Atlas code 55

[DKS]

I also have sympathy for the modelers who are "stuck" waiting for Atlas code 55, but...I don't understand why they prefer it over ME 55 flex...

I can. While ME is marginally better looking, it's harder to work with and requires much more skill and patience. Plus, it goes without saying that, while ME turnouts also look slightly better, they only have #6s.

If you're hot for Atlas Code 55, it's still possible to get it, but it requires diligence. I laid the track for the Jersey City Industrial in May of last year, and the only way it was possible was daily visits to eBay. I did pay a premium, of course, but it wasn't outrageous (some "wallet-gougers" are asking 2-3 times full MSRP). Naturally, if you're planning a large layout, you're stuck waiting for the container to arrive. Good time to be building structures, perhaps.

[Rossford Yard]

I will second the above post. I have used ME C55, especially the concrete tie version, and its hard to bend smoothly.  Some have touted that as a strength, vs. a weakness of Atlas track, but I have always had an easier time of laying any Atlas track over even Peco.

As to Atlas ramping up C80, let's look at the bright side.  If we assume (always dangerous, I know) that it sells more to beginners or second stage modelers, maybe its a sign that MRR in general, and N scale in particular are still attracting new folks to the hobby.  Again, I presume that C55 is more for veteran modelers working on their "lifetime dream layout" or close to it.  Numbers wise, there have to be fewer of "us" and more of "them" but that is probably a very good thing for all of us in N.

Of course, it could be like my last layout, that many folks just started with C80 and when replacing, or doing minor expansions, they are just stuck using C80......or feel they are.

[Atlas Paul]

This is really depressing for a number of reasons. Have you guys considered the many years of pent up demand? Is seems likely that the code 55 is going to be cleaned out as soon as it arrives. There are many of us who have (mainly) waited patiently for years only to face having to compete with fellow modelers as well as speculators who will purchase large quantities for later resale at a premium when the next shortage occurs. Maybe I am being pessimistic, but I don't think so. I just hope you guys have taken this into consideration. If this goes the route of having to do pre-orders years in advance, I am out of here. Really. I really respect Atlas and the wonderful contributions that you have made to N scale, but I am approaching my limit (for what that is worth). No track=no railroad=no locomotives or cars.

Best wishes, Dave

Yes, the pent up demand is taken into consideration.  As Chris said, there is pent up demand in all of the track lines.  We have been getting HO flex track in for over a year now and it is just now to the point where we don't ship out every last piece the second the container is unloaded. 

As I stated, we are working with the factory on a schedule that will get at least one production run of each HO & N track SKU into the market by July.  It's not going to fill all of the demand right away, but it should at least ease the pain a little.  If the schedule holds, by the end of 2014 we should have the majority of our items available on an in stock basis.

[MichaelWinicki]

One reason I prefer Atlas flex to ME flex is that I prefer the Atlas tie-size and spacing.

[davefoxx]

One reason I prefer Atlas flex to ME flex is that I prefer the Atlas tie-size and spacing.

…and I prefer the flexibility of Atlas flextrack.

DFF

[Kisatchie]

well .. ME flex is made in the US .. what's the cost for a section of that?   Atlas making flex in the US would probably be about the same price point .. we should quit buying stuff from the china folks where it makes sense to insource ..

Last year, I bought some ME code 55 unweathered flex track. It was cheaper than the Atlas flex track, plus the ME track was 6 inches longer per section.


Hmm... that's like getting
a banana free with each
section...

[Rossford Yard]

John might have missed it, or dismissed me (correctly) as a non expert.  That said, when I wrote that its not really the individual costs of making track when up and running, but he cost of setting up a new factory, that was written based on quotes from real folks in the industry that participate on forums over the years. 

The costs would include shipping or buying new machine tools, molds, etc. (rates are by weight, so more than a loco, but still a one time cost) buying a building (yes, those are available, but still substantial cost) getting the environmental permits, which are costly and in some cases (think CA) probably not even attainable, etc.

And, given the stuff hasn't been made here in a generation, what makes us think Atlas or others wouldn't have the same learning curve for employees here as they have in moving their production to a new facility in China?

Lastly, while they were moving stuff and setting up, who would make the track?  And, if public knowledge, how hard would the existing factory work for a customer they will soon lose?

