« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 3 4   Go Down

Author Topic: Speaking of Comparisons....Code 55 Track  (Read 6272 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

strummer

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 998
  • Respect: +65
Speaking of Comparisons....Code 55 Track
« on: December 12, 2013, 12:31:39 PM »
0
I've been using Unitrack,and I love it,'cuz it works. I did,however,pick up a bit of Atlas code 55 a while back just to see..It looks great, and seems to function ok.

I'm wondering about making a change-over to it,but am concerned with what I read about its quality control and availability (or lack thereof). Seems shifting our manufacturing over to China can really "muck" things up...

Anyway,I see that Micro Engineering also offers trackage in this size,and am hoping some of you out there can share your thoughts as to how well this line functions,as well as any other comments you might have that could prove useful...

Many thanks in advance.

Mark in Oregon
Logged

DKS

  • The Pitt
  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 13424
  • Respect: +7027
Re: Speaking of Comparisons....Code 55 Track
« Reply #1 on: December 12, 2013, 01:38:49 PM »
0
Logged

strummer

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 998
  • Respect: +65
Re: Speaking of Comparisons....Code 55 Track
« Reply #2 on: December 12, 2013, 03:42:07 PM »
0
Logged

robert3985

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 3552
  • Respect: +1921
Re: Speaking of Comparisons....Code 55 Track
« Reply #3 on: December 12, 2013, 04:16:56 PM »
0
Logged

DKS

  • The Pitt
  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 13424
  • Respect: +7027
Re: Speaking of Comparisons....Code 55 Track
« Reply #4 on: December 12, 2013, 05:11:56 PM »
0
Quote from: robert3985 on December 12, 2013, 04:16:56 PM
DKS!!!!  WELCOME BACK!!!  I hope your move has gone well.  I am looking forward to a post detailing the story!  :)

Move hasn't even officially begun. Starting with raw property. Just getting permits to build is a nightmare. I'm here killing time while township officials shove my paperwork from one desk to another.
Logged

nkalanaga

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 10572
  • Respect: +1752
Re: Speaking of Comparisons....Code 55 Track
« Reply #5 on: December 13, 2013, 12:27:46 AM »
0
My best advice for Micro Engineering would be to buy some and try it.  Mine works fine, but it was all bought, or at least made, long before Atlas introduced code 55.  I have heard that newer ME flex isn't as good due to mold wear or mold changes, depending on who's telling it. 

They're the ONLY source I know of for code 40 flex, but again, all of mine is at least 20 years old, and much of it still had the old "Railcraft" labels on it.

To the best of my knowledge they only made/make one size turnout, #6, and while mine work, they did have an issue there.  The frogs were cast, and tend to sit higher than the rest of the rails.  I ended up putting the entire turnout on a hard surface and beating the frogs into submission with a hammer.  Already installed turnouts needed a lot of filing.  The first run Kato F-units did NOT like them, due to the uneven track surface, and limited vertical side play (rocking) in the trucks.
Logged
N Kalanaga
Be well

robert3985

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 3552
  • Respect: +1921
Re: Speaking of Comparisons....Code 55 Track
« Reply #6 on: December 13, 2013, 01:35:20 AM »
0
I like the old Railcraft stuff the best, but I use newer Micro Engineering flex on not-so-important-modules like transition modules on my portable layout.  I too bought a $hit pot full of the Railcraft code 55 and code 40 a loooong time ago and I've still got quite a bit left, even if it's got a lot of flash.  The ultra-fine spikehead details are worth the work to get it to look right and NOTHING compares to it...nada.

I've used a lot of ME code 55 #6's (not the new "DCC friendly" ones) on other people's layouts and modules and I know at least 20 other N-scalers who have used them also.  None of us had any beefs with 'em, other than when you cut the over-center spring thingy off 'em, you have to make sure the rod used to activate the throwbar pushes the closure point heels back into the hinge bodies, or the closure point rails will come out of the hinges.

