Track: I am discouraged

My wife and I have finally planted ourselves for good. Empty nesters in what we believe will be our home to die in. I finally have a designated room for a layout and have been studying track plans and the prototypical areas that I want to model.

I had planned all along to use Atlas code 55 track because I really like how it looks. Before I shelled out a lot of cash purchasing it, I emailed those who I knew had been using it and I searched the forums for reviews. Most (dang near all) of my modelling friends do not like it and many have switched back to code 80 or Unitrack.

So my question is: Is there anyone out there that uses it and likes it? Good points? Bad points? I know about the large flange/spike-head issue. I have a considerable collection of Unitrack. Should I just stay with it?
CG

 

I take it that you have not visited or searched either the Atlas forum or Railwire.

Both of those forums contain many N-scalers who use and are quite pleased with Atlas codes 55 track.

I used code 80 back in the 80's & 90's. Code 55 not only looks much better with its combination smaller rail and more correct tie-spacing, it's not difficult to work with or cut. I have hundreds of feet of code 55 flex and dozens of code 55 switches.

 

I have mostly been using Atlas Code 80 and Unitrack up until now, and will probably keep using those for certain uses, but I am also beginning with some Atlas Code 55.

So far I am having no big problems with it, but it is more delicate than code 80, and therefore kinks more easily. I haven't had any major difficulties so far, but then again I go slow when laying track and I don't try to use track nails.

I am going with it for some finer-scale modeling I am starting. The code 80 Atlas and the Unitrack are mostly being used on modular NTrak and T-Trak pieces where having something robust and fitting the standards already established outweighed my concerns to have it also look more prototypical. It looks more prototypical than the other two. No doubt about it. I am going to stick with it for these projects because I want that look.


Unitrack is a fine product and very robust. If you like working with it and you don't mind or can somehow deal with the code 80 rails and the kind of wide ties I say go for it. I have found it very handy for T-trak modeling. I love being able to snap together a bit to test and then tack it down with spots of hot glue when I've got just what I want.

 

That track and scenery looks great!

And yes, though I am using code 80 in my current layout because I need to conceal a good amount of track in concrete in the harbor and it's easier to handle larger code 80 in that scenario, I have known people who used code 55 to the fullest of their satisfaction. And I am planning to use the same if I extend my layout and decide to go for more scenic options.

If you decide not to waste all the code 80 tracks you have, you can look at Peco code 55. Though it's a costlier option than Atlas, these are readily compatible with code 80. especially useful if you want to use code 80 and code 55 simultaneously to simulate heavy and light rail in close proximity.

About flange compatibility of locos and cars, yes, there might be problem with old designs/stock. But most of the new stuff are code 55 compatible. Also, you can always ask the retailer if the rolling stock/loco is code 55 compatible and then buy it.

Good luck and looking forward to your progress.

 

I've used Atlas code 55 out of the gate. I love it, and have never had any issues. The turnouts were problematic in the first few runs, but those have all been rectified since then.

I would strongly suggest using their code 55 line up.

 

Thanks for the info guys. I did do an extensive search on the few forums I look in on and didn't see a lot of positive feedback.
I gather from what Matt has posted that the turn-out problems have been fixed?
I really enjoy running long trains (I am not into switching layouts) so derailments would be frustrating. I have very little problems with the Unitrack in that area.

Very nice track-work Michael!

 

Code 55 for me. For you I'm not sure. Your friends may be guiding you toward Code 80 or Unitrack for a reason. Newer modelers can get by in the hobby without using Code 55. If you are reasonably confident in your skills and lean toward making your railroad a step closer to prototypical then I would recommend Code 55. Jim

 

I also use Atlas code 55 track and am very happy with it. Of course, all of my equipment is fairly new and I have no problems other than the MT pizza cutter wheels that I quickly and cheaply replaced. I also use all of the Atlas code 55 turnouts and have had no problems. Jamie

 

My experience exactly.

