Atlas code 55

[robert3985]

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.

I can't see the need for more patience in working with track as worse than having patience to wait for a product to show up for several years. Yeah yeah, I agree that if the customer will expend the effort to search for Atlas 55, he can probably find it somewhere, but one day, the supply will really be gone if Atlas doesn't get the production schedule fixed...soon, and a lot of model railroaders are simply not as tenacious as DKS...or me.

I agree that Atlas flex is easier to lay, unless you're wanting to lay track to a more exact alignment or centerline...then its "floppy" quality is not an asset.

When working on my good friend Nate's (Nato) layout, I find that the Atlas 80 goes down quicker than my ME/Railcraft on my layout, but as opposed to me, he is not worried about laying track closely to a  predetermined centerline as I am.

ON THE OTHER HAND...while many modelers were patiently (or impatiently) waiting for Atlas 55 to show up on their LHS's shelves, those of us who were impatient  and wanted to lay track NOW just bought ME flex and put it down, even though it might have taken a bit longer to do than had we used Atlas 55.  We've been running trains for a couple of years while those less-tenacious modelers are still twiddling their thumbs and complaining about "no code 55 flex".

As for turnouts...ME #6's where appropriate, then either learn to lay your own (which many have done) or pay somebody to do it for you.

There's almost always a work-around of one sort or another.  You just have to willing to do things somewhat differently.

Although the word "marginally" minimizes the difference in appearance between Atlas 55 and ME 55 flex, it IS visible.  The spikeheads on ME flex are noticeably smaller (especially in photographs) and the ties on Atlas are better looking (squarer with much less draft).  To alleviate the differences somewhat in my use of ME/Railcraft flex, I sand the ends of the ties a bit with a sanding block with 220 grit sandpaper, which squares them up quickly.  ME flex is also less uniform appearing (slightly) which I also like better than Atlas 55. ME ties are .009" taller than Atlas 55 ties (.047" tall), the Atlas ties being closest to the 7" height tie...but still too tall by .00325". 

Just assuming that "prototype" rail (not turnout) ties are the same height, width and length is wrong.  The UP supplies and uses ties that are both 6" and 7" tall, 8" or 9" wide, and 8', 8' 6", and 9' long.  Each specification for "heavy", "medium" and "light" use track involves different tie lengths, widths, heights and spacing, with "heavy" use track having the longest, widest, thickest ties spaced the closest together.  Knowing this, what "appears" to your eye to be correct, may in actuality NOT be correct and the only way to really know is to find out what your prototype's requirements were and measure either Atlas or ME to see if either one of them fit.  For the UP, neither one fits...with ME's ties being right for "heavy" use trackage, but the spacing being too far apart, and Atlas' ties being too short for "heavy" use trackage, but the spacing being right.  I didn't worry about tie height since it's not visible when the track is ballasted.

I decided to just use ME because of the better "spikehead" detailing and not worry myself about spacing and tie lengths. 

Yes, it IS picking nits (gnits?) but it's what turns my crank and one of the ways I have a lot of fun with the hobby.

Your nits (gnits) may differ...   

[mmagliaro]

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

Well, that's a mighty perfect definition of what the ballast should look like.  But in practice, I bet there are always ties here and there where you can see the ends, or more of the middle, than would be "perfect".  And in fact, real ballast isn't perfect anyway.   Then there are the sections across bridges, up on trestles, or near throwbars, where you can see the whole tie,
and places in yards where the track is supposed to look a little more ratty and you don't have a nice smooth
ballast profile to conceal the actual height of the ties.

To me, those visual cues just make the track look "bigger".

All that being said, if ME made other than just the #6 turnout, and if their turnouts didn't need fixin' somewhat like the Atlas (point rails too narrow and point hinges that have to be wired around to keep reliable), I would probably have gone with ME track again for my current layout.   Don't take this "taller tie" thing as an indication that I don't like the track.

[DKS]

Then there are the sections across bridges, up on trestles...

Was wondering if you'd go there... and not to drag this out, but different ties are used in these circumstances anyway. As for the rest, I still think you're quibbling over things that can easily be addressed by the modeler. And consider this: under "ideal" circumstances, you may indeed see the full height of a tie (such as around points), but you won't see the surface of unrealistic subroadbed. That is to say, it's easier to bring your ballast up to the supposed "bottom" of a tie when the tie is in fact too tall, than it is to expose the full or near-full height of a tie that's the "correct" height without leaving bare subroadbed exposed. But I digress...

