1. Forum
  2. Usenet
  3. REC.MODELS.RAILROAD

  • Be Careful Using Atlas N Scale Code 55

    From [email protected]@21:1/5 to All on Thu May 9 05:16:01 2019
    On Monday, January 28, 2002 at 5:57:41 AM UTC-6, Lindy0001 wrote:
    Went to the local hobbyshop over the weekend. The new Atlas Code 55 track and switches are in and they look real nice. The kicker came when we tested a Micro
    Trains car on the new track, the wheels hit the ties and the car bounced!

    It seems that if you want to use the new Code 55 track from Atlas all cars and
    locos must have low profile wheels. This problem is unique to the new Atlas track and no similiar problem is found with Micro Engineering or Peco Code 55 products.

    This is a real disapointment as the track really looks nice, but there will be
    an added expense of low profile wheels unless Atlas does something to correct the problem in the near future.

    Dave

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From [email protected]@21:1/5 to All on Thu May 9 05:18:19 2019
    On Monday, January 28, 2002 at 5:57:41 AM UTC-6, Lindy0001 wrote:
    Went to the local hobbyshop over the weekend. The new Atlas Code 55 track and switches are in and they look real nice. The kicker came when we tested a Micro
    Trains car on the new track, the wheels hit the ties and the car bounced!

    It seems that if you want to use the new Code 55 track from Atlas all cars and
    locos must have low profile wheels. This problem is unique to the new Atlas track and no similiar problem is found with Micro Engineering or Peco Code 55 products.

    This is a real disapointment as the track really looks nice, but there will be
    an added expense of low profile wheels unless Atlas does something to correct the problem in the near future.

    Dave

    I can relate, spent 50$'s on code 55 track and was excited to use only to find these issue's, what a waste of money!

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From [email protected]@21:1/5 to Mike Tennent on Wed Dec 25 04:43:07 2019
    On Wednesday, January 30, 2002 at 6:13:08 AM UTC-7, Mike Tennent wrote:

    So, you're saying that Atlas should have LOWERED the quality of their Code 55 rail just so it wouldn't conflict with non-compliant, out dated, out of proportion wheels from MT?

    I agree that this is the wrong solution. But selling a product that won't work with trains from Kato and MT that are in wide use - when other Code 55 rail does
    - without any warning to consumers that will lose money shouldn't be an option either.

    Something has to be done to raise awareness of this to avoid similar problems in
    future.

    However, replacing the wheels with metal wheels with smaller flanges - isn't that a reasonably inexpensive train upgrade?

    John Savard

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From [email protected]@21:1/5 to Mike Tennent on Wed Dec 25 04:33:49 2019
    On Tuesday, January 29, 2002 at 7:27:26 AM UTC-7, Mike Tennent wrote:

    Some have tried to couch this as an "Atlas problem" but I don't see how track that conforms to NMRA standards can be labeled that. The MT pizza cutter flanges are the real problem.

    You're quite correct - from a strict point of view. But people who want to improve
    their layouts inexpensively, making only one improvement at a time, might _well_
    feel that for Atlas to make the rail spikes so realistic that the track is incompatible with a lot of existing trains was going too far.

    I agree that it's not the right solution to have Atlas _stop_ making track as realistic as possible for serious enthusiasts. But since this is a potentially common problem, a warning that the track isn't compatible with certain types of non-standard wheels is a reasonable thing to seek.

    John Savard

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From [email protected]@21:1/5 to All on Wed Dec 25 04:47:32 2019
    On Wednesday, January 30, 2002 at 6:48:53 AM UTC-7, Lindy0001 wrote:

    I don't really think the ommission of N scale spike heads represents a signifigant lowering of quality.

    While I agree with that, I disagree that this means Atlas shouldn't make and sell
    N scale switches or track that isn't the last word in realism. For those who want
    it, not for those who will be disappointed that they can't use it with their trains.

    Of course, they don't want to appear to disparage Model Trains and Kato either, but something like "This is an enthusiast-grade product, and may have compatibility problems with some popular brands of train not fully compliant with NMRA standards. For more information, check..." would be reasonable.

    John Savard

    John Savard

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From [email protected]@21:1/5 to Fred Dabney on Wed Dec 25 04:40:02 2019
    On Tuesday, January 29, 2002 at 9:58:59 PM UTC-7, Fred Dabney wrote:

    It's particularly ironic since MT and Kato have
    the reputation for having the best in the scale,
    but sooner or later their refusal to adapt will
    bite them in the butt...

    Ouch, yes!

    I'd expect makers of cheap, low-quality trains to use wheels that follow the design of the early days with toy train-like proportions. But the makers of quality trains would try to follow scale more realistically, and follow official
    standards.

    Somebody else, though, posted that nobody in North America makes pizza-cutter wheels any more. I guess that isn't inconsistent because neither MT nor Kato is North American.

    John Savard

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From [email protected]@21:1/5 to Chuck Kimbrough on Wed Dec 25 04:48:33 2019
    On Wednesday, January 30, 2002 at 6:51:59 AM UTC-7, Chuck Kimbrough wrote:
    Is the Atlas cod 55 track scale or is for the masses?

    It's Code 55. Unlike some other Code 55, it's definitely not for the masses, because it's incompatible with some popular trains not strictly NMRA-compliant.

    John Savard

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From [email protected]@21:1/5 to Mike Tennent on Wed Dec 25 04:55:51 2019
    On Wednesday, January 30, 2002 at 7:10:12 AM UTC-7, Mike Tennent wrote:

    Huh?!?

    "WARNING!! This product conforms to NMRA Standards."

    Maybe I'm looking at this wrong, but it seems to me that manufacturers
    who DON'T comply with NMRA standards bear the onus if their product
    doesn't work with those that comply.

    Yes, from one point of view, that would seem fair.

    However, what the warning would instead be saing would be:

    "WARNING!! This product requires other stuff you use with it to conform to NMRA standards."

    ...since not everything in compliance with NMRA standards has an issue with MT and Kato rolling stock. Sure, those companies _should_ put warnings on their products saying "For whatever reason, we've made our trains to toy train proportions, so they won't work with some track and switches made to modern, realistic scale standards", but in the real world, they won't.

    So something like "Warning: this is an enthusiast-grade product. It has been made to be as realistic as possible, and may have compatibility issues with some
    common products which do not conform to NMRA standards as a result" seems fair enough to me.

    That doesn't imply standards-conformance is a bad thing instead of a good thing.

    Even if being strict in _demanding_ standards conformance of other components _is_ a bad thing, but a bad thing that's worth it for the good thing of more realism - *if you know what you're getting into*.

    John Savard

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)