Explain it so I can undesrtand. I haven’t bought any track for my basement layout and for my N scale I have atlas code 80 flex, but no turnouts. I’ve read a zillion posts about track, but I still don’t have a handle on it.
I know that Peco spaces their ties funny. I get that 83 is more protoypical than 100. But why is one flex track better than another? Why is one turnout better than another? If it works it works right?
For the most part I will be using hand throws, and if unreachable turtoises.
Well, on turnouts, I’d offer this: quality of the castings for the frog and the feathering of the points against the stock rails are two major considerations, as is electrical conductivity. I’m using code 83 on my layout, and I’ve had to replace two of the stock Atlas code 83 switches already - electrical contact problems for my shorter-wheelbase locomotives were part of it, but I also noticed that one of the frogs seemed to be poorly cast, and the track was almost out of gauge at that point. It seemed to press against the wheels, retarding the engine and contributing to a propensity to stall as it passed over the frog. I’ve had better luck with the higher-end Atlas and Walthers switches.
You’re gonna take some heat with this one! A hotly debated topic that comes around often.
Look, I know you just went DCC and so that WILL be a factor.
The first thing you ought to do is,…dare I say it,…READ! There, I said it! [:D]
I’d go to Allan Gartners Wiring for DCC web site and look in the turnouts section and read about the various brands there. I’d make note of the work that needs done to each of the brands to make them DCC friendly. Some brands you just take em out of the package and use em. Others require more work.
Once you’ve narrowed it down to two or three favorites, come back and ask about those specifically.
I think you’ll get more usable info that way, instead of, “Well this is best 'cause I use it!”
Not that anyone HERE would do THAT! (No, rripperger, YOU didn’t do that. I actually liked your answer!) [:)]
Okay, so you are saying that a better switch is less work to get working properly. I know that I spent a lot of time getting my EZ track turnouts filing points and shaping frogs. I just thought that was part of the process.
Which ones need the least work?
Keep in mind that other than the Atlas code 100 that hangs at the slot car track hobby shop wall I’ve not seen any turnouts. I did see a box containng N scale turnouts at the Greensburg train show.
Did you get the same thing from Allan Gartner’s site I did? From what my feeble mind was able to absorb, I think he likes the Kato turnouts. Maybe it’s just me. At any rate, that’s what I’ve decided to use. Kato track with the Digitrax Zephr set. In fact, I just bought a Zephyr for 149 bucks today.
Oboy, turnouts–! You’re going to get about six zillion answers on that one, Chip, so I might as well start the ball rolling. I went through the EZ track filing just like you did, they never worked right, so I tossed them and went to Sinohara Code 100 for my mainline trackage. They work well, VERY few problems, then I went to Walthers/Sinohara code 83 for my yard track and rued the day I put them in, because I was using WS roadbed (which is really spongy) and the first big heavy brass mallet I ran over them, the rails just separated from the ties like a whip! Then I tried Peco, and except for the fact that you need a Master’s degree in electrical engineering to hook the little devils up, they’re flawless. And with painting and ballast, the English Sleepers are hardly noticeable at all. So, for this guy at least, it’s Code 100 Sinohara and Code 83 Peco. NO derailments so far. VERY Happy Camper.
Okay, now let the flood of pros and cons begin. Duck, Chip, there are going to be a LOT of them, LOL!
Tom [:D]
Not sure, to be honest. I think that Code 83 takes a bit more work than Code 100, in part because the clearances are finer. But that’s a guess. I haven’t gotten to the “polish” phase of layout construction yet: still just trying to get everything working. Atlas makes 2 types of Code 83 switch: the higher-end one seems to have slightly better conducting quality. On the whole, I’ve had good experiences with the Code 83 Atlas stuff - not museum quality, but they’re inexpensive. I have a pretty complicated yard, and I back strings of cars through two or three switches fairly frequently with few derailments, and those are switches that don’t yet have ground throws or machines on them.
Someone who’s doing DCC could offer you a better read on their DCC qualities; I’m still using ordinary DC.
