TheRailwire
General Discussion => N and Z Scales => Topic started by: Spades on May 10, 2016, 09:12:48 PM
-
From Lance Mindheim blog Planning For Success in N Scale http://shelflayouts.com/2016/04/497/ Interesting half of his work is in N. Using code 70 joiners on code 55 rail, saves alot of pain and blood.
-
Interesting that he suggests Peco code 80 with Insulfrogs...while I'm having trouble with mine causing shorts because of the opposing polarity rails being too close together.
I'm not sure I agree with all of it, but Lance is a helluva modeler who's built many a successful layout so I'm at least paying attention.
-
It's like the Jim Kelly column in MR. Every time I read it I feel it was written 10 tears ago.
-
It's like the Jim Kelly column in MR. Every time I read it I feel it was written 10 tears ago.
That was my thoughts exactly, while I respect Lance this advice is way out of date...
Understandable since his last long term N scale project was his Monon layout 12?? years ago.
-
Well, here is my reaction.
For rank beginners in the hobby, I recommend Kato Unitrack. It is even more bulletproof than Peco Code 80 and allows a beginner to get something up and running in a hour or two. And the upside is that it can be resold for very little loss on the secondary market if you keep it in good shape and decide to "graduate" to flex track (or, you can just use it in a dream layout - I've seen some VERY nice fully-scenicked Unitrack layouts that look as good as anything you could build with Peco Code 80).
The advice to use Insulfrog turnouts is weird. I understand why - wiring them is simpler. But my own view is that anyone wanting reliable operation in N scale should ALWAYS use powered frogs. He talks about doing this with ME turnouts, so why recommend Peco Insulfrogs? If you're going to use Peco track, use Electrofrogs. And honestly, Peco Code 55 is just as reliable as Code 80; use it instead, and it will look better - not as good as ME Code 55 - or Code 40 if you're so inclined - but better than Code 80, and anything will run on Peco Code 55, even pizza-cutters.
I agree with his advice to stick with Atlas and Kato diesels. There are other excellent products out there, but you'll never go wrong with Atlas or Kato to begin with. And if time frame doesn't matter, I'd go even further and tell a beginner to start with a cab diesel - an F unit - since they are heavier and less prone to stalls.
For rolling stock, MT is fine, but so is Atlas, Bluford Shops, BLMA, Intermountain, Rapido Trains, etc. etc. Rolling stock has improved tremendously in the past 10 years and anything from a major manufacturer not named ConCor or Bachmann or Model Power should be fine.
Yes, weight rolling stock that is too light - but again, a lot of the most recent stuff is much better in the weight category than what you could buy 10 years ago.
And finally, yes, go with body-mounted couplers. If you don't want to do that, then at least don't mix body-mounts with truck mounts, which is a recipe for disaster, particularly with the sharp curves a beginner is likely to use.
So . . . some of the advice is sound IMHO; some of it not so much.
John C.
-
I gave up on ME c55 joiners years ago, and was hoping no one would notice I was using c70. Was a bit embarrassed about it- always figured everyone knew something I did not know about how to get them on without doing a finger-poke blood test.
Tom D
-
I don't think it's fair to label this advice as 10 years old. Lance is building layouts for clients. He doesn't have time to deal with anything finicky, nor does he want to deliver a finicky product. Sure Atlas code 55 looks decent, but it's not a bullet proof commercial grade product. Peco is.
Then, after the commercial experience, the main voice of his blog is trying to set people up for early success. Peco also does that. Kato unitrack does as well.
There's people on this very forum that try to pick finicky and esoteric, and then have relapses of hating the hobby. Very few people have immediate success jumping in the deep end first.
-
My first three layouts, dating back to the late 1970s, were made with Atlas code 80 and Peco Insulfrog turnouts. NEVER had a problem !!! What did I do "wrong" ?
-
There's a hammer for that. 8)
-
I don't think it's fair to label this advice as 10 years old. Lance is building layouts for clients. He doesn't have time to deal with anything finicky, nor does he want to deliver a finicky product. Sure Atlas code 55 looks decent, but it's not a bullet proof commercial grade product. Peco is.
Then, after the commercial experience, the main voice of his blog is trying to set people up for early success. Peco also does that. Kato unitrack does as well.
There's people on this very forum that try to pick finicky and esoteric, and then have relapses of hating the hobby. Very few people have immediate success jumping in the deep end first.
The blog post goes on to outline using ME track if you require better looking track, and using Tam Product frog juicers, as well, so I feel he covered the next step up. So agreed.
Sometimes I feel like this group looks for things to complain about when the waters are calm.
-
Sometimes I feel like this group looks for things to complain about when the waters are calm.
I don't like your punctuation. :trollface:
Jim
-
I don't think it's fair to label this advice as 10 years old. Lance is building layouts for clients. He doesn't have time to deal with anything finicky, nor does he want to deliver a finicky product. Sure Atlas code 55 looks decent, but it's not a bullet proof commercial grade product. Peco is.
Then, after the commercial experience, the main voice of his blog is trying to set people up for early success. Peco also does that. Kato unitrack does as well.
There's people on this very forum that try to pick finicky and esoteric, and then have relapses of hating the hobby. Very few people have immediate success jumping in the deep end first.
Peco having the spring tension on the points is a BIG plus for someone just getting started who doesn't have the know how to play with other methods of keeping tension on the points on a first layout, which seems to be the target for Lance's advice.
He's also targeting his suggestions to a particular type of layout it seems to me. Other similar "advice" blog entries revolve around his style of layout - narrow industrial switching type set ups.
-
Some of the latest edition Bachpersonn freight cars are allright. They come with body-mount couplers and metal wheelsets, which is the latest word in freight cars. Their older stuff does appear to have been manufactured under contract by the Clunkifex Corporation, but the newer freight cars are much better. They are putting the newer cars into their trainsets, as well. The older B-mann cars are starting to appear in plastic bags with cardboard hangers under the RERAILED label, so I do not know if this is old warehouse stock or licenced out production or what. If you want singles of the nineteenth century wood passenger cars, though, this is one way to secure them.
