Atlas c55 pro's and con's

[MichaelT]

So David was following along, and had a few minutes to make a couple suggestions concerning the "parallel" lines on the shelf.



Looks like a great switch to make the little layout look a little bigger.

[wazzou]

In the words of others, "Me Gusta".

[robert3985]

I don't think there is any doubt its the way to go on a new layout.  No track is perfect, and othes have their attributes, but why would you not use the finest scale track out there now?  This morning I put some of my code 80 Peco (still in use in hidden staging yards) up against my top level C55 and the difference in looks was tremendously in favor of the Atlas.  I suspect that moving forward, the older code 80 tracks will look even more ridiculous to our eyes.

And, I like the flex and way the rail joiners slip on tight, but not so tight that I cut myself when it slips during the "push on."  I really prefer the flexing flex track to the stiff flex track of Peco or ME.

Atlas 55 is hardly the "finest scale track out there", and here's why.

What passes for "spike heads" are grossly oversized, both way too tall, and way too big...and only one on either side of the rail on each tie, which is extremely unprototypical for wooden-tied trackage.

The floppy flex of it presents problems sometimes when laying it on a curve, or laying it to an exact centerline.

It doesn't come in yard lengths, but several inches short of three feet.

It's getting harder and harder to be assured you can find it when you need it.

It's made in China.

On the other hand, the very best, most prototypical appearing flextrack is made by Micro Engineering.

In contrast to Atlas 55, Micro Engineering flex (representing wooden ties) has much finer "spike head" details...let me repeat that...MUCH finer "spike head" details, with alternating spike head patterns on the ties for a nice, prototypical look.

For the modern N-scale modeler, concrete tie flex in code 55 is readily available. 

It's stiff, but it holds its curve when you put it down and can be laid to an exact centerline because it obeys YOU, rather than the other way around.

Since it's stiff and holds a radius, joining two pieces on a corner is MUCH easier than with Atlas floppy 55.

It comes with the rails already weathered if you like that, or not (I prefer to paint my own rails and ties...easier to solder too).

ME railjoiners are stiff enough that I cut them into short lengths so they'll fit between ties, then solder them in place. They just disappear when you do that.

If you use them full-sized and if you don't know how to slide a tight rail joiner on yet, just use a pair of flat-nose pliers and you'll never get stuck again.

I've used ME flex since it was called "Railcraft" and I have never had a single problem with availability in code 70, code 55 or code 40.

It's made in the good ole' USA.

When I decide to lay track, I don't worry about what turnouts the Chinese manufacturers have decided to shortchange me with.  I also am not enslaved to using only "sorta" #10's, #7's, #6's and whatever that little turnout is that Atlas makes in code 55, because I make my own turnouts.

Yup, you have to learn to do it, but it's not rocket science believe me.  Last week, I needed seven turnouts to complete a section of track on my layout, which comprises the U.P. center siding at Emory where there's also a trailing point siding on the east-bound line.  The total tally of turnouts was: 3 ea. # 8's (two LH, one RH), 2 ea. #6 wyes, 1 ea. #4 wye, and a curved app. #9 LH.

Took me about a week of evenings to lay everything out, make up my templates and build them.  I like to make them as monolithically as possible to minimize my feeders (a feeder for every piece of rail), so it takes me a little longer to make 'em than if I just popped them out and installed them individually on my roadbed.

Total cost was approximately $2.25 per turnout.

Nope.  I don't use any expensive jigs or fixtures other than three NMRA clearance gauges and three old Railcraft three-point code 55 gauges. I just lay them on top of my paper templates, which are taped to a flat 1X6 pine board.

My properly gauged engines and rolling stock glide through my turnouts smooth as silk.

I simply could not have done this track arrangement in the space I had for the Emory siding nearly as efficiently if I was forced to use what turnouts are currently available commercially in code 55.

So, I encourage people to stop whining about what turnouts are not available, stick out their collective lower lips and learn to build their own turnouts and free themselves from the restraints the track manufacturers saddle everybody with.

Cheers!
Bob Gilmore

[M.C. Fujiwara]

So David was following along, and had a few minutes to make a couple suggestions concerning the "parallel" lines on the shelf.



Looks like a great switch to make the little layout look a little bigger.

