Peco turnouts and Atlas flex? Or ME flex?

[DKS]

How do you make Micro Engineering track (either Code 55 oder 40) perfectly straight?

It is so stiff that if you correct a kink the next kink will show up about 3 to 5 inches from the corrected part of the track. Compare that to Atlas Code 55 flextrack, which always returns to a perfectly straight position.

Patience. It takes considerable patience, fiddling, and a straightedge. But it is possible.

[MVW]

Loren and Mark ...

That seemed to be a logical approach, and I'm glad to hear it worked. Was it a very time-intensive process? How easy is it to destroy a turnout in the process? And finally, did you ever try using Atlas code 55 with Peco? Would the same process work?

I'm familiar with the Atlas style of flex, having used both code 80 in N and code 83 in HO. I'm not sure I'd like the stiffer ME flex.

Thank you, and thanks to all who've chipped in. Sounds like there's a lot to love about the Peco turnouts.

Jim

[mark.hinds]

Can anyone comment on the appearance issue, if the OP mixes Peco turnouts with ME/Atlas flex/? 

I have both ME and Atlas code 55 flex sitting in front of me, and also a Peco code 80 switch (not code 55).  However, from what I've seen in magazine photos, the Peco code 55 switches look very similar.  If so, the appearance of the ME and Atlas code 55 track will be very different from the Peco switches in terms of tie spacing, tie length, and rail width.  Doesn't this sabotage the point of using non-Peco flex track?  Better just to go with all Peco.  I would find the contrast visually jarring.  If the argument is "you can't see it when painted and ballasted", then I would think that that would apply to the Peco flex as well. 

MH

[wazzou]

Can anyone comment on the appearance issue, if the OP mixes Peco turnouts with ME/Atlas flex/? 

I have both ME and Atlas code 55 flex sitting in front of me, and also a Peco code 80 switch (not code 55).  However, from what I've seen in magazine photos, the Peco code 55 switches look very similar.  If so, the appearance of the ME and Atlas code 55 track will be very different from the Peco switches in terms of tie spacing, tie length, and rail width.  Doesn't this sabotage the point of using non-Peco flex track?  Better just to go with all Peco.  I would find the contrast visually jarring.  If the argument is "you can't see it when painted and ballasted", then I would think that that would apply to the Peco flex as well. 

MH

The Peco Code 55 TO's certainly differ in appearance from both the Atlas and ME flex, (which look similar enough themselves). 
The main differences are in height and tie size/spacing.  The Peco uses a British Standard verses the US standard of both the Atlas and ME track.  It's a subjective trade off that features slightly more effort, robust build and performance as opposed to prototypical appearance. 
One other issue I've found with the Peco TO is the requirement of adding styrene shims to the frogs to help prevent wheel drop and/or derailments.

[MVW]

I'm going to allow a fair amount of latitude in looks if the Peco turnouts are as sturdy and relatively trouble-free as others have claimed. I'm looking to build a fairly large layout designed for operation. Pure beauty is secondary ... which is appropriate for my modeling skill. 

That being said, an eyeball test is certainly called for before making a major commitment.

Paint and ballast can cover up a multitude of sins, but they can only do so much.

Jim

[peteski]

I'm going to allow a fair amount of latitude in looks if the Peco turnouts are as sturdy and relatively trouble-free as others have claimed. I'm looking to build a fairly large layout designed for operation. Pure beauty is secondary ... which is appropriate for my modeling skill. 

That being said, an eyeball test is certainly called for before making a major commitment.

Paint and ballast can cover up a multitude of sins, but they can only do so much.

Jim

I was originally going to suggest grinding off the bottom of the double base but I though that it would be too much work (and possibly melt the ties during the process), but looking at the comments, it seems to be a viable solution.

I can also recommend Peco (especially Electrofrog) turnouts. My friend has them on his layout (for around 20 years now) and they are very reliable. He did shim the guard-rails as it has been mentioned here.  The only problem he experienced was couple of broken throw-bars.  He uses Tortoises with a rather stiff wire. He thinks that the constant pressure from the throw-wire caused the breakage.  He didn't remove the over-the-center springs, so there is extra force from the stiff wire is required to throw the switch.

Plus Peco makes the nicest (most realistic looking) double and single slip switches (if you need them on your layout). I love those things!

[ljudice]

I'll chime in with one more nice thing about Peco Code 55...

I've done three layouts with largely the same core set of re-cycled turnouts and most of the flex track.

It easily comes off cork after being glued down - the force needed is NOT enough to destroy it. 

I have no experience with ME but generally terrible experience with Atlas C55 - but it is beautiful.  Definitely would use it for a static diorama, if I could get it....

[mark dance]

The Peco Code 55 TO's certainly differ in appearance from both the Atlas and ME flex, (which look similar enough themselves). 
The main differences are in height and tie size/spacing.  The Peco uses a British Standard verses the US standard of both the Atlas and ME track.  It's a subjective trade off that features slightly more effort, robust build and performance as opposed to prototypical appearance. 
One other issue I've found with the Peco TO is the requirement of adding styrene shims to the frogs to help prevent wheel drop and/or derailments.

I only use ME flex on the bridges/trestles where the longer tie length creates a natural visual change from the Peco flex track anyways.   Here is a shot. 



And I have not installed any shims (on the 200+ turnouts) and haven't suffered operationally, although some locos - notably the old Life Like C Liners do shimmy going through the frogs.

md

[mark dance]

Loren and Mark ...

That seemed to be a logical approach, and I'm glad to hear it worked. Was it a very time-intensive process? How easy is it to destroy a turnout in the process? And finally, did you ever try using Atlas code 55 with Peco? Would the same process work?

I'm familiar with the Atlas style of flex, having used both code 80 in N and code 83 in HO. I'm not sure I'd like the stiffer ME flex.

