What kind of track do you guys use? Can Peco be substituted for Atlas?

[CbrandonB]

Hi all,

I'm finally about to build my first "real" layout. WOOHOO!!!

I'm looking at building the double track version of this layout:

http://www.layoutvision.com/gallery/id53.html

I love it. I wish it had a turntable (mainly just to show off locos... haha!), but I may add that in on the side.

Byron mentions using all Peco turnouts. Could I get away with Atlas turnouts? I don't mind modifying a bit, but I don't want to rebuild the layouts to save a few bucks, either. I will be building this fairly slowly, starting probably with just one of the two loops, maybe two if I'm lucky.

Also, would the rest of the track be ok to use Atlas Code 83?

And before anyone says anything, yes, I understand the limitations of doing a plywood special. However, you must understand that my room must serve multiple purposes, so to wheel the layout out of the way is paramount for now. I may even make this one rotate.

Any insight with the track would be great. I'm hoping to order one of the loops this week and get my Challenger going around in an endless circle for a while.

Brandon

 

[Cjcrescent]

As long as the switches, ie turnouts, are all numbered, meaning #4, #5, #6, etc, Atlas can be substituted for the Pecos. You can also use Atlas C83 flex for the track.

Any track can be used on any layout as long as you're willing to adjust for the differences in lengths of turnouts, and slight differences in frog numbers, that will result between brands. For example, IIRC, Byron says most turnouts are #5. Atlas doesn't make a #5 turnout. However their #4 is closer to a #4.5 than a #4, so it could be used with some adjustment.

 

[cuyama]

Byron mentions using all Peco turnouts. Could I get away with Atlas turnouts?

I am glad that you found that layout inspiring. I'll note that while numbered turnouts are similar between manufacturers, they are not identical. So you might need some trimming to make everything work. That's not brain surgery, but it might be a little extra work in some spots.

The Atlas #4 (not the SnapSwitch) is indeed a #4.5 frog as mentioned, so it may be substituted. But it is slightly longer overall than the PECO #5, so you may need to trim them in a few spots. Since the minimum radius is 20", the tighter frog won't be the limiting factor.

There is no equivalent Atlas substitute for the curved PECO #7s in the yard ladder, so that would take quite a bit of reworking of the track plan. You also might prefer Atlas #6s in the crossover at the end of the yard, although the Atlas #4s (again, actually #4.5) might work fine with smaller power.

I personally think that the PECO components are worth the extra cost, but it's not my budget you must worry about!

I'm hoping to order one of the loops this week and get my Challenger going around in an endless circle for a while.

I don't have personal experience with this loco, so I don't know if it will operate smoothly on the 20" minimum radius. Perhaps on the outer loop where there are only very short segments of 20".

Best of luck with your layout.

 

[Selector]

You can mix and match just about any scale track, provided you are willing to go to all the trouble it sometimes takes to get their working surfaces to meet on the same plane, vertical or horizontal (they being the flange face and the bearing surface respectively). In the case of Peco, the rails are very closely matched, but the tie thicknesses are different. I don't remember exactly, but my impression is that the Atlas Code 83 has the same thickness of ties as their Code 100, whereas the Peco Code 83 has its own thinner profile. You will have to raise the last 7" of the Peco in a very slight ramp to meet the end of the Atlas Code 83, or do the opposite for the end of the Atlas Code 83 and reduce it to meet the Peco.

If it were me, the simplest and quickest is to carefully sand the last 20 ties on the Atlas, spending a bit more time on the last five ties, checking often for height matching by inverting the length of track and placing it up against the end of the Peco you had already put in place.

 

[CbrandonB]

I am glad that you found that layout inspiring. I'll note that while numbered turnouts are similar between manufacturers, they are not identical. So you might need some trimming to make everything work. That's not brain surgery, but it might be a little extra work in some spots.

The Atlas #4 (not the SnapSwitch) is indeed a #4.5 frog as mentioned, so it may be substituted. But it is slightly longer overall than the PECO #5, so you may need to trim them in a few spots. Since the minimum radius is 20", the tighter frog won't be the limiting factor.

There is no equivalent Atlas substitute for the curved PECO #7s in the yard ladder, so that would take quite a bit of reworking of the track plan. You also might prefer Atlas #6s in the crossover at the end of the yard, although the Atlas #4s (again, actually #4.5) might work fine with smaller power.

I personally think that the PECO components are worth the extra cost, but it's not my budget you must worry about!



I don't have personal experience with this loco, so I don't know if it will operate smoothly on the 20" minimum radius. Perhaps on the outer loop where there are only very short segments of 20".

Best of luck with your layout.

Thanks for taking the time to reply, Byron. I'm very seriously considering just paying the extra few bucks for Peco. Its not too much more, no more than $5 more per turnout, if that.

I do want to take a minute to thank you for your website and all of the time and information you have packed into it! It has been a fantastic resource and I know you've put a lot of time and effort into it. Thank you for that. I also hope your hosting has unlimited bandwidth. Otherwise, I may need to send you a check. Haha!

As far as the Challenger goes, you bring up a great point on 20" minimum. I'm also hoping to run some larger articulateds, so I may add a larger outside loop and bump this layout up to 6x10 to do 30" minimum curves for the fun of it. 6x10 is getting pretty large to move around, though. I may just do an around the room run for the larger locos. My challenge is that my server and desktop are in this room and I'll need it for computer use, of which for me is everything from gaming to studying for certifications.