Looks pretty good to me.
Having slightly angled tracks from the fascia always helps to "break the plane" and allows the mind to fill in the scenery towards the viewer.
My only suggestion is to start the lower-left switchback as close to the main as you can so you don't have to empty the industry on the switchback tail every time you want to service the lowest industry:



Should be a fun layout to build and operation, especially if you can use a detachable cassette at either end.
Cheers!

[Kisatchie]

On the other hand, the very best, most prototypical appearing flextrack is made by Micro Engineering....

...It's stiff, but it holds its curve when you put it down and can be laid to an exact centerline because it obeys YOU, rather than the other way around.

I'm not ready to build a layout now... waiting for the cats to croak... but Micro Engineering code 55 flex track sounds like something I'd like to use. My only concern is just how hard it is to flex it. When I was in HO decades ago, I bought a section of fiber tie flex track to test. It was almost impossible to get a smooth curve with it.

I'd hate to buy a large quantity of M E track and find out it has the same problem.

As for building my own turnouts... not a chance. I'm not getting any younger, so I don't want to put the time/effort into doing that job. I just hope Peco comes out with American prototype tie spacing turnouts in the next couple of years. I like the way Peco turnouts lock in position when the switch is thrown.


Hmm... maybe I shouldn't
have so many 90 degree
turnouts on my layout...

[DKS]

The floppy flex of it presents problems sometimes when laying it on a curve, or laying it to an exact centerline.
...
It's stiff, but it holds its curve when you put it down and can be laid to an exact centerline because it obeys YOU, rather than the other way around.

The issue of flexibility is a double-edged sword. There are times when it's advantageous for the track to assume its own curve. Example: you've drawn out your flowing curves along the river and 'round the bend, and you are now ready to lay the track. Unless your centerlines are precise--and include the requisite easements, etc.--you won't achieve the smoothness that real track would have, and your super-stiff flex track obediently follows your every mis-step, no matter how subtle. The super-flexy track will seek its own smooth, natural course, and can even create its own easements. I've come to find that allowing the flex track the freedom to do this results in much smoother-looking curves than I might have otherwise have achieved by wrenching stiff flex by force. If I have a long stretch of "free-form" trackage, I will solder together however many lengths of flex it takes to cover the distance, and then let nature take its course. Although I've learned how to deal with stiff flex and get good results out of it, when I want smooth, flowing track, I'll pick my endpoints--or target the switches along the way--and allow the flex to be its natural smooth self.

On the flipside, you've got a tight, complex yard or switching area where millimeters count; that's when I'll get out the rulers and templates, mark everything up and shape that rigid flex precisely the way I need it to be, and know it will stay that way until the ballast is dry and the trains are ready to roll.

Bottom line, there is no one best product, no one best technique. Knowing which type of product to use where will yield the best possible results.

As an aside, the current Micro Engineering track was significantly eclipsed in realism by the original version of the product, which had slightly irregular ties now and then, and two, three or sometimes four nearly-scale spikeheads per tie plate. The current product has precisely-aligned and identically-shaped ties, and larger spikeheads. Too bad the tooling for the original track is shot--if I were to start a layout today, my choice would be between track I can no longer get, or handlaid.

[towl1996]

Hmmm, seems like a business opportunity is presenting itself, since no one seems happy with what's currently available.

[ljudice]

I'm 100% happy with Peco Code 55, but that's not the question that was asked!!! 

I did use Atlas Code 55 on the last layout and was not pleased with anything about it - except the looks, which are great. I also had the random spike sticking up problem, turnouts out of gauge, turnouts falling apart, unavailable parts, etc...  It is so flexible in the up and down direction that it required massive amounts of sanding out imperfections in subroadbed and roadbed - that the Peco stuff just bridges over.

When I ripped it up - it entirely fell apart, unlike Peco which is 90% reusable.

It's amazing looking though, that is for sure...

[robert3985]

DKS,

Your comments are appreciated!  However, for me, it is never advantageous for the track to find its own radius.  I DO precisely lay my trackage out, going so far as to print out my eased future trackage at 100% after I've worked out what I like the best (and best represents the prototype trackage in the area I'm modeling) using Cadrail, cutting my taped-together templates along their centerlines, and using them as a template to both trace the track centerlines onto my planed-flat splined Masonite subroadbed when laying my Midwest cork roadbed, then to check the centerlines on the cork roadbed and trace them again after I sand my cork and I'm ready to lay my track.

