hidden staging track recommendation - compatibility with Atlas 55 and wheels

[nickelplate759]

I've pretty much settled on Atlas code 55 for my visible track (as mentioned in an earlier post).
I've got two hidden staging yards planned (one double-ended, one stub), and while I can use Atlas 55 there, I certainly don't have to.

I'd like recommendations on what to use for the hidden staging area.  Main requirements are
1. reliability
2. ease of adding and maintaining functional switch motors
3. compatibility with the same wheels that work well with Atlas code 55.  I really like the the Fox Valley thin-profile wheels, and while I don't use them on every car, I'd like them to work on this.

I don't care what it looks like.  I don't mind doing a little tinkering to get nice wheels to work with the switches.

George

[MichaelWinicki]

Virtually all of my layout is Atlas code 55 flex with Atlas code 55 turnouts... Including the hidden staging.

It's been down for 8 years and sees temps from -10 to 90 without issue.

Some have concerns with Atlas code 55 turnouts... I have over 120 of'em and I'm pleased.  If you're spooked over using Atlas code 55 turnouts in hidden staging then I'd consider ME #6's.

[bman]

For my track hidden behind the back drop I used Atlas flex and their code 80 turnouts and code 55 for track in the viewing area.  Where the code 55 and 80 meet I flattened 1/2 of a code 80 rail joiner and soldered the code 55 track to the top of it.  I made sure everything lined up and was level and so far after 5 years I've had no problems with it. I even fashioned 2 spring switches at the ends of the staging since the turnouts are only ran through one way.  I don't have any wheel sets from Fox Valley, but my 89' flats and spine cars from BMLA and their fine treads operate fine on this for me.  I'm sure this is just one of many ways to do this.

[davefoxx]

I'd just keep using Atlas Code 55 track into staging.  I don't mind tweaking on a turnout to try to get it as bulletproof as possible, and sometimes some filing is necessary to avoid wheels from picking the points.  Some complain about the gauge issues on Atlas Code 55 turnouts, but the truth is that these turnouts are built to a tighter tolerance than most commercial turnouts.  So, your wheelsets must be in proper gauge to run well on these turnouts.  For some reason, many model manufacturers release their locomotives with the backspacing of the wheelsets too tight, causing these locomotives to hop through the frogs on these turnouts, especially #5s.  That's not the fault of the turnout.  The good news is that Fox Valley wheelsets work great on Atlas Code 55 turnouts.

This is what I can do with a train on Atlas Code 55 track, including #5 and #7 turnouts.  I'm not afraid.   

Hope this helps,
DFF

[C855B]

Have you thought about UniTrack for hidden staging? That's about as bulletproof as you can get, it goes down easy, and the switch machines are built into the turnouts. Cost goes up with the convenience, however. It runs great with the couple hundred cars I have with FVM fine wheels, even no trouble with the custom NWSL thin-profile (/64) wheels I have on some locos.

[mmagliaro]

I'd have to vote no on Atlas C55 for hidden staging.   Based on my previous experience with other brands, I'd probably go with Unitrack.  I hate how it looks, but it's darn good-running, reliable track and it's made of a great metal that seems to stay very clean.

[Kisatchie]

...Based on my previous experience with other brands, I'd probably go with Unitrack.  I hate how it looks, but it's darn good-running, reliable track and it's made of a great metal that seems to stay very clean.

I was testing some of my Unitrack turnouts today, and I was using some Unitrack that hadn't been cleaned in 11 years or more. At first, the loco would stop on the old track, but after I briskly rubbed the rails with a dry towel, the locos traversed the track like it was new. That was a great relief, since I don't have any track cleaning fluid yet.


Hmm... enough banana
daiquiries and I don't
care about track cleaner...

[jdcolombo]

The problem with using Unitrack for staging will be mating it to Atlas Code 55.  I don't know of any easy way to do this; what you'd need to do is use a Kato conversion track at the end of the staging yard, then make the track height the same (roadbed for the Atlas will need to be built up so that the Code 55 railhead matches the Code-80 height) and then you'll probably need to solder the Code 55 rail on top of a flattened rail joiner.

I agree that Unitrack is bulletproof, but matching it to the Atlas might not be worth the effort; I've used Atlas Code 55 in my staging yards; they are admittedly modest (6 tracks in each of two staging yards; tracks are 10' long), but they have worked well for six years using Atlas #7 switches and a diode-matrix for track selection. 

John C.