All this has been said before, but painted & weathered up, the ME turnouts are proportioned pretty good (although the frog is too big) and look better than any other RTR turnout in code 55 and N-scale that's available.
Logged

OldEastRR

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 3780
  • Gender: Male
  • Respect: +508
Re: Speaking of Comparisons....Code 55 Track
« Reply #7 on: December 13, 2013, 05:42:09 AM »
0
Really wish ME had tried making batches of #4 and #8 switches during this long long long delay for the Atlas Code 55. They had about what, five years to beat Atlas to it? I have no doubt that people tired of waiting for the Atlas stuff would have gone ME, and thus increase the number of ME track fans (and nonfans, unhappily). Not to mention the new switch types would have been bought by regular ME users.
Logged

Catt

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 1721
  • Gender: Male
  • Respect: +28
    • Boylerwerx
Re: Speaking of Comparisons....Code 55 Track
« Reply #8 on: December 13, 2013, 06:28:55 AM »
0
When I went with code 55 I ended up using PECO because there was no ME anywhere and ATLAS did not seem to care if they ever got theirs to market.I have since replaced all of my PECO turnouts with the ATLAS ones.If I had it to do again I would most likely use the ME.If I could not find it I would just go ahead and use the ATLAS code 80 as it looks good to me once it is painted and ballasted and it is "MY" railroad. :D
Logged
Johnathan (Catt) Edwards
Sole owner of the
Grande Valley Railway
100% Michigan made

babbo_enzo

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 200
  • Gender: Male
  • Respect: +12
    • Experience IT!
Re: Speaking of Comparisons....Code 55 Track
« Reply #9 on: December 13, 2013, 07:05:50 AM »
0
Quote from: robert3985 on December 13, 2013, 01:35:20 AM
I've used a lot of ME code 55 #6's (not the new "DCC friendly" ones)
... None of us had any beefs with 'em, other than when you cut the over-center spring thingy off 'em, you have to make sure the rod used to activate the throwbar pushes the closure point heels back into the hinge bodies, or the closure point rails will come out of the hinges.
I've also used ME flex in my pike ( 55 and 40 ) and the only claim I've is ... just one ( code 40 flex was not in gauge! ... 1 mm wider with my surprise .... and several derails! )
I've one ME turnout sleeping in a box, and have order some new DCC friendly to test. I will receive it next week and will report here....
Later
Logged

mightypurdue22

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 59
  • Respect: +44
Re: Speaking of Comparisons....Code 55 Track
« Reply #10 on: December 13, 2013, 10:31:33 AM »
0
Each track will have its pros and cons, and its lovers and haters.  Is code 55 durable, yes.  A little less so than Unitrack only because there's more plastic holding the Unitrack together.  I have Atlas code 55 on my layout and like it, but would absolutely use Unitrack.  I've witnessed some terrific weathering of that track to provide it a more realistic appearance.  If I were starting a layout within the last year, I'd be using Kato due to Atlas' inability to get their product on the market.  ME just seems to have limited product available, and I've only heard the flextrack isn't as nicely flexible as Atlas' (just a rumor).  David K. Smith is right, there are countless threads and discussions about different track products.  I went ahead and bought a little of each, minus the ME, to determine what I liked and with which I could successfully build a railroad.

- Dave
Logged

robert3985

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 3552
  • Respect: +1921
Re: Speaking of Comparisons....Code 55 Track
« Reply #11 on: December 13, 2013, 07:13:02 PM »
0
When I decided to not comply with Ntrak Atlas code 80 requirement on my three new Ntrak modules back in the 80's because I couldn't stand the toy-like appearance of the out-of proportion ties, the huge "clampers" that are supposed to be spikeheads and the excessive space between ties, I settled on Railcraft code 70 flex as a good compromise for easy compatibility measures between my modules and my fellow club members' Atlas code 80 modules, and a really nice, much more prototypical look (other than the rail height).

