Current manufacture Minitrix, Dapol, Hornby, Fleischmann, and Bachmann-England engines will tie-strike on Code 55 track. I have not experienced this effect on track that is Code 63 or higher. To get your engines to run on Code 55 track correctly, you will need to remove the wheels and machine down the flanges.
With all due respect to Jerry perhaps he needed to reconsider his thoughts instead of overreacting from wanting nothing less then perfection and that may have caused burn out over time and the Atlas switch failure was the icing on the cake and that IMHO is what it sounds like to me.After all there are great N Scale layouts.. BTW..If Jerry thinks HO is flawless he's in for a very rude awaking.
Well in fairness shall we also say that Jerry's layout was very ambitious to say the least. He installed a lot of track with turnouts that were accessible only with great difficulty. He did have a high failure rate on the #5 turnouts but Kato had problems with their #4's, ME's number 6's have their problems, Peco code 80 has a design prioblem and Atlas code 80 switches have their own problems and are not recommended for Ntrak. Jerry opted for a drastic solution to rip everything out and go HO and I suspect part of it was an acknowledgement that maybe his planned layout was a bit too ambitious. That is a trap very easy to fall into in N gauge. Jerry will never build that same layout in HO.
The reliability factor of code 80 is because it is a more robustly built track. Because of the added flange clearance, the spike heads are larger and hold the track better. That is why people lay it in hidden area's, it reacts better to temperature change and will handle a lot more stress if you get in a situation where expansion want's to push the rails out of the ties. Also because of the larger rail, code 80 takes more force to bend or warp the track making it easier to lay. I'm confident in my track laying skills and would love to use 55 in my layout but I have roughly 50 steam loco's that would complain very loudly so for me, it's code 80 for now. The main advantage to code 55 is the tie spacing. The ME track has good looking ties but price and availability of turnouts are the turnoff.
I decided to go Peco C55 because of the (rumor??) Atlas C55 turnouts needing some kind of switch machine installed in order to get the points to set firmly against the rails. When I added up the costs of the switch machines for upwards of 55 trunouts and the headache of installing them all, the decision was an easy one to make. I like the looks of Atlas C55 better but Peco is indistructable. Brian
I've used Atlas code 55 exclusively on my layout. Coming back to N scale after being away for 30 yrs. was eye opening! I discovered Trainboard after my layout was built, and only after I'd learned the hard way that I needed to replace the wheelsets on many of the N scale rolling stock. I did that with low profile metal wheels from Atlas and no problems. Still it was an unexpected expense. I also learned the hard way that Atlas and IM used different side frames and the wheels were not interchangable. Sigh. I was further disappointed to find out how much of my rolling stock was then "unreliable" on our N Trak show layouts. Now I have cars with high profile wheelsets that I used exclusively for N Trak. Another lesson learned. I had three #5 turnouts that had guage problems (none of the #7's were a problem). Of course this became obvious only after installation. Grrrrr.... I was able to tweak two of them, the third had to be replaced. This summer I had one problem with #7 turnout "buckling". As our home is airconditioned and humidity controlled, I was really surprised. All my joints are soldered, so it was a bit more of a repair than normal. However, once corrected the turnout is again working fine. All things considered, I love the look of the code 55, and if you are fairly meticulous with your track laying, it should be a reliable and pleasant option. It looks much better to me than the code 80, and that's the reason why I chose it in the first place. To be honest though, if I'd know before hand how much extra work it was going to be, I'd probaby have chosen code 80 and lived with the tie spacing.
Atlas turnouts are not spring loaded. It is the "in thing" to get a spring loaded switch. Personally I prefer that spring loading is NOT present as comes from the factory. To be honest, I have had experiences where a small piece of ballast gets into the spring mechanism and causes the spring to over compress. The less moving parts the better in my mind...less things to go wrong!! I prefer that my switch mechanism (either manual or remote) holds the switcher in place. This is a design argument that has come up several times in the past. I will boil it down for you and say that it is simply a matter of preference.
