TheRailwire
General Discussion => N and Z Scales => Topic started by: Baronjutter on January 16, 2014, 02:51:08 PM
-
So with atlas flex being MIA still and the price difference not actually that big, I'm thinking about pulling the trigger and ordering a load of ME c55 flex. I understand it is stiffer and harder towork with, but I really don't have a lot of curves so I'm not toooo worried.
Basically before I throw $200 at track I just want some feedback that I'm not making a huge mistake.
-
It is apparently stiffer, and some guys have had different experiences with it and wheels rubbing (or not) on the tie detail. But overall it seems to be well made and well used.
And it's the only game in town for the concrete cross tie look.
-
ME isn't too stiff, and the bit of stiffness allows it to retain its shape when curved, and makes forming a radius far easier than with Atlas flex.
I've worked with both, and both have their benefits. If you're looking to get started now, then by all means use ME flex and turnouts.
-
Awesome, I looked at some videos of people working with it and it doesn't seem that bad, certainly looks nice!
Well my layout will be peco turnouts and ME flex. I just want to get started and you know after running the numbers WITH shipping the ME track is only about 15% more expensive, not bad. And I'm fine spending that bit more for track made over here, Atlas should have moved their production to the states after their first chinese factory disaster.
-
I ordered some ME flex to see how it was to work with. It takes some doing to get a curve that's consistent, but there is a thread around here somewhere where LV Lou said putting the flex track in hot water (think bathtub) makes it flex much easier. Ah, here it is:
https://www.therailwire.net/forum/index.php?topic=28014.msg290452#msg290452
A couple of other notes... Micro Engineering code 55 flex track is cheaper per section than Atlas code 55 flex, and the ME track is 6 inches longer per section to boot. That adds up fast if you have a lot of track to lay.
Hmm... my small layout
only has 2 feet of track...
(http://bayouline.com/o2.gif)
-
I got my hands on some ME flex up at Caboose the last time I was in Denver. It's very stiff compared to Atlas, but not unreasonably so. That said, it won't form constant radius curves quite as naturally as does Atlas. For my money if I were using exclusively ME I would invest in those "curve sticks " or whatever they're called. They go in the gauge and you slide them through the curve to ensure constant curvature.
Atlas 55 sectional still seems widely available. It's worth considering doing your curved sections with that. I would solder the joints, but that's just me.
-
I'll just laser cut some curves my self, problem solved :)
Just did it... $200 track order placed. I can FINALLY start actually laying track in 7-14 days!!
-
I have used the metal radii templates by Ribbonrail to form ME flex into a constant radius curve.
Just fit the template between the rail and then work it along to form the curve.
-
Please tell me you made sure not to get the pre-weathered stuff. That stuff is miserable. Otherwise, it's good track.
-
Nope, no pre-weathering, found that out very quickly when I did my research.
Thanks for all the advise guys!
-
Congratulations on your decision to go with the most prototypical looking N-scale flex track that is currently being made.
If you've got the capability to laser cut your own curves, great! However, the old M1 Eyeball method works well with ME flex too...as well as for other flex tracks.
I've been using ME flex since the early '80's when it was known as Rail Craft, and it's always been more difficult to curve and get straight, but its appearance is exponentially better than either Peco 55 or any code 80 flex. It's also noticeably better looking than Atlas 55 in the "spikehead" dept, but the "wooden" tied version's ties are not as square as Atlas's ties and are slightly longer, imitating class 1, heavily trafficked tie specifications. They also have more relief and sometimes rounded ends on a few ties. If you're going to use any wooden-tied ME, just run a sanding block with 220 grit emery cloth attached over the tie ends for a quick solution to that cosmetic problem.
Since the track is a whole lot stiffer than Atlas floppy flex, the rail joiners are less necessary, and some modelers here are laying their ME concrete-tied flex without any rail joiners by staggering the rails at the joints and just inserting the protruding section of rail into the new flex piece which has had a corresponding length of track removed. If you insist on rail joiners, I cut my ME railjoiners into thirds so they're slightly less than the length of the space between ties (hafta cut them while they're mounted on a scrap piece of rail so's not to crush 'em). I also cut off the "tongue" which protrudes on the bottom of the rail joiner on either end and is useless IMO, just making the joiner longer.
I cut the spacers between ties for three ties on either side of where you're going to put the joiner and slide them back, stick the joiner on, solder it, then slide the ties back into place. The short joiner becomes virtually invisible when you do this, and you double the amount of joiners you've bought too.
