kinda disappointed at the new code 65

[tom mann]

The new track with integrated ballast from Atlas looks really nice, but I must say that I am disappointed that it will be code 65.  I know that NMRA-compliant flanges work on code 40, and I know that properly-weighted lo-pro cars operate just fine.  So why does it seem that we are reverting to the old days?  Sure, there are folks who have a ton of legacy equipment, but we (we as in n-scale consumers) migrated from rapidos and open pilots (that allowed for tight radius turns).  So why can't we migrate past this track issue and start using track that looks prototypical?

The new Atlas track - if it was code 40 - would have been awesome.  The plastic ballast base would have made it tough enough, too.

[John]

It would seem to me it is just a response to the Kato, Bachman, LL market .. why not grab a share of it .. and it sounds like it will look better than the competition .. besides, it will shut up some of the complainers ..

[tom mann]

That's a good way of looking at it.

[TiVoPrince]

Beginners
and tracklaying inept among need code 65.  If I did not have crew help tracklaying I would certainly be using it.  For a break-in or testing layout accomodating lo-pro and cutters and a reasonable rail size this seems the proper compromise. 

Atlas has probably just gotten sick of losing out on sales (and forum bashes) based on oversize MT flanges hitting thier code55 spikeheads...

[wm3798]

I look at it as being a stepping stone toward the train set crowd.  Nothing more or less.  Modelers who are concerned about appearance and performance won't be buying this stuff.  Even if it looked dazzling, it will limit the track layer to particular radii, turnout dimensions, and stiff lengths of tangent.  All the stuff that makes the typical Unitrak layout look generally crappy.

At least Kato track, with it's c80 rail, can be mated to flex track, which can be blended in if done properly. (Again, a modeler who can work with flex track properly wouldn't fool with Unitrak in the first place, but at least it's compatible at the rail head.)

They may pull some of the "Tin-platers" away from unitrak, but most of them are so brainwashed they'll stick to what's been drummed into their heads.

Unless it comes in at a very good price point, and can compete with Kato in terms of reliability, it may have a shot.  But most dealers have limited shelf space, and as someone noted elsewhere, this is Atlas' third version of sectional track...

Personally, I think they should put all their eggs in the c55 basket, and leave the snap crowd alone.

Lee

[sparky]

...All the stuff that makes the typical Unitrak layout look generally crappy.

Lee

Ha!  I double-dog-dare you to post that on Trainbored!  The black helicopters have been dispatched.  Nice knowin' ya Lee.


Stay cool and run plastic, integrated-roadbed, Japanese tie spacing, layout limiting sectional track.  ;D > ;D

[gunner]

Being a user of preballasted track, I see short comings with the Atlas track.  It looks like the joiners are cast into the road bed ala LL and B'mann.  I like the ease of assembly and robust joiner systen that Kato has used.  The integrated joiners tend to be fragile and can scrap a piece of track when broken.  The Kato offering provides a wide range of radii and accessory track sections, as well as compatability to flex track for the wider radii that I need.  It is difficult to damage the track and joiners, electrical connectivity is better than any other system.  The way I see it is that Atlas is way behind the market with this product and should leave the junk track market to LL and B'mann.  The only thing going for it is that it is code 65, this would answer all of the complaints about their code 55 not being compatable with some flange heights.

Bob

[Steve4]

Tom, I think you are not the target market for this trak anyway... !   

[Mark5]

Agreeing with some of the sentiments above, and throwing in my own:

Who cares? This is for the less demanding modeler. I sure as heck aint interested in this product!

But in the big picture, code 65 represents a downward trend in rail size, so hopefully that will have a synergistic effect on N scale in general.

[inkaneer]

As gret as code 55 is as a step toward more realistic rail size let's alll keep in mind that it corresponds to code 100 in HO.  HO has now gotten code 83 track.  This  corresponds to code 45 track in N Gauge.  I do agree that the TruTrak  being developed by Atlas is aimed at the beginner.  The old rail joiners were never sufficient in their ability to keep track together without using nails to spike it down.  With the new track beginners will be able to set up a layout easily and run trains without having the track come apart.  Maybe Atlas will combine the new track system with their "Trainman" offerings and market some beginner's train sets.  Get those into Wallyworld and harvest a whole new generation of train buffs.

[amato1969]

Great comment about the train set concept.  This product would surely help grab some of that market share.

[tom mann]

  Maybe Atlas will combine the new track system with their "Trainman" offerings and market some beginner's train sets.  Get those into Wallyworld and harvest a whole new generation of train buffs.

Now that would be nice.

[ednadolski]

I'm waiting for the Twist Ties from Fast Tracks.  Not for the train set crowd, but nothing looks as much like wood as wood.

Ed

[TrainCat2]

Marketing and targeting of specific modelers that are RTR and not "modelers". This goes with the same concepts as being touted in MR. Better than Kato (US spacing, closer to proto height) and ready to run. Nothing really original, just better and now able to capture a piece of the market they did not have. Heck, any beginner can be running trains without any knowledge of what/why their doing. The othe mfg are having all the fun and Atlas wanted in. I have to credit them with some real thinking in their strategy of the final product.

[Ed Kapuscinski]

I'd say it's an incremental evolution, instead of a revolution, and that this is better for the hobby in the long term.