Author Topic: Atlas Code 55 vs. ME Code 55  (Read 7930 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Mark5

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 11044
  • Always with the negative waves Moriarty ...
  • Respect: +609
Re: Atlas Code 55 vs. ME Code 55
« Reply #15 on: July 04, 2018, 10:08:31 AM »
0
there is simply no comparison in performance.  My only advice is to use bulk wood ties instead of the pre-cut tie kits from Fast Tracks, and if you REALLY want to save cash, you can even cut your PC board ties yourself (I used the Fast Tracks PC board ties, both for "regular" ties as needed, and the slightly wider throwbar tie; I bought unstained wood ties from Clover House for everything else).

John C.

I agree. When I had time to hand lay track, it operated flawlessly.

Mark


mike_lawyer

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 756
  • Respect: +163
Re: Atlas Code 55 vs. ME Code 55
« Reply #16 on: July 04, 2018, 11:25:58 AM »
0
I used all Atlas Code 55 for my layout, which includes about 80 turnouts, mostly Atlas #7's with a few #5's.  Love the look of the flex, and I prefer the "springy" nature of Atlas flex to the stiff ME - I find it easier to lay smooth curves and transitions with springy track.

As for the turnouts - they are OK, but there is no question that if I had it all to do over again, I'd build the turnouts from scratch.  I have a #6 Fast Tracks jig, a point form tool, and a stock-aid tool.  I made several #6's using these tools for my layout in switching areas, and then did a few #4's using just a paper template (from the Fast Tracks web site).  These hand-made turnouts outperform the Atlas turnouts by such a wide margin they aren't even in the same galaxy.  Engines and rolling stock literally glide through the hand-laid turnouts; I have an Athearn Big Boy that will negotiate my hand-laid #4 without a single problem, but has trouble getting through an Atlas #5.  Honestly, it's hard to describe (or believe) the difference until you see it.  And BTW, I used the ME Code 55 rail supplied by Fast Tracks, and it mated just fine with the Atlas flex.  But I also stripped a couple of pieces of Atlas flex just to see if that would also work, and it did.

Yes, it's time consuming, particularly if you are doing a relatively large layout with a lot of turnouts.  And it takes about 4 tries to get the techniques down and to produce a really good one.  But if you ARE doing a lot, you can actually save money going the hand-laid route, and there is simply no comparison in performance.  My only advice is to use bulk wood ties instead of the pre-cut tie kits from Fast Tracks, and if you REALLY want to save cash, you can even cut your PC board ties yourself (I used the Fast Tracks PC board ties, both for "regular" ties as needed, and the slightly wider throwbar tie; I bought unstained wood ties from Clover House for everything else).

John C.

Going with Atlas Flex and Fast Tracks Turnouts seems like the way to go.  Question - is the tie height the same for Atlas Flex and the ties used by Fast Tracks?  Any issues when joining Atlas Flex and Fast Tracks Turnouts with regard to the height?

wmcbride

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 503
  • Respect: +81
Re: Atlas Code 55 vs. ME Code 55
« Reply #17 on: July 04, 2018, 11:32:08 AM »
0
I agree. When I had time to hand lay track, it operated flawlessly.

Mark

Same. I could not stand the car drop going  through the frogs in Atlas code 55 trunouts and in the ME turnouts.
Bill McBride

jdcolombo

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 2265
  • Respect: +973
Re: Atlas Code 55 vs. ME Code 55
« Reply #18 on: July 04, 2018, 03:47:19 PM »
0
Going with Atlas Flex and Fast Tracks Turnouts seems like the way to go.  Question - is the tie height the same for Atlas Flex and the ties used by Fast Tracks?  Any issues when joining Atlas Flex and Fast Tracks Turnouts with regard to the height?

No issues with tie height, at least using the Clover House bulk wood ties along with the Fast Tracks PC board ties.  The turnout and Atlas flex mated flawlessly. 

