Flexible Budget Track N Gauge

[Kiwi_Ed]

Hello all,

 

Recently I came across the Flexible Budget Track for N Gauge at Cheltenham Modelcentre (http://cheltenhammodelcentre.com/shopexd.asp?id=3163).

 

It is not an awful lot cheaper than Peco code 80, but enough to give it a thought. As modelling is always on a budget, it doesn't harm to save a few pennies (or Euro cents in my case).

 

But before wasting my money on potential rubbish I would like to know if there is anybody who has experience with this track. I don't care to much about the look of it. In this small scale a wood-grain more or less isn't really noticeable after painting and weathering the track, I think. But I am mostly interested in performance.

 

So if anybody has bought and used this track I would be most grateful if they could tell me their experience.

 

All the best!

 

Edwin

 

p.s. If anybody knows of any other 'budget' N track, I also wouldn't mind knowing!

[Revolution Mike]

If you have large fiddle yards then I might be tempted to use it for that if it saves you money.

 

For visible areas I wouldn't use it or Peco code 80 - as a minimum I would use Peco code 55. Code 55 is much stronger and looks better as part of the rail is embedded into the sleepers. If you have very tight curves set track can often be more reliable than flexi track.

 

Cheers, Mike

[Kiwi_Ed]

The two main reasons for choosing code 80 are that a good while back I bought a nice lot of code 80 points for a very very reasonable price on ebay.

 

I know that you can connect code 55 with 80 by raising the track bed a bit, but because of my second reason, 'the budget', code 80 being slightly cheaper, I didn't really feel like going there.

 

Besides that I'm a bit worried that it won't look good if every connection between the rest of the track and a point needs to be raised. So I've made up my mind and decided to use code 80, even though I also do believe that code 55 looks better, I think code 80 still looks reasonably good. The strength of the track is a bit of an issue, but that shouldn't be to much of a problem once the track is pinned or glued down (I hope)?

 

So, it's not really an issue of using code 55 or 80 track, but more to stick with Peco code 80 (which we know is good) or go for the cheaper option, which might not be as good. I hope anybody has experience with using this or any other cheaper brand of flexitrack (I do want to use flexitrack as I dislike tight curves and to many rail joints. I might not be a finescale modeller (yet), but I do have my standards).

[Revolution Mike]

The strength of code 55 is due to the way Peco have effectively embedded code 80 track into the sleepers, which makes it much stronger than code 80 which relies on the chairs to hold the rail - pinning or glueing won't improve that. Personally I would glue the track.

 

While I understand your reasons, I can't help feeling it is a bit of a false economy. Cosmetically code 80 looks awful (after all it is coarser than some Peco OO track!), in fact I would argue that all Peco track is looking very dated now. The big problem is that track standards have not kept up with improvements in models (particularly wheels). The sleeper size and spacing is all wrong, and performance wise the problem is that modern wheels are so fine that they just don't particularly like coarse track with large flangeways on points.

 

Anyway enough of my ramblings about track.

 

Good luck, Mike

[Kiwi_Ed]

Hello Mike,

 

Thanks for your ramblings, it does make me think... It is absolutely true that code 80 is coarser than some OO track, but on the other hand the last attempt I did to build a model railway was back in the late 80's early 90's, as a kid playing with Marklin M-track, which is of course thé most hideous looking track ever. So anything is an improvement.

 

But the performance is more of an issue of course. I always thought that it was more the other way around, that older wheels didn't like the code 55 track and anything would run on code 80. It wouldn't be nice to start laying down track only to find out my trains are constantly giving me problems running through the points etc.

 

I'll guess we'll have to sleep on that one. But in the meantime, I'm still curious about the Budget track.

[Barry Ten]

To be fair, there have been some damn fine layouts built using Code 80. As with Code 100 versus 75, it will never look quite as fine but I would rather see nicely ballasted and painted Code 80 than poorly done Code 55!

 

I used Atlas Code 80 for the tight return curves on my layout and found that they joined up to Peco code 55 very nicely with no need for transition pieces.

[Revolution Mike]

You have to have some truly horrible old stuff (probably 30+ years old now) to have wheels that won't be OK on code 55. Having said that occassionally one slips through the manufacturing process - I think one of the first batch of Dapol's Hymeks had very large flanges on the wheels which caused a few problems.

 

The vast majority of stuff should be fine. One thing that can be very useful for issues running through points is a back to back gauge to measure the gap between the wheels. If the wheels are too close together then it can lead to derailments on points. There is an NMRA standard (RP25 IIRC) which I can't remember off the top of my head but somewhere in the region of 7.5mm.

 

Cheers, Mike

[Kris]

You don't need packing pieces between code 55 and code 80. I would go along with the previous suggestion to use code 55 where visible and code 80 on the hidden sections.

 

On the track it's self. Some years ago I got some budget track that may well have come from CMC from memory it was not to bad, but there is no guaranties that this is the same stuff.

