Speaking of Comparisons....Code 55 Track

[Chris333]

I can live with Atlas C55 looks, but I don't like how loose the flexible rail is at all. And I bought a case of like 150 pieces and every piece had about 11" on one side that had longer spikes than the rest of the piece so just about every newer locomotive I had rubbed on them. I ended up stripping the ties and using the rail to hand lay.

[nkalanaga]

Robert3935:  Code 48 would be ideal, and I'd love to see it.  But, as you said, code 55 is only about a scale inch too tall for 130# rail.  Also, given the thickness of some prototype tie plates I've seen, the overall height from the top of the tie is even closer to correct. 

[robert3985]

Robert3935:  Code 48 would be ideal, and I'd love to see it.  But, as you said, code 55 is only about a scale inch too tall for 130# rail.  Also, given the thickness of some prototype tie plates I've seen, the overall height from the top of the tie is even closer to correct.

Now THAT's interesting!  I never thought of measuring from the top of the railhead to the tie.  I always just measure between ties & get the actual height of the rail.  Guess I'll have to stop off at Echo tomorrow or Sunday when I'm on my way to Evanston (to buy some Powerball tickets) with my trusty measuring tape and see what that particular height is.  I guess everything about track has NOT been discussed before! 

[strummer]

Well,here's something I don't get.
I see that even my engines with lower-profile flanges are "bumping" as they travel on the Atlas code 55. I'm guessing the flanges are hitting the spike heads. It's really noticeable on the lead and trailing trucks of my Kato Mikado. I thought I read on Spookshow's site that this wouldn't be an issue,but now I'm not sure.
Has anyone found a way to address this, as it might be the "deal breaker"; (code 55 vs. Unitrack).
Thanks.

Mark in Oregon

[Kentuckian]

Bob,

Thanks for your thoughtful post.  I suppose "like" is the wrong word, I should have said "looks most prototypical to me."  I will have to try the ME code 55.  I'm messing around with a HCD layout to get some experience and make some decisions before starting on the bigger layout.  I have not considered what looks best in photos, that is probably the real test. 

I model the transition era; I know rail weight and tie spacing were different back then, and prototype dependent.

C&O in Kentucky

[C855B]

... when I'm on my way to Evanston (to buy some Powerball tickets) ...

Heh. WE know about Evanston.

For those who don't... Evanston is the Utahan equivalent of the ol' "Baptist turnaround", the liquor store just across the line from "dry" counties. The sins you cannot partake of in Utah - gambling (even lotto), liquor and other "adult" products - are all concentrated around the first eastbound exit on I-80 from the state line. We thought it weird, first recognizing it on one of our road trips, and then simultaneously we broke out laughing realizing its significance.

Besides, train watching is pretty nice en route, and around Evanston proper. However, toss in the big-rig traffic, and I-80 can get kind of hairy in a couple of spots.

[Van Horne]

I am, as we speak, laying ME code 55 flex and turnouts for the first time in over 20 years.  I made the change from Atlas due to the non-availability and concerns with the consistency of the Atlas turnouts.  I had a lot of trepidation about going back to the ME turnouts as I had a lot of trouble with them in the past.  Typically I recall problems centering around the points and throwbars.  The new turnouts are exponentially better.  The cast frogs are flush. They are DCC friendly.  The throwbar/point/overcentre spring assembly is completely re-engineered to be far more robust and reliable.  FWIW.  Your mileage may vary.

Dave

[peteski]

Well,here's something I don't get.
I see that even my engines with lower-profile flanges are "bumping" as they travel on the Atlas code 55. I'm guessing the flanges are hitting the spike heads. It's really noticeable on the lead and trailing trucks of my Kato Mikado. I thought I read on Spookshow's site that this wouldn't be an issue,but now I'm not sure.
Has anyone found a way to address this, as it might be the "deal breaker"; (code 55 vs. Unitrack).
Thanks.

Mark in Oregon

Mark,
are you absolutely certain that the flanges are hitting the spike heads?  Could it possibly be stray ballast granules which ended up glued up on the inside of the rail's web.

[strummer]

Peteski

Oh,I'm sure...because I haven't ballasted anything yet!
What's weird is that the only loco I'm not seeing this with is the B-Man Consol...