I find it hard to disagree on the advice to use Code Eighty, UNITRAK or something such as that on first pikes You can run into problems even when using sectional track, such as misaligned rail joiners. To this day, I have that problem, and I check, re-check and run some of my older C-C or Mehano locomotives and MP freight cars over the track, as those will derail even if you sneeze. If that train don't derail, the trackwork is supposed to be allright. Still, after a few days, I will notice an LL FA and newer Atlas freight cars do a slight bump, as if they were running on old street trackage. A quick inspection reveals the culprit: a misaligned rail joiner. I use sectional and flex track of various manufacture.
I do, however, disagree on the use of INSULFROG. The ELECTROFROG renders far better performance. This goes double if you are running steam (see Miranda's Maxim as explained by ke). It is not that hard to learn how to wire and use insulating rail joiners (although Bachmann E-Z TRAK does not adapt well to the use of insulated rail joiners).
Someone mentioned using F-units as an entry level locomotive due to their generally heavier weight. To that I might add a recommendation for the use of older LL cab units of any prototype, especially the FAs or FMs (while the Eries and DL-109s are good, as well, they do not like sharp curves, especially the DL-109---it does not like #4 turnouts, either), as they are heavy, pull well and run well. The one drawback would be the difficulty in adding DCC, if the new modeller is so inclined.
If the guy who is the subject of this topic is building pikes commercially, his first concern would be reliability. One thing that can be stated about Code Eighty is that almost anything will run on it.
-
>My first three layouts, dating back to the late 1970s, were made with Atlas code 80 and Peco Insulfrog turnouts. NEVER had a problem !!! What did I do "wrong" ?
You didn't do anything "wrong". As with many things in life today, the insulfrog problem I had is a culmination of several innocent things. I saw it after I switched to DCC using CVP's Booster 3's, which had a very fast short detection. When switching in my yard at slow speeds, I found the wheels of my Atlas SD9 would bridge the two rails of opposing polarity at the end of the insulated frog. I tried the nail polish trick and it worked until the next time I cleaned the track. I then tried to grind some of the metal away and replace t with puddy. That sort of worked. I ended up rebuilding the entire yard with ElectroFrogs. I also have a rule that live frogs need to be powered with an auxiliary switch, like a slide switch, frog juicer, or Tortoise.
One problem I found with Peco turnouts, is that over time (20+ years), the springs do lose their tension and don't hold the points tight enough leading to derailments. Many of the original Peco switch motors have been replaced with Tortoises.
Bill Kepner
-
Not to be a pain, but my home layout is Atlas code 80 with insulfrog Peco turnouts; I never have any problems except having to clean the points occasionally. I can leave it sit for weeks at a time, go down to the basement, power up the Digitrax system, and trains run with no problem.
If I were to build it again, I would use Atlas code 55 all around for realism, but I don't have issues with things not working on the current layout either.
-
It reads to me like he's choosing product to shoot right down the middle for a bullet-proof, easy-maintenance, reliable layout.
I agree with everything he says except for the insulfrog turnouts.
Note, that doesn't mean his choices are what I would choose.
But everything on his list would build a very reliable and easy-to-maintain layout, so wouldn't that be good for his customers and for model railroading?
-------------
And I will say this. I have often wondered if the increased surface area of code 80 track makes for less hassle with dirty rail and pulling power. It has always seemed intuitive that it would.
-
I'll tell you, the most stressful thing for me in this hobby is what to do about track. I was running trains in and out of Enola Yard last night and it seems my powered Atlas code 55 frogs aren't all powered anymore. Yet my code 80 track, nicely though it operates (Isulfrog problems not withstanding), looks OK in person but bad in photos.
In the end, if I had to choose, I'd pick reliability over appearance.
Cue the "handlay your own" admonishments! That's not an option for me. I've lost some fine motor control in my hands and am hoping surgery in a few weeks will save/restore it, but I can't be sure. I do know that just getting Atlas 55 to play nicely is about the limit of what I can do with my hands.
Some combination of Unitrack with Peco and Atlas code 80 all nicely blended and weathered is starting to seem like a more attractive choice for the future of my layout. I want to crack the throttle and have no worries at all.
-
I have little regret for using code 80 track and Peco electrofrogs, with no juicers for the turnouts.
Yeah, that Atlas code 55 flex is some nice-lookin' stuff, but it was nowhere to be found when I started building. I've also made the transition from Atlas to Peco flex, and Peco certainly seems to stay cleaner. Seemed like I was always cleaning black gunk off Atlas flex.
And despite dire warnings, I've had zero problems with my unpowered frogs in the 1.5 years since I started.
Jim
-
I'm quite happy with my C55 track, except the damned turnouts .. I'm getting ever higher failures on frogs and bonding of the contacts .. I've started to rebuild mine as they come appart with some of the techniques others have posted, and am now modifying BRAND NEW Atlas C55's before they ever go into the layout ..its more work (that we shouldn't have to do) but it is insurance .. the only thing I don't solder jumpers to (yet) is the frog, because the metal in them is crap to solder to ..
Insulated frog turnouts are ok on the mainline .. but I would avoid them in the yard, (disclaimer -- I use them in my staging yard because I had some left over from a previous layout) or if you must use them, add some extra track to keep both ends of the loco going over the frog simultaneously
-
I'm quite happy with my C55 track, except the damned turnouts ..
Yup. Same here. I'm actually nervous about the longevity of my Colorado Midland layout. In fact, I'm not even bothering to wire the frogs on my #5s given that the two locomotives I use are all-wheel pickup and much longer than the frog. My #7s and curved turnouts are wired...hope they last!
