Which track size should I be using on a new layout for N gauge 80 or 55??
That depends.
Atlas code 80 is pretty good and there aren’t a lot of issues with it, but it looks quite oversize to many and the tie spacing is kind of far apart.
Atlas code 55 looks real good, but some older rolling stock hits the ties and so it can be a little pickey. Low profile wheels are the order of the day. Thankfully, most of the newer items out there already have low profiles on them.
Peco code 80 is real good, but again, it looks oversize, and the tie spacing is to European specs, not American.
Peco code 55 is really code 80 thats buried in the ties to look like code 55. It has the same issues as the code 80, but no issues with rolling stock hitting the ties.
Micro Engineering code 80, code 70, and code 55 have no issues with hitting the ties and they look great (the lower codes look better), but they only have a #6 turnout and Micro Engineering track is pricy.
Micro Engineering code 40 looks fantastic, but since it’s so fine it can be very picky.
Thats all I have experience with. Any other brands someone else will have to tell you about.
Thanks for the information.
Since I am starting from scratch, and buying all new, I think I will go with atlas 55.
Actually I have Code 55 ME track with concrete ties, and have a couple Red Caboose autoracks (with the stock pizzacutter wheels) and they hit the spike heads (well clips, for concrete ties). They don’t sound as loud as they do when they hit the Atlas spike heads, though.
I didn’t know that about the concrete ties. I haven’t used that product and I forgot they had it. Thanks for the info!
They’re really nice, though my only complaint is that they have a few bits of plastic flash on the sides of the ties that you should sand/file off. Also, the color of the ties is a little darker than real concrete (which looks nearly white in the sun and in contrast to darker ballast). I haven’t even glues or ballasted down the track yet, but it’s the “stiff” kind of flextrack where it doesn’t lose form when you remove it.
Yeah, all Micro Engineering track is like that.
Question from a newby. Will the EZ Tracks and Power Lock tracks work together? Or is it best to go with the conventional track?
Thanks for your help.
Chris
Be advised that Atlas code 55 track geometry is a whole lot different from and is incompatable with Atlas code 80 track geometry (hence published track plans). The #5 turnouts (including the #2 1/2 wyes) have a straight section about 1.63 inches long before the point toes. The wye also has a similar length of straight track after the frog along each leg. I speculate Atlas did this to prevent fatal S-curves almost no matter how the turnouts are plugged together. Bottom line is track configurations formed from Atlas code 55 track, unless trimmed, will take up considerably more room than Atlas code 80 track. Also, when using RTS design software, remember that two stock #5 turnouts formed point-to-point will actually have almost 3 1/4 inches of tangent track between the points. This is useful to know when calculating stuff such as track capacity. In other words, a 6-inch straight section attached to the point end of a #5 turnout will actually yeild a bit over 7 1/2 inches of straight track.
Generally speaking, that track doesn’t hold up well over time. For a perminate layout you’d probably be better off with conventional track or if you don’t want to do the subroadbed thing and lay the tracks in the typical manner you could go with Kato Unitrack. It holds up well and has the track and ballast as one unit. Personally, I like the flexability of conventional track myself. I’m not confined to the fixed radius that EZ Tracks, Power Locks, and Kato Unitracks come in.
In N Scale, the best roadbed track generally available in the US is Kato’s Unitrack. It has a very extensive selection of radiuses, 2 different sizes of turnouts, multiple crossings, a double crossover, and that doesn’t even begin to address the matter of their viaduct track. AFAIK, the various different roadbed tracks are not directly compatible. I’m sure that you can get them to join up with one another, but the work of doing so defeat part of their purpose, ease of assembly.