# Bachman vs Atlas True Track



## Hammerhead53 (Mar 24, 2014)

Cost aside, what is the consensus higher quality track?


----------



## DonR (Oct 18, 2012)

They both have a very nice appearance.

Personally, I prefer track such as Atlas or Peco Flex
that is compatible with any turnouts and don't lock you into
a system. Flex offers the opportunity for you to design
your own layout without the radius limits of
'system' curves.

I think of both Bachmann EZ and the Atlas True as a marketing
gimmick that requires you to continue buying their products similar
to how Polaroid cameras required you to use only Polaroid film.

Don


----------



## Old_Hobo (Feb 20, 2014)

Correct me if I'm wrong but I think Atlas track is nickle-silver, whereas Bachman track is steel......?

Nickle-silver is better.......


----------



## Pkwlsn (Jan 26, 2014)

Old_Hobo said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong but I think Atlas track is nickle-silver, whereas Bachman track is steel......?
> 
> Nickle-silver is better.......


Bachmann EZ track comes in both Nickel and Steel. The Nickel track has gray roadbed while the steel uses black.


----------



## scaleddown (Mar 13, 2014)

Any opinions regarding code 83 vs. code 100? I know 83 looks more authentic, but which is better for your set in regards to long term use, which is easier to work with, and which vendor offers the best product? Not too excited about E-Z track. Any additional thoughts are welcomed.


----------



## HVF City (Jul 14, 2012)

I used the Kato offerings and very happy. May want to put that into the mix of options. They have more offerings in N than HO, but none that limited what I was doing.


----------



## jjb727 (Apr 13, 2012)

To be honest, i prefer EZ-track over true track. Whether I get the steel or nickel silver versions is irrelevant to me, because I do regular maintenance on the tracks...its just work you're gonna have to do eventually (and believe me, even if nickel silver doesn't rust as fast as steel, there is still dust you need to worry about). My only gripe with ez-track is the damn rail joiners...couldn't they have used some other system of joiners? I've had these things bend on me so many times that it gets really annoying.


----------



## wcsjr1 (Dec 10, 2012)

My experience with the EZ track is very limited. I have enough for an eight foot double loop track with a couple of sidings that I use to test or exercise my locomotives. Actually I just set it up the other night. It seems to work okay but I'm not ready to use it for my main layout which is primarily Atlas 100 nickel silver track. 

One issue that I see is the preformed power connectors for the turnouts are wide and flat and the wires are too short to reach across a larger layout. I'm going to have to extend them to reach the turnout switches. It would seem I will need to drill a large hole in the board to fit the end through. I also haven't found a compatible connector that will allow me to connect the two turnouts making a crossover into one switch.

I have not looked closely yet but I should be able to disconnect the wires from the underside of the turnout and connect another wire to it. Then feed that wire through a small hole in the board and splice it back to the Bachmann wire. I'm guessing that will be my work around for all three issues. The Bachman extension wires are expensive so by splicing regular 18 - 22 gauge wire I should save money as well. I'm sure someone out there that uses the EZ track has figured this out already.

I also have some LifeLike PowerLoc track that I picked up with a bunch of other stuff off of craigslist. It unfortunately is steel so I'm not likely to use it for anything but maybe a temporary Christmas layout. I do like the way the track locks securely together. It pretty much forces the sections of track to line up correctly. I have read on this board that folks don't like the turnouts. The PowerLoc has transition pieces that allow connections to other types of track.

For the cost and flexibility I recommend regular track with cork or other road bed if you plan to build a semi permanent layout on a train table. Good luck.


----------



## morrjr (Dec 20, 2012)

I currently use nickel silver EZ Track as I only have a temporary layout on the floor in a spare bedroom. My approximately 6 X 10 double track main with spur layout is DCC, and I use the EZ Track DCC crossovers and turnouts that are controlled through the track directly from my DCC controller. I agree with the comment about the rail joiners - I had a few bend on me and had to order a pack of 36 replacements from ebay. Getting the original joiners off was a real pain (they were crimped on), but the replacements went on easily.


----------



## jjb727 (Apr 13, 2012)

wcsjr1 said:


> My experience with the EZ track is very limited. I have enough for an eight foot double loop track with a couple of sidings that I use to test or exercise my locomotives. Actually I just set it up the other night. It seems to work okay but I'm not ready to use it for my main layout which is primarily Atlas 100 nickel silver track.
> 
> One issue that I see is the preformed power connectors for the turnouts are wide and flat and the wires are too short to reach across a larger layout. I'm going to have to extend them to reach the turnout switches. It would seem I will need to drill a large hole in the board to fit the end through. I also haven't found a compatible connector that will allow me to connect the two turnouts making a crossover into one switch.
> 
> ...


I think Bachmann sells extension cords for that. What I would've done is buy extra power packs so that you dont have to have so many long cables.

As for the turnouts, Im not sure if Power-loc features anything outside of #4 turnouts since I havent seen any bigger ones.


----------



## Hammerhead53 (Mar 24, 2014)

scaleddown said:


> Any opinions regarding code 83 vs. code 100?


 thanks for all the feedback. I've decided to go with Peco.I never saw a response to the above re: 100 vs 83


----------



## DonR (Oct 18, 2012)

It's your choice. Code 83 is considered more in scale than 100,
but code 100 is by far more in use than 83 possibly because it's
been more readily available thru the years. You should keep in
mind that if you decide on one other the other you'd would need
turnouts of the same code. There are code matching track
sections available if that would help at any time.

Another consideration. Because the code 83 rail height is less
than code 100, some older locos and cars deep wheel flanges hit the
ties and would need to be replaced by new wheels with
smaller flanges.

Don


----------



## Old_Hobo (Feb 20, 2014)

Code 83 is nice, looks more finely detailed and gives that "real" look.

Code 100 is pretty standard though, is slightly "taller" than 83, which provides for smooth operation of most locos and rolling stock, as wheel flange depth can vary and interfere with lower (Code 83) rail; also coupler pins may need adjustment on Code 83 so they don't fowl on turn-outs, etc.

**I see that DonR beat me to it while I was typing my response.....:laugh:


----------

