Atlas code 55 track product line

[John]

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.

I still have those goofy frog curved turnouts .. I've replaced the throwbars on a few .. they still work ..

[davefoxx]

I still have those goofy frog curved turnouts .. I've replaced the throwbars on a few .. they still work ..

That goes back to 2010.  Meanwhile, the rest of that layout has since been rotting in a landfill as a result of that debacle.  Glad you were able to put those curved turnouts to some use.

DFF

[jdcolombo]

I guess I must be the lucky guy that got to the ridge at Omaha in the first wave on D-Day.

My layout has 70+ Atlas Code 55 switches, 60 of them #7's, from Atlas' first production of this track.  It has now been installed for 12 years, and has seen dozens of operating sessions where the yard ladders and staging yard ladders are worked constantly over a 3-hour period.  While I have experienced the "There's copper in them thar hills" effect from cleaning turnouts, all of them except one have worked mostly flawlessly since installation.  All are run by Tortoise switch machines, which also have worked flawlessly.  I have had to correct a few gauge issues, almost always on #5's.  I have had one throwbar fail.  But perhaps the fact that all my track is ballasted and therefore "locked" in place has helped, even though the humidity in my basement room goes from nearly 0 in winter to 50% or better in summer.

Having said that, I also have about a half-dozen hand-laid #6 switches, and two hand-laid #4's that were added to the layout to expand switching areas after the basic construction was completed.  I went to handlaid turnouts during the great Atlas track drought of several years back, and my own view is that these handlaid switches (the #6's were made with a Fast Tracks jig; the #4's using paper templates after I had mastered the build technique with the #6's) are an order of magnitude better in general operation that the Atlas switches.  I did have to use a stiffer throw wire for the Tortoises running these switches, but my engines and rolling stock glide through these with nary a wobble, whereas the Atlas switches produce wobbles routinely.  Were I to ever build another layout (I won't), I would use handlaid switches exclusively with ME flex. But the Atlas stuff I installed works; the failure rate has been basically non-existent, and as a result I can't complain.  Yet.

As for expanding the track line, I don't see it.  Atlas has itself extended in many areas, including getting a return on the Walthers/LL tooling purchase, integrating the MicroTrains purchase, and the tariffs and generally uncertain economic situation can't be conducive to expansionary decisions. 

I am aware of the horrendous failure stories, but my own experience with Atlas Code 55 has been more than satisfactory.

John C.

[jagged ben]

I guess I would ask why it's important for Atlas to expand the track line into things that other manufacturers have done, when one can mix and match stuff in many cases.   e.g. Handlaid turnouts with either Atlas or ME flex, just fine.  Or ME concrete ties on your mainline and Atlas in your spurs and yards.  <shrug>

[nkalanaga]

I have no Atlas track in use, as all of my track predates theirs.

My question has always been, why did they use code 65 for their roadbed track?  Why not 55, which they already had, and which would allow the two to be mixed, if anyone wanted to do so?  Why introduce a third rail size?

[Missaberoad]

I have no Atlas track in use, as all of my track predates theirs.

My question has always been, why did they use code 65 for their roadbed track?  Why not 55, which they already had, and which would allow the two to be mixed, if anyone wanted to do so?  Why introduce a third rail size?

pizza cutter bounce! 

[Rossford Yard]

I guess I must be the lucky guy that got to the ridge at Omaha in the first wave on D-Day.

My layout has 70+ Atlas Code 55 switches, 60 of them #7's, from Atlas' first production of this track.  It has now been installed for 12 years, and has seen dozens of operating sessions where the yard ladders and staging yard ladders are worked constantly over a 3-hour period.  While I have experienced the "There's copper in them thar hills" effect from cleaning turnouts, all of them except one have worked mostly flawlessly since installation.  All are run by Tortoise switch machines, which also have worked flawlessly.  I have had to correct a few gauge issues, almost always on #5's.  I have had one throwbar fail.  But perhaps the fact that all my track is ballasted and therefore "locked" in place has helped, even though the humidity in my basement room goes from nearly 0 in winter to 50% or better in summer.

Having said that, I also have about a half-dozen hand-laid #6 switches, and two hand-laid #4's that were added to the layout to expand switching areas after the basic construction was completed.  I went to handlaid turnouts during the great Atlas track drought of several years back, and my own view is that these handlaid switches (the #6's were made with a Fast Tracks jig; the #4's using paper templates after I had mastered the build technique with the #6's) are an order of magnitude better in general operation that the Atlas switches.  I did have to use a stiffer throw wire for the Tortoises running these switches, but my engines and rolling stock glide through these with nary a wobble, whereas the Atlas switches produce wobbles routinely.  Were I to ever build another layout (I won't), I would use handlaid switches exclusively with ME flex. But the Atlas stuff I installed works; the failure rate has been basically non-existent, and as a result I can't complain.  Yet.

As for expanding the track line, I don't see it.  Atlas has itself extended in many areas, including getting a return on the Walthers/LL tooling purchase, integrating the MicroTrains purchase, and the tariffs and generally uncertain economic situation can't be conducive to expansionary decisions. 

I am aware of the horrendous failure stories, but my own experience with Atlas Code 55 has been more than satisfactory.

John C.

I am another one who has been using Atlas C55 since 2013, and am completely satisfied with the entire product line.  I ruined one turnout by using the track cleaning eraser too hard, and had a few curved turnouts that didn't have proper geometry that had to be replaced.  To be fair, my Atlas HO curved turnouts that I used on a layout in 1979 also had those geometry problems, which may just be inherent to curved turnouts at small scales.

