An open letter to ATLAS

Couldn't agree more Sam.

Atlas track is just way too "heavy" in appearance.

MTH could have blown everyone out of the water with Scaletrax but the spacing is way off regardless of their reasoning.

One of these companies needs to step up and create a better looking 3 rail option.

Couldn't agree more with both posts above; IMO, another reason MTh Scaletrax  hasn't covered more of the market has been the lack of expansion in turnouts sizes offered. Atlas"O" does have a reasonable selection of turnouts offered, not as much as Ross, but still a better selection than MTH.

 

These reviews are 16 years old and the market is looking for a more scale appearance. That being said as long as Atlas and MTH continue to sell out all the product they import they are not going to be in a rush to spend dollars retooling and most of the existing customer base already has a substantial investment in these track products.JMO

You might be shootin' yourself in the foot here, Sam.  Since it seems as though Atlas is having problems providing product made with the existing tooling, how long do you think you might have to wait for track made with new tooling?

 

Pete

I think it looks good as is, and the construction makes it relatively durable.  But on that note I'd probably go with scaletrax next time due to the lighter rail, and prefer the "lightness" in appearance.  The fewer ties also keep it from appearing heavy.  

 

Atlas also matches well with Ross turnouts.   

 

But if I thought the market could support it, I'd also like to see a thinner railed Atlas.  Now that I think about it, their two rail track is relatively durable.  

Sorry Sam but I disagree esp on the " clunky rails" the track was made with compatibility back in 1998 and this still holds true today. Changing the rails to a more scale appearance will only cater to the select few. Also many of you fail to see the track is fixable to some degree with those clunky rails and high ties.  If scaletrax I's so great how come many are not buying it? How come MTH is not adding more curved sections to make it easier for the beginner/ intermediate to have equidistant curves creating a real track system? How come mth dealers don't always carry this track in their stores?
If it ain' t broke DON'T fix it! We don't need another incompatible track system in o gauge.

prrhorseshoecurve - I've been an ardent supporter of ScaleTrax for years now and it is with some degree of remorse that I will probably abandon the track for my next layout. More curve sections are really not needed as their flex track is the best available, similar to HO flextrack if you haven't used ScaleTrax yet. Truly flexible and it returns to straight when released. You can literally form ANY curve/ compound curve desirable.  ScaleTrax and probably Atlas as well are better suited for a more permanent layout anyway - the beginner should stick with Fastrack or Realtrax IMO.

 

The 'compatibility issue'' is easily addressed as the surface elevation is all that is needed to match for smooth transition. ScaleTrax or any lower profile track can be shimmed up to match. 

 

There appear to be more than a 'select few' of us who would like a new track system to give a more scale look to our 3 rail empires!

if you desire more realistic track then go with O scale two rail.

I had both Atlas and scaletrax from MTH and although both look great I would not use either track system again. 

 

With all the problems Atlas is having with production, introducing a revamped track system is not going to happen. 

 

The hobby don't need another track system IMO.

David(s),  I've thought about that but would not want to replace my extensive 3 rail collection of equipment from a more limited selection of 2 rail. To me, improving the track is a better alternative 

Just took a quick look at a MTH passenger car on Atlas track. Unless you want to change all your wheels to 2 rail, I don't think the height could be lowered much.

So, Sam, if I'm understanding, the real thesis statements embedded in your posts are: 

 

1- a track manufacturing company should completely redesign and retool (by the way, it wouldn't just be the rail; the ties are molded with "nubs" through which the track snugly slides/fits) because of a non-customer's preference of locomotive and rolling stock selection in 3 versus 2 rail; and

 

2- you are appealing to Atlas despite having built a layout from Scaletrax, which incidentally, you applaud for already embodying the qualities you seek (lower profile rail, inverted T center rail, truly flexible flex track). 

 

???

 

 

Years ago, Atlas had some really nice scale sized two rail track. So, the tooling may still exist, and could possibly be adapted to three rail. I like the Atlas track, but as mentioned, the rails are over sized. The only other thing is that when using the track on bridges, the hollow underside of the ties is visible.

