richhotrainThis debate could go on and on, but I remain convinced that the "best" Code 83 flextrack is Atlas.
Atlas has always been plenty good enough for me.
Reliable and well made. Quality control has been spot-on.
richhotrainTotally disagree. Atlas is soooooo easy to shape. And when you release it, Atlas Code 83 (and Code 100) flextrack springs back to straight.
Yes, Atlas is the easiest to use. That can't really be debated.
ATLANTIC CENTRALStill Atlas track and turnouts here, not even a question or any interest in reasons why others are "better".
Not better, but I use old style (Non-DCC-friendly), Walthes/Shinohara turnouts. The power routing and solid metal frogs match my needs perfectly.
-Kevin
Living the dream.
SeeYou190 richhotrain This debate could go on and on, but I remain convinced that the "best" Code 83 flextrack is Atlas. Atlas has always been plenty good enough for me. Reliable and well made. Quality control has been spot-on. richhotrain Totally disagree. Atlas is soooooo easy to shape. And when you release it, Atlas Code 83 (and Code 100) flextrack springs back to straight. Yes, Atlas is the easiest to use. That can't really be debated. ATLANTIC CENTRAL Still Atlas track and turnouts here, not even a question or any interest in reasons why others are "better". Not better, but I use old style (Non-DCC-friendly), Walthes/Shinohara turnouts. The power routing and solid metal frogs match my needs perfectly. -Kevin
richhotrain This debate could go on and on, but I remain convinced that the "best" Code 83 flextrack is Atlas.
richhotrain Totally disagree. Atlas is soooooo easy to shape. And when you release it, Atlas Code 83 (and Code 100) flextrack springs back to straight.
ATLANTIC CENTRAL Still Atlas track and turnouts here, not even a question or any interest in reasons why others are "better".
Surely nothing wrong with the old Walthers/Shinohara turnouts, I still have few laying around from back in the day.
And if you want power routing, they are a good choice.
Since I do all my power routing with the relays that control the turnouts, which also manage the X section wiring at each interlocking, power routing turnouts actually work against me.
But I do understand your approach, I built several layouts wired that way.
Sheldon
ATLANTIC CENTRALSurely nothing wrong with the old Walthers/Shinohara turnouts, I still have few laying around from back in the day
According to Rob Spangler, some of them are out of gauge and need to be improved by regauging for reliable operatoin. I've had issues with the bronze wiper under the points locking up the points so the can't be moved. They also aren't reliable for passing electricity.
On the other hand, the old Shinohara turnouts have been the best looking for many years, but they do have some flaws. Hopefully the new redesigned Walthers will keep the great appearance but eliminate the flaws those made for them by Shinohara.
Rio Grande. The Action Road - Focus 1977-1983
Peco track has a slightly smaller base profile than Atlas and Walthers, allowing smaller rail joiners to be used with ease.
I like the look of the Atlas code 80 Nscale joiners rather than the larger code 100 joiners typically used.
Its too hard to splay the ends of the code 80 joiner to fit on the Atlas code 83 track. IIRC, ME and Walthers both mate with Atlas code 83 better than Peco (which is a bit of an outlier) so I assume the base of the rail in those brands has the same profile as the others.
- Douglas
Lastspikemike richhotrain Lastspikemike Atlas is "springiest" Walthers next, Peco next and ME isn't springy at all. Atlas is very hard to get into shape, especially at each end, but once it's there it stays there. You can't really straighten Atlas track fully once it's taken a curve properly. Totally disagree. Atlas is soooooo easy to shape. And when you release it, Atlas Code 83 (and Code 100) flextrack springs back to straight. Rich Yes. I know opinions differ. Obviously "difficult" and "easy" are subjective opinions. My description of why I find these four different tracks so different is possibly more useful than my reference to difficult or easy.
richhotrain Lastspikemike Atlas is "springiest" Walthers next, Peco next and ME isn't springy at all. Atlas is very hard to get into shape, especially at each end, but once it's there it stays there. You can't really straighten Atlas track fully once it's taken a curve properly. Totally disagree. Atlas is soooooo easy to shape. And when you release it, Atlas Code 83 (and Code 100) flextrack springs back to straight. Rich
Lastspikemike Atlas is "springiest" Walthers next, Peco next and ME isn't springy at all. Atlas is very hard to get into shape, especially at each end, but once it's there it stays there. You can't really straighten Atlas track fully once it's taken a curve properly.
