Code 55 points, ME or Atlas?

JASON May 14, 2022

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Inkaneer

    Inkaneer TrainBoard Member

    4,325
    1,424
    77
    If you recall, Peco came out with their C 55 track before there was ME and Atlas C55 track. That double flange enabled one to use Peco C55 with Code 80 track. That double flange also serves an additional purpose and that is to lower the rail joiner connection between pieces of track below the tops of the ties. Apparently being adverse to tie spacing does not apply to seeing a big honker of a rail joiner that in no way looks like a fishplate. Peco also came out with flex track with concrete ties which ME and Atlas has yet to do. But all is not lost for you. I use one ME product and that is their bridge track. They are the only ones that make it. That is, when they make it.
     
  2. CSX Robert

    CSX Robert TrainBoard Member

    1,502
    638
    41
    The double flange works really well for transitioning from code 80 to "regular" code 55. I'm using code 80 for my staging, just because I already have a lot of it, and Atlas code 55 for the rest, with Peco code 55 transitioning from one to the other.

    Again, that's "for you." For me, and many others, Atlas comes out ahead.

    Micro Engineering has (or had) concrete tie flex track.
     
  3. CSX Robert

    CSX Robert TrainBoard Member

    1,502
    638
    41
    I do think it should be pointed out that Peco code 55 does not have "cruder" dimensions. The problem for North American modelers is that it is based on United Kingdom prototype track, which uses wider ties spaced further apart.
     
  4. DCESharkman

    DCESharkman TrainBoard Member

    4,397
    3,028
    87
    Gee, this reminds me of all the arguments between Ford and Chevrolet and Dodge.
    I have used lots of track and settled on using track based on visibility. So my hidden staging yard used Peco Code 55 and the corresponding turnouts. The same is true for track at elevation where you see the train but not the track.

    For the operationally observable track I use ME code 55, and I build the turnouts I need thanks to Fast Tracks. And in some places I also have Kato UniTrak, I use the Superelevated curves on my helix for bulletproof operations.

    So this is my Ford, my Chevy and my Mopar getting along very well. I did have a few transitions to make but it is no big deal. And because of my choices, I have never had any issue with the track messing up my trains.
     
    mtntrainman likes this.
  5. MRLdave

    MRLdave TrainBoard Member

    1,261
    1,151
    40
    Peco track is far from "bulletproof"......our NTRAK club originally chose Peco code 80 turnouts as our standard. At one point there were 50+ Peco turnouts on the layout. Currently, the last time I counted, there are only 3 left. All kinds of little minor nitpicky problems, but the big one for us was they would lose their "snap". We would end every show with 2 or 3 of them pinned in place with track nails. We originally replaced them with new Pecos, but eventually those had to be replaced too. We finally switched to Atlas with Caboose ground throws. We probably could have just used the Caboose throws on the Peco turnouts, but about 70% of the time, when they lost their snap, it resulted in a short and additional damage to the turnout as well as locos. Club members got tired of the damage. We have only had to replace 2 of the Atlas turnouts........so they aren't "bulletproof" either, but they have been better.

    I totally agree that consistency is key for trouble free running, and I wouldn't fault anyone for using the Peco track.....our luck with them was probably largely due to the club environment. They probably get more use in a weekend than most layouts get in a year. And Peco code 80 has identical tie spacing as code 80 Atlas track.......I don't have any Peco code 55 to compare, but the Atlas code 55 has much closer spacing (like 25% more ties) than the code 80.

    I don't think there is a "perfect" line of track out there. I love the snap of the Peco turnouts, but the clubs luck with them scared me away. The limited track options and the availability of the ME track pushed me to Atlas.
     
  6. Doug Gosha

    Doug Gosha TrainBoard Member

    3,595
    7,664
    80
    I meant cruder as compared to Atlas or ME code 55 for American prototype modeling.

    Doug
     
  7. Doug Gosha

    Doug Gosha TrainBoard Member

    3,595
    7,664
    80
    There really is no "bullet proof" commercial switch in any scale. Some of the product will need tweaking. I have used several brands of N scale switches over 50 - 60 years and some of each brand needed tweaking. Anybody claiming they never have ANY problems with XXX brand of switches is probably not being truthful.

    Doug
     
    Metro Red Line likes this.
  8. DCESharkman

    DCESharkman TrainBoard Member

    4,397
    3,028
    87
    I have had some issues with the smaller UniTrak turnouts as well with an occasional Peco issue, but that is really par for the hobby. But not enough to drive me to make any changes. I will say the Fast Tracks turnouts seem to the most trouble free. But they are not always perfect either.
     
    Doug Gosha likes this.
  9. Inkaneer

    Inkaneer TrainBoard Member

    4,325
    1,424
    77
    Your concept of "cruder" is apparently quite arbitrary as it does not go beyond tie spacing. But you failed to address the issue of the rail joiner when I wrote, "If you recall, Peco came out with their C 55 track before there was ME and Atlas C55 track. That double flange enabled one to use Peco C55 with Code 80 track. That double flange also serves an additional purpose and that is to lower the rail joiner connection between pieces of track below the tops of the ties. Apparently being adverse to tie spacing does not apply to seeing a big honker of a rail joiner that in no way looks like a fishplate."
     