John C.

bdennis

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 557
  • Gender: Male
  • Respect: +172
    • Delaware & Hudson Champlain Division
Re: Atlas Code 55 vs. ME Code 55
« Reply #19 on: July 04, 2018, 06:36:37 PM »
0
Im with John. No issues with height. I use FastTracks wood ties.
Brendan Dennis
N scale - Delaware & Hudson Champlain Division

mark.hinds

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 480
  • Gender: Male
  • Respect: +65
Re: Atlas Code 55 vs. ME Code 55
« Reply #20 on: July 04, 2018, 10:23:13 PM »
+1
Going with Atlas Flex and Fast Tracks Turnouts seems like the way to go.  Question - is the tie height the same for Atlas Flex and the ties used by Fast Tracks?  Any issues when joining Atlas Flex and Fast Tracks Turnouts with regard to the height?

Another solution is to use Evergreen strip plastic, cut to length with a NWSL Chopper tool.  Pick a thickness that matches your PC board ties.  You can give it wood grain with a wire brush before cutting. 

MH

Sokramiketes

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 4974
  • Better modeling through peer pressure...
  • Respect: +1533
    • Modutrak
Re: Atlas Code 55 vs. ME Code 55
« Reply #21 on: July 05, 2018, 04:34:50 PM »
0
The new Atlas Code 55 is vastly different from the original stuff, so that may factor into the decision process as well.  It has become coarser.

peteski

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 32994
  • Gender: Male
  • Honorary Resident Curmudgeon
  • Respect: +5351
    • Coming (not so) soon...
Re: Atlas Code 55 vs. ME Code 55
« Reply #22 on: July 05, 2018, 04:41:09 PM »
0
The new Atlas Code 55 is vastly different from the original stuff, so that may factor into the decision process as well.  It has become coarser.

"Coarser" is quite nebulous.  Can you provide a bit more detailed information?
. . . 42 . . .

Mark W

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 1988
  • Respect: +2125
    • Free-moNebraska
Re: Atlas Code 55 vs. ME Code 55
« Reply #23 on: July 05, 2018, 05:24:49 PM »
0
Going with Atlas Flex and Fast Tracks Turnouts seems like the way to go.  Question - is the tie height the same for Atlas Flex and the ties used by Fast Tracks?  Any issues when joining Atlas Flex and Fast Tracks Turnouts with regard to the height?

Fast Tracks PC Board Ties are just under .010" shorter than Atlas Flex ties, but that's negligible for any track work except for butt-joint modular endplates.
Contact me about custom model building.
Learn more about Free-moNebraska.
Learn more about HOn3-mo.

robert3985

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 3130
  • Respect: +1505
Re: Atlas Code 55 vs. ME Code 55
« Reply #24 on: July 06, 2018, 07:53:01 AM »
+5
Hey guys -

I am finally back to N-scale after about a 6 year hiatus (move, family, etc.).  I am planning a nice size N-scale layout, and I am debating between using Atlas Code 55 track and ME Code 55 track.  I used Atlas Code 55 on my previous layout and liked it, never had any problems with it.  I am leaning towards using it again, but ME Code 55 interests me as well.  For turnouts, I am debating between Atlas C55 turnouts or doing my own with fast tracks.  If I do fast tracks, I basically have to use ME C55 because fast tracks uses ME rail.

For anyone who has experienced both, what are the pros and cons of each one?  Any help would be much appreciated.  Thanks!

Mike

Mike, each product has its pros and cons, although both pros and cons are different for each brand.

It's been a while since I've purchased either ME or Atlas flex, but I have observed and laid both enough to tell a distinct difference between the brands.

For myself, I don't use either brand for mainline foreground trackage, but I use my stock of Railcraft C55 and C40 flex, which is much more prototypical looking than ME, and vastly more prototypical looking than Atlas.

For hidden trackage and on transition modules, I use ME flex in C55 and C40 for mainline track, sidings and spurs.  For my Park City Branch trackage, I handlay C40 PCB tie trackage with a PCB tie every fifth tie.

