Micro-Trains/Atlas Update - 1/20/26

[Maletrain]

Hoping Atlas also continues the Micro Trains policy of making parts for their cars available separately.  That wasn't mentioned in those releases.  Atlas does provide some parts for its own products, but nowhere near what Micro Trains provided.

[peteski]

Hoping Atlas also continues the Micro Trains policy of making parts for their cars available separately.  That wasn't mentioned in those releases.  Atlas does provide some parts for its own products, but nowhere near what Micro Trains provided.

Yes I also wonder if a larger company like Atlas can provide same level of parts support as a small company with their in-house manufacturing like MTL was.  Instead of literally walking over to pick up parts from some bins housed in the same building, Atlas parts will be made in some location half way around the world.  Just the logistics seem to make this improbable, but I would be happy to be proven wrong.

[nkalanaga]

The next-to-last paragraph says "We have received a number of inquiries ragrding the availability of trucks, couplers, and parts.  Atlas intends to continue offering these items,, consistent with past Micro-Trains practices.  Availability will be restored as components are produced in conjunction with regular product manufacturing".

So it sounds like parts will be available.  As for convenience, that remains to be seen.

[peteski]

So it sounds like parts will be available.  As for convenience, that remains to be seen.

Exactly!

[robert3985]

I've never understood the desire to keep pizza-cutter wheels if running on code 55 or smaller track, regardless of the track manufacturer.

Although I started turning and using my own low-profile scaled-down RP-25 N-scale wheels back in the early 1980's, when Kadee/MTL freight cars ran on the first 3-piece rib-backed wheelsets, the vast majority of N-scalers weren't particularly worried about the appearance of pizza-cutter wheelsets, and thought (wrongly in most cases) that smaller flanges would mean less reliability.  In my NTRAK club, I quickly earned the reputation as a "rivet-counter" with many members just waiting for my low-profile wheelsets to fail...which they never did...and waiting for my Rail Craft Code70 track to fail, which also never happened...and for my hand-laid Code70 turnouts to be unreliable, which they never were.

So, I agree that the desire to want Code55 and Code40 track, but not be concerned about pizza-cutters doesn't make a lot of modeling sense.  HOWEVER, on the other hand, for a manufacturer to ignore the fact that the majority of N-scalers were running pizza-cutter wheelsets that would be incompatible with the NMRA Clearance Recommended Practices seems counter-intuitive since both the operational compatibility AND the track's appearance would be greatly improved by much smaller cast-on rail attachment features, which would have significantly increased their customer base. Getting rid of their overly loose loose-rail design, which often allows the gauge to spread to the point that the track becomes unusable is another design flaw.  Atlas deliberately chose to ignore these obvious flaws in their new N-scale Code55 premium track, which doesn't make a lot of business sense.  It doesn't cost any more to do it right, so why not?

My main objection to Atlas Flex, because I had been using low-profile N-scale wheelsets for years on Rail Craft/ME flex, was (and is) the cosmetic appearance of the huge blobs that hold the rails on the ties, not appearing as anything prototypical for North American wooden-tied prototype rail.  I won't enumerate what is wrong with Atlas turnouts because the list is long.

The point here is that "the manufacturer" is irrelevant, as is Code55 or Code40 rail height.  Pizza cutters run just fine on both Peco55 and Micro Engineering Code55 and on hand-laid PCB Code40 (rumor has it that new-run ME Code40 flex will also run pizza cutters.) 

What IS relevant is that two out of three N-scale Code55 track manufacturers had the brains to figure out how to run existing engines and cars that have pizza cutter flanges...and Atlas didn't.

Cheerio!
Bob Gilmore

[basementcalling]

Although I started turning and using my own low-profile scaled-down RP-25 N-scale wheels back in the early 1980's, when Kadee/MTL freight cars ran on the first 3-piece rib-backed wheelsets, the vast majority of N-scalers weren't particularly worried about the appearance of pizza-cutter wheelsets, and thought (wrongly in most cases) that smaller flanges would mean less reliability.  In my NTRAK club, I quickly earned the reputation as a "rivet-counter" with many members just waiting for my low-profile wheelsets to fail...which they never did...and waiting for my Rail Craft Code70 track to fail, which also never happened...and for my hand-laid Code70 turnouts to be unreliable, which they never were.

So, I agree that the desire to want Code55 and Code40 track, but not be concerned about pizza-cutters doesn't make a lot of modeling sense.  HOWEVER, on the other hand, for a manufacturer to ignore the fact that the majority of N-scalers were running pizza-cutter wheelsets that would be incompatible with the NMRA Clearance Recommended Practices seems counter-intuitive since both the operational compatibility AND the track's appearance would be greatly improved by much smaller cast-on rail attachment features, which would have significantly increased their customer base. Getting rid of their overly loose loose-rail design, which often allows the gauge to spread to the point that the track becomes unusable is another design flaw.  Atlas deliberately chose to ignore these obvious flaws in their new N-scale Code55 premium track, which doesn't make a lot of business sense.  It doesn't cost any more to do it right, so why not?

My main objection to Atlas Flex, because I had been using low-profile N-scale wheelsets for year on Rail Craft/ME flex, was (and is) the cosmetic appearance of the huge blobs that hold the rails on the ties, not appearing as anything prototypical for North American wooden-tied prototype rail.  I won't enumerate what is wrong with Atlas turnouts because the list is long.

