Atlas code 55 track product line

[sirenwerks]

Is Atlas ever going to increase its code 55 track product line? Yea, it would be great if it improved what it has release, but it offers no concrete tie flex track or bridge track, and its turnout offerings are still minimal.

[robert3985]

Is Atlas ever going to increase its code 55 track product line? Yea, it would be great if it improved what it has release, but it offers no concrete tie flex track or bridge track, and its turnout offerings are still minimal.

Atlas55 will never be "great"...even with an increased lineup of options.

(1) The cast-on rail attachment blobs are too big.  They don't need to be that huge functionally, and although they meet NMRA Recommended Practice for N-scale flanges, there were (and are) lots of pizza cutter wheelsets out there still that won't run on it.  Tell me what the logic is okay?  I'll answer that...it was a mistake, which they persist in not fixing whenever a new injection tool is needed to replace the old, worn out ones.

(2) The loose-rail, or "floppy" rail.  What in Hell is the reason for it?  Recent user complaints about trains falling off the rails because the gauge has expanded enough for narrow-tired wheels to fall off the loose-rail side are increasing.  Why is that?  Maybe their injection tool is wearing out, or their manufacturer in China/Vietnam/Indonesia (wherever) isn't holding tolerances.  It only takes a few mils to become unreliable.

(3) Turnouts.  (A) The most obvious problem is Atlas55 turnouts don't comply to prototype proportions...not even close...they're much too short between the frog and the headblocks, making a claimed #7 turnout actually a #6.5 (or a little less), their #10 a #9.25, and their #5 a #4.5 (being generous).  Not much of an operational problem on the two larger turnouts, but on the #5...what will normally run okay on a *real* #5 turnout, often won't run on a #4.5. (B) Mystery metal frogs and closure point rails, with plating that wears off after a while, revealing a copper base plating, which then wears off revealing a dull metal of some sort.  Why not use actual Nickel Silver???  All the other N-gauge and N-scale track manufacturers do.  Why can't you Atlas?? (C) And then, there's the jumper problem.  Jumpers in Atlas55 turnouts are notorious for eventually coming detached, making their turnouts electrically non-viable...which then require dismounting and repairing.  Maybe using quality materials and techniques to simply solder wire to rails would be a viable solution...seems to work just fine for Peco and Micro Engineering.

Where I'd put my question would be to the new Micro Engineering, which has the best-looking and best operating N-scale track presently being being produced.  I hear that a #9 turnout is is the works for N-scale, that the new N-scale flex trackage has smaller spikeheads than the last versions did using the second injection tool, after the Rail Craft one wore out, making for increased flange clearances on their Code40 flex along with increased realism on their wooden-tied Code55 and Code70.  How about a Code40 #6 and #9 along with the Code55/Code70 #9 that's in the works??  ...and a couple of diamonds too?

As for me personally, since I hand-lay all of my turnouts, it's not a big deal, especially at around $37 bucks a whack for ME #6's, but, I have an old ME #6 in Echo Yard, that's worked perfectly for a few decades...which I installed as a test.  I guess it passed, eh?

Cheerio!
Bob Gilmore

[kornellred]

Mr. Gilmore's technically accurate assessment of the several faults associated with Atlas N Scale Code 55 track notwithstanding, the original poster's primary inquiry has not been addressed.
The primary reason why Atlas does not  improve or expand their N Scale Code 55 product line is that  they do not have to.  Due to the general naivete of the n scale market segment, Atlas sells enough of their product to rationalize the continued manufacture of it's offerings.  The general adequacy of the products sustains this fact.  If the Code 55 track products failed to function correctly in the majority of cases, there would be no reason to produce it, because nobody would buy it.

By way of a cynical analogy:  Ford still produced it's Pinto models, and the public still bought them, even after it was discovered that rear-end collisions could make the Pinto explode in a raging fireball.

[Chris333]

Ask Jerry Britton. 

