Atlas Code 55 vs. ME Code 55

[Point353]

Photo (5) - Here's a test of both handlaid C55 and handlaid C40 depicting a seldom used, lightly trafficked siding:

It always seems intriguing to me that those who advocate the use of handlaid track have no difficulty overlooking the lack of spikehead detail.
Isn't this just trading off one visual effect for another?
How do you decide which one should be given the greater priority?

[Sokramiketes]

"Coarser" is quite nebulous.  Can you provide a bit more detailed information?

A picture tells all.  The original Atlas Code55 is on top, the new supply is on the bottom.  The entire mold has changed.   



The underside has changed as well.  It no longer lays flat as the ties don't have clearance and the lettering stands proud on a portion of the ties. 

[wcfn100]

Mike, the rail head looks fatter on the new stuff in that picture. Is that an illusion?

Jason

[PGE_Modeller]

Mike, the rail head looks fatter on the new stuff in that picture. Is that an illusion?

Jason

Looks like the camera was directly above the lower rail of the upper track.  Everything else is a slightly oblique view.

Cheers,

[mark.hinds]

Mike, the rail head looks fatter on the new stuff in that picture. Is that an illusion?

Jason

If I was still planning to switch my current Shinohara to Atlas, that's the only part that would bother me, if Atlas started using different rail profile with a thicker head. 

From the image, the 72 pieces of code 55 Atlas flex I have stashed away are apparently the older variety, and its rail head is noticeably narrower than the ME code 55 flex I am currently planning to use.  I wouldn't want both rail head profiles in the same scene, as the difference is quite noticeable when you get light reflecting down a section of track. 

MH

[peteski]

A picture tells all.  The original Atlas Code55 is on top, the new supply is on the bottom.  The entire mold has changed.   

[/url]

The underside has changed as well.  It no longer lays flat as the ties don't have clearance and the lettering stands proud on a portion of the ties.

Thanks Mike!

[Doug G.]

It's interesting that the same thing happened with Atlas code 80 sectional track way back in the beginning. The rail head was originally a narrower, rounder profile but very shortly turned into a wider, squarer one.

I think I still have a few pieces of the original someplace.

Doug

[robert3985]

It always seems intriguing to me that those who advocate the use of handlaid track have no difficulty overlooking the lack of spikehead detail.
Isn't this just trading off one visual effect for another?
How do you decide which one should be given the greater priority?

"Spikehead" detail is always a trade off in N-scale.  They're either too big (WAAAaay too big) or non-existent, or so tedious and time consuming to put 'em on, it is difficult to justify...especially when it's scaled properly, it may not be visible to anything but close up photography, and not even then if painted a little too thickly.

ME C70, C55 and C40's "spikehead" details are not what the earlier Railcraft trackage was...with ultra-fine "spikehead" detailing.  Even then, in C40, pizza cutters wouldn't run on it because they bounced over the "spikeheads".  Atlas C55 has the same problem with its grossly oversized blobs that scarcely resemble spikeheads at all.  ME C55 and C40 are only incrementally better...but at least in C55, pizza cutters don't hit them.  ME C40 won't allow anything but true low-pro wheels to run on it, so common engines such as Kato and Atlas all stop on it because it lifts the wheels off, losing electrical continuity. 

Handlaid track has some benefits over currently available flex, particularly C40, but generally speaking, the spikehead details get sacrificed.  I use both ME C40 and handlaid PCB C40...and I have to carefully sand down ME C40 inner spikeheads before the track can be considered functional.  However, I don't have to do that with handlaid C40 PCB track.  Once it's soldered to the glued-down PCB ties and they are properly gapped, it's ready to go...for even pizza cutters (which I don't have any of any longer).

Proto87Stores makes tieplates and spikeheads for ME C40 rails, etched in NS.  They won't work for C55 unless you split the tie plate under the rail at each tie.  The size of the spikeheads are very close to prototype, and in a little test I did three years ago...they get lost they're so small.  In fact, each whole tie plate with its etched spikeheads is about the size of a medium dandruff flake, and if you decide to split them in half to slide under C55 rails, they're half that size...truly minuscule.

Here's a link to their website: http://www.proto87.com/N_scale_turnouts_and_track.html

Photo (1) - Proto87Stores N-scale Tie Plates with etched "spikeheads" for ME C40 rail:


Photo (2) - P87Stores also makes an N-scale C40 fret of turnout details...tie plates, special rail supports etc for turnouts up to a #10:


So...handlaid C55 and C40 track and turnouts CAN be made with ultra-realistic tieplate and spikehead detailing, but...it's so tedious that I've never seen it done anywhere except by Ed Nadolski as a sample, a photograph of which P87Stores uses on their N-scale track products page.

I've had a dozen frets of both products for years, and I've never worked up the initiative to do it...especially once I cut them, laid them out and then scattered them all over my workbench with one ill-placed sneeze!

Truth is, for my eyes and my perceptions about track, zero "spikehead" details at all are better than grossly oversized details.  The reason for my logic is that in most cases, in most prototype photos, the spikeheads are the least noticeable detail of the track...with tie plates being pretty prominent, especially if rusty, but the rail joiners really being the prominent detail on the sides of the rails at each rail joint.  Of course, this detail is almost NEVER modeled in either of the dominant scales (HO and N), but prototypically, they are extremely noticeable.

