OK, next newbie question for everyone. I’ve decided to forego handlaying track on my layout, most due to lack of time and patience for that aspect of the hobby. So, I’m looking at buying flextrack at this point. I’ve heard Shinohara is the best, I’ve heard Atlas is the best and I’ve heard Peco is the best. In my untrained mind, track is track, can someone give me their two cents on what brand of flextrack is best and why? I’m talking code 83 by the way.
Thanks,
Mike
As a newbie you’ll be better off starting out with code 100 flex-track. It’s slightly cheaper but is much more forgiving of mistakes. Also there are more accessories for code 100 than for code 83. I’ve seen instances where a newbie ignores advice and dives right in with the code 83 track components and end up giving up because of aggrevation over track laying problems.
Although I went with Atlas Code 100 flex track, I’m not sure I’d agree with Jeff on this point. I went with the Code 100 because I have a lot of old rolling stock, and the larger flanges on some of the wheels might have been a problem on Code 83. On the other hand, if I had it to do over, I probably would go with Code 83, and I would pre-weather (paint) the track as I put it down. It’s a lesson learned after 2 1/2 years of layout construction. But, I’ve never worked with Code 83 myself, so any thoughts on how easy it is to use would be mere conjecture on my part.
How many of us have worked with both Code 100 and Code 83, preferably from the same manufacturer? Is there a significant difference in “difficulty level” between the two?
Jeff is certainly right about one thing - trackwork is important, and it needs to be good or you will not be happy with your layout.
Even though I don’t have flextrack, I like the Atlas code 100 line. The track itself is durable and so far, nothing has derailed on it (except when I didn’t do it by accident [:-,]).
Being in MRRing only about 3-1/2 years now, I still consider myself a newbie in many respects. I started out with Code 83 and haven’t had any trouble installing/operating on/maintaining it.
Atlas flex-track is more flexible than Peco. But the tradeoff is that it’s more difficult to install on curves. Peco has the advantage of staying in place better than the Atlas after you bend it. The downside is: Once you’ve bent it, it’s more difficult to perfectly straighten back out again.
Another difference worth noting. The tie spacing on the Peco flex-track is closer together than the Atlas.
My favorite track is…the one that works well. I don’t think you can go wrong with either one. I use Atlas Code 83 because it looks more prototypical than Code 100 and it’s more plentiful in these here parts.
Tom
MisterBeasley
I am just about to start laying track. Can you tell me the advantages of weathering the track before laying it or is this just the way you decided to do it? Does any one else have a preference?
My inexperienced choice for track was shinohara. I bought five boxes after asking the same question.
I used Shinohara years ago and found it extremely difficult to bend as both rails are fixed, or were when I used it. Now I try to buy track that is rigid like Shinohara or Peco for straight sections and I used Atlas for curves because it it is so much easier to bend and the rigid stuff doesn’t get the wobbles when I lay it where the track is straight. There is a difference in tie color but ties should be painted a variety of colors any way to look more realistic in my opinion. I’m fortunate. I model the PRR in Philadelphia. This is probably the only stretch of track in the country that code 100 is the correct size.
There are advantages to each make of track. Price is also a consideration. Atlas code 83 can be had for about $2.40 a section if you shop. Other makes can be twice that or more. All will work. I guess it depends on personal preference.
One of the big considerations is looks. I happen to like MicroEngineering for looks and I will be running code 70 on my mainline. However, my staging and any track in tunnels will be Atlas code 83 to save money.
Personally I have had no problems or issue arising from laying Atlas Code 83, didn’t seem any more difficult than the code 100, and as far as durability arguement between 83 and 100, I’m not sure what some people do with the track,(perhaps using a sledge hammer?) but 83 is more than durable for modeling.
Contrary to what my fellow forum members have stated, you can just as easily screw up laying code 100 flextrack as you can laying code 83 flextrack. The techniques are the same regardless of the code rail used. Telling someone to avoid using code 100 because they’re a newbie is bad advice. What do you tell someone who is a newbie in n-scale? Don’t use code 55 because it is too small, use code 100 and handlay it instead??
Rgearding HO code 83 track, which is best is dependent on the criteria you use to make that judgement. If cost is the primary consideration, then Atlas is the best. If it is the level of detail, then you’re talking about Micro-engineering and Shinohara. Peco, IMO, is good but the other track components have too European a look to it. The Shinohara track and the weathered ME track can be difficult to bend, you just need to be careful and take your time. They are not like Atlas code 83 which wiggles like a snake. The Shinohara and ME will hold its shape once bent, unlike the Atlas.
