hidden staging track recommendation - compatibility with Atlas 55 and wheels

[nkalanaga]

In my case, I just cut a hole under the turnout, as the staging yard is a 1x6 in my bedroom closet.  The Peco motors are held to the turnout by four tabs on top of the turnout, so replacing one is very simple.  Untwist the tabs, the old motor falls off, move the wires to the new one, push it up through the hole, and twist the tabs.  As you said, not that easy on a sceniced layout, but no problem at all where appearance doesn't matter.

The auxiliary contacts attach to the motor with glue, contact cement recommended, so can be pried off and reused of the motor has to be replaced.  In my case, one of the contacts failed, and I replaced it without removing the motor from the turnout.

[robert3985]

All the yards I've built in the past 30+ years for myself have been with either hand-laid turnouts and/or ME #6's using Rail Craft/Micro Engineering C70/C55 or handlaid C40.

The fly in the Atlas ointment is your desire to use FVM "narrow" lo-pro wheelsets, and Atlas track...both C80 and C55 is "floppy", meaning it has one sliding rail, which also means that it is not nearly as consistent and stable as ME C70 or ME 55 as far as staying "in gauge" is concerned. 

Narrow wheels look great, but may not function all that well on track whose rail may shift from side to side...and ME does not have a loose, floppy rail and WILL NOT be shifting out-of-gauge...period.   ME turnouts are also built to a more strict NMRA standard than Atlas turnouts are, and although I haven't heard of anybody having problems with Atlas 55 turnouts using FVM "narrow" lo-pro wheelsets, I HAVE heard of trouble spots on Atlas C55 flex having to be repaired when converting to narrow metal wheelsets.

Also, narrow wheelsets may also not function well with Atlas C80, Peco C80/C55 or Kato Unitrack, without shimming or otherwise dicking around with the stock turnouts, fixing their non-NMRA conforming problems.

Additionally, Atlas C55 turnouts have chromy-plated mystery-metal frogs, guard rails and closure points.  The plating will eventually wear off, exposing first the copper plating (which allows the chromy plating to stick to, usually...pot metal), then the mystery metal underneath, which may or may not cause problems due to possible dirt attraction and electrical conductivity problems.

On the opposite side of the coin, ME #6 turnouts have both NS rails and NS frog & guardrail castings...with fabricated NS rail closure points...and do not have the potential problems that Atlas C55 turnouts with their plated essential parts may have.

Since you seem attracted to the FVM "narrow" lo-pro wheelsets...which I agree look very prototypical compared to wider wheels, it seems ironic that you keep reiterating that you have decided to go with the second best appearing flextrack, instead of laying ME flex and having both the best looks as well as rock-solid track that stays in gauge...a rather important quality when combined with the narrow tread wheelsets you are planning on using.  Hmmmm???????   

The best combination with your caveat of wanting to run FVM "narrow" lo-pro wheelsets is, IMO...this:  ME C55 flex on both visible and hidden areas of your layout, a combination of Atlas #10's and Atlas curved turnouts, with ME #6's everywhere else.  Atlas 55 diamonds when needed, and either learn to lay your own turnouts or have a reputable, experienced modeler make them for you for turnouts and diamonds not available in "true" code 55.

My recommendation would be different if you were not set on "narrow" wheelsets, which I think is a good thing.

My personal experience with FVM "narrow" lo-pros is that they run flawlessly on ME/RC C55/C40 flex, and without a wobble thru ME #6's...and "tight" NMRA spec'ed hand-laid turnouts, and these wheelsets are slowly replacing every other lo-pro on my several thousand cars which run on my layout.  I have no Atlas C55 turnouts on my layout, so I can't vouch personally that they'll work as well with them, but I haven't heard any bellyaching from N-scalers I know who use Atlas C55 #7, #10 and curved turnouts and run the narrow treads.

Cheerio!
Bob Gilmore

[MichaelWinicki]

Additionally, Atlas C55 turnouts have chromy-plated mystery-metal frogs, guard rails and closure points.  The plating will eventually wear off, exposing first the copper plating (which allows the chromy plating to stick to, usually...pot metal), then the mystery metal underneath, which may or may not cause problems due to possible dirt attraction and electrical conductivity problems.

Just a point Bob about the plating on the Atlas code 55 turnouts...

It takes some effort to get that plating off, thus exposing the copper plating. 

I've done it using files, but regular train running and either cleaning using a wet-method or rubber track cleaners (without the "grit")?  No.  And my layout has been run hundreds of hours over the past 8 years– long trains, lots of cars... 

On the turnouts where I've exposed the copper plating?  I've had great luck using gun-bluing to darken the copper.  And exposing the copper plating has created no extra cleaning chores on the layout, nor does it create conductivity problems.

[peteski]

It takes some effort to get that plating off, thus exposing the copper plating. 