Here are a few prototype photos illustrating the point....

Photo (3) - 844 Arriving at Ogden Depot.  Note "lightly trafficked" siding.  Where's the "spikehead" detailing???  Not very realistic... 


Photo (4) - 4019 Posing for the photographer at the west end of Echo Yard...spikeheads?  Yup, you can see them in this well-lit photo, but they're really small...really:


Photo (5) - Switching in Salt Lake City...hmmm...where are those pesky spikeheads???  This must be handlaid C40 on PCB ties...   


Photo (6) - The prototype Park City Local heading towards Coalvillle from the Park City Yard at Echo.  I'm having a hard time seeing any spikeheads or tieplates in this shot:


Photo (7) - Echo Canyon, 1946 - a well-lit mainline photo of track.  Once again, although I can see 'em, they're not prominent.  What IS prominent are the rail joiners on the sides of the rails:


I don't recommend hand-laying C55 track, except for the turnouts.  Hand laid C55 track is much more expensive than either ME or Atlas C55 flex, and I can put up with the spikehead details on ME flex.  I can also put up with it on ME C40, but like I've said, ya gotta sand the inner spikeheads for it to be functional.  I prefer hand-laid C40 track for my Park City Branch, so it is ALL hand-laid PCB C40 track.  I also prefer hand laid C40 without spikehead details for lightly trafficked sidings and spurs, as from prototype photos, most of them have buried tieplates and spikeheads which ya can't see.

And as for my hand-laid turnouts in C55 and C40...I don't miss the tie plate and spikehead details enough to put 'em on, even though I have plenty of etched frets to do so.  It evidently is just too damned tedious for me!

One last point.  Sometimes we get used to the size of common details we see in N-scale, which are generally way too big...or thick, such as handrails, or rivets.  Flextrack "spikeheads" are one of those oversized details we like to see, but in truth are huge compared to the same details if they were properly sized to represent "real" details in N-scale.  Peco 55's "spikehead" details are pretty good, but it doesn't compensate for the funky proportioned toylike ties IMHO.  In C55 I'll continue to use my stash of Railcraft C55 until it's gone, or I can't buy it anymore when I find it.  I can barely stand the new ME C55...but I can stand it...and the new Atlas C55 is much worse than the original.  Too bad they decided to go even more out of scale.  The rivet-counter in me cringes at the thought of no spikehead or tieplate details on hand-laid track, but truthfully...those details are not very prominent on transition era mainline trackage.  I had to look hard to find a photo where the spikes were fairly prominent.  So...as I said before, every option is a trade off, but if ya want really prototypical looking hand-laid track, you CAN do it...with a lot of time and effort expended, exponentially more than just using flex or hand laying without the spikehead/tieplate details.

Cheerio!
Bob Gilmore 

[mark.hinds]

(text removed)
... but the rail joiners really being the prominent detail on the sides of the rails at each rail joint.  Of course, this detail is almost NEVER modeled in either of the dominant scales (HO and N), but prototypically, they are extremely noticeable.
(text removed)

I plan to represent the joiners using blob of paint slightly darker than my rail-weathering color, done when I paint the rails.  The theory is that from normal viewing distance this would look similar to what I see in photographs.  Note that on my 1950s Tehachapi prototype, SP apparently had rail joiners every 39 feet, with one rail offset from the other like brick courses in a wall. 



MH

[garethashenden]

Note that on my 1950s Tehachapi prototype, SP apparently had rail joiners every 39 feet, with one rail offset from the other like brick courses in a wall. 

MH

I believe that this was an almost universal standard in the US at the time.

[garethashenden]

One thing that I haven’t seen mentioned yet is that Atlas C55 is sold in 30” lengths whereas ME C55 is sold in 36” lengths. If you have a long mainline to build this may make a difference.

[Point353]

One thing that I haven’t seen mentioned yet is that Atlas C55 is sold in 30” lengths whereas ME C55 is sold in 36” lengths.

It was mentioned by robert3985 in this post: https://www.therailwire.net/forum/index.php?topic=44963.msg581064#msg581064

[mike_lawyer]

Is there a source for the old Railcraft Code 55?  It certainly looks the best out of the bunch.  Second choice of mine would be current ME Code 55.

[Sokramiketes]

Mike, the rail head looks fatter on the new stuff in that picture. Is that an illusion?

Jason

Not an illusion.  It appears that even the rail has changed. 

Note that the ties are wider, without a proportional increase in the tie spacing. Almost like they sized the tie for the gap measurement when the new supplier reverse engineered the old stuff. Add in the even bigger spike heads... and yikes. 

[mark.hinds]

Not an illusion.  It appears that even the rail has changed. 

Note that the ties are wider, without a proportional increase in the tie spacing. Almost like they sized the tie for the gap measurement when the new supplier reverse engineered the old stuff. Add in the even bigger spike heads... and yikes.

Too bad about the railhead width. 

However, if the dimensions shown in the SP Common Standard drawing above are typical, the new Atlas tie width might be an improvement.  The drawing shows 9" ties and 10.5" inter-tie spacing.  That looks pretty close to your image.  (I still prefer the ME code 55 for other reasons however). 

MH