From Lance Mindheim blog Planning For Success in N Scale

[mmagliaro]

It reads to me like he's choosing product to shoot right down the middle for a bullet-proof, easy-maintenance, reliable layout.   

I agree with everything he says except for the insulfrog turnouts. 

Note, that doesn't mean his choices are what I would choose.

But everything on his list would build a very reliable and easy-to-maintain layout, so wouldn't that be good for his customers and for model railroading?

-------------
And I will say this.  I have often wondered if the increased surface area of code 80 track makes for less hassle with dirty rail and pulling power.  It has always seemed intuitive that it would.

[Dave V]

I'll tell you, the most stressful thing for me in this hobby is what to do about track.  I was running trains in and out of Enola Yard last night and it seems my powered Atlas code 55 frogs aren't all powered anymore.  Yet my code 80 track, nicely though it operates (Isulfrog problems not withstanding), looks OK in person but bad in photos.

In the end, if I had to choose, I'd pick reliability over appearance.

Cue the "handlay your own" admonishments!  That's not an option for me.  I've lost some fine motor control in my hands and am hoping surgery in a few weeks will save/restore it, but I can't be sure.  I do know that just getting Atlas 55 to play nicely is about the limit of what I can do with my hands.

Some combination of Unitrack with Peco and Atlas code 80 all nicely blended and weathered is starting to seem like a more attractive choice for the future of my layout.  I want to crack the throttle and have no worries at all.

[MVW]

I have little regret for using code 80 track and Peco electrofrogs, with no juicers for the turnouts.

Yeah, that Atlas code 55 flex is some nice-lookin' stuff, but it was nowhere to be found when I started building. I've also made the transition from Atlas to Peco flex, and Peco certainly seems to stay cleaner. Seemed like I was always cleaning black gunk off Atlas flex.

And despite dire warnings, I've had zero problems with my unpowered frogs in the 1.5 years since I started.

Jim

[John]

I'm quite happy with my C55 track, except the damned turnouts .. I'm getting ever higher failures on frogs and bonding of the contacts .. I've started to rebuild mine as they come appart with some of the techniques others have posted, and am now modifying BRAND NEW Atlas C55's before they ever go into the layout ..its more work (that we shouldn't have to do) but it is insurance .. the only thing I don't solder jumpers to (yet) is the frog, because the metal in them is crap to solder to ..

Insulated frog turnouts are ok on the mainline .. but I would avoid them in the yard, (disclaimer -- I use them in my staging yard because I had some left over from a previous layout) or if you must use them, add some extra track to keep both ends of the loco going over the frog simultaneously

[Dave V]

I'm quite happy with my C55 track, except the damned turnouts ..

Yup.  Same here.  I'm actually nervous about the longevity of my Colorado Midland layout.  In fact, I'm not even bothering to wire the frogs on my #5s given that the two locomotives I use are all-wheel pickup and much longer than the frog.  My #7s and curved turnouts are wired...hope they last!

[jdcolombo]

From my first layout (built in the early 1990's) until I started my current one in 2010, I used Peco Code 55 track.  It is absolutely great stuff - the rail is actually a Code 80 rail that is buried in the ties to reveal only a Code 55 profile; because of that construction technique, Peco doesn't need to use large spike heads to keep the rail in place, and hence everything (even old MT pizza-cutter wheels and Arnold-Rapido S-2's) runs on it.  The turnouts were Electrofrogs, and the spring-over point design meant you didn't need to have a separate switch machine or ground throw to operate the switches.  Yes, the use of the points contacting the stock rail to provide power to the point rails and frog was sometimes an issue, easily cured by using some 600-grit sandpaper or a wire brush to polish the point/rail contact area.  And the stuff is nearly indestructible.  We have 20-year-old Peco switches on our N-Trak modules that are still going strong.  The downside: European tie-spacing that doesn't look at all like North American prototype rail in photos. 