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-OaJooTSubvs/VvitwUc8eSI/AAAAAAAARUU/15Gi778MzAcLnS_H7kHkz4PRiH1ExTVjgCCo/s640/12049139_1065918923446979_5370503819939797677_n.jpg)
-
From my first layout (built in the early 1990's) until I started my current one in 2010, I used Peco Code 55 track. It is absolutely great stuff - the rail is actually a Code 80 rail that is buried in the ties to reveal only a Code 55 profile; because of that construction technique, Peco doesn't need to use large spike heads to keep the rail in place, and hence everything (even old MT pizza-cutter wheels and Arnold-Rapido S-2's) runs on it. The turnouts were Electrofrogs, and the spring-over point design meant you didn't need to have a separate switch machine or ground throw to operate the switches. Yes, the use of the points contacting the stock rail to provide power to the point rails and frog was sometimes an issue, easily cured by using some 600-grit sandpaper or a wire brush to polish the point/rail contact area. And the stuff is nearly indestructible. We have 20-year-old Peco switches on our N-Trak modules that are still going strong. The downside: European tie-spacing that doesn't look at all like North American prototype rail in photos.
When I built my current layout, I went with Atlas Code 55 because of the better look. But I miss my Peco. The Atlas Code 55 turnouts have point rails and frogs that are plated, rather than full-on nickel-silver, and the plating has already worn off some of the switches. The #5 switches have issues with gauge through the points; and the #7's come from the factory anything but straight. Two of them have failed, with the washer holding the point rail coming loose, and then there's basically nothing you can do other than replace the switch. All the switches need some sort of switch machine or ground throw to operate the points; and you have to have a way to power the frog (I ended up using Tortoises for everything, which basically means it cost me an extra $12 per switch). The flex-track is OK, but the spike heads are high enough that you MUST have NMRA-compliant wheel flanges for things to work. I have an early-production Athearn Clinchfield Challenger that had larger flanges, and wouldn't work without a wheel replacement.
The Atlas track looks great in photos, but if I had to do it over again, I'd probably go with ME Code 55 flex and build my own turnouts using Fast Track jigs. Time-consuming, yes, but far more reliable, robust, better-looking and better-operating than Atlas.
Or maybe I'd just go back to Peco Code 55 and say to hell with the photos. Peco makes a North American Prototype Code 83 HO-scale track; it's really too bad they don't do something similar in N scale.
John C.
-
Sometimes I feel like this group looks for things to complain about when the waters are calm.
Since I have started following model railroad forums, about 15 years ago or so, I have found once a thread takes a turn, everyone tends to pile it on, it's not just this forum. Now I have never met anyone here in person, but I'd be willing to bet we're all easy going type individuals, but when you're faceless, online, people tend to be more opinionated. Just my take, yours will probably vary.
I use Peco code 55, I have assembled and disassembeled several layouts and have managed to save the turnouts, as mentioned, it doesn't photograph as well, but they are quite reliable.
-
Since I have started following model railroad forums, about 15 years ago or so, I have found once a thread takes a turn, everyone tends to pile it on, it's not just this forum. Now I have never met anyone here in person, but I'd be willing to bet we're all easy going type individuals, but when you're faceless, online, people tend to be more opinionated. Just my take, yours will probably vary.
I use Peco code 55, I have assembled and disassembled several layouts and have managed to save the turnouts, as mentioned, it doesn't photograph as well, but they are quite reliable.
FWIW, I've found this particular thread to be quite dispassionate and academic.
-
FWIW, I've found this particular thread to be quite dispassionate and academic.
Maybe because I haven't chime in? No track-bashing unless you have personal experience with it! 8) :trollface: :D
-
Maybe because I haven't chime in? No track-bashing unless you have personal experience with it! 8) :trollface: :D
LOL.
Seriously, though, feel free to share your experiences! I think I've played with every major type of N scale track except Peco code 55.
-
LOL.
Seriously, though, feel free to share your experiences! I think I've played with every major type of N scale track except Peco code 55.
My N scale track experience is limited (so I don't have much to add to the discussion). I was involved in building and operating couple of friend's layouts. One is all Peco C55 and some C80, and the other is mostly Atlas C55 (with few ME switches in the mix). I also regularly operate a layout with a potpourri of switches (old C70 Shinohara, Atlas and, Peco). Then of course I also participate in NTRAK layouts as the shows.
I'm a big proponent of powering all the rails/frogs of a switch (not depending on just contact or hinged connections). To me Peco track and switches are most reliable (but switches might need some lovin' like shimming the guardrails). If you aren't anal about its appearance (and weather it well) then I would say that is the way to go. I'm also in love with the looks of Peco double- and single-slip switches. There is just something nice about their looks (they don't look toy-like like the few other brands available). Not that there is much call for those on most layouts, but I Still love the look of a complex trackwork. :) If Peco were to make a C55 track system using the US specs for tie size and spacing, they would have a hands-down winner!
Atlas C55 track system looks much better then Peco and the flex-track is not bad (with NMRA-profile wheels). But reliability-wise Atlas C55 switches are quite problematic. I also really dislike the very floppy and flexible throwbars. Then there are the plated frogs, points and guardrails. Not a good design. After repeated cleanings, the plating comes off exposing salmon-colored copper. When that wears off (we haven't gotten to that point yet) then it should turn silver again (exposing the actual metal those castings are made of).
Kato Unitrack is very reliable but on the bottom os the list appearance-wise. Also limiting is the fact that there is a limited selection of switches and crossings. But using it on someone's first layout would insure reliability (and usually first layouts don't need fancy trackworks).
-
Best track is FREE track. :ashat: :trollface: :D
You know it has to be good, because seriously, when was the last time you got or even saw FREE track? :facepalm:
But in all seriousness, this is an informative thread. My hang up is wiring, of which I need more experience. That's why I lean toward Unitrack. I think it can be tinkered with to improve it's appearance. But I do like the appearance of Code 55, and have a good friend who swears by it (and occasionally at it).
