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!
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
