Back after 40 years - request some track clarification

Hi, All;

Someone in the O Gauge Railroading forum mentioned TrainBoard, so I joined this AM. I stumbled upon the few remainders of my N equipment and thought I'd build a small layout, if for nothing more than to allow me to run them once in awhile.

Now, back in the day (!), Atlas Code 80 was just fine.

Now, it seems that with the latest poll information, Kato is the hands-down winner. If I may ask, why? I could see where it would be higher integrity for tear-down-and-put-back-up activity, but if I'm building a permanent layout, is there that much to gain?

I'm looking for some deeper responses than "it's more durable". Just better connectivity? Better operation? (if so, how). I'm a bit concerned because, to my knowledge, there are no manual turnouts - can you operate the electric ones manually (I don't see a solenoid housing on the side, so am unsure...). And, for background, I never had issues with Atlas, but am open to a better product if I could get some quantifiable data on it.

Thanks so much;
Carl - NandO N and O, get it?

 

The biggest issue that I see with the Kato track, or anything similar, is the lack of anything near to flex track which means you are confined to whatever radiuses that are made. The other issue I see is that profile of the track which seems to me to be all high profile mainline track sitting on that raised roadbed. Haven't seen anything that would work for a low siding in the weeds unless one sunk the track below the level of the main and hid the raised ballast effect.

I use Atlas code 80 and some Peco code 55 because I can run my older equipment on it that I can't on Atlas code 55 because of wheel flange depth. Atlas offers both powered and manual versions of the same turnout, and Peco has some very short based turnouts that don't require a large footprint. They have a line of very short turnouts that only need about 3.5 inches of layout space with a 9 inch rad, and their wye takes less space than the Atlas Wye. Current small layout I am working on will be all manual turnouts except for maybe two which will be on an upper level and at the extent of my reach. Another reason for my using primarily Atlas is the availability of parts especially switch machines if I should happen to have one fail. Also they have a number of different switch set ups that allow for power routing and construction of a nice control panel.

 

The turnouts are power routing. They can easily be manually operated. All the electronis are inside the turnout. There are no bulky unsightly selenoids. You can easily match unitrack up to C80 track. In 3 years I have had zero problems with the track or turnouts.

 

I'm sure a lot of people will chime in here..I like Unitrack for the assortment of pieces and the positive connections. The turnouts can be manually operated too via a switch that's built into the roadbed of the turnout.

Why stick with one brand of track? I have Unitrack, Atlas code 80, Peco Code 80, and true-track on one layout. Every type of track has pros and cons, why not just get the best of all worlds?

Atlas True-Track: Hands down the best looking track with roadbed there is IMHO, but the small assortment of pieces and the delicate connections leave a lot to be desired.

Kato Unitrack: The best assortment of pieces and durability, but the look isn't very prototypical, with the wide tie spacing. Unitrack makes the best looking bridges, IMHO.

Peco Code 80: The small radius turnouts are a real space saver, especially with limited space.

Atlas code 80: Not as real looking as code 55, but its the devil you know.

 

I have used all the manufacturers track except those with roadbed incorporated such as Kato and a couple of others and all will work.
For my current layout I used Atlas Code 55 and that is because of the variety of components that are offered and the looks as the tie spacing is more to American Railroad scale.
Any of the track currently manufactured by Kato, Atlas and Peco plus a couple of others work good it just comes down to what one likes and sometimes cost is a factor.

 

Some of us are very sensitive to appearance, others obvoiusly are not. For appearance, Atlas code 55 is really really good, but if you're digging out old stuff, goood luck. For older larger flanged stuff, Micro engineering code 55 is best.
If you can live with the look, Kato seems to be good, Atlas tru track ok but not as good. Personally, I can't see a thing in Peco that makes it desirable for either person.
Turnouts are a problem. Best is to make your own, with or without Fast Tracks jigs. ME has only one size turnout, Atlas has whatever fell out of the container this trip.
and if you're really picky, use ME code 40 and roll your own turnouts.

 

I almost always recommend Kato Unitrak to beginners, because it allows them to get up and running quickly with no fuss. The track itself is bulletproof, the turnouts are excellent, and the track can be resold if the person wants to adopt a different track line. But if you have experience in track laying, don't care about the ability to get a layout running in an afternoon (e.g., with Kato) and/or need flex track to complete your layout design, then any of the remaining alternatives will do. Code 80 track (Atlas or Peco) is less prototypical-looking than Atlas Code 55 track (or Micro-Engineering Code 55), but both are more durable. I give the nod to Peco (which is more expensive by about a third than Atlas) because Peco switches can be used without any add-on throw mechanism; Peco switches have an integral spring that holds the points against the stock rails, so you can "flip" them with your finger. If you get Peco Electrofrogs, the frog is powered, and that helps avoid stalls with small-wheelbase locos, such as small switchers.