Thank you, and thanks to all who've chipped in. Sounds like there's a lot to love about the Peco turnouts.

Jim

Grinding down the lower Peco flange take long but you do need to be careful.  I wrap a wet cloth around the end and hold on to the Peco track through that.  I have never ground down turnouts just Peco code 55 flex to mate with ME bridge track.

hope that helps.

md

[C855B]

One thing needs to be said about ME flex... it is manufactured in the US, in an office park not too far from where I live. It looks good, the quality is good and the price is fair, so if you can manage to deal with the stiffness relative to Atlas I'd say there's a whole lot of "win" to using ME. Several here have said it's time to bring N scale models production back on-shore, so here's an opportunity to reward somebody who kept production at home.

I wish they offered a long turnout along the lines of a #8 or even a #10, but last I checked the demand << cost of new tooling. Too bad, really.

[OldEastRR]

Consider the Peco "Code 55" rail end section looks like an upsidedown telephone pole with two crossbars. To make this  a true Code 55 rail you need to remove the top crossbar from the "pole". Not much more than half the length of a rail joiner need be removed. File the remaining rail web bottom smooth and test fit a Code 55 joiner before installing the track.
The rails of the diverging route for a Peco switch are not easy to cut down like this without damaging the switch. In this case, take a short section of Peco Code 55 flex (an inch or so) and cut the bottom webs (as above) off the rails on one end. By attaching the uncut rail end to the Peco switch and the cut end to true Code 55 flex you make a easy conversion track. This way you can make a continuous run of track from one size to another.The same principle as a freight car with a Rapido at one end and an MTL on the other -- so you can run a string of MTL cars connected to a string of Rapido cars. This short conversion track idea can be used anywhere someone wants or needs to switch from Peco to Code 55 track -- like from visible Code 55 track going into hidden Code 80 track.
As for tie height, I prefer undercutting the roadbed on the Peco track so to sink it into the ground and thus match the lower Code 55 ties. With careful ballasting you can make the Peco ties appear to be very thin.
As for straightening ME flex -- when I lived in Chicago the saying was "You can't drive on the Dan Ryan Expressway until you've driven the Dan Ryan three times."   In essence the same thing with ME flex - you can't use ME flex correctly until you've used ME flex three times. You might have a horrible accident the first time you use it, but eventually you'll get it right.

[robert3985]

Peco and Atlas 80 only looks bad to those with detail sensitivity, like me.  If you don't care how close your track looks to North American prototype track then just use Peco 55 throughout.

Truth is, I've laid quite a bit of Atlas 80 on my friend Nate's layout.  After it's been glued down (and all the nails removed), painted, ballasted and weathered (I'm not talking about covering up the ties with ballast), it looks pretty good...better than I thought it would.  The obvious places you need to not use track with the tall, short and widely spaced ties is on bridges.  ME bridge track really improves the look of bridges and trestles.

I know quite a few modelers who build their entire layouts using ME flex and ME #6's, with an occasional hand-built turnout fashioned by me or another N-scaler who knows how to build turnouts.  Yeah...it'd be really nice if ME would manufacture a #9 or #10, but I doubt they're going to do that in the foreseeable future.

Here's a photo of Nate's Atlas code 80 on his layout.  Doesn't look too bad:


Some of the things I notice about Atlas code 80 when it's painted, ballasted and weathered  is the tie proportions and spacing, the huge "spikeheads", the height of the rails and the contour of the rails.  Peco 55 will retain the tie proportions and spacing of Atlas 80, but...and this is important...the "spikeheads" are MUCH smaller, the visible rails are .025" shorter and the contour of the visible portion of the rails is much better...making for a much better looking track product.

So...even though Peco 55 is not my first choice...or even my second choice, it's not too bad if painted, carefully ballasted and weathered.  Plus, it's available and pretty reliable.

My first choice, although irrelevant to this thread, is hand-built 55 and 40 turnouts, ME 55 flex, and hand-laid code 40 track.  I like both good looks, AND reliability.

[MVW]

Old East -- That sounds like a perfectly sensible approach. No wonder it hadn't occurred to me yet. 

Bob -- Truth is, I've never been overly offended by Atlas code 80. There's no denying code 55 is a much better-looking product, but there's nothing about code 80 that induces the dry heaves in me. So I'll have to take a closer look at Peco flex.

For any who have used Peco flex, is it "loose" like an Atlas product, or "stiff" like ME?

Jim

[E44A]

Patience. It takes considerable patience, fiddling, and a straightedge. But it is possible.

Or you can use this "Flex Track Alignment Tool" MLR Mfg #5015

Admin please remove this link if it is not ok to post...
https://www.walthers.com/exec/productinfo/479-5015

[ljudice]

Old East -- That sounds like a perfectly sensible approach. No wonder it hadn't occurred to me yet. 

Bob -- Truth is, I've never been overly offended by Atlas code 80. There's no denying code 55 is a much better-looking product, but there's nothing about code 80 that induces the dry heaves in me. So I'll have to take a closer look at Peco flex.

For any who have used Peco flex, is it "loose" like an Atlas product, or "stiff" like ME?

Jim

Peco flex is between Atlas and ME in stiffness....   If you bend it, it will basically hold the curve and gradually lose it a little.  It is not difficult to keep straight or re-straigten.

I'd pick up 1 or two pieces of each and play with them.   

There is a lot to be said for ME and local manufacture.  One thing I can say about Peco is that it is NEVER hard to find.

Another nice thing about Peco (and probably ME) is "vertical stiffness", ie it maintains good track geometry along the linear route of the railroad and hides minor
imperfections in roadbed.  Atlas C55 conforms to these imperfections and requires much more care.


- Lou