The Peco track is based on 'european' ... what ever that means. Can't say it's ever bothered me, but then I'm from the UK! Peco Code 55 is nice, I have started using it on new sections of my layout. It does use a 'double flange' rail, with the lower portion buried in the sleepers. Good strong track, with the look of other code 55. I connects to Peco code 80 track, but I don't know about Atlas. Only available as electrofrog. Cheers, Kev
The difference between "american" and "european" is the number of ties... i.e. american has more closely spaced ties, hence more ties overall. I've used Peco Code 55 and loved it... switched to Atlas only to get a more prototypical look. It's really stiff track, a lot easier to work with than Atlas, and it works with Micro-Trains pizza cutter wheels, which is a definite plus. You should go with Peco C55 flex and turnouts : I think Atlas Code 80 ressembles the Peco track in regards to tie spacing anyway. If it were my layout I'd either use Peco C55 or go all out on the Atlas C55. Don't forget the appearance question : C80 track is pretty heavy track that would never be used in an industrial park of any sort... I mean, even C55 is heavy track for industrial trackage! Love the ditch idea.
A Bit Stuck In the Switches & Track Decision Mode OK...Lance's book is on order...I've got a bit of work complete on 'the space' and I'm ready to order some track and switches to get started. The whole Peco vs. Atlas and Code 55 vs Code 80 thing has me paralyzed at the moment. The problem is the more I read on various forums, the more passionate arguments I read for one opinion or another...problem is everyone is not passionate about the same answer. (I think) I have too much existing equipment and (especially) locomotives that have wheels that won't work on the Code 55 Atlas track. Plus I'm still not clear on just how much more prone to derailments the smaller track really makes things. If I have to choose slightly less prototypical appearance to get fewer derailments, that's my preference. It appears that Peco Insulfrog turnouts are only available in Code 80, not 55. Can I mix the Code 55 flex track with the code 80 turnouts without have to do major 'surgery' at every transition? The thought would be to use the Code 55 flex track, but jump back to the Code 80 at the switches. Bad idea? I'm noticing that the diverging radius of the 'medium' Peco switches is only 18"..the larger are 36"? Best I can tell from reading, the Atlas #6's that were drawn into the plan were about 28" or so? Are those 18" radius curves (especially there at the highest switching point at the entrance) going to cause me problems? Then there's the whole 'tie spacing' issue. Seems like everyone has a passionate opinion on this one! Just how 'European' does the Peco track look? I've searched the internet for a side by side comparison picture, but couldn't find one. Does anyone have a picture or a link to one that would allow me to look at the two side by side? Thanks again in advance for your help. Just trying not to make that initial frustrating mistake that makes me wish I had taken guitar lessons instead!
Geno, is there a reason why you particularly want to use insulfrog turnouts? I think you said you were going to use DC control, so provided you track feed is from the toe of the turnouts (i.e between your staging area and your first turnout), no extra wiring would be required for electrofrog - at least with Peco, I've never used Atlas. If you are going to be using short wheelbase switching locos you will get far better running, and reduced 'stalling' with electrofrog. I appreciate everyone thinks their way is best, but that is my experience. As for connecting Peco code 55 track to code 80 turnouts - yes they will connect, but due to the design of their code 55, the rail is partially sunk into the sleepers. This means you would have to put 'packing' under the track sleepers to align with the turnouts. I'm pretty sure you would be disappointed with the look of them together as well. Cheers, Kev
Actually I was looking at the Insulfrogs solely on the basis of the advice from this forum. I was originally going to build the entire layout from Atlas Code 80 track using #6 Atlas switches. I only reconsidered that after the suggestions that I received here. I wanting some balance between reliable performance, reasonably easy installation and best appearance. At this point, I'm seeking wisdom from those more experienced, so I'm open to Peco or Atlas...55 and 80. My locomotives are most likely going to be some combination of a Lifelike SW1200, an Atlas MP15, or an Atlas GP38 (all of which I already own) and might consider buying an Atlas GP15. I think there might be a use for a right hand curved Peco switch at the entrance to the layout vs. one or more of the right hand #6's that are drawn into the plan, but the 18" inside radius on that switch causes me some concern. I had used 19" Atlas radius track as the sharpest radius up to that point. Thanks for your patience with my endless questions. I promise not to be so 'needy' once we get some of these mysteries solved!
