# Buying starter train kit



## fulsom56 (Sep 18, 2015)

Hi folks, I'm in the depths of researching my first N gauge layout. Buying how to books on framework, track laying/planning, DCC, layouts, back issues of Model Railroader, etc. I even took an old table & taped down craft paper & made grids to eventually draw out my final track design (see picture). For now I'm doodling on regular graft paper.
In the mean time I'm contemplating buying a train starter kit & setting it up on my basement work bench (see picture). Including:
NCE Power Cab starter set, Atlas code 55 flex track (25 pcs.), Atlas #5 turnouts, Atlas switch mach., Atlas joiners & terminal joiner, cork roadbed and either a Bachmann 2-8-4 Berkshire DCC or a Atlas GP-9 DCC along with a Bachmann GP-7 DCC. (I have some rolling stock).
Are there any essential items that I'm missing? 
Will the Atlas switch mach. operate with the NCE control?
If I buy the 2-8-4 it will give me an idea of minimum radius but if I buy 2 diesels I can get an idea of running a consist (can't afford all 3 at this time).
Thanks for any feedback............Al.


----------



## DonR (Oct 18, 2012)

The workbench would make a nice platform for getting your feet wet in
N scale. You would, however, want to either build a separate 'table'
or remove the lower shelves when you go for the 'serious' layout.
There is a lot of under the table wiring work and those shelves would
make it very difficult for you.

I am a big fan of Peco turnouts. They have the special quality that
you just don't have derails on them. I'm afraid that Atlas doesn't
meet that standard.

The twin coil motors on turnouts require either AC or DC current
around 12 to 16 volts. The DCC controllers provide current for
the track only, unless you are using stationary decoders to
control your turnouts. Most of us use an old DC power pack
or a suitable wall wart to provide turnout motor power through a
control panel. If you use twin coil machines, I do recommend
that you build or buy a Capacitor Discharge Unit to protect
the coils from accidental burnout due to a too long button push
or a stuck button.

It would be my preference to buy the two GPs. It's so easy
to consist them with DCC. Or you could run 2 trains at
the save time. The GPs will run on almost any reasonable
radius. Save up for the big steamer to
run when you can build the wide radius it will need.

Don


----------



## fulsom56 (Sep 18, 2015)

DonR said:


> The workbench would make a nice platform for getting your feet wet in
> N scale. You would, however, want to either build a separate 'table'
> or remove the lower shelves when you go for the 'serious' layout.
> There is a lot of under the table wiring work and those shelves would
> ...


Thanks Don, the work bench is a temporary set up to get my "feet wet". I will be building a L girder system that eventually will be about 18' x 14' & L shaped dog bone style.
I'll do more research on switch machines & associated wiring.
Good advice on the GP's & I'll wait on the steam until I set track for my permanent layout which I would like to have a minimum radius of 15"s.


----------



## Cycleops (Dec 6, 2014)

I would echo Don's advice on using Peco turnouts, they are very good. You can control them with the twin coil point mothers that Peco and others offer and they snap from side to side with a loud buzz. If you want something more prototypical you could use servo powered units which change slowly and almost silently. I recently installed some from Tam Valley Depot http://www.tamvalleydepot.com/products/microsingletservodecoder.html (following advice from someone on here and they are excellent. I used the singlet. You can switch them from a fascia mounted panel or from your PowerCab (which I have as well).


----------



## fulsom56 (Sep 18, 2015)

How does a Peco turnout compare in size to a Atlas turnout? Peco goes by small, medium & large where by Atlas goes by #5, #7 & #10.


----------



## Cycleops (Dec 6, 2014)

FYI the smaller turnouts will have a tighter radius coming off, the longer ones a larger one. I don't have any experience of the Atlas stuff. The best way to see would be to download templates of them from the Peco site, these will be useful for planning your layout, you just print them off. http://www.peco-uk.com/page.asp?id=pointplans

As a further complication the Peco comes in electro frog or insulfrog configuration. With the former power is switched by the direction of the point, with the latter it is continuous on both legs whichever way it is switched. For DCC operation electro frog is better but you will have more insulated gaps.


----------



## traction fan (Oct 5, 2014)

*Turnout (frog) numbers*



fulsom56 said:


> How does a Peco turnout compare in size to a Atlas turnout? Peco goes by small, medium & large where by Atlas goes by #5, #7 & #10.


