Code 55 may have destroyed my interest in N-scale forever

All is not lost. Your problem is not with the track but with the way you installed it. Track is metal and like all metals, it will expand/contract with changes in temperature. That is just the nature of metals. It is best to plan for it. Apparently you didn't. A common mistake made by many. As for the turnouts, four turnouts out of forty-eight is about a 8 1/3% failure rate. High to be sure but not catastrophic. You don't tell us what the problem with the turnouts are. Atlas did have some problems with early runs of, I think, the number 5's but I have not heard of any ongoing, continuing problems with them. They certainly do not work and play well with out of gauge wheels but then the problem there is the wheels not the turnout. Seems to me your "problems" can be alleviated by cutting expansion gaps.

Also mentioned here was some problems with Peco switches. Peco makes two types, the code 80 and the code 55. Do not confuse the two. Avoid the code 80. It was made to NEMA (European) standards which are sloppier than the NMRA standards. The code 55 is their "finescale" line and are NMRA compliant.

 

If you remember the INCREDIBLE PRR layout that Jerry Britton was building, that singlehandedly emptied Atlas warehouses everywhere of C55. He had more track laid than I've ever seen in my life. And the C55 switches really did finish him off due to various issues; mostly electrical/corrosion but some mechanical separations.

So I'll validate your feelings and say that I've seen far bigger projects take a much bigger hit. Yours is probably still recoverable - at least you can get to all your switches.

I started out in HO, and had a lot of derailments, accepted it as part of the deal. Worked in a hobby shop. I've operated some really nice HO layouts, and the frequency of derailments with RP25 wheels, etc. was unacceptable to me - constantly reaching in and rerailing stuff was just accepted by everybody else. When I started in N, it was rather nice that for a scale that was much smaller, reliability in operation could actually be much higher. But that was with C80, MT pizza cutters, and truck mounted couplers with full magnetic uncoupling. HO guys started to notice I was far more reliable.

Anything since has been measured against that reliability, and it's pretty hard to top. I'll work and test with anything if it can equal it, but if it starts causing problems, reliability wins every time. Because I still have a pretty good population of 'legacy' steam, Peco C55 has been the choice while I'll acknowledge the superior appearance of Atlas C55. I've seen some pretty darn good Atlas C55 layouts that can equal mine in reliability. I won't diss it.

Go with what lowers your own stress level, not with what you 'think' you ought to be using because others can. Sometimes I think that maturing my layout and skills before the Internet ever came along was a gift. I tested, and learned, and developed a lot in a virtual N scale vacuum, surrounded by friends all in HO. Nobody got to tell me I should be doing something else, or it was wrong, or that something couldn't be done. Don't beat yourself up with the C55 results, I think you know what you want to do, and I also think you've answered your own question as to direction.

I've gone down two blind alleys myself; first with MT low-pros in plastic (fine, until they start to gunk up even a little bit) and with the recent craze to body-mounts. Neither has worked really well for me, sell what didn't work and buy something else that does. Glad I experimented, even happier when I was made whole financially!

 

Hi guys sorry I couldn’t respond earlier, but I had to work and didn’t have internet access all day.

Thanks for all the replies. Ok well I guess there are too many posts to address right now so I’m just going to skim through. Some have mentioned that my problems are because it wasn’t installed right, well all I got to say about that is that spent almost a year just laying track using all the recommendations from TrainBoard. It doesn’t really matter anyway because I found that fooling with track wasn’t worth it for me. I’d much rather run trains.

Ron, It’s been a long time since I did the control board and I don’t remember at the moment where the wiring diagram is. I think I have a blog someplace, but I have to search for it. There are new boards from Tam Valley Depot now and there are probably better ways to do it. I had a video but I got so much criticism about my filming technic that I deleted it. I never said I was a videographer.



My code 55 layout was limited to my space and I did not use any short radius curves or turnouts. It had everything I could want for a train service center extension to a much larger plan. But between the track and turnout problems it was also the servos. They were always coming off or breaking.

I have to say except for the looks of the Code 80 Turnouts, I was very happy with the way my trains ran on it. The biggest problem I had with my first Code 80 layout was that it was an Atlas kit with the 9 ¾” R curves that limited my experience to short locos and stock.


I just wish I could build the same layout with Unitrack. Thanks for all the replies.

 

I second unitrack, very reliable and can be modelled to look very realistic, proper painting, ballasting and weathering will do the trick.

 

Reliability trumps looks, because to echo the words of wisdom above if it ain't reliable then in ain't fun.

My first layout was code 80 Atlas track and Peco turnouts. When we moved I thought long and hard before trying code 55. Big problem reported on the net was wheels bumping over spikes. There weren't a lot of choices then.

