It's not that difficult

Atlas Code 55

Good tie spacing, lots of different track geometry (far more than just 1 turnout size), and less "stiff" than ME. (ME straight track is a pain to straighten once it's bent to any degree.) Atlas turnouts also have a "lug" at the end of a tie to solder a wire to that will power the frog. ME DOES have one advantage... it's (supposedly) available with concrete ties. Never seen it in a store, myself, and every time I thought to order some it was "out of stock", but it's listed.

I've used the Atlas code 55 on my BendTrack modules and been very happy with the results. .

For me it is the looks

My 1st N scale layout was code 80.  The look to me was barely tolerable.  Now I use Micro Engineering code 55 and code 40.  Now I build in modules.  One early module has PECO code 55.  I is OK as I am happy with it.  

There are a few major problems.  If you run early stuff with high wheel flanges and you don't want to change wheels or grind the flanges down, run code 80.  Code 55 works with most modern stuff on flange height.  Code 40 works with locos and cars that have wheel flanges to spec, 0.022" max ( 0.028" max for HO).  ME code 40 has 0.025" room for flanges.  The 0.003" works.

Another problem is working with the different codes.  Code 80 is a lot like working with HO track.  Code 55 is different but OK.  Code 40 is fiddley and easy to screw up.  It takes patience and you will have to modify your track laying procedures.

Mike Lee 

Some comparisons

Left to right are code 83, 70, & 55. In N scale you might also compare the sizes with the prototype based on your railroad and era. Even code 40 represents pretty heavy rail in that scale. I purchased some (not shown) for an Nn3 module. If interested I'll post a photo once some ballast is down. 

"What are the advantages and

I used code 55 Atlas and Micro engineering track for my N scale layout and was very happy with them. I'd go with Atlas for ease of use as their turnouts are easier to install and have greater variety of sizes and their flextrack is not as stiff to bend. The only problem with code 55 is the older N stuff might have oversize flanges that could hit the molded on spike heads on code 55 track. I'd sell any old engines and change any old car wheels and go with the code 55 but if you have a lot of old engines and cars and don't want to sell them or change their wheels you might prefer code 80. Here's a photo of code 55 track on cork roadbed....DaveB

​ 

I AM JUST STARTING MY LAYOUT - ALL NEW EQUIPMENT

Thanks, Mike, and to all those who have responded so far.  I am just in the last stages of the planning of my layout.  I will begin building it in about a month.

FYI, I am going to model the N&W/ Southern railroads in North Carolina & Virginia in the 1950's/ early 60's during the transition from steam to diesel.

It sounds to me like code 55 is the way to go. 

By the way, did you use Tortoise turnout motors?  Some other kind/ brand?

Thanks again.

Gordon

ME flex track

BARR_CEO said: 

Not much of a "pain" in my experience. A little patience and a straight edge, such as a steel scale ruler, laid against the web of the rail makes quick work of it.

And forming curves with ME flex track is pretty straightforward as well. I like the fact that ME flex track stays put once a shaped is formed.

Atlas Code 80 vs. Code 55

Hi Gordon, On a previous layout I used Atlas Code 55 rail with very good results. Unfortunately a move saw the end of that layout and all track was lost.

When I started a new HCD layout in my current apartment, Atlas was having trouble with their Chinese code 55 manufacturer, in other words Atlas code 55 track was not available for a few years and I didn't want to wait for it to return to the market, so I built my current layout using the good old code 80 Atlas N scale track. Atlas code 55 is now back in stock and hopefully will be for years to come.

Hopefully these two photos will give you an idea of how N scale equipment looks on the Atlas code 55 rail (top photo) and the Atlas code 80 rail (bottom photo) Both products are well built and offer many different turnouts and crossings and track selections.

Just to note, another popular line of code 55 N scale track is Peco, although their track looks more European, than North American, it's also very well constructed with a large selection of track pieces.

I'm looking forward to following along on your layout build. Please start a layout build blog here on the MRH forum and keep us updated on your layout progress.

The cost per foot is similar

One person said Micro Engineering was more expensive.  I just averaged the prices from 5 discount internet sites and the average price per foot for Atlas is $1.42 for code 80, and $1.70 for code 55.  The average price for Micro Engineering code 55 is $1.47/ft, and code 70 is $1.58/ft.  Peco code 55 averages $1.99/ft and code 80 $1.59 per foot.  Atlas flex track is only 30 inches versus the 36 inches of Micro Engineering and Peco.  If you buy larger quantities you get a bit of a break (but not much).  You are going to spend about a buck and a half a foot whichever you choose, so get what you like.

"You are going to spend about

  and Atlas and Micro engineering can be mixed so no reason to just buy one.  I mixed code 55 Atlas and ME flextrack and turnouts freely on my N layout to take advantage of their differences( ME makes different number turnouts than Atlas and ME track holds it's shape when bent for curves) and I added hand built turnouts where neither company had the right configuration. .......DaveB

Switching from Peco code 55 to ME code 55

On my previous layout, I used Peco Code 55 (which is actually code 80 with the bottom of the web buried in the ties so only .055" is exposed).  The track was very robust, and the selection of turnouts was good.  The only problem for me was the European tie spacing.  My new layout will reuse the Peco track in the staging area, but the visible layout will have ME code 55 and Fast Tracks turnouts.  I bought my first jig about two years ago, and I think the turnouts are far superior to what's available commercially.

Scott