Atlas Z Scale Flex Track

[strummer]

Back in 2015, there was a 4 page discussion about the future of Z scale. At some point, it was disclosed that Atlas would be releasing a Z scale version of the code 55 Flex track.

I recently purchased a pack, and just wanted to mention here how pleased I am with it. It looks good (code 55 notwithstanding; I remember a lot of comments about how it should have been code 40  ), is easy to work with and is a huge improvement over having to use 110 or 220mm length sectional pieces.

Here's hoping the promised switch(es) will be arriving soon...

Mark in Oregon

[Denver Road Doug]

I agree...it's nice track, as you would expect from Atlas.    Code 55 means it's just evolutionary instead of revolutionary, but it is still a huge step for Z.

I think the turnouts will be announced later this year and probably arrive late next spring or early summer.   There will be a #5 turnout and matching 22deg(?) crossing. That's just me guessing based on a few comments that Atlas has made.

I wish that a #7 was first out.   I just hope that critical mass can be achieved so that a #7 and ultimately a #10 will make it.    Having a #10 might move this product line into revolutionary status.

[strummer]

My turn to agree...

Seems that offering a larger than #5 turnout in Z would be (almost) a no-brainer; why not take advantage of the smaller scale and all the room that then becomes available?

Keeping my fingers crossed...in the meantime, it's great that Atlas did what they did.

Mark in Oregon

[Catt]

If I remember correctly the turnouts are or were in the design phase.I am waiting for them myself Doug.If there are none by Christmas I think I will order a couple from John Mui.

[nkalanaga]

I don't know, but suspect that the turnouts will be designed to more-or-less replace the Marklin ones, so that track plans won't have to be completely redone.

That said, the Marklin turnouts have a 490 mm (19+ inch) radius, very similar to the old Atlas N scale turnouts, but are listed as a 13 degree curved section.  That would be somewhere between a #4 and #5.

I too think a larger turnout would be very popular.  My narrow gauge uses mostly #6, and I think #7s would have looked better, and probably have fit.

[Denver Road Doug]

I cannot imagine why Atlas would worry about Marklin track plans when designing their track.

If there is any question, it would be which of the geometries of their other track lines (such as the N Code 55 or N Code 80) they choose to emulate.    I hope it is their C55 line in N, but I don't think there has been 100% confirmation of that.  In one post Paul described the flex as a "scaled down N Scale Code 55 piece" so you can interpret that how you will.

If track plans are a concern, any track plan using Code 55 (or alternatively Code 80 which is probably exponentially more available) designed for N-scale would be a basic photocopier operation away from yielding more z-scale track plans than you can shake a stick at.   Yes there might have to be some alterations if a plan involved aisles for example, practical centerline spacing issues, etc.   But with the proliferation of track planning software I think it would really be shooting themselves in the foot if they're trying to shoehorn their track line into a 40 year old track planning book.

[Atlas Paul]

I cannot imagine why Atlas would worry about Marklin track plans when designing their track.

If there is any question, it would be which of the geometries of their other track lines (such as the N Code 55 or N Code 80) they choose to emulate.    I hope it is their C55 line in N, but I don't think there has been 100% confirmation of that.  In one post Paul described the flex as a "scaled down N Scale Code 55 piece" so you can interpret that how you will.

If track plans are a concern, any track plan using Code 55 (or alternatively Code 80 which is probably exponentially more available) designed for N-scale would be a basic photocopier operation away from yielding more z-scale track plans than you can shake a stick at.   Yes there might have to be some alterations if a plan involved aisles for example, practical centerline spacing issues, etc.   But with the proliferation of track planning software I think it would really be shooting themselves in the foot if they're trying to shoehorn their track line into a 40 year old track planning book.

There is no shoehorning the track line into a planning book.  There is no copying the geometry of any other manufacturer.  There is no plan to get into the sectional track market.  Right now, we are looking at the flex track, a set of turnouts (left and right) and the matching crossing.   I am expecting the samples of the turnouts and crossing soon, as the factory has asked for what needs to be engraved on the back, and that is generally near the last step.

