Micro Engineering track poll (in case I win the lottery)

[thomasjmdavis]

Poll is intended to get an idea of how many Railwire modelers are currently using, or plan to use, ME track.  This is probably just an academic exercise, but could be of some small use to anyone who might be serious about making an offer for purchase of the company, in judging the size of the market among serious modelers.

Please indicate the "closest" answer- I am sure there are many other possible options.

Note this poll is not scale specific.

[Missaberoad]

Planning to hand lay code 40, so I'm definitely following the news with great trepidation...

[C855B]

100% of the flex on my layout and in inventory is ME, I guess roughly 2000 feet all told. 100% of all track would be ME if they had more than the #6.

[ncbqguy]

The survey questions don’t tell the whole story, at least mine.
Nobody makes Code 55 turnouts that look prototypical that match the level of the cars and locomotives that we have.
As has been stated before, PECO has the construction issues solved with the double base rail that Midlin and even Gargraves pioneered in HO in the late 1940s.  More scale spikeheads are not a problem with that concept even for Code 40 or smaller rail. 
I have enough ME flex on hand to build a big layout.   But no turnouts.  Big soldered strip metal throw bars or odd wide spaced headblock ties don’t cut it, nor do hinged points.  And certainly not Treble-O gauge 1960’s track appearance.
A nice range of turnout numbers and crossings appropriate for use in this century N Scale would be rewarded in the market.
Charlie Vlk

[mike_lawyer]

The survey questions don’t tell the whole story, at least mine.
Nobody makes Code 55 turnouts that look prototypical that match the level of the cars and locomotives that we have.
As has been stated before, PECO has the construction issues solved with the double base rail that Midlin and even Gargraves pioneered in HO in the late 1940s.  More scale spikeheads are not a problem with that concept even for Code 40 or smaller rail. 
I have enough ME flex on hand to build a big layout.   But no turnouts.  Big soldered strip metal throw bars or odd wide spaced headblock ties don’t cut it, nor do hinged points.  And certainly not Treble-O gauge 1960’s track appearance.
A nice range of turnout numbers and crossings appropriate for use in this century N Scale would be rewarded in the market.
Charlie Vlk

I agree Charlie, N scale is really lacking in realistic looking track and turnout options.  Yes, Atlas C55 looks a lot better than C80, but it could still look a lot more accurate, and we don't have turnouts that are accurate.  There seems to be a glaring hole here.  HO has a ton of really realistic track options available, there should be more on the market in N scale.

[Philip H]

If ME was as easily available as Atlas I'd switch for the rest of my layout build.  But I have a LOT of Atlas on hand already, and a fair supply of Atlas switches as well.  Heck, if ME switches were as easily available i'd probably switch.

[John]

If ME was as easily available as Atlas I'd switch for the rest of my layout build.  But I have a LOT of Atlas on hand already, and a fair supply of Atlas switches as well.  Heck, if ME switches were as easily available i'd probably switch.

If the atlas switches came with a quality frog and closure rails, they wouldn't be that bad ..

[wazzou]

If the atlas switches came with a quality frog and closure rails, they wouldn't be that bad ..

Those are two pretty big components of a well functioning turnout though.

[daniel_leavitt2000]

I have used C40 and C55 for some projects. The ME track can be made to look a lot more like branch-line track than Atlas which I really like. But the molds are worn out and the entire product line needs a heavy revamp.

I would love to see MTL take it over as they are probably one of the few firms that could tool the track well. For N scale, the only thing really worth saving is the rail itself.

With ME out of the way, it might be enough for MTL to actually start a track line in N. Personally I don't really care where it is made as long as it is very high quality, readily available and has a large assortment of switches and specialty items like single and double slips, #12 or larger switches and pre-made rubber, wood or steel grade crossing sections.

Actually add to that a modular bridge system and station platforms and I think you'd have a really good product.

[Rivet Miscounter]

I voted no, nothing available for my scale, as I switched from N to Z about 5 years ago.

Technically, I think I kept one or two ME structures that I imagine can be adapted to Z.

When I first got into N in the very late 90's ME turnout were perpetually out of stock.   I started out with Peco, and then pretty soon thereafter Atlas got in the C55 game.   Over time I bought some ME flex, both Code 40 for industrial tracks and C55 with Concrete Ties.

