I'm impressed, that's some thorough thread dredging. Ten and a half years since there was a post here... There's some truth in it. I fully expected to have to do nasty things to my C-liners after hearing them go clickety-clack over the ties on Atlas flex, but neither ME nor Peco has that problem.
The orignal poll and posting here was in 2002 and it's getting close to flipping over to 2013. You'd think it would hardly be relevant today. Perhaps something better would have come along...not so. It's still the envy of most modelers and still in demand. Most layouts, I'ma aware of are being built with Atlas Code 55. The older ones are being converted however, the cost for some modelers is prohibitive. I like it but as of yet... I don't have any on my layout.
In reading through this, it has been amusing to see the deviations from the original post. Only one person seemed to realise that Peco code 55 "IS NOT" code 55, the tyrade against the NMRA was irrelevant to the original question.
It's funny that someone replied to this thread, as it is indeed over 10 years old. Oddly enough, I checked it out myself just the other day. So here's my two cents worth with regards to Atlas Code 55 track products. I find that the quality of their turnouts to be hit or miss. I have had issues with "raised" frogs that needed significant filing to get them level with the rest of the track, as well as having points coming loose and falling off. Visually they look nice, but to me they seem flimsy and delicate and require some care during installation to ensure smooth operation. Not to mention that supplies of turnouts as of now are almost non-existent with no indication as to availability in the near future. And there is also the issue with older cars and track compatibility... I've thought of ripping out my Atlas turnouts and replacing them with Peco, but I probably won't as hobby dollars are scarce and best spent elsewhere. But I definitely will be using Peco turnouts on any future layout expansion projects. They are always available and are an excellent product. Like I said, just my two cents worth. Others may have had less hassle with Atlas turnouts than was my experience, but I for one have kind of soured on them. Frank B.
Ahh the weekly track rant thread, wouldn't be the World Wide Web without one. 10 years later and still going strong...
Yes, but with so many dead horses to beat and many modelers with to much time thinking, what could be, we must keep moving back to the future.
OTOH- We just might learn something, from seeing what actually transpired. What came to pass, what did not. We've had many a past topic brought forward, which to some might seem dead horses, to others not so. There is absolutely no harm in looking at where we have been and where we are now.
I'm seriously considering using ME flex track. Just how hard is it to get smooth curves in it? I hear it's kind of stiff.
The Atlas track, both 80 and 55 has one rail firmly fixed to the ties and one that simply slides. This makes it easy to bend, although it creates guage problems sometimes and the track won't retain any particular curve. The ME track has both rails held fairly tight in the ties, so bending curves takes a bit more time and care, but it retains it curve and generally stays in gauge. It is superior in appearance. When first bent it makes snapping and cracking noises as the plastic opos free of the NS. It is easier to start from the middle of the stick and work to the ends. Don't be too concerned as to the price difference as Atlas is 30" and ME 36. I find laying ME to actually be easier, as you can form a curve to your satisfaction and then glue down, not fighting it all the way. Bill Pearce
I guess if you like ties that are too long with a bunch of flash and a severe draft angle, then yeah ME is superior. ME has better tie plate detail, that's it. Jason
If you ballast like the prototype, the draft angle shouldn't be visible. Flash didn't used to be a problem, but I think they redid the molds. Perhaps just shoddy manufacturing. Haven't seen the new code 40, but understand that things are worse there. Tuies too long? never noticed. Bill Pearce
ME ties too long? I don't think so; I think you can sleep in peace Bill. The ME ties are 9' long, a standard the Santa Fe used during your era and mine and most modern Class A's use today....a longer tie simply spreads heavier loads better. But I would argue the ME track looks better even representing the older standard 8-6" ties: if you place our fat oversize code 55 rail such that the inside gauge is correct (9mm = 4'-8.929") the outside of the rail base will necessarily sit too close to the end of the tie unless you compensate for it by using a slightly longer tie. Other than the outsized "spikes", that to me is another reason why Atlas doesn't look as good compared to ME. Now for branch line or secondary trackage, the ties should be shorter (and spaced farther apart) but since we're talking code 55....the rail size would bother me much more that tie length being off by 6 scale inches. It seems ME has had some quality control problems lately, and I sure hope they can fix it, but that's a different conversation. Regards, Otto K.
