Atlas Code 55 re-railer ?

[Bill H]

Hi;
I have a 15 track sliding staging table / transverser powered by a cnc stepper motor and driven by an Arduino Mega. I thought using Code 55 re-railers at the on an off ramps so to speak would be just a bit of added insurance in the case of any misalignment or having put a car onto the staging table and not noticed a wheel not correctly on the track.

I use ESM and FVM low profile metal wheelsets on everything and I have noticed that the re-railer seems to sound "wrong", re-rails nothing, and last the track gauge of the re-railers seems to be slight less than the Atlas code 55 flex on either side of the re-railers. Enough difference that it is visible to my eye.

Has anyone else had any experience with these re-railers - good or bad? Just curious. I am considering pulling them out and replacing them with regular Atlas code 55 flex.

Kind regards,
Bill

[robert3985]

Hi;
I have a 15 track sliding staging table / transverser powered by a cnc stepper motor and driven by an Arduino Mega. I thought using Code 55 re-railers at the on an off ramps so to speak would be just a bit of added insurance in the case of any misalignment or having put a car onto the staging table and not noticed a wheel not correctly on the track.

I use ESM and FVM low profile metal wheelsets on everything and I have noticed that the re-railer seems to sound "wrong", re-rails nothing, and last the track gauge of the re-railers seems to be slight less than the Atlas code 55 flex on either side of the re-railers. Enough difference that it is visible to my eye.

Has anyone else had any experience with these re-railers - good or bad? Just curious. I am considering pulling them out and replacing them with regular Atlas code 55 flex.

Kind regards,
Bill

I haven't had any experience with any N-scale re-railers and I find them to be unnecessary if you've taken care and used good track-laying practices.

The problem with Atlas55 flex is the loose, floppy rail...which has a tendency to slip to the side in the tie bed and increase in gauge, making it wide enough to notice and sometimes wide enough that cars and engines fall off the rails. 

I never heard of this problem until a year or so ago...and, it appears that their latest production run is more likely to have this problem than their earlier runs.

So, if I were you, I'd get rid of the re-railers and replace them with regular Atlas55 flex just for cosmetic's sake, even though they are probably in proper gauge compared to the wide out-of-gauge Atlas55 flex attached to them.

Cheerio!
Bob Gilmore

[Bill H]

Hi Robert;
If memory serves, like you, my layout is generally old production ME Code 40 N scale. In fact, I have no issues anywhere in the 155 feet of ME Code 40 mainline. I went with Atlas Code 55 when honestly, my stash of Code 40 was exhausted, I was under pressure to get the layout running for an NMRA open house, and Atlas 55 was all that was available for the staging table / transverser and I sort of talked myself into Code 55 rail head was larger and perhaps better for staging.

Honestly, I have operated on a lot of Atlas Code 55 layouts without issue other than the weird looking Code 55 bronze frogs, but I am very close to just ripping out the re-railers and replacing them with Code 55 flex.

I have a lot of time invested in the Arduino stepper motor programming and the transverser in general and just want it to be right.

Kind regards,
Bill

[robert3985]

Hi Robert;
If memory serves, like you, my layout is generally old production ME Code 40 N scale. In fact, I have no issues anywhere in the 155 feet of ME Code 40 mainline. I went with Atlas Code 55 when honestly, my stash of Code 40 was exhausted, I was under pressure to get the layout running for an NMRA open house, and Atlas 55 was all that was available for the staging table / transverser and I sort of talked myself into Code 55 rail head was larger and perhaps better for staging.

Honestly, I have operated on a lot of Atlas Code 55 layouts without issue other than the weird looking Code 55 bronze frogs, but I am very close to just ripping out the re-railers and replacing them with Code 55 flex.

I have a lot of time invested in the Arduino stepper motor programming and the transverser in general and just want it to be right.

Kind regards,
Bill

I'm getting the impression that the re-railers are there to provide a stable, permanent track spacing for your transverser??? (Transfer Table?) which is an essential part of your staging yard?  Sounds cool!

