Comparison of Bachmann and Atlas #4/#6 Turnouts (N-Scale)

[DoubleDAZ]

As some of you know, I've been designing my first real layout (almost to the point now where I'm spinning in circles with minor changes ). Against most advice, it's a looping 12x6 layout to be built in 3 sections (one 6x2 and two 6x5). I use XTrakCAD and initially did the design using Bachmann E-Z Track. Recently I converted it to Atlas Standard Track (Code 80?). When I got to the staging yard, I encountered some problems figuring out how best to convert things. I found the options offered by Atlas to be somewhat overwhelming.

Recently, a 2008 poll about brands of turnouts popped up as "new". Reading through it, I got curious about a few things. So, I did some testing in XTrakCAD comparing the various combinations of turnouts/tracks and put together the attached chart. It shows various combinations using Bachmann's E-Z Track (EZ) with 11.25" radius and Atlas's Standard Track (Atlas) with 11" radius. EZ only has the one turnout whereas Atlas has both a #4 and a #6.

Crossover
The first thing I noticed (bottom left of chart) was the difference in real estate needed to form a crossover. Suffice it to say, I found I could fit an Atlas 2-level crossover in less space than EZ needed for a single-level. The question the chart doesn't answer is two-fold:
- Are the Atlas crossovers far enough apart so that trains will not sideswipe each other as they pass when not using the crossover?
- Even though it doesn't look very visible, is the resulting "S" curve likely to cause problems if I use #4's? #6's?
- I know the recommendation will be to use #6's wherever I can, but I'd like to know if #4's will work?

Diverging Angles
I don't know the correct term, but the next thing I noticed (bottom right) was the "diverging" angles formed by curve and straight tracks coming off the turnouts. As you can see, I can duplicate the EZ curve using Atlas #4, but the straight part of the spur starts an inch or so further down the line. That means more EZ spurs will fit on a shorter line, but Atlas has more options when it comes to configuring yards and they will look more realistic. Of course that is subjective, but I couldn't believe the difference, 9 branches with EZ, 14 with Atlas. Plus, the TT area was much improved with Atlas.

BTW, this is not an indictment of Bachmann's E-Z Track. It's simply my view of what I found during designing/testing. I don't regret buying my Bachmann set at all, but I feel I can do more for my layout using Atlas. The biggest advantage for me will be the option to use FlexTrack along with the Atlas track.

Spurs
The next thing I noticed (center) was the difference in space needed for spurs coming off the main. I chose 90-degree spurs because they use the least amount of space. You can see that I was able to match the EZ using Atlas #4, but Atlas does need a bit more space. This is generally not a big deal though because spur spacing is usually dictated by structure locations. However, you'll also see that I could not configure Atlas #6 spurs to match the others. I think this is because the 9 3/4" and 11" curved tracks in the XTrakCAD parameter I'm using appear to be the same radii. I think they are both 11" because they pretty much match the EZ 11.25" curves when I compare the full layouts. I assume the last group of 4 spurs would form 90 degrees if the 9 3/4" radius were correct. Even so, you can see the #6's need that much more space.

Passing Sidings
The last thing I noticed (top) was the real estate needed to form passing sidings. Again, the EZ needed the most space between passing lines while Atlas #4 provided the same option for passing length and the Atlas #6 could shorten it just a bit in tight spaces because it has a longer lead into the turnout. As with the spur, I think the incorrect curve radius keeps me from finding a combination of curved/straight tracks that will work to even configure a passing siding, that's why the passing track is not connected.

One final thing. I plan to go through the same process using the Atlas Code 55 parameter and #5/#7 turnouts just to satisfy my curiosity before I decide to buy some track to test portions of my design and then start the benchwork.

So, what does all this mean? Probably not much to any of you, but it meant a lot to me when trying to decide whether or not to switch to Atlas (or something similar) and give up on Bachmann's E-Z Track system. So, unless the crossovers need more spacing to avoid the possibility of sideswiping, I can't see any reason not to switch to Atlas. All I need to make the final decision is confirmation that I can just butt the 2 turnouts up to each other to form a crossover and go from there without having to worry about sideswiping. If someone can confirm that, I can move along with my design.

 

[vato loco]

Don't for get Kato! The Kato #4 is very close to the atlas dimensions! The Kato #6 is a little bigger than the atlas #6. Kato track Can be modified easily to fit most applications!

 

[DoubleDAZ]

Chris,

I'm not forgetting Kato, I just haven't gotten that far. I played with Kato Double-Track and I decided against it. UniTrack is on my list after I try Atlas Code 55. I did take a quick look and it looks like they have a lot more sizes to choose from.