Mark in Oregon

[nkalanaga]

From a mix of sources, including the May 1967 MR, April 1987 MR, and Burlington Northern Railway:

65# rail     1.5 inches high (MR)
80#           5.0
90#           5.625
100#         6.0
110#         6.5               (code 40 is 6.4 inches in N scale)
115#         6.625     (BN)
132#         7.125     (BN)
140#         7.3125   (BN) (code 45.7)

[davefoxx]

Peteski

Oh,I'm sure...because I haven't ballasted anything yet!
What's weird is that the only loco I'm not seeing this with is the B-Man Consol...

Mark in Oregon

Mark,

The Connie probably has tight gauging (as N scale locomotives often do), so that's helping the flanges clear the spikes.

I have heard of this happening with Atlas Code 55, but it's usually been limited to the sectional line of track rather than flextrack.  I remember reading a post on the A-board a long time ago where someone took a small screwdriver and ran the blade along the spikes to "knock them down."  Obviously, you should try this on a scrap piece first.  Otherwise, you'll need to figure out a way to file or sand the engineering plastic down.  Good luck.

Hope this helps,
DFF

[Kiasutha]

From a mix of sources, including the May 1967 MR, April 1987 MR, and Burlington Northern Railway:
65# rail     1.5 inches high (MR)

  I've got about 4.4" for 65# rail!
     1.5 would be about #20 I think...
Lots of info all in one place here-
http://www.urbaneagle.com/data/RRrailsizes.html

edit-sorry I "messed up' the quote box...

[M.C. Fujiwara]

I can live with Atlas C55 looks, but I don't like how loose the flexible rail is at all. And I bought a case of like 150 pieces and every piece had about 11" on one side that had longer spikes than the rest of the piece so just about every newer locomotive I had rubbed on them. I ended up stripping the ties and using the rail to hand lay.

I hear you, but that looseness of the flexible rail comes in mighty handy.
Put it on the inside of the curve and it allows a little wiggle room when laying in sections of track, or even extending one piece of flex to another before soldering.
The bumps are a PITA but dragging a triangle file firmly pressed over the inner bumps a couple times takes that outta the picture.
The biggest issue with Atlas are the bumps on the inside of the point rails on the turnouts, with same fix.

I like Atlas C55 because of the easy "natural" bend (you really only need to handle the "ends" while the flex curves itself)
ME is too stiff and require too much fiddling to get a quality curve.

But some people like the ME "umph" so they can spend the time to shape an exact curve and not have to worry about it "relaxing".

Different techniques for different track, though I gotta say the ME rail joiners are a major PITA to use, and dangerous, too (most of us have ME railjoiner-shoved-deeply-into-thumb stories).

I go Atlas flex and handlaid turnout, with Atlas turnouts ICE.

Worried about waiting for track?

Start scratchbuilding either turnouts or structures.
Or make trees.
Or assemble kits.

We all want to get the trains running, but putting the cart before the (iron) horse works just as well

[nkalanaga]

Kiasutha:  Thank you.  Yes, 65# rail should be 4.5 inches, not 1.5!  That's what happens when typing with the numeric keypad due to having a cat blocking the standard keys.

A standard flange is about 1 inch, so 1.5 wouldn't leave much room for spikes and joint bolts...

And thanks for that link.  It's always nice to have multiple sources, especially when they agree with each other.

[mmagliaro]

Well,here's something I don't get.
I see that even my engines with lower-profile flanges are "bumping" as they travel on the Atlas code 55. I'm guessing the flanges are hitting the spike heads. It's really noticeable on the lead and trailing trucks of my Kato Mikado. I thought I read on Spookshow's site that this wouldn't be an issue,but now I'm not sure.
Has anyone found a way to address this, as it might be the "deal breaker"; (code 55 vs. Unitrack).
Thanks.

Mark in Oregon

How old is that Mikado?   The pilot and trailing truck flanges on the Kato Mikado are a little big.  They may have been bigger in earlier runs than they are now, but I don't have a "new" one to compare.   If they are hitting everywhere, then you will have to
spin/file or otherwise turn down those flanges.   If they are just hitting on a few stretches, it's the Q/C variability of Atlas Code 55.  Even on my current layout, which was built over the past 2 years or so, I had some sections of Atlas c55 flex where even a Kato F unit flange would hit the ties a little.  I have to run a jewelers file over the spike heads a few times to knock them down on those sections to get rid of the problem.