Track: Atlas vs Peco vs something else??


Choice of track & turnouts?

  • Atlas 80

    Votes: 12 19.4%

  • Peco 80

    Votes: 6 9.7%

  • Micro Engineering

    Votes: 5 8.1%

  • Kato Unitrac

    Votes: 17 27.4%

  • Atlas 55

    Votes: 12 19.4%

  • Peco 55

    Votes: 10 16.1%
  • Total voters
    62
I don't have any experience from using them myself as I've just started collecting for my first proper layout. Did some HO experiments on the floor as a child.

I hope to get far enough to be able to try some this summer.



videobruce said:
I never ever saw any reference to anything as that. Where the the term "seep" come from?

I did a quick search and found this which effectually puts a damper on that;
http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/in...gemasterseep-point-motors-reliability-issues/
Click to expand...
 
How great would it be if Kato made a flexible track?

I've always used Atlas flex track because of it's well, flexibility. You can design any layout you want and not be limited to the given radii of uni-track or any other sectional track. So what if it takes longer to put together? In the end, what matters is that you have the track plan you want to build with more realism than what sectional tracking is able to provide.
 
I'm using Atlas Code 80 flex with Peco code 80 turnouts. The reason I did that was to just minimize any compatibility issues with older rolling stock and locomotives and have turnouts that both look good and are reliable. Some other combinations are probably just as good, but I went with what I could actually lay my eyes on at my LHS at the time.

Some reasons why:

I originally used Atlas Code 80 turnouts on a smaller "test" layout. While the rails were fine, the plastic frogs for some reason were more shallow and some older locomotives with larger wheel flanges would actually hit a "speed bump" going over them. I didn't want to run into any possible wheel flange issues with the Peco so I decided to stick with Code 80 even after changing brands. I use insulfrog instead of electrofrog because I just didn't want to mess with insulators and any wiring issues. It also seemed to me that any curve coming off a turnout would be stronger and less likely to "kink" with both rails soldered rather than one rail only having an insulator. They've worked well with every locomotive I've run.

Peco has a spring that keeps the points solidly thrown in whichever position without letting the points "drift". Even without the speed-bump issue, Atlas turnouts don't have a spring that keeps them in place when thrown to one position or the other. Without that big manual switch mounted on it the points are free to drift. I couldn't find any confirmation that the subterranean version of the "snap switch" would actually KEEP the turnout thrown in the way that the surface mount switch does. Even if it does, there are some turnouts where I don't need the expense of installing an automatic solenoid or motor. A lot of siding and yard turnouts are actually easier (to me) and a whole lot less expensive when I just use manual control (as in putting my finger on the turnout and throwing the points) because I'm not constantly switching them around anyway. I also find it fun to play switchman instead of pressing a button. You can't do that with an Atlas. It has to have a switch machine on it in order to keep the points where they need to be. There's also the fact that the surface-mount solenoid on an Atlas (even if you're not worried about looks) can very much get in the way where Peco will let you squeeze the turnout in.

Atlas Code 80 flex was cheapest. It also became practically non-existent for a while, but it's back now at least. I'm continuing to use it because it's cheap and does the job well. With the complexity of my layout flex is actually so much easier than having to cut and modify something like Unitrack that it really just wasn't even a consideration. Plus, how exactly do you curve a 3-road mainline with 19", 21" and 23" radius curves if you're not using flex? So there's that. I did have an issue with humidity getting too low and causing the wood of my layout to shrink. The Atlas flex held, but buckled the Peco turnouts on either end of the curve, though it turns out nothing was actually permanently damaged. I wetted the track and released the glue on the curve to release the tension, raised the humidity, waited a few weeks until the curve was back in its original place, then glued the track back down. Never even had to unsolder the connections or replace any track. Atlas flex is tougher than you think.

Using track that doesn't already have roadbed attached to it allows me to build lines at different heights. I can have mainlines running on a hefty bed of ballast or little sidings pretty much buried in the dirt. All it takes is just a variation in how much cork (if any) I put under the rails.

Atlas Code 80 flex and Peco Code 80 turnouts match up just fine using Peco rail joiners. I've heard people say you have to file or shim, but I've not found that to be the case.

So that's what I'm doing and why, based on my personal experience and what I could actually put my hands and eyes on in person. I'm sure there are other fixes and ways of doing things, but I just wanted the most trouble-free and flexible material to work with. So far it's been great.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
How great would it be if Kato made a flexible track?
Click to expand...
That is the biggest negative with Kato, other than the lack of wider radius turnouts. Both are deal breakers along with of cost. Besides, the balasted track is of dubious value since it will be covered with scale ballast anyway assuming you don't want the "toy look". :)

A lot of siding and yard turnouts are actually easier (to me) and a whole lot less expensive when I just use manual control (as in putting my finger on the turnout and throwing the points) because I'm not constantly switching them around anyway.
Click to expand...
Definitely can't do that with Atlas. I like the spring idea also, but the downside is running through mis-lined, trailing point turnouts will derail engines, unlike Atlas. Either way both will derail cars, so it is probably a moot point (no pun intended).