When I built my current layout, I went with Atlas Code 55 because of the better look.  But I miss my Peco.  The Atlas Code 55 turnouts have point rails and frogs that are plated, rather than full-on nickel-silver, and the plating has already worn off some of the switches.  The #5 switches have issues with gauge through the points; and the #7's come from the factory anything but straight.  Two of them have failed, with the washer holding the point rail coming loose, and then there's basically nothing you can do other than replace the switch.  All the switches need some sort of switch machine or ground throw to operate the points; and you have to have a way to power the frog (I ended up using Tortoises for everything, which basically means it cost me an extra $12 per switch).  The flex-track is OK, but the spike heads are high enough that you MUST have NMRA-compliant wheel flanges for things to work.  I have an early-production Athearn Clinchfield Challenger that had larger flanges, and wouldn't work without a wheel replacement.

The Atlas track looks great in photos, but if I had to do it over again, I'd probably go with ME Code 55 flex and build my own turnouts using Fast Track jigs.  Time-consuming, yes, but far more reliable, robust, better-looking and better-operating than Atlas.   

Or maybe I'd just go back to Peco Code 55 and say to hell with the photos.  Peco makes a North American Prototype Code 83 HO-scale track; it's really too bad they don't do something similar in N scale.

John C.

[mplsjct]

Sometimes I feel like this group looks for things to complain about when the waters are calm.

Since I have started following model railroad forums, about 15 years ago or so, I have found once a thread takes a turn, everyone tends to pile it on, it's not just this forum. Now I have never met anyone here in person, but I'd be willing to bet we're all easy going type individuals, but when you're faceless, online, people tend to be more opinionated. Just my take, yours will probably vary.

I use Peco code 55, I have assembled and disassembeled several layouts and have managed to save the turnouts, as mentioned, it doesn't photograph as well, but they are quite reliable.

[Dave V]

Since I have started following model railroad forums, about 15 years ago or so, I have found once a thread takes a turn, everyone tends to pile it on, it's not just this forum. Now I have never met anyone here in person, but I'd be willing to bet we're all easy going type individuals, but when you're faceless, online, people tend to be more opinionated. Just my take, yours will probably vary.

I use Peco code 55, I have assembled and disassembled several layouts and have managed to save the turnouts, as mentioned, it doesn't photograph as well, but they are quite reliable.

FWIW, I've found this particular thread to be quite dispassionate and academic.

[peteski]

FWIW, I've found this particular thread to be quite dispassionate and academic.

Maybe because I haven't chime in?   No track-bashing unless you have personal experience with it! 

[Dave V]

Maybe because I haven't chime in?   No track-bashing unless you have personal experience with it! 

LOL.

Seriously, though, feel free to share your experiences!  I think I've played with every major type of N scale track except Peco code 55.

[peteski]

LOL.

Seriously, though, feel free to share your experiences!  I think I've played with every major type of N scale track except Peco code 55.

My N scale track experience is limited (so I don't have much to add to the discussion).  I was involved in building and operating couple of friend's layouts. One is all Peco C55 and some C80, and the other is mostly Atlas C55 (with few ME switches in the mix). I also regularly operate a layout with a potpourri of switches (old C70 Shinohara, Atlas and, Peco).  Then of course I also participate in NTRAK layouts as the shows.

I'm a big proponent of powering all the rails/frogs of a switch (not depending on just contact or hinged connections).  To me Peco track and switches are most reliable (but switches might need some lovin' like shimming the guardrails).  If you aren't anal about its appearance (and weather it well) then I would say that is the way to go.   I'm also in love with the looks of Peco double- and single-slip switches. There is just something nice about their looks (they don't look toy-like like the few other brands available). Not that there is much call for those on most layouts, but I Still love the look of a complex trackwork.     If Peco were to make a C55 track system using the US specs for tie size and spacing, they would have a hands-down winner!