It is possible to create a reliable c55 layout but you have to adjust. Moving from 80 to 55 I had to re-learn how to do some things, the same techniques for soldering a curve on springy Atlas flex don't work on ME c55 for example. I have used a couple of Atlas c55 turnouts - lots more choices than Peco and they look amazing. But boy are they delicate! I don't dare clean those the same way I clean the rest of my track.

 

Exactly what I was thinking

 

A lot boils down to what one wants to do and what gives one the least amount of hassle in getting that done. For me any fixed radius track will not work out for me thus I will stay comfortably with using flex track to achieve what I desire. Since my future plans incorporate some nonstandard tighter radius, and short wheel base cars and locos, it affects my choices in turnouts and track. Most if not all my turnouts will be manual thrown, less wiring to deal with on my part. Also finding a turnout that takes a smaller footprint and gives me the tighter radius led me to Peco and some other brands that meet those requirements. Code 55 is not in the equation for me since I have a mix of older and newer equipment and that also determines my track brand choices. Also I am not hung up on tie appearances since in my view most of what is out there really doesn't exactly match the 1 to 1 anyhow. The 1 to 1 does not always have equal and exact spacing nor tie alignment like our models do. Over the years I have evolved to where I am now by a lot of trial and error and sometimes it helps to just walk away for a while and then come back to view everything in a new light. A lot of good advice here in some of the previous postings but it still boils down to what works for you with the least amount of hassle and accomplishes what you desire.

 

Funny, my experience has been the opposite. PECO claims that you can adapt the Code 55 to mate with the Code 80. It even appears to be constructed in such a manner. Still, even with the filing that the manufacturer suggests, there will be some derailments or even equipment's hanging up on it. I have had much better luck with the Electrofrog Code 80 than any other PECO. Funny, too, the Electrofrog shows fewer problems than does the Insulfrog Code 80.

That, at least, is my experience.

 

I have a number of Peco turnouts acquired some time ago and I have installed two of the short radius ones on my test track to evaluate them. They transition from my 9.75 R oval to my 8.0 R oval and so far they have been flawless. On the other hand the Atlas #6s that transition from my 11 R outer oval to the 9.75 have been an occasional headache. Also the Atlas rerailers have been more of derailers than anything. I found that the flangeways in them were not deep enough and I can literally see the loco at speed leap up on the rails upon entry to one. Application of a razor saw to deepen the flangeways cured the problem. Peco also makes a medium Wye that I like because like the short radius turnouts they take up less space.

 

A day late and dollar short.

I use Atlas Code 80 flex track with Peco Code 80 Electrofrog switches. LIke others of you here, I do run some older equipment with the deeper flanges. I worked to hard to buy those bad boys and girls and I'm not about to give them up.

When it comes to my main yards, I prefer the Peco Code 80 Electrofrog switches. On the mainline you will find Kato, Unitrack #6 switches. I wish they had a #7 or #8. I like the wider sweeping transition curves. Atlas or Peco Code 55 has it's merits but the benefits are limited. The only place I'd use Code 55 is either on my trolley lines or for industrial spurs. And, it's to expensive be used in that application.

I have some Peco Insulfrog switches but those are used for the smaller yards and industrial spurs. The ones not likely to see much rail traffic.

 

Interesting thread, and not the first one like it. I can very much relate to the OP's thoughts. My current layout (a modular shelf layout, topic of an old thread) is all code 55. Original sections are ME and later work is Atlas. I've never had any reliability problems, despite some well-meaning folks suggesting that mating modules with code 55 track is a recipe for disaster. Like many, as my vision grew towards a more elaborate layout (i.e. "complicated"), I created a large liability for myself in terms of future labor hours. I use the word labor, because if it stops being fun, that is exactly what it is. I finally decided that when I retired, I wanted fun and not more labor. Long story short, I sold off all unused inventory of Atlas code 55 and am just running the existing simple two loop layout as is. When I do retire and get back to trains, it will be all Unitrack. Likely four loops with no crossovers. Inner loop may have some sidings for fun, but that will be it. A DC pack to each loop and I can run lots of trains with little hassle. I'll equip at least one for DCC (maybe that inner loop), but it's back to KISS for me!

 

Trackwork is an entity whose end result comes out based solely on what you put into it,more so than almost any other aspect of model railroading.It starts right from your benchwork,up through the roadbed,and down to planning the curves,straights,and locations of soldered and slip joiners..If you're not planning it all,and doing it to the best level you're capable of,you'll have nothing but grief.If you treat it as something you hate,and put no planning into it,you're wasting your time..The proper way to look at trackwork is as a giant model that deserves your undivided attention,not a necessary evil to run your trains..

 

I first designed the Service/yard layout with code 80, but I let myself be talked in to code 55 because I was thinking about the aesthetics and the #7 turnouts were also a big plus. I was a little intimidated by the fragileness of the track, but figured I could do it if I took my time.