ONe option would be to use the highly detailed track in the foreground and theless detailed in the background and hidden areas. Also, IMO, it is always easier to do the initial weathering of track before it is laid down. Afterwards, go back and touch it up and add more weathering to simulate grease and dirt and the ballast and track.
I had never laid a bit of track in my life. I have about 200’ of mostly Peco flex track, some fixed radius Atlas with Peco Insulfrog turnouts that I can run a 40 car train over without derailing. Still it’s not perfect. Here are some things I learned:
I used bridge flex on my bridges which is lighter guage track and the difference in height causes some problems (occasional derails and increased resistance). I think its more reliable NOT to change guage anywhere on the mainline.
Try as I might, my flex track joints on curves cause increased resistance (not too bad though). Slight kinking.
On the advice of someone who knows, I started using FIXED curves coming off my turnouts (when curved) instead of flex. This helps tremendously. Flex track tries to bend turnouts and causes other problems.
Dont try and cut gaps in curved flex. Cut the gaps in straight sections or fixed curve.
I used the heavier guage track. It is all I have ever used and I cant really say if its easier. I suspect it IS more forgiving, though I cant proove it. It bridges grade transitions better.
Dont put a joint at the beginning of an incline.
You can bend fixed curve track if you cut the rails. At first I didnt want to use ANY fixed curve track. Peco makes a large selection of fixed curve radius track. You may have to order it. USE FIXED CURVES IN TIGHT PLACES. Sometimes flex just isnt a good solution at all.
Dont push your radius. Designing your track plan is easier with tight curves but there are locomotives and rolling stock that wont like them. Gentle radius works better.
Curves on grades increase resistance. 4% straight is about equal to 3% curved.
Although my Insulfrogs work pretty well (some stalling of my small steam). I think Electro frogs have potential. You have to cut all those gaps, which is why I didnt use Electro frogs. This is a big decision. I just switch my turnouts by hand, which I like, electric swi
Sir, your cited statement above indicates that your are smarter than the average bear!
Between 1964 and 1978 I did not have a home layout - I did, however, in that thirteen year period familiarize myself with model railroading as a member of three clubs. When I retired from the Air Force I began building a home layout and I opted to handlay Code 100 track. As so many military retirees are inclined to do I decided to grow a beard and as I observed the progress of my handlaid track and my beard I decided that the floor was closer than end-of-track and five months into that layout I tore the whole thing out and commenced construction of a new layout using Code 100. A year and a half later circumstances - my last kid fledged the nest - gave me more space and so I abandoned my Code 100 layout and I began construction of a layout using Code 83 track. A year and a half into that layout a remodeling project forced me to demolish it also; it was my intention that the next layout would be built with Codes 83 and 70. Instead I bolted HO Scale for N Scale where I have been a continuing user of Rail Craft/Micro Engineering Company Code 55.
The reason I labored on this point was to establish that I do have credentials for HO Scale track laying; having established that fact should effectively eliminate any “This is an HO Scale topic and you N Scalers have no business responding to it!” responses. I did not find Code 83 any more difficult to work with than Code 100. There, to be sure, were more switches available in the latter but in browsing Walthers’ HO Scale catalog that has pretty well alleviated itself in the intervening 25 years. Were I t
POTEET,
I get a bit of a bump when transitioning from my N scale Peco code 83 to my ME code 70 I think, bridge flex. It causes one of my steamers to spin its wheels when backing up there and definitely makes a bit of a whump when listening carefully. I put regular track on two of my bridges and am happy with the looks. I dunno seems like mixing codes adds unreliablility to me, though I am living with it, not causing derails or anything. Just a comment that its less than ideal from a running standpoint.
The only other thing is I unfortunately used Atlas 11 1/2" fixed radius pieces in three places and they are all less than ideal. (shoulda stuck with the 19"). Also, I get a bit of stalling and shorting on my Insulfrogs, seems to come and go. Dreaming that Electrofrogs might be worth the trouble. Better if done right. Can you rely on the points to route the power to the frogs? Or do you have to have throws if you go Electrofrog? I really like the Pecos in that you dont need switches or throws. That is the cats pajamas.
Pilot;
Your point about transitioning from one rail code to another is a good observation and this fact should be pointed out to venckman; your transition from your Peco Code 80 to your ME Code 70 is going to require some sort of wedging to achieve a uniform track heighth. Since you are using two different brands of track in addition to the obvious difference of rail code there will probably be a difference in tie depth which will require additional adjustment. Because I have always used only one rail code on my layouts I have never had to do this but that issue has been addressed several times here on the forum.
