# Atlas Code 55 Turnouts & Bachmann Equipment



## Ko Improbable (Mar 15, 2017)

I've had a somewhat interesting experience, and I figured I'd share.

A year ago, I started my first layout, deciding to use Atlas Code 55 track because of the wide variety of segmented track available. I went with #5 turnouts because they were apparently wide enough for everything but maybe the super picky stuff (like, if anyone ever makes a steamer with twelve drivers) and I felt I was pressed for space.

Because I haven't had a lot of money to throw at this (and because a certain online retailer keeps *tempting me*), most of the locomotives I've bought have been Bachmann. Same story goes with rolling stock, but much of that has been because of the scarcity of short ore cars that are modeled empty or have removable loads.
The Bachmann stuff has taller flanges, and the most egregious in this regard has been this NW2 I got months ago. Not only are its flanges tall, but they're apparently thick, too. I've kept using this locomotive because it is *exceptional* at low speed crawl, so it's made for a nice industrial switcher.
When my NW2 is crossing over a #5 turnout, with the points set for the straight direction, it doesn't just clatter and rock when it crosses the frog, it's more like an impact. When going slow, it just rocks as it climbs into the trough, but when going fast, it's more like a crash. But not with the divergent route.
Same with my Bachmann rolling stock, some of which quite visibly rock as they, too, climb across the frog.
Just recently, I finished laying the track for the last module I have benchwork for (previously, the modules had pieces of flex track temporarily attached just so I could run trains). Because there was a surprising shortage of Atlas Code 55 #5 turnouts, I picked up some #7s, as well as the #2.5 wye I'd planned to have, just to get this project done.
The NW2 has zero impact with the #7 turnouts. It has slightly worse than ideal interaction with the wye. Same with the rolling stock.
Now I'm sorely tempted to start over on the plans for the second set of modules I've been planning to add, and replace all of the #5 turnouts with #7s.


----------



## traction fan (Oct 5, 2014)

*Well, that's one possibility*



Ko Improbable said:


> I've had a somewhat interesting experience, and I figured I'd share.
> 
> A year ago, I started my first layout, deciding to use Atlas Code 55 track because of the wide variety of segmented track available. I went with #5 turnouts because they were apparently wide enough for everything but maybe the super picky stuff (like, if anyone ever makes a steamer with twelve drivers) and I felt I was pressed for space.
> 
> ...


Ko Improbable;

The underling problem is really the oversized flanges on your NW-2, but whatever works for you. You have a couple of options available.

1) Turn down the flanges on the NW-2, and replace any car wheels that exhibit the same problem. I think we have addressed this idea before, and if I remember correctly (always doubtful at my age!:laugh you said you did not want to try turning down the flanges. Your call, but If you're willing to try, here's how. It's not difficult to do. You need a locomotive cradle, a small fine-toothed file, an NMRA gage, and a power pack to drive the loco. With the loco upside-down in the cradle, hold one wire from the power pack on one side of the drive wheels. The other wire should be wrapped around the metal part file, up near the handle. By holding the, now-powered, file against the flanges, on the opposite side, you can file them down fairly easily. Use the NMRA gage to check the flange depth periodically.

2) Change turnouts as you suggested, but you might consider going to Micro Engineering's #6 turnouts instead of the Atlas#7s. The advantage besides being a slightly smaller turnout is that Micro Engineering has much smaller spikes on their code55 track & turnouts than Atlas. 
Atlas code 55 N-scale track, flex or sectional or turnouts have oversized spikes that can cause problems with deep flanges hitting the spikes. A car rattles along on the spikes rather than rolling smoothly along the rails. I don't know if you have encountered this problem along with the frog collisions, or only have problems on the frog.

This is another advantage I have in making my own turnouts. I can make everything, including frog (and wheel flange) depth to NMRA specs. Every wheel is supported by the frog's floor and the frogs themselves are built so that no wheels fall into them and clunk. Commercial turnouts, regardless of brand, have much looser tolerances, in order to accommodate different flange depths and widths, even slightly out of gage wheels. The downside is that since everything is loose tolerance, wheels fall into the frogs and clunk, and sometimes derail.

If you want N-scale short ore cars, I have a bunch (about 30 I think) They are nearly all empty, all weathered and have their Rapido couplers modified for close coupling. They do however have semi-deep flanged wheels. I think these cars are Atlas brand. If you're interested look in the "For sale, member-to-member" section, under "N-scale cars for sale. Photos and prices are shown there for many types of cars, including ore cars.

regards;

Traction Fan:smilie_daumenpos:


----------



## Ko Improbable (Mar 15, 2017)

traction fan said:


> Ko Improbable;
> 
> The underling problem is really the oversized flanges on your NW-2, but whatever works for you. You have a couple of options available.
> 
> ...


No, I did turn the wheels down on the NW2. The flange depth is now within NMRA spec, but they're apparently too thick. That I'm not comfortable trying to address, as it will almost certainly also take teeth off of the gears.

If those ore cars are still there when I have money to burn, I might snatch them up, but, at the moment, money is pretty tight again. The stuff I just did was my tax return check.


----------

