Updated N Scale Track Questions


tower59

New Member
Hello again! Am a novice working on a modern day DCC Alaska Railroad model with my boys in N scale. Goal is to depict passenger train activity primarily. Have rough plans for track work laid out now, but would like to start fine tuning these drawings, which means I need to start picking track and turnouts. Our minimum radius is 22" which we hope will allow for the long passenger cars, and we'll need flex track of some sort, of course. We started last year, but got caught up in summer projects, and now it's time to get going with the train again.

As far as track and turnouts go, our priorities, in order, are:
(1) Reliable, smooth operation
(2) Ease of installation
(3) Availability
(4) Cost
(5) Accuracy to prototype

I know it's a contentious question based on reading the forum here, but what brand and type of track & turnouts would you guys now recommend based on these priorities? I do not want sectional track, since the layout we have will necessitate flexible tracks.


Finally, whatever you experts suggest, it has to be purchasable and available via the internet. I know Atlas has struggled with production, is the stuff out there now? Have they resolved their issues? Suggestions? Many thanks!
 
If you want to go with flex track then there is only one choice ... Peco and the Peco Code 55 for the more realistic look. Couple that track to Peco Insulfrog Turnouts and you can't go wrong.

I don't think it is possible to use phrases like "ease of installation" when it comes to flex track, especially in N Scale. I have only just completed putting down Peco Code 80 Flex (N Scale) and it can be frustrating but is no harder than it would be using any make of flex.

Peco Track is most likely the most popular and widely available brand together with Atlas. As such, you can get it just about any where and is generally kept in good supply by most "good" hobby shops.

Peco is going to be a little more expensive than other makes BUT not so much so that it makes the other makes a better option. You may only be talking $5 to $10 per pack of 25 or 30 lengths of track difference, and in many instances it is regularly on sale. In my honest opinion, the small extra cost (if there is one) is well worth it for the quality.

Your first point is an interesting one as that point really comes down to you and how you lay the track. All track is reliable and smooth out of the box, it only becomes unreliable and not so smooth as a result of the way it has been laid.

With regards the Atlas question ... I don't know HOWEVER, I do not believe they can be relied upon like Peco. You may get half of what you need and then wind up having to search and or wait due to production issues. Secondly, the Peco Turnouts are FAR FAR superior to the Atlas turn outs and if there is going to be a track problem, it will be around the turnouts so you do want the best that you can get, and that is Peco.

Bottom line, I wouldn't touch Atlas track if I had the option of buying Peco Track under any circumstances. For what it is worth and to emphasize my point here, I built my HO layout with Atlas Code 83 Flex (HO) but could not get Atlas turnouts so I bought Peco Turnouts. I discovered that the so called Atlas Code 83 track was nothing more then their Code 100 track "modified" and that caused compatibility issues with "real Code 83 track". On a side note, that is another reason I wouldn't touch Atlas - they take short cuts and simply can't be trusted. Anyway, I tore up ALL of the Atlas track and threw it replacing it with Peco Track and THAT was the best thing I could have done, period. The difference in the track was like night and day, and the Peco track (for flex) was easier to lay due to both rails having the ability to "slide", unlike the Atlas rubbish by comparison.

So my recommendation is this:

Peco Code 55 Flex Track for the most realistic look or Peco Code 80 Flex for a slightly more "rugged" track
Peco Insulfrog Turnouts. (not Electrofrog Turnouts unless you are an electrical engineer)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Tony,
Thanks for your reply! It looks like in N scale perhaps the most commonly used track is Atlas, followed closely by Peco, based on informal polls I've stumbled on. It looks like both are available now on Modeltrainstuff.com, which will be my likely source for most things. I don't see Insulfrogs available in Code 55, but it looks like they are available in Code 80. Ease of installation and robustness far outweigh extreme realism in my priority list, so I guess I'm leaning towards Code 80 over 55, and perhaps Peco over Atlas, but I'm open to ideas.

