Here are some photos. Make your own conclusions.
Atlas/MP side by side (Atlas on the top of the photo):
A bit closer:
Very close up shots as best I could
MP
Atlas
And the back side:
Side:
Ends on:
I'll post some comments in a few after ya all get a look and then try to answer any questons. Got to run to pick up the little one. :O)
Whichever track is on the right in the final image seems to be about 10-15 thou higher than the one on the left. Or, so I see it.
-Crandell
Thanks LOCO!!!!!!!! This is exactly the kind of information I need. The Model Power track certainly looks good enough to me to warrant the $120 per 100 pack savings!
Hornblower
Ok, here are some of my "casual" comments and observations. In all the photos Atlas is on top.
1. The flexibility issue is mostly due to the additional cuts made.... i.e., Atlas makes cuts on BOTH sides.
2. Tie detail for the simulated wood: Atlas is a bit more heavy or course. The Atlas ties are thicker (taller) while MP is wider. The spruce attachment mold mark thing is more noticeable on the Atlas
3. The last photo, and I knew it would be "the" photo of debate, needs some additional info. The "straightness" should not be considered as I was slinging them both around and due to MP more stiff nature it does not bounce back as quick. In some cases the option to have stiffer track might be beneficial - one can always make cuts....
4. Now to the profile issue on the last photo. (I didn't mention it on purpose as I wanted to keep yah all's mind open)
Atlas is on the left and MP is on the right. I took my pair of electronic calipers and did 10 measurements of five different sections of each brand. The Atlas miked out at average of 8.70 and the MP miked out at an average 9.20 You can all do math ;o) Both came out much higher than I would have thought. I did however note that BOTH miked out less in the middle, in other words, the last half inch of the ends of all the track I measured was always greater.
5. To the eye, the MP has a bit more shine and a richer copper look. Don't think the photos do the actual color of the rail for either of the brands.
6. I was also a bit surprised when connected them, they match right up with not much a problem at all. This would be due to the difference in the tie hight I figure.
Ok, that's all I can think of right now.... I'm all tuckered out from coaching pratice :O)
I like the lesser tie height of the Model Power track as it should better match the tie height of the Central Valley switch tie strips I plan to use. Loco, you mention that the rail heights of both products were less in the middle of the flex track sections. What were these rail heights? Could it be that the manufacturers intentionally increase the rail heights at the ends of the track in anticipation of the modeler filing the track joints smooth? I do like the smaller "spikes" in the Atlas track. However, I don't think that one advantage is worth the $120 price difference.
As far as the bendability of Atlas track, my experience with Atlas flex track has shown that one rail of the Atlas product is very loose in the ties. This loose rail can be removed from the tie strip by just sliding it out one end. I believe it is this loose rail approach that makes it so easy to curve the Atlas track. The springiness of the Atlas track is probably due to a higher tempering of the nickel silver. This higher temper would also make the Atlas track a little harder to cut. Is the Model Power track easier or harder to cut?
First off let me just say I'm in no way supporting or "dissing" one brand or the other. I can't - haven't ever built a layout!! lol. My intention was to bring a side by side comparison (which one MIGHT thing would be a good idea for a magazine article wink wink) to the table to let the individual modeler decide best for their specific needs - Hey, that almost sounds like "legaleze".
Hornblower, I didn't keep the paper I was jotting down all the measurements, I just sort of noticed a general difference which I though might be interesting. But it could just be me..... in any case we are only talking 100's of an inch.... I got much more to worry about :P
As to the "bendability" issue, I am thinking it is a combination of things.
1. The number of tie cuts per rail.
2. The tightness of the ties molded to the rail.
3. The actuall composition of the rail.
4. The manufactoring process of said rail.
Cutting.... heck, never thought of that.... let me go dice up a few parts and try to get a feel for things....BRB :O)
Using applied physics, I’ve calibrated and developed a new scale for measuring force; Loco Inch Pounds, or L.I.P.
Said scale ranges from 0 to 100. 100 LIP's would be a force to move anything, zero LIP's would be, well..... impossible :PTaking a finely honed Xuron rail nipper, and under controlled laboratory conditions, the Atlas track measured @50 LIP’s. While the Model Power track measured a slightly less 40 LIP’s to cut.We therefore conclude that Atlas requires a greater LIP to snip.