Here are some photos of joining up ME flex (actually Rail Craft 55) using the shortened joiners:
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-HzTHRUmaxEA/UECHPbchRmI/AAAAAAAACqQ/boIbN-o2nZ8/s0/DSCN3869.JPG)
Here's photo of a short rail joiner on the top rail and a PCB feeder on the bottom rail. Hand-laid code 40. Sorry couldn't find a photo of painted-weathered-ballasted code 55 with a visible short rail joiner. As you can see, they virtually disappear:
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-DAM21ASCGas/UE_eKv0BZII/AAAAAAAACng/EVmotE821ok/s0/_DSC7909.JPG)
Since both ME rails are tightly clamped into place by their respective "spikeheads" (no loose rail), you gotta get both rails cut just right for the joint to be smoothly contiguous. If you want the joints to be in a particular spot, like between ties, then you need to have both pieces of flex mostly bent at the time you join 'em up. You can still do minor flexing to get the kinks out, but have them almost smooth or straight when you join them, either without joiners, or with soldered joiners.
Have fun! Your track will look fantastic once it's laid, painted, weathered and ballasted!
-
As Robert mentioned, you can skip joiners altogether. There is more discussion of this technique here: https://www.therailwire.net/forum/index.php?topic=24108.240
-
After that exchange, I installed the last of my layout without rail joiners and was happy with the result. It certainly does not affect performance in any way I could discern.
-
I believe rail joiners are not so much for connecting as to act as expansion joints, and keeping track aligned when the rails expand in hot weather.
-
I believe rail joiners are not so much for connecting as to act as expansion joints, and keeping track aligned when the rails expand in hot weather.
The idea here is to avoid joiners altogether because they're unsightly, and use the tie strips to hold the rails in alignment instead, leaving a gap--you don't need much--to allow for expansion. The only caveat is for tighter curves: one needs to over-bend the rails very slightly at the joints before laying the track to prevent subtle kinking (some careful planning to position joints at the best spots possible helps here, too). So, with just a little bit of extra work, you can achieve a cosmetically superior result.
-
I'm very happy with my concrete tie ME flex (which is good because it is the only US prototype concrete track available). I'm much less impressed with their current wood tie track for a couple of reasons:
1. It is very stiff. I have been laying a staging yard with it and it takes forever to get a piece of track dead straight. (I actually find it easier to get graceful curves from it than true straight sections.) I am using the weathered rail because I like the finish, but if I purchase any more, I will likely go with unweathered since that will be less stiff, and not hard to spray paint afterwards. (I tried the hot water soak and it didn't change a thing with the weathered rail.)
2. The ties at the ends of the track are actually offset from the center-line of the track so when you join them, there is an obvious jog in the ties:
(https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-9YoYw3tq2Ts/Utj9jtUaQlI/AAAAAAAAFyE/iAlZ1dm-m00/s640/DSCN3118.png)
The funny thing is, the offset has the same handedness on both ends, so you're stuck with it. Has it always been like this? In my case I'll be using wood tie track for industrial tracks, so this is not too big a deal, but still...
By the way, this is an example of a staggered joinerless joint. I've had my mainline in place with this technique for over a year now with zero issues, and it looks great (i.e. almost invisible). I'm very happy with it.
-Gary
P.S. I love the concrete tie track with weathered rail. It's not as stiff, the ties are well done, and it would be a royal pain to paint the rails without making a mess of the ties.
-
Gary,
I'm one of the few who actually prefers the flexibility of Atlas flextrack over ME. I have a tough time getting the curves smooth and, like you, the straight portions dead straight with ME track. This is much easier for me with Atlas track, where the track bends in a nice, continuous curve, and I don't have to fight tangent sections to make them straight. That loose rail in Atlas' track also makes it much easier for me to line up the next piece of track when installing it. I've heard that ME's weathered rail is something that you want to stay away from, because it compounds the problem of inflexibility.
To minimize your problem with the ties, perhaps you can take a straight edge razor blade and just nip the end of the first tie or two. That might make the offset less obvious.
As for your joinerless rail connections, I wouldn't be satisfied with what I see in this picture. Those rails are not as lined up as I prefer. Admittedly, your picture may just be a mock-up to show the problem with the ties, so your usual rail joints may be better. I'll stay with joiners, though.
DFF
-
The tie misalignment is actually pretty serious in my view. I'll go so far to say that it is an unacceptable tooling problem and the product is flawed, even if it is functional. This, together with the high amounts of flash on some of the bridge products, suggests to me that I will scrutinize ME products very carefully in the future. Kind of shocking, actually.
Having said that, I am happy to hear positive reports about the concrete track given that I plan to use this. I am not sure that the stiffness for bending is an issue for me- I do it once and it is done. So what if it takes a little more effort? Don't be railroad girlie men :lol:
How can weathering the rail increase the stiffness? Does it somehow adhere the rail to the tie more firmly? At first blush, I would choose the weathered rail to get a more finished look initially.
