Atlas c55 pro's and con's

[Scottl]

I've recently run into some availability issues with Atlas 55 products, but I have few complaints about the track and operations.  I have not encountered any issues with the flex track and it is easy to work with.  I would prefer hand-laid switches, but the majority of folk won't go that route because they want to spend their time on other things or they lack the skills/confidence. 

David, I am very interested to see you have laid track without the rail joiners and used the overlapping approach and I know Gary has contemplated it for his Tehachapi layout.  I have fooled with this a bit recently and it does avoid what is to me the most gratuitous visual failing of the code 55 track.   I think I will try it out as I finish my yard this fall.

[mark.hinds]

FYI, Atlas Code 55 models 8-foot ties and Micro Engineering Code 55 models 9-foot ties.  If you are doing 1950s or earlier, you would be more prototypical with the former, for most railroads.  In my case, for example, I am doing Tehachapi in the late 1950s, and that portion of the line was still using 8-foot ties back then.  I believe that the tie spacing is very slightly different between the 2, as well. 

BTW, the above fact also bears on the idea of mixing Atlas switches with ME flex. 

For what it's worth, I would go with ME when doing a modern layout.  The flex track "stiffness" is about comparable to that of Shinohara code 70, which was "best practice" back in the early 1980s.  I laid a lot of it, using the techniques suggested in the MR Clinchfield book.  Their procedure involved pencil center lines and track nails, which were then nudged back and forth for final alignment.  Then you did the ballast and clipped off the tops of the track nails.  Still a good technique, in my opinion, so long as you drill out the dimples/holes in the ties to avoid splitting. 

MH

[jereising]

David, I am very interested to see you have laid track without the rail joiners and used the overlapping approach and I know Gary has contemplated it for his Tehachapi layout.  I have fooled with this a bit recently and it does avoid what is to me the most gratuitous visual failing of the code 55 track.   I think I will try it out as I finish my yard this fall.

I used no joiners on Oakville's mains except at switches where I used half joiners (and later - after ballasting - slid them away).  The ME concrete tie makes this easy peasy. 

[GaryHinshaw]

The layout was small enough that I didn't need to solder the flex together--indeed, I used no rail joiners at all. Instead, I did what Gary Hinshaw is doing now on his Tehachapi layout: just butting the rail ends together, offset by several ties (more or less depending on location). The only solder on any of my trackwork, in fact, connected the electrical feeders to the underside of the rail.

In the credit where credit is due category, I learned about the joinerless method from watching Jim Reising's Oakville/Tehachapi thread on TB, though I'm sure others (like DKS) have been doing this for years.  It really produces seamless results.  I've even learned to love the stiff ME flex - but I'm very anal about track and dote over every section so it matches the templates I drew in CAD.



P.S. Love the track photo in your post DKS!

P.S.^2 Simultaneous posting with Jim's I see...