Don

The old Atlas track was manufactured by Roco as I recall.  I have about 20 sections of it for use on my 2 rail layout if I ever get to it.  It is a great product if you can find it.  Nice scale sized rails that approximate 135# rail and the ties are well done. 

 

The reason I switched from collecting predominantly 3 rail equipment to 2 rail for my home layout had everything to do with the look of an O scale train on lighter gauge track as well as the elegance of a smaller wheel flange. 

 

 

 

The original flex track[code .148 plated brass] and switches [#6 I believe] were manufactured by Roco Gleissystem, Salzburg, Germany labeled on the 2 piece switch boxes,early 70s maybe even late 60s, Atlas marketed the 3' flex track, I don't recall if they also sold the switches [I have about 3 dz switches w/boxes and some 350+/- ft of track] switches show up occasionally at meets and Ebay. I doubt that Atlas owned the tooling for the flex track and even if they did it would not be compatiable with current Asia mfg equiptment.Just a little history on the product. While not my era as someone who has been involved with Sunset on the newer Diesel projects I was curious as to how the Atlas F units match up to the Sunset Fs in your opinion,aside from the obivious drives, detail and overall accuracy of models,I see there is a thread on the not low enough fuel tanks on the Atlas units. Price could be a factor for those who want ABBA sets, with 2 unpowered B units Atlas "street price" is  about 1/2 the price of a ABBA set from Sunset [although you get all 4 units powered] based on FT sales this may affect 3 rail sales moreso than 2 rail.JMO

The high price is a big stumbling block to many considering a large layout and the somewhat oversized rails used is another.

 

I feel C. Sam's main point here (the high price) is not only valid but will be the undoing of Atlas O 3-rail track's commercial viability if not addressed.  So let's not lose sight of the point that reducing the size of the rails would reduce the cost of what is probably the single most costly component of the track.  The visual effect benefit is secondary.  

 

I agree with most of what C. Sam wrote and would go further.  I believe that the price of nickel-silver has increased more rapidly than the other parts of the track system.  Is nickel-silver really necessary in O scale?  Steel-based track systems (GarGraves, Ross, Lionel, K-Line/RMT, and Williams) are in widespread use and seem to offer equally fine performance.  Point to consider: brass didn't work well in HO but it works fine in G gauge.  For the holidays, I helped relatives set up their LGB G-gauge trains that hadn't been used in over five years and they ran perfectly the first time around the loop of the uncleaned brass track.  So bigger trains are not as temperamental or sensitive with respect to track as HO and N scale.

 

I also feel the tall profile of the ties on Atlas O 3-rail track is a disadvantage in that it just requires more ballast material.  For somebody who uses all Atlas O track, this is just wasteful of time and material.  For people who mix Atlas O with other brands, a shim is not that difficult.

 

I know that many years ago Atlas O did sell "Solid Steel" track and stopped but that was when there was not much price differential compared to their nickel-silver line.  But if lower profile track using solid steel rails could be sold at a lower price point (and the price point is the key), I believe Atlas could have a much more successful product in the 3-rail O scale commercial market place.

 

 

Sam - I agree, I thought that years ago.  The naysayers are always out there.  If someone comes up with a better track, there are those that will convert.  I have no idea how many times I've moved from one 3 rail track to the next, starting with Super O in 1957.  I still think that Super O has many qualities that have never been equaled.  

 

However, Atlas already has much of the tooling for a new track system.  They just need to look at their 2 rail Code 148 track and modify it.  This Atlas 2 rail Code 148 7.5 switch (modified for 3 rail), is more reliable and does not have the electrical issues found in the Atlas 3 rail 7.5 switches.  I haven't yet found anything that won't successfully go through it going back to postwar Lionel and including KMT box cars, etc.  I haven't tried any pre-war.  The frogs are the standard 2-rail frogs, the guard rails have been moved to accommodate 3-rail wheels.

 

This is what I did Code 148 and Code 100 for the 3rd rail, and I think Forum member RonH is working on a similar track with an even smaller third rail.  

