Is Atlas Code 55 track Any Good

Im still wondering if Atlas code55 track is any good because it so cheap and it looks good enough, So wat do you all think about it.

Ashley

 

Atlas code 55 track is a great product, it looks great and is easy to lay. My only criticism is that it is not as robust as Peco. But, it looks way better and provided you are careful handling and laying your track (especially the turnouts) you should have no problems.

 

Atlas 55 is the industry "standard". There are other manufacturers around, but Atlas leads the pack as far as availability of standard rail and selection of turnouts.

If you select Atlas code 55 you will have few if any issues when designing and installing your layout.

 

I love the stuff. I've laid over 500 feet of it on my layout, and have put in over 30 turnouts and haven't had any problems. The only thing to consider is that those big "pizza cutter" wheels that Micro-Trains likes to put on their cars will bottom out on the ties (so converting to low-profile wheels will be necessary). You also have to watch some older locomotives because they might bottom out on the turnouts. I looked at several options when I was looking for track and didn't find too many cons to code 55 from Atlas. The best is the price and availability. Definitely the industry standard as far as I'm concerned.

 

I just replaced all my trucks with Micro-Trains trucks. Does that mean I’m going to have trouble when I go to code 55? :tb-shocked:

 

No. The worst case scenario is that you'll have to upgrade the MT trucks to MT low profile wheelsets. The cost of that is about 50 cents per car.

In response to the original question, I've used both UniTrack and Micro-engineering code 55 in the past but Atlas code 55 is now all I use. The #10 turnouts are one of the best new N scale products in years.

 

Code 55 rail is low....expect some issues with cars needing wheels replaced. If this is a major concern, then you should stick with code 80. If you like the look of the code 55 better then go with that. If you think of yourself as a hobbist, then there will be nothing that you cannot overcome....it's not a big deal. If your model railroading consists of storing your track in a shoebox under your bed and getting it out to play with periodically, they you should avoid code 55. NorsemanJack's statements are right on target. I "second" his statements.

 

I hope so I have a brand new 100pc case in the basement waiting to go in! I did a LOT of research before I purchased and I am convinced the Atlas c55 is the best looking and best priced N-scale track on the market. Not that the other brands are not any good, I just evaluated the Atlas quality as good or better than the others and the low price and availability seals the deal for me. Don't underestimate the availability of the product either--my prototype mainline is all concrete ties, so I would prefer to use the Micro Engineering c55 concrete tie track. But it is next to impossible to find and the price is steep compared to the Atlas. Atlas does not have a concrete tie product in N, but I'll be quite happy with wood ties. Jamie

 

Jamie, if you decide to go with the ME concrete ties, you just let me know, and I'll take that 100 count box off your hands :tb-wink:

-Mike

 

I read that some people like to use Code 80 inside a Helix and in tunnels. I also noticed that they use derailers on the Code 80 track where is hidden from view. I am thinking about doing the same on my new layout. I have photo showing the size of spacer needed to connect the C80 to the C55, but I’ll have to find it.

Opps, I found the photo but it shows Peco C55 to Atlas C80. Sorry about that.

 

This is a timely topic as I am debating rather to use C55 or C80 on my soon to be started layout.All I used in the past was the C80 but,would like to step up a notch as far as track since the layout will be small and highly detailed.
Decisions,decisions,decisions.

 

I am planning on having rerailers on hidden track, but I did not realize until just now that Atlas does not offer a rerailer for code 55 track. Hmmmmmmmmm. Other than that, is there any reason to use code 80 and not code 55 in hidden areas? The cost seems to be about the same. Does code 80 actually result in less derailments or something like thst? Jamie

 

I have never used code 55, but from what I’ve read on other forums, Code 80 is more reliable. There are less derailments and better electrical contact because of the higher rails, but this is only from what I’ve read. The only reason that I’m going to use it, is because it looks better.

 

If this were true, then it would follow that code 100 rail would result in even fewer derailments. :thumbs_down:
Rail height has absolutely nothing to do with preventing derailment.
Smooth track laying, properly gauged wheels, and properly weighted cars will result in good operation.

 

I agree with you....

I have found Code 80 more reliable. I have several specific examples, but suffice it to say that I like Code 80 for the reliability, and Code 55 for the looks. It's a matter of balancing these to factors.

(also, I have a TON of european engines which cannot run on Code 55 track)

 

Yes it does...

Rail heigth permits the use of larger flange wheels. These larger flange wheels are standard on all european manufacturs and some domestic manufacturers Running large flange rails over lower rails WILL increase the occurances of derailments.

 

Well, before y'all get going on a complete Atlas love-fest over here, one of the worst disasters I've ever seen in N scale came of Jerry Britton on his massive PRR layout-under-construction when he had significant electrical and structural failures of Atlas C55 switches that had already been installed. It got him so irritated he left N scale, and that was argueable one of the most incredible prototypical-operation designs I've ever seen operate firsthand. He had the option of literally either rebuilding the layout with new switches or just hanging it up, and he hung it up:

http://jbritton.pennsyrr.com/

In fairness Jerry has said Atlas offered to replace everything that failed.

I think Atlas C55 looks fantastic, myself. My compromise between the legacy equipment and appearance has been Peco C55; I'll concede the appearance issues, but talk about bulletproof - that stuff makes Atlas C80 look fragile.

 

I'm going to sell all my cars and start riding the bus to work because the last Ford that I owned had a bad transmission....and the brake calipers were junk....and the A/C went out....

It seems to me that he over-reacted.

Am I correct that several people donated money to his effort...and he quit N-scale...and is selling all his stuff.....all over Atlas Code 55 turnouts?

 

I absolutely agree about that Smooth track laying, properly gauged wheels, and properly weighted cars will result in good operation. And like I said I don’t have any experience with code 55, but I’ve read so many threads at Atlas and also other forums about this, that it I decided to use C80 in my first layout. The compatibly issue was also a big factor for me, but I guess that’s fixable.