Can anyone give me their opinion on the best track to use to lay down on the layout? Since the layout is very large, I'm surely not going to hand lay my own track. I would think that is time consuming. What's better, Code 70, Code 83, Code 100? Who makes the better track, Atlas, Peco, etc.... I would like to start going out and getting some track but unsure which to buy. Scott
It all really depends... What are you trying to replicate? Code 70 is even too big for some of the older track that would have been in place in the first half of the 20th century. Code 100 is good for today's heavy mainline. I think most people look at the relative size of the rail, with Code 100 or 83 used for mainlines, and Code 83 or 70 for sidings and branches. I have used Atlas Code 83 flex with the "new" Walthers/Shinohara Code 83 turnouts. While the tie size and spacing is slightly different, they go together well, and the differences will be hidden by painting/weathering. A friend of mine uses MicroEngineering turnouts and flex (Code 83) and it also looks good. However, the flex is not like Atlas - once you bend it it stays bent. On the modules at www.hotrak.ca, most members use Peco turnouts and Atlas track. The Pecos are reliable, and the spring action makes sure that the points stay thrown. Good luck! Andrew
I have a pretty large layout planned at this time. It's going to have some different things incorporated into such as a waterfront area with car floats and ferries. It's going to have in intermodal yard as well. I'm just using some of the things I've been lucky enough to view in my lifetime. I'm just taking a few memories and putting them together on one layout. Scott
I think Atlas code 83 or Peco code 83 would be good. I am currently using Peco code 83 with ground throws on a small HO layout and I really like it.
Code 83 I'm using the Walthers switches too except I can't find any #5 LH's! I need 5 of them. Track wise, I'm leaning towards the Walthers flex.
I have been really impressed with the Atlas code 83 flex. Believe it's a little more expensive than the code 100, but the improvement in appearance and ease of use easily makes up for the slight price difference. The turnouts on the code 83 are also Atlas which, while they may not be as realistic as some, are easily available and definitely do the job. Am hoping that as soon as I get around to weathering the turnouts, their appearance won't be that different from the MEW or Walthers. The code 70 I've used to date has been weathered MEW. Thankfully it has been sidings off the code 83 as, to me, it is very stiff and difficult to work with. For the branch which will be code 70 with c. 55 sidings, I'm going to try the MEW unweathered flex. This seems (so far), more flexible than the MEW weathered flex. The code 70 turnouts are also by MEW and I can see that some slight work with a file may be necessary. If I need more turnouts, I'll give the Shinohara a try.
TILLIG track systems Code 83 The best appearing rail is TILLIG's , and since it is now readily available in North America you should examine it. MODEL RAILROADER's editor reviewed it in, I believe, the Feb 2003 issue. They do not have the unrealistic( to varying degrees) frogs, found on competitors turnouts, but one made of rail as on the prototype. The movable track blade is not a broken (jointed ) piece of track, but a single piece of rail, again as on the prototype. They produce curveable as well as fixed switches in several sizes of frogs. If you are considering street running in connect- ion with your rail-marine operations then they produce a product very suitable for this purpose. They make a system of street trackage, called LUNA track, that is most compatible with conventional two rail DC operations. Girder rail is the best appearing of this form of trackage, but HARTEL, SWEDTRAM, and the US made ORR trackage are difficult to bend if the original shape has to be changed. As made it is only usable for overhead trolley or catenary powered systems, because the rails are interconnected with NS metal strips and therefore have a common ground. This means that extensive cutting apart of their cast or molded trackage, coupled with elaborate and time consuming insulation of their movable single point and frog turnouts are required unless you are operating off an overhead tram wire. In any case don't take my word for it, or for that matter anyone else's opinion. GoogleUp the string " tillig model railroad track", and see for yourself what is there. Also given the expense represented by track on a large model railroad, buy a few types and look them over. TILLIG, ATLAS, PECO, MICRO ENGINEERING and, one assumes, all the other Code 83 trackage options should be inter- connectible without predjudice. I know what I decided, after looking them over, but I don't think any of them won't work out. For me the appearance and details of the switches made TILLIG's products my basis answer. I also have ME trackage as well, because it was immediately obtainable, and own some tediously worked over girder rail that despite all the cutting, insulating , and jumper running has only its appearance to recommend it; not its operational dependability. Luna track, doesn't look as real, but installed- it seems I am the only one who notices this shortcoming. Visitors seem to think it is great looking stuff. In any event that is tangential to the main matter. Good-Luck, with whatever you choose. PJB
I'm mostly an Atlas guy, but I use ME, Shinohara, and Peco with success. I stay with Atlas because of cost, and Micro Engineering because it's the only company I know of that has code 70 flextrack. Shinohara is a bit pricey, IMO. Given all that, check out where you can get great prices for flex track- no reason to pay full retail price for anything if you can get away with it.
I think that once you lay it down, paint it, adjust it, make sure everything is 'right'. I find that hand laying my track takes as much time as other ways. But I have been handlaying for years though. I also find it relaxing to cut out the ties, dye them and lay them out, but that's me I haven't used flex track for decades except on occasion as a template, other then that I don't use commercial track for anything. I enjoy making my own turnouts etc as well. Not sure that helps you out at all. I also find that hand layed track, even if not done well, has a certain 'look' to it that manufactured track can't compete with. But that's me
I use Peco Turnouts, with a brand called GT flextrack (you might not have them in the States), the only complaint is that it doesnt bend real wellm, so i use Peco in my curves.
I plan to use code 100 on the mainline, because, well, it's easy to find, cheaper, and with weathering it will look fine to my rivet deprived brain. I think you need to evaluate how important rail accuracy is to you, because code 83 does cost more then 100 for the flex and the turnouts. You need to figure out how important that is to you. If I win the lottery, then I'll switch to code 83 or 70, but until then, the difference isn't even worth one penny to me.