I was enjoying it at first while thinking how great it would look, but that soon wore off with all the setbacks like turnouts falling apart right out of the package and rails popping off the ties while sliding on the joiners. Plus the time was taking a toll because I wasn’t running trains and was getting burned out.

The biggest mistake I made was using it on a portable modular layout. Every time I moved the table the track would pop up with even the slightest twist. The servos were really bad because they were easily knocked off when moving. It might have been different had the layout been a permanent stable fixture in an environmentally controlled room. I had as much as 50° F temperature swings between day and night on some days.

I think what bothers me the most was all the time I spent on the turnout controls when I could have been enjoying run trains. I also enjoy doing landscaping, but I couldn’t even do that because I was constantly fixing track and scenic stuff would be in the way.

 

Lou,
I wasn't going to even chime into this until I read your post. I am impressed. What you say here needs to be said and heard.
You are so right.

Putting down trackwork is a major project that demands utmost precision and care. More than any other single thing you build on a model railroad, spend time and learn how to be good at it. Good trees, scenery, engine tuning, all the rest pale in comparison to how important it is to understand and build good trackwork. Because unlike any other facet of the construction, without rock-solid track laying, all the rest of it falls apart.

To the original OP...
If you have had only 4 turnout failures with all those switches in there, and you have had some expansion issues, I am not sure that the most stress-free solution is to tear it all up, sell it, and rebuild it all with something else. You may be closer than you think to having that thing run. What if all you had to do was replace 4 turnouts, and cut some well-placed expansion joints into the rail sections to ease the expansion issues?

Perhaps you can elaborate more on how the turnouts failed, and what the expansion problems are.

 

It is when I read posts like the above that I am thankful I joined a club early on in my N scale endeavor. Just the ability to ask questions of other, more experienced, people save me a lot of time and expense, not to mention heartache and frustration. Maybe that is why it seems incomprehensible to me that someone would expect track, on a layout that is subject to temperature swings of 50 degrees, to not have expansion/contraction issues. In any event I learned early on that Peco Code 55 Electrofrogs were the switches of choice. No switch machines were needed nor were any used. All other brands of switches were banned from the layout. Track was Code 80 [Code 55 was not available then] Couplers had to be MT. A car without them was not allowed on the layout. Accumates and McHenry's were tried but rejected. Bachmann's new coupler was rejected for appearamnce reasons without trying it. Cars had to be weighted to at least the NMRA recommendation. Consistency was the goal and that consistency rewarded us with a layout that operated with a bare minimum of problems for almost 25 years now.

 

I can’t remember everything because I’ve had everything in storage for a year and I had given up on it for a year before that. But here are a few problems I have photos of.

This track had kinks in it right out of the package:


This turnout had the pivot points fall out right from the package. I found out much later that there were more that didn't show up until long after I installed them:


I don't remember exactly what happened here, but I think a Steamer hit it and then I damaged it more trying to fix it:




I found a kink in this one:


I can remember what happened here but my gap opened up


This one had the rails at different heights:

 

Ah, well now looking at that photographic list of failures, I can safely say that I have experienced every single one of those. The trick is, I knew about them all in advance:

1. Uneven rail height
2. Loose, missing, or failed washer nut holding the point rail pivot in place
3. Piece of diverging rail loose, not making contact, breaking off from the plastic base
4. Misaligned rail ends at the gaps between the frog, diverging rails, or anywhere else.

... and more ...

5. Point rails so narrow that engines climb up and out of them
6. Throwbar connections breaking loose from the point rails
7. Any or all of the bonding strips under the turnout not making contact with the rails, or losing contact with the rails or frog shortly after installation.

This led me to a lengthy 30-40 minute process of reworking each turnout right out of the package before installation.
Filing, adjusting, epoxy, additional soldered jumper wires, a whole assortment of things to make the turnout robust.

I had only one turnout fail after it was installed on the layout, (because I had put down a few before I got on my "upgrade" program).

Whether or not you will experience more failures, the same failures, or none, is a crap shoot. Moving the layout around as a module, taking it to shows, subjecting it to exposure by the public, are all going to increase your failure rate.

I have had good luck with them.. NOW... because of
all the work I put into each one, but I have to agree with you: as a general product, for durability, simplicity, and value, they don't cut it.

 

Those pics remind me of why I like ME turnouts so much..If there is a problem,the only actual moving part is the point rails.If there's a spot where I want just a switch I can throw without using a switch machine or a ground throw,I use one of the better built out of the package ones there with the spring still attached.Some just work better than others.Any that have any kind of defect I need to work on,those I use with ground throws,ETC,because you can completely remove the point rails to work on them.Even installed,the point rails will come right out,if you should destroy a set being ham handed,just swap a set from another switch..