-
I am not sure that the stiffness for bending is an issue for me- I do it once and it is done. So what if it takes a little more effort? Don't be railroad girlie men :lol:
:x ;)
How can weathering the rail increase the stiffness? Does it somehow adhere the rail to the tie more firmly? At first blush, I would choose the weathered rail to get a more finished look initially.
My understanding is that the finish does not allow the rail to slide through the ties very well, plus, as soon as you bend the track, the non-weathered spots under the spikes become visible, so you have to touch up the rails or paint the track anyway.
-
That makes sense, thanks for clarifying. I agree, does not seem to be worth getting it pre-weathered.
-
As for your joinerless rail connections, I wouldn't be satisfied with what I see in this picture. Those rails are not as lined up as I prefer. Admittedly, your picture may just be a mock-up to show the problem with the ties, so your usual rail joints may be better. I'll stay with joiners, though.
Having built a few layouts this way, I can assure you the rails can and do line up properly. It is, admittedly, a bit more work than rail joiners, but the end result is really worth it, particularly for foreground track. That said, you ought to use the technique with which you're the most comfortable.
-
(https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-9YoYw3tq2Ts/Utj9jtUaQlI/AAAAAAAAFyE/iAlZ1dm-m00/s640/DSCN3118.png)
Wow!
That's not a good result.
-
Something is really whacked there. You can see, looking down the entire stretch of flex, that the ties "stick out" much more to one side than to the other. I did not have this problem in the 90s and early 2000s when I used ME flex.
I wonder if they have a die problem with the current runs of flex.
-
Something is really whacked there. You can see, looking down the entire stretch of flex, that the ties "stick out" much more to one side than to the other.
I just looked at six sections of my ME flex track. I see no ties sticking out more on one side than the other. By the way, I bought this flex track in 2013 from Fifer Hobby Supply.
Hmm... is there a Fifer
Banana Supply...?
(http://bayouline.com/o2.gif)
-
I would have loved the more modern look of concrete track but it always looks wierd to have all concrete track but then wood turnouts. Peco makes concrete track as well. But neither peco or ME make concrete turnouts!!
-
My steam-friendly "Hollywood Railroad" uses a lot of code 55 ME non-weathered flextrack and I'm very happy with it. Installation went easily and it's a superb looking product. Absolutely no issues with any wheel flanges bouncing off spike heads. As for mismatched ties, that's nothing a few minutes with a sharp hobby knife can't fix - just trim about five or six ties on each side to nullify the problem. Or turn the track section 180 degrees so both sides match.
-
The problem is more than a few ties and as Gary describes it, the problem can't be solved by rotating the track 180 degrees. This is a manufacturing defect.
-
I would have loved the more modern look of concrete track but it always looks wierd to have all concrete track but then wood turnouts. Peco makes concrete track as well. But neither peco or ME make concrete turnouts!!
Out here in California, there are many wooden turnouts even when the mainline has been upgraded by UP to concrete.
-Dave
-
I don't live anywhere near a working railway so I honestly have no idea what railways look like or operate like today, mostly it's all just via google that I find out. I thought if an area had concrete ties it would be concrete for everything, turnouts included?? Or do they sometimes just mix and match?
-
Out here in California, there are many wooden turnouts even when the mainline has been upgraded by UP to concrete.
-Dave
Turnouts tend to pound a little bit.. sometimes its enough to break concrete ties, wooden ties are more suitable for special work like turnouts and crossings at grade.
Randy
-
Industry standard practice is to use wood ties for switches on concrete tie mains. As mentioned, the concrete can't take the pounding a switch produces. You MIGHT find concrete tie switches on light rail or subway, but not on a class 1 main.
-
CSX apparently thinks they can get away with it...
(http://www.trainweb.org/oldmainline/oml/068ezoom3.jpg)
-
I assumed it was because each tie would need to have different mounting lugs so it would be expensive to manufacture.
-
Concrete tie turnouts are used around the world, as Scott has said due to each tie being different they are ridiculously expensive vs timber sleepers hence why timber turnouts are still used.
-
I remember in europe, one of the few times I've seen and even been in a real train, I saw a lot of concrete turnouts and track. Well now I kinda wish I had ordered ME concrete... oh well !!
Are wooden mainlines still used or is it all concrete?
-
Are wooden mainlines still used or is it all concrete?
It will be quite a long while yet before wood ties are all gone.
-
They generally do get replaced on the mainlines by concrete ties, outside of the mainline it's anyone's guess....
-
Gentlemen, I stand corrected. And I thank you for the education.
