Question about quality N gauge turnouts

[Howard1975]

Hello everyone, I have a question, about different brands of N gauge turnouts, for reliable running without derailments.

I'm in the planning stages of building a small N scale layout, on a 30 inch wide by 72 inch long folding table. I will be using a mixture of different N scale locomotives and rolling stock from different manufacturers. Majority will be vintage from the 1960's to the 1990s, but some newer equipment also.  I will be using freight and passenger cars from Arnold Rapido, Minitrix, Fleischmann, Con-Cor, Atlas, AHM, Lima, Life-Like, Model Power, Kato, Tomix, Kawai, Walthers, Roco, Micro-Trains, Bachmann, MDC Roundhouse, Rivarossi, etc. And locomotives from various companies, but mostly vintage Minitrix and Arnold Rapido, but including some Con-Cor produced by Kato, Atlas produced by Roco and Kato, and vintage Life-Like locomotives, etc. Maybe eventually some new locomotives produced by Atlas in China, and Kato in Japan. Some of my freight cars have the metal wheels, some are plastic wheels. Some equipment have pizza cutter wheels, while others are low profile wheels. Mostly truck mounted rapido couplers, but some of my equipment has knuckle couplers (Micro-Trains and Atlas Accumates).

As you can notice, I will be using a variety of equipment from different manufacturers. Layout will be 30 inches by 72 inches. If I used Atlas sectional track,  it will be mostly the 9-3/4 and 11 inch radius curves, unless I use Kato Unitrack, which would allow me to use bigger curves. Or I could use flex track with Atlas or Peco turnouts.

Most important to me is reliable and smooth running trains, without derailments. I don't care as much about looks (after-all, I'm fine with my vintage trains with truck mounted rapido couplers). What turnouts would be the most reliable and dependable, with the fewest derailments? I have been doing a lot of research, at this internet forum and other internet forums, but I remain confused as to what I should do. Like I have wrote, I have vintage Arnold Rapido and Minitrix locomotives from the 1960's, and newer locomotives (Life-Like split frame) from the 2000's. Everything is strictly DC powered, I don't want or need DCC for this layout.

Most of my locomotives will be vintage diesel with 4 and 6 axles, including the Arnold Rapido FA-2, FP-9, GP-7, GP-9, and GP-30, etc. And the Minitrix U-28C, U-30CG, F7-A, H-44-10, etc. Con-Cor PA-1 and PB-1 (made by Kato). I also own an Atlas Davenport 0-6-0 diesel switcher (made by Roco), and a couple Life-Like FA-2 (year 2000 split frame version), etc. I might purchase a few vintage steam locomotives in the future, including Rivarossi, Con-Cor, Arnold Rapido, and Minitrix.  Most of my freight cars are 60 foot and shorter. I will be keeping to locomotives and rolling stock, that can handle 11 inch radius curves. The biggest radius curves my layout will be able to handle, would be around 13 inch radius, such as the Kato R315 and R348 curves, which are 12-3/8 and 13-3/4 inch radius respectively. I currently have about working 10 N scale locomotives, and about 80 pieces of rolling stock. I also have a few of the Tomix and Kato powered chassis (11-105 type).

I will most likely, be mostly running trains around a couple of loops, with some switching at sidings going to some industries. What would you recommend for quality turnouts, that are compatible with my large variety of equipment? I want turnouts that are rugged, reliable, durable, and compatible with a large variety of wheels.  I have considered Atlas code 80 turnouts, Peco code 80 and 55 turnouts, Micro-Engineering code 70, and Kato Unitrack (which is code 80). I know Atlas code 55 is out of the question, because of the deep flanges on my vintage Arnold Rapido and Minitrix. 

I have read about how a lot of modern narrow wheels sometimes fall into the frogs on certain brands of turnouts, causing derailments, or they bounce around making a lot of noise.  I believe all of my wheels are wide treads. Certainly all of the pizza cutters are also wide. I'm assuming all of my plastic Micro-Trains (both pizza cutters and low profile), and low profile Atlas (brown with Accumate couplers) are still wide treads, and should be okay on most turnouts? I have read people sometimes need to add shims at the guard rails, and sometimes around the frog, on certain brands of turnouts.

By the way, I'm not a beginner in the hobby. My dad built the typical HO scale 4'x8' plywood table around 1985, when I was 10 years old. And I started buying N scale equipment in the late 1990's. But I have never built a permanent N scale layout before, I have only operated temporary layouts with Kato Unitrack on the floor. I have never built a N scale layout with Atlas track, Peco track, or flex track. My only experience is with Kato Unitrack in N scale. I guess I have been an armchair modeler for a while.

