ME Flex

[Catt]

When I built my last layout I decided I wanted to use code 55 track. This was shortly after ATLAS announced their code 55.Only thing was there wasn't any.So I decided to use ME code 55.The stuff did not exist anywhere,so I decided to use PECO code 55 and walked right into a killer deal.I bought a box of PECO for $25.00 .It was missing one stick.When I did my grain elevator I decided to use the ATLAS track because it was lower and it was not the difficult to alter the PECO to accept the ATLAS turnouts so the storage yard got built with ATLAS track.

When I rebuilt the  layout I used the PECO for mainline and the ATLAS again for sidings.I'm happy with it but if ME had had the track when I needed it the layout would have been built with it back in the 1990s.Funny thing is I can now get the ATLAS track just about in every hobbyshop here in Grand Rapids,I just can't get rail joiners.

[wcfn100]

.

This is definitely not a "Ford vs Chevy" question as far as appearance is concerned. 

Spoken like a true Ford (or Chevy) guy. 


Jason

[MichaelWinicki]

I've found that once I weathered the ties and rail on my Atlas code 55 flex, the size of the spike heads becomes much less noticeable.  At least on the PRR in later years the rail sides, spike heads and ties all just had about the same color.

My challenge with ME flex, at least the pieces I viewed, is the tie-spacing was a bit closer and the tie-length a bit longer than those found on Atlas code 55 flex, which is more accurate when it comes with how the PRR did things.

[mark.hinds]

I beg to disagree with you.  The best looking, presently available flextrack is ME track, if your definition of "best looking" answers the question "Which N-scale track looks most prototypical?"
(text removed)

Cheerio!
Bob Gilmore

Bob, your photo is better than mine.    However, there are a few additional useful comments which can be made here in comparing recent production of the 2 competing brands. 

(1) Firstly the ME code 55 has scale 9-foot ties, while the Atlas code 55 has scale 8.5-foot ties.  Also, when the ties are adjusted to be perpendicular to the rail, Atlas ties are slightly closer spaced.  This may matter to some modelers, depending on their prototype and era.  For example, my prototype Southern Pacific used 9-foot ties on new mainline track by the late 1960s, but during the 1950s in the Tehachapis (my prototype), they seem to be shorter (from photographs, I measured 8.5 feet, which matches Atlas).  The tie spacing from my CS 1900 (SP Common Standard) drawing also matches Atlas slighly better. 

(2) Secondly, the Atlas railhead (top of the rail?) is slightly narrower and slightly more rounded than ME.  This means that the rail looks "finer" when viewed from end-on. 

(3) Thirdly, ME flex is tighter gauged than Atlas code-55 flex.  Because of the loose rail on one side of the latter, you can get the NMRA gauge to drop down (overgauge) with minimal pressure.  I don't know whether this matters in a practical sense, though. 

(4) Finally, "pizza cutter" wheels (as in original N-scale Kadee/MT plastic wheels) will hit the spike detail on *both* Atlas and recent ME code-55 flex. 

The reason I am again considering ME over Atlas for my code 55 test scene is that I have a lot of experience with code-70 Shinohara flex from the 1980s, and the ME seems to be quite similar in construction, though of finer appearance, and thus seems less risky to me from a performance perspective.  I also like the stiff flex, which works well with my MR-Clinchfield-layout-era tracklaying techniques.  I rationalize away the 9-foot ties by saying that it would allow me to use my layout for 1970s-era if I wanted, and anyway, when viewed from the side and at near eye level, it isn't really noticeable. 

MH

[robert3985]

I model the UP from 1947 thru 1956 from Ogden UT to Wahsatch UT, so I can't speak for other prototypes and their tie length & spacing...BUT, a couple of years ago I did a spacing/length study of ME 55, ME 40 and Atlas 55 to see which brand or model fit my Class I prototype railroad ( UP ). 

I don't have the exact measurements or specification on hand at the moment, but the results were ambiguous, with only ME 40 falling accurately into a specific category of "Lightly Trafficked Trackage" having both the proper tie length and tie spacing for that trackage.  ME 55 flex's ties were the correct length but spaced too far apart for "Heavily Trafficked Trackage", and Atlas 55 had the correct tie spacing, but the ties were too short for "Heavily Trafficked Trackage".

I pondered "the problem" for a couple of days, comparing both ME 55 and Atlas 55 side-by-side to see if tie length, or tie spacing was more evident since I was not going to be able to have both unless I cut all the spacers between ties on ME 55 and slid the ties closer together, which I am not willing to do.

During those couple of days, what really reached out and slapped me across the face was the bigness of the nubs on the Atlas 55.  I like the squareness of Atlas ties better than ME's rounded tie ends, but I can cure that problem with a few strokes with a sanding block with 220 grit emery paper stapeled on it.

In the end, I decided that differing correct tie length and spacing for "Heavily Trafficked" and "Medium Trafficked" trackage on my layout was something I wasn't going to worry about, instead representing only the difference between "Heavily Trafficked" and "Lightly Trafficked" trackage by using ME 55 and ME 40.