ADVANTAGES:

Here are the advantages of Atlas C55 flex over ME C55 flex:  (1) The ties on Atlas flex have squarer ends (2) Because one rail is loose, it is possible to join sections quicker than with stiff ME C55 (3) Atlas C55's tie spacing is spot-on for U.P. "heavily trafficked" trackage for my mainlines

Here are the advantages of ME C55 flex over Atlas flex: (1) ME C55 spike heads are noticeably smaller and more prototypical appearing than what Atlas uses (2) ME C55 comes in an actual 1 yard lengths (3) Me C55 comes with weathered rail if you like that stuff (4) ME C55 is stiffer and holds a precise curvature as opposed to floppy Atlas flex (5) Pizza cutters will run on ME C55 flex without hitting the spikeheads (6) Availability for ME C55 flex is generally much better than with Atlas since ME is made in the USA and is not subject to the political/industrial upheavals and changes that China regularly experiences (7) Tie length on ME C55 flex is just about right for U.P. "heavily trafficked" trackage (8 ) ME C55 flex's more irregular ties and spikeheads are just what the doctor ordered for my late '40's and early '50's U.P. mainline trackage

DISADVANTAGES:

Here are the disadvantages of Atlas C55 flex: (1) Atlas C55 is floppy and will not hold a curve (2) One rail on Atlas C55 flex is loose meaning it isn't as precisely in gauge or as stable as ME C55 once it's permanently attached (3) One loose rail means that Atlas C55 flex is more prone to kink after being permanently attached than the much stiffer ME C55 flex from temperature changes and/or benchwork flex or shrinkage (4) Atlas C55 flex is several inches shorter than the 3' length of ME flex sections, meaning that you'll be buying more sections of Atlas flex to finish your layout than with ME (5) Atlas C55 flex has much larger thingies that hold the rail to the ties, which interfere with pizza cutter wheels and don't look like anything prototypical for wooden-tied North American trackage (6) For my U.P. mainlines, Atlas C55 flex ties are shorter than what U.P. used for its mainline trackage in the 1950's (7) No pre-weathered rail Atlas C55 flex is available from Atlas if you like that stuff (8 ) Atlas C55 ties are much too regular and perfect for the division of U.P. mainline that I am modeling (9) Atlas C55 flex is much too floppy to be easily laid to a precise centerline as opposed to ME's stiffness

Here are the disadvantages of ME C55 flex:
(1) ME C55 is much stiffer than Atlas C80, making it more difficult to lay smooth curves, spiral easements and straights (2) ME C55's ties often have rounded ends, which need to be hit with a file or sanding board to square them up (3) ME C55 often has sections of ties on the same section that are obviously offset from the adjacent tie section...meaning they're off-center just the opposite of the adjacent tie section's off-centeredness (4) ME C55's tie spacing is too far apart for U.P. "heavily trafficked" prototype trackage I'm modeling


GENERAL OBSERVATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS:

Neither Atlas C55 nor ME C55 had the correct tie spacing AND tie lengths for heavily trafficked U.P. mainline trackage I am modeling.  Atlas C55's ties were too short, but spaced perfectly...ME 55's were just the right length, but spaced too far apart.  When looking at the prototype areas I am modeling, the irregular ME ties were more prototypical than the Atlas ties...which are noticeably more perfect...too perfect for my prototype. Winner for me was ME C55.

I lay to a precisely drawn centerline, often with spiral easements, and more than a single radius in the same section of flex.  Atlas C55 is just too floppy to do this efficiently as it won't keep a bend, but flops around.  However, if you're freehanding your track laying, the floppiness of the Atlas C55 is an advantage.  For me and my track laying preferences, the winner was ME C55.

