I know that modelers will have their favorites of course, but many of you more experienced modelers I am sure have had good/bad experiences with different codes of track and manufacturers. As I am about to start my 1st layout, I don’t want to waste time and money on problemsome track/connections. Who makes the best track?
***[?]
BEST: Track… Micro Engineering
Turnouts … Shinohara
for Newbies … Atlas
Kato unitrack is very easy to use and very dependable. Kato No. 6 turnouts and the Kato double crossover work very good. Kato No. 4 turnouts are not so good.
Larry
In all honesty ***, I think you’ll do just fine with Atlas stuff. If you want to go extra-nice ont eh first round, Atlas code 83 track (flex or sectional) and Walthers switches (the new DCC ready ones) will do you right. Personally, I love Peco, but there’s a lot of different opinions on that.
My $0.02
-dave
***: I’m of two minds personally I use the atlas code 83 brown tied switches and flex for the mainline and sidings I use mostly manual ground throws because the layout is the shelf variety. When I was involved with a local club their preference was peco code 100 flex and switches asthey felt that with the size of the layout and the abuse it takes year in and out that it was by far the most durable and it is easy to use. My only complaint with peco is that it is a european prototype and requirs more hiding if you are picky but I would say that ioperationally it is as good or better than atlas. Hope this helps. Rob [8D] [tup]
***,I been in the hobby for 53 years and found that Atlas track is hard to beat…I tried some of the other brands over the years but,always returned to Atlas track and switches.
[#ditto] (except the 53 yrs part-only 25 for me[:D])
***,
I may not have the experience that you ask for, but I do have a pretty large layout. I use Atlas Code 83 Flex N/S and have found it to be easy to install, looks very good, and takes a lot of abuse (since I am still doing a lot of work around it). A big plus is it is reasonably priced. I prefer the Walthers turnouts over the Atlas.
REX
I think Atlas is pretty hard to beat–I use both Atlas and Sinohara code 100 on my layout, and Sinohara turnouts, and I’ve had very good luck with both. Atlas flex is a little springy when you’re laying out curves, while Sinohara bends and holds the curve, but other than that, I really like those two brands. I know Peco has a really good reputation, but I don’t think their turnouts come in as many sizes as Sinohara (I could be mistaken).
Tom
I also see that many modelers are now using code 83 as opposes to code 100. I was told at one HS that code 100 will have less problems with derailments because the rails are higher. but code 83 is more exact to true scale for HO. Is this the case? If everyone were starting over to build their layout, and money was no object regarding track, what would people use for code and Mfg then?
grayfox1119 wrote:
It’s only a problem if one is using old Rivarossi locos and such. As long as whatever you have meets NMRA RP25 wheel flange depth, you will be ok. But if you have old AHM, old Rivarossi, or just about any foreign products made years ago, then you could have problems. These problems, however, are more on the “clickity-click” variety as the tall wheel flanges (nicknamed “pizza cutters”) hit all the spike heads on the ties.
Code 83 is slightly more realistic, but not for everything. As you may know, the “Code” equals the height of the rail in decimal inches. Code 100 = .100", Code 83 = .083", etc. If you scale that up to the real thing, Code 100 = 155lb rail (a measured 3 foot length), Code 83 = 132lb rail, Code 70 = 107lb rail, and I think Code 55 = 90lb rail.
The thing is that 155lb rail is either very modern, was only to be found on the PRR’s mainline, or in very rare places. 132lb rail is what Amtrak uses in New England on the NEC, and is quite common today. It was used on busy mainlines in the older days, but not much anywhere else (on the NH, the entire Shoreline and Maybrook line was 132lb). 107lb rail was the common rail weight for branchlines in 1949. 90lb and under rail was only used on the lightest of branchlines and indusrial sidings for the same year.
Back in 1921, the heaviest rail on the NH was 107lb, with 90lb and under being very common.
Probably MicroEngineering, because it looks the best. And if money were no object, I could pay someone else to put it down because it’s a giant pain in the butt to get it to curve smoothly. On my Boston
As far as the code 100 vs. 83 situation–I have 100 on my mainline and 83 in the yards. With painting and ballasting, code 100 tends to ‘shrink’ in visual size and frankly, I can’t tell the difference. I just like the ‘heft’ of code 100 for mainline running, but that’s a purely personal thing. The 83 in the yards, after ballasting and painting, looks pretty darned authentic. Not having tried it on the main, I don’t know how it would look to me, though. Just looking at the latest issue of MR, and that handsome C&O layout in the featured article is code 70! And that’s mainline! Looks good to me.
Tom
I have been using Atlas trackage. I was a member of a large club that used Shinohara code 100 and code 70 trackage. Very reliable stuff, except for the double crossover and slip-switches. The double crossover was just bad news with shorting as metal trucked passenger cars passed through it. The slip-switches have so much ‘plastic’ in them that we wore out the frogs in about a year. We rebuilt them with metal filled epoxy.
After a few years we had the ‘rivet’ that holds the points together loosen up on some of the turnouts. There is a small spring phospher/bronze piece undter the heel of the point asm and the train will lose electrical contact as it rocks over the heel of the turnout. This only happened to a few turnouts. Later when I built a layout with Shinohara code 70, I drilled out the rivet and replaced it with a small nut and screw. All in all, I like the Shinohara/Lambert/Walthers trackage, but it has gotten rather pricy.
As I mentioned, my current layout has Atlas code 100 trackage and has been running since 1988 - No problems.
Several friends use Peco turnouts and swear by them. They just released some American stype code 83, but the prices are sky high. available. The M-E turnouts look nice, but they are very ‘frail’ and do not have a lot of different types available. I plan on tearing down the present layout in the future and I suspect I will use the Atlas code 83 trackage as I can get it a good price and it is very available.
The key to great track is building the layout solid and taking your time laying the track.
Jim Bernier
I want to thank all you guys for some great info that will really be of great assistance. My only experience with buying any track, was in the early 70’s for my younger two sons Christmas train set, and I knew nothing about code or manufacturers. I knew that the code numbers (present day knowledge) were measurements in decimal inches, however I did NOT know that it actually had a relation to the CLASS of track by poundage, that was very interesting, thank you Paul!!
I have not been fond of Atlas turnouts. The stamped sheet metal points are fragile and the frogs to sometimes be above the tops of the rails. I would not buy Atlas turnouts. The spike detail on turnouts and flextrack are also oversized, but it does make the track more durable.
I have worked with Micro Engineering track and been happy. I like the switch points machined from rail instead of the cheap stamped sheet metal points other brands have. The detail is excellent, but the smaller spike heads do make the track less durable. Just do not use excessive force when cleaning the track with a Bright Boy and you will be fine.
I can not fairly comment on other brands as I have not used them.