-
ME has had "die problems" for years. The last new track, both codes 40 and 55, that I bought was about 15 years ago, and it had enough flash that it needed trimming. The plasdtic leaked out around the tops of the spikes, into the web of the rail, and produced lumps. They actually looked almost like scale angle bars, but obviously weren't an intentional detail, and interfered with the flanges. On pre-weathered track they weren't easily seen, and the only reason I noticed them was that cars which ran perfectly on the older RailCraft track "bumped". A sharp knife solved the problem, but finding all of the flash took a while, especially on the back of the near rail, where it was hidden.
-
ME has had "die problems" for years.
Curiously, the RailCraft track had even bigger problems; the flash was horrendous in places. The ties might have "wandered" the same way, but then again, it was tooled with more irregular tie patterns, something I really liked and missed in the same way as the irregular spike patterns. The thought that went into the design outweighed the flaws and made it worth the work of trimming the flash on hundreds and hundreds of ties.
Twisting the odd tie here and there resulted in a great effect, especially when coupled with washed out roadbed--
(http://whiteriverandnorthern.net/images/slide_scan_06s.jpg)
(http://whiteriverandnorthern.net/images/hi8_abandon.jpg)
-
Woah that looks dangerous you need to get a crew out there to re-ballast.
-
Woah that looks dangerous you need to get a crew out there to re-ballast.
It's abandoned track, and it's modeled after reference photos of track that had its roadbed washed away over time.
-
Interestingly, the old NS had one line that was laid with concrete ties; most of them have been replaced by wood over the last fifteen years, or so. This was on the Aurora branch; NS was very proud of that. Somewhere, I have a photo of four Baldwins hauling a$$hat over that line, pulling a train load of phosphate.
Some of the old NS guys still living that worked that line talk about how the concrete ties would collect snakes at night because they held the heat.
-
ME flex isn't flex track so much as a long section of bendable track. If you use a printed template of your plan or a guide for radius formation the track is easy to work with.
I've never seen ME weathered concrete tie track offered.
The flash on my C55 concrete tie was obvious and in need of removal. It actually was large enough and stiff enough to cause a Kato C44 to derail on one spot when test running.
-
Please tell me you made sure not to get the pre-weathered stuff. That stuff is miserable. Otherwise, it's good track.
My understanding is that the finish does not allow the rail to slide through the ties very well, plus, as soon as you bend the track, the non-weathered spots under the spikes become visible, so you have to touch up the rails or paint the track anyway.
Funny thing... I was looking for a scrap of track to use as a dummy trolley line, and came across a stick of ME pre-weathered C55 flex. I started working with it--I have some pretty tight bends to make--and realized something. For one, it wasn't much worse to work with than non-weathered ME flex, and two, there were no unsightly spots of unweathered rail left where it slid past the spikes. So, I'm not entirely sure why it's gotten such a bad reputation; I think if I was to build a layout that called for flex, I'd be tempted to use it.
Here's a close-up of pre-weathered flex that's been bent back and forth several times, and the ties have moved around quite a bit...
(http://davidksmith.com/images/IMG_3325.jpg)
-
Looks like the rail is weathered *BEFORE* being placed in the tie mold. :) Soldering should no be a problem if one cleans the weathering first. The metal needs to be bright and shiny before any soldering is attempted.
-
Hmm, the reality seems to be different than the perception, the pre-weathered is an advantage in my mind if there are not unweathered parts exposed during flexing. That is good looking track up close but I am still pretty put out by the tie alignment issues Gary posted.
-
I have used the ME preweathered rail because I once ordered some that way quite by accident.
First, it does not expose unweathered rail when you flex it. In fact, I have a few stretches of it
in my current layout and am looking at it as we speak.
Second, it is harder to flex because that rough weathered surface is harder to slide through the ties,
but not much harder than shaping ordinary ME flex. Folks just need to get used to working with this type
of track. You start at one end of a bend and gradually work your way around a curve. Then you go back
over it and bend it along some more. Eventually you get the radius you want and work out and
sharp spots. If you use a track radius gauge like a Tracksetta, RibbonRail or SweepSticks, it makes this process
very very easy.
I used it on my curved trestle and it sure did make that easier to build. I could bend the track to the exact path
it was supposed to follow, and then fit the trestle bents in under it.
If there hadn't been such a lack of choices of turnouts and crossings, I would have stayed with ME track.
And now, ironically, there is a lack of turnouts and crossings in Atlas track, but hopefully, that will only be true for
a few more months.
-
I did not read this entire thread. But, I just wanted to add that I use ME non weathered code 55 flex on my Union Pacific Railroad Geneva Subdivision. I highly recommend it.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC1YYYRVs0TkSNNpRipMeyQw (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC1YYYRVs0TkSNNpRipMeyQw)
Daryl
-
Agreed, the weathering is pre-applied; it doesn't have bare spots. DKS, does your sample have the offset problem noted upthread?
