A Question about ME code 55 track

Does anyone use it and what are it's up and down sides?

Just wondering with Atlas code 55 non-available.

Thanks in advance.

 

ME C55 is very stiff (especially the pre-weathered stuff), difficult to work into a smooth curve, and extremely difficult to work into straight.
The rail joiners are a PITA to slide on (I've shoved a couple into my thumb!) and need to be "worked" open a little.
ME turnouts come only in #6 and have a throwbar that has a very small hole and can easily break.
The metal pad underneath to power the frog is also a PITA to solder.

The good:
--once a curve is formed, it holds without pins.
--it's made in USA
--rail spike details don't rise up as high as Atlas C55 so there's no bumping along from flanges (even lo-pro).

Some people really like ME flex and prefer it to Atlas or Peco.
I prefer how Atlas bends into more "natural" curves, and all the micro-bends that appear in ME flex drives me nuts.
If I didn't already have a stockpile of it, I would wait for Atlas.
Use the time to learn to handlay turnouts while you're waiting.
But that's me.

Perhaps you can get a couple sticks of ME to play with and get the feel yourself.

 

I've worked with the ME code 70 bridge track. Is the code 55 harder to work with or comparable?


I'm assuming that Atlas turnouts can be used with the ME flex track.

 

I laid out a switching yard recently with 18 of the ME switches and ME flex track. I am pleased with them because they appear to be the most realistic manufactured switch. I particular like the thin plastic tiebar and correctly spaced, long ties for the switch stand along with very small rail spikes. However, i went in with the attitude that I would treat them as almost handlaid but hopefully quicker! So, I learnt about all the hand-laying tricks in case I had to make any adjustments. As expected, the main essential adjustment was checking the wheel-spacing of all locomotives and adjusting as necessary to NMRA specs. The main preparation is soldering three wires underneath to the two stock rails and the frog. I do these underneath the rail, so they are not visible. I then drill four 1/4 inch holes in the roadbed, for the three wires plus one for the center of the tiebar. I use A Tortoise underneath to move the tiebar and switch polarity on the frog. I make three adjustments to the switch: 1. I remove the very weak spring and snug the the tie behind the tiebar, up to the tiebar to keep the switch rail retained in place. 2. I check check the height of the cast frog and give it a few strokes with a swiss file to bring it level with the fixed rails. 3. I check the dimensions with the NMRA gauge but this is not usually an issue. The switches are the relatively new (24+ months), DCC compatible version with isolated frogs. The switches are all #6 which is a good compromise between smooth operation and laying out a yard ladder in a reasonable length or a good cross-over between tracks. I use 1.25 inch spacing for most tracks but 1.5 inches where I want to have switch stands between the tracks. I have used just the ME flex track for 20-years and it has been reliable. The other half of my layout is PECO Code 55 and has been very reliable for 20 years and it is much easier to use but not as pretty! People say that the PECO switches are expensive but the sprung tiebar is awesome and it eliminates the need for a switch machine and lots of extra wiring. I laid out the ME Code 55 switching yard with 1/4 inch basswood and 3/4 plywood to give a solid flat surface for the yard and the switch machines. Now I can run freight trains at 120 scale mph and the Kato COLA at 180 mph. Obviously too fast but I wanted to prove that I had put together a reliable layout for lower speeds! Also, I have young kids that want to run trains fast! I can also back long trains into the yard but I use MT cars with pizza-cutters which make it much easier.
The PECO track has amazing rail conductivity and rail-joiners work really well, so I have run for years without additional feeders. By contrast, you need a feeder to each section of ME Code 55. Also the the ME joiners are very tight, so you need to make a rail-joiner/loosener and application tool (sharpened piece of rail). Or just use loose rail joiners form Atlas. ME makes for a pretty layout which is compact, photogenic and runs well with some attention. The ME switches are made in St Louis and have been out of stock for about six weeks. But they are scheduled to be in-stock in the next week. I hope this helps!

 

Forgive my newbie-ness but what does "ME" stand for?