I do appreciate the detail, realism, and over effect Lance is able to achieve. At the end of the day, I think it is less about the track he chooses to use and more the creativity and imagination that he puts into making his work exceptional.
-
My layout has a mix of Peco 80 and 55 switches/flex and Xings and ME C55 with their switches. The Pecos are pretty much relegated to my industrial area and the junction between my two lines. The junction because only Peco made the right combination of turnouts and crossings to meet the angle (there's a short connecting track between the lines), and the industrial area because that needs to be super-reliable for slow switching. The mains are almost all ME.
The ME switches have the plus of being able to remove the short piece of track past the frogs and then cut the flex track it feeds into so one rail goes straight to the gap at the frog, without a rail joiner only an inch or 2 away. I saw this in a recent track-laying article in MR.
You can also cut away some of the ties between the diverging tracks on an ME and flex the curved leg out (or in) a little bit. The curved leg has 1-2 inches of straight at the end which can easily be bent to extend the switch curve. I know w/ Peco this would be tough to do, not sure about Atlas turnouts.
The points assembly is the weak point of the ME switches. I've had them come apart or just get too finicky about contact, and the plastic ties holding them in aren't up to the job. Recently I replaced the ties under the points with PCB ties. I had to solder 2 strips of board together to make it as thick as the ME ties but they do a really good job of holding the rails in position. Plus you can build a snug slot for the point bar to move in. The spikes holding the switch rails are way more robust than those holding the flex rails. I needed to replace the ties at the points end and used some Atlas Code 80 ties, the old stuff with the humongous "spikes". A little sanding and it matched the ME tie height, and the Code 55 rail fit snugly into the Code 80 "spikes". I have a batch of ME turnouts that went wonky and this is how I'm going to rebuild them.
-
FWIW, I've found this particular thread to be quite dispassionate and academic.
Agreed.
I totally agreed with Skibbe's post, as I read Lance's blog as informational on his experiences for bullet proof operations in N. Not a bashing of products.
Mike can better tell the history of Modutrak, but with the exception of the New Lisbon modules, the entire thing is Atlas code 55, including turnouts (there are a couple handlaid as well). We've had no less issues in the ten years I've been around with Atlas 55 as the landlaid turnouts.
Back when I jumped to N (15+ years ago), I went straight to Atlas 55. My modest N scale layout ran with a simple bus line, no turnout controls, and I ran short wheel base diesels without any problems. Track can be so weighted by the skill level on which it's laid, I find arguing about which one is the best tough. Too many variables for a baseline of what is good track, and what isn't.
-
I read the blog as:
"How to build an N scale layout for a senior citizen so he doesn't call you every other day.
First, use HO sized rail. Second, use HO size flanges. Third, weight your cars as much as an HO scale car."
Jason
-
I'll tell you, the most stressful thing for me in this hobby is what to do about track. I was running trains in and out of Enola Yard last night and it seems my powered Atlas code 55 frogs aren't all powered anymore. Yet my code 80 track, nicely though it operates (Isulfrog problems not withstanding), looks OK in person but bad in photos.
Dave, is it the frog or the point that seems to have gone dead?
If it's the frog, soldering a wire directly to the frog would do the trick (if your hands cooperate). If it's the point, simply apply a drop of solder where the point, the rail to the frog and the small copper plate meet. I've done it a dozen times on my Atlas turnouts and it does the trick nicely! If you get too much solder at the joint it files away easily enough. I finish by painting the soldered joint a grimy black and you'd have to look closely to see it.
-
The Atlas Code 55 turnouts have point rails and frogs that are plated, rather than full-on nickel-silver, and the plating has already worn off some of the switches.
John C.
John, a possible fix for the plating issue on the Atlas code 55 switches is to hit the copper areas with gun bluing solution (I use Super Blue) which darkens the copper up nicely.
-
I read the blog as:
"How to build an N scale layout for a senior citizen so he doesn't call you every other day.
First, use HO sized rail. Second, use HO size flanges. Third, weight your cars as much as an HO scale car."
Jason
LOL.
Nice. After talking to @Ed Kapuscinski a bit yesterday, what Lance said makes sense for his business. But that bit about only running MTL stuff was a little wacky. I'm pretty sure everything ESM runs just fine.
-
Yeah, the overall track discussion struck a chord with me but not the rolling stock bit.
Peco 55 is sounding pretty good these days.
-
Dave, is it the frog or the point that seems to have gone dead?
If it's the frog, soldering a wire directly to the frog would do the trick (if your hands cooperate). If it's the point, simply apply a drop of solder where the point, the rail to the frog and the small copper plate meet. I've done it a dozen times on my Atlas turnouts and it does the trick nicely! If you get too much solder at the joint it files away easily enough. I finish by painting the soldered joint a grimy black and you'd have to look closely to see it.
It's the frogs, and oh by the way, it's not like the wiring is easy to get to. It's all entombed in foam beneath the ground throws...I didn't count on the phosphor bronze wiring tabs to fail so easily.
-
But that bit about only running MTL stuff was a little wacky. I'm pretty sure everything ESM runs just fine.
That's the part that sparked my "dated" comment... Avoid anything that doesn't say Kato, Atlas or Micro-trains was advice I was given when I joined the local N track club 20 years ago. While the big three are still quality manufacturers, I can't think of a quality HO manufacturer that makes crap in N.
In fact with most of the issues we have being prototype fidelity most everything made today in N would be fine for a beginner. Why limit your palate?
As far as Track goes I agree with what he has to say. (but would also add unitrack as an option for the beginer) Interesting and informative turn the thread took however...
-
It's the frogs, and oh by the way, it's not like the wiring is easy to get to. It's all entombed in foam beneath the ground throws...I didn't count on the phosphor bronze wiring tabs to fail so easily.
So the wire from the frog tab goes down inside the foam where it is connected to contacts on a switch or ground throw to power the frog?
