Packages vs pieces, and track brands


Raincoat2

Raincoat2

Well-Known Member
I've read a number of the threads, and see lots of opinions. I've got a decision to make! I've done all the research and decided on the layout (HO scale) I want to use, and finished the benchwork for it. I am playing off an Atlas layout called "HO16 - Expand Your 4 x 6 to a Real RR." My design is to stretch the HO16 layout (I have a much larger area to work with), and add a trainyard at one end and a small village at the other end. Atlas sells the HO16 layout in a package. I could buy the package and then buy separate pieces anywhere, including my LHS, to complete the additional areas. Here are my questions:
1. Go with Atlas or another brand? I know this is a loaded question and really opinion-based, but you guys have way more experience with the different brands, and I want to know your thoughts.
2. Buy the package from Atlas or buy each piece separately? (Atlas packages are: code 83: $704, code 100: $668)
Your opinions and ideas are eagerly welcomed.
Raincoat2
 
First of all, Atlas will be the least expensive option. Peco and Shinohara are two other options, but are more expensive. As you can also see, code 100 is less expensive than code 83. The Atlas website indicates that some of the track is "bulk". This might mean that you get standard packages and might have extra track in the end, or it could just mean that they put all that you need into a big bag. A better option would be to buy all of the switches and specialty track like crossings and bumpers individually and use flex-track for everything else. However this may be a bit too much for a beginner layout. You are indicating that you want to stretch it a bit to fit your area, which could be done with the basic package and additional flex-track. Remember that you don't have to curve the flex, it can be used as straight track, replacing 4 of the 9" standard sections to make a 36" track.
Code 100 versus code 83 is an personal preference. I use code 100, lots of it and if painted, ballasted and viewed from above, you can't tell the difference. After all, it's only .017" difference. Looking at eye-level when they are side by side, you can tell the difference. I would go with code 100 on your first layout, as it will be more forgiving, especially if you have slightly out-of-spec rolling stock, (that needs to be corrected anyway).
Good luck with whatever path that you choose. You will always have the support and encouragement of all of the forum members.

Willie
 
Hi raincoat,

If you're just getting into the hobby and want no worries in designing a layout, no worries on what tracks to buy, than this package is one way to go about it. You get a design and the tracks all in one. I'm sure that if you were to buy the tracks separately, not their list but turnouts and flextracks, you would save.

PS. I saw a site that sells it for $487, but none left

Just my 2 cents
 
Willie and Lloyd - thanks for the quick responses. Good ideas. I may hold awhile before pulling the trigger on buying the Atlas package, and see if it pops up cheaper elsewhere, like you mention, Lloyd. I did read on another post that painting and ballasting code 100 track leaves almost no difference, at least not to the non-discriminating eye. I don't want to wait too long, though - so the best option for me and my budget may be to buy the package and then buy flex-track and other specialty pieces independently to complete the expansion areas.
 
You are right about one thing, this is a personal preference issue and with that in mind I would steer clear of Atlas entirely and go with Peco track, either sectional or flex. By all means use the Atlas track plan, just build it using a better quality track.

If money isn't an issue with this, I would also consider Flieschmann track which, from all accounts is better again although perhaps not as readily available.

Also, if you are considering using flex track for your expansion, why not use it from the outset, it would end up being cheaper in the long run than buying a "package" especially at $700. I don't know how large the track plan is but $140 - $150 will get you a pack of 25 3' lengths of Code 83 Peco flex track, so 75' of track work. Even if your plan is twice that length, or 3 times that length, you will still be a long way in front price wise and not withstanding the turnouts of course.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Tony - Why are you against Atlas track? Just curious. Have you had an issue with the quality that would cause your opinion? I have used it successfully on four layouts over 35 years without any problems, other than a little tune-up on about 5% of the switches. I think it's only fair to Johnny (Raincoat2) to know what issues there might be. For what it's worth, I usually pay about $90 for 25 pieces of code 100 Atlas flex. I can't afford Peco prices with 120+ switches and 1200' of flex track, with more purchases to come.

Willie
 
The problem with altering a pre-determined plan of set track into a larger area is that you may get misalignments between the set track pieces that are added to expand it. When they say it's an expandable plan, they usually mean you can add extra track to the outside of it, off a siding or branch line. If it's just a matter of adding straight sections into the sides of an oval to fit a larger layout area, that's generally OK. It's when you want to alter the shape of the layout that these misalignment problems occur. The classic oval with a figure 8 crossover in the middle is an example. Make it longer or wider or both and suddenly the angles of the crossover don't match and the connecting track pieces are too long or too short to fit in.
 
Raincoat2 said:
I am playing off an Atlas layout called "HO16 - Expand Your 4 x 6 to a Real RR."
Click to expand...
I love that layout. That is one I've never built but it is such a jump from the simple oval I often recommend people at least look at it and understand it as a layout 101 exercise.

1. Go with Atlas or another brand?
Click to expand...
I've used Atlas track since before I was in grade school (that would be for over 50 years). I still use it today for some things. Having said that it has almost all been code 100, and I've not purchased anything new since they built the new factory. So I can't speak to any flaws they may have introduced during that process.

