Peco C55. When I started the current layout Atlas C55 wasn't on the market yet. As far as the tie spacing issue with Peco I just don't see it. Unless you have a piece of Atlas track right next to it I really don't notice the difference. My turnouts are all maually operated so I prefer Peco turnouts with the positve snap so you know they are aligned. They cost more than Atlas but I don't have to purchase (or manufacture) a seperate control switch.
Hi Kozmo, I used Atlas code 80 sectional tracks on my N-18. My plan for my new table was to use Atlas code 80 flex tracks which I got 25 of them already. I wanted to use Unitracks turnouts. On this forum some good people recommended that I go entirely with Unitracks. I might do so. Since you have combine Code 80 flex with others, is there any way you can put some photos here for me to see. Also let me know how you do like this combination. Thanks. Mo
Not gonna lie, I like my code 80... all the old stuff works great on it, and the new stuff works the same... plus the fact that im building most of my railroad out of moduals.. ability to move and not destroy a lay out plus go to shows.. and modeling mini scenes
Because of the difference in the rail they use, Atlas C55 and Peco C55 are not compatible without a great deal of custom work. Also placing the two brands that close together really show the difference in tie spacing.
I use Peco code 80 for many years and will use their code 55 for my next layout. Cheers. http://cliffordconceicao3310.fotopic.net/c328807.html
My current layout utilizes Atlas Code 80 and Atlas switches. My biggest regret is not utilizing Peco turnouts on my layout. I do have one, and can't believe how much better they are than the Atlas brand. I also have a Kato double track truss bridge, which is simply great. My next layout will be Atlas Code 80 flex and all peco turnouts, except for maybe in a hidden staging area that would be Atlas turnouts. The good thing about this is, I can keep my current door layout operating while I build a bigger layout with new track.
Hi Kozmo, I used Atlas code 80 sectional tracks on my N-18. My plan for my new table was to use Atlas code 80 flex tracks which I got 25 of them already. I wanted to use Unitracks turnouts. On this forum some good people recommended that I go entirely with Unitracks. I might do so. Since you have combine Code 80 flex with others, is there any way you can put some photos here for me to see. Also let me know how you do like this combination. Thanks. Mo </font>[/QUOTE]I try to stay away from sectional as much as possible. less joints, smoother flowing looking rails too. more realistic IMO. You want photos of how to combine the Kato switches to atlas code 80? I'm sure there are some out there if you search. I can take some if not. It is easy to do. just pull the Kato connectors and use atlas connectors to join the atlas code 80 flex to Kato switches. Going all Kato unitrack is fast and easy as the roadbed/ballast is built in, but then a lot seem to ballast over it anyway. Less joints in flextrack and smoother flowing look to it. I guess it depends on what you like, the ease of unitrack click and stick or the smooth flowing look of flextrack. both are good, nether bad. what do you like the look of? Me, I would want to ballast over the Kato unitrack, so at that point, not much more work to lay cork 1st, and end up with less joints and I get flowing rails that I prefer the look of. subtle curves, smooth easements/varying radius curves - you can not get that look with any sectional track. I will have very little straight track in my layout. in the yard and that is about it. IMO, trying to do so with unitrack would be a lot of pain to make it fit and not look as well in the end. I will be putting a lot of track/mainlines/shortlines in a smaller space 3 foot x 10 foot. trying to do it with sectional track will be a huge pain in the arse as well as limit how smooth it looks in the end. I tend to not like the circuit board look. as in like the layout is traces on a circuit board. straight, curve, straight curve, just not natural to me. but that is me. you have to ask what do you like. Good Luck!
I am building with Micro Engineering Code 55 for my visible track and using Atlas Code 55 for my hidden track. I like the looks of the ME track better than the Atlas track, but I also use the Atlas track to cut down on cost.
When I started in N Scale the only reasonably available track was Atlas Code 80. In a "do-over" I'd strongly consider Atlas Code 55, assuming that there was enough of a product line to enable construction (which there probably is). Then again, in a "do-over" I'd strongly consider going to HO, also.
My vote is for Atlas C80 flex. I have too many older Steam loco's that would require work to run on Atlas C55. I bought a C55 turnout, crossing and some sectional pieces just to test equipment on. Over half of my loco's had problems with the C55 so I decided that it wasn't for me. Balasted and weathered C80 looks good enough for me and I know my equipment won't have problems. If I was doing a more modern themed layout with newer loco's, I would probably opt for C55 because of the looks. With some 20-30 year old steamers that are among my favorites to run, the look of C55 is not worth the work needed to make the loco's functional.
TonY: I agree. It's quite a challenge to get those older steamers running smoothly on Code 80 rail and to keep them running smoothly. Stay cool and run steam....