I've done it using files, but regular train running and either cleaning using a wet-method or rubber track cleaners (without the "grit")?  No.  And my layout has been run hundreds of hours over the past 8 years– long trains, lots of cars... 

On the turnouts where I've exposed the copper plating?  I've had great luck using gun-bluing to darken the copper.  And exposing the copper plating has created no extra cleaning chores on the layout, nor does it create conductivity problems.

You are making excuses and presenting workarounds for a problem which should not exist in the first place.  If Atlas used solid nickel-silver those problems wouldn't exist.

On my friend's layout (using mostly Atlas c55 turnouts), many have exposed copper on the castings after several years in service.  He uses a Brite Boy track cleaner.

While the gun bluing liquid might darken the copper, that is also not a valid workaround for me since the points and frogs should look like clean steel (same color as the adjacent rail-tops, not dark).

[Cajonpassfan]

I thought the OP question was about "hidden staging".
So the Atlas copper frog color, when rubbed hard, is a problem why?
Just saying'
Otto K.

[nickelplate759]

I'm the OP poster.  Remember, this is hidden trackage, so I don't care how it looks, only how it works with my desired wheels and equipment and how easy it is to maintain.  For example, I don't care for the look of Micro Engineering track (because the railhead looks too wide to me), but for hidden track that doesn't matter.

George

[peteski]

I'm the OP poster.  Remember, this is hidden trackage, so I don't care how it looks, only how it works with my desired wheels and equipment and how easy it is to maintain. 

  Well of course. What was I thinking?

 

[MichaelWinicki]

You are making excuses and presenting workarounds for a problem which should not exist in the first place.  If Atlas used solid nickel-silver those problems wouldn't exist.

On my friend's layout (using mostly Atlas c55 turnouts), many have exposed copper on the castings after several years in service.  He uses a Brite Boy track cleaner.

While the gun bluing liquid might darken the copper, that is also not a valid workaround for me since the points and frogs should look like clean steel (same color as the adjacent rail-tops, not dark).

You're right it is a workaround.

But it does work... to a point.

Bright-Boy has grit in it. 

I use non-grit cleaners.

[mmagliaro]

I don't run my trains nearly enough to wear that plating off the Atlas C55 frogs, and I don't use abrasives on my rails
(any more...).   But this gives me an idea...   That Caswell nickel plating kit I used on my wheel drivers did a bang-up job
on rehabilitating an older soldering iron tip I had where the long-life nickel plating had oxidized/burned or otherwise just plain
wore off.     I cleaned the tip well, and dipped it into the electroplating bath; it put a beautiful new coat of nickel on there.  I've been
using it for about 2 months and the plating has held up fine.

So perhaps when I see a frog plating wear through, I'll sand it clean, and then brush plate it with nickel.

It is a swab wand, so you could just clip the ground lead to the frog and swab on the nickel solution to replate it. 
(It would look better too, being nickel and not some chromey kind of plating like they put on there).

I'm not saying Atlas should have made the frogs that way.  I'm just suggesting a repair that I think will work without
requiring ripping up of the turnouts.  (and the plating kit only costs about 40 bucks).

[robert3985]

I'm the OP poster.  Remember, this is hidden trackage, so I don't care how it looks, only how it works with my desired wheels and equipment and how easy it is to maintain.  For example, I don't care for the look of Micro Engineering track (because the railhead looks too wide to me), but for hidden track that doesn't matter.

George

My suggestion to use ME #6 turnouts in your hidden staging yards is based on having two of them in my Echo Yard for the past 20+ years, connected to NWSL Tortoises underneath, and not having touched them (except when cleaning track with my flexible abrasive track cleaner) since I ballasted the yard trackage...meaning that in my experience, they are about as "bulletproof" as you can get.  Whatever metal Atlas uses (the evidence points towards a high-zinc content "pot" metal), it is not as durable as those identical important parts on the ME turnouts, which are fabricated from Nickel Silver.

Also, as I stated in my post, FVM "narrow" lo-pros run flawlessly on ME #6's.

From research I did on another post on TRW a couple or days ago, I took my Mitutoyo Micrometer, which is accurate to .0001", and measured the railheads on several brands of rail.  My findings were that Atlas C55 Flex's railhead width is 0.0268" and Micro Engineering Weathered  C55 Flex's railhead width is 0.0261", which is clear evidence that Atlas C55's railhead is measureably wider (not narrower) than ME weathered C55's rail.  Why Atlas C55's railheads appear to be be noticeably narrower to you is a mystery, unless they are not flat, but have a slight arc, which would narrow the quality of the reflection coming off that surface.

My recommendation to use ME C55 flex was due to it being more precisely gauged, without a loose "floating rail" which introduces a potential gauging problem when using a "narrow" wheel tread, as you want to do.

It is merely a bonus that ME track looks to me much more prototypical than Atlas C55.

