Hi… after many years of absence, I am returning to the hobby. This time I am going “N” scale… I understand that Atlas or Micro Train code 55 is the more realistic track… Any input on the best product selection for both track and switches would be appreciated… Rosco
I’ve read very good comments about Micro-Engineering tracks but can’t tell you more than that they look very good and are very pricey.I haven’t seen any myself.However,I’ve seen Atlas code 55 and they look very realistic.Their down side is that they won’t accomodate deep wheel flanges (older locos and rolling stock) but if you plan on using newer equipment only,you’ll be fine.It is also possible to replace wheelsets on most cars but locos are a different problem.
My personal choice is Peco code 55 for my layout.These are based on european prototype but if you don’t mind the slightly different tie spacing and general looks,then they are a very good choice.Installed properly,they’re almost bullet proof and will give years of reliable service.The choice of turnouts is very good (three different curve radiuses,slips,double crossovers,wyes,etc) and these have a spring lock system that hold them firmly in place on either side.You can install them with Peco’s turnout motors wich adapt directly to the turnout or use other types like Tortoise slow motion motors.A good thing with them is that Peco code 55 is in fact code 80 buried a little deeper in the ties to look more like C55,but also allows to use almost any older rolling stock without replacing wheelsets.
Rosco, First off welcome to the forums! [#welcome]
I recently started a room-size N-scale layout that will have about 130 feet of visible mainline track (and a lot more hidden). I have only used Atlas Code 80 on previous layouts but chose Atlas Code 55 this time around because it looked so good in everyone’s photography. I just laid down some track over the weekend to test some track arrangements, and boy does that Atlas Code 55 look sweet. I took a few pics comparing my Atlas Code 55 with some Peco Code 80 and Atlas Code 80:
I also will be using some Micro Engineering Code 55 flex because it is the only N-scale concrete tie flex with the correct North American tie spacing. Hope the photos above help a little in your decision making process. Jamie
Atlas 55 is by far the most economical, most available, and best looking system. Replacement wheelsets are cheap enough…
Lee
Thanks for the info… Have a great day… Rosco
I regret having laid code 80 even after Atlas code 55 was available. I guess I convinced myself that I couldn’t lay code 55 well enough or that somehow code 80 would survive train shows and moves better… All rubish.
So, when I take pictures like this:
I cringe when I see that rail and the oversized ties. I’ve started stockpiling code 55 for a full track re-lay.
In N scale there are indeed many choices of track available.
If you are running older equipment (with larger flanges) your selection will be limited a little. Running DCC will cut the field a little more.
Basically it breaks down like this (or so I understand);
Atlas code 80 - the old standby. It’s bullet proof, cheap, easy to find, and DCC friendly. It just doesn’t look the greatest (tall rail, oversize ties and tie spacing and so forth). If you don’t mind the looks, it is OK. Good ballasting work, painting and weathering the rails can help a lot with the looks.
Atlas code 55 - Looks good, pretty easy to find, decent price, DCC friendly. They offer wye turnouts, # 10 turnouts, various crossings, and they recently added rerailers and curved turnouts. Problem is, older equipment has larger flanges on the wheels and they hit the ties on this track. This may not work for you. If you’re buying currently available equipment this will be less of an issue for you, except with Micro-Trains cars. You’ll have to get low profile wheelsets for those.
Atlas code 65 track - It’s one of those that has the roadbed attached to it, so it has those limitations (fixed radii and such). Also, there’s no flex track that I know of in that code. It’s new enough that there aren’t many options available yet, but who knows. Atlas made it because they wanted a track / roadbed combo, and they made it code 65 so they could avoid the flange issue while still being somewhat close to a prototype rail height.
Peco code 80 and code 55 - Great stuff, lots of track choices (curved turnouts, Stub turnouts, slip switches, and all kinds of stuff), solid and reliable. The code 55 is really code 80 track with a double flange on the lower sides of the rail itself and it’s just buried in the ties further. It doesn’t
I’d go with Atlas code 55.
My current layout is in Atlas code 80, mainly because I had a large amount on hand from a previous layout attempt. I also don’t think Atlas had their code 55 line out, or had just announced it when I started my current layout.
As pcarrell correctly stated, Atlas code 80 is bulletproof and looks just ‘OK’. I also have to sympathize with Dave V regarding seeing it in my pictures too.
I’m in the midst of a layout make-over and have tried to dress up the code 80. Here are my best attempts so far. I think it’s better than it looked before, but I’m still not totally satisfied with it:
In my experience with the Pecos and DCC, the problem isn’t with the points or the spring, it’s with the frog. On the insulfrog, that is the plastic frog version, the diverging rails come very close together, in fact, the inside rail of the diverging route actually crosses the path of the inside rail of the straight route, allowing the wheel of a locomotive on the straight route to briefly contact the wrong rail. Usually it’s not enough to cause a dead short, but it does cause a brief interruption and a “buzz”.
The fix is pretty easy, just dab a little clear nail polish on the offending point to provide that extra millimeter of insulation.
I believe this becomes more of a problem over time, and using an abrasive track cleaner may be more responsible for the problem than the track itself.
Ultimately, my entire layout will be changed over to c-55 by Atlas, so eventually the problem will go away completely!
Lee
Thanks for the insite on that Lee. I knew someone would set me straight!