Yup.  Even the most minute imperfections in my aligning technique show up using stiff ME/Railcraft track.  However, after looking down the prototype U.P. mainlines countless times and seeing all the curves, dips and wavy trackwork there, I've actually purposely put imperfections in some areas of my layout, just to mimic the prototype.

I never have "free form" track.  It's always planned and drawn on Cadrail before I slap it down.  Nothin' "wrong" with "free form" track-laying...it's just not for me since all of my modular layout is comprised of LDE's in Weber and Echo Canyons in 1951.  I prefer to make my mistakes aligning track digitally as opposed to analog, and "mistakes" sometimes mean something as obtuse as "not catching the flavor" of the area I'm modeling.  My recipe of "flavor" begins with laying the track out so it looks very similar to the prototype alignment...which in Weber and Echo Canyons means a lot of curves on the double-tracked mainlines, going from straight to straight....meaning I really can't let the track just flop into its own free-form if I want it to look like the U.P. laid it.

However, it's good advice for those who do not have my constraints.

I "spot-weld" my track (after closely aligning to the center line, getting my ties even,  and eyeballing it very critically from both directions and getting all the kinks I can see out of it) about every 8 inches with runny CA.  Then, I roll two coupled 80' passenger cars on it, watching the diaphragms rubbing against each other...and when they move suddenly rather than stay in roughly the same position, I know I've got a kink to work out, and where it's at.  I can pop the track off the cured runny CA and move the ties left and right easily if I have to.  Usually the kinks are in between my "spot welds" and only require a little push with thumb or finger to smooth them up.

After my test cars are running smoothly, I then sock the track down with runny CA its entire length.  I use lots of CA as well as accelerator when laying track!  Good thing I like the way the accelerator smells! I hold it down while gluing with the edge of a 1X4 so I don't glue my fingers to the rails.  I speed it up with an old hair dryer set on "medium".  Final ballasting is really what secures my trackage, as CA doesn't really stick too well to engineering plastics.

You are entirely correct DKS that stiff ME flex is unforgiving, but...I'm an artist and two of my favorite mediums are pen and ink, and watercolors...both of which are unforgiving (the mistakes stay).  I'm also a machinist, and if I thought getting it right the first time was impossible, I'd never draw anything or start cutting metal with my lathe and mill to make anything. I am not intimidated by the thought that I have to get it right the first time, it simply needs to be planned properly.  My techniques have worked pretty well the last 25 or so years.

Since I like to totally hide my tiny, cut-down rail joiners between the ties, it's impossible to pre-solder my track into 9 foot lengths before starting to bend it.  I like spikeheads all along the rails and when they stop every time there's a big rail joiner because the slide-under ties don't have spike heads...it bugs the hell out of me...so, I don't do that anymore.  I cut the spacers from the ties on either side of the joint, slide them away from the joint, solder the rails together using my little rail joiners and then, slide the ties back into place. Very inconspicuous rail joiners, but it has to be done on flex that's almost 100% curved to the centerlines.

I never envisioned the process of curving ME or Railcraft flex as "wrenching" it.  I always thought of it as "coaxing" it...with a "prod" here and there.  Not once has a sweat broken out on my forehead from the struggle of getting it to curve properly!

Interesting that you should mention that Micro Engineering's new trackage isn't as good as the old stuff.  Once again, I agree with you 100% and, luckily, I have at least a couple of dozen bundles of the old stuff which has "Railcraft" printed on the wrappers.

I also have a nice supply of Railcraft code 40 too.

To conserve it, I lay trackage that's not visible using the new ME, bigger spikehead stuff, and I use the finer, old Railcraft stuff for visible trackage because it looks so incredibly good!

I've been experimenting with Proto87 Stores stuff to super detail my hand-laid turnouts...however, it works best for code 40 (that's what the frets of etched turnout parts are designed for) and the details are so small I'm not sure it's worth the extra effort to cut each of the teeny tie-plates into two pieces so they'll fit under code 55, then solder them to my PC board ties...then cut and glue them to my grained Styrene ties.  Lotsa work. I'll make up my mind after I've got these latest 7 turnouts painted, weathered, ballasted and photographed.


