Peco "Streamline" Code 55 "American Outline" track (possible new product?)

[mike_lawyer]

I'm pretty stoked about this, even though I have basically completed my layout.  Competition is always a good thing, and it may even force Atlas and Micro Engineering to up their game.

I really like ME turnouts, but many of the stock diverging rails need to be filed down to meet NMRA gauge.  In addition, the throwbars are made out of the same plastic as the ties and can easily break.  I have also had some QC issues with frog castings not level with the track and tie flashing.

I am hoping the Peco turnouts will be in gauge straight out of the box and have a good frog that is easily powered.

[Doug G.]

Hey, let's all pile on Atlas, now!

Doug

[Dave V]

Hey, let's all pile on Atlas, now!

Doug

Atlas track looks amazing. Their code 55 line could have been the be-all end-all for North American N scale railroading. It should have been.

I know I wanted Atlas to succeed. But a big part of why the Colorado Midland Version 1 was stripped of all useable materials, chopped up, and eventually burned at our neighborhood Halloween bonfire was the consequence of Atlas' outsourcing of the manufacture of the line. Mechanical and metallurgical problems can't be overcome by appearance alone.

[mike_lawyer]

Does anyone know what happened with Atlas C55?  I know I said this before, but I built a layout in 2006-2007 out of all Atlas C55 flex and Atlas C55 #7 switches.  It was bulletproof.  I could run all steamers through turnouts, and could back 50 car trains through turnouts.  I was using Tortoises with the switches.

Fast forward to last year (2022), and I tried Atlas C55 flex and #7 turnouts, and could definitely see that there was a change in the quality of the turnouts from my old layout.  The drawbars seemed flimsier, and the turnout points were not smoothly cut. The frogs also seemed much thinner in plating.

Did Atlas change factories at some point along the way for their track?  Circa 2006-2008, the product worked well.  Now, not so much.

Atlas track looks amazing. Their code 55 line could have been the be-all end-all for North American N scale railroading. It should have been.

I know I wanted Atlas to succeed. But a big part of why the Colorado Midland Version 1 was stripped of all useable materials, chopped up, and eventually burned at our neighborhood Halloween bonfire was the consequence of Atlas' outsourcing of the manufacture of the line. Mechanical and metallurgical problems can't be overcome by appearance alone.

[Sokramiketes]

Does anyone know what happened with Atlas C55?  I know I said this before, but I built a layout in 2006-2007 out of all Atlas C55 flex and Atlas C55 #7 switches.  It was bulletproof.  I could run all steamers through turnouts, and could back 50 car trains through turnouts.  I was using Tortoises with the switches.

Fast forward to last year (2022), and I tried Atlas C55 flex and #7 turnouts, and could definitely see that there was a change in the quality of the turnouts from my old layout.  The drawbars seemed flimsier, and the turnout points were not smoothly cut. The frogs also seemed much thinner in plating.

Did Atlas change factories at some point along the way for their track?  Circa 2006-2008, the product worked well.  Now, not so much.

To answer your basic question, yes, factories were changed and tooling is different.  It's hard to find the good, early stuff these days. 

[Dave V]

To answer your basic question, yes, factories were changed and tooling is different.  It's hard to find the good, early stuff these days.

I do remember a story whose details are a bit fuzzy, but where Jerry Britton bought a substantial version of the first run of Atlas 55 for his multi-deck N scale PRR Middle Division and Harrisburg layout, and that so many of the turnouts failed almost immediately that that's part of why he left N scale altogether. And that some agreement was made with Atlas regarding same. So I'm not convinced that any run of Atlas code 55 was ever as reliable as their other products or Peco.

[Ngineer]

Hello,

just a quick question:

AFAIK Peco turnouts are generally NOT compatible with DCC - at least that is my understanding from all the tips and videos in the net and on YouTube.

If you don't heavily modify their turnouts, you're not getting any reliable resulst when running DCC.

Has this changed or will this change with the new line?

Javier

[Dave V]

Hello,

just a quick question:

AFAIK Peco turnouts are generally NOT compatible with DCC - at least that is my understanding from all the tips and videos in the net and on YouTube.

