Atlas O Track vs MTH Scaletrax

I've used both. If it's not too late for you to change, I switched to Gargraves track and Ross Custom Switches for the same reason.

More realistic than Atlas O and MTH.

If you're building a layout that large and planning to use either Atlas or Scaletrax, I recommend you purchase all of the necessary track (especially switches) NOW rather than planning to buy them as you need them.  Both Atlas and Scaletrax switches and some curves have been known to go "out of stock" for many months at a time.

ALAN LOCZY,

IMO the realistic look is nice if you only want to run Post War and modern Trains.  On our Iron Horse layout the members voted for GG because of how it looked instead of opting for track, that ran all the different kinds of O Gauge Trains perfectly, including Tin Plate.  I was against that engineering Plan from the beginning.  It's still my Engineering opinion even today, so my new Train Room is a child like wonderland, that is based O Gauge running function, not reality looks.  I use FasTrack with wireless FTCC Switches or old Lionel Conventional with 711/072 switches with LED's.

Trying to keep your cost over head down and have reality looks, is why most men who want reality looks go with Atlas or GG track and Ross Switches.  Today if I was doing that kind layout, I would bite the bullet, save and go with Ross Track & Switches.  Simply great looking reality based engineering that really works well, costly as it is.

The problem with MTH ScaleTrax is the switches are not any kind of reliable, my opinion of Atlas & GG Switches is no better, especially for trouble free Train running.

In a decent environment power loss and corrosion are really not a problem with most all the newer manufacturers Track.  

Good luck with your new layout!

PCRR/Dave

Construction continues on the new PCRR Train Room.

My scaletrax switches are extremely reliable.  It's a great system.

SD40-2 posted:

I've used both. If it's not too late for you to change, I switched to Gargraves track and Ross Custom Switches for the same reason.

More realistic than Atlas O and MTH.

The OP is asking for our opinions on TWO track types - Atlas & MTH.  It's highly likely that he is aware of Gargraves and Ross but he's not asking about them. In fact. he specifically said he was going to use the occasional Ross switch.

GG more realistic?    Come on now, it's not even close with the oversized ties and tall hollow rails...

I recommend that you do a search for Rich Batista's Black Diamond Lines on this forum and his website:  toytrainsontracks   Rich uses MTH Scaletrax and says it works well with scale wheels.  His Black Diamond Lines is one of the best 3 rail scale layouts in the country.  He runs engines and cars with a mix of scale and 3 rail wheels on the layout.  He sells videos of his layout that tell how to lay Scaletrax and give it a realistic look.  The videos are worth the money.

I use Atlas track on my layout for two reasons.  First, it is readily available on the West Coast.  (I have not seen any Scaletrax in any West Coast train store.)  Second, Atlas is very strong and is realistic looking.  The switches, however, don't work well with scale wheels in my experience.  Overall, I am very satisfied with Atlas track.  

I suggest that you check the availability of Scaletrax before you start building.  Atlas track has better availability and more selection in curve sizes, crossovers, switches types and sizes, etc.  Scaletrax has a smaller center rail than Atlas and may look more like real rail.  

NH Joe

Both are good track systems which can produce beautiful results.   Look online and on YouTube for examples.

I have used Atlas-O, and have some Scaletrax not used.

I agree that historically, Atlas-O has had better availability, but that that is not a prediction about future availability.   Check some online vendors for their stock and price just to see.

Scaletrax has thinner better looking rails (and thinner center rail) than Atlas-O.   Atlas-O has accurate tie spacing and size.   To my eye, the better tie spacing of Atlas-O is my preference, but is "in the eye of the beholder".   Atlas-O has improved their rail-joiners with a small indent to increase friction and hold against the rails.  Scaletrax uses small metal springy contacts to carry power between track sections.   Both have flextrack which can be used for curve-fitting and easements.   Atlas-O has a much wider variety of curves and partial curves, and a wider variety of turnouts:   this makes track planning easier with Atlas-O.

-Ken

Wishful thinking:  Perhaps my ideal would combine features of both:  use the rail of Scaletrax with the tie-spacing of Atlas-O with rail-joiners to join sections of track.  With blackened center-rail.  With the wide variety of Atlas-O sections and turnouts.  Most of my actual layouts and layout plans have used Fastrack because of the wide variety of curves, decent selection of turnouts, and the built-in roadbed - which saves me time and hassles - though on my current layout build, I am ballasting the roadbed sides of my Fastrack for better appearance.   More daydreaming:  I love Kato's HO and N Unitrack, with their clever uni-joiners which both keep sections together tightly and make electrical connections reliable, and better-looking integrated roadbed.   If Kato made 3-rail O scale track with a good variety of turnouts and curves, I would switch over to Kato-O in a heartbeat.