Atlas is "springiest" Walthers next, Peco next and ME isn't springy at all.
Atlas is very hard to get into shape, especially at each end, but once it's there it stays there. You can't really straighten Atlas track fully once it's taken a curve properly.
Totally disagree. Atlas is soooooo easy to shape. And when you release it, Atlas Code 83 (and Code 100) flextrack springs back to straight.
Rich
Yes. I know opinions differ. Obviously "difficult" and "easy" are subjective opinions.
My description of why I find these four different tracks so different is possibly more useful than my reference to difficult or easy.
You are either mistaken about Atlas flextrack or you are making your assertions without first hand knowledge.
Alton Junction
LastspikemikeSure. I suppose four boxes of Atlas flex track isn't enough experience to support assertions of opinions. How much rail bending does qualify one to opine, one muses quietly to oneself? Atlas is definitely the stiffest and you can easily test that objectively. Atlas is VERY hard to bend into a curve of constant radius all the way to the ends.
I'm with Rich on this one. Maybe you got a 4 boxes of bad Atlas. I've been using Atlas track since the 1980's and have bought both code 100 and code 83 periodically since then right up to a few months ago. Atlas has Allways (without exception) been VERY easy to bend and cannot even remotely be thought of as stiff. it is nice and springy and EASY to bend.
Atlas is also visibly clunkier and that can be objectively measured. I haven't done that but I deduce this from the way the Atlas joiners don't fit other brands and other brands of joiners don't fit Atlas (although the new Walthers joiners are a good tight fit onto Atlas rail, better than Atlas joiners.)
The last couple boxes of Atlas code 83 I bought in recent months has obviously been retooled; and yes, it as easy to bend as ever , but now the rail profile is much finer and the molded tie detail is finer than the older Atlas code 100. It may be "clunky" compared to ME, or Peco or then new Walthers but many after they paint and weather will tell you it's blends it pretty well then.
So far I've used my Atlas joiners on Atlas flex, Peco code 100 turnouts and Shinohara code 100 turnouts. No problems at all.
LastspikemikeAtlas is VERY hard to bend into a curve of constant radius all the way to the ends.
Lastspikemike Atlas will not straighten back out completely
I don't know what you bought, but it is not easy-to-bend and back-to-straight Atlas.
LastspikemikeAtlas is VERY hard to bend into a curve
LastspikemikeSure you can "easily" bend Atlas track
Whatever.
Lastspikemike Not the case (har har) as we began with old traded in Atlas flex track. Plus we bought a number of individual sticks from necessarily randomly opened boxes. All of it is the same.
Not the case (har har) as we began with old traded in Atlas flex track. Plus we bought a number of individual sticks from necessarily randomly opened boxes. All of it is the same.
Was it fiber tie Atlas from way back when dinosaurs roamed the earth?
Sure you can "easily" bend Atlas track, it is after all flex track. But it won't stay bent to the curve you bend it to. It springs back, as you all point out.
Which of course makes it easy to get nice straight sections if it were ever used curved before. In fact that quality made it easy peasy to re-use Atlas flex used on previous layouts. Much of it had been used on curves. When I dismantled the layout, it was easy to bundle it into stacks of straight rack. The springy nature makes easy to work with.
Here I have salvaged my Atlas flex track off my last layout. It straightened back out for bundling nice and easy.
I stored it in bundles in a box until it was time to lay track again:
Here I've reused all of the code 100 Atlas flex in the new staging yard with 11 double ended tracks.
You are all entitled to your opinions of course, as am I.
It's not opinion, its fact regarding Atlas flex easy to bend and unbend. If you wanted to drop by, I'd be happy to demonstrate it.
Atlas is the cheapest Code 83 track currently available. There are good reasons why that is so.
The flex track is totally fine to use and Atlas has even improved the rail profile and molded ties not long ago. I've bought a couple of boxes for my staging yard and highly recommend it based my own experience. I did, however, switch to Peco code 100 turnouts because I wanted the finger flick feature.