[Edwin_m]

I got some budget track from Gaugemaster. It wasn't quite so easy to curve as Peco but the main problem was that the rail foot was wider so if using Peco joiners it had to be forced in and preferably soldered in place. It was OK with the joiners it came with, though I think these didn't grip the Peco track properly when joining one to the other.

 

Edit: Musing on this, shouldn't it be "budget flexible track"? If you had a "flexible budget" you'd be less concerned about the price...

 

I'll get me coat.

[Kiwi_Ed]

Hello Edwin,

 

Just got my coat off and back to work (or should I say, watching trains on the internet....).

 

Point well made about the rail joiners. This budget track does not come with rail joiners and the Peco rail joiners are mentioned on the same page, so one might assume that it is all fully compatible. But to be sure I just send them this question by email. I will post their reply as soon as I receive something.

 

A "Flexible Budget Track" wouldn't that be something, that would open up so many possibilities: "Flexible Budget Scissors Crossovers", "Flexible Budget Double Slips", "Flexible Budget Points" and not to forget "Flexible Budget Flexible Track"...

[Dave777]

Is it me or does it look a bit narrow gauge-y? Sleepers stick out the sides a bit more...? Might just be a trick of the camera.

[PLD]

Not sure if it the same stuff as CMC are selling but one club layout has used some 'budget flexi-track' (IIRC there was no branding on it other than 'Made in Italy'...)

 

Even at relatively close viewing distance it looks like Peco code 80, however when they tried to join the two there was a noticable difference in rail section (taller and wider than Peco 80) plus slightly thicker sleepers resulting a noticable 'bump' as stock ran from one type of track to the other.

 

I would say 'you pays your money, you makes your choice' applies, but (assuming you can get pointwork for the budget track) recomend you stick to one or the other and don't mix different types.

 

Paul

[F-UnitMad]

I know that you can connect code 55 with 80 by raising the track bed a bit, but because of my second reason, 'the budget', code 80 being slightly cheaper, I didn't really feel like going there.

 

With the greatest of respect, you appear to have mis-understood the way Peco Code 55 has been designed?

Due to the rail design, it connects to Code 80 (plain track and points) without any need to raise the trackbed. It also has similar flange clearances - although it doesn't look like it - so is suitable for standard N scale wheels. It just looks much finer than Code 80. I used it myself years ago when it was newly introduced, and were I still in N scale, would never go back to Code 80, which, when you think about it, is about equivalent to using Code 160 in OO gauge... nobody would do that!!!

[Dagworth]

I've used a lot of the CMC 'budget' track on the fiddle yards of Ravensclyffe and it's been fine (OO rather than N but it's the same make) the only thing I would say is that the budget track is available in both steel and nickel silver, make sure you are comparing like with like when looking at prices.

The CMC stuff is also labelled "made in Italy"

 

Andi

[Dr Al]

With the greatest of respect, you appear to have mis-understood the way Peco Code 55 has been designed?

Due to the rail design, it connects to Code 80 (plain track and points) without any need to raise the trackbed. It also has similar flange clearances - although it doesn't look like it - so is suitable for standard N scale wheels.

 

I don't believe so having done it. You can't simply connect a piece of code 55 to code 80 using fishplates. The rail heights are absolutely not the same so there will be a bad bump at the transition.

 

Of course if you simply butt the two pieces up to each other then a smooth transition, or by soldering or bending the fishplates appropriately - I presume this is what you are meaning??

 

Cheers,

Alan

[Edwin_m]

As far as I recall the two rails are the same height. The rail joiners go on the lower (hidden) "foot" of the code 55 which lines up with the visible foot on the code 80. There may be a small dicrepancy in the railhead, but certainly nowhere near the 25 thou that would be implied if the two visible rail feet were level with each other.

 

I think a bit of packing is also needed under the sleeper base on one side of the join, as the heights from bottom of sleeper to top of rail are different.

[F-UnitMad]

I don't believe so having done it. You can't simply connect a piece of code 55 to code 80 using fishplates. The rail heights are absolutely not the same so there will be a bad bump at the transition.

Of course if you simply butt the two pieces up to each other then a smooth transition, or by soldering or bending the fishplates appropriately - I presume this is what you are meaning??

 

No that is not what I am meaning... I do understand about rail heights...

If it's ordinary Code 55 and Code 80, of course they can't join - but Peco Code 55 is designed as Edwin_m says, with a "hidden" profile that joins to Code 80. It's hard to describe in words - like a "double Flat-bottom" rail section - the cosmetic flat that gives it the look of Code 55, but a further flat underneath at Code 80 height. Peco "Code 55" is the description of the visible rail section; strip it off the sleepers and the actual height is still Code 80. I don't see what is so hard about this??

[Dagworth]

No that is not what I am meaning... I do understand about rail heights...

If it's ordinary Code 55 and Code 80, of course they can't join - but Peco Code 55 is designed as Edwin_m says, with a "hidden" profile that joins to Code 80. It's hard to describe in words - like a "double Flat-bottom" rail section - the cosmetic flat that gives it the look of Code 55, but a further flat underneath at Code 80 height. Peco "Code 55" is the description of the visible rail section; strip it off the sleepers and the actual height is still Code 80. I don't see what is so hard about this??