Fulsom56;

The numbers you see on the Atlas turnout advertising are frog numbers. The frog is the fitting near the middle, where four rails come closest to each other in an "X" pattern.
Frogs on "prototype" (full size, real) turnouts are numbered according to how quickly the diverging(curved) route goes away from the main(straight) route. The smaller the number the sharper the angle of diversion. The system of numbers shows how many units of measure, a train must travel (measured on the straight route rail) to divert one unit of measure away from the straight route. Thus a #4 frog will direct the train's wheels 1" away after 4" of travel. A # 8 will take 8" of travel to do the same amount of diversion of the wheels. Prototype turnouts tend to be higher numbers than we can fit on our model railroads(# 24, # 30 etc.)
I would not take the Atlas numbers at face value. Many of their turnouts, especially the "snap track" type, don't really conform to the numbers. This is because they are designed with a sharp curve( 18") built into the diverging route. This allows the turnout to be substituted for an 18" curved section of track.
Peco(and other quality brands, especially Micro Engineering) turnouts come closer to the real thing. They don't contain much, or any, curved track. The Peco designations of "small (sharp,)
medium, and large just mean that one is sharper than another. They don't go into frog numbers. The practical difference, from a track laying standpoint, is that a Peco, is not a direct replacement for an Atlas. It won't just slip into the exact, same, footprint. 
That does not matter if you are just starting a layout, but takes a bit of fitting if you are
trying to replace an Atlas, with a Peco, on an existing track.
Peco turnouts are definitely much better quality, and I would recommend them. :thumbsup:
I make my own turnouts from scratch, (see photo) but that's not for everyone. It costs less money, but requires A LOT more time.

Traction Fan


----------



## traction fan (Oct 5, 2014)

Fulsom;

I have to correct my prior post. The 18" radius curve in the turnout applies to HO scale.
Looking back through the thread, I see you are using N scale. The Atlas N scale turnout contains a 19" radius curve which, for the smaller N scale equipment, constitutes a broad radius curve; capable of handling any N scale rolling stock. The other statements about Atlas turnout's quality and limitations, are the same in N scale as HO.

Traction Fan


----------



## fulsom56 (Sep 18, 2015)

Thanks guys for the feedback & I hear what your saying about the quality of various turnouts. There's a hard decision to make on quality versus price due to the number of turnouts in the layout I'm designing. Then there's the matter of auto switching & the electronics involved with that.
For what it's worth, I'm not looking at Atlas snap switches but there code 55 #5 turnouts-part #N2050 & N2051. I wanted to stay with Atlas code 55 flextrack & along with there turnouts would save a lot of cash over the Pecos (the better quality sw.).
If I still went the Atlas route & added switch machines would that not solve the problem of the Atlases' not having a spring to close the switch? Isn't the lack of a spring in the Atlas switch the main problem people have with them?


----------



## fulsom56 (Sep 18, 2015)

After a little more research concerning turnouts I'm starting to see that Peco track/turnouts are the practical way to go. Like you all have been saying, there better built & a larger selection of parts. There more expensive but in the long run less headache to maintain...........................Thanks Al.


----------



## jargonlet (Dec 21, 2011)

The Atlas code 55 turnouts can be nice but can sometimes take a bit of work to get working properly. I like the code 55 line because they look a lot more prototypical and once working function very well. I do not like the atlas under table switch machine. I have used them before on other layouts and did not like them. I am currently using bullfrogs on both of my layouts and am very happy with them. You can get them from fasttracks website.


----------



## DonR (Oct 18, 2012)

You won't regret going to Peco turnouts. I use the Insulfrog version but
with Atlas flex track. In HO there is a slight variation in the size of 
Peco rails vs Atlas, but it is simple to overcome. I don't know if that
is true also in N. The main reason
some choose the Electrofrog version is that they may have small locos
with only 4 wheel power pickup. This is not a problem with modern
full size locos. You should be aware that, as Cycleops mentioned, with
Insulfrog Pecos, if you
have a stub end spur, the power will be turned off in it when the points
are set against it. It is called power routing. A drop from the spur's
frog rail to your buss will solve that if not wanted. 

There is a spring that 'locks' Peco points when thrown by a
twin coil motor. It is removable
if you use the Tortoise type slow motion stall motor machine.

Don


----------



## fulsom56 (Sep 18, 2015)

DonR said:


> You won't regret going to Peco turnouts. I use the Insulfrog version but
> with Atlas flex track. In HO there is a slight variation in the size of
> Peco rails vs Atlas, but it is simple to overcome. I don't know if that
> is true also in N. The main reason
> ...


If I'm correct, both Peco & Atlas code 55 turnouts are ONLY the electrofrog version. You would need to go to code 80 to get the insulated frogs but I want to stay with code 55. Micro Engineering is another consideration for code 55 turnouts but they only make a #6. Which begs the question: Why would they only make one size code 55 turnout? Could a person build a whole layout only using M.E. flextrack & there #6 turnouts? I do see they updated that turnout to be what the say is a "new DCC compatible version".


