It seems to me that Atlas made a number of decisions that contribute to the high cost of their track. First, deciding to use Code 215 for the rails. I understand they wanted the height to mate with with existing 027 and Gargraves but it really is not that hard to shim track to mate. Same thing with the tie height. Now plastic may be relatively inexpensive but nickel silver is not. On top of that, these both contribute to larger and heavier packages for shipping which results in higher shipping costs. Atlas made a half-hearted run at more economical track with steel rails in their solid steel line. When I have compared other track lines (mainly HO) using both steel and nickel silver, the steel costs abut 70-80% the price of the nickel silver. I have the solid steel track and I find it works equally well as the nickel silver. Tin-plated and stainless steel works fine for Gargraves and I suspect the tinplate wears off with use and the steel track still functions fine. The larger scales do not seem to have the conductivity problems of HO and smaller scales. One example: G scale uses brass rail even though it was problematic for HO.
I believe the "old standard" (1940s and 50s) of code 172 steel rail would look better and would have kept the Atlas pricing more competitive. Just about all the flanges we have now are easily accommodated on code 172; in fact, most of them run on code 148 with no problem. I have some Atlas 2-rail code 148 track and whenever I get new equipment, I roll it over the code 148 track and I have not found anything that won't work with it. So code 172 should be fine since it has some added insurance of height.
The way Atlas 3-rail track pricing has been going, they are pricing themselves into a very small niche of what is already a relatively small market.
