CAUTION!! SEVERE THREAD-DRIFT AHEAD!! 
I'm moving over to Atlas Code 55 track and hand made turnouts now.
Ted
I think this is a good move, especially the hand-laid turnouts! However, I am not a big proponent of Atlas C55 flex and consider it to be the second choice for realistic looking N-scale C55 flex track.
First choice IMHO is Micro Engineering C55 because the spikeheads (or what passes for spikeheads) are noticeably smaller than Atlas C55's, the rails are more securely locked in place (no loose rail problems and less expansion/contraction problems after it's down).
As has been correctly stated in this thread, there is no perfect solution, and ME flex has its problems too, and is markedly different to lay smoothly if you're used to "floppy flex". Floppy flex has it's own problems, and is more difficult to lay to an exact radius than either ME55 or Peco55.
Another problem with ME55 is that the tie casting is not as clean as the Atlas product, and requires some cleanup, particularly on the tie ends. I just hit the flex before I start laying it with a sanding block to square the tie ends up, and this goes very quickly.
Lastly, ME C55 is made in the USA, and will never experience the periodic shortages that China-made products inevitably do because of political reasons. ME has had shortage problems in the past due to equipment breakage and molds wearing out, but never for the extended periods of time that Atlas track products suffer from.
Of course, I am constantly photographing my equipment in extreme closeups, so the difference in spikehead details between Atlas and ME track for me gets literally put under a microscope, and in this circumstance, it's pretty obvious that ME track looks a lot better.
Photo (1) - Atlas C55 flex on the left vs ME C55 on the right:
Although I have not heard of any anecdotes of operational problems due to the loose rail that Atlas track has, with the continuing trend towards narrower wheel treads in N-scale, this MAY become a problem if you want to replace wheelsets with more prototypically proportioned ones. Additionally, on long relatively sharp curves such as a helix, gaps cut in Atlas flex have a tendency to form a small straight section in the cut rail on either side of the gap, which throws the track gauge off and also allows the gap to potentially close and short without an insulating spacer in it. ME track, the rails being much more tightly held, won't have those actual and potential problems.
As to the rumor that hand-laid turnouts have less realistic looking frogs than commercially available products do...here's the rebuttal. On a hand-laid turnout, you are free to make your frog as prototypical as you can, with added details and more correct angles and sharper frog points. It doesn't take but a couple of minutes to cut .003" brass strips to insert and solder between the rails inside the frog to form a "floor"...especially if you've invested in a resistance soldering station. Bolt-head details can be easily added to the outside of your hand-laid frog by either embossing your own bolt-head strips using a NWSL Riveter or buying the details from Proto 87 Stores. These two steps, which involve only maybe 5 extra minutes added to construction time, make hand-laid turnout frogs much more detailed than ANY RTR turnout frog.
As to the lack-O-spikes contention. Yup, this bothers me a bit too, but on the other hand, my turnouts are prototypically proportioned, have very realistic throwbars, tri-planed point rails - so I don't unrealistically notch the adjacent stock rails at the switch headblocks and towards the frog, and I can make turnouts in any # I want or need. With Atlas turnouts, yes, I get spikeheads (HUGE spikeheads!), very unprototypical throwbars, odd-looking brightly plated cast frogs & switch points, and each of their turnouts is grossly out of proportion...being about 30% too short between the frog points and the switch point toes. This last point makes the diverging effective radius much smaller than it would be on a correctly proportioned turnout...which on an Atlas #10 isn't a big deal from a functional standpoint, but...on their #5's...it IS a very big problem.
My preference is that I would rather have no spikeheads than grossly big ones, and at the same time, have correctly proportioned turnouts in any # I need or want, more prototypical looking throwbars, switch point rails, guard rails, frog proportions and details, and have a much smoother running, more reliable mechanism...and for me, I have no question in my mind that it's worth the extra time I spend making them.
Photo (2) - Monolithic turnout construction for operational smoothness, minimal rail joints, and better appearance:
Photo (3) - More realistic looking throwbar arrangement, tri-planed point rails, functionally bulletproof, visually much better than ANY N-scale RTR turnout:
Photo (4) - Hand-built # 8 Frog - no added bolt head details yet. This looks inferior to RTR frogs?? :
Photo (5) - Point rail heel hinges from Proto87 Stores - better looking, better functioning than any RTR turnout:
One more thing...etched turnout tieplates with scale sized spikeheads ARE available from Proto87 Stores, and I have several of these frets. I haven't used them yet because they are so minuscule that I'm afraid they'll disappear when I paint and weather my turnouts. Truth is, we've become used to the grossly huge spikehead details on commercial N-scale track, and if we combine commercial flex with hand-laid turnouts, even with added prototype-proportioned tieplate and spikehead details, those added details will be noticeably smaller than the big details on RTR flex.
Is it worth it to add those extra details on hand-laid turnouts?? I don't have the answer to that question yet, but I think Ed Nadolski (
@ednadolski ) could pipe up with some relevant comments about it and what he's done with his ultra-detailed hand-laid turnouts on his layout as well as his problems using Atlas 55.
Cheerio!
Bob Gilmore
