Can somebody reccomend N DCC friendly turnout?

There has been a lot of discussion about the pro's and con's of various makes of turnouts in other forums (such as Trains.com). For example, Peco C55 is based on UK standards and doesn't look very prototypical (c/w US standards) but (in my experience) is almost bomb-proof. Atlas C55 looks better, but doesn't work well with a lot of older wheel sets. I've also read that some people find it to be a bit flimsy, but I've never used it myself so I can't speak from experience. I believe that Atlas is more DCC-friendly, but that either brand can be made to work with DCC without too much hassle. However, some of the other issues might not be so easily resolved (especially once you've laid and ballasted the track).

Without meaning to offend, I suggest that you do some reading and make up your own mind about what is important for you. You're the one who is going to have to live with it.

I read that Peco is planning to do HO track in USA profile. I'm hoping that they'll follow up with N scale, before I have to buy any more.

Good luck, and regards, Ron

Well, I've used the Atlas code 55 on a couple of DCC Bend-Track modules. So far, they've been great, and operationally foolproof. I have them wired to DPDT slide switches for both mechanical and electrical control, and they have worked very well. I have yet to experience any problems with them, and with the powered frogs even my old Bachmann 0-4-0 docksider can crawl through them. My next layout will be _all_ Atlas code 55.

They're available in #5 and #7 sizes now... and we're all anxiously awaiting the long-rumored and never quite confirmed #9.

I don't care for the PECO turnouts myself... tie spacing is all wrong for US prototype, but they _are_ rugged, and have that over-center spring that locks them into place without a ground throw or switch machine. They're available in both insul-frog and electro-frog - but you can have problems with short locomotives in the insulfrog turnouts.

Micro-engineering turnouts _LOOK_ nice... but are delicate and sometimes are hard to obtain _anywhere_, not to mention costing significantly more than the Atlas turnout.

-- Joe Ellis ? CEO Bethlehem-Ares Railroad - A 1:160 Corp. ___a________n_mmm___mmm_mmm_mmm___mmm_mmm_mmm___mmm_n______ ___|8 8B| ___ /::::: / /::::X/ /:::::/ /:::::/|| ||__BARR| | | /::::::/ /:::::X /:::::/ /:::::/ ||

---------------------------------------------------------------- [(=)=(=)=(=)=(=)] |_________________________| [(=)=(=)=(=)=(=)] =============Serving America's Heartland Since 1825=============

Thanks for the input, I am going to do some more research. But am still at a loss.

I like the look of the Atlas C55, track and turnouts over Peco. But am concerned with the lack of selection. That is why I am looking at Peco. Being 100% proto is not that big of a concern to me. Little or no modifications to turnouts is a selling feature as well as being good with DCC.

Thanks.........

"LocoMcF @yahoo.com.au>"

And the flangeways are too large, which means you will get more of a visible bump as things travel through them.

-John