What I really need though is an answer to my questions about crossovers and sideswiping.

 

[vato loco]

Chris,

I'm not forgetting Kato, I just haven't gotten that far. I played with Kato Double-Track and I decided against it. UniTrack is on my list after I try Atlas Code 55. I did take a quick look and it looks like they have a lot more sizes to choose from.

What I really need though is an answer to my questions about crossovers and sideswiping.

How long of equipment do you plan on running? I never had a sideswiping issue on any crossover? Now Side swiping on curves that were too tight for to long of car....yes!

 

[DoubleDAZ]

Chris,

I'm only planning to run 5-8 cars, at least until I see how things work. I've run more on my test track using E-Z Track 11.25" curves, so I believe I'll be okay. There are no double-tracks going through any of the curves. There is an area though where I have 3 tracks stacked using 2 left-to-right crossovers on one end and one right-to-left on the other. The crossover tracks have the same spacing as the passing sidings using the short 11R curved piece coming off the turnout, so I assume they are far enough apart to pass, but I'd like to confirm it before I press ahead testing code 55 and Kato track. I assume code 55 is the same dimensions as the standard track, just a different size rail.

I just had a thought, CJ suggested I print out a full size track for something else, but I'll bet I can just make a small layout in XTrakCAD and use a full-size print out to test the clearances. I should have thought of that when he first commented.

FWIW, my latest version of the design can be found here.

EDIT: Kato UniTrack crossovers are 1 track-width wider than the Atlas and 1 narrower than the EZ. I don't think using Kato would significantly alter the plan, so I'll do some checking on price differences, etc. Also, if 1:1 scale printout from XTrakCAD is any indication, there is plenty of room between all crossover tracks for trains to pass each other. Don't know why I didn't think to do this sooner.

 

[vato loco]

I looked at your plan and you could get away with using kato track! I'm not sure of your N scale MRR back ground. I had code 55, code 70, and every type of rail between. 55 rail JMO it's a PITA when it comes to laying it and becomes a labor of love. What Kato lacks in some things makes it makes up for 10x's in just running quality! The Kato #4 and Atlas #4s share the same flange pick points. but 3 minutes with a dremal and problem fixed.

 

[DoubleDAZ]

Chris,

Thanks for taking a look at the design. Like I said, the full scale printout indicates everything should work.

As for MRR experience, it's been over 30 years and I never got to the scenery stage because we had to move (Air Force). But, I had a 2-level staggered layout that was attached to a crude/cheap pulley system in the garage. I could raise/lower it to get the car in/out. It was a looping layout too, but in HO-Scale. It was on two 4x8 sheets of 3/4" plywood with inclines to go between the 2 levels.

I think I'm going to skip Code 55 track because I don't want to spend all my time laying track and you're not the first to mention the "labor of love" aspect. Trouble is I'd really like to use flextrack, but UniTrack is enticing for it's ease of installation. So, I may even skip FlexTrack.

FlexTrack would let me turn my straight runs into gentle curves, but most runs are sidings and they would look better straight. FlexTrack would reduce the number of joints because they come in 30" pieces, but then you have to do triple the work; lay roadbed, lay track, and add ballast. Then there is the cost factor, but time is money too.

FWIW, this quote from an Atlas forum pretty much sums up my feelings about track (and layout design);

There is no reason to bash anyone's track or why that track was selected. It is clear that there are many options, and that the final selection of track is a personal choice, and as such, does not deserve ridicule. There are many extremely fine layouts using every brand of track out there. And, there are many mediocre ones using every brand of track out there. Each brand has its pro's and con's.

It also matters what the consumer wants out of the selection. I for one, care more about the quality of the track than what the ties look like. I am too busy watching the trains to bother looking at the ties. So it is up to individual assessments on their needs.

To call UniTrak toy like is a show of bullying, because there are many fine looking layouts built using Kato track that have many less issues than others. John Sing has an amazing looking layout done with Unitrak, and it has no toy like features at all. It is a finely crafted model. Why John chose Kato track was his own business, and no one else's. Just appreciate what he has done and move on.

I have tried all sorts of track from Atlas to Peco and Kato. They all can be made to work extremely well. There are also economic reasons for the selection of track, and no one should be ridiculed about their finances either. So this tit-for-tat about track is all just mental gymnastics amounting to nothing.....

 

[WCWBrassHat]

Dave,

The turnout sizes #4, #5, #6, #7, #10 help us model the real railroads. A full size railroad would use a #20 turnout for a crossover with a 40 mph speed limit. A turnout for a siding would be much smaller and the speed limit much slower.