I take closeup photographs all the time of my layout.  The huge blobs that Atlas uses as "spikeheads" jump out from my photos and slap me across the face!  When viewed with my naked eye, ME's don't look much better, but when I photograph a scene that used ME C55 Flex, the "spikeheads" are not nearly as intrusive as those on Atlas C55.  Winner for spikehead smallness and more-prototypical appearance is clearly ME C55.

Photo (1) - Close Up Comparo of Atlas C55 and ME C55 Flex...(Atlas C55 on the left):


The very best looking and functioning flex was Railcraft C55.  What a crying shame ME decided to downgrade their quality when they cut new molds when the old ones wore out!  :facepalm:

Photo (2) - Just for shirts and giggles, here's a comparo between Railcraft C55 and Atlas C55...guess which one is which:





SOME OBSERVATIONS ABOUT ME C40 FLEX:

I use Railcraft C40 flex for my mainline spurs and sidings.  On some sections, I use ME C40 because I miss the spikehead details of ME flex on my hand-laid C40 PCB branchline trackage.  I discovered that ME C40 will not allow many common engines to run, particularly Kato E's and F's, which I run a lot of because of the time period I'm modeling.  Using a very small sanding stick, I sand down the inner spikeheads on ME C40 flex, which flattens the "spikeheads" giving much more clearance for wheelsets that may not be considered to truly be "low profile".  However, ANY pizza cutters simply will not run on ME C40 flex.  For pizza cutters to operate flawlessly, hand-laid C40 PCB trackage works perfectly...with a PCB tie every fifth tie.

Photo (3) - Emory Center Siding in ME C40 flex with sanded-down inner spikeheads for clearance:



Photo (4) - Park City Local West-bound on Hand-laid C40 PCB Park City Branch trackage painted, ballasted and weathered:



Hand laid PCB C40 can be built to depict very accurately lightly trafficked trackage, or decrepit, seldom used spurs and sidings.

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



TURNOUTS, A GENERAL DISCUSSION:


Turnouts in C55 are both sporadically problematic with occasional Q/A problems, and with ever-present design problems.  There are problems with every brand, with some problems I think are HUGE that you may not notice at all, and some minor ones that are easily fixed. Let's look at them from a prototype appearance aspect.  Generally speaking, prototype turnouts have ties and fasteners (spikeheads) that are different than what is used on simple straight or curved track.  Most ties on prototype turnouts are longer than regular trackage ties, and are also spaced differently throughout the length of the turnout.  What does this mean for those not wanting to build their own turnouts from scratch?  It means that you can mix and match several brands of turnouts no matter what brand of flex you decide to use, and still look damned good...especially if you paint, ballast and weather your trackage. Additionally, this also gives you much more flexibility in your layout design parameters.

However, as I've posted many times, Atlas turnouts are proportioned to fit in with Atlas sectional track, so they are much shorter than they should be from the toe of the frog to the toes of the closure point rails.  If you're not aware of that, then maybe it won't make any difference to you, but to ME...it jumps out and slaps me.  I am much more forgiving of the huge blobby "spikeheads" on Atlas C55 turnouts than I am of the same things on their flex...so that minus point I ignore.

Their odd proportions is something I have not been able to forgive because it's false advertising and compromises their operation in some instances.  The odd proportions makes them closer to one-size-smaller than the turnout number Atlas advertises them as.  For instance, the Atlas #7 is actually about a #6.4 or #6.6, depending on how you calculate it...definitely NOT a #7, which is much longer than the Atlas C55 turnout with a much greater effective diverging track radius.  The problem is even more evident in their #10 C55 turnout, and the problem makes their #5 turnout nearly unusable for many engines, which would run just fine on a "real", properly proportioned #5.

Atlas C55 turnouts have several other problems in addition to their odd proportions, particularly the "mystery metal" their closure points and frogs are made from...which are plated.  This plating often wears off, and then, they look like Hell...and the only way to fix their rancid appearance is to replace them.  Go easy with the Bright Boy, and this problem will take longer to occur, but IT WILL occur if you use an abrasive track cleaning protocol.