-------------------------------
Mike Grant
It's never too late to have a happy childhood!!
-------------------------------
http://nhelectricreps.net

 

ME is Micro Engineering, a model railroad manufacturer based in St. Louis that actually makes things in the USA. They make high quality track for N and HO scales and some very good plastic bridges.

 

If you plan on using hidden staging, by all means, use Atlas code 80 flex.

 

Thanks!!

----------------------------------------------
Mike Grant
It's never too late to have a happy childhood!!
----------------------------------------------
http://myhealthyway.net

 

I've used nothing but Micro Engineering (ME) flex for my modules and layouts for 30+ years. However, I've laid (on customers and friends') modules and layouts a variety of other track products including Atlas 55 and ME products, so I can give you a good comparison between them.

Atlas 55 Advantages:
(1) Many turnouts and crossing available in the Atlas 55 line
(2) Atlas 55 tie length is slightly short (a few thousandths) and is appropriate to what is most commonly used in North America as a "standard length" tie by most prototype railroads, and is appropriate for some Class 1 railroads' "Medium Duty" trackage
(3) Atlas 55 is "floppy", meaning it won't naturally stay to the curve you bend it to (unless you nail it or "spot-glue" it with CA), but follows a "natural" curve instead (Some people really like this, others don't)
(4) Atlas 55 rail joiners are looser than ME's, which means they're easier to put on, but won't hold the track in alignment as well. Some people think "ease" is more important than "precision" (Some people really like this, others don't)
(5) Atlas 55 ties are "square" on the ends with little "draft" overall
(6) Atlas 55 turnouts are DCC friendly

ME Advantages:
(1) ME is available in code 70, code 55 and code 40 (actually code 43) rail heights.
(2) ME is also available in code 55 concrete-tie flex track
(3) ME is available with "weathered" or pre-blackened rail
(4) ME flex track length is a true "yard" or 36 inches which decreases its "per-inch" cost
(5) ME's rail joiners are very tight fitting, for excellent track alignment, which some people don't like, while others do.
(6) ME has the smallest, best looking "spikeheads" of any RTR track
(7) ME code 55 won't interfere with large pizza-cutter flanges on some N-gauge engines and rolling stock
(8) ME is stiff, and stays in place when curved allowing you to exactly align your trackage to your specifications, which some people don't like, while others do
(9) ME ties are slightly longer (a few thousandths of an inch) which comply to some Class 1's "Heavy Duty" trackage requirements, which some people don't like, while others do
(10) ME #6 turnouts are correctly proportioned with appropriate diverging track radius
(11) ME #6 turnouts have true nickel silver closure points and frogs and are not plated
(12) ME #6 turnouts have "over-center" spring action on the throwbars allowing them to be thrown manually and used immediately without an auxiliary turnout throwing mechanism
(13) ME #6 turnouts are DCC friendly
(14) ME is available in code 70 and code 55 highly detailed and correctly proportioned bridge track
(15) ME flex and turnouts are made in the USA

Atlas 55 Disadvantages:
(1) Atlas 55 rail attachment protocol ("spikehead detail") is overly large and doesn't look anything like spikeheads
(2) Atlas 55 flex comes in a short 30" length which increases its "per-inch" cost
(3) Atlas 55 flex is "floppy" and won't hold to a curve you bend it to unless spot-glued or nailed, which is cumbersome for precision track alignment (some view this as an advantage, others don't)
(4) Atlas 55 turnouts are not proportioned correctly and are designed to have a significantly smaller diverging track radius than if they were designed to NMRA or prototype proportions
(6) Atlas 55 turnouts throwbars have no "keeper" mechanism and require an additional throwing mechanism before they can be reliably used adding to their cost and installation complexity
(7) Atlas 55 turnouts have non-nickel silver castings for their closure points which are plated. This plating wears off quickly due to normal track cleaning procedures
(8) Atlas 55 turnouts have a non-nickel silver casting for their frogs which are plated. This plating wears off quickly due to normal track cleaning procedures
(9) Atlas 55 track, turnouts, bridges, crossovers all have NMRA compliant rail attachment protocols, but which don't allow non-NMRA-compliant flanges (deep pizza cutters) to roll without interference
(10) Atlas 55 #5 turnouts have a bad reputation as being troublesome probably due to their shortened non-NMRA lengths which demand a smaller diverging track radius
(11) Atlas 55 track has periodic quality control issues and should be checked before installing on the layout or module
(12) Atlas 55 track is made in China and production has been held up due to economic problems in China and some products are difficult, if not impossible to find at the present moment