Great thread to compare two brands.. I was debating on which one I was going to use... Previously used MP C100 on old layout and have a bunch left over. I just ordered 50 pcs of 3' flex atlas C83. And I can't wait until I get it!! (ETA March 10th)
With my MP track I've had problems with the rail popping off of the ties. I probably weakened them when I removed from old layout. But on the same token, I think that was happeneing with unused pc's also.
Mike
How old is old Mike? Got any photos of the older stuff to see if it's different than the newer MP?
Thanks for taking the time to post this. I've never seen the two side by side before. I like the MP tie plate detail better, but the rail appears to be much rougher. Or is that my imagination? That's a good point about the MP tie height for use with the CV turnouts.It's also interesting how much thinner the tie webbing is on the MP, but it's harder to flex. I guess adding a few more cuts could solve that. I might have to give some of that a try.
Loathar, I went back to re-examin the track and can't really see much of any difference with the smoothness or lack there of.....It's more likely my limited skill in photographing :O)
Loco How old is old Mike? Got any photos of the older stuff to see if it's different than the newer MP?
Not that old. 4 years probably. It looks the same as above, except C100.
Hi Loco
Did you / could you measure the height (rail + ties) for both types? I would like to know how they match up to Walthers/Shinohara code 83 turnouts which are approximately 0.148" / 3.76mm.
Bill
Bill,
Made three measurements on each rail on a section of new track
MP: End one, 15.65 & 15.55
Middle, 15.25 & 15.35
End two, 15.40 & 15.45
Atlas: End one, 16.40 & 16.50 Middle, 17.50 & 17.35 End two, 16.75 & 16.50 After doing a few tests, I did a bunch of random measurements. My overall observations was that the Atlas was taller over all, and seemed to have more variations than the MP. But do keep in mind we are talking some very small increments.
Atlas: End one, 16.40 & 16.50
Middle, 17.50 & 17.35
End two, 16.75 & 16.50
After doing a few tests, I did a bunch of random measurements. My overall observations was that the Atlas was taller over all, and seemed to have more variations than the MP. But do keep in mind we are talking some very small increments.
I was doing some reading and found the gleaming threads again and it got me thinking.... so I grabbed my magnifying lenses and had a closer look-see as to the "smoothness" of the rail. I went out side for some direct sun light.
One thing very noticable is the MP track has much more shine and a brighter copper color. Also the MP track does look smoother. Not sure if this is good, bad, or indifferent. But I think one would really need to weather the MP rail to get any realistic look, where you might be able to get away with not weathering the Atlas. On the other hand, if your of the mind that gleaming is the way to go, then it might be a bit less work using the MP. Maybe.... Bottom line, the MP is smoother and rather shiny.
Loco,
It sounds like you've sold me on the Model Power flex track. I'll be ordering a 100 pack from Trainworld at $189.99 as soon as possible.
Loco
Thank you for the measurements. It seems MP is close to the Walthers 83 turnout height - I have heard that Walthers turnouts need packing when used with Atlas 83.
Another question - is there any maker name under the MP track? I have heard that MP is made by GT Italy. Here in New Zealand GT Italy (code 100) is used quite extensively as it is less expensive than Peco or Atlas.
Like the post above I might have to order a 100 pack of MP from Trainworld. Can anyone better that price? Or $309.99 for Atlas 83 from Standard Hobby Supply?
By the way, when you give a measurement of 15.65 I assume you mean 0.1565". Is it common to use hundreths of an inch in the US? Here we would use thousandths of an inch, or would have as it would now be in millimetres.
Thank you for a very helpful post.
The MP track has "GT Italy" stamped on the back of the ties.
Not sure who has the best price on track.
And, doh, yah, them pestky decimals.... 0.1565 lol
bagalHi LocoDid you / could you measure the height (rail + ties) for both types? I would like to know how they match up to Walthers/Shinohara code 83 turnouts which are approximately 0.148" / 3.76mm.Bill
I have the MP Code 83 in use with a Walthers / Shinohara code 83 turnout. The two match up well in terms of Tie height & overall appearance.
The MP rail is ever so slightly taller than the W / S.
I can't measure exact heights as everything is fastened down.
Mark Gosdin