So here I am, deciding on a brand of track for my larger layout.... I have exhausted my supply of black-plastic code-80 on a simple coffee table layout and a practice engine shop shelf diorama- now it's time to move up to some track that will really show off my mostly-MT and top-shelf rolling stock, and my affinity for premium locos. What I want to know: -What brands are available? -What differences in quality can I expect? -What are the price differences by brand? (estimated of course) -Is there any limitation on mixing and matching brands? (do they all connect well?) -is the flex track more or less flexible than code 80? Now for the "mini contest" part- Show me a pic or two of your using of code 55 rail on your layout, and explain why you chose the brand you used/what you like about it. It's not a contest of skill so don't worry- anyone who participates will have their screennames drawn form a hat. I'll send whomever wins, a grab-bag of some little N scale stuff including an MT-equipped piece of N scale rolling stock! (continental US only- shipping international is a killer! haha) Thanks in advance all you N-scalers!!
FWIW, N Scale Supply has a big red warning on their Atlas C-55 flex page that says "Note: Atlas Code 55 track is not compatible with Micro-Trains wheels (standard flange size)" I think I saw this discussed on the AC-12 thread. Apparently the rail spike heads are too tall... But I don't have any C-55 at all, so I'm just reporting what I read.
I recommend you simply buy some samples of each, and form your own opinions (that's what I did!) (Atlas C55 user) Cheers, Mark
So it's a good thing I just bought like 30 Atlas low-profile metal wheelsets on clearance? I'll go get more.......
I'd go and buy some samples of each track and then go take a look at some of the member's layouts, here on railimages, to see what you think of the likes and dislikes of each track. This is one topic that you will find tons of info and opinions - on most any forum. Brian
I'm using Atlas code 55. I have one Peco code 55 switch (curved). I like the quality and robustness of the Peco switch but laying next to the fine Atlas code 55 it looks like a toy. I filed down the underside of the rail on the Peco switch to get it to mate up correctly with the Atlas track and I think it will work. I haven't ballasted yet so I'm still trying to figure out how to disguise the Peco ties so they don't look too out of place. Cost-wise: Peco is certainly more, but a lot of guys use the built-in spring on the turnout to maintain point closure, eliminating the cost of some other method. I'm using Caboose Industry ground throws all over and they're not too expensive. Since this is my first N scale layout, I didn't have a lot of rolling stock to worry about converting. I buy the 100 packs of low flange wheels and swap them out while watching TV (using my Optivisor to help these old eyes). The cars run like silk over the Atlas code 55 then. BTW - does anyone know when Atlas will have their curved turnouts available? I see them advertised but haven't located them anywhere yet. Once available, I might change out the one Peco curved turnout with the Atlas version.
I'm gonna go with Micro Engineering wood tie flex track and Atlas C55 turnouts. They have been said to be completely compatible. I hear ME flex is a little less flexible, more robust in other words. ME C55 flex is compatible with all flange sizes and Atlas has a large selection of turnout lengths. If you want really realistic looking track, I'd go with Arizona Rock and Mineral ballast. Personally I'm gonna go with undertable motorized switch machines. All of these things are reasonably priced, but can add up for large layouts.
Well as far as buying some? My LHS doesn't stock it. I've gotta drive half an hour over to Concord if I wanna even see the stuff. There are plenty of photos with '55 rail around here, yeah... but how the heck am I suppsoed to know the brand? And does the user even like it? I think I'll take that advice this week and invest in refleeting my stuff with low profile wheelsets, and while they're off I think I'll make a jig to repaint wheel faces in "rust" for a bit of the prototypical flair.... but I know if I pester people here enough I'll get the feedback I need with some example images!! LOL
I use Atlas, I like it alot. I was using Peco turnouts, but I have been doing all of my track for the last 6 month with Altas turnouts as well. The cost is right, the look is good, and the performance is great. I have swapped out wheels on my Micro-trains cars, but everything else (IM, Atlas, Kato) works well right out of the box. I consider it a MT problem, not an Atlas problem. If it were Atlas, my Kato locomotives wouldn't operate so well on it. Here are some pics... they might look familiar to some...
I'm gonna pretend that first pic was taken just for me BEAUTIFUL stuff Karl! Thank you for all the input! My roster consists of about the same- Proto2k, Atlas, IM, Kato, and a couple oddballs- but I'll be re-profiling the wheels on my old stuff if need be, especially if it looks like that on those rails
Ok, the brands are: Atlas, Micro Engineering and Peco. Atlas and Micro Engineering have the correct American tie spacing, Peco does not (English based). Advantage Atlas - cheapest and more prototypical in look, easy to bend flex, widely available. Disadvantage - The rail spike heads are a little large - solution - take a small screwdriver and run it along the inside bottom of the rail either side to flatten off the rail spike heads. Still need to change out pizza cutters though. Advantage Micro Engineering - no spike head problem, choice of concrete ties or wooden and choice of pre-weathered track. Disadvantage - harder to form curves (stiffer), expense. Advantage Peco - no problem with pizza cutters, and fully backwards compatible with older rolling stock. Electrically sound designs. Disadvantage - Non proto look, flex track stiffer due to the rail being sunk into the plastic base. Expensive. I chose Atlas after buying some of each and trialling them. Hope this helps a little.
I actually think the "Stiffness" of the ME track is an advantage; I can shape it to a certain radius and run by trains on it without permanently attaching it to the roadbed to see how it works out. I can always nudge the track if I wanna tweak with the radius.
I use ME flextrack, because it comes in concrete tie and wooden tie versions, and you can get it preweathered, like I did. I got my track from Ron at http://bigdiscounttrains.com/ I do use Atlas turnouts, a few sectional pieces and rail joiners, because they're more easily available. As you can see from the top pic, I superelevated my curves by adding strips of .020" Evergreen styrene under the outer rail.
Wow! If you use our search engine in the advanced mode and specify "code 55" and a search period of "Any Date" you'll get a ton of hits. But this thread has summarized what was once the "code wars" quite nicely. OK, pictures of C55. Well, here's one through the engine facility:
My rather infamous squiggly track image up on the second level: I used Atlas C55 in 2002, when I built the layout. ME switches were only sporadically available and limited to No. 6's. Take a look at my Railimages albums and blog (addresses in my signature below) and you'll see lots of other images.
Pete...I have seen lots of 'squiggly' rail...just outside Holbrook. I think you have 'prototypical' down to a science.... ;-)
Actually, I have to defend my track-laying skills. The squigglies appear in the distance and are actually up and down variations rather than side to side. Foreshortening just exaggerates the effect: up close the track is very straight. It took me a long time to realize that. You're looking at about a 19-foot run.