Lance, I was the other guy you talked to with Mike Skibbe about the turnouts at New Lisbon. I think we all agreed that the Peco turnouts were constructed better than the Atlas ones, but we all tend to lean towards Atlas due to their more American looks, and reliability isn't that bad. It's just could be better. Hope that clarifies.
Geno, Picking the 'wrong' turnout (which I doubt you will) is a small mistake. At the outside worst you might get a small loco. stutter here or there. If you paint the ties a dark color any over size rail or European ties won't be that noticeable. I understand your desire to get off to a good start but the bigger mistake is doing nothing. Having been through this thread for awhile I think for your situation I would go with what Kev said mainly because of the smaller wheel base locomotives. Not to get side tracked but the electrofrogs can be converted to dcc friendly if you were dead set on not spending a penny on new turnouts and decided after the fact you wanted to go that route. In your case since you aren't looking at buying that many turnouts and all the brands mentioned have been used by experienced modelers with some success. I'd focus on action rather than paralysis by analysis. Lance www.lancemindheim.com
Thanks...Pressing Forward Thanks everyone for all the great advice. Based on all the input, it sounds like I'm going to be fine with any of them. I agree that moving forward as suggested is the best advice of all. Amazon says the book shipped this morning...I'm clearing the space and getting some benchwork in place, including solving the mechanical issues of how to handle the removable 'bridge' and the best way to handle the curved connection from the bridge to the permanent layout. Right now I'm thinking that's a few pieces Atlas 19" radius sectional track rather than trying to use flex track in a removable setting. The layout itself would be built from flex...just that curve in the transition would be sectional track. Anyone see any issues with that? Thanks again for all the assistance...moving forward!
Geno, Just some more info for you to scrutinise. I have been modelling in N scale for 30+ years now. 4 years ago I changed from using Peco code 55 and Peco code 80 track to Atlas code 55 track. I am more than happy with the performance of this track and impressed with the better appearance it has as I model American prototype. The turnouts perform very well and I believe I have less derailments on my layout since the change than previously. Please note that good track laying technique and patience is the cornerstone to a successful running layout. I always take time to ensure alignment and tweak the track as required. One thing to further think about is that the Atlas turnouts are susceptiable to causing derailments when you do not have a switch machine mounted. This is due the lack of friction and a mechanical over center spring in the point throw section. The switch machine ensures a positive friction contact with the outer rails which is extremely important. Good luck with your decision.
Keep us posted. I think you'll have fun with this. Once you start laying track it's a good idea to use the 'do a little, test, do a little more' approach. In other words, lay a little bit of track and wire it in. Make sure your loco. runs, then move to the next section. That way if you have a problem you know it's in the last section you were working on. Lance www.lancemindheim.com
Step 1 -- Base Benchwork In Place Well...between football games this weekend, found some time to get a start on the 'base' for the layout...thought I would share my progress with those of you who were so helpful. The door is mounted...might be a tad shorter than I had hoped, but I'm limited in height by the need to 'hide' the staging' behind the desk (that's the corner of it that you can see on the left side of the picture). Unfortunately that's the trade off you sometimes have to make to have a house first, layout second! As you can see, the door fit the 80 1/4 inch space with a quarter inch to spare and I relocated a bookshelf that fit perfectly underneath. As soon as I can borrow a truck, I'm off to Lowes to pick up the 1 inch foam board and adhesive. By the way, that's the 'bridge' over to the staging track leaned up against the bookcase. It's operating home will be along the left side of the picture and will allow me to keep a train (if I choose to) 'staged' along the wall behind the roll top desk on the left. Walking into the room, you can't tell that the shelf is back there...just the desk is sitting about 6 inches out from the wall. Just on the left, are some antique thread merchandise cases that came out of my grandfather's department store 40 years ago. The drawers were sectioned off to hold the various colors and grades of threads that they sold and are just about perfect for storing N scale cars. Comments, suggestions are welcome as always. Thanks for all the help so far!