  

 

 

 

The only drawback with scale correctness is it's durability in a set 'em up, take 'em down scenario, which is what current Atlas 3 rail was designed to do.   I guess the only way around it is to do what Howard did....and after a glimpse at his fine work, I might do just that!

 

Bruce

Marker - that is the nicest looking 3-rail O track I've seen.  Thank you - hope it motivates the people at Atlas O.

Atlas is struggling to stay relevant in O-Gauge , they are not going to be able to justify any costs of retooling their track, besides unless its a whole new line, how are you going to support the existing users?

I like Atlas too but the Master rolling stock just isn’t built for operators. Sorry folks, it isn’t as great as we were all led to believe.

 

Just a word of caution:

Several later runs of Master Series cars with higher prices now contain additional plastic breakable parts. The stirrup steps on the PS-1’s are not metal anymore. End railings crack in the middle and brake wheels can snap quickly as well.

Old style reefers with door steps also break as easily as the pulpwood car steps. The roof hatch latch design is horrible as the weak triangle holder pops off from the roof.

This has always been an issue and is even more susceptible with the newer stuff.

 I see many customer cars arriving either with pieces floating in the Styrofoam container or missing completely.

Two of my 40’ AAR box cars were damaged just sitting on the shelf. I just noticed the other day that an end ladder has crumbled in to a pile of crumbs on the shelf. These cars also have lost their side grab irons a few years back. The AAR mold needs a total re-design with a lighter chassis weight and operating doors. 

Until Atlas O states that the car contains new improved metal details like the Lionel “O” PS series, I would suggest avoiding some future purchases...

 

You can mention this on the ATLAS RR CO. Facebook page and twitter feed.

 

Put this into a YouTube video.

 

Andrew

PGentieu - price of Atlas' track will be its "undoing?"  You do, of course, realize that Atlas O is one of the top two preferred track systems and that hobbyist after hobbyist on this forum, as well as professional layout builders, regularly build layouts using Atlas O .... right?  

 

Also: nickel-silver is not that expensive as to explain the exorbitant price of Atlas O track. In fact, on a bulk basis, nickel-silver has dropped in price over the past 1.5 years.  Doubt that manufacturing and delivery cost for a 40" track section (when mass produced) is more than say $1.50.  Presumably, a part of the $$$$ pricetag is based on the same thinking that Lionel seems to employ - use name recognition (and its promise of high-end quality) to exploit pricing. 

 

Marker - all I can say is - wow!!  I so wish that the track you've concocted was what was available at the hobby shop when we decided two years ago between GG, Atlas O and Scaletrax.  

I would like to see Atlas keep their 3 rail track just like it is now. I use Atlas track and switches and am quite happy with them. Have been for almost 4 years now. I want to be able to add on to it as I can, whenever I can expand my layout. I couldn't afford to do it all at one time. I don't want to have to start all over because they have changed the track. I don't want to change track systems, rails, ties, switches or anything else. I just want to be able to continue using what I have and Atlas has already spent a lot of time and money designing and developing and have been making for quite a few years now. It's a very well designed system, I am sure rail size was taken into account in the design. 3 rail wheels may be a factor? It works very well with the wheels on all my 3 rail trains now. It seldom needs cleaning. I have had few problems with it. It is very quiet. It costs no more than Fastrack which is not nickel-silver or solid rail.

 

 

 

 

 

Perhaps Atlas could easily offer their track both ways?

I would wager that the 'new and improved' scale version would quickly outsell what you are using 

 

 The only difference would be installing a different set of smaller rails (having the same 'footprint' as their regular rail) with the center an inverted 'T' resulting in a thin center blade like ScaleTrax.      ..and Lionel's Super O.

I have Atlas 3 rail track and turnouts and the track is too large. I have some old Roco 2 rail track but the pandrol style plates bothered me, so for my 2 rail I use Micro-Engineering and it has been excellent. Due to lack of turnouts for two rail other than Atlas, I use Atlas 7.5 turnouts on the mainline and Atlas #6? in the yard. They are not prototypical with respect to some dimensions. The switch machines are poor and are "HO size".

