Advice on Track

[lock4244]

Though I don't have space for a layout, I have been aquiring equipment for many years and now have a rather large fleet of locomotives and freightcars... passenger will be coming along once Rapido's N scale stuff gets released. So I'm going through my stuff and thinking about what might someday be when a thought hits me... when I get the space for a layout, I'm gonna need a bit of track!

My old layout used Peco code 1500 or whatever that huge rail is. I really don't want to reuse my old Peco stuff since I'm totally convinced that handmade switches (Fast Tracks) is the way I'm going to go. I'm equally convinced flextrack will be used between those switches... too much handlaying is probably not a great thing. Here is what I'm looking for advice on:

1) Track codes for both mainline, mainline siding, yard, sidings/spurs. Plan on using low profile wheels (eventually FRM),

2) Best manufacturers of flextrack (my only experience is with Peco and the old crappy Atlas stuff),

3) Opinions on the Fast Tracks switch templates.

Thanks guys.

[3rdrail]

You say you plan on using low profile wheels, yet you say you have been acquiring equipment for "many years". It's no problem replacing wheelsets on cars, but what about locomotives? It can be well nigh impossible to get replacement wheels for some locomotives.

I compromised and am using Micro-Engineering Code 70. The M-E Code 55 turnouts have been almost impossible to get the past half-decade, but the Code 70's are usually available. IMHO, M-E makes the best track and turnouts.

If your "legacy" locomotives will negotiate it, you could use M-E Code 55 track and Fast Tracks templates. M-E also makes Code 40 that can be used for sidings.

[wm3798]

Gregg, you no longer have to have equipment dating back to the mid 1960's to be collecting things "for quite a while". 
Recall that the Atlas/Kato RS-3 is now almost 25 years old...  That makes me an antique, and you a relic! ;D

Either way, it's not impossible to turn down flanges, but it's not for the faint of heart, especially on steam!
Lee

[CoalPorter]

I'd use Atlas C55 100%. I finally got around to doing some of my own testing and found that the wheel flange issue is way overblown and not that big of a deal after all. I think allot of people like to type first and investigate latter.  :

[Pomperaugrr]

I'll second the recommendation for Atlas code 55.  I love it.  It is durable and I like the #10 turnouts for main lines with #7's relegated to industrial trackage.  It is easy to work with and I find it to be quite robust.  It works for me, without custom laying turnouts or track.

If you are looking to handbuild turnouts, you may want to consider handlaid code 40 rail on sidings and spurs. 

Eric

[Ed Kapuscinski]

Atlas 55 all the way. The results speak for themselves:
http://conrail1285.com/news.asp?storyid=29

[Caleb Austin]

I'm all for Micro Engineering c55 with atlas c55 turnouts. The ME track is a bit more fine scale than the atlas track, smaller spikes and larger ties.


This is the ME c55 painted.

One thing to consider is that the ME track is much stiffer, if you bend it than it holds its shape. Some like this, others hate it

[lock4244]

Gregg, you no longer have to have equipment dating back to the mid 1960's to be collecting things "for quite a while". 
Recall that the Atlas/Kato RS-3 is now almost 25 years old...  That makes me an antique, and you a relic! ;D

Thanks for the laugh, Lee. Most of my equipment dates to the 90's and 2000's. What little goes back to my start in the 80's is not going to be on the eventual layout.

Code 55 for the mainline. Ok, but what about yards, siding, etc.? Same or a smaller code (40?). In N scale, is there much point in differentiating between the main and every other track? Is it a case of "what you want" or are there pitfalls to mixing sizes?

I'm really set on making my own turnouts to save $$$ and for some flexibility, however I understand the downside is you have to be pretty good to make a reliable switch, even using the templates. I've just never like the store bought switches (Peco and old Atlas), though in all honesty, I have not tried one of the Atlas Code 55 one's... my layout was torn down before they came out.

Atlas or ME track w/Atlas C55 switches. No takers on the Fast track templates???

[John]

you can do code 40,  but it will likely require more flange turn downs ..

[tom mann]

[ednadolski]

what about locomotives? It can be well nigh impossible to get replacement wheels for some locomotives.

Contact Pat Sanders at Trainworx.  He used to offer a flange turn-down service, and I've been happy with the work he had done on my engines.  See http://www.train-worx.com/order.html.

Some people even simply chuck the wheels into a cordless drill and run it with a flat file in order to reduce the flanges.

I understand the downside is you have to be pretty good to make a reliable switch, even using the templates

It's not really hard to learn at all, and there is an excellent Yahoo email group (handlaidtrack) that has many knowledgeable persons who are always ready to help with questions.   The materials aren't terribly costly, and you don't need expensive jigs to start, so I'd encourage anyone to give it a try.

A good way to start is to build a foot or two of tangent track, and then try a few basic turnouts at the bench.  Here's a good link.  Because it gives details, it may look more involved than it really is, so don't be misled by that.

http://www.fourthray.com/Peter/Articles/Trackwork/TurnoutsScratchbuild.htm




Here is a curved turnout I built, where no straight one would fit:




This shows some hand-laid N-scale Code 40 track that is actually spiked onto wood ties using Proto:87 spikes:




And just for grins, here is a hand-built turnout made to Proto:48 standards.  This really just shows that the basic principles don't really change all that much even across different scales.

[Walkercolt]

Code 55 does look nice; I'm not sure code 40 is worth the additional effort. PECO turnouts strong-points are their weak-points. They are not really a "# anything" turn-out, but they have that neat built-in spring that holds them either direction, and they are tough as nails. ME turn-outs are flat-out hard to get. ME "batch runs" them, and it's been quite a while since a batch of the longer ones has been run. ME flex-track is also not always available. Atlas code 55 is what it is. The Atlas turnouts could be made somewhat better. That's true of most turnouts commercialy available. Every track brand has advantages and disadvantages. The ready availability of Atlas products is a huge bonus in it's favor. Whatever brand you choose, you'll "second-guess" yourself over at some point in time. We do that over our layouts in a dozen ways.

[Mark5]

Code 55 does look nice; I'm not sure code 40 is worth the additional effort.

When I was a teenager and had gobs of free time I handlaid all my track in code 40. Now I don't have hardly any free time so I use Atlas C55.

Code 40 looks a lot better, as it actually scales out to a realistic size rail (unlike C55 which is still too large). But even using C40, you're still stuck with having sidings and yard tracks with oversize rail (unrealistic technically). Where's the code 30 with realistic cross sections?

So no matter what you do you are forced to compromise - you must simply choose a compromise acceptable for you.

Mark

[ednadolski]

One thing that makes code 40 look better is that the railhead is more narrow and closer to scale than Code 55.  To my eye, it's more noticeable than the rail height itself, since the railhead is shiny and is usually viewed from a higher angle.

With either Code 40 or 55, if you use soldered handlaid track then you will be less likely to have flange issues than with flextrack, since there are no plastic molded spikes that stick up (relatively).

[wm3798]

I have never tried code 40, so I can't speak to its reliability, but my experience with Atlas 55 has been pretty much all good.

The temps in the 90's for the last few days have put it through the annual torture test up there in the attic, so there's a little movement where the layout sections join together, but no major kinks (so far!)

As for the compromise thing, I would think that c40 is a whole lot more delicate, and therefore a lot more unforgiving of rolling stock that's good to marginal in terms of wheel gauge, tread gunk and any other potential source of additional friction.  If all I was worried about was making great photos of the right of way, I would definitely look into it.  However, my main objective is solid operating performance, with the secondary goal being appearance.  So Atlas c55 it is!

Lee