One of the main things that influenced me was the irony of worrying about tie length and spacing, when the rail itself (Code 55) represents an ultra-heavy rail weight that UP never used, and because the rails are drawn for HO scale rails, both code 40 and code 55 railheads  are much wider and flatter than "proper" N-scale rail should be.

In other words, no matter what I was going to do, it wasn't going to be correct.

So, I opted for better looking spikehead details and went with ME55 (both ME and RC) for my mainlines, and both ME 40 and hand-laid C40 for sidings and branchlines.

Frankly, I've found that rail height is the least noticeable feature of track.  Most noticeable to me is the tie size and spacing, then spikehead size and proportion, then rail profile, then lastly, rail height.  This applies to painted, weathered and ballasted track, which minimizes the appearance of rail height both to the naked eye and in photographs.

Mark @mark.hinds , I was not aware that "new" ME C55 also had pizza cutter interference problems.  I don't use much of it since I have my cache of Rail Craft 55, and I don't run pizza cutters on either motive power or rolling stock, but I'll do a test to confirm your contention if I can find some pizza cutters stowed away somewhere.

I build my turnouts to a "tight" NMRA standard, which requires me to make sure that all my motive power is properly gauged to run through them smoothly, which I believe everybody should do anyway...so the tightly gauged ME track vs not-so-tightly-gauged Atlas 55 flex is yet another plus for ME IMO and fits with what I want on my layout.

As to code 70 Shinohara, back in the 80's when I was active in Ntrak, I chose to use Rail Craft 70 on my modules after a direct comparison to Shinohara 70 flex.  Yup, both are exponentially better looking than the Ntrak "standard" of Atlas 80 back in the day, but Rail Craft 70 with its finer spikehead detailing really made everybody stand up and pay attention.

Photo (1)-Here's a photo of my old Ntrak modules with Railcraft 70...emphasizing that the excessive rail height is virtually unoticeable after painting, weathering and ballasting:


Cheerio!
Bob Gilmore

[OldEastRR]

My recent ME flex doesn't seem to have any flange/spike problems, and I have old Kadee pizza cutters on some of my cars. Even my old ConCor PA1 with those big 1970's flanges has no problem.
Really don't understand why people are hung up on this flange thing anyway. For all freight and most passenger equipment made today there are modern wheelsets with lower flanges that can replace the pizza cutters. This is a lot cheaper method than us "upgraders" had back in the day, when everything came with Rapido couplers. Then you either had to body-mount MTL couplers and cut off the couplers on the stock trucks, or for crappy stock trucks replace the entire thing with an entire MTL one. Both of which got expensive if  you had lots of cars to convert, plus left you with a pile of useless cut-off Rapidos or almost as useless trucks w/ Rapidos. Just something for you to think about if changing wheelsets seems like a bother.
Robert3985, check your PM.

[mark.hinds]

My recent ME flex doesn't seem to have any flange/spike problems, and I have old Kadee pizza cutters on some of my cars. Even my old ConCor PA1 with those big 1970's flanges has no problem.
Really don't understand why people are hung up on this flange thing anyway. For all freight and most passenger equipment made today there are modern wheelsets with lower flanges that can replace the pizza cutters. This is a lot cheaper method than us "upgraders" had back in the day, when everything came with Rapido couplers. Then you either had to body-mount MTL couplers and cut off the couplers on the stock trucks, or for crappy stock trucks replace the entire thing with an entire MTL one. Both of which got expensive if  you had lots of cars to convert, plus left you with a pile of useless cut-off Rapidos or almost as useless trucks w/ Rapidos. Just something for you to think about if changing wheelsets seems like a bother.
Robert3985, check your PM.

Sir: 

Just in case your post is in response to my statement (4) above, please note that it is a fact that if you take one of the old Kadee trucks with the original large flanges (aka "pizza cutters"), and run said truck by hand along a current production (from ME, not the LHS shelf) section of flex track, you will be able to feel the flanges bumping over the spike detail. 

However, I am not saying that this is necessarily "a problem", as that determination needs to be made by each of us on an individual basis.  Although on my layout I am substituting in the current MTL "standard" lower profile plastic wheelsets, others may be perfectly happy continuing to use the originals, and that's OK with me. 

Here's the best I could do for a photo.  Note that the 1980's-era Kadee/MTL "pizza cutter" flanges *barely* touch the tops of the spike detail, which may be why it doesn't bother some people. 



MH

[OldEastRR]

OK, but in my case there's no problem with the flanges/spikes. Doing the same test you did produced no clicks or vibrations for me. Apparently it depends on differences in batching. My track came from MBKlein last winter, as point of reference.
But my point was it's really cheap and easy now to buy replacement wheelsets, and changing them out is a breeze. MTL sells wheelsets by the 100-pack, I believe. To get good performance back then meant drilling coupler screw holes in thick metal underframes (or through the weight plate) or getting MTL trucks into the oddball kingpin holes of ConCor and Arnold Rapido cars, all of which was not fun.