First off, Hello from Middletown, Md. I'm not sure I'm posting this in the correct forum, but here goes. I'm thinking about doing a N scale layout. I have a little experience with HO and have a couple of broke up HO engines, cars, track ect, nothing special. The only thing I'm planning to use from my HO stuff is my Tech II Loco Motion 2500 transformer if it will work with the N scale stuff, I'm assuming it will. I've ordered a couple books off Amazon to read through before starting to buy and build. I'm thinking of doing a 4' x 8' U shaped layout, I have the room for it, but may start a little smaller, or just do a little at a time on the 4 x 8. The main reason I'm going with N scale instead of HO is that 4 x8 is about all the room I have, and the last layout I started in HO was a 4 x 8 that just seemed cramped for space. I'm seeing a lot of different code track 40, 55, 80....What should I use? What’s the most popular? cheapest? I have about $200 to $300 dollars to start with, where is the best place to stick that money first? {no, not in any of you guys pockets! LOL!} Any other suggestions or advice would be appreciated. Thanks in advance, Phil Allen
Phil, Welcome to Trainboard, and welcome to N scale! In addition to the N scale forum, we also have a fairly active layout discussion group, which covers various aspects of layout design and construction. Which code of track to use? I use both code 55 (main line) and code 80 (industrial switching track). Code 80 has the widest variety of track types available, but Code 55 looks closer to the "real thing." Atlas code 55 track is popular and affordable, but unless you run wheels with a low profile, you get more noise than any other kind of track. Others will no doubt weigh in, since this is a topic that has generated more than its share of hot air! Good luck with your venture. Keep us posted!
Welcome to TrainBoard! I started off in N scale with two switchers that I got off eBay for about $30 ea., a used transformer (and the one you describe sounds about right if it has a 12VDC output), and a small loop of track which I tacked temporarily to a piece of blue foam insulation with track nails. I think, all told, I was in it for about 95 bucks by the time I got to run the two trains, and I bought a couple of boxcars shortly thereafter. For track code, I was originally going to go code 80, but now that I have looked around a little more I am thinking I will go code 80 for my NTrak module portion of my layout only and then code 55 on my mainlines elsewhere and even code 40 on the spurs and industry sidings. There is a code 40 rail topic that has been active lately that you may want to consult. Pretty much everything will run on code 80. Some things with deep flanges will NOT run on code 55 without problems, and there are more things that won't run on code 40. There are many other people on this list far more knowledgeable in this than I am. One book I kind of wish I had read about six months ago instead of now is John Armstrong's _Track Planning for Realistic Operations_. It's not scale specific. I usually only get scale specific when talking about specific products or problems peculiar to N scale, such as decoder placement (since it is harder in most N scale locos than in most HO or O locos). Good luck, and don't hesitate to ask more questions. Also, you might try searching this forum for discussions specific to your interests. Adam
Personally, being new, I would just go with code 80. Unless you are a rivit counter, it does fine. It seems to be the less trouble, and more standard. The more realistic codes are awesome, and look great for the experianced modeler, but seem to have more trouble and you have to be certain to have the right wheels or they will snag running on it. Being new, and learning, you will have your hands full enough without that added ellement of the lower profile rails. The difference is code 80 rail is higher, and is out of scale, but just fine otherwise, and more options to work with. I recommend Kato Unitrack, but it is quite a bit costlier then Atlas snaptrack. Atlas is more the standard and pretty cheap to use. Welcome to N scale, and the site.
Welcome, PinMd! I think you'll find that a lot of us here started the same way. I think we may even have the same TechII transformer. My suggestion would be to do something small before diving in, and make sure you know what kind of layout you're interested in. Some folks here are into recreating industrial switching yards, while others favor very scenery-rich recreations of actual regions. Some people do a traditional table-based layouts, while others run narrow lines along the walls. Before you start looking at the prices of things and locking yourself into anything, spend as much time as you can just looking at the different things that people are doing, because people here have all sorts of layouts. However, everyone is very encouraging and you'll hardly ever see a "my mainline radius is bigger than yours" argument break out. Personally, I'd just go with Code 80. I tried Code 55 on my first layout, and it was a disaster. I'm sure the product itself is fine, but it was my first time doing anything N scale, and it's not very forgiving of mistakes. I had trains derailing all over the place, turnouts getting stuck, and random uncouplings. A few weeks ago, I ripped up all the track, and am in the process of planning something new. Also seconding the Track Planning for Realistic Operations book. It's less a book about model railroading than it is a guide to understanding how a railroad operates. You don't have to be a rivet-counter to appreciate a layout that seems to operate with some sort of a purpose. Good luck, and we look forward to seeing how things progress!
Welcome aboard, Phil! The Search function will bring up lots of valuable information from past threads, there is a wealth of experience here. We are glad to help, ask us anything and someone will take a stab. PS I would recommend a start with C80 or Kato, for the above mentioned reasons. There is plenty of time later for upgrades.
I'l just stop in here to say hi and welcome to Trainboard. You are getting some great answers to your questions. Just for your information, shhh don't tell anybody else here...grin! I operate in N, HO, S, O, and G scales. I've built layouts in all those scales for friends and family. My favorite is N Scale. You will find answers to your questions from some of the finest in the hobby and I think you will discover I'm not the only one who operates in multiple scales. Feel free to ask all the questions you want. We will do our best to answer them. Have fun!
