Actually, ME CD55 will allow you to run your pizza cutters. I think, visually, CD55 is better because of the Loco/Rail height ratio. The bigger the ratio, the larger the locos look (hence completing the illusion we all want to model). An F unit on CD40 looks bigger than an F unit on CD55...etc. Beyond that ratio, the only place where N scale is "identifiable" is the couplers. Again, the coupler to loco ratio has to be small. The best looking coupler according to the ratio is the Kato knuckle. However, they dont hold together very well. MT couplers are the standard, but they just fail when it comes to looks. The newer offering from accumate is a non-contender because of the lack of a coupler box available. So, the bottom line is visual ratios. David B
I fully agree on the tie-spacing thing. The Atlas c80 and the Peco tie-spacing just doesn't look right no matter how you slice it. If I perpetually looked at my layout from six feet away, it wouldn't make much difference. But looking at it from a couple feet or less makes all the difference in the world. Not long ago there was a lad who measured all the tie widths and lengths and posted the results on several forums. The ties used on the Atlas code 55 were closest to prototypical, even more so than MEI. I think after looking at Atlas code 80, partially buried in ballast, we're just conditioned to expect to see "redwood" sized ties sticking out from the ballast.
Here is the rail and tie profile I am used too. It sure looks larger than C55 to me, both ties and rails, but I need to go measure to see what it really is.
While railfanning in Holbrook last year...I measured the tie spacing etc on the main line. I dont have my N scale ruler handy right now to check those measurements against my C80. If someone else with a ruler, micrometer, or calipers wants to check their C80 or C55 against the real thing and post pictures of your results...here are the measurements I got... .
Code 55 rail is 9" tall. Sounds pretty toy-like to me. I guess when everyone changes over to Code 40 track in another 8 years your layout is going to look pretty toy-like. tongue:
Thanks for posting that photo.. I now see where C55 will be the better choice for me on the ISL I have planned since I can make it look like low maintenance industrial track..
This tie-figures were posted on the Atlas board almost 1 year ago: Tie lengths from some flex track: Atlas Code 80 (USA made): 0.626" Atlas Code 55 : 0.640" ME Code 55 : 0.688" ME Code 55 Bridge Track : 0.747" Tie Width Atlas Code 80 (USA made): 0.066" Atlas Code 55 : 0.055" ME Code 55 : 0.060" ME Code 55 Bridge Track : 0.054" Ties per inch Atlas Code 80 (USA made): 6 Atlas Code 55 : 8 ME Code 55 : 7+ ME Code 55 Bridge Track : 12 What it comes down to is that the ties on Atlas code 55 are about 20" apart, which is about dead-on with the prototype. Peco and code 80 ties are about 29" apart.