These are all Peco turnouts but include a Peco code 83 curved at the bottom and a Shinohara curved #8 in the distance upper left.
Peco code 100 Electrofrog turnout connected to brown tie Atlas code 100 flex (upper right).
Not sure I understand the debate here. These are not criticisms, just facts:
Atlas will not hold a bend on its own. Whatever curve you want to make must be secured in some way immediately or else it wants to always spring back, to at least a wider curve.
But, if you bend it too tightly, it will not bend back to straight. Not sure that matters, but its a fact. I don't know what radius "too tightly" is, but the metal definitely gets a nonstraight permanent bend in it once it gets bent too tightly.
Atlas will not bend at the very ends unless the end is well secured, like soldered to another piece of track first. Great for large sweeping curves with easements, not so great for smaller areas. For smaller areas, like odd lengths in between turnouts, Atlas needs to be bent tightly so it holds its bend, and adjusted until its bent into the right curve.
None of this is a problem. It takes different techniques.
Based upon 20 years and two layouts with nothing but Atlas track.
SeeYou190 Lastspikemike Atlas is VERY hard to bend into a curve Lastspikemike Sure you can "easily" bend Atlas track Whatever. -Kevin
Lastspikemike Atlas is VERY hard to bend into a curve
Lastspikemike Sure you can "easily" bend Atlas track
Doughless Not sure I understand the debate here. These are not criticisms, just facts: Atlas will not hold a bend on its own. Whatever curve you want to make must be secured in some way immediately or else it wants to always spring back, to at least a wider curve.
Aye!
I've never bent Atlas track enough for it to not spring back. The sharpest radius I have curved Atlas flex to is 24"R which is the sharpest curve on my last layout. I don't know how sharp you gotta torture it to reach the "won't spring back" stage.
Atlas will not bend at the very ends unless the end is well secured, like soldered to another piece of track first. Great for large sweeping curves with easements, not so great for smaller areas. For smaller areas, like odd lengths in between turnouts, Atlas needs to be bent tightly so it holds its bend, and adjusted until its bent into the right curve. None of this is a problem. It takes different techniques. Based upon 20 years and two layouts with nothing but Atlas track.
Yes. I've had no problems bending the ends; sometimes I solder the track together on curves and it will bend as if it were one long piece and flow nicely. I can also use spikes if needed where I need to hold a curve at the end. None of this is rocket science.
I have never quite seen a guy like LSM. When you are wrong, you are wrong. What is the problem with admitting it and moving on? I'll bet that he was good at dodgeball in grammar school. Rich
We've been down that road before. It's pretty nutty. I've wondered to myself if LSM is "on the spectrum" or something like that. At some point we have to just leave it be.
Lastspikemike Sure. I suppose four boxes of Atlas flex track isn't enough experience to support assertions of opinions. How much rail bending does qualify one to opine, one muses quietly to oneself? You may not agree with and may even actively dislike my views but they are useful to somebody.
Sure. I suppose four boxes of Atlas flex track isn't enough experience to support assertions of opinions. How much rail bending does qualify one to opine, one muses quietly to oneself?
You may not agree with and may even actively dislike my views but they are useful to somebody.
riogrande5761 Doughless Not sure I understand the debate here. These are not criticisms, just facts: Atlas will not hold a bend on its own. Whatever curve you want to make must be secured in some way immediately or else it wants to always spring back, to at least a wider curve. Aye! But, if you bend it too tightly, it will not bend back to straight. Not sure that matters, but its a fact. I don't know what radius "too tightly" is, but the metal definitely gets a nonstraight permanent bend in it once it gets bent too tightly. I've never bent Atlas track enough for it to not spring back. The sharpest radius I have curved Atlas flex to is 24"R which is the sharpest curve on my last layout. I don't know how sharp you gotta torture it to reach the "won't spring back" stage. Atlas will not bend at the very ends unless the end is well secured, like soldered to another piece of track first. Great for large sweeping curves with easements, not so great for smaller areas. For smaller areas, like odd lengths in between turnouts, Atlas needs to be bent tightly so it holds its bend, and adjusted until its bent into the right curve. None of this is a problem. It takes different techniques. Based upon 20 years and two layouts with nothing but Atlas track. Yes. I've had no problems bending the ends; sometimes I solder the track together on curves and it will bend as if it were one long piece and flow nicely. I can also use spikes if needed where I need to hold a curve at the end. None of this is rocket science. I have never quite seen a guy like LSM. When you are wrong, you are wrong. What is the problem with admitting it and moving on? I'll bet that he was good at dodgeball in grammar school. Rich We've been down that road before. It's pretty nutty. I've wondered to myself if LSM is "on the spectrum" or something like that. At some point we have to just leave it be.