You can mix and match just about any scale track, provided you are willing to go to all the trouble it sometimes takes to get their working surfaces to meet on the same plane, vertical or horizontal (they being the flange face and the bearing surface respectively). In the case of Peco, the rails are very closely matched, but the tie thicknesses are different. I don't remember exactly, but my impression is that the Atlas Code 83 has the same thickness of ties as their Code 100, whereas the Peco Code 83 has its own thinner profile. You will have to raise the last 7" of the Peco in a very slight ramp to meet the end of the Atlas Code 83, or do the opposite for the end of the Atlas Code 83 and reduce it to meet the Peco.

If it were me, the simplest and quickest is to carefully sand the last 20 ties on the Atlas, spending a bit more time on the last five ties, checking often for height matching by inverting the length of track and placing it up against the end of the Peco you had already put in place.

Thank you for replying, Selector. This is something I hadn't thought about too much yet. This certainly makes an argument for going with Atlas turnouts where possible, but I'm still debating.

Brandon

 

[cuyama]

I do want to take a minute to thank you for your website and all of the time and information you have packed into it! It has been a fantastic resource and I know you've put a lot of time and effort into it. Thank you for that.

I'm glad that you have found it useful.

6x10 is getting pretty large to move around, though. I may just do an around the room run for the larger locos. My challenge is that my server and desktop are in this room and I'll need it for computer use, of which for me is everything from gaming to studying for certifications.

A big rectangular slab of benchwork is almost never the best choice in a larger room with larger radii, so you are wise to look for alternatives. Try to see ways to place the layout behind or over other equipment in the room and think about using aisles as access paths and working spaces to make double use of open areas.

In terms of mixing track, I'd probably shim up the PECO turnouts with thicker roadbed rather than sanding down Atlas flextrack ties.

Best of luck.

 

[CbrandonB]

Thank you, again, Byron.

Going overhead is precisely what I've been contemplating. This would allow me to have everything else I need in the room (desk on one side, electronics workbench on the other), although it also obviously complicates the build of the layout, but should give a much, much better run for the larger locos I'll be running for the fun of it.

Brandon

 

[cuyama]

Going overhead is precisely what I've been contemplating. This would allow me to have everything else I need in the room (desk on one side, electronics workbench on the other), although it also obviously complicates the build of the layout, but should give a much, much better run for the larger locos I'll be running for the fun of it.

Remember that a couple of tracks on narrow benchwork can run behind monitors or equipment racks, so the layout may not have to be "overhead" to fit. If the layout is too high to see and operate, it turns into just a display loop -- which is fine, but may not be what you are after.

Varying benchwork depth is a really helpful principle -- don't fear the saw!

 

[CbrandonB]

I will certainly keep that in mind. Thanks!

Brandon

 

[Iron Horseman]

I'm looking at building the double track version of this layout:

http://www.layoutvision.com/gallery/id53.html

That is a very nice layout. I made a 4x8 version for my son about 20 years ago. But why the double track version? That really crowds things up.

Byron mentions using all Peco turnouts. Could I get away with Atlas turnouts? I don't mind modifying a bit, but I don't want to rebuild the layouts to save a few bucks, either.

The problem is that Atlas no longer makes any curved turnouts. This plan requires curved turnouts to get that much track into the small space.

I'm hoping to order one of the loops this week and get my Challenger going around in an endless circle for a while.

A Challenger is way too large a locomotive for this layout. 2-8-0 Consolidateds and 4-6-0 Ten Wheelers would be a better choice.

 

[CbrandonB]

Thanks for the reply, Iron Horseman.

I'm doing the double track version basically because I want to. I'm not sure how I want to do operations just yet, so this being my first layout, my goal is to just get started somewhere, and I've always wanted double tracks to have two trains going continuously at once. I know a lot of people scoff at "trains traveling mindlessly in a circle", but I don't really care. It makes for better entertainment value for kids, if nothing else (myself included ).

However, at the same time, I may end up doing an around the room type setup, anyway. I've just got to figure out how to work around my closet. And you're 1000% right, definitely not the right layout for a Challenger, which is another reason (along with all of the other 7 or 8 articulateds my father-in-law owns, but doesn't have a layout for) I'm wanting to go around the room.

Thanks, again, for your reply!

Brandon

 

[trailrider]

PECO and Shinohara make curved turnouts of various radii. PECO turnouts, both curved and standard have a spring-loaded arrangement on the switch points which holds the points in one position or the other. PECO switch machines do NOT have any throwover mechanism, depending on the turnouts to hold the points in one direction or the other. IMHO, these switch machines sometimes don't have enough force to flip the points over fully. Therefore, I have used other machines, and remove the detent spring on the PECO turnouts. Shinohara turnouts depend entirely on the switch machines used for positive motion and holding. Shinohara turnouts are generally more expensive than PECO, but sometimes the radii or availability makes using the Shinohara more expedient. Atlas turnouts are designed and built for use with their own switch machines, which either connect directly to the turnout or with an attachment, can be mounted under the table. Just things you might keep in mind. Not saying these things are positive or negative. I utilize all three brands, Code 100, in my case, depending on where I need them. In the case of PECO turnouts, I either just use them manually, where I can reach them, or substitute some older switch machines, such as Kemtrons salvaged from previous layouts. For the Atlas turnouts, I use their switch machines. For convenience and to save my old back, all my switch machines are mounted on top of the table. I try to disguise them or at least make them blend into the scenery, but the easy access overrides those concerns.