The best looking, most robust C55 turnout is the ME #6.  The only problem with it in my experience, is that it only comes in one size...which is a HUGE problem! 

Every RTR turnout you buy, you need to run it through a series of checks to make sure it is really operational before installing it permanently on your layout.  Some things you can repair easily, some things you can repair hard...and some things require you to return it and get a replacement.  Some problems may happen a couple of years after they're installed, such as the infamous Atlas feeder corrosion problems.  Some problems you can see as soon as you take them out of the box...both ME and Atlas.

If I were to only use RTR commercial turnouts, I would use ME #6's instead of Atlas #7's because of the weird proportions and shortness of the Atlas turnout, making it in actuality about a #6.4 turnout...but badly proportioned.  For larger turnouts, I'd go with Atlas C55 #10's, and Atlas Curved turnouts.  For the few other turnouts I might need, I'd go with Peco C55 turnouts...Electro-Frogs...even though the tie size and spacing are horrendous...which paint, ballasting and weathering can do a good job of making much less obvious.

A good friend of mine, Bob Gerald, who has a really GREAT Milwaukee Road layout and who has hand laid his own turnouts for decades, chose to buy Fast Tracks jigs and fixtures for C55 #8's, and then he'd fabricate any other size turnouts he might need since he had the skills and experience to do that.  This has worked out really well for him, and the Fast Tracks equipment really cut down his layout fabrication time...as well as the total cost of his turnouts.

Those of us who are experienced with rolling our own turnouts, know that we can build them to be much better looking, much higher precision, much more consistently, much cheaper, and with drastically more variety than any of the three main manufacturers can.  The only thing that's a drawback to rolling your own turnouts is the extra time it takes to fabricate them.  Fast Tracks jigs and fixtures make this negligible.

I have a single ME C55 #6 turnout leading into the Echo Sandhouse Spur just east of the Echo Coaling Tower that I installed as a test, and kept it there after it gave me zero problems, and looked great too.  This is the only RTR turnout on my layout.  I hand lay every turnout, and by the time the layout is complete, I'll have right around 1200 turnouts total.

I don't use jigs or fixtures for building my turnouts, just paper templates I either draw myself, or download from Proto87Stores or on rare occasions, from Fast Tracks.


Photo (6) - Hand laid C55 at Echo Coaling Tower and Echo Yard, and C40 turnouts & track at Park City Yard:



Turnout Conclusions and Suggestions:

Sure, if Peco would introduce a line of N-scale C55 or C46 North American style turnouts and diamonds in the same variety as their HO track, then the track and turnout problem would be solved 95% of the time, with only the odd custom turnout or crossing needing to be scratch built.  But, that's just a pipe-dream. 

In the meantime, I am going to suggest to you strongly that you look into learning the easy processes of rolling your own turnouts, with the help of Fast Track jigs and fixtures...ordering the tools you need to fabricate the most common turnout on your layout.  This will teach you how to make your own, and you'll have much better, always available, easily repairable turnouts that will be MUCH cheaper, but take a little more time to have on your layout than ones you order or pick up at your LHS.  The advantages of rolling your own are way too many to ignore, and when you start out, you'll see how simple they really are to make, and you'll never again be held hostage by either ME or Atlas when you really need turnouts to continue your layout track laying.

Photo (7) - Hand laid turnouts at Emory Center Siding which could never have been done with RTR turnouts:



Cheerio!
Bob Gilmore







« Last Edit: July 06, 2018, 08:09:03 AM by robert3985 »