One other odd thing I noticed about wood tie vs. concrete tie (both pre-weathered): I've had to polish the railheads on the wood tie track to get good conductivity, whereas I can just lightly wipe the rails of the concrete tie track and I have no conductivity problems at all. (I prefer to keep the weathering on the rail head if I can - and with the concrete, I can.) I wonder if they have different weathering solutions for the two lines? I wouldn't think so, but I'm puzzled by the difference.
-gfh
-
Well, I don't often have a ton of good experience when it comes to questions such as these, but in this case I do so I'll throw out my comments...
I suffered for literally decades when I was in HO trying to lay flextrack because (a) I was very young and ignorant, (b) I was trying to use a dremel instead of Xuron's, (c) I was (over)spiking large track nails through the holes in the ties...all on Atlas flex that I did not "get" how to work.
When I returned to the hobby and this time in N, I used Peco C55 track for small switching layout started in ~'01 time frame. Peco flex has a similar stiffness to the ME flex, and it was then that I started developing a technique. I improved this technique working on a club layout for a few years. The beautiful BENEFIT of Peco and ME that's been overlooked is that you can basically form/fit it into place without securing it, then *weather* it on the workbench. So really the "unweathered spots showing up" problem really isn't a problem for the most part, although it does rear its ugly head on occasion. (and I agree that buying the weathered rail is still the way to go when speaking ME, simply as a bit of a timesaver for wooden ties...but IMPERATIVE when talking concrete ties unless you like masking track 3 or 4 times to get where you want to be.
Later on, I was working on another layout that was a mix of concrete ME55, Atlas C55, some wood ME55, and some wood ME40. I spent (too much) time futzing around with more technique, and was having particular trouble with Atlas at first, then kinda figured it out, and then struggled with ME even though it was similar to the Peco I had used. While it has some of the same characteristics, curving the ME is very much an art form and it requires a lot of patience. At first, it feels like you are really screwing it up, but if you keep working it, eventually it all comes together and flows like you expect. And there are some frustrating times where the flash and malignments just bring things to a halt until you work past the flaw...definitely nothing like the process with Atlas which is very "obedient".
Anyway, my point in all this is that, IMHO none of these products are bad, or any worse than any others...but they are indeed VERY different in how you approach it. (For example, it's nearly impossible to "bench weather" a curve of Atlas flex...)
Couple more things...
1. I haven't tried this trick but I've seen it posted a couple of time and thought it had merit...take a piece of HO code100 Atlas flex and use it, upside down, to form ME curves. It effectively keeps you from trying to form the curve like you would with Atlas C55, to avoid the point I mentioned above where you feel like you've really screwed up. It supposedly lines up the C100 rails perfectly on the outside of the ties. Again, this might need a snopes investigation but I thought I would throw it out there.
2. One thing I like to do is paint the concrete ties a whiter color. Just personal preference but it looked better to me than naked plastic. (I bet that drives the ads wild) And, I paint the "pandrol clips" too...maybe not practical on a huge layout, but it's something I do. I laid a section of doubletrack that was probably 15ft long on a friends' old layout and it looked really nice. I'll see if I can find pics.
-
I know this is an old thread, but I figured someone might search for "ME flex" and read this, so ...
I just received some ME code 55, non-weathered, wood tie flex track directly from them, so presumably it's recent production. Each 36" piece of flex seems to have four 9" plastic tie strips threaded on it. Each tie strip has a slight degree of randomness in tie length and positioning, and it just so happens that the last tie is slightly offset to the right. However, this offset is barely noticeable, and nowhere near as noticeable as in Gary Hinshaw's image, so they seem to have corrected this problem since he bought his.
Mark H.
-
How is the flash on the new run? I like the look of ME track better than Atlas, but the thought of de-flashing 1000 of track. No. Just no.
-
You guys need to talk with this guy:
-
I always assumed that a machine churned these out. Crazy to see how much human intervention is needed.
-
So what can he make, like maybe 50 pieces per hour?
From this is is not hard to see where the tie misalignments like the one in Gary's pic would come from.
Ed
-
How is the flash on the new run? I like the look of ME track better than Atlas, but the thought of de-flashing 1000 of track. No. Just no.
My ME code 55 flex has little more flash perhaps than in the samples I bought from a LHS 5+ years ago. I will have to do some cleanup, but it's still acceptable. It's not as clean as Atlas code 55. I may post an image to show typical (minimal) flash.
(https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-cGfdb2WNhCQ/VzPuwpdbqKI/AAAAAAAAAkg/nrwKqnRitCMEQd3Ely-UmGlr9M5_XvM2gCL0B/w1000-h579-no/ME_code55_flash.JPG)
WRT the other recent comments above, I think that the issue with Gary's samples was systematic (such as a mis-adjusted tool or jig), and that the "fix" (whatever it was) is systematic as well. I bought 12 x 3' pieces, checked all of them, and they are all the same.
