Author Topic: Rail Choices  (Read 2337 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Shipsure

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 1478
  • Gender: Male
  • Respect: +587
Rail Choices
« on: August 09, 2010, 06:59:12 PM »
0
So, like everyone else, my future opus is on hold because of the lack of Atlas Code 55 track.  I have "some" and was wondering about the idea of using code 8o for the mainline and code 55 for the sidings etc.  Am I wondering down the wrong bunny trail here?  I know mainline is ususally heavier rail...is this too much?  Should I mix in Micro-Engineering?  I finally have room for my layout and want to get something done, but would like to do it right.  I'd also like to support my LHS but they don't get ME...which is why I was asking about Atlas.

Bewildered in Ashland.

Joe



John

  • Administrator
  • Crew
  • *****
  • Posts: 10694
  • Gender: Male
  • Respect: +433
Re: Rail Choices
« Reply #1 on: August 09, 2010, 07:03:40 PM »
0
don't compromise ..

TiVoPrince

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 5156
  • Respect: +2
    • http://www.technologywrangler.com
Re: Rail Choices
« Reply #2 on: August 09, 2010, 07:12:40 PM »
0
According
to Paul at Atlas C55 flex will be plentiful soon.  Micro Engineering C40 flex is visually different enough to notice if you want smaller rail on sidings.  If you need even more, C25 rail can be found and handlaid if you need a 'serious' visual difference...
Support fine modeling

DKS

  • The Pitt
  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 11081
  • Your choice for ANAL...
  • Respect: +1643
    • DKS Home
Re: Rail Choices
« Reply #3 on: August 09, 2010, 07:17:29 PM »
0
I'd agree that it's worth the wait for the C55 to be restocked.

Micro Engineering C40 flex is visually different enough to notice if you want smaller rail on sidings.

...except that not everything will roll on it.
"Life's a piece of sh!t when you look at it."
                                       —Monty Python

sirenwerks

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 5191
  • Gender: Male
  • Respect: +144
Re: Rail Choices
« Reply #4 on: August 09, 2010, 07:43:34 PM »
0
It works both ways, your LHS can support you too and order ME when you need it.
Now seeking Pacific NW N scalers to create a Modutrak-style modular club featuring NP's shared mainline between Seattle and Portland. PM me if interested.

bbussey

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 7012
  • Gender: Male
  • Respect: +998
    • www.bbussey.net
Re: Rail Choices
« Reply #5 on: August 09, 2010, 08:27:09 PM »
0
Joe, I wouldn't compromise.  The backlog is lessening, c55 should be more readily available soon.
Bryan Busséy
NHRHTA #2246
NSE #1117
www.bbussey.net


chuck geiger

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 2153
  • Gender: Male
  • Respect: +535
    • THE IMPOSSIBLE RAILROAD
Re: Rail Choices
« Reply #6 on: August 09, 2010, 08:59:08 PM »
0
Joe - On two different N scale layouts over the past 4 years, I used C80 on the main
and C55 on the sidings and spurs. Next layout will be C55 with C40 for lights sidings.
Chuck Geiger
Page, AZ
provencountrypd@gmail.com

FrankCampagna

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 999
  • Respect: 0
Re: Rail Choices
« Reply #7 on: August 09, 2010, 09:12:54 PM »
0
I talked to a man who hand laid his layout with code forty almost 20 years ago. Before low profile wheels. said it worked fine.
"Once I built a railroad, made it run......."

DKS

  • The Pitt
  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 11081
  • Your choice for ANAL...
  • Respect: +1643
    • DKS Home
Re: Rail Choices
« Reply #8 on: August 09, 2010, 09:32:46 PM »
0
I talked to a man who hand laid his layout with code forty almost 20 years ago. Before low profile wheels. said it worked fine.

If he glued or soldered the rail, then it would work. The problem is C40 flex has spikes that some wheels will hit.
"Life's a piece of sh!t when you look at it."
                                       —Monty Python

Mark5

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 8966
  • Always with the negative waves Moriarty ...
  • Respect: +170
Re: Rail Choices
« Reply #9 on: August 09, 2010, 09:32:52 PM »
0
I talked to a man who hand laid his layout with code forty almost 20 years ago. Before low profile wheels. said it worked fine.

I hand laid code 40 back in the mid 1970s. It works fine with larger flanges .... if you Pliobond the rails to wood ties and solder the turnout rails to pc board ties (thats the way I did it). There are no spikes with this method so the the clearance is 40 thousandths. This would even clear the immense Arnold flanges on their horrific "GP7". But, of course the huge flanges looked even more ridiculous on C40. So even then I was turning down flanges. But, I gotta say, twenty years ago you could get low pros from Kadee (N) - I was so happy when they came out (prior to 20 years ago).

However, MicroEngineering C40 has plastic spikes, so the clearance will certainly be an issue with some flanges.

Mark
« Last Edit: August 09, 2010, 09:34:29 PM by NandW »

tom mann

  • Administrator
  • Crew
  • *****
  • Posts: 10642
  • Representing The Railwire on The Railwire
  • Respect: +698
    • http://www.chicagoswitching.com
Re: Rail Choices
« Reply #10 on: August 09, 2010, 09:41:57 PM »
0
I always liked the Micro Engineering code 55 for track and Atlas code 55 for turnouts combo.

ME code 40 uses the same tie molds as their code 55 (since the code 40 molds were damaged).  This means that there is a lot of flash around the base of the rail and therefore, not worth the trouble (to me).

sizemore

  • The Pitt
  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 2612
  • Respect: +31
Re: Rail Choices
« Reply #11 on: August 09, 2010, 09:48:34 PM »
0
I talked to a man who hand laid his layout with code forty almost 20 years ago. Before low profile wheels. said it worked fine.

I hand laid code 40 back in the mid 1970s. It works fine with larger flanges .... if you Pliobond the rails to wood ties and solder the turnout rails to pc board ties (thats the way I did it). There are no spikes with this method so the the clearance is 40 thousandths. This would even clear the immense Arnold flanges on their horrific "GP7". But, of course the huge flanges looked even more ridiculous on C40. So even then I was turning down flanges. But, I gotta say, twenty years ago you could get low pros from Kadee (N) - I was so happy when they came out (prior to 20 years ago).

However, MicroEngineering C40 has plastic spikes, so the clearance will certainly be an issue with some flanges.

Mark

Would it be possible to "turn-down" the spikes on the C40 stuff?

The S.

Sokramiketes

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 3894
  • Proactive advocate of truthiness
  • Respect: +133
    • Modutrak
Re: Rail Choices
« Reply #12 on: August 09, 2010, 10:23:33 PM »
0
Des Plaines Hobbies still has a case and a half of Atlas Code 55 in stock. 

I still prefer the Atlas to the ME flex.  The ME is hard to work with because it is so stiff. 
Mike

www.modutrak.com
Better modeling through peer pressure...

Shipsure

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 1478
  • Gender: Male
  • Respect: +587
Re: Rail Choices
« Reply #13 on: August 09, 2010, 11:34:24 PM »
0
Thanks for the info guys.  Most of my modeling has been of the modular nature, this is the first time I've had the space and support to do something I won't be packing in a car for shows.  Thinking about it today, it's good I don't have the rail yet, I am spending more time working out how I want the landscape and change in elevation shown...and lots of Z work to do as well.

Joe
MTl

seusscaboose

  • The Pitt
  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 1939
  • Respect: +136
Re: Rail Choices
« Reply #14 on: August 09, 2010, 11:47:30 PM »
0
"I have a train full of basements"

NKPH&TS #3589


Inspiration at:
http://nkphts.org/modelersnotebook