It will spring back to a broad curve, but not back to stright. And I'm talking after its been secured at both ends and bent, not just playing with it out of the box.
But I don't even know why the point was raised. Who cares if it springs back to straight or not?
And if you are trying to form a curve say of a length of 20 inches or less, trying to align the special curve to fit in between two turnouts, the very end of the Atlas flex will not bend easily, making it difficult to form a consistent curve all the way through the 20 inches.
As you said, its not rocket surgery. If Atlas is good for making natural easements, then it is poor at making a curve with a consistent radius completely through the curve. (It must be permanently bent beforehand, IMO)
I build switching layouts, branch line layouts. So I prefer the hold-its-bend qualities of flex track and have nearly no use for easements.
Not sure what you mean about being difficult to fit filler pieces in - I typically start building my layout that way - first I lay some turnouts that are critical to having everything positioned, then I interconnect them.
To fill pieces of flex track in, I take a piece, attach it at one end using some of my 'test fit' rail joiners (ones that have been connected and disconnected many times so they fit much more loosely than fresh ones), for the track, superimposing the free end over the area where it needs to be cut. With rail nippers I cut it off, a fraction long so I can file the cut end smooth without causing a wide gap. Then a little over-bending and it snaps right in to joiners on the newly cut end. No need to pre-form anything. No need to make a piece fo flex track act like a piece of sectional track. Probably took as long to type that as it dows to hold up a piece of flex track and cut it to fit.
And for Atlas flex track to become permanently bent - it has to be something tighter than the 24" radius I used on my last layout. The only time I had flex track that wouldn;t straighten back out was on an HO layout I built as a kid where I had some wildly tight curves on the trolley line - less than 8" radius. ANd that was a piece of old fiber tie Atlas flex. The only reason it wouldn't unbend is I bent it a little too hard and actually kinked the rail. The little 4 wheel Tyco trolley didn;t care though, it would bump a bit going through there but other than over the actual kink it worked great.
--Randy
Modeling the Reading Railroad in the 1950's
Visit my web site at www.readingeastpenn.com for construction updates, DCC Info, and more.
rrinker Not sure what you mean about being difficult to fit filler pieces in - I typically start building my layout that way - first I lay some turnouts that are critical to having everything positioned, then I interconnect them. To fill pieces of flex track in, I take a piece, attach it at one end using some of my 'test fit' rail joiners (ones that have been connected and disconnected many times so they fit much more loosely than fresh ones), for the track, superimposing the free end over the area where it needs to be cut. With rail nippers I cut it off, a fraction long so I can file the cut end smooth without causing a wide gap. Then a little over-bending and it snaps right in to joiners on the newly cut end. No need to pre-form anything. No need to make a piece fo flex track act like a piece of sectional track. Probably took as long to type that as it dows to hold up a piece of flex track and cut it to fit. --Randy
There are times when I needed the track to be curved immediately at the end, like a piece of sectional track, but at a radius that the sectional track wasn't offered in.
To align the route in between two turnouts, sometimes there needs to be several bends in the track at different places. Maybe a bend right at the end, maybe another at 3/4 through,etc. to avoid kinks at the joints with the turnouts.
Nothing is difficult. I was pointing out that I prefer track that holds its shape for those instances, rather than fighting track that wants to spring back to a different shape.
Different track has different properties. Some more useful than others depending upon what is needed.
But none of it is difficult, IMO.
Part of the disconnect between Mike and others may be this, from what I remember, Mike had moderately sharp curves, at least on the previous layout, in the 24" radius range I believe.
Once you bend even Atlas that sharp, it is possible to have it take a bit of a set.
But it still remains easy to bend....
Lastspikemike What my avid readership is misunderstanding, as is very often the case, is what they think I said instead of what I actually said.