I would suggest to venckman that if possible he try to stay with one brand name in his track selection.
You would not be wrong. However, once you set some criteria for appearance and performance, I think you would be wrong. So, the point is to decide if you have even one criterion worth more than a casual comparison between the three types you mention. If appearance, say overall realism, is it, then you would have to make that choice based on your impression of prototypical track. I would say Micro Engineering does a good job, but I use Atlas Code 100 that only shows how huge it is in photographs…otherwise I can’t really tell. If it is the ability to shape curves, Atlas Flex is the easiest along the middle of the curved segment, but it is not easy at the ends. At the ends, it is a bear to keep the radius constant, whereas Micro Engineering can hold its curvature along its entire length. Fact is, either one needs care in getting that curvature just right.
Just my two cents worth.
selector;
your response makes a lot of sense; a photograph can be a terrible critic and can really draw out flaws in paint jobs and superdetailing and a host of other features associated with our modeling. Adhering to the famous ‘three foot rule’ in N Scale Bachmann diesels shells do not look particularly unusual; set a Bachmann unit adjacent to a Kato or Atlas unit and look at it through a 270mm lense and the quality - or lack of it - of the molding is significant.
The difference between N Scale Codes 80 and 70 is, in itself, not particularly noticable; neither is the difference between N Scale Codes 70 and 55. But put N Scale Code 80 and N Scale Code 55 side by side and a photograph just tends to magnify the oversize of that Code 80 rail.
Everyone has their own prejudices either for or against something associated with model railroading; if the appearance of trackwork gets high consideration then it is important that one exercise some care in its selection.
When I started laying track about 15 years ago, there weren’t as many flex track choices. Time constraints eliminated handlaying. My choices came down to Atlas c100 @ $1.80, Shinohara c100 @ $2.80 & c83 @ $3.20 and ModelPower c100 @ 99 cents. Cost was a major consideration with 800 ft of track to lay, so, it came down to Atlas vs. ModelPower. (ModelPower?). When comparing the two the MP looked much better, it has tie plates w/boltheads and a small spike head vs. the huge spikehead on the Atlas and the MP was 80 cents cheaper, it was a no-brainer. I have had no regrets since, once whethered and ballasted, it’s harder to tell the difference, most people don’t notice. The ModelPower flex track is still available, still looks better than the Atlas c100 and it’s still cheaper as well.
SORRY to nitpick.
You ask for the ‘‘best’’ , but your HEADING is “Favorite”. BEST for who? - (or is that whom?).
YOU are going to get - largely - OPININIONS. (Everyone has one).
MINE: Everyone also has ‘favorites’. Since I’ve actually used 5 different brands or types of track, here’s my '5 cents’.
BEST (price) Model Power code 100 followed by Atlas.
BEST (looking) Micro-engineering and Shinohara.
BEST PERFORMING (DC) Shinohara and Peco. Both ‘power rout’.
BEST PERFORMING (DCC) Micro-Engineering and Shinohara-made Walthers.
BEST (ERA) Pre war Steam / Early post war diesel /N.S code 70 rail. (A favorite, at least).
BEST (compromise) Atlas code 83.
MOST State-of-the-art (no-holds-barred) Semi scale 87 wheels, track; NCE (DCC);
Installed DC Sound; Coach Yard Brass; Fast Tracks & hand laid turnouts.
OTHERS MAY DISAGREE (what do they know?) - and it’s FREE. (Can’t argue with that - even if I’m 100% wrong).
PRICE plays a part. How much is too much for the enjoyment you recieve? What is the PRICE on Satisfaction? (A prodigious key word).
SOME get to enjoy the hobby more than others!
Notes to you - or 'Buenos 'Note-chas.
Chip: You’re on the right track.No 'U turns permitted.
ndbprr: You mentioned ‘Shinohara’ being stiff, and ‘Atlas’ being flexible for curves. HOW do you think Atlas gets that “flexibility”? THINK about it.
Pilot: Atlas ‘superflex’ is actually a bit wider than my NMRA gage, so there’s a chance of ‘micro’-radii being created within the general radius.
If an Atlas fixed track curve is too tight use smaller (Shinohara?) rail joiners, or you wheel flanges may be oversized.
Micro-Engineering, aside from making excellent track, has insulated transition rail joiners (83 to 70 fWalthers P/N 255-26003 for example) and might take the ‘bump’ out of your transitions - otherwise 80 track to 83 is a kinder, more gentler, ‘bump’. PECO also has 'transition metal joiners for their track available from dealers.
Go to their website and search Rail joiners.
In the words of Mies van der Rohe “Less is more”.