[central.vermont]

John,
I haven't built my staging yet but Unitrack is the way I'm going to go. I was a member of a club that folded some years ago but we used Atlas C55 everywhere and went with Unitrack in the staging yards. We found that the Unitrack matched up very well with the Atlas C55 on Mid-West cork and using the Kato track joiners flattened and soldered to the bottom of the C55 track.

Jon

[jdcolombo]

John,
I haven't built my staging yet but Unitrack is the way I'm going to go. I was a member of a club that folded some years ago but we used Atlas C55 everywhere and went with Unitrack in the staging yards. We found that the Unitrack matched up very well with the Atlas C55 on Mid-West cork and using the Kato track joiners flattened and soldered to the bottom of the C55 track.

Jon

Hmmm.  Good to know.  While I've had good luck with Atlas in the staging yard, Unitrack would certainly be the preferred choice for hidden track if I ever do this again!

John C.

[Carolina Northern]

Atlas standard code 80 joiners work well on Unitrack.

I regularly mate Atlas code 80 to Unitrack using Midwest cork and Code 80 joiners.

You should be able to flatten the joiner and solder the code 55 to it, just like mating code 80 to code 55.

Unitrack is NOT more expensive by the time you figure in the cost of the roadbed and whatever you use for a switch machine - it all comes with the Unitrack.

Don

[wm3798]

Regardless of the track you use, let me make the following hard-earned recommendations...

1.  No matter how hidden the tracks are, make sure you have good access to them.  They WILL need to be cleaned, and someone WILL rear end a train in staging and bad things will ensue.
2.  Keep all the turnouts that feed the staging close to the aisle and clearly visible, even if they're below decks.  Cut a hole in your fascia, or otherwise make sure you can see the alignment for trains entering/exiting staging.
3.  Don't let neophyte operators run trains in and out of staging.  Again, despite the most thorough training and stern warnings, they will do something stupid to cause massive delays out there in the fifth dimension!

I used Peco snap switches with their delightfully noisy BUZZ/SNAP machines...  I could hear what was going on, even when I couldn't always see it.  The sprung points also proved to be especially reliable.

And I had c55 in all visible areas, and Atlas c/80 in staging.  Staging was supposed to be ONE WAY through balloon return loops, so the Pecos were on the critical in-bound throat.  I used cheap Atlas snap track switches on the outbound, which worked fine.

My biggest problem was accessibility.  I didn't leave enough vertical clearance to really be able to service the tracks, AND I put the switches against the wall, under my main yard, instead of out by the aisle where I could get at them better.  It added a bit of capacity to the staging tracks, but it was a nightmare when something bad happened.  Did I mention that something Bad will happen?

Lee

[nkalanaga]

I also used Peco code 55, and mated it to the ME code 55 by filing the extra off the bottom of the Peco rail.  I only had one track I had to join, so filing two rails was easy, and standard ME rail joiners worked fine.  Atlas code 55 wasn't available yet, but it should work the same.  And, like Lee, I used the Peco motors, with their auxiliary contacts added, for positive power routing.

I did have to shim the guard rails, a common issue with Peco turnouts and modern wheels, but a strip of Evergreen styrene glued to the inside of each one solved that problem.  use your NMRA gauge to determine the thickness you need, I used 0.060 wide strips, and sanded any excess so the tops were smooth.

[nickelplate759]

I also used Peco code 55, and mated it to the ME code 55 by filing the extra off the bottom of the Peco rail.  I only had one track I had to join, so filing two rails was easy, and standard ME rail joiners worked fine.  Atlas code 55 wasn't available yet, but it should work the same.  And, like Lee, I used the Peco motors, with their auxiliary contacts added, for positive power routing.

I did have to shim the guard rails, a common issue with Peco turnouts and modern wheels, but a strip of Evergreen styrene glued to the inside of each one solved that problem.  use your NMRA gauge to determine the thickness you need, I used 0.060 wide strips, and sanded any excess so the tops were smooth.

Regarding Peco switch machines - as I recall, they get buried under the turnout, which is why I never wanted to use them in the past (maintenance would seem to be hard on the scenery).  Of course, in hidden track, there is no scenery to damage.   Ideally I'd prefer the switch machines where I can see them (even under the layout completely).   Are there other mounting options?

[spr1955]

I have 41 staging tracks and 17 are hidden but in view via closed circuit cameras. My whole layout is Atlas code 55 with #7s. Started building in 2005 with no issues other than early right hand #7's that had some cast metal crystallization expansion and replaced as needed. Trains run very well, you just need to lay it straight and watch alignments, us spiral tangents. My minimum radius is 18". I used tortoises for turnout control. All areas are accessible in some way which is important for any repairs if necessary and for fixing what your operators do wrong in staging areas.

David P
SPR 1955