Best Track ?


J

JoeG

New to N scale
What track do you think is the best track for N scale, Peco or Atlas and what code would be good?
 
Well Joe,

In N scale there are indeed many choices of track available.

If you are running older equipment (with larger flanges) your selection will be limited a little. Running DCC will cut the field a little more.

Basically it breaks down like this (or so I understand);

Atlas code 80 - the old standby. It's bullet proof, cheap, easy to find, and DCC friendly. It just doesn't look the greatest (tall rail, oversize ties and tie spacing and so forth). If you don't mind the looks, it is OK. Good ballasting work, painting and weathering the rails can help a lot with the looks.

Atlas code 55 - Looks good, pretty easy to find, decent price, DCC friendly. They offer wye turnouts, # 10 turnouts, and various crossings. Problem is, older equipment has larger flanges on the wheels and they hit the ties on this track. This may not work for you. If you're buying currently available equipment this will be less of an issue for you, except with Micro-Trains cars. You'll have to get low profile wheelsets for those.

Peco code 80 and code 55 - Great stuff, lots of track choices (curved turnouts, Stub turnouts, slip switches, and all kinds of stuff), solid and reliable. The code 55 is really code 80 track with a double flange on the lower sides and it's buried in the ties further. It doesn't have any flange issues so you can run older and large flanged equipment without worry. Problems - wide tie spacing (European tie spacing), expensive, tough to find in some areas, and some say it's DCC friendly while others say no. I think proper guaging of the wheels of your loco are quite important with this track, as the spring mecanism on the turnouts can cause shorts if the wrong wheels touch the wrong point rail. The spring in them snaps the points of the turnout closed and holds them to the rails. I've been told one solution is that you must remove the spring and make a new throwbar in order to use DCC with no issues. I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong on any of this. One last thing.....turnouts are expensive, but they are not only DCC friendly, and they also have built in switch machines.

Micro Engineering - Awesome looking track. Problems - turnouts have a spring like the Peco ones so it has those same issues, can be hard to find, very expensive. Great track available in weathered or non-weathered in code 70, 55 & 40. They also offer bridge track or the rails and ties seperately if you want to spike your own. Turnouts are only offered in #6 though.

Kato - easy to use, easy to find. Problems - not much flexability (no flex tack), expensive. This stuff is DCC friendly.

Bachmann EZ Track - about the same as Kato, but has a high track profile and it's not the best constructed stuff in my experience.

Model Power - Don't bother with it as it falls out of gauge easily. Great source of headaches if you're looking for one.

Shinohara - Code 70 turnouts and other code 70 products. I have a code 70 3 way turnout and I've seen a code 70 double crossover (works of art!).

Arnold - Not worth the time or money if you ask me. Expensive and not realistic looking.

BK Enterprises - Makes parts for handlaying track and offers some assembled turnouts (curved, stub, wye, and regular) and crossings. Offers a code 70 #12 turnout and code 55 #12 turnouts. Offers code 40 products. I have no experience with this product so I'll refrain from comment.

Life Like - Much the same story as the Bachmann track.

Roco - Extremely limited selection and not very realistic looking IMHO.

That's all I know of. I looked at almost all of these when beginning construction on my new layout, and personally, I chose to use Atlas code 80 for all my hidden track and Atlas code 55 with some Micro Engineering code 55 bridge track thrown in for good measure on the bridges of the layout.

Now since Micro Engineering just came out with a DCC friendly version of their HO stuff, N scale might be comming soon.

Check out this link for more info as to DCC issues. The main subject is HO scale, but most of it also applies to N as well.

http://www.wiringfordcc.com/
 
Last edited by a moderator:
It's nothing really. I just went through this a while back when deciding what to use for my own layout, so I've been there, ya know? Other new ones will come and go.........

BTW, I left off the Atlas code 65 track. It's another one of those that has the roadbed attached to it, so it has those limitations. Also, there's no flex track that I know of in that code. It's new enough that there aren't many options available yet, but who knows. Atlas made it because they a track / roadbed combo, and they made it code 65 so they could avoid the flange issue while still being somewhat close to a prototype rail height.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I use Micro-Engineering code 70 track. I love the look and the pre-weathered rails. I don't like plastic molded roadbed because I think it looks cheap.
 
On my current soon to be dismantled layout I have ME track! Looks great, but I don't like the switch points! They are not very sturdy and when they fall apart very hard to fix! I not going to use ME again. My next layout I considering either: pic below.....

Atlas code 80(Cheap old friend) Like philip said not the greatest looking track but I never had any real problems with it! My last layout had this track, I weathered it and looked good.

Atlas code 55(still thinking about it still and it fits in my budget)

Peco code 55(cost factor and the switch machines are qustionable!)


My biggest debate is To switch machine or manual? furthest i would have to reach is 18", if i go manual the saving would be considerable......
 
Chris, it seems you are right where I was a couple of years ago. I was looking the most at Peco, ME, Shinohara, and Atlas code 80 & 55.

Shinohara (eventually became Walthers I think) was too hard to find, and kinda pricey.