Peco code 55 has more flange clearance than Atlas code 55, because it uses a different design. So if you want a code 55 rail height, but still wish to run rolling stock that has larger flanges, Peco code 55 might be a good option. Of course, Atlas code 55 does look fantastic. Many feel that Atlas code 55 turnouts look better than anything Peco offers, and that the Atlas tie spacing is much better for modeling American railroads. I am not an expert on the code 55/code 80 issue, but I mention this here because I had not seen this mentioned yet in this thread.
Well, it's too bad that the PRR layout was derailed by track problems. I remember reading about that layout in the '05 MRP--my kind of design. That aside, from my personal research it seems Atlas did have some serious teething issues with the c55 product that have subsequently been worked out. Seems like the only complaint these days is about the flange clearence on some (mainly MT) wheelsets. Does this seem to be a accurate evaluation? Jamie
After reading these posts I'll submit to what the problems of Atlas are and what problems poor installation can bring. First off, Atlas's code 55 is very inexpensive, in this world of "you get what you pay for" its a bargan. Folks have to realize that track that inexpensive is going to be somewhat delicate, I find the Micro Engineering turnouts to be more robust. I find Atlas's turnouts to be cheaply made. Cast points and frogs of a copper rich material, that are plated to look like nickel silver, Contact points on the turnouts that are questionable, head ties that are too widely spaced. Point rails and stock rails that are machined too much to accomplish a good fit, the point rail and stock rail particulary it too thin. The ties? will they are correctly spaced and the color is good. If Peco comes out with a true code 55 with true US tie spacing do you guys think the turnouts are going to be in the same price range as their current line, or Atlas's for that matter? NOT! not even close! The bottom line is quite alot of modelers have been spoiled by cheep track lines, and this has brought about a "mindset" if you will that track should be inexpensive and of poor or so so quality. Track is a model too, in fact other than engines and rolling stock it is the second most important model on the model railroad. Structures and scenery should take a third place in the hirarcky (spelled wrong!) of the Railroad modeling world, but doesn't because quite alot of folks think structures and trees are more important. However track that is realistically modeled and reliable is often given the last consideration if at all, for quality and reliability. Until that consideration happens, and track is given the attention it demands, consideration in its place in model railroading, we will still have the same problems. We do have "quality track" available, but its either non US in appearance, limited in selection, or both. One is the Kato line, others are the tomix line, Peco track line. I have to say, that after 30 years we still don't have a quality US prototype quality track line available. Handlaying is the answer for those whom insist on US prototype trackage that is robust and reliable. and flexibility Poor installation? soldering every joint, or not allowing for expansion or contraction is asking for track problems. The proper way to install a turnout, is to let it float, use rail joiners for alignment only. Don't solder them, (at least on the turnout side) You can use ballast of couse but the rails must have room to expand, or contract. Laying the track on a hot day will probably eliminate the expansion side of the equation. Sealing all the wood frame and subroadbed will minimize the wood shrinking and expanding problems associated with that. The smaller scales require more attention to the substructure, subroadbed, and track laying methods than the larger scales. They always will no matter who makes the track. So for quite awhile forumers on the Atlas site asked for US style track that was inexpensive and available. Guess what? they got what they asked for. Now to be fair to Atlas, the track isn't that bad for the price. If you understand the limitations and work around them, you will have a successful layout. However if you don't, problems will crop up. Kind of reminds me of a friend I used to have that would always buy rebuilt car parts instead of new replacement parts. I would often see him on the side of the road muttering expletives about this and that while he was waiting for the tow truck. Of course this was quite awhile ago. addendum: If you read through some of these posts you see: Atlas's track is cheap, inexpensive, Price, available, etc etc etc just reenforces the above points. I own European stuff or old legacy stuff with large flanges etc etc etc. The only issue Atlas has with flanges is Micro trains, or the old stuff with the humungous flanges. Cheap and available thats often the major consideration, and until that "mindset" is overcome, we will only get "cheap" and so so quality. Rob
Yeah, that's probably a fair statement, too. If you look at the track plan on the previous link - the hidden storage yard on the lower level alone had more track, and more switches, that any other N scale layout I've ever seen. But I'll tell ya, after that episode I'd NEVER put Atlas C55 switches where I couldn't easily change them out, and I've got C80's in my hidden yard that have been there since 1983. I have a much smaller layout, but if those came apart under there now, I'd be in exactly the same boat. I'm just saying, when you're making the decision to go Atlas C55, that's the ultimate cautionary tale that may or may not apply!
