Thought I'd chime in too.
Lance's recommendations for "Planning for Success in N-scale" has some real problems, and if followed will ensure no-joy in the
"Success" department. Some recommendations are self-contradictory, and others are based on non-factual assumptions.
Lance Mistake #1: The first "wrong" assumption that Lance makes is that bigger is better. By "better" I am sure he means that elusively defined term "bulletproof". Since maybe my definition of "bulletproof" is different than yours, I'll use another couple of words which are what I seek in building models, modules and layouts for myself and others in my nearly 40 years of doing so...those words are "trouble-free"...and in my long-term experience and experimentation, size has very little to do with being trouble-free.
Lance Mistake #2: Lance says:
"If you go with code 80, the larger wheel to rail contact area gives improved electrical pick up." Lance's odd contention that code 80 rail somehow ensures better electrical contact between rail and metal wheels is totally specious. The railhead could be three feet wide and electrical contact between it and the conical surface of the metal model train wheel would be the same, unless the three foot wide railhead was tipped to match the approximately 1 in 20 semi-conical angle ratio of the model wheel rolling surface, and the wheels got automatically wider as the railhead gets wider. This means that there's the same amount of contact patch area on any width railhead with typical N-scale railhead dimensions and wheel rolling surface angles. So, "bigger" rails have NOTHING to do with improved electrical pickup reliability.
But, if he can prove it to me, then I'll believe it. In the meantime, my trains run (and have run) flawlessly on C80, C70, C55, C40 and C30...the size of the rail having zero influence on electrical pickup goodness.
Lance then comments on his choice of Peco 80 because he states it is
"Without question the most reliable N scale track product on the market". He also states that its
"downside" is
"of course, its out of scale appearance." Kato Unitrack is at least as reliable in normal use, as are other products. However, this leads us to Lance Mistake #3: Calling the appearance of Peco 80 as merely
"out of scale" is grossly euphemistic...it's as ugly as the a$$-end of my neighbor's 14 year old pit bull when she's in heat. Here's some news for ya...it isn't modeled after "British prototype railways", or any other prototype I've ever researched...it's specifically designed to look like the toy track that N-gauge trainsets ran on when they first appeared under your Christmas tree back in the 60's and 70's. The proportions are just about half a century old and are in direct opposition to the finely detailed and properly proportioned present-day, 21st Century models of trains that will run reliably on top of it in spite of its fugliness. (I'm not picking on just Peco, but on everything else too, with the exception of Atlas 55 and ME)
Anybody on this thread have any problems with their flex (no matter what brand) becoming less reliable over time? Does anybody have anvils falling out of the sky onto their model track? I didn't think so. So, why is code 80 rail needed at all in N-scale?...either fully visible or with .025" imbedded in the tie strip?
Next question...anybody have problems with trains running over dead-frog turnouts? I can see the hands shooting up in the air. Lance Mistake #3: Dead frog turnouts???? Is he SERIOUS?? First he says that bigger rail means a better electrical contact patch, then recommends DEAD FROGS???...With zero electrical contact? Why not fix the turnouts' problems both before and during installation so you'll KNOW they'll work, rather than jury-rig a solution after the fact? BECAUSE IT INCREASES PRODUCTION TIME...if you're building your layout to meet a customer's deadline. If you're building it yourself for yourself, taking a little extra time to do it right will go a long way in adding to your satisfaction and it won't cut into your profit margins.
Lance Mistakes #4 & #5: Suggesting using code 70 rail joiners instead of code 55 rail joiners on ME code 55 track...then on the next page under
"Three Common Construction Errors" he states:
"...never, ever solder your rail joints..." Then, a bit further on gives his opinion that
"...soldering a feed to every rail is unnecessary overkill " Hmmmm....loose rail joiners...not soldered...feeders not on every piece of rail. Lance's advice here is an electrical cluster-you-know-what...that WILL happen if you choose to take his advice when laying your track and electrifying it.
Lance does say some things that I agree with...sort of. He admits that ME C55 is as mechanically sound as Peco products (both C80 AND C55 if I'm reading this right)...but using his logic about railhead size making better electrical
"pick-up" then, shouldn't he have recommended ME C70 flex??? Just askin'....
I also agree on Lance's high layout height recommendation. As I'm getting older, it's a lot more comfortable for me to observe my trains and work on my layout, both on top and underneath...with my railheads being a nominal 52" above the floor, with sections above and below that.
Although I agree with Lance that body-mounted couplers work better than talgo couplers/trucks, I do not find that mixing them causes any problems either switching or in mainline running...but I run extra broad curves everywhere, so maybe small radii would cause problems. Switching over to body mounts (Z-scale MT's for me) is an ongoing process on my layout.
(edit: @peteski comments "I can't disagree with any of your points. Well, maybe the one about mixing body- and truck-mounted couples being ok. If you take one of the modern long Kato Diesel locos with long porches and body-mounted couplers, and you couple it to something like MTL 89' TT flat car with deeply-inboard mounted trucks and swinging couplers, you are asking for trouble, even on curves which aren't very tight." Since my time period is 1947 thru 1956, I don't run motive power and cars that more modern modelers may have on their layouts or be interested in. Thanks Peter for the added insight! rgg)I also agree that Magnematic uncoupling is something I can do without, along with the MTL "dongles" which cause more running problems than they're worth. Give me a martini skewer over a magnet any day....SNIP..off they all come on my layout. No dongle problems here.
