So PECO doesn't make Electrfrogs C55 anymore?

[Steveruger45]

Tie spacing on Peco track is also probably influenced by the fact that in United Kingdom N scale is 1∶148 scale

[mmagliaro]

Of all the products that have tried to be an accurate, reliable N Scale turnout, I am the most annoyed and frustrated at the Atlas C55. Remember, when that came out, they touted it as a big advancement for N Scale because it was going to pull us away from ugly code 80 track with wide tie spacing. It was going to be a "new era" for N Scale track. So to do all that work, make all new dies, and design an entire line of crossings and turnouts, and then make such flimsy design mistakes like the point rails and throwbar....ugh. They took it 90% of the way there and then dropped the ball at the goal line.

[MichaelWinicki]

Of all the products that have tried to be an accurate, reliable N Scale turnout, I am the most annoyed and frustrated at the Atlas C55. Remember, when that came out, they touted it as a big advancement for N Scale because it was going to pull us away from ugly code 80 track with wide tie spacing. It was going to be a "new era" for N Scale track. So to do all that work, make all new dies, and design an entire line of crossings and turnouts, and then make such flimsy design mistakes like the point rails and throwbar....ugh. They took it 90% of the way there and then dropped the ball at the goal line.

Yes, the Atlas turnouts could certainly use a quality control boost.  No doubt about it.

However I think they present more of an issue for some than for others.  The "out of gauge" issues you've experienced with your steamers simply do not affect my diesels. 

I've had about a 10% failure rate on the Atlas code 55 turnouts that I've installed over the last 10 years.  The biggest issue has been the points losing power via the small brass plate they rest on.  The second issue was the small "O" ring dropping off the back of the turnout causing the point to come loose. 

Fortunately I've been able to repair all the turnouts in place for both issues.

I've only had to remove/replace one turnout completely–And that was due to some sort of weird shorting issue within the wiring of the turnout.

But yes I would think Atlas could sort out the "O" ring/point-brass-plate issues.
 

[peteski]

Yes, the Atlas turnouts could certainly use a quality control boost.  No doubt about it.

However I think they present more of an issue for some than for others.  The "out of gauge" issues you've experienced with your steamers simply do not affect my diesels. 

That may be so, but to me the point is that any commercially manufactured track (any scale), should be in correct gauge.  Just because your locos (most N scale diesels are also manufactured tight in gauge, which is another problem altogether) don't have problem, doesn't give the manufacturer a free pass.

[MichaelWinicki]

That may be so, but to me the point is that any commercially manufactured track (any scale), should be in correct gauge.  Just because your locos (most N scale diesels are also manufactured tight in gauge, which is another problem altogether) don't have problem, doesn't give the manufacturer a free pass.

I know Max has posted imaged of the turnout(s) he had issues with.

If anything I have to re-gauge my new loco's wider in (to NMRA specs) in order for them to traverse through Atlas code 55 turnouts without an issue. 

And they all go though them... 85 locos.  As do all 500 freight cars.

I'm not sure (and probably no one else on this side of the fence does either) if there really is a problem with the gauge on Atlas turnouts. 

[robert3985]

For cars and engines to run reliably on NMRA spec'd turnouts and track, the wheelsets MUST be exactly gauged to NMRA spec's.  Also, to run reliably on Atlas 55, the flanges should also be NMRA spec. Atlas 55 N-scale track was designed around NMRA specifications, at least as far as gauge and flangeway clearances are concerned.

Following that statement up, NEVER assume that your brand-new engines are properly gauged.  Every single steam and diesel engine I've purchased over the past 30 or so years has not been 100% gauged properly...with the two exceptions being my Kato FEF-3's and my son's brass MORE/LIK GS-2's, which were perfect.  It's a good practice to check their gauge before even setting them on the track, and correcting the problem.

I don't worry about the gauge on my car wheelsets unless one starts having problems running through my tight-spec'd hand-laid turnouts.  However, I have never had a gauge problem with either the multi-part or single-part wheelsets on any of my cars.

One area where Atlas turnouts fall short is the length of the closure rails/closure points from the frog to the point toes, which is drastically too short.  This affects the appearance of their #5, #7 and #10 turnouts, but it also affects the reliability of their #5 turnout which because of the much too short closure rails, has an effective diverging radius that is nearly as small as that of a properly proportioned #4 turnout, making them too tight for many full-length cars and engines, when if they were actually proportioned like a "real" #5 should be, they would run most of the same cars and engines without problems.  Rumor has it that Atlas dicked with their turnout proportions so that they'd fit their sectional track plans.  Congrats Atlas!