As to your comments ljudice,

Yup, if I didn't take the time to power-plane and sand my splined Masonite subroadbed flat, then sand my cork roadbed flat too, I would probably think that being flexible in the Z plane was a negative point.  But, since I DO make sure my subroadbed and roadbed are smooth, it's not a problem for me.  I'd make 'em smooth even if I was using Peco fake 55 with its super-thick rails, ultra-huge out-of-proportion ties and disproportionate tie plate details.

I encourage everybody to make their subroadbed and roadbed as flat as you can.  It's just a good thing to do and it will allow your track to function reliably and look good too no matter what brand of track you decide to go with.

Relying on your flex track to bridge the lumps and bumps of your un-sanded subroadbed and roadbed is not a good practice, but a technique to be used when all else fails.  I've done it with ME track, filling the void between the roadbed and the bottom of the ties with gap-filling CA at shows to get the trains up and running reliably.

I also never lay any track with the intention of using it again.  However, I have been able to rip up Railcraft code 40 and 55 flex on seven sections I was scrapping and have it be reusable by wetting my ballast with lots of warm water first.  It comes up a lot easier if the ballast adhesive is soft.  I then soaked the track after I'd removed it in warm, soapy water for a couple of hours in a big plastic tub to remove the last bits of ballast and white glue. Remnants of runny CA will come off (mostly) with a stiff wire brush on the bottoms of the ties.

I started trying to save the old flextrack when I discovered that the new ME trackage didn't have the fine detail of the old Railcraft stuff.

Those of you who like Atlas flex best can do the same things I do with ME/Railcraft flex by keeping it in place and on centerline by using push-pins stuck in your roadbed on the outsides of both rails.  I've used that technique on several modules I built for clients who insisted on Atlas 55.

I have several Atlas turnouts in the track drawer, and I got them out today just to check their clearances.  Hmmmm...every operational clearance was in spec on all four of 'em, with the point gaps being just a RCH wide.  Everything I have would run just fine through them since all of my motive power has been checked and gauged properly with my Mark IV NMRA Clearance Gage.

Even though I routinely badmouth Peco "fake" 55 flex, I gotta admit that Mike Danneman's layout looks spectacular, even though he uses Peco 55.  I have to admit every time I see a photo he's taken of it, I wonder how much better it would look with Atlas or ME 55.  Methinks we'll never know the answer to that question!

Of course, everybody has their own individual criteria and preferences when building a layout.  For me, Railcraft and ME flex is better than anything else out there, and that's probably because I'm always taking closeup photos of my trains, scenery and trackwork and every little un-prototypical flaw shows up through a 60mm Micro Nikkor lens  coupled to a 16.3Mp sensor.  I also deeply enjoy laying track and rolling my own turnouts, so taking the extra effort to do it the way I like to do it doesn't classify itself as "work" to me, whereas it might be really deadly boring to some of you out there. 

For me, it's FUN!

Cheers!
Bob Gilmore

[robert3985]

I'm not ready to build a layout now... waiting for the cats to croak... but Micro Engineering code 55 flex track sounds like something I'd like to use. My only concern is just how hard it is to flex it. When I was in HO decades ago, I bought a section of fiber tie flex track to test. It was almost impossible to get a smooth curve with it.

I'd hate to buy a large quantity of M E track and find out it has the same problem.

As for building my own turnouts... not a chance. I'm not getting any younger, so I don't want to put the time/effort into doing that job. I just hope Peco comes out with American prototype tie spacing turnouts in the next couple of years. I like the way Peco turnouts lock in position when the switch is thrown.

I've got five cats, but they stay out of the layout room when I'm not there.  I let 'em in to keep me company when I'm working on the layout, but when I shut the door for the night, I make sure they're OUT after one of them ate every single scratchbuilt telegraph pole I'd made one fateful day!

ME track doesn't have a problem being curved.  Some people have a problem curving it however.  Gotta get good with the old M1 Eyeball Method of looking down the track with one ear on the rails to find the kinks.  See my previous posting to find out how to fine tune it.

Building turnouts actually saves me time.  I don't have to make a trip to my LHS, or order them and then wait for them to arrive...or wait for them to become available again when the latest round of bankruptcies and acquisitions in China are finally over with. 

