Over the last 6 months or so, I’ve come to accept that those things I didn’t know when I started my layout 4 years ago after a 20+ year break from model railroading are finally coming back to bite me. So, I decided to go radical and redevelop the track plan from the ground up.
I have mostly complete a new draft track plan, but finalizing the plan needs one final decision to be made that affects some of the geometry: turnouts. My current layout uses Peco electrofrog code 55 (N scale), mostly hand thrown. They work well and I like the center-over-spring, but the only real complaint I have are they look OK when used with Peco c55 flex, but overall Peco c55 doesn’t look particularly US prototypical.
I’m strongly considering going with ME c55 turnouts and flex (been doing some hand-laid Fast-Tracks turnouts for a separate project) and I like the looks. But a few of my go-to YouTube model railroaders seem to have had issues with the ME turnouts, so I’m a little concerned about their feasibility over the long run.
Anyone have any experiences they can spare regarding ME N scale c55 turnouts? Quality; level of tinkering needed; DCC wiring concerns, etc.?
Something else I know will come up will be reusing my existing Peco c55 turnouts and flex track. These will mostly be in hidden or hard to see areas. How difficult is it to mate Peco c55 to ME c55?
As you probably know, PECO N scale Code 55 is actually taller rail embedded in the ties. So it will take some filing at each interface to get rid of the lower buried part of the PECO rail, as well as perhaps some shimming.
You probably want to do this in as few locations as possible.
Just the old part of the layout use it, now I use a mix of Peco turnouts, Fastrack and ME wea flextrack code 55
It’s very easy to mix ME flextrack with Peco turnouts, jut the need of a slight filling is necessary
When it’s ballasted and weatheared is difficult to see some disparencies between them.
The ME turnouts seems to have some troubles as reported but they are looking great in anyway; they just exist in a #6 configuration; availibility seems not constant too.
This is a pictures of a full mix track between Peco and Fastrack turnouts.
The crossover is a Peco Code 55 and the double slip too; the turnouts, straight and curves are Fastrack #6 and #8, flex is ME wea code 55
They are the entry of my Alexander yard and the opening route to my Corinnesburgh passenger station.
Yes, the buried extra flange had to be addressed a few time on my current layout, mostly going to Atlas c55 crossings. If I remember correctly, I filed the bottom flange away from the Peco rail and used Atlas joiners on one, and on the other I left the Peco rail alone, put a Peco connector on and crushed the other end of it to form a platform that the Atlas rail sat on loose (then soldered, obviously, to keep it aligned). I think both required a bit of shimming, as well, but it was pretty minimal. Both required file work to get them to be smooth.
Sounds like mating Peco to ME would be pretty much identical. I assume ME mates to Atlas much more easily? Maybe just some shimming if the rail heights are a little different?
It sounds like you were in a similar situation as I am; plenty of Peco c55 kicking around, but you preferred the ME look plus it matches the Fastracks turnouts you’re building. I don’t have any double-crossovers in my plan, but I am using a double-slip to save about 12 linear inches of real estate I just don’t have … and as much as I’ve enjoyed making Fastrack turnouts, there no way I’m attempting something like a slip.
The wider ties and tie spacing on the double crossover and double-slip are definitely there, but you have to be looking for it to notice. Once painted and ballasted, and with surrounding scenery and if looking at it from a less vertical angle, it really doesn’t draw attention to itself. And I guess if it does, well, it’s specialwork, right?
Slight change of subject, but out of curiosity, what method did you use to curve your Fastrack turnouts? I’ve been too nervous to give it a go myself yet for a side project I’m working on, but there are two places where a curved turnout would be much better than the standard turnouts I currently have fitted.
I haven’t looked at ME track in a while, but I think just a little shimming and maybe a slight crimp in the joiner on one or the other for mating with Code 55 Atlas.
The curved turnouts in the picture I share above, are made with curved Fastrack jig; I have two ones , a standard one from Fastrack and a custom one also made by Fastrack with radius which correspond to my two large radius I use, inner of 465 mm and outside of 500mm ( 18.3" and 19.6"); this was a special order to Tim Warris some years ago.
The rails are curved with the tool proposed by Fastrack to curve rails; it’s very precise and allow to make curved piece of rail which drop in the grooves of the jigs.
If you are sure to build more than 10 turnouts and ask to have fine turnouts, course Fastrack is the best way to go in N scale; but I’m not in the w
I used ME weathered flex and while it looks great, removing the coating to get a good solder base is a real pain. If done over I wouldn’t use their weathered flex. Also you have to soak the turnouts in a solution to get the colour to match and that makes more problems.
I generally liked the ME turnouts except that their isn’t a notch for the rail to make a smooth turn and as a result a loco or car will pick the turnout. I had to file most of mine to correct. Sorry forgot the name of the actual rail.
