Please select the answer that best fits your opinion of what modellers will be saying about Atlas code 55 2 years from now.
The third choice was poorly worded, as to code and brand. For example I use code 55 Peco, and will be using code 80 for hidden track area's and staging.
MT is supposed to start including LP wheels with their future releases. Plus, they have released 100 pack of LP wheeles. The track is fine as is and I am happy with Atlas staying with the current tooling. I think Atlas code 55 will pick up when more track variety released.
I don't model in Atlas code 55, nor have even seen it. While I have nothing against it, I do think that it will take some time for it to become the standard as code 80 is today. The main issues that will slow it's momentum is the slow release of track variety (turnouts), and the compatibility issues with older wheel sets. It's going to take time for everyone to convert (if they want to). You have to keep in mind that not too many are ready to rip out their code 80 for code 55. I'm sure that 10 years from now, anyone getting into the scale (or rebuilding) will probably go code 55.
Although my switching layout is C80, any further layouts are going to be C55. I have accumulated a pile of ME C55 trackage for that purpose. Eventually I may rip out the C80 on my switching layout, and put the new Atlas track in, but that'll have to wait til they've got a fair amount available.
ok, now lemme see if I have this straight..... code 80 is the normal hight of the rails, like in atlas sectional track, and such. (.8mm high) so code 55 would be shorter and more realistic, right? I dunno, it's all the same to me
I just wonder how successful it will be. I for one will not tear up a hundred feet of code 80 flex track and ?? switches to convert to code 55. I'd rather spend my dough on some new MT's. BTW I understand that MT wheelsets don't work too well on this track. Something to do with flange depth, I believe.
Code 80 track is not .8 mm as stated above but is, in fact 80/1000 or 8/100 of an inch high, wheras code 55 is 55/1000 of an inch high. Scaled up, I beleve that code 80 rail would be the equivilant of about 220 lb rail (220lbs per yard) while code 55 is the equivilant of 136 lb rail (about as heavy as it gets). Someone can correct me if i'm wrong, but i'm pretty sure that i'm close. Cheers. Terry
Terry - your measurements check out. Actually code 55 is more like mainline rail weight, while branchline and spur track would be more like code 35 or 40. Grantha- actually that is why there is controversy surrounding the new Atlas track - is because of the flange interference between MT cars and older locomotives because of a design compromise Atlas made to strengthten the track. Some loco and cars flanges have trouble with the frogs on the turnouts too. The beef is that Peco and Micro Engineering code 55 track does not have flange interference problems with all but the really old "pizza cutter wheels", so why does Atlas?
The only "controversy" is the fact that m-t has BLATANTLY ignored the NMRA standards for flange depth. Since they ignored it, Atlas has been ripped for FOLLOWING it. I don't understand the backlash against Atlas, the track has a look that makes all others pale by comparison (EVEN M-E code 55 track has ties that are WAY too large!!!). While I realize $1 per car to retrofit LP wheelsets seems high (especialy if you have a large collection of M-T cars and others with trucks replaced by M-T's), look at $1 vs what you paid for the car itself. Minimal investment in comparison. As N-Scale continues it's movement towards "greater realism" (as compared to "being prototypical") others who have yet to make the switch from HO to N will find it harder and harder to ignore a much better scale to model. Flame away, this volunteer fireman can TAKE the heat!!!
The fact is that there are no NMRA "standards" for N scale, only "recomended practices", none of which have ever been enforced in N scale. For Atlas to arrogantly obsolete whole fleets of locmotives and freight cars in the name of progress is just plain ridiculous, especially when other manufacturers as stated above can make more realistic track that exceed those "recommended practices" without the flange interference problems. And then to cite never used "recommended practices" as the defense for a compromised product just throws gas on the fire. Yes, MT going to low pros on new cars is commendable- many have been pushing for this since before the controversy, and reducing the price of the bulk pack wheels is a step in the right direction. It still does nothing to address those with large fleets and irreplaceable older steam locomotives.