So even if you were able to solder a fresh wire directly to the frog, you would have to dig something up out of the foam in order to get to where the other end needs to go?
Ugh.
Let me ponder this. The faulty phosphor bronze strip runs directly under the frog. I am thinking about a way to fix them without you having to tear everything up. Maybe it would be possible to drill a hole with a pin vise, right through the frog all the way down to where that bronze strip sits underneath it, and then insert something right through the frog and that strip (right from the top) that would restore contact.
I think if the hole were just the right size and you stuffed a length of phosphor bronze wire through there, with a tapered point on it,
it might got through both the frog and the strip tightly enough to restore conductivity.
I'm going to see if I have a spare Atlas c55 turnout lying around here to try this on.
You'd be doing it "blind", meaning that you would push the wire through from the top and not really see how tight it was in the bronze strip underneath. And you just push it in until it is flush with the bottom of the frog so it wouldn't get in the way of the wheels.
too bad things are so tight in there on clearance. If the hole were tapped, a long piece of threaded brass rod could be screwed through there and that would really do it.
-
So the wire from the frog tab goes down inside the foam where it is connected to contacts on a switch or ground throw to power the frog?
So even if you were able to solder a fresh wire directly to the frog, you would have to dig something up out of the foam in order to get to where the other end needs to go?
Ugh.
Let me ponder this. The faulty phosphor bronze strip runs directly under the frog. I am thinking about a way to fix them without you having to tear everything up. Maybe it would be possible to drill a hole with a pin vise, right through the frog all the way down to where that bronze strip sits underneath it, and then insert something right through the frog and that strip (right from the top) that would restore contact.
I think if the hole were just the right size and you stuffed a length of phosphor bronze wire through there, with a tapered point on it,
it might got through both the frog and the strip tightly enough to restore conductivity.
I'm going to see if I have a spare Atlas c55 turnout lying around here to try this on.
You'd be doing it "blind", meaning that you would push the wire through from the top and not really see how tight it was in the bronze strip underneath. And you just push it in until it is flush with the bottom of the frog so it wouldn't get in the way of the wheels.
too bad things are so tight in there on clearance. If the hole were tapped, a long piece of threaded brass rod could be screwed through there and that would really do it.
Yeah, don't worry about it. Enola doesn't really do anything for me anyway besides display freight cars. It's too short for staging and not functional for classification.
-
Yeah, don't worry about it. Enola doesn't really do anything for me anyway besides display freight cars. It's too short for staging and not functional for classification.
Not far from the experience I had with Hamlet Yard on my layout. I finally gave up with the compromises and tore it down. I'm an HCD guy again! :)
DFF
-
Not far from the experience I had with Hamlet Yard on my layout. I finally gave up with the compromises and tore it down. I'm an HCD guy again! :)
DFF
I'm the quintessential 'roundy-rounder. What I really need is a $hit-ton of run-through staging. :ashat:
-
I'm the quintessential 'roundy-rounder. What I really need is a $hit-ton of run-through staging. :ashat:
Ditto. You can never have enough.
-
Ditto. You can never have enough.
LOL, too bad most of you guys weren't here for that thread.
Jason
-
Maybe because I haven't chime in? No track-bashing unless you have personal experience with it! 8) :trollface: :D
My home layout uses mostly Peco c55 flex track with a lot of Micro Engineering c55 flex track and bridge track mixed in. Almost all turnouts are Peco c55 Electrofrogs with the frogs wired for power. This includes straight turnouts, curved turnouts, single crossovers, double crossovers, and both double and single slip switches. My engine terminal is Atlas c80 so it will play nicely with the rails on the Walthers turntable. Most of my curves are superelevated and have easements.
None of this track has ever caused me any problems. If laid properly and with care, anyone should get the same results.
-
Well, here is my reaction.
For rolling stock, MT is fine, but so is Atlas, Bluford Shops, BLMA, Intermountain, Rapido Trains, etc. etc. Rolling stock has improved tremendously in the past 10 years and anything from a major manufacturer not named ConCor or Bachmann or Model Power should be fine.
John C.
Exception: Con-Cor's Budd-type passenger cars are of very good quality. In scale appearance, they rival Kato's best. I have quite a few in my collection and run them regularly. Their couplers are of their own design and, out-of-the-box, the cars couple up closer than anything else out there and run extremely well despite this. The couplers are truck-mounted which brings me to one of only two beefs I have about these cars: the truck frames are molded facing the opposite way they should. Correcting this would mean going to body-mounted couplers on all cars. The second beef: there is no provision for track-powered interior lighting. Other than these points, these are very fine passenger car models.
-
LOL, too bad most of you guys weren't here for that thread.
Jason
Linky?
I imagine the problem is that no matter how much staging we have, we buy more stuff to fill it such that it can never be enough. I remember Tony Koester saying something like take the amount of staging you think you need, then double it and add more.
-
Linky?
I imagine the problem is that no matter how much staging we have, we buy more stuff to fill it such that it can never be enough. I remember Tony Koester saying something like take the amount of staging you think you need, then double it and add more.
Tell me about it. I am a relative NP/SP&S "newbie" and I already have more rolling stock than my layout can possibly hold comfortably, and I don't have even 100 cars. (And then... there's all that pesky PRR and NYC rolling stock I've still got... just in case I decide to take out the T1 or I1 and put something appropriate behind them...)
-
I find Lance's observations spot on. When you get into the area of commercial building, criteria change toward the proven and durable and away from the pretty and fragile. I loved the look of my 1100 linear foot Atlas C55 layout with about 90 Atlas switches, and I had mostly good luck running it continously, with its 45 minute loop. Over nine years I had one switch go bad to the extent I replaced it instead of coaxing it back into suitable performance, as if that were possible.
But I never would have used those materials for a commercial production! When I build ships for a museum, there are completely different criteria than ships for my own pleasure or for what I offer as kits or built-ups. Over the past 40 years in N scale, I've used most everything that's come on the market or up for discussion for motive power, rolling stock, track/switches, scenery materials, layout construction. power supplies, tools, and just about any other category aligned with the hobby.
