Recommendations for *N scale* track and turnouts please!

Model Railroader Layouts and layout building
1

Hi everyone,

When I started out with MR a few months ago, I got roped into one of those Bachmann starter sets that came with an engine, cars and some EZ-Track. I ended up buying more track and 11 turnouts for my small 3x5 layout.

Since I don’t like the sectional track limitations or the poor quality of the turnouts, it’s time to make a tough decision and to switch to something of higher quality and to put up the Bachmann track and turnouts on eBay…

So, here’s my question:
Which turnouts are of good quality and work well with DCC? From what I’ve read,
Peco turnouts are liked by many, but they’re all power routing, which I don’t really
Want since I’m running DCC.
So, who makes the best quality turnouts for a DCC layout?
And what kind of flex track should I get? Atlas, Peco or does it even matter?

Thanks, guys.
Since this is gonna cost me some bucks, I’d appreciate some advice so that I can avoid settling for the wrong track system again…

2

Hi Kyle,

I too am in N scale and made that plunge a little while back for my second layout in N. I also use DCC so I understand your concern.

The first layout was for learning to work on and run trains and so bullet proof track was needed. Standard Atlas track (code 80) was good for this, and it is DCC friendly right out of the box. The stuff is available everywhere too. Thing is, it leaves a litle to be desired in the looks department. The tie spacing is a little far apart and the rail height is large.

The new layout is going together now and this time I have hidden trackage and so I went back to the Atlas code 80 again for the hidden stuff (bullet proof you know). The stuff for show will be a combination of Micro Engineering code 70 (more realistic rail height) for the mainline (switches are NOT DCC friendly, but can be converted) and Atlas code 55 (even more realistic rails) for the branchline and sidings (DCC friendly). Both of these look good with the Micro Engineering stuff looking really good. Thing about the Micro Engineering stuff is that not only does it need to be converted to DCC friendlyness (see Allen Gartner’s “Wiring for DCC” web site for tons of information on just about any subject you can come up with relating to DCC), it has live frogs which you said you were not interested in, and it is also quite expensive. The code 55 Atlas stuff looks good, is quite reasonable on price, and you can power the frogs or not. I would recomend that you concider using powered frogs for the reliability factors involved (no stalling & the ability to crawl across a switch). One word of caution though with the Atlas code 55; you can only run low flanged equipment on it! If you try to run larger flanges on it the flanges will hit the ties and you will be rumbling along the track.

About the Peco track, you are correct that a lot of people like it very much. I don’t use it so I don’t know a lot about it. The tie spacing is a little far apart to be cor

3

I’m not an N scaler, but the Atlas Code 55 stuff looks good. I’ve had good results with their HO scale track.

4

Thanks for your reply, I appreciate it.

Here’s something you might be able to shed some light on for me:
When I said that I’m not crazy about power routing switches; What I meant was that
I don’t like having the power to a part of the track cut when I throw the switch in the
other direction. This requires me to make additional power feeds to those sections
and than having to isolate the switch from that side.
Is this going to be required no matter which type of TO I’ll get? Insulated or
electro frog?
I admit that I’m a bit confused on this matter. Allen Gartner’s site is great, but
it doesn’t help me to figure this out.

5

Kyle,

Your question is about something called “power routing”. If done properly you will always have power to the frog in the correct way so that you don’t have a short circuit. Most switch machines have a provision for this and all you have to do is follow the directions or ask someone here and you will get your answer.

Basically, power routing automatically changes the polarity of the rails for you when the switch is thrown. I’ve even seen one setup that did this on a switch that was thrown by an automotive manual push-pull choke cable. The cable was routed so that it would brush one of two electrical contacts as it was moved. Power was then sent to the rails.

In most cases its easy to set up power routing and once its set up you can forget about it.

I see DCC as a way to run trains, not switches. Power routing helps that out. [8D]

6

Ok, I hope I’m not getting on your nerves, but I have to pick your brain on this…

Let’s say I have a small yard like this:

If the switch is thrown to track A, then track B has no power and would need an
additional power feed to still run an engine on this track. Is this regardless of what
type of TO I’d use?