Micro Engineering Disadvantages:
(1) ME flex track is stiff and doesn't follow a "natural" curve and takes longer to align (some view this as an advantage, others view it as a disadvantage)
(2) ME track has no spike holes or pilot holes to allow rail nails to hold it down (some view this as an advantage, others do not)
(3) ME track has a bit of "flash" that must be removed prior to running trains
(4) ME turnouts are only available in a #6 size
(5) ME rail joiners are very tight and can puncture your thumb if you're not smart enough to use pliers (hahaha) (some view this as an advantage, others complain about it a lot)
(6) ME ties are longer than the "standard" prototype tie lengths, but are perfect for some Class 1 roads' "Heavy Duty" trackage (such as the UP) which require longer ties for their heavily trafficked sections
(7) ME ties are not very square with pronounced "draft" and with some rounded ends
(8) ME track suffers from periodic quality control problems and should be checked before installation on the layout or module
(9) ME track has short periods of unavailability due to increased demand or small manufacturing runs

You'll note that some items are not strictly "advantages" or "disadvantages" because some people like them, others dislike them.

However, for myself, I use only ME flex for my code 55 mainlines because I prefer its significantly smaller and more photogenic spikehead details over Atlas 55's, which are very unprototypical looking and large.

I also much prefer "stiff" ME flex because I want to lay it to my precise center lines rather than allow it to flop around to a "natural" curve. But, some people whose modeling I highly respect really like that floppiness...but not me.

Don't believe it when you read that ME stiff track is more "difficult" to lay than Atlas 55. It involves a different technique and doesn't respond to the same track laying techniques that are okay for Atlas track.

I also prefer the ME #6 turnouts over the equivalent Atlas #7's and always use them on customer and friend "builds" just because the ME turnouts rails are robustly built and are properly proportioned.
Here's a direct comparison of an old ME #6 (top) vs an Atlas #7, which should be noticeably longer than the ME #6, but isn't:


Here's a diagram of prototype turnouts and as you can see, the #7 is significantly longer than the #6:


This is particularly evident with the Atlas #10, but also evident from both a cosmetic and operational aspect in their other turnouts particularly their #5 which still suffers from a bad reputation due to a significantly smaller diverging track radius than it would have if NMRA and prototype proportions had been followed.

In my opinion, if I were not hand-laying my own turnouts, I would use Micro Engineering code 55 flex and ME #6 turnouts as well as Atlas 55 #10 turnouts, Atlas 55 curved turnouts, and Atlas 55 crossovers.

Both Atlas and ME make some really nice bridges and I've used both of their products to kit-bash several bridges on my layout. Here's a photo of two kit-bashed girder bridges that very closely represent the original plate-girder bridges built over the Lincoln Highway at Echo in the 1930's, the nearest bridge being chiefly comprised of Atlas parts, the other one being made up of ME parts with both having several Styrene and wooden scratchbuilt parts along with Archer Rivet Decals:


Finally, ME offers several different styles of track that are simply not available by any other manufacturer such as their bridge track, or their weathered rail flex in both wooden ties and concrete ties...and lastly, their code 40 flex (which can only be used with true low-pro flanges).

Cheerio!
Bob Gilmore

 

Mr. Gilmore has pretty much said it like it is.

As an opinion, I would use (and I did) ME over Atlas flex any day. Switches, OTOH, are another thing. I wish ME had some higher frog numbers, but they don't so it was Atlas.

 

So Robert, got another head cold? [winkies]

 

DKS,

No flu today. Just a snowy Sunday and I don't feel like shoveling snow...(just like shoveling something else!! Haha!). OP asked for it, so I gave it to him, and frankly the question can't be answered in 50 words or less. I'll use this as a reference for the next time this question comes up (it will) so I don't have to provide anything but a link...and neither will anybody else.