The point here is that "the manufacturer" is irrelevant, as is Code55 or Code40 rail height.  Pizza cutters run just fine on both Peco55 and Micro Engineering Code55 and on hand-laid PCB Code40 (rumor has it that new-run ME Code40 flex will also run pizza cutters.) 

What IS relevant is that two out of three N-scale Code55 track manufacturers had the brains to figure out how to run existing engines and cars that have pizza cutter flanges...and Atlas didn't.

Cheerio!
Bob Gilmore

IIRC, Atlas said that in order for the Code 55 flex track to flex like their code 80, the rail spikes needed to be larger than on ME track. But it was strange to me that the company with the most extensive line of N scale track components would design a new system that wasn't NRMS compliant or compatible with the wheels used by the majority of N scalers, even if those wheels weren't NMRA compliant themselves. Or I guess you could look at it as forcing improvement in the scale fidelity of rolling stock. 

Pizza cutter flanges do make a difference on poor quality trackwork, such is is sometimes found on NTRAK layouts using those joiner tracks or where the trackwork was dinged in transit. A wise MR guru once said, you can have crappy trackwork, or crappy trucks and wheels, but not both if you want your cars to not derail.

[Dave V]

Meanwhile I'm imagining what I'd do if Peco's N scale code 55 North American track actually materialized. I'd guess it'd likely be flex plus #5s with Unifrogs to start (this is what they did in HOn3), and maybe a crossover. But there has to be such a pent-up market over here. One also assumes that the volatility of American international trade relations will have subsided by then...

I would also hope and assume that Peco would use a similar embedded-code-80-pseudo-code-55 system like they do for their current N scale lines, assuring compatibility will all commercially-available flange depths. Swapping out wheelsets on cars are easy...turning down flanges on older locomotives, not so much.

[peteski]

Meanwhile I'm imagining what I'd do if Peco's N scale code 55 North American track actually materialized. I'd guess it'd likely be flex plus #5s with Unifrogs to start (this is what they did in HOn3), and maybe a crossover. But there has to be such a pent-up market over here. One also assumes that the volatility of American international trade relations will have subsided by then...

I would also hope and assume that Peco would use a similar embedded-code-80-pseudo-code-55 system like they do for their current N scale lines, assuring compatibility will all commercially-available flange depths. Swapping out wheelsets on cars are easy...turning down flanges on older locomotives, not so much.

That is exactly what PECO is planning.
https://www.therailwire.net/forum/index.php?topic=56448.msg836596#msg836596

[John]

That is exactly what PECO is planning.
https://www.therailwire.net/forum/index.php?topic=56448.msg836596#msg836596

Take a look at this.   

[nkalanaga]

There is no reason that turnouts should have problems with deep flanges if the matching track will run them.  The flangeways don't have to be filled in!

[Olivani]

Has anything been released yet ? Are the two weathered gondolas and the MRL boxcars available yet ?

[bbussey]

I disagree with the large flanges are acceptable argument. This is an industry evolution that took place over many decades, just as the evolution from Rapido couplers to Micro-Trains couplers and MTL compatible couplers took many decades. I love Atlas code 55 flex and have no problems with it. My turnouts overwhelmingly are hand laid with Atlas C55 rail. But I also have a pair of Atlas turnouts where I replaced the point hinges, point rails and throwbars to eliminate the loose tolerances and they look fine and work flawlessly.

When MTL introduced their first low-flange wheels, I upgraded my entire rolling stock fleet, which predated Atlas C55. I also body-mounted couplers. And fixed bad track work if necessary.

[basementcalling]

I disagree with the large flanges are acceptable argument. This is an industry evolution that took place over many decades, just as the evolution from Rapido couplers to Micro-Trains couplers and MTL compatible couplers took many decades. I love Atlas code 55 flex and have no problems with it. My turnouts overwhelmingly are hand laid with Atlas C55 rail. But I also have a pair of Atlas turnouts where I replaced the point hinges, point rails and throwbars to eliminate the loose tolerances and they look fine and work flawlessly.

When MTL introduced their first low-flange wheels, I upgraded my entire rolling stock fleet, which predated Atlas C55. I also body-mounted couplers. And fixed bad track work if necessary.

Brian, 100% agree for a home layout, but modular layouts will always be at the mercy of the member with the worst trackwork. My experience with low profile wheelsets started with Deluxxe Innovations cars, coal porters with loads, and the TwinStacks. My unit train with mixed types of MT plastic wheels was nothing but trouble on an NTrak layout, even though it ran almost flawlessly on the home layout - though at shorter length. 

[Dave V]

Take a look at this.   

/>

I tend to take those scare videos with a grain of salt. Peco seems to be introducing plenty of new product in their home territory, so they at least give an appearance of stability. It's probably true that all model railroad companies are facing some financial challenges as cost of manufacturing goes up, the global economy contracts, and international markets are volatile. I do wish the current troubles would end quickly, and I'll leave it at that.

[John]

Brian, 100% agree for a home layout, but modular layouts will always be at the mercy of the member with the worst trackwork.

I don't want to piss anyone off, but why does it have to be that way ???? ... there are modular groups, especially in HO, that have mostly flawless track work because they enforce the standards .. unfortunately, not all do, and that's where the problems come in .. could it be that NTRAK groups are  focused on "lets get the large layout up, and not enough quality control?"  or time spent in the back shop helping members improve?

I'm down to one FremoN module, and admittedly it's not to the standard either and has some issues, but to fix it at this stage I would need to tear it all apart ..