ME looked awesome, but it was expensive and the turnouts left a little to be desired, never mind the fact that they only come in #6 and the code 55 ones are as rare as hens teeth.

Peco is great track, but it's a little off in the looks department (not bad though), and it too is kinda hard to find and expensive.

That left Atlas. Code 55 for all the visible track (I model the steam era, so lighter rail on the mains is a good thing), and code 80 for the hidden stuff. The code 80 is cheaper and it's rock solid.

I will admit that lately I've been goofing with some Kato Unitrack for my staging yard. Don't know if I'll go that way in the end, but it's pretty bulletproof and the turnouts are not only DCC friendly, but they have built in switch machines. That could be handy in a under table staging yard!
 
pcarrell said:
Chris, it seems you are right where I was a couple of years ago. I was looking the most at Peco, ME, Shinohara, and Atlas code 80 & 55.

Shinohara (eventually became Walthers I think) was too hard to find, and kinda pricey.

ME looked awesome, but it was expensive and the turnouts left a little to be desired, never mind the fact that they only come in #6 and the code 55 ones are as rare as hens teeth.

Peco is great track, but it's a little off in the looks department (not bad though), and it too is kinda hard to find and expensive.

That left Atlas. Code 55 for all the visible track (I model the steam era, so lighter rail on the mains is a good thing), and code 80 for the hidden stuff. The code 80 is cheaper and it's rock solid.

I will admit that lately I've been goofing with some Kato Unitrack for my staging yard. Don't know if I'll go that way in the end, but it's pretty bulletproof and the turnouts are not only DCC friendly, but they have built in switch machines. That could be handy in a under table staging yard!
Click to expand...


My next layout is going to have over 14-20 switchs mostly in the yard. and just the thought of under the table remote controlling them seem like over kill when 90% of them are 12" and 10% are 14" in from the edge of the layout? The layout i'm doing there's no real need to go DCC So the need for DCC friendly switchs arn't a problem! I would have gone Kato but the selection of Radius's are limited and road bed area could use some variety and secondary track set up would be cool or I would have gone 100% kato. I seen that stuff in action:eek: 99% derailment proof!
The peco switchs peak my intrest if I go manual switchs being they need no ground through to hold the points in place!:confused::rolleyes: The ME's would be better but those weak points and spring system are a pain in the butt!
So I'm kinda considering Atlas code 55 or 80 with caboose ind. ground through's? UT remoting them seem senceless:confused:with the small plan I came up with! Good thing I'm poor the slow down gives me time to think:);):)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Chris,

If you went with the Atlas code 55 you could use the Caboose Industries ground throws that are power routing. The frogs on the code 55 turnouts have a lug to wire to on the side of the turnout that makes a live frog setup very easy. I chose to bend the lugs 90 degrees to hide them in the roadbed, then wired them and placed them on the layout. Be careful bending those as they can snap off easily.....don't ask me how I know. As for the ground throws, a friend of mine wrote this article and I'm finding that it does a nice job of making those oversize throws look less intrusive. I was going to go with tortises originally, till I saw the projected bill, and that was the end of that. Then I looked at the old rod system, but not only did I not like the looks of those on the front of the layout, but they don't hold the point rails closed tightly. That could lead to derailments. I found this slick little setup by Dan Crowley, but it doesn't power route, so I passed on it. The one that I almost went with, and may still for harder to reach turnouts that can be seen on the layout, is the slide switch method. There are several methods of doing this, from the more visible, to the more subtle, like in the top part of this article. The beauty of those is that they look good and they power route. I would mount those in small cutout boxes in the fascia to keep up a nice clean look.

As for the Kato track, I would have to agree with you. The looks are not what I'm after, but the performance is. Thats why I'm thinking of using it in my hidden staging yard.

All the visible track will still be Atlas code 55 and Micro Engineering though.

(Sorry Joe, I didn't mean to hijack your thread.)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
pcarrell said:
Chris,

If you went with the Atlas code 55 you could use the Caboose Industries ground throws that are power routing. The frogs on the code 55 turnouts have a lug to wire to on the side of the turnout that makes a live frog setup very easy. I chose to bend the lugs 90 degrees to hide them in the roadbed, then wired them and placed them on the layout. Be careful bending those as they can snap off easily.....don't ask me how I know. As for the ground throws, a friend of mine wrote this article and I'm finding that it does a nice job of making those oversize throws look less intrusive. I was going to go with tortises originally, till I saw the projected bill, and that was the end of that. Then I looked at the old rod system, but not only did I not like the looks of those on the front of the layout, but they don't hold the point rails closed tightly. That could lead to derailments. I found this slick little setup by Dan Crowley, but it doesn't power route, so I passed on it. The one that I almost went with, and may still for harder to reach turnouts that can be seen on the layout, is the slide switch method. There are several methods of doing this, from the more visible, to the more subtle, like in the top part of this article. The beauty of those is that they look good and they power route. I would mount those in small cutout boxes in the fascia to keep up a nice clean look.

As for the Kato track, I would have to agree with you. The looks are not what I'm after, but the performance is. Thats why I'm thinking of using it in my hidden staging yard.

All the visible track will still be Atlas code 55 and Micro Engineering though.