If you are wanting to do flex track, DO NOT buy Atlas. The sectional track is great, but I wasted a lot of time and money trying to get the flex track to bend below ~O-100.

I have zero experience with Atlas but scaletrax flexes like a dream. I follow Rich Battista's method. 

I'm with Ken above about combining Atlas ties with Scaletrax rails and I actually created a 'hybrid' section like this some years ago. Can't find the photos but it looked GREAT!

As far as reliability of MTH switches - We had a reasonably large layout using Scaletrax for several years and my (numerous) switches were virtually problem free. These were the old ones too. 

A huge advantage of Scaletrax is the flexibility of the aptly named 'Flex' track - It does and returns to neutral when released like HO flex track. VERY easy to work with to create virtually any curve you will need.

The low profile helps give the illusion of 'massiveness' to our equipment too.

If someone made track with ties like Atlas and rails like Scaletrax, all others would go out of business. 

I have a pretty large layout of all atlas track and mostly atlas switches - over 35 (I think three specialty Ross switches) and I have had very good reliability. For power connection, I drill a small hole thru the rail, insert the power drops and solder the connection, very secure.  The current version of rail joiners have also proven to be reliable.  I really like the look of the tie spacing and the rail height.  GG is ok, but just looks off for me, a bit toyish - really a personal choice. 

When I made my choice a few years ago, I looked at the scale track as I liked the thinner center rail, but both availability, and the fact I couldn't find anyone in the area that used it, I moved forward with Atlas.  In the end I am very happy with the choice.  The fact you can integrate the Ross switches with the atlas track when needed was another bonus.

Will Ebbert posted:

If you are wanting to do flex track, DO NOT buy Atlas. The sectional track is great, but I wasted a lot of time and money trying to get the flex track to bend below ~O-100.

I agree, I seen a friend of mine (in person) try to bend the trackage and it was a nightmare. He got it to the right curve, but you needed alot of force and leverage to bend the suckers

Wow guys! Thank you all for the imput! It may sound like i will have mix of the two in the layout, i will have to see how it turns out. MTH flex sounds like it if i need flex tracks for the curves. 

I have been very pleased with Atlas.

First, though, I suggest you check the availability of the turnouts (switch tracks) you anticipate you will need, as this is critical. No sense in selecting one brand over the other if you cannot buy what you need, and obtain it in a  reasonable amount of (wait) time.

Good Luck!

Alex

In my opinion the flextrack issue is a bit of a red herring.  The atlas does indeed have more sprint to it that the math or defiantly GG, it is not intended to bend to   0-36 section.  I have used it, and in broad curves it is not an issue, the key is to bend and install it at the same time.  Trying to bend to a certain radius in the workshop and then place on the layout thinking it will hold its radius is an issue, in order to ensure you don't kink the track, something you can do with other flex track, the atlas has a lot of flex.

The other key point is that Atlas has significant variation of pre made curves, so using flex track is not really required.

Rich883 posted:

In my opinion the flextrack issue is a bit of a red herring.  The atlas does indeed have more sprint to it that the math or defiantly GG, it is not intended to bend to   0-36 section.  I have used it, and in broad curves it is not an issue, the key is to bend and install it at the same time.  Trying to bend to a certain radius in the workshop and then place on the layout thinking it will hold its radius is an issue, in order to ensure you don't kink the track, something you can do with other flex track, the atlas has a lot of flex.

The other key point is that Atlas has significant variation of pre made curves, so using flex track is not really required.

I agree with the above. Concerning the Atlas so-called "Flex Track", I found a method to ease the pain of bending the Atlas product into curves (nothing close to 072, though). I simply soldered 3 or 4 sections of the Atlas "Flex Track" together, and then 4 or 5 of us guys, simply curved it into position, glued it down onto the vinyl Flexxbed, screwed it down. A day or two later after the glue dried (TightBond Professional Wood Glue), the screws were removed, and then the excess at the ends was cut off with a Dremel cut-off disc.

The issue with the flex track is not so much the bending of it, but the joints kinking. If I could've bought 25' sections of flex track, it would've been doable.

TEXASSP,

   If the ScaleTrax Switches now work correctly with Tin Plate Trains, I am very willing to take another look at them.  I have always liked both RealTrax and ScaleTrax except for the constant problems I had with the Switches, I actually sold all my Switches long ago.  Have you run any Tin Plate thru your switches, does it work on a constant running basis?  I still have a nice loop of Scale and RealTrax that I use without switches, on my inner most loop, the track does run my Tin Plate well, if the switches have been upgraded to handle my Tin Plate Engines and 12 wheel Tenders, I definitely would like to know it.  I would love to add them into my new Train Room layout.   If the switches have been upgraded and now work correctly, in that case my opinion is that Allan L should definitely plan his layout with the ScaleTrax.  He already owns the Track.