7

Kyle,

You are right that track B would need a power feed, actually they all should have power feeds anyways to insure against voltage drops as DCC is very sensitive to this (like every 3 feet or so and every siding no matter how short). Sidings A, B and the main would also have power at all times with DCC. The thing I think that you are having trouble with (and I had a lot of trouble understanding too, so don’t feel bad) is that the frog polarity is the only thing that needs to be changed and that is only because one rail crosses over another. This is why the frog is completely isolated electronically from ALL the other track around it.

Lets look at it this way. In your drawing, on siding A you have two rails. Siding B, same thing. Same for the track that feeds both. Lets call the rail on the top side of each siding “North” and the one on the bottom, “South”. Do you see how at the point that is right about where the dot is, that the “south” rail of siding A will cross the “north” rail of siding B? Thats a short circuit if the rails are all connected and touching. The prototype can do this and its no problem because they carry their power on board instead of getting it from the rails. We have to isolate the frog by placing gaps in the rails on all sides of it. Atlas track has these gaps already there, heck their code 100 switches frogs are plastic! Their code 55 switches have metal frogs that you can either power or not. If you do power them then you need to switch the polarity so that when a train heads to siding A the frog will be powered as “south”, not “north” as it would be if you were going to siding B.

Thats the way I found it easiest to understand.

If not, I’ll try to explain a different way, no problem.

And NO, you are not getting on my nerves at all! [:)]

8

Hi Kyle,

I just wanted to make sure I told you right and I did. I went to http://www.wiringfordcc.com/
and down the left side of the page, like 3 or 4 down from the top, is a topic called “wiring for turnouts”. Read this as it explains everything quite well and even has diagrams.

He does a better job of explaining it then me anyways.

If you have any more questions, just ask. Thats what we’re here for.

9

Thank you very much for your help, I really appreciate it.

I had read Allen Gartner’s “Wiring for DCC” article but I admit that it still left me somewhat confused. I actually find your explanation much easier to follow.
I guess what I had a problem understanding is that apparently most TO’s have to be insulated at the frog ends to avoid short circuits when powering the track past the TO.
I haven’t read this fact that clearly anywhere.

10

Kyle,

I do know what you mean. There is so much information on that site that it’s a little overwhelming sometimes!

Actually though, all TO’s need to be isolated to avoid shorts, because one rail crosses the other. Some just come that way out of the box, like Atlas.

Notice that there are different ways of doing it though. The Atlas code 80 uses a plastic frog. This is automatically isolated because of the material it’s made out of, but that also means that it is NOT possible to power the frog as is. The frog would have to be replaced which is pointless as there are other types of track available if you want a powered frog.

The Atlas code 55 on the other hand is an all metal frog that is isolated from the factory and can be powered or left unpowered.

Now don’t think that this is an advertisement for Atlas. It has it’s problems like some of the ones I’ve already mentioned. It’s just the one that I have the most expierience with, thats all.

Just think of the frog as it’s own piece of (special) track and it makes it easier. [8D]

11

You know, I almost forgot about your other question, the one about flex track.

I use a combination of Atlas code 80 for the hidden staging, Atlas code 55 for the branchline (which is really the focus of my railroad), and Micro Engineeringcode 70 flex track for the main. I also will use a little ME code 55 bridge flex track when it comes time for the bridges to be built.

The Atlas track is very forgiving and so if you don’t get the radius right the first time you just move the track and thats it. ME on the other hand is much less forgiving. It holds whatever shape you put it in so basically you have 1, maybe 2 shots to get it right before you have kinks in the rails and you have to start over. The ME stuff can be salvaged by straightening it but its not easy to do.

I don’t know about the other brands and so I won’t comment on them.

Maybe someone else could shed some light in this area.

12

My first N-Scale layout used all Peco code 80 turnouts. In the 1980s, when I started it, they were about the best thing around for reliability. However:

  1. They are not precisely in guage. I shimmed the guard rails on them .010" styrene to solve that problem
  2. Over time, the “power routing” fails because a little bit of dirt or corrosion will keep
    the point rails from making good contact.
  3. They are very “chunky” with big ties, big rails, and outrageous tie spacing, at least by
    today’s standards.