----------



## DonR (Oct 18, 2012)

The companies continue to use the terms DCC friendly, compatible,
and other such nonsense for their turnouts. Baloney. Any turnout is correct
for DCC. They simply must conduct the current through their
rails and points. Disregard those terms and choose your turnout
based on quality, how it fits your layout or other pertinent
factors.

These claims usually relate to whether a turnout has powered
or unpowered frogs. Insulfrog vs Electrofrog. The only
affect the Insulfrog type turnout has is that locos with only 4
wheel power pickup MAY lost power or pause, usually, tho that
is a very old loco.

Turnouts with Electrofrog must use an insulated joiner
between the frog rail and the connecting rail. This is
because the frog rail changes phase (polarity) when
the points are thrown. Insulfrogs do not require
insulated joiners.

There are turnouts that can be thrown by the DCC controller
but that's another point.

Don


----------



## jargonlet (Dec 21, 2011)

Atlas code 55 is a true code 55 rail whereas the peco code 55 is really a code 80 rail that's buried in the ties to make the height the same. I never have but some guys have used both together. It's a bit harder to make work but some have done it.


----------



## fulsom56 (Sep 18, 2015)

Good evening everyone, after much thought put into the subject of turnouts I decided on going with Micro Engineering flextrack & there #6 turnouts. I will purchase a 6 piece set of track & 2 turnouts to begin with (along with the other components to get me up & running). 
By what I've read on this & other forums the Peco track/turnouts are of great quality but there also the most expensive & they do not look as "real" as M.E. or Atlas. I also find that M.E. & Atlas are for the most part compatible. 
I understand that M.E. does not offer the verity that Peco does but I can compensate by buying Atlas products (turnouts, crossovers, etc.) or hand laying my own turnouts (something I really want to try).
Once again thanks for the great feedback everyone.............Al.


----------



## jargonlet (Dec 21, 2011)

I can't speak for the turnouts but I have combined atlas and micro engineering flex track with no problems.


----------



## traction fan (Oct 5, 2014)

*Micro Engineering's turnouts*

Fulsom;

I think you picked a good product in Micro Engineering. I used their turnouts back when the
company was still called Railcraft. There flex track and bridges are beautifully detailed. One reason Peco turnouts may look odd to you, and other American modelers, is that they are models of British turnouts. Some of the detailing shows hardware that is distinctly British.
Peco does make a very good quality turnout and many modelers love them for the reliability.
I think Micro Engineering turnouts are as reliable as Peco, or any other brand. Its a shame
they don't offer more selection than #6 right, and #6 left. Some #4s, wyes, crossings and
curved turnouts would be very welcome. 
Back in the Railcraft era, #4.5 turnouts were "available"; as were #8's. However those were
semi-scratch/kit built affairs. Railcraft only provided the rails, assembled into a turnout, with temporary brass straps at the rail tops. You provided everything else. Ties, spikes, roadbed 
were not included. Railcraft also had very limited production. I suspect it may have been one of those one man companies run out of someone's garage. This scarcity, cost, and the fact that you were practically building the things from scratch; is why I started making my own turnouts.
Making turnouts and crossings of any type is actually a lot easier than most folks think.
I have taught several people, including a ten year old kid, to make them. If you are interested in learning, send me a private message and I will try to help you learn, over the internet. That would be a first, for me, as all prior training has been in person. I'm willing to try though. Just to get you thinking here are some photos of my turnouts, and crossings under construction.

Regards
Traction Fan :smilie_daumenpos:


----------



## Cycleops (Dec 6, 2014)

traction fan said:


> Making turnouts and crossings of any type is actually a lot easier than most folks think.
> I have taught several people, including a ten year old kid, to make them. If you are interested in learning, send me a private message and I will try to help you learn, over the internet. That would be a first, for me, as all prior training has been in person. I'm willing to try though. Just to get you thinking here are some photos of my turnouts, and crossings under


Someone else on here turned me on to http://www.handlaidtrack.com/ it simplifies making your own track work somewhat. I think I might even manage building with their system. If I get stuck I can always get a ten year old off the street to help me out!

Don R I think you might have trouble using Peco turnouts with code 55 Atlas flex track in N. The Peco turnouts have a higher section rail and its buried in the ties so if you attempt to join the two there's quite a step. Not so with HO of course.


----------



## DonR (Oct 18, 2012)

Might be a rail height problem Peco vs Atlas N scale flex, there is
a slight difference in HO between them also, but It is easily
solved. My track is all Atlas code 100, and my turnouts are all
Peco Insulfrog.

Don


----------