I've found that what works for me isn't always working for other people. And if I'm going to put something out for the public, then the more bulletproof, the better. That doesn't rule out advances in the hobby--who would've thought of using vinyl cutters for styrene?--but it does mean that those of us who choose to go commercial have to be very conservative. You can't be on the leading edge, let alone the bleeding edge, at first; that comes only after you're established.
-
Mike Danneman uses Peco code 55 on his awesome D&RGW layout.
-
Mike Danneman uses Peco code 55 on his awesome D&RGW layout.
Mike definitely figured that one out - use black cinders for ballast or cover it in snow. :)
Jason
-
Mike definitely figured that one out - use black cinders for ballast or cover it in snow. :)
Jason
True 'nuff... And, I spent the entire weekend rafting on the Arkansas River through Bighorn Sheep Canyon and the upper Royal Gorge along the now-dormant D&RGW Tennessee Pass line and I can truthfully say Mike has captured the look of the Rio Grande ROW perfectly...especially the coal slag ballast.
It's a little disheartening that every N scale track system seems to have a disadvantage. If I were in HO I'd be all over the Peco North American code 83.
-
Thought I'd chime in too.
Lance's recommendations for "Planning for Success in N-scale" has some real problems, and if followed will ensure no-joy in the "Success" department. Some recommendations are self-contradictory, and others are based on non-factual assumptions.
Lance Mistake #1: The first "wrong" assumption that Lance makes is that bigger is better. By "better" I am sure he means that elusively defined term "bulletproof". Since maybe my definition of "bulletproof" is different than yours, I'll use another couple of words which are what I seek in building models, modules and layouts for myself and others in my nearly 40 years of doing so...those words are "trouble-free"...and in my long-term experience and experimentation, size has very little to do with being trouble-free.
Lance Mistake #2: Lance says: "If you go with code 80, the larger wheel to rail contact area gives improved electrical pick up." Lance's odd contention that code 80 rail somehow ensures better electrical contact between rail and metal wheels is totally specious. The railhead could be three feet wide and electrical contact between it and the conical surface of the metal model train wheel would be the same, unless the three foot wide railhead was tipped to match the approximately 1 in 20 semi-conical angle ratio of the model wheel rolling surface, and the wheels got automatically wider as the railhead gets wider. This means that there's the same amount of contact patch area on any width railhead with typical N-scale railhead dimensions and wheel rolling surface angles. So, "bigger" rails have NOTHING to do with improved electrical pickup reliability.
But, if he can prove it to me, then I'll believe it. In the meantime, my trains run (and have run) flawlessly on C80, C70, C55, C40 and C30...the size of the rail having zero influence on electrical pickup goodness.
Lance then comments on his choice of Peco 80 because he states it is "Without question the most reliable N scale track product on the market". He also states that its "downside" is "of course, its out of scale appearance." Kato Unitrack is at least as reliable in normal use, as are other products. However, this leads us to Lance Mistake #3: Calling the appearance of Peco 80 as merely "out of scale" is grossly euphemistic...it's as ugly as the a$$-end of my neighbor's 14 year old pit bull when she's in heat. Here's some news for ya...it isn't modeled after "British prototype railways", or any other prototype I've ever researched...it's specifically designed to look like the toy track that N-gauge trainsets ran on when they first appeared under your Christmas tree back in the 60's and 70's. The proportions are just about half a century old and are in direct opposition to the finely detailed and properly proportioned present-day, 21st Century models of trains that will run reliably on top of it in spite of its fugliness. (I'm not picking on just Peco, but on everything else too, with the exception of Atlas 55 and ME)
Anybody on this thread have any problems with their flex (no matter what brand) becoming less reliable over time? Does anybody have anvils falling out of the sky onto their model track? I didn't think so. So, why is code 80 rail needed at all in N-scale?...either fully visible or with .025" imbedded in the tie strip?
Next question...anybody have problems with trains running over dead-frog turnouts? I can see the hands shooting up in the air. Lance Mistake #3: Dead frog turnouts???? Is he SERIOUS?? First he says that bigger rail means a better electrical contact patch, then recommends DEAD FROGS???...With zero electrical contact? Why not fix the turnouts' problems both before and during installation so you'll KNOW they'll work, rather than jury-rig a solution after the fact? BECAUSE IT INCREASES PRODUCTION TIME...if you're building your layout to meet a customer's deadline. If you're building it yourself for yourself, taking a little extra time to do it right will go a long way in adding to your satisfaction and it won't cut into your profit margins.
Lance Mistakes #4 & #5: Suggesting using code 70 rail joiners instead of code 55 rail joiners on ME code 55 track...then on the next page under "Three Common Construction Errors" he states: "...never, ever solder your rail joints..." Then, a bit further on gives his opinion that "...soldering a feed to every rail is unnecessary overkill " Hmmmm....loose rail joiners...not soldered...feeders not on every piece of rail. Lance's advice here is an electrical cluster-you-know-what...that WILL happen if you choose to take his advice when laying your track and electrifying it.
Lance does say some things that I agree with...sort of. He admits that ME C55 is as mechanically sound as Peco products (both C80 AND C55 if I'm reading this right)...but using his logic about railhead size making better electrical "pick-up" then, shouldn't he have recommended ME C70 flex??? Just askin'.... :trollface:
I also agree on Lance's high layout height recommendation. As I'm getting older, it's a lot more comfortable for me to observe my trains and work on my layout, both on top and underneath...with my railheads being a nominal 52" above the floor, with sections above and below that.