I wish Peco made the widest radius turnouts with insulated frogs.
 
One of the shortcomings of most polls but it does give some indication of preference. I am waiting for the reemergence of the mythical Atlas Code 55 turnouts, seeing as how I won't be starting anything serious until late this summer at the earliest. If it still isn't available when needed I will seriously consider buying a Fast Track jig and start making my own. Probably should have done that anyway and by now I could have enough made to build a whole subdivision of the BNSF by now. Tie spacing is the biggest deal breaker with Peco track for me.
 
Well, for one thing it's awfully hard to vote for "Atlas track and Peco turnouts" in this poll
Click to expand...
I'm sure the 9,000 others are not running that combo.

Tie spacing is the biggest deal breaker with Peco track for me.
Click to expand...
I have read that many times and when I compared the two together, I saw so little difference, if they weren't next to one another, it would never be noticeable to me.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
unitrack :) be warned with going DCC though. I'm not sure if it happened to anyone else but I had issues with my turnouts and had to put feeder track on all points of each and EVERY turnout to keep my locos from cutting off or stalling. I was using Code 55 Atlas until it became impossible to get ahold of (back in like 2012). I switched and am happy with unitrack. I am ballasting mine and love the ability to have concrete ties on my sidelines...
 
I must be the only one who's using Atlas code 65. with a little bit of TLC it looks really prototypical with the correct tie spacing. it's a little more delicate than Unitrack, but since I'm using it on a permanent layout, that doesn't bother me.
 
data_engine said:
I must be the only one who's using Atlas code 65. with a little bit of TLC it looks really prototypical with the correct tie spacing. it's a little more delicate than Unitrack, but since I'm using it on a permanent layout, that doesn't bother me.
Click to expand...

I really like Atlas code 65 True Track. It looks far better than Unitrack, and the joints aren't susceptible to the vertical miss-alignment that you can sometimes get with Unijoiners. True Track's rail joiners won't withstand repeated dis-assembly and re-assembly without replacement like Unijoiners will, so Unitrack works better for temporary layouts, but I find True Track easier to work with for a permanent layout. The problem with True Track is there is not enough variety of pieces, especially turnouts. The only turnouts they have are a toy-like 12.5" radius, which is a deal breaker for me. You can't even make a siding or crossover without a horrible reverse curve and too-wide track spacing. I am currently using Unitrack for my semi-sceniced staging yard and Atlas code 55 for the rest. I currently have too much invested to change now, but if I were starting from scratch AND there was enough variety of pieces in the True Track line, I would seriously consider using it for the whole layout.
 
Even though I am in HO, over the years, I have built, or helped to build several N scale layouts. I'm currently helping a friend build his, which was one that I designed. He's using Atlas flex and Peco turnouts, all code 80. He has some older locomotives that need that size rail.

I can tell you guys that it doesn't matter which brand, or brands of track you use. Your success will depend entirely on how well the track is installed. You have to make the track "bulletproof" to the rolling stock. So that when you test it,( I've always tested track by backing a train of my longest cars, 85' passenger cars) around the layout. I make sure that I hit every track, even spurs as fast as possible. I've tested my personal layout using a train of 12 full sized passenger cars, pushed by a brass locomotive, or 2. There are places on the layout where the track is a good 5' above the concrete floor. There are many places where there is nothing between the track and that floor, but air.

I've never had a derailment doing this test on my layout. Now I realize that many if not most N-scale cars have truck mounted couplers, and backing a long train of cars with these trucks and couplers is almost impossible, but if you shorten the train to 4-5 of your longest cars, you can get the same results. Using a sectional track, no matter the brand, can double or triple the chances that a slightly bad joint, will cause a derailment. The cure is simple, make sure that the joints have been dressed with a file, so all running surfaces match. Also make sure that the rail ends touch each other within the joint. I currently am handlaying all my track, including turnouts, (except my hidden track), and each joint is dressed like this as the track goes down. A few swipes with the file on both the top, and the inside of the rail will ensure a smooth transition from one piece of rail to another. And yes, I've even built some N-scale turnouts as well.

Remember: The better your track is laid, the better it will perform, no matter the brand(s).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The track won't rust. There isn't any iron in nickel silver rail. Possibly if something has steel axles there could be some rust on the equipment.
 
But it will help reduce the possibility of that 'musty' smell. ;)

Still can't believe how popular Kato is and how Peco isn't.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.



Back
Top