Whenever I need rail ends to be held firmly in place, I remove four to eight ties on the portion that needs to be solidly "down", such as in between my module sections with four removed ties on either side of the module juncture (my layout is modular/sectional with no funky "connecting tracks").  I solder on PCB ties after I've gapped them both top and bottom, and de-greased & rubbed the oxidation off of them with a pencil eraser.  I then solder them (properly spaced) to the rail feet, and glue them in place with top-quality gap-filling CA, setting it off with Accelerator, which also makes the CA stronger.  Note that the PCB ties are not as thick as the plastic ties so they float slightly above the cork roadbed.  I use a flat toothpick that I've sanded down to make sure the gap-filling CA get fully underneath the ties, filling the gap between the copper cladding and the sanded cork surface of my roadbed, but not so much as to fill up the volume between ties where ballast is going to go later.

After the CA has set off, with help from a squirt or two of Accelerator, I take a hair dryer set on Medium Heat and evaporate the Accelerator away.  You can tell when it's gone because the aroma also leaves.

THEN, I soak the area with runny CA, so that the cork roadbed becomes hard and stable under the PCB ties.  Ideally I lay the rails over the juncture, removing the ties, put the PCB ties on after the rest of the track is glued down, then cut the rails directly over the juncture so that they're perfectly aligned.

Photo (1) - Mainline Code55 rails soldered to PCB ties, glued to cork roadbed then cut while modules are level, aligned.  Cork roadbed is also cut at the juncture along with rails & ties:


I don't use just any old solder for this, but I use 96/4 Tin/Silver Silver-bearing Solder fluxed with Superior No.30 Supersafe Self-neutralizing liquid flux.  96/4 Tin/Silver solder is 5 to 6 times stronger than "regular" lead/tin or non-lead electrical solder, with is why the silver-bearing solder is ideal for soldering things to rails such as PCB ties and electrical feeders...and the Supersafe No. 30 flux makes soldering a cinch as long as you use good soldering practices.

Maybe, if I understand what the re-railers are for, this solution would fulfill your track attachment requirements.

Cheerio!
Bob Gilmore

[Bill H]

Robert;
As I mentioned in the original post, the re-railers are just there as at best, added insurance if I put a car on the staging track and don't get the wheels correctly on the track. So, I had hoped that as the train leaves the staging, the re-railer would correct the problem. Nothing more than that conceptually. I could just as easily replace them with normal track, which is probably what I am going to do. I have tried a few tests with wheels on cars or locos just slightly off, and the re-railers do not correct the problem, in most cases, they actually make it worse.

The re-railers are not involved in any manner in any alignment. The table moves via a screw drive, driven by a stepper motor, controlled by the Arduino. The resulting alignment is extremely precise, extremely.

I have attached two images of the staging table. As is visible in the images, the 15 tracks are rather densely filled for each operations session. As each track is the same length, and is a thru track, each train can run, and return to its own track.

So, to summarize, I was hopping that the re-railers would just be a bit of insurance to literally re-rail an incorrectly placed car or loco.

Kind regards,
Bill

[Lemosteam]

@Bill H

I have an idea if you would like to reach out to me at keystonedetails@gmail.com

[ednadolski]

@Bill H That traverser is impressive!  Do you have a thread or any other links/pics?

Ed

[Bill H]

Hi Ed;
Thanks for the kind words, but I have not thought about posting anything about my layout on this group. I read, ask questions, and try to learn from all of you. My layout pales in comparison to yours and so many others on the board since I came over from the old A board. Although the mainline is finished, all passing sidings operational, there is no scenery, almost no buildings, it is still very much "under construction". I retired summer of last year at 77 and finally began construction in earnest once I finished the basement appropriately.

The NMRA is having a 2026 fall open house and this is their post on my layout. https://piedmontpilgrimage.com/layouts/7327/ Not sure if that link works to non members. There are a number of pics in that link.

Thanks again,
Bill

[Chris333]

I don't have the re-railer, but you can try running a NMRA gauge through and see what happens.

[BruceStikkers]

I have a modular layout with Atlas code 55 rerailer tracks for the gaps between modules. I have never had anything but excellent performance.

Bruce Stikkers
St. Joseph, IL