 

FWIW,

I'm going to rebuild my NKP layout in a 13 X 25' room in the basement and have decided to use all Atlas Code 55. One of our club members has a very large Western Maryland layout in a 30x30' basement room, uses all Atlast Code 55, and has had zero problems. I've always used Peco in the past, but the Atlas Code 55 is simply far more realistic for North American prototype.

It really depends on what aspects of the hobby you value most highly. Kato Unitrack is absolutely bulletproof and lets a beginner get up and running with maximum reliability in minimum time. Peco track is nearly indestructible, and I like the fact that the switches are power-routing and have spring-held points so that you do not need external turnout control or frog powering. But Peco really doesn't look anything like North American track, with its wide tie spacing and thicker ties.

This will be my fourth major layout, and this time I'm going "all in" for realism; that means Atlas Code 55, since I've ruled out handlaying Code 40 track!

John C.

 

Guess I am feeling a whole lot more confident now. This isn't my first layout by any means and I have used Peco, ME, and Atlas code 80. I have never owned a piece of the Atlas code 55 which is why I asked. I will purchase some and play with it.

Thanks again for all the feedback.
CG

 

My original layout was Atlas Code 80. My expansion is all Atlas Code 55. No problems whatsoever. Like any track, do not force it. It looks better than Unitrak and Code 80. It is slightly harder to ballast than Code 80, but results are much better looking as long as you are careful. Use Unitrak if you want 100% performance ease and less visual results than Code 55.

 

I was in the same boat as you a year ago. I was trying to decide between C55 and Unitrak. Being this was my very first layout, I decided to go with C55 because I wanted the full experience, laying cork and track, balasting, etc. I have had very few problems other than beginer issues. I would recommend C55.

 

Atlas Code 55 for me, on the new layout. I have tired a small setup with it and it is great to work with and turnouts etc are excellent.

JSL

 

I never thought I'd switch from 80 to 55, but I have for my latest layout. 100 Times over, I am so glad I switched. The aesthetics are great. The no. 7 turnouts are smooth as silk, and I haven't even tried a no. 10 yet. The no. 5s are better than the code 80 no. 4s. I can't possibly think of any reason why I'd ever go back to code 80.

 

I built a test layout with code 80 Atlas flex & switches; it just does not look good to me. I have all newer equipment and quality locomotives, and those code 80 rails just look so..... toy-ish.

I have started buying code 55 track and etc. and am looking to sell my current layout to move on to a completely new layout design, centered on the look of the code 55 rails. I love layouts with long snaking single track mainlines, slow smooth turnouts and finely detailed rails & ties; when your train isn't actually ON the tracks, there should be something nice there for you and your visitors to look at, right?

I say go down to a hobby shop and place some finescale, highly detailed Fox Valley or Kato locos on both types of track; the "look" of the code 55 is far more pleasing to the eyes! It screams "prototype" a lot louder than the 1960's-designed code 80 stuff.... And isn't that what this hobby is all about, making it look like the real thing?

 

I think Fotheringill covered the salient points in an unbiased carefully qualified manner. To summarize redoing his words:

• Like any track, do not force it.
• It [C55], looks better than Unitrak and Code 80.
• It is slightly harder to ballast than Code 80,
• Results are much better looking as long as you are careful.
• Use Unitrak if you want 100% performance ease and less visual results than Code 55.

 

I’ve been building my Code 55 layout for a year now and still don’t have it operating yet. It takes a lot more skill than I had originally thought compared to Code 80 I had so many problems that I almost quit a few times. I know that it will look good after I’m done and I hope I don’t have any problems with wheels.

Most of my problems were from the turnouts such as the points falling off and a few rails that came apart. Atlas was quick to replace them, but I got tired of calling them because I had 46 turnouts so I just started fixing them myself.

Here are some of the problems I had. The 1st is of the rail coming off and the second is of the rivets coming out. I might add that those rivets are very small and I was very lucky to find some of them to make the repairs myself.