Setrack or Streamline for my first full layout.

[Oscar at Play]

I have a love of the big old BR Steam locos and I am in the process of designing my first full layout in N. Gauge. For convenience (a local supplier) I have been working with PECO Setrack. My question is, How well will the big locos cope with Setrack points, or should I re-do it with Streamline? I am also thinking DCC for this. Any guidance would be gratefully accepted.

[zwilnik]

Personally I'd go with the streamline points to start with, especially if you're running larger locos and thinking of DCC. Having longer points with smoother turns would look a lot better and probably lead to fewer problems with longer wheelbases.
Having said that, it *should* still work with Settrack points and they do allow you to get a lot more into a small space.

[jpendle]

Code 55 Streamline is the way to go unless you have severe space constraints. Use the longest points that will fit.

Regards,

John P

[Ditape]

Go Kato Unitrack easy to use 100% reliable.

[ntpntpntp]

The "big old BR Steam locos" will look a  bit toy-like going over Setrack pointwork and one or two recent British N models can struggle on 9" radius it seems.  Better to use larger radius points and curves if your layout space will allow it.  I only use Setrack points in my fiddleyard, and use Code 55 on scenic trackwork.

The Unitrack system has some "ease-of-use" advantages, but some folk have reported certain locos clonk on the frogs and maybe doesn't quite as good as properly ballasted Peco.

[Ditape]

The Unitrack system has some "ease-of-use" advantages, but some folk have reported certain locos clonk on the frogs and maybe doesn't quite as good as properly ballasted Peco.

This is properly ballasted Kato to me it looks as good/better than Peco etc.(The only problem I know of is with #4 points and then only if not preceded by a short straight after a curve.)

[Bealman]

This is a topic of discussion which occurs on a frequent basis.

It boils down to what you are happy with appearance-wise and what you feel is within your capabilities.

With the exception of a Shinohara 3-way point, my layout is entirely Peco Code 80, but if I was starting now, I'd go with Peco Code 55.

As stated in second paragraph, it's a matter of personal choice. There's no definitive answer. Everyone here will have their own preferred system.

[NeMo]

+1 for Code 55 if you're after more realism and reliability. Because the rail is partially embedded in the plastic, it is actually stronger than Code 80 Streamline, making it easier to work with (less prone to becoming damaged).

On the other hand, if you can compromise on rail height, I'd sooner pick Kato over Setrack. Kato Unitrack is a joy to work with when you're interested in simply running trains. It does have a modern, concrete sleeper look so suits diesels and electrics rather the steam.

Nothing terribly wrong with Setrack, but the sharp points and narrow radii do compromise realism. That said, you can see some lovely layouts based on Setrack at model railway shows -- so as ever, it's the imagination and craft that make the best layout, not the type of rail used.

Cheers, NeMo

[dannyboy]

Just a moot point your 'onour - Kato Unitrack is available with both wooden and concrete looking sleepers. 

I have some 1/8" (approx') board that I have laid on the baseboard in a lot of places adjacent to the Unitrack - really makes the rails look lower and it is quite easy to ballast. 

[NeMo]

Just a moot point your 'onour - Kato Unitrack is available with both wooden and concrete looking sleepers. 

Quite right. I've been using the double track stuff most recently and it's definitely concrete (light coloured) sleepers. The single track stuff is indeed wooden (dark) sleepers.

Cheers, NeMo

[Train Waiting]

It doesn't need to be either Setrack or Streamline.  One can use Streamline points with Setrack track.  That way one has the lovely smooth curves in four radii and proper straight, straights.  And a wide range of points*.  With flexi-track for any bits between straights and standard curves if you get my meaning.

I now use Setrack and love it.  The points do not give any problems with 4-6-0s and 0-8-0s which are Union Mills' largest.  'N' gauge No. 1 radius points sort of equate to '00' gauge No. 2 radius.

Kato 'Unitrack' is a marvellous system.  The #4 points can cause difficulties** with steam locomotives and there is a lot of information available on this.  The #6 points are normally very good but they are longer than an '00' gauge Peco Setrack point so are very space-hungry.

That's a nice track plan, by the way.

* This mixing of Setrack and Streamline involves a bit of track cutting.  If you plan to do it, please let me know and I'll dig out details of the length of track required to fit between the points for your crossovers.

** 'Unitrack #4 points work fine with Kato locomotives in my experience - all part of the same system.  But put a Union Mills engine over a #4 crossover tender-first and there is a good chance that it will end up 'on the ballast'.  It certainly did when I tried.  @Newportnobby has a super thread about this which is well worth reading.  Please let me know if it would be helpful and I'll find a link for you.

Best wishes.

John

[Chris Morris]

If you want to run large steam locos you would be wise to avoid set track points. Both Dapol and Farish large steam locos will have problems because the points are just too sharp for them. It is best to avoid radius 1 track as well. Set track curved points are also a problem for large steam locos on the tightest route but not a problem on the less tight one. Steam outline locos will generally cope with sharp  trailing points better than facing points but they really are best avoided. It is quite common for people to start out using set track points and then re-designing the layout to use streamline points later. The minimum radius quoted for a lot of steam locos equates to Peco R2. Some locos, such as the Farish Castle, seem to cope extremely well with R1 and the curved set track points but most don't. Diesels seem to run fine, although they do look very wrong on set track points.

All Peco track, set track, code 80 and code 55 can be joined together without any problem or modification using standard joiners. Personally I find attaching joiners to code 55 is very fiddly; I probably should use a magnifying glass to help.

[jpendle]

[quote author=Chris Morris link=topic=44598.msg556546#msg556546 date=1551424294

All Peco track, set track, code 80 and code 55 can be joined together without any problem or modification using standard joiners. Personally I find attaching joiners to code 55 is very fiddly; I probably should use a magnifying glass to help.
[/quote]

Code 55 and 88 have different profiles so you have to pack up the code 55 track, which I would consider a modification.

John P

[njee20]

Agreed, I've got some places in the fiddle yard I've mixed it, but I'd not want to build a whole layout with lots of changing between the two. IMO it's not satisfactory to simply attack one to the other with no other intervention, although it can physically be done.

+another for code 55.

[Oscar at Play]

Gosh, thank you everybody! I knew that there would be a lot of excellent suggestions come back! I also knew that whatever I decided to do would require compromise somewhere. I have to remember that my fingers aren't quite as nimble as they once were. John's suggestion of combining Setrack with Streamline points is a way forward that seems to work well, and I have had a play with my SCARM design in order to accomplish that. At the moment I have substituted Setrack points with SL-395 & SL-396 combined with short pieces of straight flexitrack. I hope that the increase in radius will accommodate the larger locos. I need to keep the baseboard depth to 1mtr for this layout so that I can reach from the front as it will have to be against the wall, and so have used the larger radius Setrack curves, ST-19 & ST-17. I am not a purist, and feel that N-80 is just that little bit more substantial than N-55 for my older digits to work with. I'd love a decent fiddle-yard, but that will have to wait for a house move! The inclines are a little severe at the moment as baseboard to track bed on the proposed twin-track viaduct as supplied is 116mm (http://www.ancortonmodels.com/nbr4b/4585607906) so I may have to shorten the pillars by about 15mm.