For overall durability and flexibility, the Peco track line (either Code 80 or Code 55) is hard to beat. The track will take a lot of abuse; we have Peco turnouts on our N-Trak layout that are 30 years old and still going strong. The flex track isn't "springy" like Atlas Code 80 or Code 55 flex, and therefore takes a bit of getting used to in the track laying process, but it is a superb product and seems to rarely need cleaning (perhaps the Peco formulation for nickle-silver rail is a bit different from others and has less oxidation).

On the Code 55 side, Atlas's Code 55 track is probably the best-looking commercial track available. But it is finicky - it is not as durable as either Atlas Code 80 or Peco Code 80 track, and the Atlas Code 55 turnouts often need a bit of tweaking to run well. Peco Code 55 isn't as good-looking as the Atlas because of the tie spacing, but it is VERY durable and the turnouts have the same advantages as the Peco Code 80.

Nevertheless, there's nothing wrong with Atlas Code 80 track. And if your equipment is older, I'd stick with Code 80 track or Peco Code 55, because some older equipment with large-flange wheels won't run on Atlas Code 55. Thus stuff, however, WILL run on Peco Code 55 because of the way it is made (it is a Code 80 rail that is "buried" in the ties to reveal only a Code 55 profile, and therefore has no protruding spike heads on the inside to interfere with larger-flange wheels).

To summarize . . . Kato Unitrak is very durable, easy to assemble, simple and gets you going quickly. Atlas Code 80 is fine if you need flex track, but is a bit clunky-looking, particularly with the standard turnouts and cheaply made. Peco Code 80 is, I think, superior in quality to Atlas Code 80 and the turnouts are a big plus. However, it is at least 30% more expensive. Atlas Code 55 is the best looking commercial track available with a wide range of factory-made turnouts, but it is finicky, not nearly as durable as Code 80 anything, and the turnouts often need tweaking to operate without problems. Peco Code 55 is better looking than Peco Code 80, almost indestructible, equally (or maybe a tad more) expensive, but virtually everything will run on it (not true of Atlas Code 55).

Or put another way: For beginners, I'd still recommend Kato. For folks who aren't all that concerned about appearance and want a track product that is very durable, I'd recommend Peco Code 80 or Code 55. Both in my view are simply better products than Atlas Code 80. For an advanced modeler who wants the ultimate in appearance and doesn't mind tweaking turnouts and being very careful with track laying (and who doesn't have a lot of older large-flange equipment), Atlas Code 55 is the best bet. And for the real prototype freak, handlaid Code 40.

John C.

 

I highly recommend Kato Unitrack which I've used for many years. I've combined the Unitrack with Peco code 80/55 flex track. Peco code 80/55 mates well with the Unitrack.


Shades

 

IMO you may very well get as my opinions as there are people who reply
it will all depend on what your goals and priorities are
if European tie size and spacing with larger than scale rail are not a problem, code 80 from
Kato, Atlas, Peco will all serve you well
(Peco code 55 is really code 80 rail buried in ties for lower profile)
Micro Engineering and Atlas code 55 are for those who seek USA standards and eye candy as being more prototypical
the plus of those also includes flex track (as does Peco) ME having only #6 turnouts, however.
I would stop in at local hobby shop and compare first hand to get a sense of what you will be dealing with and what
best appeals to you and your priorities.
respectfully
Gary

 

My existing layout is mostly Atlas C80, but anything I touch is now Peco C55, and new construction on the new modules is all Peco C55. I really like the electrofrog turnouts for yards and industrial track, as well as the tiny SL series for my logging operations. One of the truly inexplicable problems with Peco is that the descriptions of the turnouts as 'small, medium' etc. is not consistent across various lines. An Electrofrog medium is almost identical in geometry to an at Atlas C80 #4 (which is really more like a 5), so for track planning purposes you really need to design either with samples in your hand, or pretty accurate templates. I printed out .JPG's of all the components and design full-size.

I got a small collection of Peco unitrack for my son - he never really got interested in N, but I have come to the conclusion that the stuff stays cleaner, longer, and has better adhesion than the average bear. That's typical of Kato, they really are better metallurgists than anybody out there IMHO. So I have been using Unitrack for some new staging yards, simply because of the cleaning factor, and so far, so good.

I was witness to a particularly tragic outcome of a major layout on Atlas C55 with switch problems, and I have a large collection of equipment with original MT wheels and Rivarossi and other vintage wheels, so Atlas C55 simply isn't on my radar. The C80/C55/Unitrack world plays better together than I thought it would, actually. I've got the large layout running extremely consistently and have had for years (the zero derailments thing is pretty real) so I'm pretty resistant to anything that compromises that, no matter how good it looks in photos. There do seem to be some pretty consistent complaints about Kato #4's causing derailments without some minor modifications.

