I have used Peco Code 55, and I would use this again if I had to start again. No problem with any equipment, from older European "big flange" engines to Bachmann steamers (the 2-8-0 has real low flanges!!) or the occasional brass engine.
I would use some ME 55 next time...but have loved the Atlas 55 stuff. It's funny because before I used 55 the 80 stuff didn't bother me but now I can't stand the look of c80. When I see layouts that have great detail work done and they have c80 it seems like such a shame.
I'm starting from scratch so I'm going to go with Atlas C55. The only downside I can see is that if I decide to buy second hand rolling stock I'll need to make sure they've got small flanges, or change them.
I think the moderators do that just to avoid someone spamming the topic with ads for Nigerian banking schemes or xxx videos xxx. I am still kind of up in the air on this. I am a member of an NTrak club, so if I follow the standards and stick with the maximum interchangeability issue I would pretty much be using Atlas c80. I like the looks of the code 55 better, and for spur tracks I am even considering using code 40, perhaps Microengineering. When it comes to turnouts, I really like the FUNCTION of the Peco turnouts but I prefer the look of the ME turnouts. I will be using almost exclusively turnouts and flextrack. I don't care much for sectional track. Whatever I use, it will be ballasted pretty well, so the differences between the c80 and the c55 may be mostly moot. I know people who love Unitrack. I have to say that it's good for minimal hassle. I don't care much for the appearance or price, but anything properly ballasted and scenic'd should look just fine. Adam
If you're building module to be used with NTRAK, you will need to go with c80 per the spec. This is to accomodate whatever rolling stock comes down the track. For a home layout or other modular format that doesn't have the c80 restriction, go with what you like. If you choose Atlas c55 (my personal favorite), you will of course want to ensure you don't have any pizza cutter wheels. If you have guest ops who bring their own equipment, they would face the same restiction. Most stuff today has, or can be easily converted to low profile flanges.) Now, where did I put my flange file??
If ye thinks that ballasted code 80 and code 55 differences are visually "moot" perhaps you needith a all seeing eye dog! arrrh! The Reb
I was out for a while, so I'm going to try to catch up. I'm going to leave my current layout as is. I will give it to my son when he comes home from Iraq. I will probably continue to use my existing trains. I have all diesel locos. about 10 Atlas and 4 Bachman Spectrum's. I realy like the looks of the Intermountain [FONT="]F3A/B Union Pacific set and the [/FONT][FONT="]FTA&B [/FONT][FONT="]Santa Fe Warbonnet[/FONT][FONT="]Set and will probably purchase them. [/FONT]
[FONT="]I haven’t got around to ballasting my tracks yet, mainly because I keep changing things, so I don’t really know what it's going to look like. I defiantly got to get different turnouts. A lot of you mentioned ME 55 and to tell you the truth, I have never seen ME 55 track. When I finish here, I going to goggle search for some.[/FONT]
I was searching for info on ME 55 and found a lot of info on Peco 55. It appears that the Peco 55 is code 80-track set in thicker ties, which give it more strength, and connects to atlas Code 80 with just a little filing. This sound pretty good to me because I can use Atlas inside tunnels and hide the deeper track with ballast. These two turnouts really make a big difference to me, I don’t see anything like this in Atlas or ME. [FONT="][/FONT]
Your not going to be too happy with either of these, they need alot of tuning up before they are usable. Rob
Actually the first one does not need any tuning. It just needs a DPDT switch or a DCC reverser unit, cause the crossing in the middle must have correct polarity depending on route the for the engine to be able to traverse it. The second one (double slip) needs careful installation and maybe needs some filing inside the frog if engines has pizza cutters flanges - they have a tendency to slightly "climb" on the bottom of the frog thus resulting in an interruption of current pickup from the wheel involved, and if you don't have a good loco it could stall. Also this double slip MUST have two SPDT switches that should move together with the points and feed the frogs. Like every elecrofrog Peco piece of track, it needs additional feeding. And you definitely WANT a fed frog in N scale. And unless you are modeling SP San Francisco 3rd & Towsend, or another big passenger terminal in a big city they're not prototypical for a US railroad. Not talking about Peco's tie spacing and ugly, huge turnout points. Nothing beats Atlas turnouts when it comes down to relatively cheap, RTR products.
If I were to start over; I would use Micro Engineering. They make excellent track, & #6 TO would just have to see which #4 TO matchup with ME. More Prototypical than the others. Smooth as a Baby's bottom:thumbs_up:
I've always liked Micro Engineering, and I wish I could still use it. The only problem is that their #6 switch in Code 55 is out of production, and their Code 70 switch doesn't work with DCC without serious surgery. Their flex track is fine, but it doesn't really match up with Atlas switches (the rail is a different width). In any event, the weird nib-bump problem is in the Atlas switches too, so if you want to use Atlas switches and ME track, you still have to go with the low profile conversion route. At that point, there is no difference. I just sent for a tube of Code 40 rail and PC board ties. Ahhh heck, hand laying track on the layout is in the cards for me! :tb-biggrin:
I use ME flex and Atlas Turnouts. When painted, ballasted and weathered I think they match pretty nicely. I use low profile wheels on all my cars, not because of Atlas high spikes issue, but cause they look a lot better Handlaying code 55 on main and code 40 elsewhere would be great, if only it was not that time-consuming
I found this site that has photos of ME track and it certainly looks good, but they only have #6 switches. http://www.nscalesupply.com/MEE/MEE-Track.html [FONT="]I guess I can figure out something. Is an ME C70 the same dimension as the Atlas #6 C80 switches as far as layout size? I was just wondering what the track spacing would be, if I use 2 #6 switches to make a crossover.[/FONT]
I just recently sent my Texas layout into the trash for a move to Denver, CO. When (hopefully not "if") I start over, I will use Atlas Code 55. Looking forward to a house with a basement!!! No more garage layouts!!!