 

see http://www.spurstow.com/daniel/images/code55-code80.jpg the two rail heights are identical.

 

Andi

[F-UnitMad]

A good link Andi; it shows the unique design of Peco's Code 55 rail. Of course the rail that Peco Code 55 can't join to is other Code 55 (Shinohara, Microscale?)... :D

 

I do concede that judging from that picture, the trackbed might need raising slightly under the Codee 55 sleepers, but I don't recall having to do it myself.

[Dagworth]

A good link Andi; it shows the unique design of Peco's Code 55 rail. Of course the rail that Peco Code 55 can't join to is other Code 55 (Shinohara, Microscale?)... :D

 

I do concede that judging from that picture, the trackbed might need raising slightly under the Codee 55 sleepers, but I don't recall having to do it myself.

 

This site http://www.oocities....ott/Ntrack.html has some really useful stuff, and suggests that packing of the code 55 is needed although the writer seems to have missed that code 55 and code 80 can be joined to each other with normal N gauge rail joiners.

[grahame]

As far as I recall the two rails are the same height. The rail joiners go on the lower (hidden) "foot" of the code 55 which lines up with the visible foot on the code 80. There may be a small dicrepancy in the railhead, but certainly nowhere near the 25 thou that would be implied if the two visible rail feet were level with each other.

 

 

Yep, that's correct. There is no 'bad bump' at the railhead as suggested, certainly nothing that a swift brush over with a file couldn't resolve.

This picture shows Peco code 80 on the left joined to Peco code 55 without a bent fishplate;

 

 

 

 

G.

[Dr Al]

Code 55, 80 don't have the same rail height - I think this shows my points, 6min 40 or so in gives a concise clear picture of the differences:

 

 

[This is from before code 55 turnouts were available, and when code 55 was still occasionally refered to as Super-N! It is code 55 though, which has been around since the early 80s but without turnouts until the 90s.]

 

As does Grahame's photo. Clear bump visible (masked slightly by burrs on the top code 80 rail from lack of clean up) - - rail joiner nearest the camera is bent downwards slightly so doesn't look as bad. Trains will run over that bump, but at express speeds the risk of derailments is much much increased. Won't do wheels any favours either.

 

 

Personally, when I looked at the is in 1997 when buying my layout's trackwork I decided that mixing the two was a false economy, as I had a few code 80 setrack points at first. I ended up using Peco code 55 throughout, even in storage yards, eliminating bumps through mixed trackwork. Despite this, early on I had trouble with bumps in the code 55 itself (around turnout blade pivots) which were not even as bad as a code 55/80 interface, and these caused derailments.

 

Really you want track as smooth as is possible - getting this right will give you a much better running experience for years to come. Ignoring the code 55/80 interface bumps as some have implicitly implied is a bad idea IMHO. At very least they should be filed flat as has been suggested, or use the trick in the above video. Or just use code 55 throughout!

 

Anyway, getting back to the OP's point, is the CMC track the stuff marked "GT Italy"? I've got a few lengths of this given to me FoC which I've kept for possible future use on a test board. It looks functionally ok, nickel silver rail, not as deep sleeper base as Peco code 80. Cosmetically, looks not that great, but it's ideal for a storage yard or hidden sidings IMHO.

 

Cheers,

Alan

[grahame]

Code 55, 80 don't have the same rail height -

 

Yes, there is a very sight difference which I think you'll find is something like 0.3 of a thou which really is a gnats and nothing like a bad bump, plus a wipe of a file soon smooths it. Peco, the manufacturers, certainly claim it is possible to use such a join for running purposes. From experience I've never had a derailment on such joints in years of exhibition intensive running, but you still need to take care with all aspects of track laying; ensuring no kinks in bends, use transition curves if possible, avoid steep gradients, etc.

 

G.

[Dr Al]

s

gnats and nothing like a bad bump,

 

Any bump is bad IMHO...

 

And I doubt 0.3 thou (that's 0.00762mm, or ~8 microns!!!!!!!!!!!) is correct having measured it below (repeated mesurements on several pieces of track to ensure that no errant bits in the fray). Nearer 0.2 to 0.3 mm (that's around 10thou, 1thou being 0.0254mm):

 

Code 55 (2.1mm):

 

 

Code 80 (between 1.8 and 1.9mm):

 

 

And for amusement. scaling that up roughly by 148 to give approximate life size yields a height difference of 30 - 44mm, 3 - 4.4cm!

 

Getting back to the OP - I've photo'd the GT trackwork below as it's probably of interest if it's the same as CMC are selling. Note that this length has the moulding of the chairs a bit out of sync, sending the rails a little to one side of the sleepers. The sleepers look rather short too. Probably not much use for a scenic section then, but ok for hidden sidings:

 

GT is middle trackage:

 

HTH,

Alan

[Dagworth]

That's the stuff, note that whereas Peco has gaps in the web of the sleeper moulding on alternate sides the Italian stuff has them all on the same side, the OO track is the same.

 

Andi