What my avid readership is misunderstanding, as is very often the case, is what they think I said instead of what I actually said.
LastspikemikeIn fact I recommend using Atlas 24" radius sectional track if the desired radius gets that tight. Atlas flex track is intended for broad radius curves, it appears to me.
And just speculation, but being a European company, the set bend nature of the flex track, the compact nature of the turnouts, and the sprung points of the turnouts that can be flung nearby suggests to me that Peco has small spaces/small layouts as its design premise.
Atlas has longer turnouts with more gradual diverging track geometry, points designed for electrical switch machines throwing turnouts that are 4 feet away, and flex track more consistent with sweeping curves on long mainlines.
The they make sectional track and short pieces for smaller layouts with their built in plastic switch machines to hold the points.
I think of the two that way. May be wrong, but it makes sense to me.
I don't have enough experience with Walthers, Shinohara, or ME to notice a design premise.
Edit: And to be clear, all flex track is made of steel, so short pieces of track can be difficult to take a set bend no matter what brand it is.
richhotrain Misinformation and contradictory statements do a disservice to unsuspecting readers.
Well stated.
My take on Track: DISCLAIMER - My Opinions Only!
Atlas - Great for straights and perfect on easement curves, lousy for consistent radii curves.
Shinohara - Middle of the pack, tends to work ok for most curves, and straights. Takes some working for both, but very usable.
Peco - No Experience.
ME - Best for constant radii curves, or arrow straight if straight edge/gauge used. Ribbon Rail gauges or FastTracks SweepSticks a must for ease of use. Can be done without these helpful tools, but way easier with them.
New Walthers Flex - No Experience.
Handlaid - Takes the most work, but can be super smooth. Spikes every tie tend to not happen, but if you are 3 feet away, not an issue.
Turnouts:
Atlas - Perform well, but points need sharpened for best perfrformance.
Walther's/Shinohara - Slight filing needed on points and frog, but tend to work well. Better selection than Atlas.
ME - Sharpest points of the ready-made variety, tend to work well with most layouts.
Handlaid - Takes the most work, but when done properly offer flawless performance. Infinite configurations possible.
Ricky W.
HO scale Proto-freelancer.
My Railroad rules:
1: It's my railroad, my rules.
2: It's for having fun and enjoyment.
3: Any objections, consult above rules.
ricktrains4824My take on Track: DISCLAIMER - My Opinions Only!
Rick, all very well said. Thank you.
My Opinions Only:
Trackage:
Atlas Track: I use Atlas flex for straights and larger radius curves. Works well with RibbonRail tools. I use Atlas sectional track for 24 inch radius and below.
Shinohara Flex: I found it takes too much fidgeting to get it straight, but it is workable for curves.
Peco: I use Peco code 70 flex track, and like it, but I do not use much code 70.
Micro Engineering: Similar to how I use Peco, I only use Micro Engineering code 55 HO flex track and code 83 bridge track, but not much of either.
New Walthers Flex: No Experience.
Handlaid: No Worthwhile Experience.
Atlas: Only used in N scale in the 1980s, so no worthwhile experience.
Walthers/Shinohara: Old style non-DCC is my all-time favorite. I have accumulated my lifetime supply, so I am good.
Peco: Used on my N scale Dream House layout and friend's N and HO scale layouts. Top-notch product with very good "track" record.
Micro Engineering: No experience.
Handlaid: No experience.
Lastspikemike ATLANTIC CENTRAL Part of the disconnect between Mike and others may be this, from what I remember, Mike had moderately sharp curves, at least on the previous layout, in the 24" radius range I believe. Once you bend even Atlas that sharp, it is possible to have it take a bit of a set. But it still remains easy to bend.... Sheldon In fact I recommend using Atlas 24" radius sectional track if the desired radius gets that tight. Atlas flex track is intended for broad radius curves, it appears to me. What my avid readership is misunderstanding, as is very often the case, is what they think I said instead of what I actually said. A piece of thin spring steel is easy to bend but impossible to form into a curve (unless you force it beyond its spring failure point). Atlas flex track is hard to bend into the desired curve. Very hard. It remains easy to bend, to no purpose. Anyone who thinks Atlas flex track is easy to bend into the desired curve has insufficient experience with Walthers, Peco and ME flex track, each of which is far easier to bend to the desired curve. As I intimated, ME may well be a bit too easy in that respect.