Progress & Peco Switch Problem After the holidays and other commitments, I'm finally getting back to making some progress on the layout. I have the foam down and painted and yesterday got quite a bit of the track down. I'll take some pictures and post my progress later today. My first 'dry run' with some cars hit one particular snag...with the only Peco 'right hand curved' turnout that I bought. Every single car seems to derail on the frog when the switch is thrown to the more 'diverging' of the routes. I can't figure how anything related to my installation could be causing this since it is midway through switch where the problem occurs. Unfortunately that switch is at the very entrance to the layout from staging so (literally) every car on the layout will have to pass over it, so my first and worst (so far) problem is in the absolute worst place. All the #6 Atlas switches seem to work fine...just having some problems with them 'staying thrown' under the cars, but I presume some shims underneath will fix that. Anyone have any advice on the Peco turnout or should I revert to what works and buy one more Atlas turnout? I like (and somewhat need) that curved switch to make the layout work, but obviously can't live with every car coming off the track. Thanks in advance!
The narrow back to back gauge between the frog and checkrail allows modern wheelsets (with low profile flanges) to drop into the large gap in the frog and the truck twist slightly - a lot of the Peco turnouts suffer this to varying degrees through the diverging route. Gluing a strip of .060" x .015" styrene to the inside of the diverging route checkrail opposite the frog will solve this by keeping the wheelsets further from the frog.
Progress Update Actually, some progress...track has been glued down (and in a couple of cases taken back up and re-glued down to reposition) and I had a couple of operating sessions, with no scenery, building, etc. I'll post a couple of pictures when I get a few minutes to do so. With the advice from those on this board, I have solved the problem with the curved turnout (the shims were a pain to get stuck in the right place, but worked great once in place). I'm now having trouble with a couple of the Atlas switches that simply will NOT stay in place relying on friction alone. I'm temporarily solving that problem by putting a 'straight pin' into the foam to hold one especially troublesome switch in place, but clearly that won't work long term. Lance's advice has been very valuable as well. Limiting the scope of what I'm trying to build has allowed me to make better progress in the amount of time, real estate and money that I have available to devote to the project. Less really is more!!! Once I'm sure that I don't want any more revisions on the track layout, I'm going to start working on buildings and scenery.
Are you using anything to throw the points and keep them in place? You could try bending a staple to hold the throwbar at each limit of travel. You put a kink in the long section of the staple and then bend the ends 90 degrees so that the plane where the kink lies is perpendicular to the short staple ends. I'll try to find a picture. Also there is this industrial park by my house where a caboose is used for the other guy to ride on. But the caboose is left in the industrial park after the train leaves. Also I agree that industries change all the time. One of the most switched industries is some kind of tank car loading/transloading site. But the siding it is on also leads to a lumber place that doesn't use the railroad anymore. Tank cars usually foul the "main line" at the industrial park. Just Google Maps Washougal, WA and by the Columbia River you will find the small industrial park. http://www.nscale.net/forums/archive/index.php/t-9214.html
Atlas Switch Issue & Solutions I'll try the staple idea. Right now I'm using a simple 'straight pin' into the foam below, but as you can imagine, each time you push the pin in, it becomes less and less likely to hit anything solid enough to hold it in place. The simple friction that Lance described works with at least 4 other identical Atlas #6 right hand switches, but this one just seems to refuse to stay adequately thrown (especially in the reverse position) as not to send half the cars down the straight route and the other half down the diverging route. The switch doesn't seem to just naturally come to rest in the 'thrown' position the way the others do, so its vulnerable to any slight contact from a wheel moving it out of position. I'm still experiementing with something on the underside that might hold it in place. I enjoyed the layout of your industrial park. I couldn't tell if there were additional customers beyond (what appeared to be) the two plastic pellet customers and the chemical plant that still got service or not. Thanks for the input...I'll try the staple idea....at least that would put a group of new holes a staple's length away from the ones that are getting worn out under the throw bar! 8