Angus Shops

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 779
  • Respect: +275
Re: Atlas Code 55 vs. ME Code 55
« Reply #25 on: July 06, 2018, 12:29:43 PM »
+3
What Mr. Gilmore said and more: I started with Railcraft and moved to ME before Atlas C55 was available, so I'm used to working with ME's stiffness and find that it does have some advantages. It is more work to achieve consistent curve radii and and smooth transitions, but once you get the curve you want, it 'sticks' and won't change as you mess around with fastening the track down and etc. On my new layout I'm going to experiment with tie spacing on the ME C55 for the non mainline track and make greater use of C40.
Fast Track all the way for turnouts. I'm using #7 and 9's and will need about 70 in total. Up here in Canada a store bought turnout is pushing $30.00 so I can save enough on the turnouts alone for a ride on the Canadian in sleeper class. No brainer for me! As noted by many, both Atlas and ME turnouts have "issues" and hand built are pretty much bullet proof. I use the continuous point rail method (as opposed the the hinged style) for even greater bullet proofness and ease of construction, and I add a few more PC ties than Fast Tracks recommends at he frog and the points for additional strength. My only complaint with Fast Tracks is that their in-house PC tie product results in a lot of wastage, although if you cut them 'across the fret' you can be more efficient.
Geoff

robert3985

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 3130
  • Respect: +1505
Re: Atlas Code 55 vs. ME Code 55
« Reply #26 on: July 06, 2018, 07:47:14 PM »
+1
Another solution is to use Evergreen strip plastic, cut to length with a NWSL Chopper tool.  Pick a thickness that matches your PC board ties.  You can give it wood grain with a wire brush before cutting. 

MH

Mark, ( @mark.hinds )
Having used various wooden ties in both my C40 track-laying and C70, C55 and C40 turnout construction, for the past five years or so, I've been using Evergreen Styrene strip, which I scrape "wood grain" into using an old, fine Zona saw blade.

Since I spray my turnouts and track with Krylon Camo Ultra Flat Black paint before picking out the ties with various shades and tones of brown, then ballasting and weathering, the naturally occurring wood grain of wooden ties gets mostly covered up anyway.

I like the stability of the Evergreen strips, and the precise ends I get when cutting them to final length after installing them with a sharp X-acto blade.  If I do that with wooden ties, often the ends will "squash", so in the past, I've cut wooden turnout ties in place using a cut off wheel on my Dremel...a much less exact way of doing it.  I also like the distinct "grain" scraping with the Zona saw blade gives me on the tops and top end edges of the Styrene ties.

Photo (1) - Turnout construction using Evergreen Styrene strips between PCB ties, showing scraped-in "wood grain" on tops and end edges:


Photo (2) - C40 Park City Branch #8 turnout using Evergreen Styrene "ties", painted, but not weathered yet:



Cheerio!
Bob Gilmore

« Last Edit: July 06, 2018, 07:48:58 PM by robert3985 »

mike_lawyer

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 756
  • Respect: +163
Re: Atlas Code 55 vs. ME Code 55
« Reply #27 on: July 07, 2018, 06:24:59 PM »
0
Bob -

Wow, that information summary is awesome!  I have made fast tracks Turnouts before and enjoy making them, and that would be a natural match for ME flex track.  I am leaning towards ME flex right now, I have used ME Code 83 flex before and don't find it difficult to work with, especially with Ribbon Rail templates for curves.

Tom L

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 458
  • Respect: +501
Re: Atlas Code 55 vs. ME Code 55
« Reply #28 on: July 07, 2018, 07:03:05 PM »
0
Wow, awesome track work. The one thing that is really starting to bug me about my layout is the track (peco), especially since I converted all my rolling stock to FVM wheels. It works fine and is fairly well blended in  by ballast, paint and weeds, but just can't match the look , operation and flow of hand laid turnouts. This thread is really tempting me to pull up my trackage and replacing it with Atlas or ME code 55 and Fasttracks turnouts.

Tom L.

towl1996

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 799
  • Chairman of TRW Busty Cougar Welcoming Committee
  • Respect: +146
Re: Atlas Code 55 vs. ME Code 55
« Reply #29 on: July 07, 2018, 07:54:23 PM »
0
Another solution is to use Evergreen strip plastic, cut to length with a NWSL Chopper tool. 

What are you using to secure the styrene ties to the rail? Thanks
Never argue with idiots; they'll drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience.