ModelRailroadForums.com is a free Model Railroad Discussion Forum and photo gallery. We cover all scales and sizes of model railroads. Online since 2002, it's one of the oldest and largest model railroad forums on the web. Whether you're a master model railroader or just getting started, you'll find something of interest here.
I'm thinking about getting back into N Scale. I had a small 5x7' modified 'L' shaped layout 15 years ago that I had to cutup, but I still have the power & rolling stock and most of the Atlas switches. I went with Atlas because of cost, but now I'm considering Peco. The location was a spare room.
Taking a closer look at Peco's construction, I now see they embed the rails into the ties as opposed to placing the rails on the ties only securing them with plastic spikes. I never understood how they would hold under stress with the common Atlas design, namely heat kinks (another topic).
Now the new location is a damp basement in a not built yet separate room with three walls of wood and the forth the stone foundation. That wall is usually dry, but gets slightly damp after a rain, but no real seepage. I do plan a dehumidifier for that room.
The layout will be along the constructed walls, not the foundation, in a 'L' shape three foot deep. The overall size is around 10x23'.
Anyway, I'm willing to spend more, but is Peco worth the difference in cost, or how about another choice other than Kato? I can't see the advantage of any so called self ballasted piece of 'ready' track.
I would also like to go with code 55, but I'm concerned about clearance with my motive power (all diesel). Rolling stock are all Micro Trains trucks. I did find this thread which confused me more; http://cs.trains.com/TRCCS/forums/t/191421.aspx
It would have been nice if you had added the rail code to your poll list as Atlas has code 55, 65, & 80 and Peco has code 55 & 80. I am currently using Atlas Code 55. I have used Atlas and Peco code 80 in the past and no longer recommend them.
I would recommend painting the block wall with a stop leak product to help prevent future problems.
Your call but Unitrack is very nice stuff and it can be ballasted and painted and done just like any other track. Plus they already have bridges and other track sections that look very good.
I love how smooth the Kato stuff is! It might not look as nice as the C55 stuff but no derailments, speedy track laying, being able to try track configurations out before settling, 100% reusable no muss no cuss, and modifiable just like sectional just need a razor saw! I had ME c55 stuff, looked nice but the hassle that it was to lay it and went to reuse the flex, WTH tough to straighten back out. As for using Kato on large rail empires, it can do those too! I can find several LARGE layouts on the net that are nothing but Kato Track. Don't knock Kato track, just like the locomotives top notch! JMO
While I am a big fan of Kato Unitrack, I think it is best for smaller layouts. Cost is a going to be major factor. If you remember that recent N scale project railroad that ran in Model Railroader, it was only a 5'x9'ish layout and uses somewhere between $600 to $900 worth of Kato track, IIRC.
I've heard good things about the Peco turnouts, but have never used them myself. Atlas is tried-and-true and is the "safe" familiar option.
I think it is best for smaller layouts. Cost is a going to be major factor. If you remember that recent N scale project railroad that ran in Model Railroader, it was only a 5'x9'ish layout and uses somewhere between $600 to $900 worth of Kato track
It all depends on what you really want from you system. Kato track seems to be good. The Kato switches appear to be best because they have already hidden switch motors but the cost is a factor. If you have a large layout you could use flex track and smooth the connections to the switches. Peco has great switches because of the spring loaded switch but hidding the motors and then connecting them under the layout could be a real problem but the cost of the switch and motor almost equal the Kato. Due to the switch issue (needing many) and the ease of operation because of the hidden motor I would go for Kato. The attached balased supports can be redone in real balast and it apperas to look very good. Go for Kato.
Peco has great switches because of the spring loaded switch but hidding the motors and then connecting them under the layout could be a real problem but the cost of the switch and motor almost equal the Kato.
I haven't looked into 'motors' yet, but I understand the Peco has no additional contacts for position which would be a no go.
I also haven't decoded if I want to go DCC or not due to the amount of existing diesels I have that are 15 years old and not DCC friendly.
One thing that a single question survey lacks is an evaluation of the reason(s) why one item is selected over another item. If the Atlas 55 track is tops the question is; why? Is it because the Atlas is easy to work with or is it because the c55 is more prototypical or is it because the cost is better. There are many issues why one item is selected over another. Some rolling stock might have a problem with c55 were as c80 would not present any issues. Track is only one part of the equation. Switches are another issue. The remote Atlas switches are very difficult to make prototypical with that switch motor on the side. Kato does a nice job of hidding the switch motor whereas Peco are very dependable but present difficulty in using remote motors with long throws. Maybe secondary questions should now be added that ask; What leads you to select one track over another? I would like to see that survey.....Thanks, Harlan
You make some good points. Another factor is I think some of the votes were transferred over from the original poll that didn't have as many options. The results may have been a little bit different if all the voting was done on the new poll that has additional track options.