Although I agree with Lance that body-mounted couplers work better than talgo couplers/trucks, I do not find that mixing them causes any problems either switching or in mainline running...but I run extra broad curves everywhere, so maybe small radii would cause problems. Switching over to body mounts (Z-scale MT's for me) is an ongoing process on my layout. (edit: @peteski comments "I can't disagree with any of your points. Well, maybe the one about mixing body- and truck-mounted couples being ok. If you take one of the modern long Kato Diesel locos with long porches and body-mounted couplers, and you couple it to something like MTL 89' TT flat car with deeply-inboard mounted trucks and swinging couplers, you are asking for trouble, even on curves which aren't very tight." Since my time period is 1947 thru 1956, I don't run motive power and cars that more modern modelers may have on their layouts or be interested in. Thanks Peter for the added insight! rgg)
I also agree that Magnematic uncoupling is something I can do without, along with the MTL "dongles" which cause more running problems than they're worth. Give me a martini skewer over a magnet any day....SNIP..off they all come on my layout. No dongle problems here.
Lance's recommendation of Kato & Atlas motive power is a relatively sure thing (I've had a few problems with both of these brands in the past), but dated. I would say that nowadays in 2016, most new engines from all the major manufacturers run well, and reliably...especially the diesels. Beginners should buy diesels, with maybe a Bachmann Consolidation as their first steam engine. My old Life-Like FA/FB's just keep on running...they always have, and the detail is excellent other than the small number boards for my UP lashups.
Micro Trains rolling stock? That's a safe recommendation, unless you want realistic running boards, etched & separate detailing, correct ride height, metal wheelsets and accurate, road-specific details. MTL lost its monopoly on being "the best" rolling stock years ago, with Atlas, FVM, Athearn, BLMA, Trainworks, Intermountain, WOT, Rapido and others competing, catching up and surpassing MTL. With all my thousands of pieces of rolling stock, I only had running problems with some of my old Con Cor passenger car trucks, with the metal wheelsets falling out sometimes, so Lance's recommendation to replace trucks and wheelsets with MTL products is not entirely correct or necessary. All of my MTL plastic lo-pros are slowly being relaced by FVM narrow metal lo-pros. MTL better figure this out soon if they want to continue to compete IMHO.
Adding so much weight that your engines just barely can pull your cars without "stalling out" is just plain silly. What if I'm only pulling six cars and a caboose? Since Lance builds and designs mainly switching layouts, he should specify that cars which get switched in sharp industrial trackage need to be heavily weighted...the rest need to be weighted to NMRA standards if possible. Smooth trackwork goes much further than adding lead in my experience.
For a rank beginner who wants to set up trains on the ping-pong table...or put together something to enjoy with his little kids, or who wants to fiddle around with various styles of trackplans before settling on one that suits his/her needs and druthers...I always recommend Kato Unitrack...over any other track product. And I also recommend buying a Kato trainset or two to run on the Unitrack...all for an effortless, reliable, easy-to-assemble-and-use, re-usable positive model railroad experience.
However, for those modelers who are detail oriented and further along, I recommend ME C55 flex, ME C55 #6 turnouts, Atlas #10 turnouts, wyes, curved turnouts & diamonds, and finding out if they want to learn how to roll their own turnouts, for more versatility, saving a LOT of money, more reliability and better looks...and to see if they just like it.
For myself, my claim to having found "trouble-free" operation, AND fairly prototypical appearance is not influenced by owning a commercial enterprise making as many layouts as I can during the year. Although getting things done in a fairly timely manner IS still important for me, I don't have a "production line", so I don't consider cleaning up the burrs on cut rails and filing a couple of angles on the corners of the rail feet to allow easy insertion of matching, tight code 55 rail joiners with my flat-nose pliers to be burdensome.
My layout is portable, which means it MUST be durable and robust because it goes to shows at least twice a year, traveling several hundred miles in the back of my Suburban and in a large U-haul trailer. True reliability starts with the benchwork, and I use wooden L-girders with splined Masonite subroadbed supported by risers attached to cross-members all glued and screwed together.
The key to mechanically sound trackwork is to have a structurally strong subroadbed with a firm yet resilient roadbed, sanded smooth to remove any gross and sudden height variations....Midwest Cork Products N-scale and HO scale roadbed fit this bill perfectly. ME or RC flex gets carefully laid to spec's determined by first designing using a CAD program, then printing a roadbed template so I always KNOW exactly what radius my trackwork has, and where the spiral easements begin and end. ME stiff flex fits the bill in two ways...first, I can lay it exactly to a predetermined centerline because it stays in the curve I choose to bend it to, and second, its gauge is finer and more consistent than any other "floppy" flex. I NEVER ASSUME that just because it looks pretty good when laid that it's reliable, so I always test it for a few days, running trains to prove that it's done reliably. I solder EVERY RAIL JOINT, but my layout is sectional, so there is never a section over 6' long...and I NEVER have expansion/contraction problems with my ballasted track....never.
Also, to ensure ultimate reliability, durability and a fairly prototypical appearance, I hand-lay every turnout that goes on my layout, except for two ME #6's in Echo Yard I installed as a long-term test of the brand. They still work flawlessly after over 20 years, which is one reason I recommend them so often.
I also run a 22AWG solid-core copper feeder (less than 6" long) from the center of each and every piece of rail on the layout..except for my PCB turnouts, where I allow the PCB's to carry current to the assembly. Each frog is live, and powered from NWSL Tortoises underneath.
Code 40 trackage is hand-laid on PCB ties (every fifth tie) on the Park City Branchline and will be at Devil's Slide and the Ideal Concrete Plant complex. UP-style center sidings are ME and Rail Craft C40, with the inner spikeheads sanded down so that my motive power will run on it.
The only electrical "problems" I have periodically on the layout EVER is dirty track, especially during heavy running at shows...which I take care of by running Masonite board track cleaning cars in each freight train, and using a soft Bright Boy in the yards and mainlines at the start of each day at the show.
Trains run smoothly and ultra-reliably on the mainlines and through my turnouts and other turnouts built to my specs on other sections built by my partners who buckle up to our show layout. At home, after setting up after a show (takes me about five hours to do it by myself) any damage done in-transit would not have been prevented by using code 80 rails as it's always scenery damage...not track damage.
