Got news for you guys .The MT flanges will dance on your code 80 too. What ya gonna do when that happens? Switch to HO and code 100?
Remember, Peco being British has the British outline modeller foremost in it's mind. I think it is safe to say that 95% of British models are fitted with oversized flanges and who would provide a product for a domestic market that can't use it? Peco has used a different design philosophy to Atlas in it's Code 55 (and a good one at it!). Saying this, while it is fair to point the finger at Atlas for this 'apparent' oversight, to avoid reinventing the wheel I will refer those interested to the message archive of the Yahoo Clubs N Scale List (moderated by Bill Barr) and it's ongoing discussion of the pros and cons from all perspectives, including Atlas'. Essentially, the design criteria of the new Code 55 track is to provide realistic looking track that is easier to use than the competition (in this case ME) whilst providing a rugged build quality. Something has to give and if it's using smaller flanges on your wheelsets, so be it. The newest Atlas wheels (and those of many other manufacturers) have come part way towards providing a closer to prototype appearance and they will work on it's own track. I have to add that the standard MTL wheelsets do look way too oversized (as do many others). Why are they not dropped from the line? In the end, it is your choice to use it or not.
Okay i inadvertantly posted Paul Graf's reply to the Atlas form instead of Trainboard. Sometimes those "Senior Moments" strike without warning. One day I 'm going to string a couple of them together and have me a nice vacation. Anyway here is the gist of Paul's statement in event you don't want to read it on the Atlas forum. Atlas's original intent was to produce code 55 track and components that would be compatible with all manufacturer's products. However, production problems developed with the rails not being securley fastened to the tie strips. Aparently the molds were not properly filling the rail spike cavities which hold the rail. Thus the rail spike cavities were enlarged to allow this to occur. This solved that problem but the enlarged spike heads reduced the distance from the top of the rail to the spike head to .030 inches. This is still within NMRA secs but as we know not all equipment conforms to NMRA specs. Apparently Atlas is prohibited by patent from using the same system as ME or Peco to attache the rail to the ties. So what started out as a well intended product ran into problems and ended up with less than desired rsults.
I was going to ask this question on the Atlas forum, but some of the people there aren't as civil as the people here, so here it goes. I don't understand how smaller flanges allow for longer trains to be run. Can someone explain this? I am not trying to be difficult, I just don't understand. Also, I have over 650 freight cars that will need to be switched over from the MT regular flanges to the small flanges. These wheels sell for 13.95/pack. One pack does 12 cars. I would need 55 packs to convert all of my cars, and at 13.95/pack, that is $767 and change. For that amount, I could by enough of the code 80 track, switches, etc and build the second level on my layout. If I had $800 to spend on the layout, would I change over all of my rolling stock with smaller flanged wheels or build the second level with Atlas Code 80 track and be able to run my trains on it, what would I do........
Geeze what a bummer! I do like the idea of having all low profile wheels on all of my cars (which all have MT wheel sets) but the cost spent on that could be saved by buying Peco code 55. I haven't seen this brought up yet, but Peco's design of having the rail embeded in the ties leaves the inside of the rail spike free.
I am not sure I follow what the objection is to Peco track. compared to ME it is less expensive, more available and more durable. I am aware that it is european prototype. In a side by side comparison from a back issue of NSR. Atlas code 80 7.5 ties per inch 8' scale wide Peco 55 8 ties per inch 8.5' scale wide Kato Unitrack 7 ties per inch 8' wide ME 55 9 ties per inch 9' wide We probably all can agree that ME is the most realistic looking - but going by width and ties per inch and closer to scale hieght Peco is the next best choice over Atlas 80 or Kato. I don't see this as that major of a compromise - the prototype police may disagree though. The rail mounting method apparently makes Peco more desirable than the new Atlas 55 as well. I do believe that for all their realism and price MT cars should ditch the "tie cutter" flanges - they remind me of old Arnold equipment
The larger flanges provide larger surfaces that contact the inside edges of the rail. That causes increased friction and drag, especially on curves and through turnouts. Changing to wheels with smaller flanges reduces the drag and allows you to run longer trains. Mike - NYC1956
The larger flanges provide larger surfaces that contact the inside edges of the rail. That causes increased friction and drag, especially on curves and through turnouts. Changing to wheels with smaller flanges reduces the drag and allows you to run longer trains. Mike - NYC1956[/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]That is correct. One Ntrak club (I forget which one) conducted a test and found that there was a 20% increase in the number of cars equipped with MT low profilewheels versus regulat MT wheelsets that a given locomotive could pull. I believe there is a website that you can access that specializes in low profile wheels. They are pushing code 40. and have variuos skeleton turnouts available in code 40 among other things. They also will turn down locomotive wheel sets to operate on code 40. I think their name is Trainworx. Maybe someone can post their URL.
Thanks for the replies about the lower profile flanges. On my layout I have 15" minimum radius curves and 3% grades. If I switch to the lower profile wheels, will my long trains I run now (currently about 50 cars) derail as a result of the flanges not being as deep? I can understand NTRAK clubs wanting to switch to the smaller flanges to pull even longer trains on the 30"+ curves and zero grades, but what about people with a medium sized layout with smaller curves and grades? Is there more risk of derailing in curves due to the smaller flanges?
Short answer: NO Short answer: NO Qualifier to both: as long as your trackwork, couplers (hopefully body-mounted), and car weights meet standards. Everything has to work together - that's what standards are for. If track, couplers, and car weights are incorrect, even large flanges won't guarantee reliable performance. Mike - NYC1956