2. Buy the package from Atlas or buy each piece separately? (Atlas packages are: code 83: $704, code 100: $668)
Click to expand...
I'm guessing there is some sort of discount built into the package price. But, if you are modifying it anyway, I question how much of the package is redundant or usable. I guess I would have to see the modified version to be of more help. Research would demonstrate if you could still use all the pieces of the package or not in the modified form. Also I assume if you shop around you can find that package from a retailer for quite a bit less than from Atlas directly. Yeah here is Train Sets Only price for the code-83, $514.58
 
I have both Peco and Atlas Code 83 flex, but have yet to actually lay some of the former. I've used Atlas and Bachmann EZ-Track in the past. The problem with the latter is that its plastic base makes it rigid and that limits the flexibility of how you can use it. Also, the plastic ballast bends over time. Sags in the middle and makes the ends tilt up slightly.

As far as I am concerned, if there were a monopoly on flex track, and Atlas was "it", I'd not think the hobby was in a bad way as far as availability and quality. It's easy to use. Right now, the prices are decent, if on the rise like everything else in the hobby.

In my opinion, you can use and get to enjoy any of the four brands of flex-track: Shinohara, Micro Engineering, Atlas, and Peco (in HO). They are all excellent. What sets each apart from the other three is always a determinant, or criterion, important to the buyer. So, before you buy, try to get ahold of the item or read up on its characteristics. Concrete or wooden tie, spike head details, wood grain details, easy of bending, single rail bend or both rails bend and slide,...whatever you buy, especially if you get a bargain, you'll be very glad to have and have few problems using it.
 
This is the plan you want to enlarge/modify?


I see this is intended for a 10 X 6 area. Can you give us some indication of the space you have and how you would like to modify the plan to fit it?
 
santafewillie said:
Tony - Why are you against Atlas track? Just curious. Have you had an issue with the quality that would cause your opinion? I have used it successfully on four layouts over 35 years without any problems, other than a little tune-up on about 5% of the switches. I think it's only fair to Johnny (Raincoat2) to know what issues there might be. For what it's worth, I usually pay about $90 for 25 pieces of code 100 Atlas flex. I can't afford Peco prices with 120+ switches and 1200' of flex track, with more purchases to come.

Willie
Click to expand...

In short Willie, two issues with them. First their code 83 track isn't code 83, just their code 100 modified and renamed code 83. Secondly, the 18 months of lies they kept giving their customers when their manufacturer in China or where ever it was refused to continue production for them and no one could get their turnouts.

My first flex layout was atlas and was at the time they were anything but forth coming about their issues and availability, stringing people on basically. At that time, I needed x amount of turnouts but couldn't get them because they weren't being made so I bought Peco turnouts instead. That is when I discovered the deceptive renaming of their code 100 - when Peco code 83 turnouts wouldn't match up properly with alas track.

Having Peco turnouts and one or two atlas turnouts gave me opportunity of comparing the two and the Peco were simply far better built and of a higher quality all round. I tore up the atlas track and bought Peco and again compared the two. Once again the Peco track looked and felt far better than the atlas. I then discovered that the atlas track flex had a "fixed rail" so only one rail would slide, where as with the Peco flex,both rails slid. Peco flex held its shape far better, presumably due to both rails being able to slide, and, at the time Peco track was available every where.

Yeah, I don't like atlas period; however, and personal views of them aside, from personal hands on experience their stuff isn't as a good as Peco and Peco isn't as good as Flieschmann in terms of quality. So my recommending using all Peco track is because it is better quality track, nothing more than that and better quality as a result of the differences between it and atlas converted code 100.
 
Hey, Tony, thanks for the explanation. I understand now why you have that opinion. Thankfully for me, the year or so of inventory shortage occurred when I was dismantling my old layout and building my new train shed, and I had also stocked up on new stuff prior to the problem. I use code 100, so the code 83 issue didn't affect me. The single sliding rail doesn't bother me at all as I always put the "slider" on the inside radius of all curves and trim that instead of ties and rail on the fixed rail. The looks don't bother me and no one who views my layout knows the difference anyway. Operationally, there is no problem for me. After 35 years of using Atlas turnouts, I simply tune them up prior to using them.
Thanks again, I wanted to be sure that I wasn't missing something besides the higher cost. On my present layout (and stockpiled supplies), I figure that I have saved $2500+ by using Atlas.

Willie
 
Thanks, everyone. Tony, in another thread I read your opinions on Atlas track vs Peco and I assumed you ran into some problem somewhere in your experience with Atlas. But I'll keep your opinions in mind, along with the others that have been expressed here. I really appreciate everybody's input.