If you don't heavily modify their turnouts, you're not getting any reliable resulst when running DCC.

Has this changed or will this change with the new line?

Javier

OK, a couple of misnomers there. All Peco turnouts are DCC-compatable out of the box. I worried about that when I first got into DCC but it turns out that there's a lot of "extra" that people do that isn't always necessary if you use sound tracklaying practices. But just like any other turnout, you have to make sure you use gaps when/if appropriate (specifically electrofrog). But otherwise the only issue I've encountered is that when I was doing Pennsy in N, the wheel treads were so wide on my BLI M1b 4-8-2s that they'd chirp the DCC when they crossed the frog. That's a BLI thing, not a Peco thing.

The Unifrog turnouts this line will include are even better for DCC. They Unifrog is short enough that you usually don't need to wire it (although it comes with a pre-soldered wire). So you can use it like an Insulfrog if you want, with a very shot gap relative to any other insulated frog turnout. But...if you do want to wire the frog, even better.

My HOn3 RGS uses almost exclusively Peco #5 with Unifrogs wired to Hex Frog Juicers from Tam Valley with no issues whatsoever with my Digitrax DCC system. I would say they're as DCC-friendly as you can get.

And I swear, I'm not a shill for Peco... I hate their rail joiners, LOL. My figertips are scarred to prove that!

[Sokramiketes]

I do remember a story whose details are a bit fuzzy, but where Jerry Britton bought a substantial version of the first run of Atlas 55 for his multi-deck N scale PRR Middle Division and Harrisburg layout, and that so many of the turnouts failed almost immediately that that's part of why he left N scale altogether. And that some agreement was made with Atlas regarding same. So I'm not convinced that any run of Atlas code 55 was ever as reliable as their other products or Peco.

I remember the early story, and your statement that no run of Atlas Code 55 was ever as reliable as Peco is correct.  I'm only referencing the tooling changes.  With the change in factory, the spike heads moved, became bigger, and the imprinted name on the bottom of the ties is below the surface of the rest of the ties.  The latter meaning you have to sand the bottom of the flex track.

Most Atlas turnouts come out of the package with a hump.  That's part of what we're all hoping might be fixed with the buried rail Peco concept and their bullet proof throwbar connections. 

[wmcbride]

I remember the early story, and your statement that no run of Atlas Code 55 was ever as reliable as Peco is correct.  I'm only referencing the tooling changes.  With the change in factory, the spike heads moved, became bigger, and the imprinted name on the bottom of the ties is below the surface of the rest of the ties.  The latter meaning you have to sand the bottom of the flex track.

Most Atlas turnouts come out of the package with a hump.  That's part of what we're all hoping might be fixed with the buried rail Peco concept and their bullet proof throwbar connections.

That turnout "hump" along with wheel drop made me learn to make my own turnouts. I had used Peco Code 55 decades ago before moving to Atlas code 55 but then Atlas became hard to find, the turnouts had issues, and I just didn't want to play with them anymore. I always liked the reliability of Peco -- just not its appearance.

[mike_lawyer]

To answer your basic question, yes, factories were changed and tooling is different.  It's hard to find the good, early stuff these days.

It really is a shame, the Atlas C55 track on my layout that I had circa 2007-2008 was awesome, I had zero problems with turnouts.  Combined with Tortoises, I could back steamers with 50 cars through #7 crossovers with no problem.  In fact, I never even modified any of the turnouts, they went right from the package onto the layout.

When building my current layout starting last year, I planned on using Atlas C55, but after trying the current turnouts, I was not satisfied and have turned to ME C55 throughout.

[ski]

Is there any track system that doesn’t suck in some major manner? Every brand seems to have different yet significant issues.

[mike_lawyer]

Is there any track system that doesn’t suck in some major manner? Every brand seems to have different yet significant issues.

In short, not to date as far as far as I can tell.  I like ME Code 55 flex and turnouts.  However, you do have to file the stock rails down frequently to get them in gauge.  Also, I wish the throwbars on ME switches were made of stronger plastic
  They can break on the sides were the throwbar holes are.

Hopefully if Peco does a North American line, it will be made to NMRA specs right out of the box.