  10. BoxcabE50

    BoxcabE50 HOn30 & N Scales Staff Member TrainBoard Supporter

    67,560
    22,735
    653
    Ha ha ha... :D
     
    Doug Gosha likes this.
  11. BoxcabE50

    BoxcabE50 HOn30 & N Scales Staff Member TrainBoard Supporter

    67,560
    22,735
    653
    As already noted:

    ME is excellent, but harder to find and lacking switches. Unless you are willing to build your own?

    Atlas is very good, and much easier to get. Even though a while back there were supply issues.

    Other brands- Not part of his original inquiry.
     
    Doug Gosha likes this.
  12. Inkaneer

    Inkaneer TrainBoard Member

    4,325
    1,424
    77
    I have posted this several times about Peco C80 switches. They were made to NEMA (European) and not NMRA standards. Peco is a British company after all. The NEMA tolerances in the frog and guardrail area are too loose and allow wheels to 'pick' the frog. A .010" piece of styrene glued to the guard rail will fix it but it is better to go with the C 55 and avoid the issue completely. Our Ntrak yard originally used Atlas switches but they are being phased out in favor of the Peco. Never had a Peco switch "lose its snap."

    Atlas has had their problems with their line of C55 track and switches also. From the bushel basket size rail spikes that prevented use of deep flange wheelsets to problems with the frogs on their #5 switches. But I will agree with you that there is no one perfect line of track and N scale has always been a matter of trade-offs mainly because of scale. Our couplers are too big as are our wheel flanges. Our rail (even C55) is too big. C55 scales out to 8.8 inches high yet 140# rail is only about 7.31" high. If prototypical our rail should be about C45. That is unless you are modeling the Pennsylvania RR which used 155# rail. 155# rail scales out to C100 in HO and (surprise, surprise) C55 in N scale. So singling out only one aspect in appearance (tie spacing) while ignoring all the others is arbitrary at best. My argument is for consistency. I often use the example of seeing four women all of whom are average in attractiveness. No one woman stands out. No one woman draws your attention from the others. Now replace one of the women with a "babe" who is decidedly more attractive than average. The dynamic changes and one's attention is drawn to the one woman. Same is true of our layouts. If our switches are of a different manufacture than the track to the point where they are noticeably different does that add to the effect we seek or does it detract? That is why I say tie spacing is no big deal because the overall effect is one of consistency and nothing stands out to detract one's attention.
     
  13. Doug Gosha

    Doug Gosha TrainBoard Member

    3,595
    7,664
    80
    You aren't telling me anything I don't already know. And, you are being nit-picky.

    Also, put a piece of Peco code 55 alongside a piece of ME or Atlas code 55 and tell me which looks better.

    Doug
     
  14. BoxcabE50

    BoxcabE50 HOn30 & N Scales Staff Member TrainBoard Supporter

    67,560
    22,735
    653
    Folks- Time to step back, take a deep breath and let JASON have some room to think about what has been offered to his original question.

    TrainBoard Administration
     
    mtntrainman and Doug Gosha like this.
  15. MRLdave

    MRLdave TrainBoard Member

    1,261
    1,151
    40
    Agreed.........and the argument on tie spacing is really pointless unless you are a rivet counter........UNLESS you start mixing track, at which point it is very noticeable. And although I've never figured out why, some people just have better luck with some brands. Most members of our club run screaming if you suggest a BLI loco.....one member (the main reason club members run since they all know of his issues) has had problems with every one he's purchased, but I have over a dozen and they all run great and only 1 issue where a board fried (probably my fault) and it was replaced under warranty and no problems since. I can't just be that lucky (or he that unlucky) so there's something about how each of us use the locos that's creating the difference. Same probably applies to my club and Inkaneers club....they went from Atlas to Peco, we went the opposite. You gotta go with what works for you.
     
    BoxcabE50 likes this.
  16. John Moore

    John Moore TrainBoard Supporter

    13,396
    12,182
    183
    In my case I have all three brands of turnouts on my layout, Kato, Atlas, and Peco. I had got away from using Peco because of issues with conductivity when used as power routing. My layout is 90% Kato and about 6% Atlas and the last 4% is Peco. I have one section that uses Kato off the mainline that transitions to an Atlas and then to Peco. I have not had issues using Atlas joiners on Peco and Peco joiners on Atlas or Kato unitrack. I would be 100% Kato unitrack if I could. But Kato does not make yet some of the turnouts I need.
     
  17. Inkaneer

    Inkaneer TrainBoard Member

    4,325
    1,424
    77
    First of all, I would not put a piece of ME or Atlas C55 next to a piece of Peco C55. I would place another Peco C55 next to it and if I decided to place a switch there it would be a Peco C55. Get it? CONSISTENCY!
     
  18. Doug Gosha

    Doug Gosha TrainBoard Member

    3,595
    7,664
    80
    I guess I don't. I guess I'm just dumb.

    Doug
     
  19. MRLdave

    MRLdave TrainBoard Member

    1,261
    1,151
    40
    Well.......one of you is.
     
  20. gjslsffan

    gjslsffan Staff Member

    2,626
    5,747
    69
    I am now locking this thread pending staff input.
     
    Nil, Allen H and Doug Gosha like this.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page