I’m just getting into model railroading and am considering either HO or N scale for my first attempt at making a layout.
I have a 13’ x 15’ space in my basement that I will be using for the layout so N looks like a better choice initally which brings me to my question.
It seems most people with HO layouts are using .83 track. For “N” I’ve seen .80 .70 .55 and .40. Scale wise .70 = 11", .55 = 9" and .40 = 6". What I’d like to know is which is used most .70 .55 or .40, and what manufacturers make quality / better track?
I just finished laying track on my new N-Scale layout and I used Atlas Code-55 flex track and their # 7 turnouts and I’m very happy with it. You do need to get rid of any old large flanged wheels and replace them with the lo-profile wheel sets. However that’s an easy change out and if you use metal wheels, you’ll get much better performance.
Atlas has been making quality track for over 50 years as well as numerous other products for model railroading.
Good luck,
gtr
gtirr is right about the Atlas track. I used the code 55 Atlas stuff on my branchline RR, which actually is the focus of my pike. For my mainline interchange I used Micro Engineering code 70. It’s a little heavier rail (better suited to a mainline). This also serves to give some visual difference between the two rail companies lines that serve my pike.
The Atlas code 55 is good, with the caution mentioned by gtirr. It’s a good trade-off between decent looks and decent price. There are new pieces of track coming out all the time. Atlas also makes a code 80 that is the old standby and it’s pretty much bulletproof. It just doesn’t look that hot. Micro Engineering makes a code 70, code 55, and I think code 40. The stuff looks awesome, and has a price to match! In that same vane is the Peco track. I think they have code 70(?) or 80 (?) and I know they have code 55. It looks good, although the tie spacing is not correct for North American track. It is pretty much bulletproof, but there is some sticker shock involved. The nice thing about their code 55 is that it’s really code 70 (?) or 80(?) thats just buried in the ties further. The way they do the ties makes it so that you can run those pizza cutters (large flanged wheels) on code 55 track and you won’t have problems. Peco also has curved turnouts that most of the other manufacturers don’t have. It wouldn’t surprise me though if Atlas didn’t come out with these real soon for the code 55 line.
Code 80 is by a big margin the most used code in N scale.If ease of installation and the possibility of running most anything has priority over more prototypical looks,then code 80 is the best option.
Code 55 is gaining in wider use,more so since locomotives and rolling stock manufacturers offer smaller flanged wheels.These tracks look more like “the real thing” but the rails being lower,these are more fragile to handle and may not accomodate all your rolling stock,specially the older ones that have deeper wheel flanges.
The two makes I know of are Atlas and Peco.I’ve had good results with Atlas code 80 tracks but I didn’t like their “Snapswitches”.However,their manual switches look very nice and I believe these to be vey fine.Atlas code 55 line of tracks and turnouts look great too.
My personal choice is Peco for their wider choice of turnouts and how they are designed with their locking feature in both code 80 and 55.Installed properly,they are nearly flawless.The Peco code 55 track doesn’t look as great as Atlas’s and is not a cheaper option either.Since I already own a lot of Peco stuff,I’ll use it but if that wasn’t the case,I’d certainly give Atlas 55 a very serious look.
I’ve read great comments on Micro-Engineering tracks and turnouts,but not having these offered locally,I haven’t tried any but I suggest you give this brand some thougths also.
This is DCC friendly too! The #7 turnouts seem to have less problems then the #5’s (they look better too). And as far as the flanges issue goes, you can always change to some Micro-Trains low profile wheelsets. Loco’s are a little tougher. North West Short Line makes some low profiles for loco’s, or you can just machine yours down yourself if you have the tools (or pay a couple of dollars to someone else to do it).
I agree whole heartedly.
That locking feature (spring) on the turnouts makes them NOT DCC friendly, however, they can be modified.
I use code 55. My preference is Micro Engineering, and I’m using the pre-weathered rail where the line is visible. I used Atlas in the hidden staging yard and in places where the track is not visible. I have no problem with the looks of Atlas (ME looks better), I just have a good sized layout and have enough other things to do than weather the rail. Call it laziness.
I had to replace the flanges on some Life Like FA2/FB2 units because they were rattling on the tie plates of the Atlas track. Oddly, they had no problems with Atlas #7 turnouts. NWSL replacements were a snap to do. MicroTrains freight cars need to have their wheels replaced. Anything made in the last couple of years includes the low profile wheels in the box.
Code 80 is certainly the most prevalent, but it looks huge.
I am building my layout with Atlas Code 55. I love the way it looks but I also like older rolling stock that I can practice painting & weathering & detailing without risking much $. The clatter from the old pizza cutter wheels is unbearable. If you use Atlas Code 55 and want to run older equipment you will have to replace the wheels.
Just my opinion. Fingernails on a blackboard don’t bother me but this noise drives me off the deep end.
Oe advantage of Peco code 55 is that it is really cleverly designed code 80 that looks smaller. Equipment with deep flanges has no problem on it. Of course this is not an issue with most newer equipment.
I use Atlas or Peco code 80 for main lines, Peco code 55 for sidings and spurs.
All my switches currently are Peco. Peco switches have a spring which hold the points in the position set. I like this feature. Some people don’t like it.
I appreciate all the good information everyone has given. I’m trying to gain as much knowledge as I can before making an investment.
I’ve been sketching a few layouts and trying to keep them with in the parameters of the space I have in the room. I have been considering a staging area about 12” under the main layout.
Bukwrm, you are suggesting to use 80 in the hidden staging area. If I wanted to use 55 for the main area of the layout that will be seen and use 80 for the staging area, can the 55 be connected to the 80? If so, is an adapter sold to make the connection? If not how is it done?
First off, 12 inches is not real long. Good fo a loco and a couple of cars, but it’s better then nothing. If you meant 12 feet, thats a very generous staging yard indeed. You should be able to do some heavy duty damage with that.That would work well if your layout is more of a modern day layout with long trains. If you are modeling an older time period you might think about trimming back a touch. The older you go, the less space you need. For instance, trains from 1900 or so were generally a dozen cars or less and the cars were mostly 36 footers (thats about 2 1/2 to 3 inches each). In N scale you could do the whole thing pretty comfortably in 4 feet. Depending on how big of a yard you want, you might have to adjust that length a little in order to make room for a yard throat.
OK, next question. Code 80 and code 55 can be joined in several ways. I heard that there is a special rail joiner to do this, but I have yet to see one. Most people use one of three methods. One way is to either bend your own for the purpose or I heard that one guy just slid the joiner onto the code 80 side and then laid the code 55 on top of the joiner and soldered it in place. You would have to be mindful of the rail tops lining up. I don’t kn
Pcarrell, Sorry for the confusion. The hidden staging yard will be down under the main layout about 12" and it should be about 8’ to 10’ long and 3’ to 3-1/2’ wide. That is if all goes well and I can get the entire layout to fit in my 13’ x 15’ space.