Atlas C55 track system looks much better then Peco and the flex-track is not bad (with NMRA-profile wheels).  But reliability-wise Atlas C55 switches are quite problematic. I also really dislike the very floppy and flexible throwbars.  Then there are the plated frogs, points and guardrails. Not a good design. After repeated cleanings, the plating comes off exposing salmon-colored copper.  When that wears off (we haven't gotten to that point yet) then it should turn silver again (exposing the actual metal those castings are made of).

Kato Unitrack is very reliable but on the bottom os the list appearance-wise.  Also limiting is the fact that there is a limited selection of switches and crossings.  But using it on someone's first layout would insure reliability (and usually first layouts don't need fancy trackworks).

[jmarley76]

Best track is FREE track.     

You know it has to be good, because seriously, when was the last time you got or even saw FREE track? 

But in all seriousness, this is an informative thread. My hang up is wiring, of which I need more experience. That's why I lean toward Unitrack. I think it can be tinkered with to improve it's appearance. But I do like the appearance of Code 55, and have a good friend who swears by it (and occasionally at it).

I do appreciate the detail, realism, and over effect Lance is able to achieve. At the end of the day, I think it is less about the track he chooses to use and more the creativity and imagination that he puts into making his work exceptional.

[OldEastRR]

My layout has a mix of Peco 80 and 55 switches/flex and Xings and ME C55 with their switches. The Pecos are pretty much relegated to my industrial area and the junction between my two lines. The junction because only Peco made the right combination of turnouts and crossings to meet the angle (there's a short connecting track between the lines), and the industrial area because that needs to be super-reliable for slow switching. The mains are almost all ME.
The ME switches have the plus of being able to remove the short piece of track past the frogs and then cut the flex track it feeds into so one rail goes straight to the gap at the frog, without a rail joiner only an inch or 2 away. I saw this in a recent track-laying article in MR.
You can also cut away some of the ties between the diverging tracks on an ME and flex the curved leg out (or in) a little bit. The curved leg has 1-2 inches of  straight at the  end which can easily be bent to extend the switch curve. I know w/ Peco this would be tough to do, not sure about Atlas turnouts.
The points assembly is the weak point of the ME switches. I've had them come apart or just get too finicky about contact, and the plastic ties holding them in aren't up to the job. Recently I replaced the ties under the points with PCB ties. I had to solder 2 strips of board together  to make it as thick as the ME ties but they do a really good job of holding the rails in position. Plus you can build a snug slot for the point bar to move in. The spikes holding the switch rails are way more robust than those holding the flex rails. I needed to replace the ties at the points end and used some Atlas Code 80 ties, the old  stuff with the humongous "spikes". A little sanding and it matched the ME tie height, and the Code 55 rail fit snugly into the Code 80 "spikes". I have a batch of ME turnouts that went wonky and this is how I'm going to rebuild them.

[mcjaco]

FWIW, I've found this particular thread to be quite dispassionate and academic.

Agreed. 

I totally agreed with Skibbe's post, as I read Lance's blog as informational on his experiences for bullet proof operations in N.  Not a bashing of products. 

Mike can better tell the history of Modutrak, but with the exception of the New Lisbon modules, the entire thing is Atlas code 55, including turnouts (there are a couple handlaid as well).  We've had no less issues in the ten years I've been around with Atlas 55 as the landlaid turnouts. 

Back when I jumped to N (15+ years ago), I went straight to Atlas 55.  My modest N scale layout ran with a simple bus line, no turnout controls, and I ran short wheel base diesels without any problems.  Track can be so weighted by the skill level on which it's laid, I find arguing about which one is the best tough.  Too many variables for a baseline of what is good track, and what isn't.

[wcfn100]

I read the blog as:

"How to build an N scale layout for a senior citizen so he doesn't call you every other day.

First, use HO sized rail. Second, use HO size flanges.  Third, weight your cars as much as an HO scale car."


Jason