Of course Atlas can manufacture their product any way they choose, but to advertise their turnouts as #5, #7, and #10, when they're really closer to a #4, #6, and a #8 as far as the length and diverging radii are concerned, is false advertising in my book. They should advertise them as "small" "medium" and "large", then give their effective diverging track radii in the product description.

As far as Peco C55 ties being designed around Prototype British sleeper flat-bottom track proportions and spacing, I'll have to confirm that with my own research before I give up my contention they're not.  Certainly the tie height is much greater than any prototype height, so it's spacing, length and width I'll be checking when I get a spare moment in the next couple of days...and when I get to my LHS to purchase a length of Peco55 flex to take measurements from.

Incidentally, I checked both Atlas55 and Micro Engineering C55/C40 flex for tie proportions and spacing, and neither is exactly correct for either A.R.E.A. Heavy trafficked tie size & spacing, or Medium trafficked tie size & spacing. Tie lengths and widths are close enough for both brands, with the much smaller spikehead details on the ME product looking exponentially better than the humongous thingies that Atlas thinks looks like "spikeheads", but Atlas ties are much more squared and cleaner on the ends...although too perfect and uniform to represent any prototype trackage I've looked at lately.  One of the brands' tie spacing is just right for medium duty trackage (further apart) but the tie lengths are perfect for heavily trafficked trackage (slightly longer), while the other brand is just the opposite.  So, I go with ME when I'm not using my stash of Rail-Craft because of the stiffness, an actual 36" length per piece, and the look and size of their spikeheads.

It's become clear to me that for me to get "perfect track" using both C55 and C40 commercially available rails, which are both HO scale track, I'm going to have to accept that C55 rail is a bit too tall, and C40 is a bit too wide.  That said, I could use Proto87Stores track tieplates for each and every tie on the C40 trackage (including both track & turnouts), and have proper etched frets of the same things made for my C55 mainline trackage and turnouts.  One part of me would love to do this just to see if it's worth the effort...and believe me, it would be a LOT of extra effort (!)...but another part of me has serious doubts that it would be worth it...and then there's the other part of me that wants to do it just because nobody I know of has ever done it (Ed @ednadolski came close) and I'd like to document the effort and results. I've got a 26' (4 section) LDE of Devils Slide/Ideal Concrete/Wilhemina Pass in the planning process (nearly done) for my sectional layout that would be perfect to try out hand-laying and detailing mainline/siding/industrial C55 & C40 trackage using etched turnout and tieplate details.  Hmmmm....still thinkin' 

Cheerio!
Bob Gilmore

 

[Dave V]

Following that statement up, NEVER assume that your brand-new engines are properly gauged. 
Cheerio!
Bob Gilmore

QFT!   I was appalled at some of the gauge issues I had with my N scale locos out of the box.  And they came from all the major manufacturers...not just one.

In HOn3 I've found that I've had fewer problems even though the gauge is pretty close to N.  That said, the equipment is bigger, the railhead and flangeways wider, and the equipment much heavier, meaning it's somewhat more tolerant of gauge and tracking issues.  Nevertheless, if a new car or loco starts misbehaving at specific points on the layout where the rest of the equipment operates just fine (I've long ago re-done any track sections that would cause routine derailments...a derailment-free layout is the only kind I will accept), my first suspect--and always the guilty party--is that car or loco's gauge or tracking (are the wheels free-rolling?  Are the trucks free to swivel and do they do so in a flat plane parallel to the railhead?).  Oh, and gotta make sure those trip pins--if you still use 'em--don't pick the switch.

[davefoxx]

I will also add that I would bet that approximately 95-99% of the N scale locomotives that I bought over a fifteen-year period were not in gauge.  For the life of me, I do not understand why this is the case.  I could see that a certain manufacturer makes this mistake, but practically all of them?  Does it have to do with the fact that the wheel tread is huge, so the wheelsets were undergauged to allow for tracking over poor trackwork?  Did this only became a problem as Atlas Code 55 turnouts became available and more people handlaid track?   

DFF

[ednadolski]

... Why hasn't a N scale manufacturer of American prototype track come along and taken advantage of this huge market opportunity ....

[ednadolski]

C55 rail is a bit too tall, and C40 is a bit too wide.

It's also that the railhead width is overscale for N, but that to my eye stands out the most because it is shined/polished for electrical contact purposes.