For me, since I obsessively photograph my trackage in the vast majority of instances from a scale observer height, rather than from directly overhead, the grossly oversized "nubs" on the Atlas C55 flex jump out and slap me across the face...whereas the smaller, narrower "spikeheads" on ME track are much more prototypical looking.

However, I understand that N-scale railhead width really gets to some N-scale modelers, at least one of whom I highly respect who has developed a way to grind the side of the railhead to a prototype width. (Thank you Ed for that! )

And I thought I was a rivet-counter!  LOL!!

Another reason i immensely enjoy TRW....

Cheerio!
Bob Gilmore

[nickelplate759]

After digesting all that, I'm going to go with the ME flex and switches for the hidden track.  Thanks for the ideas and advice!

George

[mmagliaro]

Fascinating, Bob!  I think the Atlas code 55 railhead is indeed arched.  It looks that way to me with a magnifier.
And I too think it looks like it is narrower than ME code 55.
But a caliper on it confirms what you said - I see about .004" wider for the Atlas than ME weathered rail (I have some here).

At some point, I cleaned all my track with a hard, smooth, stainless steel plate (instead of anything abrasive or chemical).
I was aiming to "burnish" the tops of the rails.

I had been battling with track that always seemed to need to be cleaned more often than any layout I've had in the past, and
this when it is in the cleanest room I've ever had for a layout room in my life!  (It's in a nice interior bedroom, instead of an attic,
shed, basement or garage!).  (And I had never used Atlas code 55 before, except on some little experimental layouts
that never ran long enough to assess track cleanliness issues).

Upon burnishing, I immediately saw that the railhead looked wider than it used to.  I was slightly
flattening it and taking that arched top out of it.  Pickup got much more reliable after that and I don't have to clean track nearly as
often.  I think it's because the flat railtop provides a wider more reliable  surface for the wheels to contact.

[peteski]

Upon burnishing, I immediately saw that the railhead looked wider than it used to.  I was slightly
flattening it and taking that arched top out of it.  Pickup got much more reliable after that and I don't have to clean track nearly as
often.  I think it's because the flat railtop provides a wider more reliable  surface for the wheels to contact.

To me "Peteski's logic" would dictate just the opposite: the smaller the contact area between the wheel and track, the more pressure is applied at that area.  The more pressure, the more positive electrical contact.  I recall ads in old Arnold catalog touting that their steel rail with rounded rail-head provides better contact and is self-cleaning.

[mmagliaro]

To me "Peteski's logic" would dictate just the opposite: the smaller the contact area between the wheel and track, the more pressure is applied at that area.  The more pressure, the more positive electrical contact.  I recall ads in old Arnold catalog touting that their steel rail with rounded rail-head provides better contact and is self-cleaning.

Good point.  Consider things like Kato's axle-point tender trucks.  One of the reasons they work so well is that all
the pressure is concentrated on that little axle point inside the cup. However, this only holds if the two surfaces are actually
in contact. 

Admittedly I can't prove what I'm about to say, so let's call this a theory, which is that the unevenness of even well-placed track
can result in wheels losing good contact with the railhead, and that the smaller that railhead is, the more often this happens.
As such, even though more pressure would be there if the wheel were touching, it doesn't help when the wheel is not touching.
Making the railhead bigger increases the odds that the wheel will stay in contact with it.

Sort of like comparing a rifle to a shot gun.   A single rifle shot from the wheel to the track would make better, more concentrated
contact, but if the bullet misses entirely, you get nothing.  A blast of pellets from a shotgun between the wheel and the rail
may never achieve the positive contact that the single shot does, but more of the time, it gets you some contact.

[peteski]

Good point.  Consider things like Kato's axle-point tender trucks.  One of the reasons they work so well is that all
the pressure is concentrated on that little axle point inside the cup. However, this only holds if the two surfaces are actually
in contact. 

Admittedly I can't prove what I'm about to say, so let's call this a theory, which is that the unevenness of even well-placed track
can result in wheels losing good contact with the railhead, and that the smaller that railhead is, the more often this happens.
As such, even though more pressure would be there if the wheel were touching, it doesn't help when the wheel is not touching.
Making the railhead bigger increases the odds that the wheel will stay in contact with it.

Sort of like comparing a rifle to a shot gun.   A single rifle shot from the wheel to the track would make better, more concentrated
contact, but if the bullet misses entirely, you get nothing.  A blast of pellets from a shotgun between the wheel and the rail
may never achieve the positive contact that the single shot does, but more of the time, it gets you some contact.

Ah, the shotgun method. I've heard of it (and back in the day I even used when troubleshooting some computer circuit boards which had hard to pinpoint problems). 

Best solution would be curved rail surface and fully equalized trucks or drivers.  That way the wheels can keep in constant contact with slightly uneven track.  Many Kato trucks have semi-sprung wheels and your scratchbuilt 0-6-0 will also have sprung drivers, right?