At the time, I was also aware that I was going to use Railcraft code 55 as "lightly trafficked trackage" on the Ideal Concrete complex on my first Devil's Slide LDE, and by making that decision, I was forced into making my own turnouts for the code 55 trackage because there wasn't anything RTR.  Shinohara (if I remember correctly) was making some code 70 N-gauge trackage and turnouts, but it suffered from the same cosmetic problems that Atlas had, so I decided just to manufacture my own turnouts for everything.

Nowadays, after symbolically destroying the first Ntrak modules I built to show other club members I was willing to start completely over to comply with the proposed club's new non-Ntrak standards, I lay track in code 55 (using old Railcraft and new Micro Engineering flex) and hand laid code 40.

Although code 55 is about .005" too tall (less than a scale 1") for the 130lb rail put down for the Big Boys in 1944, there's nothing else out there that's better.  I wish there were something that was exactly the right height, but I'm pretty positive that wish will never be fulfilled, so code 55 for UP double-track mainlines up the Wasatch Grade is just fine with me.

As to ME code 40 flex.  When a group of us proposed more prototypical appearing rail heights and flex track standards in the early 90's, the only track that was available was Micro Engineering code 55 and their code 55 RTR #6 turnouts, AND their code 40 flex.  At that time, lots of the members still hadn't decided that lo-pro wheelsets were the way to go, so in order for those cars and engines to run on the overall modular layout, ME 40 flex couldn't be used.  I was the only member who actually hand laid code 40 on every fifth PCB tie, and other than having zero tie plates and spikehead details, the trackage looks pretty good...and pizza cutters run on it smooth as silk.

Last month, I put down some new ME code 40 for my in-progress Emory Center Siding because I wanted that added spikehead and tie-plate detailing and because I don't run any pizza cutters on my layout.  Much to my chagrin, some of my favorite Kato F's wouldn't run on it!!  Flange to spikehead interference!  I didn't consider the flanges on my Kato F's to be "pizza cutters", but to get them to run without interference, I had to sand down the spikeheads on my code 40 center siding using a small sanding block and making many light and careful passes so as not to sand the spikeheads completely off.

Just thought any of you who might be thinking of using ME code 40 flex should be aware that you should plan on taking a little sanding block to the spikeheads to clear some of your motive powers' deeper than NMRA spec flanges.

Otherwise, it's excellent flex and the only thing available in code 40.

Yes, ME is stiffer than Atlas 55.  Running really hot water on the flex will cure some of the stiffness if you consider that to be a problem, but some of us like ME flex's ability to stay put to the radius we bend it to, rather than flopping around and finding its own radius.  Personally, I like its stiffness, and I also find that Atlas' floppiness makes it more prone to misalignment and "popping" problems due to heat and cold contraction and expansion.  Once I've got my track down, the feeders applied, the gaps cut, I don't want any problems from expansion and contraction, and ME track is much less prone to them in my experience simply because it IS stiffer.

I think I've said all of this before, and I thank DKS for his links.  However, not everybody is going to read 'em (I did) so I keep posting away again here for those who have not been part of the track discussion before.
Logged

Kentuckian

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 951
  • Gender: Male
  • "This all started with Romans 10:9!" -Apologetix
  • Respect: +618
Re: Speaking of Comparisons....Code 55 Track
« Reply #12 on: December 13, 2013, 07:21:37 PM »
0
I have kato unittrack, some peco code 55, atlas code 55, and ME code 40 on my HCD layout.  Kind of a test bed.  I like the tie spacing and looks of the Atlas best, there is no accounting for taste.

So when is Atlas code 55 flex supposed to be available?
Logged
Modeling the C&O in Kentucky.

