Basic Track and Roadbed

• Several manufacturers offer good quality track and roadbed.  Among these are Atlas, Bachman, Kato, and Peco. Each has its own special characteristics so the choice is important based on the developer’s requirements.
• Because N Scale rolling stock is so small and light weight, most authors argue that N Scale track must be laid on a roadbed.  Laying track directly on to an hard surface platform, or even on the floor, will provide an unsatisfactory alternative because of frequent derailments.  The light weight cars “bouncing” along the hard surface will not stay consistently on the track.
• One alternative is to lay cork roadbed upon which the track is fastened. This is a widely accepted practice.  The cork roadbed is flexible and able to be shaped into many different track configurations.  It is easily fastened to the roadbed with adhesives such as household caulk dispensed by a standard caulking gun, glue dispensed from a hot glue gun, or products such as liquid nails.  The track is then fastened to the roadbed with tiny railroad nails or with an adhesive such as household caulk.  If this alternative is selected, products such as Atlas’ Code 55 or Code 80 track is sold in sections of various lengths and curve radii. Atlas also offers its popular Flex Track that can be bent into various configurations and cut to the desired length.  Turnouts (or “switches” to those of us who played with toy trains) have their motors above the surface of the benchwork.
• Another alternative is use track that has been already fastened to the roadbed. Both Kato and Bachman (as well as others) offer this type of track.  Kato’s version is called UNITRACK.  It looks like this:                 
• I chose Kato’s product for the following reasons.  First, with track already fastened to the roadbed, the amount of time committed to laying roadbed and track is greatly reduced.  Second, some authors commend Kato for the quality of their products.  Third, in the photo you can see two plastic clips, one at the 1 o’clock position and the other at the 8 o’clock.  These clips — along with the rail joiners located on the rail opposite the clip, lock the sections together. By being clipped together in this fashion, the modeler is assured of track that is correctly aligned along its entire length. Furthermore, the rail joiners that carry electrical power are properly aligned so power is continuous and there is no danger of a derailment at a joint.  Fourth, Kato’s turnouts (or “switches”) contain their motors inside the turnout/roadbed combination itself providing a more realistic appearance (as opposed to a relatively large plastic container along side every turnout above the surface of the benchwork).  The disadvantage of this alternative is cost. Compared to the track-cork roadbed alternative it is more expensive. To me, the advantages outweighed the cost.
• To me, the configuration of the track was a difficult decision.  A useful resource for understanding how to create an interesting configuration is: John Armstrong, “Track Planning for Realistic Operation” (Kalmbach, 1998).  The author discusses and uses diagrams to show real-world railroad operations (“protoype” railroad concepts) that help to determine the “what” and the “why” of how track is laid out.  He covers such topics as, “loading and unloading products and passengers”, “assembling cars into trains”, and “specialized trackage and facilities.”  He concludes by making suggestions on suitable modeling projects of prototype railroads.  My decision was difficult because I knew I wanted to model a variety of landscapes, create interesting trackside operations such as mine or a saw mill, and lay track connecting everything in a way that operations would be fun and interesting.  In the end, I gave up being original and downloaded a track plan from Kato’s website.  It is their Amherst 2005 configuration. In another post, you will see its configuration.