I know that Atlas turnouts are looked down upon but I’ve had very little problem with mine. I use the Code 83 snap turnouts. The only time I’ve had problems with them is when I forget to throw the switch and my 2-8-2 comes through with the turnout closed - the front trucks derail off the track. I can send both my diesels through with no problems at all. I’ve never had a major derailment with them in over a year of operations.
Now, that may also be due to the fact that I take great pains to make sure that my track is absolutely straight, with NO kinks. You’ll have more problems with derailments with your turnouts are not laid properly. The Atlas turnouts look okay but the Walthers/Shinohara and Peco turnouts will look better and more prototypical.
Micro Engineering makes some very nice turnouts, too. I think they are all custom-made to order. What’s the company that gives you everything you need to construct your own turnout?
One other thing. Altas crossings I have NOT been so pleased with: They are noisy and are more liable to stalls from shorter based locomotives. The Walthers/Shinohara crossings have been much better and quieter in that respect.
For me, it doesn’t look prototypical enough. Ties to far apart, all perfectly aligned and so forth, and I never was much for pre-ballasted track. I understand why some like it though.
His site is mainly geared towards HO, so just know that. There are some, but not to many differences. Micro Engineering for example, just came out with DCC friendly turnouts in HO. NOT in N. Follow the directions for the “old style” and you’ll be fine. Atlas code 55 track is a little different in N also. The Atlas code 55 is DCC friendly, as all Atlas track is, and has a tab on the side of the switch to solder a power feed to power the frog.
Just pay attention and you’ll do fine! [8D]
BTW, a lot of N scalers are looking at Peco code 55 track. It’s got a good selection of turnouts, both powered and unpowered frogs, even curved turnouts I believe, and its really code 83 track thats buried in the ties. It looks like code 55 from the outside of the rails but its code 83 inside so I’m told. It gives you the better looks of the 55 without the operational complexities that go with. Problem is, its expensive and can be hard to get. Might be worth a look though. [8)]
For those who have problems with an engine or rolling stock ‘picking’ the points on a turnout when approaching from the points end, and assuming axles and rails are within NMRA tolerances, filing the points down to a fine, sharp edge will look after a lot of the problem. You have to be careful about this; don;t bend the points while filing them or you’ll end up with connectivity issues. What I did with one particularly intractable EZ-Track point was to place a two-inch piece of bamboo shish kebab skewer between the point and its adjacent diverging rail. In HO, it fits in there nicely. Then, take a small, flat file, or even a slightly curved face file, and begin a series of 15-20 medium hard strokes from the heels toward the points. It will take trial and error, but I finally got the points to stay against their diverging rails when approached.
Okay so I’m going nuts again. I kinda-sorta had a grasp on the insul-power frog thing and power routing, but still…
Lets try this another way. Lets assume HO code 83 and no sectional or EZ type tracks. Lets just take each and go pros and cons of their turnouts. Any significant differences in flex track?
I think most brands of flex track will be more or less functionally equivalent. In my experience, Atlas is easier to bend but also wants to unflex itself back into a straight line. Shinohara is harder to bend but once you get it there it tends to stay that way (unless it’s changed - I haven’t bought any in a while). Neither situation is really a problem if you’re spiking it down.
I haven’t used any of the others. Mostly I use Atlas code 83 flex. It doesn’t have as nice spike detail as some of the more expensive stuff, but it looks fine to me when painted and ballasted. The Atlas ties seem to take abuse better. My rule is it has to work first, look pretty second.
I’ve had problems with the switch points falling apart on the cheaper Atlas turnouts, though they are usually fixable. The higher end ones hold up better, but in my experience ALL turnouts need some tweaking and filing to tune them for derailment-free operation. I handlay most of mine now.
Peco’s New code 83 look great, have metal frogs (electrofrog version) and operate well. My main complaint is grossly oversized throwbar ties…
Walthers Shinohara: Operate well (not as well as Peco, in my book, but well enough that I have them on my layout and they don’t give me problems) They have frogs that are rails joined together, so I guess you would say they are metal. These use oversize throwbars and the tie detail is a bit heavy in places. The points are attached to throwbar with oversize rivets that are noticeable. You will probably have to use some of these because these guys are the only widely distributed makers of curved switches and some wyes. Older Shinohara use grossly oversize ties and spike detail.
