Advice on Track

[Mark5]

I have never tried code 40,

SNIP

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.
Lee

Code 40 is not a whole lot more delicate (at least to me) - but I hand laid it. Maybe the ME (Railcraft) C40 flex is delicate - I don't know as it did not exist in the 70s. Wheels cannot tell how high the rail is so to trucks and locos it acts the same as any other code rail (aside from flange issues). As long as the trackwork is built to a standard, and the rolling stock and locos conform to that standard, operation will be good. The best trackwork I ever had was the code 40 I laid in the 1970s.

I pliobonded the rail to wood ties back then, except for the turnouts, which I soldered to hand made PCB board ties - so conceivably I could have run flanges as deep as .040! But, I've ALWAYS HATED the MASSIVE flanges that Kadee(MT) seems to love. 

Mark

[lock4244]

Thanks for the responses, guys. The given the images posted, the ME looks better to me for the C55, but that C40 is really inspirational! That would be great on spurs and sidings... something smaller than the main. Love the jointbar, Tom! One thing that always bothered me about flextrack was that CWR look everywhere... that looks alot better with the joint.

[ednadolski]

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.

I've been happy with the Atlas Code 55 that I used on my layout.  Works well even with long trains on steep grades.

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. 

Gauge problems are independent of the rail size, so that part of it is a myth.  All wheelsets should be checked for proper gauge and fixed as needed, regardless of what track/rail you use.

Ditto for tread gunk, debris, etc.  The wheel tread is always supposed to be in contact with the rail head, anything that interferes or prevents that is a maintenance item.  Again, this is independent of the rail size.

For friction, you're actually worse with the oversized flanges, because they create more drag against the inside of the railhead as they roll.  Tighter curves make this problem more acute.   I recall one club reporting that they measured about 20% higher drag on a train with pizza-cutter wheelsets than one with lo-profile wheelsets.  Oversize flanges also have a higher tendency to snag/pick on imperfections in turnout points and frog areas.

HTH,
Ed

[wm3798]

Again, I don't have any experience with c40, so my comments are speculative... But isn't the railhead on c40 significantly narrower, therefore reducing the margin of error?  Tom's photos would indicate that this is the case.  That's all I was trying to say.

Lee

[AlkemScaleModels]

....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.

I wrote an article for Model Railroad Hobbyist magazine discussing N Scale track.

You can find it here:  http://model-railroad-hobbyist.com/mrh2009-01/download

For those of you that don't know, Model Railroad Hobbyist is a free, quarterly magazine, that you download in pdf format. There have been two issues so far.  I wrote the first N scale column. John Drye is taking over for me.

BCK

[ednadolski]

But isn't the railhead on c40 significantly narrower, therefore reducing the margin of error?

True, the railhead is more narrow, but that doesn't matter.  The gauge is the distance between the insides of the railheads, and that must always be the same, regardless of the height of the rail or the width of the railheads:



As you can see, even doubling or tripling the railhead width won't change the wheel rolling characteristics, as long as the gauge distance is correct.

[wcfn100]

Again, I don't have any experience with c40, so my comments are speculative... But isn't the railhead on c40 significantly narrower, therefore reducing the margin of error?  Tom's photos would indicate that this is the case.  That's all I was trying to say.

Lee

More speculation....

 I heard way back when that c40 railhead, while narrower, may not be that significant because it's generally used by HO and therefore on the large side for N scale.  I think I measured it once but I don't remember how it all came out.  What I do remember is that it wasn't that important because if you handlay track, c55 is way too big when there are no tie plates to take away from the height and c40 is a real pain to file and shape for special trackwork so pick your poison.



Jason

[Chris333]

I was all about ME C55, the last few times I bought Atlas C55. I like it about as much, but the slinky rail on the Atlas track seems very loose like I can knock it over right out of the spikes. It also seems like a bunch of oil is left on it which could be an issue for painting so I would clean it well.

[Bruce Bird]

I agree with the ME 55 for the flextrack and Atlas 55 for the turnouts.  Operationally the Atlas turnouts are better for electrical conductivity, especially if you are going to use DCC.  My first layout was all ME turnouts and they work and look fine intially.  But since they are a power-routing style like the Peco turnouts you need to maintain the contact points between the points and the stock rail for good electrical connections for that power routing feature.  And as they age they become very difficult to keep clean.  Using the Atlas turnouts eliminates this little maintenance headache and keeps your trains running.  And don't get me started about ballasting ME turnouts and getting just one little piece of ballast in the snap-spring under the throw bar...

If all you're looking at is looks, then the ME track and turnouts would be the best choice for ready-to-use.  I've hand-built some turnouts and crossings in the past and it really isn't that hard of a skill to master, but I also don't have gobs of time to commit to doing this so the ready-made turnouts are a godsend.

Hope this helps!  I think the bottom line is you need to balance your needs and desires based upon the amount of free time you have to put into the endeavor and what you want to get out of it at the end.

[ednadolski]

What I do remember is that it wasn't that important because if you handlay track, c55 is way too big when there are no tie plates to take away from the height and c40 is a real pain to file and shape for special trackwork so pick your poison.

The "code" of the rail is simply the rail height, expressed in thousandths of an inch.  So Code 40 rail is 0.040" high, and Code 55 rail is 0.055" high.

So "too big" is a matter of preference and what you want to model.  Prototype rail is measured in "pounds per yard", ie, the weight of a 3' length of rail.  Heavier rail is taller.  In N scale, Code 55 works out to 8.8 scale inches height, which is slightly taller than 155 pound prototype rail.  Code 40 rail is 6.4 scale inches high, which corresponds to 115 pound prototype rail.   On the prototype, 155 lb. rail was used on the heaviest main lines, and 115 lb rail was used on steam-era main lines and modern day branches & sidings.

Neither Code 55 nor Code 40 is especially hard to file, if you have a decent flat file. Code 55 being larger just takes a bit more effort. In either case, it's definitely easier if you make a simple jig to hold the rail. The one shown in Peter V.'s tutorial is simply a flat board with a narrow groove sawn in it, to hold the base of the rail when laid flat:




I use a 6" flat mill file from Home Depot.  This is something you can easily try yourself, just clip some rail from a piece of flextrack, make your jig, and file away 

[wcfn100]

On the prototype, 155 lb. rail was used on the heaviest main lines, and 115 lb rail was used on steam-era main lines and modern day branches & sidings.

That is, of course, just a generalization people use to try and justify oversized rail.

The CGW was laid with 90# rail so c55 is way too big.  It's not about preference, it's about prototype.

Jason

[AlkemScaleModels]

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!)

Lee

What, no expanding frogs?

[wm3798]

You're bad, Bernie...  Now crawl back under your rock...

Lee

[Sokramiketes]

What, no expanding frogs?

Nobody expects the Spainish Inquisition!  (Or Bernie, of all people, with the rim shot.)

[Ian MacMillan]

What, no expanding frogs?

Nobody expects the Spainish Inquisition!  (Or Bernie, of all people, with the rim shot.)

Our one weapon is fear and surprise, 2, 2 weapons are fear, surprise and ruthless efficiency. 3 our 3 weapons. And an almost fanatical devotion to the pope, damn 4!