My goal is just to have fun, running various kinds of N scale trains, from different manufacturers. I don't care very much about the looks, most of my equipment is vintage with truck mounted rapido couplers. I'm more concerned with building a durable and reliable operating layout, that is enjoyable for me.

Thank you, Howard

[peteski]

For a mix of mostly vintage equipment I would go with Peco C55.  It will be compatible with even the largest pizza-cuttter flanges, and yet it is incredibly robust (since the special rail is molded into the ties.  The turnouts are also very reliable, and with generous flangeways allow problem free running even with narrowly gauged wheels (most older equipment runs on out-of-spec narrow wheelsets.

Another possibility is the standard old-school Atlas C80 track. Available in sectional or flex version. It is the same track Atlas made back when the vintage rolling stock was new.

Kato  Unitrack is also very reliable track.  I have no experience with it, but I hear some call it bulletproof.  There have been some issues with some turnouts, but those might be fixed.

I'm curious what out resident Hi-rail guy Lee recommends, since he has a vintage-theme layout.  @wm3798 what do you recommend?

[johnb]

I scrapped my last layout with Atlas Code 80 switches, I am switching to Peco switches

[Doug G.]

I have used Atlas code 80 track for 55+ years and it's fine for all kinds of N scale equipment. I have a mix of the very kinds of stuff you describe, even some newer Kato and Atlas locomotives and they all run fine through Atlas switches, both very old and newer ones.

The newer Atlas switches, while basically the same as the old ones, are a bit more refined in flangeways, guard rail clearances, etc. but they will all pass equipment in gauge with no issues.

Peco track is good too although more expensive.

I can't stand the appearance of Unitrack.

Doug

[NtheBasement]

If you are going c55, Peco is the one.  But Peco c55 turnouts only play well with Peco c55 flex or anybody else's (except Unitrack) c80.  For c80 I'd go with Peco electrofrog but other brands aren't nearly as delicate as their c55s.

[Jon898]

Caution on the newer code 80 Atlas switches as the flangeways appear to be a bit shallower than the older switches.  While the gauge is fine, older pizza cutters will probably bump a bit.  I'm all code 80 Atlas, but if I started again, I'd go Peco 55.

Jon

[GGNInNScale]

I vote for Atlas Code 80.  I don't notice the height of the rails relative to Code 55.  I have posted elsewhere that my experience with PECO (insulfrog, electrofrog and unifrog) has been an expensive trial.  I figured out how to make the few PECO switches that I have work, but it takes a bit of fine soldering, cutting the rails and then powering with a servo to ensure contact.  I found that even in a clean environment, dirt gets into the area where the switch rails need to contact the mains to route power.  This did not work for me.  Hence my fix by wiring around the problem areas.  My three cents (inflation, you know...).

[robert3985]

Since  you're not concerned too much about appearance (yet), and will have large diameter flanges on some of your equipment, my recommendation is to (1) forget about "sectional track" because of all the rail joints that are potential problems.  Additionally, each and every rail joint requires precise alignment...and although some brands of sectional track make alignment pretty easy, it's much better to minimize them. Do that by (2) Use flex track.  Flex track allows odd radii for much more layout planning versatility since you're not locked into using stiff sectional track radii and no sectional track rail joint between sections is as strong as simply having no joint at all, no matter how "bulletproof" a track brand is supposed to be.  Next, (3) it's great to not have to worry about needing to install additional switch-throwing mechanisms, so several track manufacturers incorporate over-center spring mechanisms in their turnouts that allow you to throw the switch with just a flick of your finger...no electrical wiring, or under-the-layout-machine, or linkages to worry about.  I highly recommend (for reliability and excellent function) Peco80 or Peco55 N-gauge track products...both their flex track and their turnouts.

Now,...since appearance isn't a significant factor with you, for ease of working with, Peco80 (Code80 rails) is easier to work with than Peco55 (Code83 rails embedded in the plastic tie strips with .055" of rails showing above the ties).  Although Peco55's appearance is a bit better (meaning looking a bit more prototypical) than Peco80 because of Peco55's lower rail height, much less noticeable molded "spikeheads" on every tie (actually NO spikeheads at all...just little rectangles) the rail being embedded in the tie strips makes cutting and piecing together more time-consuming...not too difficult actually, but still taking more time.

Frankly, the height of the rails isn't all that evident in most viewing situations.  If you plan on taking closeup photos or videos of your layout, then it would be worth it to use the Peco55 product.  However, if you're just going to run trains, then Peco80 works just fine...and is easier to put down...and if you decide to paint, weather and ballast your track, both can look pretty good.