Lance's recommendation of Kato & Atlas motive power is a relatively sure thing (I've had a few problems with both of these brands in the past), but dated. I would say that nowadays in 2016, most new engines from all the major manufacturers run well, and reliably...especially the diesels. Beginners should buy diesels, with maybe a Bachmann Consolidation as their first steam engine. My old Life-Like FA/FB's just keep on running...they always have, and the detail is excellent other than the small number boards for my UP lashups.
Micro Trains rolling stock? That's a safe recommendation, unless you want realistic running boards, etched & separate detailing, correct ride height, metal wheelsets and accurate, road-specific details. MTL lost its monopoly on being "the best" rolling stock years ago, with Atlas, FVM, Athearn, BLMA, Trainworks, Intermountain, WOT, Rapido and others competing, catching up and surpassing MTL. With all my thousands of pieces of rolling stock, I only had running problems with some of my old Con Cor passenger car trucks, with the metal wheelsets falling out sometimes, so Lance's recommendation to replace trucks and wheelsets with MTL products is not entirely correct or necessary. All of my MTL plastic lo-pros are slowly being relaced by FVM narrow metal lo-pros. MTL better figure this out soon if they want to continue to compete IMHO.
Adding so much weight that your engines just barely can pull your cars without
"stalling out" is just plain silly. What if I'm only pulling six cars and a caboose? Since Lance builds and designs mainly switching layouts, he should specify that cars which get switched in sharp industrial trackage need to be heavily weighted...the rest need to be weighted to NMRA standards if possible. Smooth trackwork goes much further than adding lead in my experience.
For a rank beginner who wants to set up trains on the ping-pong table...or put together something to enjoy with his little kids, or who wants to fiddle around with various styles of trackplans before settling on one that suits his/her needs and druthers...I always recommend Kato Unitrack...over any other track product. And I also recommend buying a Kato trainset or two to run on the Unitrack...all for an effortless, reliable, easy-to-assemble-and-use, re-usable positive model railroad experience.
However, for those modelers who are detail oriented and further along, I recommend ME C55 flex, ME C55 #6 turnouts, Atlas #10 turnouts, wyes, curved turnouts & diamonds, and finding out if they want to learn how to roll their own turnouts, for more versatility, saving a LOT of money, more reliability and better looks...and to see if they just like it.
For myself, my claim to having found "trouble-free" operation, AND fairly prototypical appearance is not influenced by owning a commercial enterprise making as many layouts as I can during the year. Although getting things done in a fairly timely manner IS still important for me, I don't have a "production line", so I don't consider cleaning up the burrs on cut rails and filing a couple of angles on the corners of the rail feet to allow easy insertion of matching, tight code 55 rail joiners with my flat-nose pliers to be burdensome.
My layout is portable, which means it MUST be durable and robust because it goes to shows at least twice a year, traveling several hundred miles in the back of my Suburban and in a large U-haul trailer. True reliability starts with the benchwork, and I use wooden L-girders with splined Masonite subroadbed supported by risers attached to cross-members all glued and screwed together.
The key to mechanically sound trackwork is to have a structurally strong subroadbed with a firm yet resilient roadbed, sanded smooth to remove any gross and sudden height variations....Midwest Cork Products N-scale and HO scale roadbed fit this bill perfectly. ME or RC flex gets carefully laid to spec's determined by first designing using a CAD program, then printing a roadbed template so I always KNOW exactly what radius my trackwork has, and where the spiral easements begin and end. ME stiff flex fits the bill in two ways...first, I can lay it exactly to a predetermined centerline because it stays in the curve I choose to bend it to, and second, its gauge is finer and more consistent than any other "floppy" flex. I NEVER ASSUME that just because it looks pretty good when laid that it's reliable, so I always test it for a few days, running trains to prove that it's done reliably. I solder EVERY RAIL JOINT, but my layout is sectional, so there is never a section over 6' long...and I NEVER have expansion/contraction problems with my ballasted track....never.
Also, to ensure ultimate reliability, durability and a fairly prototypical appearance, I hand-lay every turnout that goes on my layout, except for two ME #6's in Echo Yard I installed as a long-term test of the brand. They still work flawlessly after over 20 years, which is one reason I recommend them so often.
I also run a 22AWG solid-core copper feeder (less than 6" long) from the center of each and every piece of rail on the layout..except for my PCB turnouts, where I allow the PCB's to carry current to the assembly. Each frog is live, and powered from NWSL Tortoises underneath.
Code 40 trackage is hand-laid on PCB ties (every fifth tie) on the Park City Branchline and will be at Devil's Slide and the Ideal Concrete Plant complex. UP-style center sidings are ME and Rail Craft C40, with the inner spikeheads sanded down so that my motive power will run on it.
The only electrical "problems" I have periodically on the layout EVER is dirty track, especially during heavy running at shows...which I take care of by running Masonite board track cleaning cars in each freight train, and using a soft Bright Boy in the yards and mainlines at the start of each day at the show.
Trains run smoothly and ultra-reliably on the mainlines and through my turnouts and other turnouts built to my specs on other sections built by my partners who buckle up to our show layout. At home, after setting up after a show (takes me about five hours to do it by myself) any damage done in-transit would not have been prevented by using code 80 rails as it's always scenery damage...not track damage.
I love the fact that I am not having to "cover up" or "hide" anything about the track I use on my layout. Just the opposite...I emphasize it with the painting, weathering and ballasting, which ironically makes the code 80 track on other layouts I work on look better also.
I continue to understand people who agree with Lance's methodology, but...I also know through just as many years of experience...that he is over-compensating with his bigger-is-better, and out-of-date recommendations for present-day N-scale layouts...and some of his recommendations will produce problems over time on almost any N-scale layout or module..
Cheerio!
Bob Gilmore