[peteski]

There is no shoehorning the track line into a planning book.  There is no copying the geometry of any other manufacturer.  There is no plan to get into the sectional track market.  Right now, we are looking at the flex track, a set of turnouts (left and right) and the matching crossing.   I am expecting the samples of the turnouts and crossing soon, as the factory has asked for what needs to be engraved on the back, and that is generally near the last step.

Are there any more specifics you could share with us about what parameters were used in the switch design?  Just picked the geometry out of a hat? Or did you follow the standard switch geometry?

[Chris333]

I'd guess they used geometry they've already used.

[nkalanaga]

Doug:  I wasn't thinking of people building to Marklin track plans so much as people who already had layouts using Marklin turnouts and wanted to replace them.   I suspect that most published track plans for Marklin track are European-inspired, and those modelers would probably prefer the Marklin turnouts anyway.

[jargonlet]

This good news as I will be needing a few switches soon but would rather not hand lay them.

[Denver Road Doug]

Doug:  I wasn't thinking of people building to Marklin track plans so much as people who already had layouts using Marklin turnouts and wanted to replace them.   I suspect that most published track plans for Marklin track are European-inspired, and those modelers would probably prefer the Marklin turnouts anyway.

OK, I can see that I guess.   Still, the number of Z-scale modelers (a) with a layout done (b) with Marklin and (c) that want to replace that track with Atlas has to be pretty small.   If you add the filter "layouts that cannot have their track geometry altered slightly to accept the new track" then you're probably talking about Cortana-style layouts.  I know I'll probably offend someone here (even though I have a similarly small layout I'm working on...and using Rokuhan no less) but how many of those truly are gonna worry about a more prototype look?    Admittedly, I'm assuming Marklin track performs well, so I guess that could be one reason to change if there are issues with the Marklin track.

[nkalanaga]

The Marklin turnouts work well, in my limited experience, but seem fragile.  I haven't broken one, but they  just "feel" fragile.  My only three are in my narrow gauge staging yard, so don't get thrown very often.

Actually, I agree with you that there probably aren't very many people who'll replace their Marklin turnouts with Atlas.  But making a new product "backwards compatible" with the current "standard" is often a consideration for a company entering a new market.  In this case, it wouldn't matter what size they chose, some would be happy, and some wouldn't, and there probably isn't much market data other than forum comments.  Those aren't always representative of the wider market, so the choice may be basically random.

I don't have any reason to believe that Atlas WILL chose to make their turnout Marklin compatible.  It just seemed like a logical decision, given the lack of a clear-cut best choice.

[strummer]

Actually, I agree with you that there probably aren't very many people who'll replace their Marklin turnouts with Atlas.  But making a new product "backwards compatible" with the current "standard" is often a consideration for a company entering a new market.  In this case, it wouldn't matter what size they chose, some would be happy, and some wouldn't, and there probably isn't much market data other than forum comments.  Those aren't always representative of the wider market, so the choice may be basically random.

I don't have any reason to believe that Atlas WILL chose to make their turnout Marklin compatible.  It just seemed like a logical decision, given the lack of a clear-cut best choice.

I am in the very early stages of my Z scale experience, and have put away my MTL track, as I much prefer the look of the "non roadbed" type of track. Am using a mix of the Atlas Flex with Marklin sectional, including switches. I opted for the Marklin switches because:

1: I was able to pick up a small batch at little cost.

2: Since I have never hand laid my own turnouts, I figure Z scale is not a good place to start!

3: Since I know the Atlas products are forthcoming, I can live with the Marklin turnouts until the more North American looking stuff becomes available.

4: I didn't know any better... 

Mark in Oregon

[nkalanaga]

All good reasons, and there isn't anything "wrong" with the Marklin turnouts.  They're not, and not intended to be, US prototype, so the tie spacing is a little odd, but they work fine right out of the box.  That's why my staging yard has them.

As for handlaying turnouts, Z gauge is the same as N, and for my narrow gauge, I used the N NMRA gauge for flangeways.  Since the rail sizes are the same, either code 40 or 55, the only difference is the gauge.  But if detailed trackwork isn't your interest, there's really no point in laying your own, as long as reliable commercial track is available.