I could use Proto87Stores track tieplates for each and every tie on the C40 trackage (including both track & turnouts), and have proper etched frets of the same things made for my C55 mainline trackage and turnouts.  One part of me would love to do this just to see if it's worth the effort...and believe me, it would be a LOT of extra effort (!)...but another part of me has serious doubts that it would be worth it...and then there's the other part of me that wants to do it just because nobody I know of has ever done it (Ed @ednadolski came close) and I'd like to document the effort and results.

JMHO, it wouldn't be worth it.   Those C40 tieplates are (for me at least) almost impossible even to pick up individually.  They are easy to lose just cutting them off the fret.  I also found it very hard to line them up: get one in place, then it moves if you breathe on it or bump the rail while trying to get the next one into place.   And unless you paint them a fairly strong contrasting color, they are very hard to see except in extreme closeup photos.



This was all I ever did with them, as I had reached the limits of my patience.  Note that in this pic, most of the TPs are held in place simply by the paint.  The etched-on 'spike heads' are all but invisible (and don't even come up to the level of the rail base).  The C40 rail is only held in place with a few of the P:87 spikes, which are of course overscale for N, and you can't have a tieplate with them.  I have no idea how well the rail will stay in place on curves, or with regular usage and/or time.

(BTW I haven't ever tried gluing the etched fishplates onto the web of the C40 rail... not sure how well that would work out on the gauge side vis a vis wheel flange clearances, but leaving them off would be a rather conspicuous omission, if the goal is to model the trackwork in full detail.)

Frankly, I'm not sure I see the point of going to such lengths for detailed N-scale track, unless one is also willing to put that same level of attention into the rolling stock, detailing, and scenery that will accompany it.  That includes things like scale wire handrails/grabirons/stirrups/details (no cast-on parts!), narrowed wheel treads and reduced flanges, and of course none of the grossly oversized N scale couplers (Micro-Trains TSCs being the exception, provided you make your own pockets ).

Bottom line:  my advice to anyone interested in super-high levels of track fidelity would be to consider P:48 (and you can actually see the results of your work!)

Ed

[Mark5]

Frankly, I'm not sure I see the point of going to such lengths for detailed N-scale track, unless one is also willing to put that same level of attention into the rolling stock, detailing, and scenery that will accompany it.  That includes things like scale wire handrails/grabirons/stirrups/details (no cast-on parts!), narrowed wheel treads and reduced flanges, and of course none of the grossly oversized N scale couplers (Micro-Trains TSCs being the exception, provided you make your own pockets ).

This is where I landed some years back. A man's gotta know his limitations.

That how I ended up using the bigger code 55 track (coming from handlaid code 40). I will probably use Atlas C55 on the next layout, simply because there is only so much time and way too many possible things to obsess about!

Mark

[mmagliaro]

It's also that the railhead width is overscale for N, but that to my eye stands out the most because it is shined/polished for electrical contact purposes.

....

Interesting that you bring this up.   As rail gets smaller and smaller, if we were to properly make it proportionally thinner, we end up with a LOT less physical contact surface with the wheels for electrical pickup.   Don't underestimate how huge this is.
A reduction in surface area of 25%, for example, is a lot.  If you had an 8-wheel pickup system, you are now effectively down to 7 wheels.

[peteski]

Interesting that you bring this up.   As rail gets smaller and smaller, if we were to properly make it proportionally thinner, we end up with a LOT less physical contact surface with the wheels for electrical pickup.   Don't underestimate how huge this is.
A reduction in surface area of 25%, for example, is a lot.  If you had an 8-wheel pickup system, you are now effectively down to 7 wheels.

Not sure if that really applies Max.  The railhead's surface and the wheel traad surface are not perfectly flat or even parallel to each other. Besides, the wheel tread is slightly conical, and the wheels are round.  So regardless of how wide the rail head is, the contact area between the railhead and wheel tread is very tiny (and not dependent on the width of the railhead.  You could probably make the railhead as narrow as a single edge razor blade and you woudl likely still have the same contact area is you would with a wide railhed.

[Point353]

Interesting that you bring this up.   As rail gets smaller and smaller, if we were to properly make it proportionally thinner, we end up with a LOT less physical contact surface with the wheels for electrical pickup.   Don't underestimate how huge this is.
A reduction in surface area of 25%, for example, is a lot.  If you had an 8-wheel pickup system, you are now effectively down to 7 wheels.

The Arnold Rapido trains with which I started out always ran well on their track with its unprototypically shaped rail profile.



(http://davidksmith.com/birth-of-n/arnold.htm)

[davefoxx]

The Arnold Rapido trains with which I started out always ran well on their track with its unprototypically shaped rail profile.



(http://davidksmith.com/birth-of-n/arnold.htm)

Did your ballast clog up with wheel droppings?