In my current layout, begun 2 years ago, I am using all Micro Engineering Code 55. In my opinion, there is nothing better. Solving the DCC problem might be a bit of a pain, (I don’t use DCC), but I’d still do it.
I also connected a microswitch under the table, linked to the throwbar, on every turnout, to carry
the current to the two diverging routes. I am not relying on the point rails to complete the circuit like I did with the Peco turnouts. Nearly all my turnouts are hand-thrown with Caboose Industries ground throws. But I do have a few that are operated by Tortoise machines or Switchcraft machines. On these, I still just mounted a microswitch to route the current. BTW, the Switchcraft are much better, MUCH quieter machines. I was disappointed at how noisy the one Tortoise was, so I won’t be using another one.

I didn’t use the Atlas code 55 because of the flange problem. I would convert my rolling stock, and there are replacement wheelsets for some common diesels, but for some of my steam locomotive, many of which are semi-scratchbuilt and remotored, I’d be looking at turning down driver flanges.
Besides, the Micro Engineering track does look better.

“Most” of the turnouts are guaged perfectly. But believe it or not, I’ve had a few, even in the ME, where I had to file the insides of the stock rails and the point rails to “open up” the guage a little, because they were a tad narrow (which can be a real

13

Atlas makes two lines of N scale track, Code 80 (not 100), and Code 55. The C80 is widely considered the best value in N scale track. Great reliability, wide range of turnouts available, widely carried, runs anything. The C55 is much better looking, and will have no problems running newer models that meet NMRA spec. Older rolling stock and locos can present a problem. The C55 line costs about 25% more than C80.

Peco makes Code 80 and C55 also. The difference is that both use the same rail, but Peco beds the rail into the ties on the C55, which means don’t have to rely on the “spikes” to keep the rail on the ties (which Atlas does.) This engineering decision allows older rolling stock with oversize flanges (aka “pizza cutters”) to run on Peco C55. Peco uses European tie spacing, so it does not look as good to Americans. You’re already familiar with the turnouts. Its also more expensive and is not as widely distributed as Atlas track.

Finally, among quality tracks, there is Micro-Engineering C55. Purported to avoid the spike issues affecting the Atlas C55, it is more expensive than either Atlas or Peco track, has far more availability problems, and is more fragile.

You can mix and match between the different brands will, although mixing C80 and C55 requires either special rail joiners, or using Peco C55.

Here’s a breakdown of the category winners.
Looks: ME C55, Atlas C55
Reliability: Atlas C80, Peco C80
Availability: Atlas C80, Atlas C55
Price: Atlas C80, Atlas C55

Category Losers:
Looks: Peco C80, Peco C55
Reliability: ME C55
Availability: ME C55, Peco C55
Price: ME C55, Peco C55

Each has their tradeoffs, only you can decide your “heirarchy of needs.”

14

Bikerdad,

You are rightabout the code 80, not code 100, I fixed it so as not to confuse anyone. I was asleep at the wheel. Thanks for pointing that out. This hobby can be confusing enough without bad info being given.

My apologies all around.

15

Kyle,

I’m using Peco C55 track and power-routing turnouts, and I run DCC. So it can be done, but you’re back to gapping the rails at the frog end of each turnout and running extra feeders. Without question, you lose some of the advantages of simplicity of wiring that DCC was supposed to bring.

I originally chose the Peco line because the track design offered a lower profile but still let me run “pizza cutters”. I’m slowly changing over to low-profile wheels, so that is becoming less of an issue. The second advantage I’ve discovered is the turnouts, which have a built-in spring so you don’t need fancy switch machines or clunky ground throws (all my turnouts are within easy reach).

The problem I’ve discovered with the turnouts is what I assume is an occasional manufacturing defect in which the points fail to route the power. It looks like this is caused by a twisted points assembly, and the quickest remedy is a styrene shim inserted between points and throw bar. It’s a significant enough defect–about 3 or 4 turnouts out of 36 on my layout–to be annoying.

If I were doing it again, would I go the Peco route? I don’t know. I really like the spring-loaded turnouts, but I’m not sure they make up for the defects or for the extra wiring complications with DCC