When I build them one at a time, rather than in configurations like a yard ladder or two #8's running into a #4 wye for a center siding to give me as much contiguous rail as possible, I can pop a #8 out in about an hour and a half.  I used to be able to do it in an hour, but I've only got one good eye now, which makes the small work considerably more difficult without binocular vision.  The hardest parts to make are the frog point and the closure points.  I use my dual stone grinder in my machine shop to do it, which greatly speeds things up.

By the way, I'm 63...so I'm not getting any younger either, and I would never think of purchasing a turnout for use on my layout since my hand-built ones are exponentially cheaper (around $2.25), much more reliable and durable and they look better too since I make 'em "tight" so they'll run only engines and cars that are properly gauged with low-pro wheels.

Truthfully, it's a nasty rumor that making your own turnouts takes a lot of your time, and I've even made my own over-center spring mechanism for several of my turnouts on my DCC test module!  They "snap" just like ME #6's.  Otherwise, I use Tortoises and live frogs.

How many turnouts could you build waiting for Peco to introduce U.S. spec track, turnouts and diamonds?  Hahaha...a LOT!!

While you're waiting for your cats to croak, you could be planning your layout digitally using Cadrail or an equivalent, then you could start learning how to build your own turnouts (it usually takes three before you're happy), then you can make every turnout you're gonna need for your layout, save a heap of money rolling your own, and put your savings into quality rollings stock and motive power, buy a quality DCC starter set, start installing decoders with sound and maybe build a little interim layout or module to run your trains in circles or buckled up with other module owners, make sure your turnout building skills are sufficient, learn all about DCC, build some structures and scenery and have a great time!  Since you're not getting any younger, I'd use what time you've got left to do something constructive so your future layout will be much easier to build when your last puddy tat uses up its ninth life.

Cheers!
Bob Gilmore

[Chris333]

One other problem I see with Atlas C55 flex is just how loose the one rail is. I have pushed it right over and out of the ties. And the one rail will wiggle around a lot more than I'd like track to move. The ease of flexibility doesn't bother me as much as the loose rail.

ME flex isn't perfect, I just like it a lot better than Atlas. ME needs cleaned up before using since there is flash and spots where the plastic oozed out or whatever.

[DKS]

Bob, I can imagine you having a cardiac watching me lay track! My last layout (as it will be on any future one) had no proper roadbed.  It was all just 100% foam insulation glued together. Track was laid directly on the foam with double-stick foam tape. The tape compensated very nicely for surface imperfections. And, as I alluded before, I just played "connect the dots" with the track--meaning I had switches pretty much in fixed positions, and I allowed the track itself to seek its own natural course between them. The layout was small enough that I didn't need to solder the flex together--indeed, I used no rail joiners at all. Instead, I did what Gary Hinshaw is doing now on his Tehachapi layout: just butting the rail ends together, offset by several ties (more or less depending on location). The only solder on any of my trackwork, in fact, connected the electrical feeders to the underside of the rail.

I too am an artist by nature (and by formal training), and I can get very anal about how things are done on my layouts. At the same time, when there are techniques that offer advantages over those that otherwise require absolute control and constraint, I will allow nature to take its course; oftentimes I find it more attractive than what I had in my mind's eye. That is to say, the music I compose is laced with improvisation, and I find it's the "happy accidents" that add leavening to layout building.

And, like you, I like to exercise my camera up close and personal with everything, including the track--like the saying goes, track is a model, too. This old slide would not have been possible without the old Railcraft flex. Thankfully I still have a few lengths of it carefully preserved for scenes like this.

[DKS]

My only suggestion is to start the lower-left switchback as close to the main as you can so you don't have to empty the industry on the switchback tail every time you want to service the lowest industry...

Just so happens it's what I did in a subsequent revision of the plan. The unusual arrangement of the switchback before was owing mostly to having to use the switches Michael had in his inventory.

[Kisatchie]

Hmm... dead cats, live
frogs... what's this thread
about...?

[ljudice]

Bob, don't get me wrong...  there is no question that with skill and patience, handlaying or Atlas Code 55 or ME track will do a superb job...  I had to make a choice - I wanted a fairly large layout - around 17x23 feet - and do it all myself - and get it working before I became discouraged.  So the choice was to compromise on the track. 

I know from previous experience though that with some effort in painting, ballasting, etc... I can get great looks out of the Peco stuff - and very, high reliability.

But I'm not kidding myself about comparing it to other methods!

- Lou