# Track: Atlas vs Peco vs something else??



## videobruce (Jun 15, 2011)

I'm thinking about getting back into N Scale. I had a small 5x7' modified 'L' shaped layout 15 years ago that I had to cutup, but I still have the power & rolling stock and most of the Atlas switches. I went with Atlas because of cost, but now I'm considering Peco. The location was a spare room.

Taking a closer look at Peco's construction, I now see they embed the rails into the ties as opposed to placing the rails on the ties only securing them with plastic spikes. I never understood how they would hold under stress with the common Atlas design, namely heat kinks (another topic). 

Now the new location is a damp basement in a not built yet separate room with three walls of wood and the forth the stone foundation. That wall is usually dry, but gets slightly damp after a rain, but no real seepage. I do plan a dehumidifier for that room.

The layout will be along the constructed walls, not the foundation, in a 'L' shape three foot deep. The overall size is around 10x23'.

Anyway, I'm willing to spend more, but is Peco worth the difference in cost, or how about another choice other than Kato? I can't see the advantage of any so called self ballasted piece of 'ready' track.


----------



## videobruce (Jun 15, 2011)

I did find this thread which was interesting;
http://cs.trains.com/TRCCS/forums/t/191421.aspx

And confused me more.


----------



## Brakeman Jake (Mar 8, 2009)

Hi!Now let's see...if you plan on running older equipment,you have three options as these likely all have deep wheel flanges so can't be run on Atlas C55 as the flanges will hit the spikes.If you would like to use Atlas C55,wich looks just great,then you'd have to consider replacing wheels wich is feasible easily with cars but not so easy with locos.
Code 80 from either Atlas or Peco are very good track that will accomodate anything you may want to run.Both are easy to install and are reliable (I've installed both) and can even be mixed together with only a slight filing of the rail head to adjust.
Now your third option...Peco C55 (my personal choice) is a "cheat" as it is not a true C55 but rather a C80 embedded deeper in the ties so that it looks somewhat like a C55 but with the advantage to accept any rolling stock.The other "negative" point is that tie spacing is based on european prototype so don't look right to many north american modelers.But if this doesn't bother you,then Peco C55 is the best option you have.Not the cheapest though,but properly installed it is litterally bullett proof.Peco C55 also have the widest choice of turnouts with short,medium and long types along with double crossovers and double-slips.And all of them can be powered with Peco PL10 solenoids(easiest way) or other turnout motors like Tortoise's by simply removing a small spring.


----------



## videobruce (Jun 15, 2011)

That's what I'm leaning towards. 

I have 23 diesels, all 15 years old and 250 freight & passenger cars all with MicroTrains trucks, but not their newer 'scale' flanges. With Peco 55, there is _*no*_ issue with older loco flanges??


----------



## Brakeman Jake (Mar 8, 2009)

No...there shouldn't be any issue with Peco C55.I say "shouldn't" because I haven't personally tried running old locos on Peco C55,but I read in more than a few posts that Peco has purposely designed their C55 this way to accommodate anything.The rail is indeed pretty high just looking at it.


----------



## videobruce (Jun 15, 2011)

90 views and only one had a opinion??


----------



## gunrunnerjohn (Nov 10, 2010)

videobruce said:


> 90 views and only one had a opinion??


I promise, I won't look at your threads in the future.  Sorry for running up the view count. hwell:


----------