MH
-
WRT the other recent comments above, I think that the issue with Gary's samples was systematic (such as a mis-adjusted tool or jig), and that the "fix" (whatever it was) is systematic as well.
I would think so too, as I had several sticks with the same issue. FWIW, they were purchased quite a while ago.
-
I also bought some recent ME and the ties look fine. I also have old ME track from decades ago, but not much flash problems on that. And then I have some ancient RailCraft flex (25+ YO) I'm using as spur/siding tracks since the ties are somewhat ragged and are thinner than the ME so the rail sits a bit lower. The recent ME plastic "wood" is darker than the 20-yr old stuff, making the old ties look weathered.
As for which track is better of all available I think this is the same as a "Do you like Fords or Chevys (or Honda vs Toyotas) better?" type of thing. How easily you can get the product to do what you want has the most effect on personal preference.
-
I also bought some recent ME and the ties look fine. I also have old ME track from decades ago, but not much flash problems on that. And then I have some ancient RailCraft flex (25+ YO) I'm using as spur/siding tracks since the ties are somewhat ragged and are thinner than the ME so the rail sits a bit lower. The recent ME plastic "wood" is darker than the 20-yr old stuff, making the old ties look weathered.
As for which track is better of all available I think this is the same as a "Do you like Fords or Chevys (or Honda vs Toyotas) better?" type of thing. How easily you can get the product to do what you want has the most effect on personal preference.
I beg to disagree with you. The best looking, presently available flextrack is ME track, if your definition of "best looking" answers the question "Which N-scale track looks most prototypical?"
I have a substantial cache of "ancient" Rail Craft code 55 and code 40 flex and it looks even better with its more random and much smaller spikehead details.
Since a photo is worth a thousand words, here's a direct comparison between Atlas 55 and "ancient" Rail Craft 55.
Photo (1) - Atlas 55 vs Rail Craft 55:
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-OIzcUP1wGGQ/Ulx4ENcVn0I/AAAAAAAACa0/hePV_LgRdhQr6RIBODgJUYrRlyWD8hJVQCCo/s000/ME_Atlas_55_Comparo_001.jpg)
I am always open to purchasing anybody's stock of unused Rail Craft track when I happen upon it.
As the photos in previous posts in this thread show, the difference between Atlas 55 and Micro Engineering 55 is less than the difference between Atlas 55 and Rail Craft 55, which is unfortunate, but is why I use Rail Craft 55 and 40 for foreground scenes.
Photo (2) - Rail Craft 55, Painted, Weathered and Ballasted at Echo Curve...Try to match this flextrack with any presently manufactured N-scale track product:
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-X8Ye4KgL64c/UECKkJgxTtI/AAAAAAAADl4/wTxPpnSrkIQDlag2-8J56Vg-DqmTz4sYgCCo/s000/BBE28C%257E1.JPG)
As far as the color of the plastic ties are concerned, I paint mine for much more added realism, to get rid of that plasticky sheen, and also weather them both before and after I ballast. On sidings, I also snip away the between-tie-spacers and spread the ties out a bit to represent the tie spacing used on medium and lightly trafficked track vs heavily trafficked mainlines. I also take a sanding block to the ends of the ties to square them up before laying...doesn't take long.
This is definitely not a "Ford vs Chevy" question as far as appearance is concerned. Maybe it is as far as whether you like floppy Atlas or stiff ME flex, but the Looks Award goes to ME flex because of its smaller (narrower, shorter) and non-centered spikehead detailing...with Atlas 55 coming in a distant second place.
Cheerio!
Bob Gilmore
-
When I built my last layout I decided I wanted to use code 55 track. This was shortly after ATLAS announced their code 55.Only thing was there wasn't any.So I decided to use ME code 55.The stuff did not exist anywhere,so I decided to use PECO code 55 and walked right into a killer deal.I bought a box of PECO for $25.00 .It was missing one stick.When I did my grain elevator I decided to use the ATLAS track because it was lower and it was not the difficult to alter the PECO to accept the ATLAS turnouts so the storage yard got built with ATLAS track.
When I rebuilt the layout I used the PECO for mainline and the ATLAS again for sidings.I'm happy with it but if ME had had the track when I needed it the layout would have been built with it back in the 1990s.Funny thing is I can now get the ATLAS track just about in every hobbyshop here in Grand Rapids,I just can't get rail joiners. :?
-
.
This is definitely not a "Ford vs Chevy" question as far as appearance is concerned.