(Sorry Joe, I didn't mean to hijack your thread.)
Click to expand...

Philip, I like dans idea the best when it comes to ground throws!:) If the atlas the power routing will really be the only problem:confused:but nothing a little thought wouldn't fix! But either way Custom Line code 80 or Code 55?:confused: I'll have to play with both types of switches on the work bench and see what works better for me, thanks for Dans link! When the mowing season picks back up and i got some expendable cash I'm going to look into Atlas C/L code 80....Atlas code 55....and peco code 55. and fully check each of them out!:)

Philip, I don't think Joe minds! this is some real good info!
 
The Atlas code 80 turnouts don't seem to be "quite" as well constructed as the codee 55's in my opinion. They're certainly better then average for the most part, but I think Atlas did a superior design with the code 55 line. You can evidence this by the fact that I have to tune the code 80 turnouts more then I do the code 55 usually. as for Dan's earing throws, they're pretty slick, and cheap too. I'm sure some kind of power routing could be worked out for them, but frankly, I was too lazy to figure it out! How's that for brutal honesty?

Peco is really good stuff too. The main reasons I didn't go with it was cosmetic and price / availability. Operationally, it's top shelf.
 
pcarrell said:
The Atlas code 80 turnouts don't seem to be "quite" as well constructed as the codee 55's in my opinion. They're certainly better then average for the most part, but I think Atlas did a superior design with the code 55 line. You can evidence this by the fact that I have to tune the code 80 turnouts more then I do the code 55 usually. as for Dan's earing throws, they're pretty slick, and cheap too. I'm sure some kind of power routing could be worked out for them, but frankly, I was too lazy to figure it out! How's that for brutal honesty?

Peco is really good stuff too. The main reasons I didn't go with it was cosmetic and price / availability. Operationally, it's top shelf.
Click to expand...

I havent seen the code 55 yet so i don't really know yet. Now the ME switches power is routed to the frogs by the point contact with the stock rails. Now are the Atlas c55 the same way? or are the frogs dead like the c80? I'm not to concern with looks as much cause the scale we are dealing with and when you ballast the track will be hard to really tell atlas c55 or peco:)i think the decission is Looks or high operationally? I think the peco switches are a lot like the ME that the point contact controls the frog power! not sure though? $8 diffrence between atlas and peco:eek:
 
I dont mind about the hyjack lol. It is all good infor to hear. I think I'll check out the CODE 55 i like the wood looking tyes. I just hear alot about how you have to shave down the turnouts more than other brands
 
Chris,

The stock and point rails are powered independently of the frog. The frog is isolated and has it's own power source point (the small metal ring on the side of the turnout). The rest of the rails are powered by metal strips buried in the bottoms of the ties. Here is a very large pic of an Atlas code 55 # 10 turnout. Obvoiusly, on this large of a turnout the frog is pretty long, so you'd really want to power this bad boy with shorter wheelbase (electrically speaking) loco's, but I picked this pic because you can see a lot of the details of the turnout. You can see how the frog is isolated and the power lug for that frog.

And as for the price difference, now you see why with some 30+ turnouts visible on my layout why price was a major consideration.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
JoeG said:
I dont mind about the hyjack lol. It is all good infor to hear. I think I'll check out the CODE 55 i like the wood looking tyes. I just hear alot about how you have to shave down the turnouts more than other brands
Click to expand...

Hey Joe! Welcome back to your thread! We've just been yacking away over here!

Glad I didn't step on any toes! ;)

As for having to "shave down" the turnouts, I'm not sure what you mean by that. I've never had to shave anything down that I know of.

Now when the first run of code 55 turnouts came out, the #5 turnouts weren't deep enough through the flangeway, but a dremel tool made short work of that. The problem was corrected on all subsiquent batches, and only the #5's were affected. The #7's and the #10's have always been good to go. Maybe thats what you're referring to? If so, the code 55 line came out years ago, so that one problem is long gone from most any dealers shelf.
 
pcarrell said:
Chris,

The stock and point rails are powered independently of the frog. The frog is isolated and has it's own power source point (the small metal ring on the side of the turnout). The rest of the rails are powered by metal strips buried in the bottoms of the ties. Here is a very large pic of an Atlas code 55 # 10 turnout. Obvoiusly, on this large of a turnout the frog is pretty long, so you'd really want to power this bad boy with shorter wheelbase (electrically speaking) loco's, but I picked this pic because you can see a lot of the details of the turnout. You can see how the frog is isolated and the power lug for that frog.

And as for the price difference, now you see why with some 30+ turnouts visible on my layout why price was a major consideration.
Click to expand...

So basicly they are copys of the HO custom line switchs the metal frog is dead and requires a UT switch machine with a rely switch to make them work.......Hmmmmm. Atlas switch $12 + atlas UTS with relay $18 total of $28 a switch:eek: c80 dead frog c55 dead frog? $20 Peco live frog with no rely needed to power frog? there might be a way to convert the c55 to a point feed to the frog ala ME switch? just need good point contact on stock rail....Hmmmmmmmm:confused: Might have an Idea here;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.



Back
Top