I would recommend looking at the Atlas code 55 track. Having used Atlas code 80 and Peco code 80 for many years, I have found the Atlas code 55 turnouts to a lot better than the code 80's. This is especially true if you are using DCC. Other than needing to do more cleanup on the cut rail ends, I have found laying the code 55 just as easy as laying the code 80. This maybe because I have been laying track for 40+ years. LOL The drawback to the code 55 is if you have equipment with deep flanges, the wheels will have to be changed. Micro Trains is still shipping pizza cutter flanges although I have heard they have a new medium flange wheel that will become standard that will run on Atlas code 55.

Although I haven't tried it, if you like the Easy track/Unitrack type design Atlas makes a code 65 series on track with molded roadbed.

I have a large N scale layout (32' x 32') with over 120' of mainline and over 80 Atlas code 55 turnouts.

Glenn

 

[DoubleDAZ]

Glenn,

Thanks for speaking up. I've been vacilating and was probably too quick to exclude the 55, especially given your experience. I looked at some 55 at the LHS a couple of weeks ago and I have to admit they were the nicest looking pieces I saw. BTW, so far I've been buying my track online through Amazon from Best Service Stores and Train Sets Only. If I go this route, is there a better place?

Since I intend to buy all new DCC equipment (hopefully with or ready for sound), the flange requirement doesn't bother me, unless it will mean I can't find any engines I really want. For starters, I'll be looking for something akin to Bachmann's"
2-8-0 Mikado (UP)
4-4-0 American (UP or CP)
F7 A&B (Sante Fe)
EMD SD-45 (UP or Sante Fe).

I have a Northern 4-8-4 (Sante Fe) and 30+ yr old diesel (both non-DCC) that I have been using to test 11.25" radius E-Z Track and will use for whatever track I decide to use for the layout. I need to decide soon so I can buy enough to test parts of my layout before construction begins. I guess another trip to the LHS is in order. The guy there was really helpful and I'll probably buy my NCE stuff there. Even though it will probabaly cost more, I don't believe in sponging of the LHS just for information and then buy everything online. They charge more than MSRP for track, but have some nice deals on other stuff.

As far as Atlas Code 65, I'm not particularly fond of E-Z or UniTrack. When I get the bug again, E-Z Track sets were on sale for Christmas, so I got one to see if I really wanted to start a layout. When my wife "donated" the dining room, I decided to go ahead, but I've had a hard time making decisions.

First it was the layout design because I'm determined to work with ~11" radius and there is a lot of looping going on. But, after a lot of indirect help by arguing my goals with others, I've got my design pretty well put to bed. So, now I'm on to track.

Code 55 might let me increase the radius a bit, so I'll have to look at that, but I'm prepared to stay with 11" if the 12.5" alters the layout too much. I haven't decided yet if I'll just lay track directly on the foam base or if I'll add the cork roadbed, I'll probably add it though. I'm not into realism much, I just want to run some trains, but I'd hate to develop a taste for modeling/scenery work only to have the lack of a roadbed detract for the appearance.

Thanks again from commenting and I hope I can count on you if I choose 55 and have more questions.

 

[WCWBrassHat]

Dave,

I'll be happy to answer more questions.

The 2-8-0 is a Consolidation while a 2-8-2 is a Mikado. The Bachmann Spectrum 2-8-0 runs very well on code 55 (I have 3). I'm not sure about the other 3. The 4-8-4 and the other old engine will require at least code 65. The 4-8-4 (Northern) if it is 30 years old is the old Bachmann and normally of poor quality and may not be worth figuring into your track decision. You could always mounted on a piece of track in a park.

One thing to consider is whether the NCE system will allow for the running of a non-decoder equipped engine. Digitax will allow 1 analog(non-dcc) engine to be run on the layout. A nice feature for testing engines before putting a decoder in.

Chris asked what equipment you intend to run. 11" radius is very tight on full length passenger cars (80'). While the 4-8-4 will run around an 11" radius it will not look very good doing it. One of the advantages on N scale is being able to run large radius curves that allow the trains to appear much more prototypical. I use 18" radius on my branch line which I restrict to smaller engines normally a 2-8-0, while I use 27" radius on the mainline.

If you use foam as a layout base, you will have to glue down the track and/or the cork roadbed.

Glenn

 

[DoubleDAZ]

I'll be happy to answer more questions.

Thanks.

The 2-8-0 is a Consolidation while a 2-8-2 is a Mikado.