Spoken like a true Ford (or Chevy) guy. :P
Jason
-
I've found that once I weathered the ties and rail on my Atlas code 55 flex, the size of the spike heads becomes much less noticeable. At least on the PRR in later years the rail sides, spike heads and ties all just had about the same color.
My challenge with ME flex, at least the pieces I viewed, is the tie-spacing was a bit closer and the tie-length a bit longer than those found on Atlas code 55 flex, which is more accurate when it comes with how the PRR did things.
-
I beg to disagree with you. The best looking, presently available flextrack is ME track, if your definition of "best looking" answers the question "Which N-scale track looks most prototypical?"
(text removed)
Cheerio!
Bob Gilmore
Bob, your photo is better than mine. :-) However, there are a few additional useful comments which can be made here in comparing recent production of the 2 competing brands.
(1) Firstly the ME code 55 has scale 9-foot ties, while the Atlas code 55 has scale 8.5-foot ties. Also, when the ties are adjusted to be perpendicular to the rail, Atlas ties are slightly closer spaced. This may matter to some modelers, depending on their prototype and era. For example, my prototype Southern Pacific used 9-foot ties on new mainline track by the late 1960s, but during the 1950s in the Tehachapis (my prototype), they seem to be shorter (from photographs, I measured 8.5 feet, which matches Atlas). The tie spacing from my CS 1900 (SP Common Standard) drawing also matches Atlas slighly better.
(2) Secondly, the Atlas railhead (top of the rail?) is slightly narrower and slightly more rounded than ME. This means that the rail looks "finer" when viewed from end-on.
(3) Thirdly, ME flex is tighter gauged than Atlas code-55 flex. Because of the loose rail on one side of the latter, you can get the NMRA gauge to drop down (overgauge) with minimal pressure. I don't know whether this matters in a practical sense, though.
(4) Finally, "pizza cutter" wheels (as in original N-scale Kadee/MT plastic wheels) will hit the spike detail on *both* Atlas and recent ME code-55 flex.
The reason I am again considering ME over Atlas for my code 55 test scene is that I have a lot of experience with code-70 Shinohara flex from the 1980s, and the ME seems to be quite similar in construction, though of finer appearance, and thus seems less risky to me from a performance perspective. I also like the stiff flex, which works well with my MR-Clinchfield-layout-era tracklaying techniques. I rationalize away the 9-foot ties by saying that it would allow me to use my layout for 1970s-era if I wanted, and anyway, when viewed from the side and at near eye level, it isn't really noticeable.
MH
-
I model the UP from 1947 thru 1956 from Ogden UT to Wahsatch UT, so I can't speak for other prototypes and their tie length & spacing...BUT, a couple of years ago I did a spacing/length study of ME 55, ME 40 and Atlas 55 to see which brand or model fit my Class I prototype railroad ( UP ).
I don't have the exact measurements or specification on hand at the moment, but the results were ambiguous, with only ME 40 falling accurately into a specific category of "Lightly Trafficked Trackage" having both the proper tie length and tie spacing for that trackage. ME 55 flex's ties were the correct length but spaced too far apart for "Heavily Trafficked Trackage", and Atlas 55 had the correct tie spacing, but the ties were too short for "Heavily Trafficked Trackage".
I pondered "the problem" for a couple of days, comparing both ME 55 and Atlas 55 side-by-side to see if tie length, or tie spacing was more evident since I was not going to be able to have both unless I cut all the spacers between ties on ME 55 and slid the ties closer together, which I am not willing to do.
During those couple of days, what really reached out and slapped me across the face was the bigness of the nubs on the Atlas 55. I like the squareness of Atlas ties better than ME's rounded tie ends, but I can cure that problem with a few strokes with a sanding block with 220 grit emery paper stapeled on it.
In the end, I decided that differing correct tie length and spacing for "Heavily Trafficked" and "Medium Trafficked" trackage on my layout was something I wasn't going to worry about, instead representing only the difference between "Heavily Trafficked" and "Lightly Trafficked" trackage by using ME 55 and ME 40.
One of the main things that influenced me was the irony of worrying about tie length and spacing, when the rail itself (Code 55) represents an ultra-heavy rail weight that UP never used, and because the rails are drawn for HO scale rails, both code 40 and code 55 railheads are much wider and flatter than "proper" N-scale rail should be.
In other words, no matter what I was going to do, it wasn't going to be correct.
So, I opted for better looking spikehead details and went with ME55 (both ME and RC) for my mainlines, and both ME 40 and hand-laid C40 for sidings and branchlines.
Frankly, I've found that rail height is the least noticeable feature of track. Most noticeable to me is the tie size and spacing, then spikehead size and proportion, then rail profile, then lastly, rail height. This applies to painted, weathered and ballasted track, which minimizes the appearance of rail height both to the naked eye and in photographs.