Only thing I didn't supply was a photo of both Atlas 55 and the new ME 55 since my photo is of Atlas 55 and Rail Craft 55 (much nicer than anything presently available) which unfortunately hasn't been available for almost a decade.

By the way, go get 'em with the TM infringement!...either that, or take money!

Cheerio!
Bob Gilmore

 

I know a lot of people have experience with ME Code 55, but I was considering using ME Code 40 on some of the siding and yard tracks on my layout. I know the strict use of low-pro wheels was mentioned, but does anyone have any more experience with it?

Alex

 

Thank You all so very much for the information. This is just what I was looking for. Robert, Thank You especially for the time you took with the information you provided.

 

I'm using it for my UP style center sidings, with code 55 #8's coming off the mainlines joining up with a code 55 #4 wye leading into the ME code 40 (actually code 43) center siding. When I laid it, I was not aware that the spikeheads were so high they'd interfere with locomotive's with "medium" flanges, and when I initially tested the siding, my Atlas GP9 bounced down the track about a locomotive length, then stopped. My Kato F3 also did the same thing. I didn't test any more engines, but got out my little sanding stick and went to work on the inner spikeheads. Took me about half an hour to get them down so there wasn't any more interference. That was because ya gotta sand carefully, not applying too much pressure (so you don't break them off) and taking small amounts of Delrin off so you don't completely sand them off.

I've still got to test engines that I will use on my center sidings during my regular operating sessions, as some may have deeper flanges than my Atlas Geeps and Kato F's. If they won't clear the ME 40 flex, I'll have to re-lay 'em with hand-laid PCB code 40.

Other than that, the stuff works GREAT!!...and looks great too.

Here's a photo of ME code 40 track with sanded inner spikeheads between two Rail Craft code 55 mainlines at my Emory Center Siding:


Interestingly when I was combining the shots with Helicon Focus, I zoomed in and I see quite a bit of flash between the ties. I'll take care of that with an Xacto knife and #11 blade before painting. ME flex is infamous for its flash, but it's easily removed.

However, for complicated trackwork, and if you have a lot of it, I think I'd go with hand laying your code 40 (43) on PCB ties (every fifth tie) as I have done on my Park City Yard and Branch. There are no clearance problems there because there are no "spikes" whatsoever. Just remember, even using ME code 40(43) flex, you're still going to have to hand-lay your turnouts since there are zero commercially available RTR code 40 turnouts.

Here's a photo that I've posted before of my hand-laid PCB code 40 track on my Park City Branch to show what code 40 track looks like when there is no spikehead detail along with one of my UP caboose superdetailing projects:


I'm still torn as to whether I like the hand-laid or the ME flex better. I guess it's a question of whether the details, if they're too big, are better left off, or applied and tolerated. I can see the logic in both points of view, but I'm still ambivalent, so I'll likely continue to use both code 40 track laying methods.

Cheerio!
Bob Gilmore

 

I second the use of hand laid code 40/43 rail! It makes a nice difference for sidings, yards and branch lines versus main lines. But if you need to use turnouts you will need to hand lay those too.

And Bob, you can always add N scale fishplates to the ties on your hand laid track if you want it to look better. I think it was Proto87 that makes them in N scale as well as HO.

 

Hmm, that was my primary concern with the Code 40 Flex. I am already handlaying all my turnouts so laying the track wouldn't be too much more trouble, but the flex would be nice if it worked. I do have much newer Atlas GP38's and the new Kato SD40-2s, as well as a few FVM Gevos I'd be running on the track, so I guess the best thing to do is just get a few test pieces and see! Although, the sanded spikeheads looked pretty darn good..

Thanks for the information, Bob!

Alex

 

I am not a rivet counter, however I have been using Atlas code 55 since 2004 and chose it over the ME as it was easier to work with and there was a wider choice of turn outs and other components offered.
The other thing that I liked about it was the price as it was less than ME and I currently have over 300 feet of the Atlas code 55 on my layout.
Note: when Atlas gets back into production I think there will be a price hike on all their track as they have been out of the market for so long and most everything plastic has gone up in cost.

My second choice would be ME code 55 and Peco third!