Yeah - the layout I'm using is the one that tootnkumin inserted just above . That layout covers a 10 X 6 area, but I have a room that is 18 X 12, and I'm setting this up as an "around-the-walls" layout. My idea is to stretch the right-hand oval of the layout by about 4 feet to the right - just adding straight track where the oval straightens out, and then build a trainyard out there. That also gives me room to put a large town with some industries inside that oval. On the left-hand side of the layout, again I want to add straight track where the layout straightens out, so it drops "down" (on that layout) another 3-4 feet. Future expansion of my layout modification calls for a section along the "bottom" of the layout that goes off to the right about as long as the oval is on the upper part of the layout, going along the third wall of the room. The idea is to put a small town in that area. Don't know if you can get a visual based on that explanation. I've got it drawn and measured out on paper, and did sufficient checking to make sure it will fit. I think by keeping the expansion rather simple (just adding straight track), it should eliminate any possible track misalignments. I appreciate tootnkumin's warning about such misalignments, and I think I've done the homework to make sure that doesn't happen. Expanding the layout will give us a lot of area that we'll have to landscape, plus a large town and a small town to set up, but to me that's part of the fascination of this hobby.
Johnny (Raincoat2)
 
I just want to be clear about one thing, well 2 things I guess. My issue with atlas, aside from their business ethic, is with their code 83 track. From all accounts, their code 100 track is pretty good so if someone were to want code 100, and had a tight budget, then atlas would be an option.

My belief is that most people, myself included, seem to experience issues with their layouts that revolve around the turnouts, not withstanding modeler error etc. For that reason, I try to buy the "best turnouts that are within my budget constraints" in the hope of reducing those potential problems.

For my new layout, I will be using Peco Code 80 track, because it is a little cheaper than code 55, BUT am seriously thinking of using Flieschmann turnouts as I believe they are better again than Peco's. It isn't that I believe Peco track is the B All and End All of track, it most likely isn't. I just believe in buying the best that I can afford at the time.

Anyway Raincoat2, whatever you choose to go with at least you have a multitude of opinions so as to make the best choice possible for you and your circumstances. Either way, looking forward to seeing your build and its progress.
 
Thanks, Tony. I hear your advice/opinion about Atlas turnouts. I'll investigate Peco turnout prices, and see if my budget could handle it. If I decide to buy this layout in pieces (rather than the Atlas package), I could easily buy track from one brand and turnouts from another, etc. If I buy the Atlas package, I'm stuck with their turnouts but could do what Willie suggests, putting those turnouts on the inside radii and trimming them before use. I think code 100 track will look fine after ballasting, painting, and weathering, and I would most likely go with code 100 if I go with Atlas track.
I really appreciate the ideas everyone is giving. This is a great forum, and everyone seems really helpful and obviously devoted to the hobby. Glad I joined.
Raincoat2
 
Now that we know the size you're planning to use and that it will be up against 3 walls and 2 or 3 corners, the real problem that faces you is a matter of reach. The 6 x 10 is meant as a free standing layout that has access from all sides i.e. in the center of a room. The greatest stretch for easy access to the walls or corners of an around the walls layout is about 30", 36" max. Anything greater usually means access holes in the layout that you can get to from under the layout. Considering the increases in size, I would advise using flex track instead of set track, for the advantage of flexibility (literally) in the plan.
 
Raincoat,

If you go with code 100 track then compatibility wont/shouldn't be an issue. The issue with compatibility only exists (as far as I am aware) with the atlas code 83 track. That being said, you could use atlas code 100 as well as peco or shinohara or any other manufacturer of turnouts without issue.

Toot'n raises a good point about reach too and that does need to be taken into account when designing the plan. Your track work should be no further from the edge of your bench work than you can comfortably reach. Murphy's Law, if something is going to happening, it will happen as far from the edge of your layout as possible :)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I took that whole reach issue into consideration and designed and built the benchwork 18 inches from the two cement walls, so we have to duck under to get to the back sides of the layout. The 18 inches gives us plenty of room to move around and work back there. The layout is 4 feet deep most of the way around, so we can reach the front half from one edge, and the back half after ducking under. (I know ducking under will get old, and at my age it's already getting difficult, but it's the best way to get use out of the whole room.) The layout along the inside walls is only 3 feet deep so doesn't need a duckunder. And Tootin's recommendation of flex track is something we're considering doing anyway, given the "stretching out" of the layout we want to make. Thanks again, guys.
 
Raincoat2 said:
Yeah - the layout I'm using is the one that tootnkumin inserted just above . That layout covers a 10 X 6 area, but I have a room that is 18 X 12, and I'm setting this up as an "around-the-walls" layout. My idea is to stretch the right-hand oval of the layout by about 4 feet to the right - just adding straight track where the oval straightens out, and then build a trainyard out there. That also gives me room to put a large town with some industries inside that oval. On the left-hand side of the layout, again I want to add straight track where the layout straightens out, so it drops "down" (on that layout) another 3-4 feet.
Click to expand...
Ah. Something sort of like this? Certainly looking more like a real railroad all the time.
Expanding Expanded.png
 
Hey, Iron - - yeah, that's exactly what we're doing by "stretching it out" - not quite that far down on the left hand side. Then at the right hand edge of the top oval, coming down, we'll build a trainyard with turntable, loco barn, sidings, etc. And at the bottom of the layout we'll hook on an addition to the right where we'll put a small village. Main town will be in the middle of the stretched out oval at the top. Top area will be flat, and the scenery gets more hilly on the left side of the layout.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.



Back
Top