Questions RE: Atlas track

[gp40xdg]

I just intro'd myself, now it's time for a couple of questions I have about the new-ish Atlas c65 True-Track.  (For those who might wonder -- I wanted to use c55, but figure it will be infinitely easier to build a layout for my little boy [age 7] and not have to mess with putting down roadbed, attaching the track, and ballasting everything.)

1.)  I've heard that trains running over c55 track (such as ME or Atlas) can be quite noisy when the track is mounted on foam board (which I am determined to use).  Has anyone mounted Atlas's new c65 True-Track (with "built-in" roadbed) onto foam board?  If so, is there still a noise problem?

2.)  If anyone has used this track on foam board, how did you attach it?  What works best?

3.)  I've designed a layout with a deck girder bridge about 2-1/2 to 3 feet long.  I can't see a way to use the Atlas c65 True-Track over the trestle span -- do I go for using c55 track and a couple of adapters between the two kinds of track?

thanks in advance,
- Dave G.
Converted from Horribly Oversized to Normal scale in 1985

[3rdrail]

You say trestle and deck girder, which is it? These days, it is fairly common for both to have a ballasted deck so trains do not have to slow down while crossing the bridge. Micro-Engineering bridge track, which comes in Code 70 and 3 ft. lengths, would probably the be the best bet for open deck bridges. It also includes guard rails to be added by the modeler.

[gp40xdg]

3rdrail,

Thank you for your reply.  Looks like I confused some terms . . . however, the prototype structure in question has been referred to as a "trestle" for over a century.  The prototype seems to be constructed using deck girder sections on "viaduct towers," such as ME offers in N scale.  Several pics of it can be seen here:

http://www.railpictures.net/showphotos.php?location=Stenner%20Creek%20Trestle

- Dave G.

[Ed Kapuscinski]

Based on this photo:
http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=202868&nseq=0

I'd say you don't even need bridge track, but it is indeed an open deck structure.

[3rdrail]

Based on this photo:
http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=202868&nseq=0

I'd say you don't even need bridge track, but it is indeed an open deck structure.

Ed, Code 70 is closer to Code 65 than Code 55 or Code 80, which is why I suggested it. Would probably work with just a little filing. 

[Ed Kapuscinski]

Of course Gregg!

But I'm saying that that photo shows that there isn't a set of guardrails inside the running rails (but the tie spacing may be tighter, it's tough to tell because of the telephoto).

[davefoxx]

Although there are no guardrails, I think that you would need bridge track, because the ties are closer together.  To overcome this, you could use regular flextrack and cut the spacers out, allowing you to slide the ties closer together.

If I were using Atlas Code 65 TrueTrack, I'd be tempted to build a ballasted deck bridge and just lay the track over the bridge.  This is an example of a ballasted deck bridge on my layout, using code 55:



Hope this helps,
Dave Foxx