Another advantage to using Peco N-gauge track products is that Peco has a very deep line of track accessories, such as many different types of turnouts, cross overs, diamonds, puzzle switches, etc.  This means more versatility in designing your layout than with N-gauge track products that have molded-on plastic ballast.

One thing that I consider to be advantageous when you lay your flex track/turnouts is if you use cork roadbed (not "foam roadbed") is that you can easily sand the top of the cork roadbed to eliminate humps, bumps and ski-jumps with just a few strokes of a stiff sanding block with 220 grit sandpaper or emery cloth attached to it.  Another advantage that cork roadbed has over no roadbed, is that it deadens track noise a bit...which is usually considered to be a good thing. Cork provides a solid foundation for laying your track on...not allowing much flex up & down of your soldered track joints and feeder attachments, whereas "foam roadbed" products are very flexy, both horizontally and vertically, and allow much movement of your track, which isn't a good thing. This lack of solidity leads to misalignments and solder joint breakage.  Stay away from it.

I have laid hundreds of feet of Code80 trackage, using various types of Peco turnouts on customers' layouts and modules, and I've never had insurmountable problems with any Peco product as opposed to my experiences with Atlas80 turnouts.

One trick that contributes a lot to reliable running is to check the gauge on all of your engines, and correct any wheelsets that are out of gauge.  Although it seems like it would be a simple thing for manufacturers to ensure their locomotives are properly gauged, evidently they rarely get it right.  On my layout, each and every engine I purchase gets checked for being properly gauged before I even put it on the layout...and about 98% of them need adjustment, no matter who manufactures them.

In any case, have FUN!

Cheerio!
Bob Gilmore

[Howard1975]

I want to thank everyone that has replied to my questions, it's very helpful. I'm generally leaning on using cork roadbed and flex track, with Peco or Atlas turnouts and crossings. Going that route gives me more flexibility and choices in various types of regular and wye turnouts, crossings, curved turnouts, the Peco single and double slip switches, double crossover, etc. Compared to the Kato Unitrack lineup, which only has a few turnouts and crossings, wye turnout, double crossover, and regular straight and curved pieces.

In storage I already own 6 Peco turnouts (all code 80), four are Electrofrog, and 2 are Insulfrog. I also own 10 vintage Atlas (all made in Austria or Italy), and 12 vintage Casido turnouts (all made in Italy). Some of the Atlas and Casido turnouts are in poor condition, with broken or missing ties, or broken plastic spikes, and some have burned out (or missing) electric switch machines. But I believe all of those Atlas and Casido turnouts are salvageable, if I soldered in a few PCB (printed circuit board) ties as necessary.  And used caboose industries ground throws, for any turnouts missing the regular switch machine. Yeah they are not in the best condition, but I already own them, and they might be salvageable. And I have some code 80 sectional straight and curved track, including Atlas, Bachmann, AHM, Minitrix, MRC and Con-Cor.

I don't currently own any flex track, but that should be easy enough to find. I would just get Atlas code 80 flex track, it should be easy to find. Actually to be honest, I have  some cut pieces of Atlas flex track, they range in length, but the longest are about 10 to 12 inches long. I have intentions to learn, how to make my own turnouts, using those scrap pieces of flex track.  For the time being, I think I'm going to use what I already own, and try to salvage anything that can be repaired. I already own two of the N scale NMRA track standard gauges, to check my track and wheels are in gauge.

I plan on using flex track in certain areas for the flowing track, fewer track joints and rail joiners, and it's more flexible for curves in different radius. But I might decide to use my Atlas 9-3/4, 11 and 19 inch curved pieces, and my Con-Cor and MRC 12-1/2 inch curved sectional track pieces in certain areas.

All of those vintage Atlas and Casido turnouts are from the late 1960's, or from the 1970s, because it's all from Italy and Austria.  Therefore they should be compatible, because they were made at the same time, as most of my locomotives and freight cars. I don't know when my 6 Peco turnouts were made, but I'm assuming it's all compatible with my trains, because Peco is designed to European NEM standards.

I just don't know if I should throw away those broken turnouts, or at least, try to salvage what I'm able to repair. At the very least, the nickle silver rails from those broken turnouts can be removed from the plastic ties, mounted on PCB and wood ties, and used somewhere else.  I'm not going to throw away the nickle silver rails, because they can definitely be salvaged. I could make new turnouts with the nickle silver rails, from my vintage Atlas and Casido turnouts, and the cut flex track I already own. I would need to learn how to solder and use PCB ties, and make my own frogs, guard rails, etc. If any of my Atlas and Casido turnouts are trash, I will remove the nickle silver rails, from the plastic ties. Of course I could just purchase some more Peco turnouts, that would be easier.