Like I say, I doubt its impossible, but do think they know the exact cost to move back to the States and run it here.  Even if it worked, it would take a long time to recoup the costs in a cottage industry.  I can see it just being easiest and most reliable to do it the way Atlas and others are doing it.

[wmcbride]

I like Atlas C55 flex but its absence drove me to ME code 55 flex.

It is hard to bend but the method I use employs metal radius templates (such as those sold by Ribbonrail). Just put the template between the rails and bend the track to conform to the template. After a bit of bending one has a 36" piece of flex track at the radius of the template (16", 24" etc). I do this sitting ina  chair and then refine it on the benchwork. Transitions are a bit harder than with Atlas c55 flex but certainly not oodles harder.

[mmagliaro]

One reason I prefer Atlas flex to ME flex is that I prefer the Atlas tie-size and spacing.

I'm glad somebody else pointed this out.  I have used ME myself (although I currently use Atlas).  And while it's great looking
track, I'm always surprised that nobody mentions the huge difference in the look of the ties, especially the height and thickness.
The ME ties are quite a bit higher and thicker.  I always thought the Atlas track looked lower-profile and the ties looked slimmer
and more in scale.  True, by the time you ballast, it probably doesn't make much difference because the tie spacing is good
on both.

[DKS]

True, by the time you ballast, it probably doesn't make much difference because the tie spacing is good on both.

This.

Something I absolutely never understood: why anyone would ever make a fuss about the thickness of ties. After ballasting, who cares if they're a scale two feet tall?

(Come on, Robert, I know you'll have some six-paragraph smart-a$$ response for this... )

[mmagliaro]

This.

Something I absolutely never understood: why anyone would ever make a fuss about the thickness of ties. After ballasting, who cares if they're a scale two feet tall?

(Come on, Robert, I know you'll have some six-paragraph smart-a$$ response for this... )

Well, from the side you can see it, even with the ballast.  The ends of the ties stick out, and the rail itself just sits up higher off the roadbed.  I was just looking at someone's hand-layed code 83 HO track a week ago, and one of the things that still makes HO track look so good compared to N is that the ties are no taller than our N scale ties.  The whole profile of the track just looks more
low, wide, and flat, the way real railroad track looks.   I don't think N Scale track ever looks quite that good unless you
look at the people using code 40 rail on really low-profile ties.

[peteski]

My alopogies for the misunderstanding and my lack of clarity.   

I'm surprised that DKS didn't jump all over you for that!  He has been giving me some (good-natured) ribbing about couple of misspellings I made.

Yours to me sounds like the mispronunciation of poloponies from one of the Honeymooners episode.  Say it a few times - your mouth will feel good saying "alopogies"! 

[DKS]

Well, from the side you can see it, even with the ballast.  The ends of the ties stick out, and the rail itself just sits up higher off the roadbed.  I was just looking at someone's hand-layed code 83 HO track a week ago, and one of the things that still makes HO track look so good compared to N is that the ties are no taller than our N scale ties.  The whole profile of the track just looks more
low, wide, and flat, the way real railroad track looks.   I don't think N Scale track ever looks quite that good unless you
look at the people using code 40 rail on really low-profile ties.

Seriously? Explain this to me, because it's just not sinking in. If ballasted properly--that is, so that only the amount of tie expected to be seen is visible and the ballast profile is correct end-to-end--how does the height of the hidden portion of the ties have any bearing on appearance? If track somehow looks too tall after ballasting, does this not suggest the problem can be corrected by ballasting it differently?

I might also add: the thinner the ties, the harder it is to manufacture track...

I'm surprised that DKS didn't jump all over you for that!  He has been giving me some (good-natured) ribbing about couple of misspellings I made.

I reserve my ribbing just for you, dear Peteski... don't you feel special?

[peteski]

I reserve my ribbing just for you, dear Peteski... don't you feel special?

Oh, yeah!  I'm actually honored to be singled out on this web sight by the famous DKS! 

[robert3985]

I'm surprised that DKS didn't jump all over you for that!  He has been giving me some (good-natured) ribbing about couple of misspellings I made.

Yours to me sounds like the mispronunciation of poloponies from one of the Honeymooners episode.  Say it a few times - your mouth will feel good saying "alopogies"! 

Peteski...I did it on purpose just to humor things up a bit.     I have a tendency to think it's funny to mess with words that way and once it got me into trouble as I called a traffic cop "ossifer"...unintentionally...it just slipped out...and she wrote me up!