ME/Atlas code 55

[Bsklarski]

How well does ME and Atlas code 55 track mesh? Is it worth to mix it or stay with all one brand to save on headaches??

TIA

[packers#1]

Code 55 is code 55, I never had a problem; ME can be a bear to flex though

[seusscaboose]

unless you soak it in warm water...  i thought i saw a thread on that

i'm sure someone can point out the link

[CoalPorter]

Havent tried this combo BUT ME code 40 works well with Atlas C55.

[bill pearce]

ME flex isn't that ahrd to flex, just dont grab it and twist like atlas code 80. Start from the center of a stick and gradually bend. take just a few inches at a time and it's easier than dealing with the fact that atlas always wants to return to straight.

[Ian MacMillan]

Yes warm water can break up the stiffness of ME C55. I believe it was Lou that posted it last week.

[peteski]

unless you soak it in warm water...  i thought i saw a thread on that

i'm sure someone can point out the link

See https://www.therailwire.net/forum/index.php?topic=28014

[mmagliaro]

They mesh easily.  You can get either brand's rail joiners on either one (Atlas are easier to get on in my experience),
and slide them together, no problem.  Occasionally, there is a minute differential in the top of the railhead, but
nothing you can dress up with a jewelers file.  Solder, and you're good to go.

[nkalanaga]

The biggest difference between the two apparently is tie length.  That can look a little odd if you use ME track and Atlas turnouts, mixed together, but even the prototype replaced ties at different times, so it could be explained that way.  As for operations, they should work fine together.

[robert3985]

I'd say the biggest difference between them is the way too big fasteners on the Atlas Flex, vs the just a little too big spikeheads on the ME flex.  If you butt 'em up together in a long straight, you're gonna see the difference and it'll be pretty obvious, even painted, weathered and ballasted.

Tie lengths and spacing are different on the brands, with Atlas ties being shorter, but closer together.  Railroads laid their ties closer together for heavily trafficked trackage and used slightly longer ties.  So, the tie spacing on the Atlas flex is correct for heavily trafficked trackage, but the tie length is just right for medium trafficked trackage.  The ME 55 is just the opposite....so neither one is correct for either heavy or medium trafficked trackage.

What I decided, when I was going to use both brands, was to use the Atlas track for heavily trafficked trackage because to me, the tie spacing is more obvious than then tie length, and I'd use ME 55 for my medium trafficked mainline sidings (long center sidings), but when I laid them together, side by side, just to see if I was missing something, it became extremely obvious to me that the Atlas track's big doohickies that are supposed to represent spikes were too obvious for my eyes and my photography.

So...I stuck with ME 55 and ME 40 with several portions of my layout being hand-laid code 40.

I'm happy with my decision, but if the big thingies on the Atlas flex don't bother you, then by all means, mix and match, but I'd use one for mainlines and the other for sidings and medium trafficked branchlines or industrial areas..and then go with ME code 40 for lightly trafficked trackage...but, you'll have to build your own code 40 turnouts...which is easier than building code 55 turnouts.

[nkalanaga]

Tie length also varied from road to road, even with the same traffic density and axle loading.  It depended on many things, including roadbed material, type of wood, era, etc.  Shorter ties would be spaced closer together, while longer ties could be further apart, all else being equal.  To be "right" one would have to follow a particular prototype location and year.

[TrainboySD40]

Code 55 isn't code 55...every brand has a different rail profile, ME's is closest to prototype. You can mix them easily, though, especially by using Atlas rail joiners (which I use on my ME C55 anyway)

Just don't try to mix them with Peco!

[spr1955]

I've also used both without any problems - used atlas joiners.

[mark.hinds]

Atlas code 55 has scale 8.5 foot wide ties and ME has scale 9 foot wide ties.  The tie spacing is slightly less on Atlas (about 1-in-18).  ME is stiffer, but no more so than the top-of-the line Shinohara code 70 track used in the 1980s.  ME lends itself well to the track laying technique described in the MR Clinchfield layout book, which I still use. 

Since tie width is more visually important to me than the small spacing difference, and since my prototype (Tehachapi in the 1950s) still used 8.5 foot ties, I decided to re-lay my old code 70 Shinohara with code 55 Atlas. 

To my eye, mixing them would look very strange, if they were in close proximity. 

MH

[Mike Madonna]

Atlas code 55 has scale 8.5 foot wide ties and ME has scale 9 foot wide ties.  The tie spacing is slightly less on Atlas (about 1-in-18).  ME is stiffer, but no more so than the top-of-the line Shinohara code 70 track used in the 1980s.  ME lends itself well to the track laying technique described in the MR Clinchfield layout book, which I still use. 

Since tie width is more visually important to me than the small spacing difference, and since my prototype (Tehachapi in the 1950s) still used 8.5 foot ties, I decided to re-lay my old code 70 Shinohara with code 55 Atlas. 

To my eye, mixing them would look very strange, if they were in close proximity. 

MH

Hey Mark,

You mention "Tehachapi in the 1950s"... early or late 50s? SP or ATSF fan or both? Just wondering.....

Thanks!