“Nature does not know extinction; all it knows is transformation. ... Everything science has taught me-and continues to teach me-strengthens my belief in the continuity of our spiritual existence after death. Nothing disappears without a trace.” Wernher von Braun

SAH

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 1297
  • Respect: +1918
Re: Speaking of Comparisons....Code 55 Track
« Reply #13 on: December 13, 2013, 09:00:53 PM »
0
The Spencer section of my AC&Y was done with old ME 55 and ME turnouts.  The turnouts were modified to be "DCC friendly".  I believe the new ME turnouts come come that way.  I think it looks great and prefer the way ME hold a radius - Much easier to solder the feeder underneath the rail and drill the hole where the feeder will go.  I don't even bother with under rail feeders when I use Atlas 55 - Too difficult IMO.  All that said my perfect world would be ME 55 weathered flex and Atlas turnouts.  I'll likely try to go that route in the future.
Logged
Steve Holzheimer
Lakewood, OH
Modeling the AC&Y Spur 4 Serving the Tire Industry

robert3985

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 3552
  • Respect: +1921
Re: Speaking of Comparisons....Code 55 Track
« Reply #14 on: December 13, 2013, 10:07:43 PM »
0
Y'know, "liking" the way track looks can be done. It's all a matter of "taste" sometimes I guess.  I suppose that's why some people run lovely, detailed and accurate equipment on Kato Unitrack and can't see the irony.

Humans are funny in their inconsistencies and I've got a few myself (since I am still human....I think... :trollface: ) and one those inconsistencies is to build a heavily prototypical layout, using highly detailed and researched LDE's and equally well-researched and equipped trains & equipment, but use Peco 55 or Atlas 80 as the track...which looks nothing like any prototype I am aware of.  A good example of that is Mike Danneman's Moffat Route layout, which is simply spectacular, until the Peco 55 track jumps out at me, or our own Dave Vollmer and his excellent HCD layout, all beautifully scenicked with hard to find and/or kibashed Pennsy steam running on it...built with Atlas 80.  Everything looks spectacular, until I see the track. 

So, some of us "like" the tie spacing on Atlas 55 flex better than Micro Engineering flex.  I guess it's closer to "the golden mean" or something eh?  But, real railroads lay track, including their tie lengths and spacing and type of material not because it looks pretty, but for very real and functional reasons, the main one being that it's safe, the second one being that it will last an optimum time period before parts of it need to be replaced.

A while back, I decided that I would use whatever flex fit the specs on the prototype I'm modeling the best.  When researching the Wasatch Grade between Ogden and Wahsatch Utah, it's pretty obvious that mainline trackage is laid differently than sidings and what's left of the Park City Branchline (a couple of hundred feet).  So, I did a little research on the official UP site and managed to get into UP's PDF files which specify tie lengths, spacing and types of material that WILL be used for heavy, medium and light duty trackage, and I measured three different flextracks to see which ones fit what category.  I didn't worry about rail height since 55 and 40 are the only two heights that have any relevance in the flextrack world, but I wanted to check on tie spacing, tie width, and tie length.

Here's are the conclusions, which have nothing to do with what I "like", but which track is closest to which prototype use trackage.

Atlas 55:  Tie spacing is closest to heavy mainline use.  Tie length is closest to medium duty trackage. 
ME 55: Tie spacing is closest to medium duty trackage.  Tie length is closest to heavy mainline trackage.
Me 40: perfect for light duty trackage in both tie length and spacing.

Not so simple.  Both Atlas 55 and ME 55 fit both "Heavy" and "Medium" duty trackwork in different categories.

So, I took some closeups and ME 55 won out because when photos are shot at track level, ME has the tiniest "spikehead" details.  Atlas 55's are noticeable larger and more grotesquely wrong.  I decided that if I was really serious about defining the difference between "heavy" and "medium" use track, then I'd just cut the spacer from between the ties and spread the ties out a bit for "medium duty" track.

All is not well in the ME world however, and I like the sharpness of detail in the wood parts of Atlas 55 better than the rounded ends and indefinite woodgrain on the ME ties.  A partial "fix" for ME flex is to sand the ends of the ties slightly to make them more square. 

So, neither flex is perfect.

ME code 40 IS however, "perfect" for light-duty track.  Too bad you'll have to make your own turnouts to use it for that.

I guess it all comes down to taste once again.  :)
« Last Edit: December 13, 2013, 10:13:07 PM by robert3985 »
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 4   Go Up
« previous next »