ATLANTIC CENTRAL Part of the disconnect between Mike and others may be this, from what I remember, Mike had moderately sharp curves, at least on the previous layout, in the 24" radius range I believe. Once you bend even Atlas that sharp, it is possible to have it take a bit of a set. But it still remains easy to bend.... Sheldon
In fact I recommend using Atlas 24" radius sectional track if the desired radius gets that tight. Atlas flex track is intended for broad radius curves, it appears to me.
A piece of thin spring steel is easy to bend but impossible to form into a curve (unless you force it beyond its spring failure point).
Atlas flex track is hard to bend into the desired curve. Very hard. It remains easy to bend, to no purpose. Anyone who thinks Atlas flex track is easy to bend into the desired curve has insufficient experience with Walthers, Peco and ME flex track, each of which is far easier to bend to the desired curve. As I intimated, ME may well be a bit too easy in that respect.
Now finally the real truth comes out, in this statement - It remains easy to bend, to no purpose.
Mike, those other brands do not hold their shape because the metal rail bends and stays bent. Their rail is just as "springy" as Atlas.
Those other brands stay bent because the grip of the tie strip on both rails is tight and equal.
With Atlas flex track, all the gaps in the tie section are on one side. The non gapped side of the tie strip grips that rail tightly. The rail on the gapped side of the tie strip is not gripped tightly and freely allows the track to return to a straight condition.
I dislike all those brands of flex track that stay bent, they are the hardest to lay in a smooth flowing curve, or to lay perfectly straight because they will not lay tight against my aluminum yard stick.
I don't know how you lay track, or what kind of layout and engineering you do in advance of laying track.
But to repeat what I have said about glueing down track with adhesive caulk rather than cheap painters caulk, I know within an 1/8" were the track is going and I don't have to do it over or adjust it more than some small fraction of an inch.
I passed mechanical drawing, geometry, and 1/87 scale civil engineering.
Here is some of my lazer straight and flowing curves with Atlas flex track.
Mike, I hate to tell you this, but what you don't like about Atlas flex track is EXACTLY what most people do like about it.
PS - take note - no cork, no foam......
LastspikemikeI attract a lot of attention which is, frankly, just plain weird.
Mike,
No, it is not weird that you attract a lot of attention. You do it on purpose. The way you structure your responses is done very intentionally to provoke additional responses from others to correct you. Then you get what you want, attention, and you go and seek more.
That is not weird, that is the predictable outcome of your behaviour. Your motivations remain unclear, but it is completely intentional by design.
Since, by your own words (which I am sure you have contradicted elsewhere), you are a beginner, I would suggest that you stop providing answers and start asking questions. That will benefit all, but most effectively, yourself.
You will notice I do not answer questions about prototype railroads, DCC, electronics, track planning, scratchbuilding wooden buildings, etc, etc. Even after building five personal layouts, two club layouts, several layouts with friends, I still do not know everything.
The time has come for you to also recognize, and submit to, your own limitations.
A little less than 2 years ago I started my layout with no prior experience. I got Atlas code 83 because it was cheap (a 1$ got me over a foot.) The track stayed straight after hours of fiddling with curves and even showed me my ruler was crooked I have a straight one now.
The snap back was helpful for me since at the end of the curve it lined itself up. I use nails through the pre-drilled holes to hold down my track. Yes, people hate them, but when you paint the tops brown and you don't have to pry up track with a hammer, they're great.
The switches do have a bit of bending in them, but they're straight on either end and the cheapest ones available. For a first time track layer, my track is incredibly smooth and runs great, I've never had any derailments (besides the occasional elbow to a hopper)
A few times now I've had to move a curve or re-position a switch and the track was really easy to place into the shape I wanted it. All I had to do was move both ends to the right spot and everything worked out.