You can get smoother curves than Atlas, you just need to work the ties a little more. I got ME track strictly for the pre-weathered variety and the concrete tie track. I had most of my trackwork up for a couple years before I caulked it down, and thanks to the stiffness of ME track, a few map pins held down the track onto the roadbed and I didn't lose my curves. Thing is, if you get the concrete tie track, note that it's .020" taller than the wooden tie track (and Atlas C55). So prepare to make some sort of transition or prop up the non-concrete tie sections with .020" styrene strips.
For someone who has yet to buy his first segment of N-scale track, this thread is both timely and a bit scary. Reading through from the beginning, I realized a) there's a lot of love for Peco 55 but sadness its hard to find, b) frustration with Atlas for doing something many considered dastardly and c) I still don't know who has a larger line of switches. Back to the interwebs! Cheers, bob
Otto, Thanks! I can't imagine how people have gotten their panties in a wad over an extra scale three inches at each end of the ties. Sounds like a time for one of those old Pepsi challenges and find out who can tell. Bill
Personally I prefer Atlas code 55, and for turnouts, I'd say they have the larger selection. As for those that say you have to have wheels turned and swap everything because its outside of NMRA specs, not true, Atlas code 55 is within NMRA practices, its the large flanges and pizza cutters that are not.
Otto and Bill, a couple of years ago, I did some research into heavily trafficked, moderately trafficked and lightly trafficked track and if there was a difference in tie measurements, spacing and materials used. I didn't bother with rail sizes since only code 55 and code 40 have any significance in N-scale. I accessed Union Pacific's track standards, which used to be available online on the Union Pacific website (maybe they still are), and I compared the only two brands of flextracks that stood a chance of being "correct" for any of the measurements I was going to get...Atlas 55, ME 55 and ME 40. The results I got were interesting and frustrating at the same time. I discovered that the ME's tie lengths were spot on for heavily trafficked trackage, that Atlas's were spot on for moderately trafficked trackage, and ME's code 40 flex's ties were just right for lightly trafficked trackage. Cool...but, I discovered that ME's tie spacing was perfect for moderately trafficked trackage, Atlas 55 was just right for heavily trafficked trackage and ME code 40 was just right for lightly trafficked trackage. Hmmm...ME's ties are perfect for heavily trafficked trackage, but the spacing is perfect for moderatly trafficked trackage, wheras Atlas 55's ties are just the right length for moderately trafficked trackage, but spaced just right for heavily trafficked trackage!!!!! Arrggghhh...!!!! After I quite "arghhhhing", I decided that I would lay Atlas 55 for heavily trafficked trackage in spite of the shorter ties, because to me, the tie spacing is more visible than tie length, and use ME 55 for moderately trafficked trackage for the same reason. But, after laying some side by side, weathering it, ballasting it, then weathering the ballast...then, taking photos of it, Atlas track's huge doohickies representing spikes (?) were much too obvious for me and made the track look very toylike. So, I decided to just use ME 55 despite the broader tie spacing for both heavy and moderately trafficked trackage, and ME code 40 for lightly trafficked trackage. For trackage that is moderately trafficked, I cut the spacers between the ties and spread 'em out at least one RCH, like on my UP center sidings, so there is a noticeable difference in the tie spacing. For really ill-maintained, lightly trafficked trackage, I cut the tie spacers on ME code 40 flex, spread 'em out, and make quite a few ties obviously not perpendicular to the rails. This really makes that trackage stand out against well-maintained trackage. Works for me. PS...Turnout availability means NOTHING to me as I lay all my own turnouts. ME track looks much better to me than Atlas 55 because of ME's much smaller and more correct spikehead details...and, I like its stiffness...I know it is more durable and less liable to "pop" due to expansion and contraction than Atlas 55 floppy flex (derived from experience...not just blowing smoke).
