I am trying to decide what track to go with, before I go out and buy and start my journey on this great hobby. I would like to get your thoughts and views about this. As of right now I don’t see the cons of either maybe its the look of the track. Also what turnouts should I go with ?
I don´t see any reason why you should not go with Atlas code 55 track, unless you are the proud owner of some really old rolling stock with pizza-cutter flanges and Rapido-type couplers.
Code 55 looks much better and is as reliable as code 80 track. Of course, you have to execute a lot of care when laying the track, but that is irrespective of the rail size.
Atlas has # 5 and # 7 switches. If your layout size permits the use of # 7 switches - go for them!
I use the Atlas code 55 and I love the looks.
Besides the #5 and #7’s , they also have #10, 2 different sized Y’s and curved turnouts.
I used #7’s and #10’s on my layout,but my layout is approximately 11x24 so I had plenty of room for the larger turnouts. To help keep cost down I used an electrical slide switch to throw the turnout and power the metal frog at the same time.
There were problems with the #5’s a couple years back but I think that has been resolved.
The size turnouts you use depends a lot on how much space you have to work with.
Craig
I faced the same questions about a year ago … and I went with the Code 80. Why would I do such a thing, when the Code 55 is a markedly better-looking product? Quite simply – supply.
There was a ridiculously long period last year when Atlas Code 55 simply wasn’t available. The product just wasn’t moving out of China. After waiting and waiting, I said the heck with it and went with Code 80. I’ve been happy with this choice, but it wasn’t my first choice.
The big question is, will Code 55 continue to be readily available in the future? Or will there be another months-long period where you can’t get it? Of course, there are no guarantees that a supply breakdown won’t occur with Code 80, either.
Something to consider, though.
I use code 55 flex and like the looks. You need to be careful laying the track, but that’s true for all N scale track. I use #7 for most of the layout, #5 in the yards.
That’s a good point about availability however. The # 5 and 7 right hand turnouts have been very hard to find for the past three months or so. Atlas doesn’t have any, Walther’s expects them in February last I checked - I’m on back order. There have been “spot shortages” of some of the other code 55 pieces as well. I’ve assumed it was just due to popularity and I hope the shortages will iron themselves out soon.
Hi There,
I was in the same situation when I got back into the hobby, and decided to model N scale. I was lucky in that I was starting completely from scratch in N scale, so I didn’t have any equipment that needed to be changed to low profile wheels. I’m glad I went with code 55, and other then some initial problems with switches (mostly electrical) things have run well. Having the layout encased inside a coffee table also does wonders for keeping the track clean too.
Jeff B
A word (or more) about switch sizes:
One or more of the folks who responded encouraged you to use the largest practicable turnout, and that’s certainly the trend. But that’s primarily a matter of aesthetics. The larger # switches simply look better. But if space is tight, a smaller switch may work just fine for you.
If you’re new to the hobby, I’d highly recmmend the book, “Track Planning for Realistic Operation,” by John Armstrong. (I think it’s out of print, but you should be able to find a copy available online.) It’s indispensible, because it not only illustrates how real railroads are designed, but delves into issues like minimum radius for your curves, avoiding S curves, choosing switch sizes, and many other details that are important in designing a smooth-functioning railroad.
Mr. Armstrong pointed out that even the small turnouts have a radius that shouldn’t interfere with good operations, in most cases. An Atlas Custom Line #4 (which is really a #4.5) should be adequate for things like yard tracks and industry spurs. Getting a full-length passenger car or an engine with a long wheel base through that same turnout may be a different story, however. In that case, a #6 is a safe minimum. It all depends on what you want to run through the turnout.
The value of the small # switch is that it helps save space, an important issue if you’re trying to build a yard ladder or something similar. If space isn’t an issue, than by all means go bigger. You’ll like the look.
Jim
I believe the one place John Armstrong insisted on #6 turnouts was for crossovers between double track, mostly because of the S-curve issue.
We didn’t hesitate to go with code 55 for the greatly improved look.
We stick with very short engines and cars, and the #5 code 55 turnouts are more than ample. For us, the #7’s would eat up too much space. For tight switching spots, we even use some #2.5 wyes. On many of the turnouts and wyes, we shorten up the lead tracks to allow them to fit into even tighter spaces.
For larger equipment and big main line runs, then definitely use the bigger turnouts. But for industrial switching, logging, streetcars, etc. the smaller ones are much more appropriate.
Here’s a couple of thousand words for you to consider:
!(http://lh5.ggpht.com/_ERLF7TTPvmA/TM9mlL-xhRI/AAAAAAAAL2o/FsQfWg8a6wc/s720/Timonium 10-31 001.jpg)
c80 on a well executed N trak module.
Atlas c55 on my home layout.
Can you choose wisely?
Re: Supply. it’s true that Atlas had trouble delivering product in the last six months or so of 2010, but things seem to be loosening up. While you may have trouble finding at your local store, a quick spin around the interwebs will likely find all you need. I also like the variety of turnouts and accessory tracks such as crossings in several degree angles. It’s every bit as easy to work with as their standard c80 line, and compared to other better looking track systems, it’s very economical.
The #10 and curved turnouts are worth their weight in gold!
Lee
Wow, Lee. Thanks for posting those pictures … and making me feel like the dickens for going with Code 80! Like I said earlier, there’s no question which is the better-looking track. The tie spacing appears toy-like on the Code 80 by comparison.
Fortunately, I’m building a sectional layout in stages, so I can tinker with a few different products. I have a feeling I’ll be making the transition to Code 55 sooner rather than later.
I wonder, however, how much better the Code 80 track in the picture would have looked, had it been weathered as nicely as the track on your layout. The re-railers didn’t help either!
All the weathering in the world doesn’t fix the tie spacing, or the chunkiness of the rail itself. Here’s another shot for you to ponder, it’s from an old yard set up that I built with c80, weathering, and faked in backdrop and everything…
The ballasting helps disguise the ties, but the rails are still over a foot tall… Lipstick on a pig, if you ask me…
Lee