I love the fact that I am not having to "cover up" or "hide" anything about the track I use on my layout. Just the opposite...I emphasize it with the painting, weathering and ballasting, which ironically makes the code 80 track on other layouts I work on look better also.
I continue to understand people who agree with Lance's methodology, but...I also know through just as many years of experience...that he is over-compensating with his bigger-is-better, and out-of-date recommendations for present-day N-scale layouts...and some of his recommendations will produce problems over time on almost any N-scale layout or module..
Cheerio!
Bob Gilmore
-
Wow Bob - you wrote a novel of a post! Must have taken a while. But I have to say that I enjoyed reading it and that I can't disagree with any of your points. Well, maybe the one about mixing body- and truck-mounted couples being ok. If you take one of the modern long Kato Diesel locos with long porches and body-mounted couplers, and you couple it to something like MTL 89' TT flat car with deeply-inboard mounted trucks and swinging couplers, you are asking for trouble, even on curves which aren't very tight.
-
Wow Bob - you wrote a novel of a post! Must have taken a while. But I have to say that I enjoyed reading it and that I can't disagree with any of your points. Well, maybe the one about mixing body- and truck-mounted couples being ok. If you take one of the modern long Kato Diesel locos with long porches and body-mounted couplers, and you couple it to something like MTL 89' TT flat car with deeply-inboard mounted trucks and swinging couplers, you are asking for trouble, even on curves which aren't very tight.
Thanks Peter @peteski, Yup...did take me a while but I've got the flu and I've been up all night coughing and blowing my nose, so why not write a novel???
I appreciate your point about mixing talgo and body-mounts and I can definitely see your point. Since I don't run anything like that on my layout...being set between 1947 thru 1956...my comments are based on my experience. I'll do an edit and include your comments for added clarity.
Cheerio!
Bob Gilmore
-
...specifically designed to look like the toy track that N-gauge trainsets ran on when they first appeared under your Christmas tree back in the 60's and 70's. The proportions are just about half a century old ...
Wouldn't one like to be able to go back in time to find the designer that perpetrated this on the scale and smack the back of his head and tell him: "get real!"
-
@robert3985,
First off, thanks for what may be the longest post in Railwire history!
Secondly, with regard to ME c55 #6s... I've read conflicting guidance on whether these can be used with DCC without modification. I have a few on hand, and while I went all Atlas c55 on the Colorado Midland (and hope to not regret that!), a mix of Atlas c55 track with ME c55 turnouts is one of the possible way-aheads for the future of the Juniata Division (the others being perhaps more Mindheim-esque?). What are your thoughts?
-
@robert3985
Secondly, with regard to ME c55 #6s... I've read conflicting guidance on whether these can be used with DCC without modification.
That could stem from ME changing the design of their turnouts to be DCC friendly several years back.
Jason
-
That could stem from ME changing the design of their turnouts to be DCC friendly several years back.
Jason
If so, what's the "spotting feature" I should look for on second-hand turnouts that'll tell me they're DCC-ready?
-
If so, what's the "spotting feature" I should look for on second-hand turnouts that'll tell me they're DCC-ready?
I'm certainly not an authority, but I believe there's a well defined gap on both ends of the cast frog, plus there are two small jumper wires between the stock rails and the closure rails.
If you're buying from the package, it looks like sometimes you see the DCC friendly notation on the papers.
Jason
-
I would not recommend it for beginners, but Fast Tracks assembly jigs make quick, easy work for very high quality turnouts. If you are going to mess with "fixing" purchased turnouts anyway, you might as well build them yourself. I do not recommend using their "quick-ties" as they make the turnouts very expensive. I just glue M.E. wood ties onto a paper tie template that can be downloaded from the Fast Tracks website. The assembly jigs are $120, but it only takes 10-12 turnouts to recoup the cost. I know some will say you can make turnouts without the jigs, which is true. But for me, the jigs save a lot of time and make quality more consistent.
Daryl
-
@robert3985 , props for working "dongle" into your post - well played sir!
Frank
-
@robert3985,
First off, thanks for what may be the longest post in Railwire history!
Actually . . . the longest post would have been was my Arnold SW-1 review few months ago. When I tried to post it I got an error that I exceeded the maximum amount of characters. That is why I split it into 2 posts. :) Mine has photos mixed with text, so it doesn't look as impressive as Bob's text-only novel. Bob wins on a technicality (his post was long enough without going over the limit). :D I just thought I would let you know that fun-fact.
-
I thought Arnold made a SW-1 recently, not an S-1. Fun fact. ;) :trollface:
-
I thought Arnold made a SW-1 recently, not an S-1. Fun fact. ;) :trollface:
Brain fart - corrected. :P
That post got down-voted? Geez, can't we have have fun without someone having a hair across their :ashat: ? :RUEffinKiddingMe:
-
Brain fart - corrected. :P
That post got down-voted? Geez, can't we have have fun without someone having a hair across their :ashat: ? :RUEffinKiddingMe:
Hmm... I gave you an
upvote, so you're even...
(http://bayouline.com/o2.gif)
-
Brain fart - corrected. :P
That post got down-voted? Geez, can't we have have fun without someone having a hair across their :ashat: ? :RUEffinKiddingMe:
I gave you an upvote. :ashat:
-
LOL - thanks guys!
Again, this is not about the numbers - I would simply like to know why I got thumbs down on what was meant as a humorous post. One of these days I need to stop pondering this stuff out loud because it probably makes me look like a respect-points-whore, where in reality, I'm simply insatiably curious.
-
Brain fart - corrected. :P
That post got down-voted? Geez, can't we have have fun without someone having a hair across their :ashat: ? :RUEffinKiddingMe:
Not by me, FYI.
-
Maybe Bryan has friends? The name does tend to draw people.