Ok guys. I’ve decided to put my HO scale version of the CNW Eau Claire sub on hold. I’m in a 10x12 shed, and I just can’t make it work with everything i want. So i’ve deicded to go into N scale. Now my Delema is that I have some experience in laying N scale track but not alot. I’m tryin to decide weather i should use Atlas Code 55 or Atlas Code 80. I want to be fairly close to being in Prototype so i know for that Code 55 is the way to go, but since I havn’t had much experenice in laying N scale track what should I use?
I’m confused. what do you mean
[%-)]
Atlas code 80 is pretty much bullet proof. Not quite as bullet proof as Peco, but also not quite the price. Atlas code 55 looks much better and it’s still affordable. It’s also a cinch to power the frogs. The problem is, a lot of older equipment, and a few newer items bottom out on the ties. The trick is to just be sure that your flanges meet the RP25 spec set forth bt the NMRA. Like I say, most all newer equipment meets this standard, so if you’re buying all new stuff, not a problem. A lot of folks go with Peco brand track. It’s more expensive, but it’s built rock solid and it comes in code 80 and code 55. The code 55 is really code 80 thats buried in the ties a bit further so it looks like code 55 on the outside, but it has the clearence of code 80 on the inside so you can run older equipment with pizza cutter flanges. Peco also has some turnouts that Atlas doesn’t, like curved turnouts.
I went with the Atlas code 55 on my branchline, and Micro Engineering code 70 ( If you have to ask how much this stuff is, you can’t afford it! Let’s just say that it’s one of my more extravagant adventures in modelling! ) on the mains. Since my layout focuses on the branch, I’ve got a bunch of the code 55, and I’m quite happy with it.
Any other questions? Good! This concludes today’s lesson. Tomorrow, we will be discussing…[:P]
I have used Peco flexis and turnouts for many years and would suggest you try them. Costs slightly more but very reliable and easy to lay. Another alternative would be flexis from MicroEngineering.
Happy modelling!
Cheers,
Cliff
http://cliffordconceicao3310.fotopic.net/c328807.html
Peco code 55 is the most solid of all because of the double flange burried in the ties. I’v used mostly atlas flex with peco turnouts, due to the gegs. of N-trak. But when I build a home layout I plan on using Atlas 55. Most of my equipment is post '97.
ok, So from what you guys are saying is, Is doesn’t matter what i use. I’ve used MIcroengineering track and Peco in HO, and I don’t like either of them. The N scale group that I’m in uses Atlas Flextrack and Peco turnouts. But I’m on a high school budget so I’m going to use Atlas Flextrack and Atlas Turnouts. This brings me to my next Question. What size curve is considered Broad, Medium sized curve, and sharp
If you have a concern with laying track. I’d go with Kato Unitrack. The stuff is top quality and bulletproof!
www.katousa.com
To answer the curve question, sharp is generally thought to be 9-3/4", medium around 12 or 13 (depending on who is doing the talking) and broad 15-16. Multiply HO numbers by .545 and that will give you a good approximation.
My method of working out a design is to think what radius would I would use in the given space if it were HO" and then decide if I get any advantage by reducing it some. So, if my answer is 24" but I get some benefit from going to 22" (better access, open up some space for scenery or industry, etc), I would use 22" in N. In other words, design it as if it were HO and then adjust the track centers and such accordingly. It reduces the temptation to try to cram too much into the space simply because N is roughly half the size.
I’m sure others have equal or better methods.
I’m building a Fairly large layout and to build in in Kato Unitrack isn’t economical for me. I’d like to use it but Its too expensive to do a large layout in when your in high school without a job
Right now, I’m using a mixture of Atlas flextrack and some Kato Unitrack. How? Kato sells “adapter” track sections that have their Unitrack rail joiners on one end, and a space to fit Atlas (or equivalent) track on the other end. You’ll have to cut your roadbed to get things to line up though.
One thing to keep in mind with the Atlas code 55 is that currently there are only #5’s and #7’s available for turnouts. The #5’s use a 30" sectional track piece (available) to bring the diverging route parallel, and the #7’s use a 71" track (also available) for the same purpose. They also have a wye (a #2.5) which is really a #5 with two diverging routes. Rumored is a #3.5 wye that would be comarable to a #7 with two diverging routes. Announced not long ago is a soon to be released #10 turnout for the code 55 line. That should be cool!
This is a little off topic, but are the atlas #5s DCC friendly?
All Atlas N scale turnouts are DCC friendly. The Standard line ones have a plastic frog, so you can’t power them. The code 55 one’s have an isolated metal frog and there is a soldering tab to the side of the turnout should you decide to power it. Here’s a pic of the new #10 that’s due out soon. You can see the descrete soldering ring on the side. You can also bend the ring 90 degrees downward if it intrudes onto your scenery.
Click to enlarge
That’s a LOOOOONG frog! Definately going to have to power that one!
The #5’s did have a small problem with flangeway depth when they first came out. The flangeway on the frog wasn’t quite deep enough, so the wheels would bump up over it as they passed. Many modelers used a dremel tool to deepen the flangeways but you have to go very slowly with this so you don’t heat it up too much and melt the plastic around it. It is my understanding that Atlas corrected this problem some time ago though and there are no current issues with these turnouts.