Mark @mark.hinds , I was not aware that "new" ME C55 also had pizza cutter interference problems. I don't use much of it since I have my cache of Rail Craft 55, and I don't run pizza cutters on either motive power or rolling stock, but I'll do a test to confirm your contention if I can find some pizza cutters stowed away somewhere.
I build my turnouts to a "tight" NMRA standard, which requires me to make sure that all my motive power is properly gauged to run through them smoothly, which I believe everybody should do anyway...so the tightly gauged ME track vs not-so-tightly-gauged Atlas 55 flex is yet another plus for ME IMO and fits with what I want on my layout.
As to code 70 Shinohara, back in the 80's when I was active in Ntrak, I chose to use Rail Craft 70 on my modules after a direct comparison to Shinohara 70 flex. Yup, both are exponentially better looking than the Ntrak "standard" of Atlas 80 back in the day, but Rail Craft 70 with its finer spikehead detailing really made everybody stand up and pay attention.
Photo (1)-Here's a photo of my old Ntrak modules with Railcraft 70...emphasizing that the excessive rail height is virtually unoticeable after painting, weathering and ballasting:
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-8qGpgsbMzJw/UECGdugM-xI/AAAAAAAACqY/2cBNS7SHXWIZDIz7wvAVTPLN9YlB0qV0QCCo/s000/F-3%2527s%2Bin%2Bhelper%2Bservice.jpg)
Cheerio!
Bob Gilmore
-
My recent ME flex doesn't seem to have any flange/spike problems, and I have old Kadee pizza cutters on some of my cars. Even my old ConCor PA1 with those big 1970's flanges has no problem.
Really don't understand why people are hung up on this flange thing anyway. For all freight and most passenger equipment made today there are modern wheelsets with lower flanges that can replace the pizza cutters. This is a lot cheaper method than us "upgraders" had back in the day, when everything came with Rapido couplers. Then you either had to body-mount MTL couplers and cut off the couplers on the stock trucks, or for crappy stock trucks replace the entire thing with an entire MTL one. Both of which got expensive if you had lots of cars to convert, plus left you with a pile of useless cut-off Rapidos or almost as useless trucks w/ Rapidos. Just something for you to think about if changing wheelsets seems like a bother.
Robert3985, check your PM.
-
My recent ME flex doesn't seem to have any flange/spike problems, and I have old Kadee pizza cutters on some of my cars. Even my old ConCor PA1 with those big 1970's flanges has no problem.
Really don't understand why people are hung up on this flange thing anyway. For all freight and most passenger equipment made today there are modern wheelsets with lower flanges that can replace the pizza cutters. This is a lot cheaper method than us "upgraders" had back in the day, when everything came with Rapido couplers. Then you either had to body-mount MTL couplers and cut off the couplers on the stock trucks, or for crappy stock trucks replace the entire thing with an entire MTL one. Both of which got expensive if you had lots of cars to convert, plus left you with a pile of useless cut-off Rapidos or almost as useless trucks w/ Rapidos. Just something for you to think about if changing wheelsets seems like a bother.
Robert3985, check your PM.
Sir:
Just in case your post is in response to my statement (4) above, please note that it is a fact that if you take one of the old Kadee trucks with the original large flanges (aka "pizza cutters"), and run said truck by hand along a current production (from ME, not the LHS shelf) section of flex track, you will be able to feel the flanges bumping over the spike detail.
However, I am not saying that this is necessarily "a problem", as that determination needs to be made by each of us on an individual basis. Although on my layout I am substituting in the current MTL "standard" lower profile plastic wheelsets, others may be perfectly happy continuing to use the originals, and that's OK with me. :-)
Here's the best I could do for a photo. Note that the 1980's-era Kadee/MTL "pizza cutter" flanges *barely* touch the tops of the spike detail, which may be why it doesn't bother some people.
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-nqsXJWTP-hw/Vze198a8U9I/AAAAAAAAAlA/HhgX_0HFikc99DDTBotc_qJXjVbMvoZaACL0B/w987-h522-no/ME_spikes_0005.JPG)
MH
-
OK, but in my case there's no problem with the flanges/spikes. Doing the same test you did produced no clicks or vibrations for me. Apparently it depends on differences in batching. My track came from MBKlein last winter, as point of reference.
But my point was it's really cheap and easy now to buy replacement wheelsets, and changing them out is a breeze. MTL sells wheelsets by the 100-pack, I believe. To get good performance back then meant drilling coupler screw holes in thick metal underframes (or through the weight plate) or getting MTL trucks into the oddball kingpin holes of ConCor and Arnold Rapido cars, all of which was not fun.