I will certainly be keeping my vintage N scale trains, I have no intentions of selling my Arnold Rapido or Minitrix locomotives. I like that they are generally rugged, dependable and easy to repair, inexpensive model trains. And to be completely honest, I also like they have metal gears.

I will continue to use my Kato Unitrack for temporary layouts for the time being, until I build my layout on the 30 inch by 72 inch folding table. I live in an apartment, I'm  currently using that folding table as storage space for various things. I need to move things around, and take care of a few things first, before I can begin building a layout on the table.

[ATSF_Ron]

Howard, this is all excellent advice here. I would also give a nod to the Peco products mentioned here. Compared to the Atlas code 80, in my experience the Peco products are much more robust.  In a previous layout, I dumped all the Atlas turnouts and went Peco. Initially I tried the insulfrog type, but many of my shorter wheelbase locos didn’t like those and stalled frequently. I replaced those with the electrofrog type and everything was great.  Another bonus of the Peco is you can flip your turnouts with a finger, as Bob mentioned. No messing with turnout linkages or wiring motors. That’s my two cents. You’re definitely in the right place with this forum. There’s lots of guys here willing to share knowledge and experience.  Good luck!

[Loren Perry]

Howard, you're getting some very good responses on this forum. But there is one thing I'd like to chime in on.

Flexible foam roadbed is getting an undeserved bum rap in this thread. I know you're not going to use it, but hear me out:

My home layout has hundreds of feet of Code 55 (and a little Code 80) track with at least half of it mounted on Woodland Scenics foam roadbed. It's been well covered in many articles in N-Scale Magazine over the years. Some of this includes Peco c55 Electro-Frog turnouts. The layout is in a ground level room in my house here in Washington State and is exposed to temperatures ranging from 75 to 80 degrees F. in summer to around freezing in the winter (when the heating is turned off.) In over sixteen years of operation, the layout has yet to suffer even the slightest problems related to the foam roadbed. My rolling stock has all been converted to fine-flanged Micro-Trains No. 1008 Lo-Profile wheels (these may have been replaced by Medium Flanged wheels by MT) and my locomotives all have fine flanges on them, especially my brass steamers. All my long passenger cars roll on low-profile wheels (some metal, some plastic) and have body-mounted close couplings with several having functional American Limited diaphragms. Once again, these trains always - repeat - always roll dependably with no track or roadbed related malfunctions. I never have to worry about disappointing visitors who might drop in on short notice and want to see the trains run.

Lately, I go for long periods - sometimes many months at a time - when the train room is never entered and the layout lies dormant. But when I do start it up, it runs flawlessly once I do a little basic track cleaning to remove any dust.

As a bonus, the foam roadbed quiets the trains down noticeably more than cork roadbed does. I've run comparisons where my cork-equipped track abuts foam-equipped track and the difference is considerable when the trains pass over the joint separating the two types. Track noise is minimized so that sound-equipped models can provide the listener with a far better quality of audio than if cork was being used. Interestingly, this holds true despite the fact that all my track is ballasted the old fashioned way using N-scale ballast from both Woodland Scenics and Arizona Rock and Mineral.

So that's my experience with Woodland Scenics foam roadbed. Install it carefully and pay attention to making level joints. I've successfully laid about 100 feet of it on my layout. It's been wonderful for me. You can use it with confidence.

[GGNInNScale]

I agree with Loren.  Foam roadbed is easy to install.  Once you put on ballast and glue, nothing moves.  I used cork on my HO layouts for decades, but shifted to foam when I changed to N scale a few years ago.  It glues down with a bit of cheap caulk, a few nails to hold it temporarily.  Pull the temporary nails, ballast it and it is solid.  Also, it is a snap to fix if you change something.  Have fun!

[Doug G.]

In addition to what I wrote, above, I want to make it clear that if I were starting over (I am 71), I would use Atlas code 55.

Doug

[peteski]

Another wore against the foam roadbed.
We had nothing but problems on friend's large N scale layout.  Thankfully he only used on part of the layout (reverted to cork for the rest of its construction.  This is an example where old-school proven roadbed is the most reliable.  Maybe not as easy to lay down, but more robust when you accidentally lean on the track.

[prr7161]

Another wore against the foam roadbed.

Thirded here - I am working on a friend's layout that used foam roadbed and the track is definitely not stable.  The owner has been chasing sags in the track for months.