Phil Welcome to Trainboard. Rick- Don't you get confused with what train goes on which track? Phil- Before you choose track code and brand, you will need to choose something that is commensurate with your skills and desires, i.e. If you are less than skilled with fitting track and wish to trade off somewhat from realistic looking track and bulletproof (no derailment) operations, you will need to go with Kato Unitrack. If you are somewhat skilled, you will have a choice among 80, 55, and 40. Code 80 does not look as prototypical as Code 80, but will hold a train better on trackwork that is not 100% perfect. Code 55 will require more care in laying and Code 40 (prototypical to European rail) even more. The beauty of N or any other scale is that you can make your layout more complete as the years and months go on and budgets may expand. The most expensive single items that you will have (other than structures) will be the turnouts and switch machine for them. If you can give us a clue as to even a hand drawn track plan, we can give you a rough estimate of the initial cost.
What if you have no skill but a desire to learn? :tb-wink: I'm planning my first layout and I'd rather learn/teach myself how to lay C55 now than build the layout using unitrack and have to learn later when I want to take on building something more ambitious. Its almost certainly not going to turn out perfect first time, but I'd rather have to rip it up and re-do pieces of it and learn from my mistakes. Using unitrack seems to be an easy way out. Does that make sense or am I dreaming? Is the process any different for laying C80 and C55?
Thanks to all who have responded. Atlas has a photo of a layout on their site that Is kind of interesting to me. I like the idea of a U-shaped layout so you can sit in the middle and reach everything. http://www.atlasrr.com/Code80/pages/11016.htm Now I don't plan on building this exact layout, or trying it all at once. I'd like to start buy laying a loop around the outside ege of the board and building from there. I was thinking on starting with a sheet of 1/2 plywood on a 2 by 4 frame with a notch cut out, making the shape of an upside down U. I come from a long line of carpenters and am pretty good with the wood. LOL! am I headed in the right direction?
You'll benefit from doing a few "test" tracklayings before you do it on your real layout. The area that you'll want to really get down to a science is applying ballast, because it's really easy to put on too much ballast so that the "stones" get stuck on top of the ties, or wedged up between the rail and the ties, which the flanges will hit as they pass over. The act of putting the track down is the same, but there's just a lot less room for error with the lower code rail.
Welcome to the boards and to N Scale. Everyone here has been very helpful since I began posting here a month ago. Just read all the posts that you think can be helpful to get some real good info. My only word of advice is to read those books from cover to cover as many times as you can. Each time you read them, you'll pickup something new that you can use. And analyze those pictures in the books and mags, you might get and idea or two out of them. I am also learning that it takes patience to figure these things out. Enjoy the hobby and remember to have fun.
My philosophy in this hobby: anyone with a desire to learn and some patience can learn well enough to do anything they want! Nothing is actually very hard if you have this attitude. I don't know about Atlas C80 and C55--I think it is different--but there isn't a lot of difference between Peco C80 and C55. I went from Peco Code 80 in my last layout to Peco Code 55 in this one. The main difference I notice is that the 55 holds its shape, while the 80 goes boinging all over the place. Not a big deal either way. The reason I can lay 55 with no problems is because Peco C55 is made with C80-sized rails embedded halfway in the plastic ties so that it just looks like it's half the size. Very clever. Peco C55 also has a very wide variety of turnouts etc. available. The downside of course is that it costs a lot more than Atlas. I was willing to foot the bill in order to have a better experience. Another difference: Peco C80 has an occasional hole in its ties for nails. Peco C55 doesn't. I tack my turnouts down, being unwilling to glue them. (Why? Because I'm constantly amazed at how often I need to pull a turnout up). So I used a #69 drill bit to make my own holes when needed. Again, not a big deal.
If I had $200 and transformer to start with, I would buy a Kato diesel and some freight cars by Atlas, Intermountain, Microtrains, etc. along with a Unitrack oval track set to get trains up and running imediately. The Unitrack could later be used under the XMAS tree or something. The only precaution with an HO transformer is I understand they put out a higher max voltage than what some N scale engine manufacturers recomend. I don't know how much of a problem this is. In track planning, I would seriously consider 15" radius mininum radius curves for smooth operation. Especially with passenger trains. Really, only you can decide which track system is best for you. It would not hurt to buy a sampling of the different brands and codes. This includes switches. I lean toward Atlas code 55 if it is carefully laid with transition curves, no kinks, bumps, etc. It looks better than any of the other track systems IMHO and is economical. You are limited to low profile wheels with code 55 but most manufacturers install low profile wheel sets these days. Except Micro Trains. They put the larger pizza cutter flanges on their cars that won't work with code 55.
Welcome to Trainboard, PinMd and Dave R! The posts above cover most of what I would advise. There are a few differences in laying C80 and C55. The ballasting is different, as it requires more care with C55, and there are no through holes in the ties in C55, which didn't matter to me as I glued the track down. In my experience, Atlas C55 flextrack (not ME C55) is easier to lay because the rail joiners are relatively larger compared to the track size. While I always soldered C80 joints, even on broad curves, that was not necessary with C55--the joiners are relatively stronger. However, you have less tolerance for vertical dips and transitions (flat to incline) and horizontal kinks with C55. BTW, I've found the best track inspector is a Kato PA-1. If it can get over your track, most anything will. I'll echo the recommendations to start small. I didn't. You can always re-use the expensive components (the track may not be worth it) later.
An excellent reference. You'll definitely keep it as part of your permanent library. Welcome to TrainBoard! boxcab E50
