Wow, the code 80 stuff just looks horrible in comparison. I would like to see the various code 55 tracks side by side though.
No comparison- definitely the Atlas C55. Next to it, the Peco and Atlas C80 look like the N scale equivalent of the American Flyer "hi-rail" track in S scale.
I’m still working on the details of my new layout and I haven’t bought the track yet. I picked up a few code 55 turnouts on eBay just to check it out and they do look good. Yesterday, I bought a dozen sticks of code 80 for a portable staging area similar to pachyderm217’s, except mine will be removable for storage. I laid out the code 80 to see what it was going to look like and for a little while I was thinking of using the code 80 because it would be ballasted and maybe not that noticeable. Then I remembered the turnouts and quickly dropped that Idea. My LHS does not sell code 55, so I have to order everything. That is why my staging area isn’t done yet. They only had 1 package of rerailers and I cleaned them out of their total supply of flex (11 pieces). I was constantly running out to buy track pieces when I was building my first layout and I’m not going to be able to do that with code 55. So Jamie, I glad you revised this thread, because it was a good reminder for me to stay on track.:tb-cool:
Is it possible to use Peco's double flange Code 55 with Atlas Code 55 turnouts? I'm going to make the switch next month, and hearing how "fragile" atlas' c55 flex is and how durable Peco's is, I'm wondering if it could work. Anyone use this method?
I can not answer this question, but I can let you know that even the Peco Code 55 track has the same tie spacing as the Peco Code 80 track, which is just too unrealistic for my taste. However, the Peco track is a VERY GOOD product. Have not heard anything about the Atlas Code 55 being fragile--I have been pretty rough with it and it seems to snap back wash after wash. Jamie PS: I also have a bunch of Micro Engineering Code 55 flex (concrete tie) on hand--not sure why I did not include this in my comparison photos. I'll snap a few new pics this evening and post them. I have too much stuff!
ATlas's code 55 is probably the best buy you are ever going to get in N scale for the next 10 years. There is a trade off, with the cast points/frogs (out of a copper based metal) but you can't beat the price, If Peco comes out with a code 55 (true version) its going to cost an arm and a leg for the turnouts. Even Micro engineering turnouts (*number 6 only) list for 15 dollars. Get while you can at these prices. because one day the bubble is going to pop. Rob
Mixing Peco and Atlas code 55 is not a great Idea, why? if your not what I call an experienced modeler, (10 to 20 years?) or very accomplished beginner, your going to run into problems interfacing the two different rail sizes. Note: I'm not saying it can't be done, I'm saying that the results are iffy at best and looks terrible to boot! (tie spacing on the Peco is way off US prototype verses Atlas's code 55 being right on the money) Use one or the other not both. If I was concerned about track strength in a helix, I might use the code 80/55 from Peco, but only on hidden trackage. The only advantage today is its almost bullet proof. Rob
Atlas Code 55 I have used about two hundred feet and really liked this stuff. I like to think my track work is bullet proof, no derailments. I have yet to install any switch machines. Code 55 compliant wheels (micro train, fox vally, intermountain) work great, most Kato wheels work well. The only problem is with the prefeb track sections I used in my helix. Wheels still hit the tie heads. Not a huge problem since I found how easy it really was to lay flex track in the helix. I have in the past used Peco and it is very robust, just not very realistic. Comparing Atlas to Peco makes the Atlas seem flimsy, but I have not had a single failure with the Atlas product. Stewart
I've never done this because I don't have any Peco code 55, but I have heard that it is actually fairly easy to connect Peco code 55 and Atlas code 55. You file off the bottom part of the Peco track up to the bottom of the second flange and you can connect the Peco and Atlas using rail joiners just like you would with two pieces of Atlas code 55. It would be a lot of trouble to mix and match the two types(and I agree it wouldn't look good), but if you are wanting to use Peco on part of the layout, such as in staging, or you already have Peco and want to add on with Atlas, it shouldn't be to difficult.
Yeah, I'll go with C80 in staging, and Atlas C55 everywhere else. I still havn't decided if I want to use C40 on industrial stub tracks though.
CSX Robert, Yes, for someone whom has done trackwork before (at least a few times) the techique is not to difficult. But in general, as a percentage, some folks find trackwork the most difficult, and trying to blend two different sizes of rail and ties can be a pain in the backside. Especially if they are short of patience and "rush" the job. It needs to be done carefully. Not just "banged" together, (like I've seen on some layouts) including my own in my earlier days, (believe me everyone goes through the wacking them together stage at sometime or another) its one area of modeling that needs concentration, and precision. Rob
I'm planning on doing the same, although in my case with Shinohara Code 70 switches and flextrack. Haven't checked the profiles yet but hopefully it won't be too hard.
Just my thoughts on this subject. I have used just about every manufacturers track with the exception of Kato and I used Atlas code 55 on my present layout which I constructed back in 2004 and have added to over the years. I looked at the Micro Engineering code 55 and ordered some of their track and turnouts, the turnouts that arrived were defective and at the time more expensive, the track was very stiff and hard to get a smooth radius but doable but again more expensive than the atlas code 55. Based on price and component availability I went with atlas code 55 and yes I did had to replace wheels on near all of my rolling stock which had MT trucks and couplers, I purchased the plastic MT low profile wheels by the 100's as I have a lot of rolling stock and frankly I have never had an issue with the plastic wheels picking up more gunk than the metal wheels that are available, and see no other operational advantage and have been in N scale since 1972. Locos that were of the older ones with Pizza cutter wheels needed to have the flanges turned down so I purchased a mini lathe for doing that task and when procuring new locos I made sure they would operate on Atlas code 55 track. As for turnouts I used Tortoise actuators and powered the frogs and have never ever had an issue with any of the 150 plus that are on my layout. Atlas has resolved the lack of track issue and all is now available, yes a little over a year that the supply of Atlas code 55 was not available but that is now behind Atlas.
. There are less derailments and better electrical contact because of the higher rails, but this is only from what I’ve read. I don't know where you have heard this stuff, but it belong in the dustbin of history. The height of the rail has no effect on derailments, as others have said, and there is no improvement in electrical contact whatsoever. That and the fact that it's ugly made it a non starter for me, but I cheaped out and used it for hidden areas and a helix. A huge mistake. The code 80 and code 55 didn't mate well, and it responds to the heat and humidity changes in the wood is a very embarasing way.
The Atlas track is 6" shorter in length than the ME flex, and the ME flex comes in different versions: Concrete Tie, Wooden Tie and Bridge Track. You can also get them pre-weathered or standard. I use ME flex for the looks and variety and Atlas turnouts and sectional track.