I prefer that flex track to ME, since it is truly flexible, and doesn't stay in a bent shape that may have to be changed while laying.  Yes, the copper colored frogs are the worst problem to me, but graphite fixes any running issues, along with powering them.

I understand that the early no. 5 turnouts had problems, but luckily I was using no. 7s and 10s.

I obviously am more willing to accept the minor flaws than some, but glad to have the product as it has made my N scale modeling a lot easier and a lot more attractive.

I remember a guy on the old Atlas forums that claimed N scale locos had a defect rate (requiring return) of somewhere between 33 and 50%.  My loco defect rate is closer to 1% and half of those are simply rough running compared to others of the same brand.

As I told my first wife who returned about 80% of anything she ever bought....her expectations of manufactured things seemed to exceed what then current technology was capable of producing.

[BCR 570]

I have approximately 65 Atlas Code 55 turnouts which have been in use since 2018.  During that time the layout was dismantled, transported, stored and reassembled in a new location.

I have had  three or four throw bar failures (I drilled through them for the throw wires and I learned later that some servos had the throw wires bent too aggressively and they gradually chewed through the fragile throw bar assembly.  The remainder have worked reliably.

One issue I have is that some locomotives (particularly the Life-Like C-424s) do not travel well through a few of the turnouts; if I push them through I can feel them getting grabbed so it must be a gauging issue.  Other turnouts they sail through with no issues.

For me the best feature of the Atlas Code 55 track is its appearance; when painted with the method I am using the detail on the ties stands out well and several visitors have commented on it.

I have recently built some handlaid turnouts for my Civil track projects and those seem to work well, so that would be a consideration for future layout extensions.


Tim

[mmagliaro]

I also have a layout built with all Atlas C55 (flex and turnouts).  I did have gauge and dead rail problems with them very early on,  so I began a pre-install regimine.  I solder in wires under the turnout to bypass all the phosphor bronze contact strips that fail, including the frog feeder, and I go over each one with an NMRA gauge, doing a lot of filing to correct the clearances on the point and stock rails which were almost always too narrow.  They would cause even a 2-8-2 to climb the rails.  Doing that before installing them, they have been very reliable, but I'm just a one-man show, so there's no operating sessions or frequent bouts of switching.  I also completely replaced the one curved turnout I had with one I made on a FastTracks jig, and it is MILES better than the Atlas one I had in there, which was a non-stop trouble point because of drifting gauge.   I have had to solder in some PC board ties in strategic places to keep the gauge correct on their c55 flex, particularly on curves, and I don't have anything sharper than an 18" radius.   
Conclusion?
If I had it to do over, sorry Atlas, but no way would I use their track or their turnouts.
- Too much manual upgrading required.
- I could make my own turnouts with the jigs and they would look and work better than the Atlas ever will.
- The cost of the Atlas turnouts has gotten high enough that it is far cheaper to pay the up-front cost of the jigs and make them myself.

[robert3985]

pizza cutter bounce! 

I suppose that means Atlas doesn't have enough brains to lower the height and narrow the width of whatever cast-on hardware holds the rails to the ties, eh?...instead of drawing their own custom 0.065" high rail so they can continue to use unsightly huge blobs to grip the rails.

Micro Engineering never had a problem with pizza cutters bouncing on their Code55 track, and their spikeheads are only a few mils lower than the blobs on Atlas55.

Peco55, with their embedded rail solves the problem of rail retention while at the same time allowing (although Peco didn't take advantage of this allowance) actual scale-sized representations of prototype rail retention hardware.

Since Atlas decided to create their own custom-sized rail for their new sectional N-scale track product, designing it using the embedded rail protocol (similar to Peco55) would have allowed for a to-scale visible rail height (Code46) and completely to-scale rail attachment hardware representation...which would have allowed for both pizza cutter compatibility and designing an adapter section for Code55 transition.

However, even not designing an embedded rail protocol, just reducing the height and width of the rail-grabbing blobs would have solved the pizza cutter problem while providing a much more prototypical look, especially if the single blobs would have been designed to look like one or two spikeheads.

As far as durability is concerned, I've never had a problem with my rails pulling out of the spikeheads, even using Rail Craft flex with its much lower and finer spikeheads...and all of my N-scale experience has been with building portable modules, which got/get taken regularly to various shows in my area.

Since N-scale track is a model of actual railroad trackage, deliberately designing it with obvious gross visual flaws to supposedly insure durability while ignoring the other two competitors' durability and cosmetic successes is counter intuitive.

Cheerio!
Bob Gilmore

[robert3985]

I have no Atlas track in use, as all of my track predates theirs.

My question has always been, why did they use code 65 for their roadbed track?  Why not 55, which they already had, and which would allow the two to be mixed, if anyone wanted to do so?  Why introduce a third rail size?

While l agree logically that Atlas should have used Code55 rail, and simply lowered the height and narrowed the width of the oversized blobs they continue to use for rail retention, they do offer a transition section allowing easy transition between their Code65 True Track and Code55 track  https://shop.atlasrr.com/p-65452-n-code-55-gray-ballast-transition-track-2-pcs-pkg.aspx  while not ideal, at least it offers a partial solution for some inter-usability.

Cheerio!
Bob Gilmore

[OldEastRR]

I remember a guy on the old Atlas forums that claimed N scale locos had a defect rate (requiring return) of somewhere between 33 and 50%.  My loco defect rate is closer to 1% and half of those are simply rough running compared to others of the same brand.

That wasn't me.

[nkalanaga]

Or me.  I've never returned a loco, for any reason.  I've retired a few, when better versions came out, and most of my early ones (1970s) were junk, but I've never returned one.  Many of the junk became industrial details.

[Cory Rothlisberger]

 

[peteski]

Ah, it appears AI was engaged for this.  Nice!