Since we're modeling passenger train activity, our minimum radius curve is a luxurious 22". What size turnouts will be acceptable to maintain good function and reliability with long cars? Peco has "large" and "medium" radius turnouts. Will these be ok? I assume large is better, but if medium would work, too, I'd need to see how it fits in the layout. Is small ok in a train yard area? With Atlas, they use a number system to grade their turnouts' curves- what sizes are ok for long cars? Any other folks out there have comments? I had Lionel O trains as a kid many years ago, but this DCC/Insulfrog wiring/multi-code stuff is overwhelming, so I appreciate any advice you experts have! Thanks!
 
As far as track and turnouts go, our priorities, in order, are:[/FONT][/COLOR]
(1) Reliable, smooth operation
(2) Ease of installation
(3) Availability
(4) Cost
(5) Accuracy to prototype
My opinion.
(1) Peco
(2) Kato
(3) I don't know.
(4) Atlas
(5) Micro Engineering.
 
Peco has "large" and "medium" radius turnouts. Will these be ok? I assume large is better, but if medium would work, too, I'd need to see how it fits in the layout. Is small ok in a train yard area? With Atlas, they use a number system to grade their turnouts' curves
First North American prototypical turnouts do not have curves, they have "kinks" that are measured by the frog numbers (which matches what Atlas does). Peco are like European turnouts that have a continuous curve (like Lionel in O-gauge). All Peco frogs are #6, they just uses tighter or broader radius to get to that frog.

Peco Small has a radius of 12", medium 18", and large are 36". So the mediums would best match your minimum radius. For Atlas #7 would match well with the 22" curves.

I had Lionel O trains as a kid many years ago, but this DCC/Insulfrog wiring/multi-code stuff is overwhelming
It is only overwhelming if you let it be. Most of the complications one hears and reads about is the exception rather than the rule, or the result of someone trying to do something fancy.

Lionel O actually had multi-code stuff going back as far as I can remember. Remember the O-27 track that was so short compared to the standard O. Nothing new here.

Likewise electrofrog wiring is not new. All Atlas turnouts pre early 1960s had hot frogs and had to be gapped appropriately, one of the first things I learned about model railroading in 1964ish? We just didn't make a bid deal out of it like folks do today. It was just something you did. Shinohara continued this hot frog wiring through the entire time. It just happened that most people were only purchasing the Atlas plastic frog things so they "forgot" the fundamentals when performance became more of an issue than easiness.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Iron Horseman, I think you're talking about HO radii rather than N. With a 22" radius in N-scale, you'd definitely be using large radius turnouts.

Tower: For maximum compatibility with any older equipment and its wheels, you'll want to use code 80. For ease of wiring and installation, Peco insulfrogs are your best bet. As for the flex track, any of it will work fine and if realism isn't an issue then just pick the one you want. Atlas flex is a little less expensive than Peco and will hook up to Peco turnouts just fine.

More in-depth: Personally, I use Atlas flex and Peco turnouts, all in code 80. The big reason I did pick code 80 is that any older locomotives, or even rolling stock, which may have larger and deeper wheel flanges (from back in the days before code 55) will work without modification. Beware of Atlas code 80 turnouts. While the rails are code 80, the frogs and guides are only as deep as code 55. I tried using some Atlas on a test layout and one of the older locos with the deep flanges would do a nice little "hop" every time it had to go over one of those, and of course got stuck at low speed. Atlas turnouts are ugly anyway if they come with a switch machine attached. Peco look better, and installing a tortoise motor switch machine under the table is pretty easy. Peco turnouts also have a spring that keeps them in position without a switch machine. With Atlas, if you don't have a machine there's nothing to keep the points from drifting away from the rail.

You can easily run full-speed across a Peco SL-388/389, SL-386/387 or SL-397. All are large radius turnouts. The medium radius SL-395/396 can be used in yards with passenger equipment, or as slower-speed turnouts on the main. While freight cars can get across them, I definitely would not recommend you using the ST-5 or ST-6 small-radius turnouts. I've never actually tried it, but I can't imagine passenger equipment not just laughing at you for trying to get them through those.