Have to disagree with you here. I recently installed a decoder in a Graham Farish A4 Seagull. After re-gauging the wheels, this loco runs fine on my Atlas c-55 layout.
Put me down as one who likes the Atlas Code 55 track and will not go back to Code 80. I have laid (3) 100 pc boxes since January and haven't had any problems with the track. I did have some problems with the Atlas #5 switches. I also used #7s and 10s. No problem with them so far. I didhave some problems with the wheels of the locos riding up in the switches. Regauged the wheels (which I had never done relying on factory set) and most of the problem went away. There was a problem with #5s and one of the guard rails being tight and with plastic flashing on the throwbar, but these were fixed in a few minutes with a file. KB
Wow, I’m really glad this subject came up. I have seen all this before when I was designing my first layout, but had forgotten all the details. I thought I’d be able to live with my 1st layout of all code 80, but as my detailing got better, I realized that I couldn’t (at least in some areas of my layout). I’m a switch nut and I get bored just watching my trains run around in circles, so I have too many switches. I love the looks of ME track, but they are lacking switches, I like the looks of Peco Switches (especially the SLE383F Double Crossover), but everyone tells me that they are nothing but trouble. So now that I’ve redesigned my new layout using all Atlas, I hear that the Atlas #5 switches are no good. I’m glad that I haven’t ordered them yet, because it’s back to the drawing board. :tb-frown:
I use Atlas code 55 flex track and I do quite like it and have had no problems with it twisting or bending. Although I do run newer locomotives, one's that don't have huge flanges on them. And all my freight cars are equipped with Fox Valley metal wheels. As for turnuts... Handlay them! :tb-biggrin: http://www.trainboard.com/railimages/showphoto.php/photo/94674/ppuser/10919 I also had problems with the Atlas #5's, so I bought just enough stuff to try handlaying a few, and I have not looked back. Much easier than everyone thinks. But that debate is for another thread. -Mike
Manually run the tender over the rails and you will feel the strikes. To be honest I believe that the strikes for Graham Farish items are actually spike strikes as opposed to tie strikes. The engine will tend to gimp along with sporadic connectivity, however the connectivity on Code 80 is MUCH MUCH better. This effect is more noticable with switcher engines, but it is still visible on main line and tender equipped engines. This effect is less noticable in DCC engines thanks to the BMF capabilities...and higher voltage (presumably). Also, keep in mind that Graham Farish will be releasing their line to the US mainstream within the next year. The MT flanges seem small next to Graham Farish flanges. With that said, Graham Farish flanges are consistant with other european examples.
1. I have a 4x6 Code 80 layout. The attached switches look horrible. 2. For expansion I chose Atlas C55. I am happy. If you want below table switching, you will need extra money for the switches no matter what rail you choose. 3. I have had no problems with the #5 switches. I have HEARD that the first runs of the switch had some problems, but not the subsequent runs. Atlas will replace them if from the first batches. 4. The variety of switches and track radii and availability of flex track makes Atlas the obvious choice. 5. As to laying the track- To properly lay Code 80, you need the same care as with the 55. You will get away with a few more mistakes with the Code 80, but there should be none if you are careful. If it don't fit, don't glue it down. 6. It looks SOOOOO much better than the C80 track that I will never go back.
I agree completely. I have half a case of Peco code 80 flex and the LHS has plenty of concrete tie Peco code 55 flex, but I won't use it because the tie spacing just doesn't look "real" enough. I am not a detail nut by any means, but my track has to be as close to prototypical spec as possible. The Atlas code 55 product does this for me :thumbs_up: Jamie
Has anyone had a chance to compare Atlas code 55 or Peco code 55 with ME code 55? I am curious as to appearance, robustness, and running characteristics, and also whether the pizza cutters will get caught on ME track.
I can understand hand making my own switch if I had a special need for a custom switch, but I don’t see myself making a better switch than those who have been in the business for decades.