Sorry, I meant the Consolidation, but all that is up in the air based what will run on the tight curves and 2% incline.

The 4-8-4 and the other old engine will require at least code 65. The 4-8-4 (Northern) if it is 30 years old is the old Bachmann and normally of poor quality and may not be worth figuring into your track decision. You could always mounted on a piece of track in a park.

One thing to consider is whether the NCE system will allow for the running of a non-decoder equipped engine. Digitax will allow 1 analog(non-dcc) engine to be run on the layout. A nice feature for testing engines before putting a decoder in.[/

I don't intend to use any of my current equipment, especially the engines. The 4-8-4 is brand new (though back at Bachmann for repair), came with the Empire Builder set. The "old" one is something I picked up at Kay Bee Toys back in '74 and I'm surprised it still runs after being in storage since '78. I plan to use the current engines/track to build my granddaughter a small layout where she can just push a button and watch a train run. I will use this to practice/test scenery techniques, etc.

11" radius is very tight..........while I use 27" radius on the mainline.

You can find my lastest version here. It happens to be post #55 in my thread (an omen perhaps?) and will probably make you take back your offer to answer questions, though I hope not. I hope you are one of those who looks past what you would do different and simply tries to help folks do what they want to do.

Anyway, I'm okay with limiting my engine/car selection. My layout space is 6x12, but it's a tabletop and I want as long a run as I can shove in, hence the looping. I'm also not worrying about prototype use or looks. I don't plan to run passenger cars, though I would like to run somethng like Bachmann's Spirit of Christmas or Royal Blue specialty trains. I'd use an 0-6-0 or 4-4-0 with 4-5 cars like Bachmann's Open-side Excursion cars. I couldn't find dimensions on any of the cars, but they all look short enough for my purposes. I'm looking for something akin to an Old West passenger train and I think those were significantly shorter than the 80+ footers. If I can't do this now, I'll rework things with larger curves when and if I move into a bedroom in 5 or so years.

If you use foam as a layout base, you will have to glue down the track and/or the cork roadbed.

Yeah, I know, but I'm willing to give it a try. Once I determine that trains will run on all my sections, I'm going to begin the project by making my granddaughters layout, at least the trackwork, using the same techniques; grid benchwork, foam, etc.

 

[WCWBrassHat]

Dave,

The 4-8-4 should be okay if it is new production. The last run was improved a lot from what I have read.

The wooden old time passenger cars are about 50' long. They should be fine on the tight radius curves.

You have 2 return loops on your track plan. The loop around Flagstaff and the back track thru Phoenix. They require special wiring. The turntable can require special wiring depending how it is wired.

Glenn

 

[DoubleDAZ]

Thanks, Glenn. The 4-8-4 I have coming back from repair will probably never run on this layout unless I also wire it for DC operation. I am thinking about that (like some others here have done), but I really haven't thought that far ahead yet. I'm new at DCC, so there is probably more than enough to learn about DCC wiring. If I had a large inventory of DC locos it would make more sense, but I don't, so there really isn't a need. I also don't plan on running a DC train even if the DCC system allows it, I'll have my granddaughter's test layout for that.

As far as the loops go, I planned on adding DCC auto reversing modules to those, but I'm no longer sure they will do what I want, at least not by themselves. I know I have a lot of research and learning to do, but that's all part of the "fun". When I first started this project, I envisioned having only 1 train in each loop at a time and the bottom loop was a lot smaller with only the ANG spurs in it. Now they have taken on a life of their own, especially the bottom loop, as I talked to people and developed a yen to add more interest.

Using the Flagstaff loop as an example, I'd like to be able to have train "A" enter the loop and take the south leg. Shortly after, train "B" would enter and take the north leg. It would then park at the depot siding while train "A" continues past as it exits the loop. Therein lies the problem. As I understand things, train "A" would trigger the module to flip the turnout for train "B". That part is ok, but then train "B" would also trigger the module to flip the switch back, leaving it set wrong for the exiting train "A".

Of course, I could make all that work simply by limiting operations. If "A" enters and parks first, "B" could enter/exit and "A" could then exit, all without problems. However, since the "tunnel" and loop are supposed to let me envision through trains coming/going in both directions, it seems I'd be better off with a manually controlled turnout so I don't have to limit operations that way.

The bottom loop is just as bad because I'll want trains going through in both directions too for the same reason, to similuate comings/goings off the layout. In fact, I probably should add a turnout to the bottom right (and/or upper rught) with an orphan track leading off the layout just to give the impression of a link to additional lines. I already have that with the staging yard on the left. BTW, there will be a backdrop hiding the staging yard.