I'm fine with a totally separate track system, just don't ruin it for the rest of us that are perfectly happy with it the way it is. Which I imagine is a pretty fair number of other folks as well, and not just limited to me. As for Scaletrax, I considered it before settling on Atlas. Personally, I liked Atlas much better all the way around (as is, I might add ). I do like MTH, my entire fleet is almost all MTH, with a few Lionel pieces here and there. I also have many other MTH items in addition to engines and rolling stock. It was an MTH starter set and their DCS system that got me back in the hobby.

 

It appears to me that Scaletrax is not all that popular, my LHS carries every available type of O gauge track made today, except Scaletrax. It does not seem to be in many discussions here. I have no idea if it's the look of it, the ties, the lack of curves and switches or what? It was a close second in my track selection. I am a big fan of solid rail. Hmmm...I am really wondering about Scaletrax now. I will ask my LHS next week why they don't carry it, since they do carry everything else and they sell a lot of MTH product as well? 

 

I believe it's extremely unlikely that any of this will happen any time soon, but who knows? It also seems to me that MTH would have a much easier time adjusting their tie spacing than Atlas would re-designing their entire track system? That wouldn't really affect any current installations either as far as rail size, height and thickness, connections, etc. You can always do what marker did in the pictures above with the Atlas 2 rail track that already has the smaller rails. I will admit that the track in his pictures does look very nice. 

 

Got another idea, since Lionel has now discontinued their tubular track line, maybe they should start making the Super O track again. If they have the old tooling somewhere, that would be a good start to get them going. They could add to the line as sales increase. There seem to be a lot of posts here from time to time with folks wishing they still made Super O, commenting on how good it was and how well they liked it. No one would be affected that way, it would be a nice new product brought back after going missing for many years.

Perhaps Atlas could easily offer their track both ways?

I would wager that the 'new and improved' scale version would quickly outsell what you are using 

 The only difference would be installing a different set of smaller rails (having the same 'footprint' as their regular rail) with the center an inverted 'T' resulting in a thin center blade like ScaleTrax.      ..and Lionel's Super O.

When Lionel came out with Super O, the conversion on our layout was slow, starting with one half of the outer loop, with a 022 switch within the Super O area.  I've done the same thing over the years as I've gone from one track to another.  

 

As people replace their last choice in track, they sell it and it is usually inexpensive.  It benefits everybody.

 

Things don't always have to be either/or.  Choice has always been one of the great things about America.  The ability to innovate with new ideas has always allowed for this country to lead the world.  I hope that the future holds the same promise.

Maybe Grargraves 'Scale Rail' is the answer. Made stateside they could tool a new line with smaller rail (like their S scale??) and scale ties made from plastic with tie plates and spike heads. I could see it......

Track from all manufacturers is not O scale. Either the track rails are too wide or tall,  the ties too large (as is the tie spacing) and it is 3 rail which is not prototypical (except on a cog railway). IMO, the only way to enjoy true O scale track is to purchase scale railing and stake it to each tie individually per NMRA specifications.  For my taste Ross and Gargraves are my switches and track of choice.

 

ScaleTrax has many good things going for it as a full-featured viable track system. Can be used as a temporary layout but far better suited for a permanent installation. 

Most of us who are proponents are concerned that our track be a part of the visual equation to create our miniature world of model trains, buildings, signals, etc. We are after the overall effect of a model RR and the track is a big part of that (yes, we still have the 3 rd rail) but we do what we can.

The rails are smaller and lower than any of the other major companies track yet most all motive power and rolling stock ride on it just fine with no clearance issues.

The overall size helps further the illusion of our locomotives appearing more massive than with the greatly outsized larger track systems out there.

The 'limited' selection of curves and number of switches available is really not a serious drawback due mainly to the excellent flex track and that most switching can be accomplished with $6's, #4's and 072's. We had a fairly large layout with three big interconnecting loops, sidings, and a yard. I only used #6's and 072's with no shortcomings. Some users will include Ross switches if something is else needed.

