I’m planning to use code 55 flex track on my new layout. Which brade is easier to work with? Atlas flex track has a tenancy to spring back when flex. Laying it seemed to require more patients, and hands, than I was born with. Is MIcro Engineering track any better in that regard?
Also, who makes e better c55 turnout?
ME C55 is quite stiff. If you bend in an error, it can be tricky to rework it. It’s also a bit more fragile in my experience than Atlas C55. I find it easier to work with almost any other flex than ME C55, but that’s totally personal preference.
Atlas offers a much broader range of turnouts than ME’s lonely #6, which limits ME’s usefulness for me. But Atlas is out of stock for a few more months until supplies arrive. You can see their schedule here:
http://www.atlasrr.com/containershipping-track.htm
So if you need to move quickly, Atlas may not be an option.
Personally, I like the PECO C55 also, but some do not care for its appearance and the curved diverging leg. They are very space-saving, though.
Your question brings my thought, just why was there no standardization in track? what possible reason was there are so many various types made, makes no sense to have all kinds of different track types for one hobby, how simple would it be to agree to one type of track and keep improving quality rather than changing sizes, type, etc. , when computers came on the scene there was (is) no standardization, this is the mess we are in now with computers.
Atlas code 55 track is good and I will be using that for my layout, the one piece of flex track I have is springy so I’ll use it for a straight section or something.
ME’s Code 55, I bought one turnout but I have to say I’m probably not going to use ME track. it requires extra wiring and something to power the frog(I can’t remember what?).
Both Atlas and ME have Isolated frogs, giving you the option of powering the frogs as to prevent stalls and the like. I have been helping a freind build a fairly large layout depicting the Indiana Harbor Belt in N scale. Just so there are no issues what so ever, I dropped frog feeders on every stinking TO, 75 or more in total.
I for one have never had a issue with stalling over a " dead " frog. Now from other parts of the TO, yes. Frog no. And that is from any manufacture not just Atlas or ME.
Some people like the fact that you can shape ME flex and then just lay it down. I read somewhere that a modeler made different size radius forms and the just bent the ME track to follow the form. I like the Atlas 55 cause I feel it gives me the proper spring to get nice flowing curves with easements. That is just my 2 cents. Your mileage may vary.
Adios Wyatt
I moved to ME code 55 due to the Atlas shortage (almost complete unavailability) when I was ready to start track laying. I’ve used Atlas before this. I’d stick with ME at this point even if Atlas became available again, or if I had to tear everything up, move, and start over.
Personally, I like the fact ME holds its shape. It takes longer to shape it, but once shaped, it stays that way unless I change it. I like being able to shape it, remove it to my desk, cut and file the ends, and then replace it in shape.
As far as easements, I determine those when I lay the roadbed, so as long as I follow the center line of the roadbed, the results are pretty much the same.
I use Atlas code 55 turnouts, and have never had an issue meshing them up to the ME flex track.
Also, I have a different experience over which is more bullet proof than was previously posted. I’ve lost a lot more pieces of Atlas code 55 in the laying process than I have ME. Maybe it is just me or the way I am doing something.
Some complain that wheelset bounce off the molded spikes of Atlas code 55. They are certainly larger than those on ME, and I did have some cars bounce along in my last layout. But, I think that is limited to the older wheel sets with the huge flanges. I coverted to metal wheels back then and never had a problem with those on Atlas track, nor the low-profile wheels Micro Trains included and eventually adopted as their standard.
Oh, and like Wyatt, right now all my turnouts are “dead” frogs (turnout linkages/motors are not yet installed) and I have not had a problem. My fleet is four and six axle diesels along with switchers (Kato NW-2, Atlas VO1000), and none hesitate over the frog. Again, as Wyatt said, other parts of the turnout have had to be addressed, but not the frogs.
I think it boils down to whether you work better with stiffer or limper flex track. I thought stiffer would be a
I’m at the same stage so i ordered some ME c55 flextrack and a turnout, and also got a piece of Atlas c55 flex and some sectional c55 Atlas (some straight, different curves.) i had a couple of turnouts already.
After some experimentation i’m going with atlas sectional for the main line and ME flex for the sidings. The reasons are:-
2 The Atlas flex is hard to work with (too flexible for my likeing,) so i’m using Atlas sectional to help keep a uniform shape. I know this will mean a lot more soldering but i think it will produce a better look. The curve easements will be done by combining various radius curved sectionals.
My new layout will replace an older one in which i used Peco. Peco is reliable but doesn’t look right for north America and low profile wheels tend to drop into the frog space on their turnouts, which is annoying. The old Peco track and turnouts will be used in staging.
Trouble is we will have to wait awhile for Atlas turnouts. I’ll build what i can in the meantime and have fun with the old layout.