[pnolan48]

Nits and gnats aside, I was satisfied to learn from Paul Graf that c55 was their low volume seller, so it would obviously be on the last boat! That alone pretty much explains the delay, and I can buy into it.

[kalbert]

Ufda... you guys are still talking about this? Atlas hasn't told us anything they didn't tell us from day one. They had to change manufacturing facilities, they are starting production with the most popular items first, N scale and more specifically C55 is not high on that list. Certainly not as popular as we have hoped and speculated it was in the past. They have a shipping report available on their website. Anyone can check it for updates on when things are expected. Note that it is not written in stone, the dates and products change based on what their manufacturer is able to produce. Peco makes track products that some find to be satisfactory and some don't. Micro Engineering make some track products that some find satisfactory and some don't. Some prefer to hand lay, some don't, and of those who do some prefer to use jigs and some don't. What else is there to talk about really?

/>

[Mark W]

What else is there to talk about really?

Clearly you don't understand how web forums work.  You see, there are these people whose job is literally to gauge the market and decide what products to produce and how to prioritize them.  Usually the term expert applies to them.  Then, there are these other people, the TRUE EXPERTS.  These people have literally zero understanding of market strategy, yet rant endlessly as if they do.  But what nobody knows is, the  real experts just spend their days scourging web forums and getting their strategy info from the TRUE EXPERTS.  Therefore, if we don't keep talking about it, Atlas won't have a clue how to manage their business. 

Let's please keep this topic alive, for the sake of Code Fiddy Five!

[robert3985]

Ufda... you guys are still talking about this? Atlas hasn't told us anything they didn't tell us from day one. They had to change manufacturing facilities, they are starting production with the most popular items first, N scale and more specifically C55 is not high on that list. Certainly not as popular as we have hoped and speculated it was in the past. They have a shipping report available on their website. Anyone can check it for updates on when things are expected. Note that it is not written in stone, the dates and products change based on what their manufacturer is able to produce. Peco makes track products that some find to be satisfactory and some don't. Micro Engineering make some track products that some find satisfactory and some don't. Some prefer to hand lay, some don't, and of those who do some prefer to use jigs and some don't. What else is there to talk about really?

/>

Meh...It just gives us an opportunity to yammer on about track...which is an interesting subject for many of us...   

[w neal]

Relax fellas. After many months of procrastination, I recently purchased a box of 100 pieces of code 55 off a store shelf. $3.75 a section. I've now jinxed it for all of us. The stuff will now soon be available (end of May?). Its gotta work like custom painting that locomotive you always wanted to see produced. Do it, and then it is announced. Recently though, I think I am losing my touch. I was gathering supplies to paint up some DM&E SD's. Then, along comes Intermountain. I didn't even get a chance to paint them! YEEESH! 

[Dave Schneider]

Clearly you don't understand how web forums work.  You see, there are these people whose job is literally to gauge the market and decide what products to produce and how to prioritize them.  Usually the term expert applies to them.  Then, there are these other people, the TRUE EXPERTS.  These people have literally zero understanding of market strategy, yet rant endlessly as if they do.  But what nobody knows is, the  real experts just spend their days scourging web forums and getting their strategy info from the TRUE EXPERTS.  Therefore, if we don't keep talking about it, Atlas won't have a clue how to manage their business. 

Let's please keep this topic alive, for the sake of Code Fiddy Five!

You know Mark, while I agree with most of what you wrote, I don't think that this bashing is warranted in this case. Those of us trying to use Atlas Code 55 have endured NUMEROUS delays over the course of several years. Most of us have been very understanding. Most of us acknowledge that Atlas has appeared to have done their best to correct the problems. Most of us have been patient. Now we are told that they hope to have everything in stock by the end of 2014. I sure hope so, but we have been down this road before. This is far from the "normal" backseat driving by people who just hang out in hobby shops and online to complain, but never build anything.

Best wishes, Dave

[nickelplate759]

I know this is an old thread, but I've noticed that some turnouts are scarce everywhere except for the charlatans that are charging $30 - $70 for a single turnout - like right hand curved turnouts.    Anyone have any information on how long one might have to wait for restock?

[Point353]

I know this is an old thread, but I've noticed that some turnouts are scarce everywhere except for the charlatans that are charging $30 - $70 for a single turnout - like right hand curved turnouts.    Anyone have any information on how long one might have to wait for restock?

Check your PM for links to some shops that may have the right-hand curved turnout available.
About how many do you need?
Was that the only item you were trying to find in stock?

[ednadolski]

I might have some on hand, lightly used but in good shape.  PM if interested.

Ed