Other than one Kato Unitrack oddball, the largest radius of sectional track available in N-scale is Peco's 19", so yes you will be using flex if you want to maintain a 22" minimum. That will give you a good look for your passenger equipment. I have one 22" curve and several 20.5's. Even the 19" looks good on the passenger equipment, though, so if you keep to your 22" minimum you're going to have a very sweet setup for passenger trains.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'd agree with the choice of Peco turnouts. But on the flex track, I'd go with whatever you can get easily..........I've never had any issues with either brand. For reliability I'd go with code 80.......it isn't quite as "pretty" but it's more forgiving.
 
I'd agree with the choice of Peco turnouts. But on the flex track, I'd go with whatever you can get easily..........I've never had any issues with either brand. For reliability I'd go with code 80.......it isn't quite as "pretty" but it's more forgiving.

Your right about it (Code 80) not looking quite as pretty as Code 55 but when it is down and not sitting side by side with Code 55 it doesn't look all that bad, especially when you add ballast and the scenery around it. As has been said already, the Code 80 is FAR more forgiving than the code 55 - I have discovered that just from the couple of pieces of Atlas Code 55 I bought to "play with".

"... The medium radius SL-395/396 can be used in yards with passenger equipment, or as slower-speed turnouts on the main...."

Mike,

I have all Peco SL395/396 turnouts and will be running a full length (8 Superliner cars + engine) Amtrak Train, should I change those turnouts for the larger ones, at least for my main lines do you think?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Mike,

I have all Peco SL395/396 turnouts and will be running a full length (8 Superliner cars + engine) Amtrak Train, should I change those turnouts for the larger ones, at least for my main lines do you think?[/COLOR]

If they're mainline diversions, then yes. The 395/6 is fine for sidings, but it's not something for at-speed mainline diversions. If it's part of the mainline it also just won't look very good. Think of your passenger equipment going through a 12" curve instead of a 19".

BTW, Tony, the Atlas flex supply problems were because they got screwed by their factory in China and had to completely re-tool and move to a different factory. Now that's done, and their supply is as reliable as any other.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Thanks Mike, am going to have to have another look at things then, I really thought the 12" radius turnouts would be okay.

Just to double check things - I am using Peco Code 80 Turnouts and the description for the Peco SL395 and SL396 (modeltrainstuff) gives the nominal radius for those turnouts as 18", while the nominal radius for the SL389, and it's brother/sister, is stated as being 36". Surely a turnout with an 18" nominal radius should be more than enough for rolling stock listed as requiring a minimum 9.75" radius.

Am I understanding the meaning of the description properly or is there a difference between a "nominal radius" and the radius of a curve?

Sorry, not trying to be argumentative, just a little confused and don't want to spend money if not needed.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Thanks Mike, am going to have to have another look at things then, I really thought the 12" radius turnouts would be okay.

Just to double check things - I am using Peco Code 80 Turnouts and the description for the Peco SL395 and SL396 (modeltrainstuff) gives the nominal radius for those turnouts as 18", while the nominal radius for the SL389, and it's brother/sister, is stated as being 36". Surely a turnout with an 18" nominal radius should be more than enough for rolling stock listed as requiring a minimum 9.75" radius.

Am I understanding the meaning of the description properly or is there a difference between a "nominal radius" and the radius of a curve?

Sorry, not trying to be argumentative, just a little confused and don't want to spend money if not needed.

Yeah, we're kinda talking about two different things. Tower wants wide, smooth curves whereas you're talking about the minimum you can get away with. For your setup, the medium radius will work fine, it'll just be a sharper curve.