[Dave V]

I'd love to see ME expand their line, and I'd be ecstatic if Peco's proposed North American-style code 55 line ever came to fruition. I'm using Unitrack for my T-TRAK modules, but some day I envision those modules plugging into a permanent anchor layout made with more realistic N scale track.

Ask Jerry Britton. 

Considering how the failure of Atlas code 55 turnouts signed the death warrant for my Colorado Midland version 1.0, I can't even imagine Jerry's frustration when he had dozens and dozens failing on his double-decker Pennsy. I remember that saga though, and it drove Jerry out of N scale.

Nope. I gave Atlas code 55 a chance and experienced all of the problems @robert3985 mentioned (though the turnout geometry itself was less of an impact on my old-timey equipment). Chineseum frogs, loose rails, failed jumpers, point rails loosening on the throwbars...all of it. In every other product line, Atlas has been a gold standard in N. But I won't ever trust their code 55 track line again.

[Mark5]

I wouldn't say Atlas turnout offerings are minimal: https://shop.atlasrr.com/c-718-n64.aspx

Without regressing into critique (many folks use the track successfully, others, not so much  ), Atlas currently offers:
o #5 L&R
o #7 L&R
o #10 L&R
o 22.25" radius curved turnouts L&R
o two different "Y" turnouts

MicroEngineering offers any turnout you want, as long as it's a #6 (L&R).

Personally, on my next layout #6 is probably the smallest frog # that I'd use (disclosure: I will likely hand lay the turnouts).

[thomasjmdavis]

In answer to the original post... I very much doubt that Atlas will expand their code 55 line in any substantial way.  Frankly, I doubt their marketing demonstrates that the investment will pay off if they offer more turnout types.  Each is it's own set of tooling.  Maybe we will see some upgrades as time goes on- it must be embarrassing when they get emails from folks who buy Atlas code 55 and then can't run their older Atlas (and other manufacturers) cars and locos on it because they bounce along on the cast on spikeheads or foul in the turnouts.  But if they were to do, say, a #7 double-crossover... how many would they need to sell to offset the tooling cost and what would the Asian factories demand as minimum order?  If they figure they can sell 2000, but the minimum factory order from the actual Manufacturer in Asia is 10,000, it isn't going to happen.  It's not like the days when Atlas was a manufacturer of track, and not just an importer.

For me, the issue with Atlas (beyond the quality issues that Bob Gilmore addressed) is the lack of slip switches and crossovers.  So, even if they addressed all the issues with their current line, it wouldn't allow me to build the passenger terminal I have planned (based on a real terminal with multiple slip switches and crossovers).  Likewise, Micro-Engineering, with even fewer options than Atlas.  So, I've decided to use Peco code 55- luckily I've spent several years building up an inventory, since in the past few years, due to limited availability, costs rising for the manufacturer, and the imposition of tariffs, and the accompanying 'material handling fees' at the US border, Peco has become outrageously expensive recently.  That means I will accept a number of inaccuracies... but I need the trackwork to function, and the Peco track will do that for me.

Now... I am not going to throw away the Atlas track I have (leftover from previous layouts)- it will be used as secondary trackage. 

In terms of operation... my favorite track was Shinohara code 70, that I used on a layout in the 1980s.  Looked good, smooth, trouble free.  But... not available in the US,  for decades- I assume not being made anymore.  I still have several of those turnouts- on my most recent layout, I combined the Shinohara turnouts with ME code 70 for a staging yard.  Once again salvaged, it will become a staging yard on the upcoming layout.

[randgust]

Ask Jerry Britton. 

I was in Jerry's basement when he had the better part of the original PRR operational, at least up to Cresson.   I'll never forget the foot-level enormous staging yard and the mammoth (four track??) helix.  All Atlas C55.    I was just astounded when he described what happened, and he said Atlas replaced under warranty, but the effort to have to tear out all those turnouts in semi-inaccessible locations... that was enough.   Most catastrophic layout fail I've ever personally seen.   Looked great though.