Atlas Customline: I have some but don’t use them because I think the detail is not up to par with other brands. They have a solder lug on the frog the is noticeable and the point rails have a metal plate under each one where they join the fixed rails…The frog is cast metal (or stamped) and is oversize. Probably my bias is showing a bit here, I think they would work and could be made to look good, I just don’t like em’…Older Atlas are not worth considering if you want an even semi-realistic looking railroad.
Mico Engineering: I think these switches look the best far and away. Both in detail and in railhead shape and size. The throwbar is not oversize and they give you some castings and parts to build a switch stand with each switch. They operate very relaibly. Frogs are cast metal.
Railway Engineering and B. K. Enterprises: The are closer to handlaying than the other switches discussed. I have used the type that are assembled and you spike on ties that you glue down. They look good and operate very well. Much more work than the others. I messed up the first one I did and had to relay it. Metal frogs.
You are right about some flex track being stiffer than others. The Micro Engineering stuff looks awesome, expensive as the dickens, but looks awesome. It is, however, one of those stiffer ones. Once you bend it, thats it, your’re done. It’s hard to get it straight again.
Atlas on the other hand needs to be secured a little better as it tends to want to be straight track. It can be secured, you just need to be a little more persistant. I use White Lightening silicone sealant. It does the job well and if I need to, I can pry the tracks up without damage so that I can reuse them.
Now, the insul / power frog thing. An insulated frog is always DCC friendly. It’s a plastic frog that has no way to be powered, thats why its DCC friendly. It’s quick and easy. The drawback is that loco’s that are shorter or only have electrical pickup on one truck for instance, hit this “dead spot” and stall. If your loco’s have electrical pickup over a wide area then this is not usually a problem. These turnouts are easier to wire.
Examples of these types are Atlas turnouts (all of them, although the new code 55 frog can be left unpowered it is metal and has a provision to power it), some Peco turnouts (look for the insulfrog label, or just look for a plastic frog), and I believe the model power ones (be careful with these as I’ve heard reports that these are not the best quality).
Powered frogs require more wiring but short equipment will not stall on it because of power loss. On these turnouts the frogs are metal (so they can be powered) and so provision must be made to not only run power to it but also to switch the polarity when the points are thrown (power routing?).
Examples of these are the Atlas code 55 (which has all the gaps necessary already cut for you), and some Peco (the electrofrog kind), and Micro Engineering (although these require some work to make them DCC friendly).
I handlaid my own track, I space my ties the way I wanna… 8-P
I think I like the micro-engineering track, I look for realism, handlaying track doesnt always offer best detail, unless I need to have some specialwork made.
Well first, for N-scale you can ignore the info being given for HO code 70, 75, 83, 100 stuff. In N-scale you will be dealing with umm probably code 40, 55, and 80.
If you really want to make the flex track thing easy just go to the hobby store and buy a couple pieces of each kind. Take them home. Flex them, look at them and decide which one you like best.
You could do the same thing with turnouts but that could get expensive…
Remember that I have code 100 Atlas flex on my 25 x 75 ft layout for a reason. Same as using Atlas and Shinohara code 100 turnouts. ZERO maintenance!
This is what IT all boils down to MAINTENANCE!
Everyone seems to have some little problem with their track, it doesn’t bend right or the ties are wrong. Well that is a visual thing. I want something that 20 years down the road MY track will still be working great and many others will have long since replaced theirs several time because of those little problems.
It is the same with my turnouts. I DO NOT have to make any modifications to them because of using DCC. You have operated on them and my engines just keep on running. Now I do not have the really short wheelbase steam but they never did work through a turnout smoothly. With them you HAVE to add extra wheel pickups, there is no other way around that. All of the new steam coming out have most all of the wheels powered and if they don’t then don’t buy them as they will have stalling problems in the turnouts.
If you have to have the looks of code 83 and smaller track then you will also have to put up with the problems that they always have.
I want as low maintenance layout as possible and having been with the Club for over 20 years and the layouts open to the public and have had no track problems with the big old code 100 track I think I can live with it!
I much rather run my train instead of fixing track any day!