And yes, the medium turnouts do have an 18" radius, but ideally you should want to ease into any curve and not just sharply go into your radius. There's a transition with curves just like there is with a slope. I tend to use the mediums for yards and local tracks where the radius is under 18". I've tried running a train at full speed on my local going through the mediums, and to me it just looks wrong, like it's just throwing the train around sometimes. Good thing I never intended my local to run at full mainline speed. For mainline, where I want to branch off smoothly at speed, I use the large radius. That initial 36" curve on those then tightens up to the 22" or 19" or whatever the curve ends up being, but it makes for a smooth transition. If you think of it in real-life terms, it's the difference between giving your passengers time to lean into the curve and brace themselves as it tightens as opposed to just slamming them into the glass :D

So yes, I should have clarified that the medium will work fine, it just won't be quite as realistic. To my mind, 19" is about the minimum radius I'd want to run passenger equipment on because to me it just doesn't look right at anything near mainline speed if the radius is less than that. However, that doesn't mean the physical passenger cars won't work just fine on a smaller radius. It's funny: my layout is never going to look at all realistic overall just because I've packed it with as much track as I could fit, and frankly doing scenery is just not something I enjoy. But it gives me hives when the trains themselves don't look realistic and smooth in the way they're actually running on the rails. To other people that's not an issue at all; most O-scale layouts I've seen don't run at all realistically, and are packed into far too little space for the equipment, but of course the amount of realism and detail one can put into O-scale scenery, buildings etc. is flat out amazing.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Mike,

Thanks for the clarification I was a little worried to begin with, having to change turnouts. This afternoon I "hand ran" a couple of the Superliner Cars through the turnouts and they seemed to handle them reasonably well, albeit not at any great speed - but that's okay for me. I would also have to agree with you regarding the minimum radius being 19" for passenger trains, at least where looks are concerned. My tightest radius is 10.8" and while the Superliner cars go round them no problem, the over hang is a bit obvious.

Okay, sorry Tower for hijacking your thread, it's back to you.
 
No, HO Pecos are small 24", medium 36" and large 60".

Yeah, sorry, meant to go back and edit that. I didn't have the numbers in front of me. I just knew that a medium radius turnout in N-scale was definitely smaller than the 22" minimum he wanted, so I initially thought you might have been going with the wrong scale.
 
...Our minimum radius is 22" which we hope will allow for the long passenger cars, and we'll need flex track of some sort, of course...

A 22" minimum radius is great, but, if you were to drop that just a little to 21.25" or 20" for sidings and double track (which would still be great for N-scale), you actually could use sectional track if you wanted.


If you want to go with flex track then there is only one choice ... Peco...

I don't know why you're so dead set against Atlas, but MANY modelers have been happily using it for years, so I would have to emphatically disagree with your assertion that there is only "one" choice.

...Ease of installation and robustness far outweigh extreme realism in my priority list, so I guess I'm leaning towards Code 80 over 55, and perhaps Peco over Atlas, but I'm open to ideas...

Regarding ease of installation and robustness, I just don't find much difference between code 80 and Atlas or Micro Engineering code 55, but I see a huge difference in appearance. When considering Peco code 55, it is actually more robust than code 80 because it is actually code 80 rail partially buried in the ties, but Peco code 55 does not look near as good as Atlas or Micro Engineering.


...Since we're modeling passenger train activity, our minimum radius curve is a luxurious 22". What size turnouts will be acceptable to maintain good function and reliability with long cars?..

You can get reliable operation from much smaller turnouts, but for looks you can't beat Atlas code 55 #10 turnouts (unless you hand build your turnouts), especially if you have any crossovers or mainline diverging tracks. After watching a passenger train negotiate a #10 crossover, it's hard to go back to anything smaller.

The #10's currently are not available because of the aforementioned China issues, but they are supposed to start arriving again in December.

...For maximum compatibility with any older equipment and its wheels, you'll want to use code 80...

If you have old equipment with deep flanges, then you will want to stay away from Atlas code 55, but Peco code 55 would still be ok.

...Other than one Kato Unitrack oddball, the largest radius of sectional track available in N-scale is Peco's 19"...

The largest standard Atlas code 55 curve is 21.25" radius (they also make 30.609" and 71" curves but these are turnback curves for their turnouts).
 



Back
Top