Meanwhile Todd Treaster is still rolling along with the same legacy Atlas C80 stuff I am, for the most part, and the stuff I laid on the ATSF layout in 1983 is still running.   And all current construction is in Peco C55.   My flex-track main predates loose-rail flex.   And all original switches are powered under-table with old HO size Lambert machines.   New builds are all Tortoises.   The design & durability of what I built has been pretty darn good, and most equipment is now in the third generation.    Doing DCC on the T-trak modules but still DC on the original layout.

Oddly enough the biggest 'component fail' I'm having after all these years is Radio Shack DPDT's, naturally, all soldered in, randomly loosing conductivity inside the toggles themselves.  That's becoming annoying...

I got really frustrated as a kid in HO with brass track and RP25 wheels, always a cleaning and derailment problem to the point of frustration and liquidation.  So when I went to N, I'd already been through the ringer on performance and reliability issues.  From the benchwork up it was reliability overruled pretty much all else.

Oh, and I got a Pinto when i acquired one with the wife.   Kept the wife, ditched the car immediately.   Long, long list of defects in the car.   Literally made a dead-stick landing of it to trade it in, salesman had to have it towed from where it landed.

[Mark5]

In terms of operation... my favorite track was Shinohara code 70, that I used on a layout in the 1980s. 

I prefered the Shinohara code 60 track - way ahead of it's time.

[Dave V]

Then Atlas dabbled in integral-roadbed track, code 65. It looked relatively decent, though it was all train-set geometry. Is that stuff even still around?

As a Unitrack user, I'm aware of my hypocrisy when I say this, but I much prefer using my own separate roadbed. Makes painting and ballasting so much easier.

[randgust]

Early on I decided to use just enough Kato track to enter and exit a Ttrak module with standard connectors and make everything in the middle Peco or something else, laid on cork, with ballast, because of that.  The only violations to that are on the Jamison and Trunkeyville double modules, where they go immediately into a turnout right at the ends.  Those had to be Kato turnouts, and those have actually been more 'problematic' requiring painting, jumper soldering, notch-cutting on the points, etc. 

The first time Dave Ferrari saw my West Hickory triple module at Altoona, complete with double Atlas 60-degree crossings and Peco SLI turnouts, he was more than skeptical, but after a couple days of running, won him over to the ballasted Peco Ttrak world.   And, as Trunkeyville won the 2020 Virtual Ttrak module competition award from Kato, apparently they weren't insulted either by the lack of Kato Unitrack.

The thing I really liked about that was the ability to make sidings and yards in cinders, not a raised ballast, and change the track geometry tighter.   My PRR "Salamanca Branch" was a ballasted single track main with everything else around in cinders.  That's even worse on my new Barge Yard where both main tracks are in cinders.

If you're going to slug around a module in the Ttrak world, durability is a plus.   I see the Modutrak guys dealing OK with Atlas C55, and it looks great, I'd probably work in that standard too if I had a moving van or trailer to haul stuff in and a house to store it.

[Sokramiketes]

Two working examples of Atlas Code 55 are Modutrak and the Southern Alberta Rail.  Neither one are shy to tear out a turnout that's causing problems.  And I feel like I have more track problems when not ballasted and soaked in matte medium to lock everything in, including loose rails.  LOL.

I would switch to a robust line of Code 46 American standard track in a heartbeat. 

[Point353]

Then Atlas dabbled in integral-roadbed track, code 65. It looked relatively decent, though it was all train-set geometry. Is that stuff even still around?

Now with your choice of either tan or gray roadbed: https://shop.atlasrr.com/c-1044-n-true-track.aspx

[Chris333]

And then didn't the c55 flex track mold get ruined?  I remember telling them a bunch of stuff to improve and they just re-made the same old stuff.

I used whatever Atlas C55 I had. Stripped the ties and hand laid turnouts with it.

[davefoxx]

I left N scale ten years ago next spring.  I cannot believe that the track situation has not improved for you N scalers since I last worked on an N scale layout in 2017.  If some manufacturer could afford the investment in a high quality line of Code 40, 55, and/or 70 track components, they could make that investment back many times over.  I sympathize with you.

DFF