or break I would also have to bring it downstairs to be able to get around it. I made a vertical stand to work on it and if it were track work that needed to be done then I would set it horizontal on my dining room table.

 

With all due respect Ron you don't know what the hell your talking about

 

I'm not saying that, I'm saying that I don't need the extra strength for what i have.

 

And yet,several posters have pointed out that this is your problem..If you just reinforce the thing a little,it would probably be fine..But,if you'd rather just throw the whole thing out...

 

What is wrong with you, I am not asking for help or advise and what makes you so sure the several really know what they are talking about. It seams to me that had I NOT listend to certain people here 4 years ago that I might not be in the predicament I'm in now, Also how much weight do you think is going on top of the 1x3s? Maybe 20 lbs at the most. I'm not parking a truck on it and I'm sure not walking around on it..

 

The layout can be saved.

Downside is: You would have to support it differently and that will only make the layout heavier. The cost of switch replacements would be considerable and I'm not sure you can get them....yet. The curves appear to be on the tighter side and your larger stoves such as the Cab Forward, will have difficulties / problems running them.

On the upside: The new plan has wider curves and if built on a solid frame will give hours of model railroading fun. I know about wanting to take a layout down to work on the backside. Sitting under a layout doing all the work that's required get's very tiring. Never mind the pain in the neck.

It would take me hours on end to remodel the layout and I'm not sure, as I'm sure Johnny is feeling right about now, it's not worth all the trouble. That would be an evaluation that only he can make.

Standing right behind you Johnny, knowing full well what you are up against. The choice is yours and yours only. Send pictures. The best!

 

LOL hboy:

With all due respect Johnny, you're the one who's having problems getting his Atlas C55 track to work reliably, not me. I have about as much as you have, and despite its shortcomings, I have almost no problems with it.

Some of the problems you've shown in your photos, and mentioned in your posts, clearly indicate causes other than Atlas track design deficiencies. And those causes will ultimately come down to ... well, you! Until you're prepared to look at the matter objectively, you'll never know the truth.

In the meantime, I recommend that you get your turnouts up on eBay as soon as possible. No 7's are still not available from Atlas and you should be able to get a good price for them. I might even put in a bid myself.

Regards,
Ron

 

Hi Rick believe me the layout is plenty strong enough and I may prove it with a video if i have time and want to waist a couple of good 1x3s. The problem here is that almost everybody goes to the lumber yard and buys 2x4s which are cheap and they they have it for 20 years and think that's proof enough. Well unless they've tried something else, how the hell would they know whats actually needed. You just can't believe everyone on the internet.

I on the other hand have been experimenting with lumber and strength since i was a kid building tree houses not to mentioned what I learned in collage.

And as far as the curves of my existing code 55, there is only a few curves that are 11R and they are not a problem except fo the really big cars like auto parts cars, but they still go around at slower speeds.

 

Ok Ron where is your layout? I'd like to see it because there might be a reason for it. Also how many turnouts do you have, are there any close proximity turnouts such in ladders and how long have you had it? I was told 3 years ago that Atlas code 55 quality had gone down hill with some changes in manufacturing plants.

 

And yet,you know so much,your track is popping apart,and your railroad is out in the garbage..You're crying about all the wasted money,I'm desperately trying to help you,you're treating me like a dog..Just because it's "structurally sound",doesn't mean it's a rigid structure.It only takes a little torsional flex to destroy your trackwork,I can see just looking at it that your benchwork isn't adequate for a portable railroad.[Me,the guy that's been doing this for 50 years,and built over 30 railroads..]
You obviously neither live and learn,or want advice,sorry to be of assistance..

 

Here

Here's where I mentioned the problems I experienced with the first batch of track that I installed. Since correcting those problems I've had no more issues.

This yard was built using track from the second supplier. I have no problems at all with this track.

If you look at photos in earlier posts you'll see areas which have the other brands of track I've used.

Regards,
Ron