This is what I've experienced as a first time layout builder. It helps to have an open mind and to try other's methods, even in just a little experiment. Track is just a little bit of metal and plastic
Max Karl, MRL and BNSF
Lastspikemike I respect your views. However, I am pretty sure that "most people" aren't on this forum, not even close. And I mean most model railroading people. I post from my experiences. I make no claim that my preferences are preferred by anyone else. I certainly make no claim that my way is the better way. It is for me. I can say for sure that Atlas flex track is hard to work with. Harder than the other three brands. But clearly that is from my own particular experience with all four brands. Maybe another new participant will encounter the same experience I did. Maybe even most new people getting into the hobby will. Who knows? I will say that there are a number of posters to this forum who hold and express some pretty dogmatic opinions. Even passing them off as fact rather than merely opinions. It can be very off putting to new posters. I know. I am new here, relatively.
I respect your views. However, I am pretty sure that "most people" aren't on this forum, not even close. And I mean most model railroading people.
I post from my experiences. I make no claim that my preferences are preferred by anyone else. I certainly make no claim that my way is the better way. It is for me.
I can say for sure that Atlas flex track is hard to work with. Harder than the other three brands. But clearly that is from my own particular experience with all four brands.
Maybe another new participant will encounter the same experience I did. Maybe even most new people getting into the hobby will. Who knows?
I will say that there are a number of posters to this forum who hold and express some pretty dogmatic opinions. Even passing them off as fact rather than merely opinions. It can be very off putting to new posters.
I know. I am new here, relatively.
Mike, it could be you find it hard to work with because you have some fixed idea about how to lay track that others are not bound to.
You can see my pictures, that was not hard to do at all.
I don't need or want flex track to stay bent before I glue it down, (that is why I use real ahesive) I want it to flex readily as I position it on the already carefully layed out roadbed or guidelines.
Sounds to me you are making this process harder than it needs to be. Or you think you can skip some vital step like actually laying out where the track will go in advance?
But I agree with the others about how you express yourself. You dance around key ideas rather than just saying them.
I gravitate away from people who cannot simply ask the real question or state the real issue.
So the real issue is you expect the track to bend and stay bent. Well there is plenty of that in the track market and I for one will not fight you for it. You are welcome to it. It all costs more and is hard to work with.
I find those products hard to work with, and I have a bit more than 4 boxes of flex track under my belt in the last 50 years.
Not to mention a fair amount of hand layed track back in the day. A skill I mastered at age 16 thanks to my father and several other highly skilled craftsman willing to teach me.
Install your track however it works for you, on whatever works for you, with whatever attachment method that works for you. But my wide association with modelers in this region, and my years behind the counter in the hobby shop, gives me total confidence in my opinion of what most people are using and doing.
If Atlas is good for making natural easements, then it is poor at making a curve with a consistent radius completely through the curve. I haven't found Atlas flex to be poor at making a curve with a consistant radius on my past 4 layouts. Quite the opposite. I draw a centerline and I lay it on the centerline with the tracknail holes dead on it, or on the seam of the cork that follows the centerline. I nail it down that way and eyeball it to be sure it's smooth. Tweak if necessary. Very easy. If Altlas get a bit of a set from bending it sharp, it's plenty flexible enough to bend it straight again and follow a straight centerline.
If Atlas is good for making natural easements, then it is poor at making a curve with a consistent radius completely through the curve.
I haven't found Atlas flex to be poor at making a curve with a consistant radius on my past 4 layouts. Quite the opposite. I draw a centerline and I lay it on the centerline with the tracknail holes dead on it, or on the seam of the cork that follows the centerline. I nail it down that way and eyeball it to be sure it's smooth. Tweak if necessary. Very easy.
If Altlas get a bit of a set from bending it sharp, it's plenty flexible enough to bend it straight again and follow a straight centerline.
I didn't get a Bachelor of Science and Master of Science degree with lousy reading comprehension. Our other readers seem to, by consensu, seem to agree on the basics here. Words mean things.
richhotrain
As my British wife would say, this feels like a wind-up and we are getting the Mickey taking out of us. This ain't a case of tomato / tomahto.
As the Canadians say, take off!
Well folks, we ain't going to break this wild horse. Lets move on.
I think the consensus is that Atlas track is preferred for those who secure the track immediately as they lay it, since that's what its springy nature requires for it to stay bent (or enough track attached to both ends to provide enough weight/friction to hold the whole shmear in place).
Others who like to have some time between laying and securing prefer track that stays bent under it own weight.
Does that answer OPs question?
Or does it just start a debate over what method of laying track is better?