 

You can make your own "flex track" from sections of Kato Unitrack by cutting the roadbed with a razor saw. Mike Fifer has a video on this here: http://www.fiferhobby.com/html/how_to_make_kato_unitrack_flex.html . And, after fitting them to your layout needs, you could also apply epoxy under the hollow roadbed to stiffen them in the configuration (and length) that you need for special situations, so that you end up with custom sections that can be easily put-up and taken-down.

Steve

 

I chose Katp for the reliability. So far, it has been the bulletproof track that it is touted to be. I was new to the hobby and wanted to run trains, not try to diagnose trouble from track and my poor track laying skills. People say they hate the roadbed for it's toylike look, but i on the otherhand, I dislike the massive turnout solenoids that other brands use. It's just like life, there are compromises to be made. Choose what you think will work for you. I have seen examples of all these kinds of track that look very nice in the finished form, so I think they all work. Mike Fifer does have a lot of good info for Kato, so check him out.

So, it's as clear as mud, you can call me Ray or you can call me Jay.

Trey

 

+1 ....with a caveat.

ME code 40 needs true lo-pro flanges to work. Such common engines as any Kato diesel, Athearn Big Boys and Challengers, Atlas Geeps and a lot more simply WILL NOT RUN ON ME 40! Unless you sand the inside spikeheads down with a little sanding block.

If you hand lay your code 40 track using the PCB method...every fifth tie is a PCB tie with the rails soldered to it...all the rest are wood or Styrene ties, then even pizza cutters will roll on it.

Here's a photo of ME 40 as the center siding between RailCraft code 55. It's a big file, so zoom in and look at the sanded down spikeheads:


Here's the alternative code 40 track, which is hand laid PCB...zero tie-plate spikehead details, but...for some reason, I don't miss 'em very much, even in my closeup photos. See for yourself. The foreground yard and branchline are code 40...mainlines and Echo Yard are code 55:


Cheerio!
Bob Gilmore

 

I whole heartedly disagree. Peco "Fine Scale" Code 55 Electrofrog turnouts are the only way to go. But do stay away from their Code 80 turnouts as these were designed to European (NEMA) standards not US (NMRA) standards. So they have flangeways that are too wide. In addition, the Peco turnouts are quite robust.

 

I couldn't agree more about the handlaid code 40, I will likely do that overall on my next layout. The spikeheads on commercial track that are visible to the naked eye as we used to say, are grotesquely out of scale. I don'tm iss overscale detail any less than missing detail.

 

Some well known N layouts use Peco Code 55. They like the giant advantage for Peco Code 55, the spring in the tie bar for the turnout which provides reliable electrical contact to the Live frog. So, to operate the turnout, you just use your finger to move the switch points. This saves you the money and time of purchasing, installing and wiring a switch machine or switch stand. This makes the higher cost of the Peco Code 55 turnout, seem more reasonable. I have used Peco Code 55 for 25 years and it is still reliable. Now 50% of my layout uses the better looking MicroEngineering code 55 track and turnouts which is a beautiful looking track system! The ME flex track is very reliable but the switches and switch machines take a lot of time and attention to get right. This brings up the other advantage of Peco 55 versus ME and Atlas Code 55, The Peco ties holds the turnout rails in near perfect gauge always. Also, the buried rail base improves conductivity and ruggedness. This is not true of the more realistic but frailer ME and Atlas Code 55, where the gauge can be Compromised/Tightened by installation or temperature and humidity. Jim Kelly MR, has written some very good articles on how to adjust the ATLAS Code 55 switches with gauge changes. So, like everything, there are compromises, I will continue to use ME Code 55 switches for the visible layout but use Peco Code 55 for my staging areas.

 

As the OP on this thread, I was looking for quantifiable differences between the Kato and Atlas C80 product, which we've strayed from a bit.

HOWEVER, this has been very educational to learn more of the finesse differences in the C55/40 segment of the hobby. Those of you who hand-lay rail (especially in N!) or even use the flex track products, my hat goes off to you. I love seeing great detail and true-to-scale approaches, but slacker me just wanted to run my 45 year old trains!

Thanks for the discussion, and keep it going....

 

Well, one thing to consider with code 55/40 is that it allows you to model one subtle thing that real railroads do. That being, heaviest rail on the mainline and lighter rail for everything else. So even though you might want to be lazy and use your old "pizza cutters" on code 80 track, it's a good idea to know which code 55/40 rail is most compatible with your old equipment in case you want to go with that level of realism for spurs, sidings and yards.

 

Do the Unitrack and run your trains carefree....smiling all day long !