My two cents...
-PROS: I think ME has a very strong brand, maybe one of the strongest in the industry.   They are arguably considered the best commercially available track in N and HO.   Their packaging and logo are very identifiable.   A few weeks ago I had a buddy that needed some spikes, and I happened to be at a shop.  It was extremely evident in the sea of products where Micro-Engineering items were; The secondary handlaying market is a bonus
-The risks: Peco or new entrants; the complete arsenal of tooling might be aging out if it hasn't already; the constant availability issues with ME has likely created some trust issues with the customer base; General environmental items like workforce shortages, increased labor/insurance costs looming, and possible market softness
-Stateside production could be a competitive advantage...or a risk/liability.  Tough call.

[Dave V]

I voted yes (thinking in HOn3 right now) since the linear feet of flextrack (Micro Engineering) is considerably more than that of my turnouts (a combination of Peco, Micro Engineering, Shinohara, and handlaid).  Of the HOn3 flextrack options, I feel that Micro Engineering looks best.  It has the randomly crooked ties and generally has that intangible "narrow gauge look."  Peco and Shinohara HOn3 track looks a bit too uniform, and is also way more expensive.

As for turnouts, though, I've found the ME HOn3 #6 turnouts are of poor quality...or at least the ones I've purchased have been.  I've had throwbars break on several.  I much prefer the Peco #5 Uniforg turnouts for all the reasons from their robustness to their very short and pre-wired Unifrog.

In N scale, my Colorado Midland uses Peco code 55, but it does have Micro Engineering bridge track on the four biggest bridges/trestles, and of course the signature Midland steel trestle is a modified Micro Engineering viaduct.  There's a mine with a headframe on the layout that's also ME.  Then on the HOn3 RGS, there are two false-front structures from ME.

While not all of my track components on both layouts are Micro Engineering, I could not have built them the way I have without Micro Engineering products.

[sp org div]

Original Railcraft c40 was the cats meow including tie / spike details. ME bought them but molds got worn out. New molds were made but nowhere near the same fidelity (why!?!), but personally still prefer purchasing ME c55 over Atlas c55. Regarding turnouts, they need some #8 or even 10’s to reduce need for scratchbuilds. I ended up modifying the throwbar on a number of their #6 which was a weak spot on earlier versions (dont have any of latest). Great product lineup of bridges, details, and structures that have been most welcome. Really miss the weathered wood ties for handlaying / detailing. The company would be sorely missed here if it were to fold, but then again, N is seeming pretty lethargic overall compared to HO as of late…

Jeff

[Rossford Yard]

Kind of agree with others that there may not be an advantage to buying ME, although if the new owner was able to put out some of their specialty items like bridges, bridge track, HOn3, etc. as a bridge to a new product line, it might be worth it.

I am also in agreement that any new track needs to be state of the art, 21st century quality and prototypical look, even if more expensive.  For me, I would love someone to combine all the best elements of others track lines, at least in my scale, but probably in HO, too, like:

ME-weathered rail and ties, plus specialty tracks.
Atlas C55 proto look and wide availability
Peco
-Spring switch points for hand throw,
-Webbed rail for strength.  Maybe the lower half of the embedded rail doubles as the bus wiring?
Kato
-Rail quality to reduce cleaning
-Rail joiners that really conduct electricity
-Built in roadbed and ballast even in flex track (needs to be more realistic, not sure how. Someone did do a rubberized version in HO years ago
-One problem might be ballast color, as some nerds will point out that NYC gray ballast is different than PRR, and of course, you have CNW pink, etc.  Maybe gray and cinders (for yards) as the main ballast colors, and special runs of other road specific ballast types?
-Built in thin switch motors, plus decoder (maybe gold line without, platinum with decoder)
-Perhaps a realistic ground throw for manual turnouts, if with no motor, or even with motor, for decoration. 
Shinohara multiple turnout yard ladders, crossovers, etc (yes, Kato has some of those too)

Of course, flex track might be $9.99 per LF, and turnouts would probably cost $49.99 with all those features, but basically, you would have ready to run track, and if you add up the $2 LF for track, $1 for cork roadbed, whatever for more solder connections, etc., it might be close to the same economically, with added RTR convenience.

As always, just my opinion, but it seems like every other aspect of MR produces is onward and upward in terms of quality, diversity, RTR, etc.

Again, good luck to both old and new owners of ME.

[wazzou]

I think you'll find many, if not most, would vote with a "hard pass" on most of the KATO parts, excluding rail metallurgy.

[thomasjmdavis]

Is Shinohara track still in production?  My first N scale layout was built with their turnouts (and those ladders mentioned above) in the days when Con-Cor was importing the stuff.  Some of those turnouts still work - I used them in my most recent layout for a staging yard with ME code 70 for track.  So I can testify that they hold up well- literally 5 layouts, and kept that staging yard in one piece in case it proves handy for #6.