For MTH or Atlas to retool their tie beds would be a big deal as each has several track planforms, several crossings, and numerous switches to re do.  By just changing the rails themselves and using the existing tie beds, seems to be a doable project. Just look at the vast and numerous types of metal tubing, rods, and rail offered in hobby shops, craft stores, and industry now. 

ScaleTrax is comparable to or only slightly above Gargraves in price in many cases - especially if you look for used track of any brand. I'm picking up some Atlas and Ross switches as I come across good deals to have some on hand when we're ready to rebuild. I still have a considerable amount of ScaleTrax and may use it again 'in the distance' along with some Gargraves for tunnels and behind landscaping.

 

As for Super O, it is rumored that Neil Young and Jerry Calabrese(?)  discussed at length the viability of re-introducing Super O back when Fastrack was being designed. It would be interesting to see a revival of that idea!

We are after the overall effect of a model RR and the track is a big part of that (yes, we still have the 3 rd rail) but we do what we can.

There you go. as you stated You do what you can. Accept that the current Atlas O track is good for most applications. I rather see Atlas O spend their precious R&D on other items from:

• a rerailer to
• 063 switch to
• smaller and more robust slow motion switch machines for their current switch line.

IF the high rail is bothersome to you, like this statement that you state above:

 If you reread my original post at the top you'll see that I've addressed i/2 of the retooling issue by stating Atlas could simply retool the rails retaining the lower shape that would then slip into the existing tabs easily. 

creating a funky rail with an exceptionally wide base and a skinny head with a low profile web would NOT bother you? Sorry But the majority of us like proportionately sized rail.

 

 I like the size of ScaleTrax but find the tie spacing something that has continued to bother me over time. It's great track and we were quite pleased with it for the aforementioned features. Conversely, Atlas flex track has a terrible reputation for workablilty.

 

 Correct because the rail is a little thicker but Solid as well. How sharp do you want to make these curves?

Totally agree with this. Atlas 3R is an excellent track for what is designed to do. You can cut it, solder to it, put it down, tear it up, drop things on it and drill holes in it. And as long as there is a center rail in 3 rail I'm not sure I understand the need to make it more real looking when there is a 2-rail option. Atlas would invite a big risk in a very shaky manufacturing environment by modifying their existing product. There is a whole LOT that could go wrong. As for price, the durability of Atlas makes used track a bargain. I got five switches on the FSOT forum recently for $125 all in very good condition. In fact I've got piles of their track that I've purchased used at less than half retail.

 

All that said I still applaud the letter and it's intent -- provide feedback that will make the hobby better.

Sam, i often enjoy your posts, but you are way off the mark here. You have championed Scale Trax often in the past and here you seem to think Atlas should make thieir product similarly.  Just buy scale trax, many feel Atlas is the best, I do, that is why I bought it.

Fred

I see the big problem here getting all the train manufacturers to make wheels with flanges that would work with scale sized rails. 2 rail scale would be the way to go if rail size bothers you. they have NMRA standards to follow for gauge, height etc. our toy type scale trains are way too sloppy in standards to work. it is like doing head and cam work to make more horsepower without working on the lower end. either run toy scale trains or switch to scale 2 rail. the mixture wont work without standards on both sides

This applies to only a handful of 3-rail layouts.  Atlas track is the only option for a garden railroad in 3-rail.  The large solid rail is very strong.  You can stand on it without damaging it.  The UV ties and nickel silver rail stands up to rain and sun.  We use it on the G&O garden railroad.  I wouldn't want Atlas want to change anything that would degrade its outdoor performance.

 

MTH ScaleTrax doesn't sell well in the West because none of the hobby shops or dealers stock it.  I have only seen one piece on the West coast during the last ten years and that was at a train show.  I have never seen in person a layout anywhere built with ScaleTrax and I have seen many, many layouts.  Most hobby shops that handle 3-rail in the West carry Atlas alongside FastTrack and MTH's RealTrax.

 

Joe 

I bought a case of Gargaves Stainless steel with the idea of using it outdoors. Is it not suitable??? I've stood on GG w/o damage.....not on purpose....but no damage either.