I have the same problems as everyone else with wheel flanges. Having said that, I congratulate Atlas for the advancement, and MAY just relay all the track on visible portions of my layout some day..... I think the naysayers will eventually sound like the minority who try to justify the prototype roads going back to steam! Another example - who would argue going back to a 1970 Pinto design, just to keep compatible with older models? I know its not a perfect analogy, but, progress defines human history and comes in fits and starts. We have got to move forward or we will be moving backwards!
Atlas is within the recommended practices. If you don't like the track then don't use it. I have some and I like it. I like it enough to use it when I build my first layout. Atlas put out a fine product. If they had left it with the smaller spikes what would modeler be saying when it fell a part on them? They would say, "its junk and that Atlas should never had released it." So in short, Atlas could never win the battle, yet no one wants to attack M-T the way they do Atlas. I wonder why?
Nick - MT is under scrutiny here as well - they have made steps to conform to the practices- but not far enough. I am not defending either company. As to use of atlas track unfortunately no, I and others will not be able to use it, which is a shame because it truly could have revolutionised the scale. Again I state that ME and Peco ARE able to produce track that is usable. If Atlas must make a compromise to either be strong or be incompatible with other products - Again it shows the product has a design weakness. The difference between a standard and a recomended practice is that a standard has teeth and is enforceable through fines, sanctions or possibly banning of a product - recomended practices is just that - a suggested practice that a manufacturer may or may not elect to participate in - this is the flaw with the NMRA in N Scale - none of the practices have any teeth and therefore have little use. It is sort of like Microsoft making products that are only compatible with their own, Atlas and MT have elected to make products that are compatible only with their own products as well, to the detriment of existing and competitive products. Look at it this way - when going to the supermarket - which chicken would you buy - the one that "barely meets USDA standards" or the one that "exceeds USDA standards" or car buying - the car " that meets safety standards" or the one that "exceeds safety standards" ME and Peco track exceeds the practice, while Atlas only meets it - this was never an issue in the past, since only Arnold pizza cutters ever had interference problems with ME and Peco. True - MT flanges appearence wise have always been a problem, but was never an operational issue until the advent of Atlas 55. NMRA practices barely made a blip on most N scalers radar screen until the advent of atlas 55. [ 19 May 2002, 17:29: Message edited by: ajb ]
The poll choices don't reflect how I feel about the Code 55..... I have used the lack of Code 55 as an "excuse" not to build a layout for many years. I was "spoiled" by handlaid Code 70 HO track prior to entering N Scale so cannot see investing in a layout with the crude tie spacing of the standard N Scale track. MicroEngineering and Atlas removed that crutch and I am in process of building the layout. Code 55 isn't for everybody. The rail size is really tiny, and has physical limitations as to strength beyond the wheelflange issue. The "Breakthrough" product would be Code 70 track that had the same appearance as ME or Atlas Code 55, but with commercial distribution and rugged construction. Code 78 track is unecessarily high rail for normal use.... Peco was not interested in doing a track for the North American Marketp; maybe somebody else will satisfy the need for a robust product with good appearance. For my home layout I will be using ME, and increasingly, the new Atlas Code 55 line along with handlaid where necessary.
Hmmm Charlie - code 70 with US tie spacing, durable rugged construction, with commercial distribution - do I smell opportunity for new and improved Unitrack code 70? [ 20 May 2002, 21:29: Message edited by: ajb ]
Just as your poll indicates the Atlas C55 will become the standard in N-Scale in time. Its called progress, and this will only make N-Scale better. The NMRA standards have been around for a long time (early 80's) I think? Its these standards that will make your equipment operate better if you try and adhere to them such as weight, wheel gauge, flange clearance, and track gauge. Try it, you might be surprised how well your equipment runs and stays on the track, instead of being on the ground. Jim
While I agree to the noble intent of the "recomended practices" of the NMRA- note that they are not standards - which are enforceable, sometimes they can be a hinderance to progress - this is the same NMRA that brought us the horn hook coupler in HO. The market place is the true standardizer.