PCRR/Dave

"If someone made track with ties like Atlas and rails like Scaletrax, all others would go out of business. "

I'm guessing Lionel Fastrack and MTH Realtrax outsell Atlas by 100 to 1 and Scaletrax by 1000 to 1 .  Some of us are toy train guys, and that's what comes in sets.

I was referring to Atlas, Scaletrax, Ross,  Gargraves. I understand there will always be a market for Fasttrack. 

Tin plate will not run over Atlas switches either. 

"I was referring to Atlas, Scaletrax, Ross,  Gargraves."

Figured as much . 

That said, Gargraves track has been around about a half century longer than Atlas and Scaletrax, and is very favorably priced. Looks pretty darn good to most of us.  Ross, likewise, has been around a very long time compared with Atlas and Scaletrax,  and has a reputation for being bullet-proof, and has the widest array of turnouts and custom sections.  Both companies have a reputation for superior availability to the other products, which is a big plus for many people.  I'm guessing both Gargraves and Ross may well be around when Scaletrax and Atlas O are no longer made, but only time will tell.  Never underestimate reliability, value and long standing reputation as factors.

Ken-Oscale posted:

   More daydreaming:  I love Kato's HO and N Unitrack, with their clever uni-joiners which both keep sections together tightly and make electrical connections reliable, and better-looking integrated roadbed.   If Kato made 3-rail O scale track with a good variety of turnouts and curves, I would switch over to Kato-O in a heartbeat.

I agree with this: the only short coming of Kato's track is that the tie spacing is a bit wide; not really North American in appearance. It does work beautifully; however, this doesn't address the OP's question. Sorry about that. 

Mark in Oregon

I strongly considered Atlas track but did not want to deal with shortages of switches.  I could have used Atlas track and Ross switches but didn't care for the "mixed look".  In the end I used what I thought looked good, was available and reliable.  That choice was Gargraves flex track and Ross switches.

I am currently building my layout with Atlas track.  Both products have been plagued with availability problems.  Here is my take on both.

Atlas Pros:  Realistic tie spacing,  larger variety of curve radii and turnouts, used track often available.

Atlas Cons: Crazy expensive if new (40" Rigid or Flex track now retails for $25, street price is $20), more difficult to bend flextrack, some older turnouts have inadequate power jumpers

Scaletrax Pros:  Lower cost, flextrak is easy to bend, rails are closer to scale, center rail is less visible

Scaletrax Cons: Tie spacing too wide, less variety of curves and turnouts

Realistic appearance was my biggest priority, and I would have been happy with either choice.  The deciding factor was that I was able to buy a large amount of used Atlas track at a steep discount.  

The wider tie spacing is only apparent when you view Scaletrax from over head.  Ballasted and at normal viewing angles, you really can't tell.  See Rich Battista's website for pictures.

The problems with Atlas track are more of a learning curve than a problem.  I was able to bend flextrack to O72.  I cut 3 grooves in a pair of 3 1/2 cutoffs from a 2x4 stud to grab the track with.  This made bending and holding much easier.  I held it in place with the block and drove the track screws.  You have to be careful not to drive the screws too deep or you will pull the tie off the rail.  If a rail joint falls on a curve, I cut the rail ends even, added the tie end strips and drove 2 screws in them.  Then I added the new flex track section but did not bend it until I drove 2 screws in the end ties.  Now I could bend the rail without a kink in the joint.

For older switches, I add a wire feed to each center rail piece (4 of them) in case the jumpers fail.  This is easier to do at the bench now, rather than crawling around on a completed layout to troubleshoot and add feeds. 

I run both 2 rail and 3 rail rolling stock without any problems on O72 and #5 Atlas switches.

Bob

RRDOC posted:

I am currently building my layout with Atlas track.  Both products have been plagued with availability problems.  Here is my take on both.

Atlas Pros:  Realistic tie spacing,  larger variety of curve radii and turnouts, used track often available.

Atlas Cons: Crazy expensive if new (40" Rigid or Flex track now retails for $25, street price is $20), more difficult to bend flextrack, some older turnouts have inadequate power jumpers

Scaletrax Pros:  Lower cost, flextrak is easy to bend, rails are closer to scale, center rail is less visible

Scaletrax Cons: Tie spacing too wide, less variety of curves and turnouts

Realistic appearance was my biggest priority, and I would have been happy with either choice.  The deciding factor was that I was able to buy a large amount of used Atlas track at a steep discount.  

The wider tie spacing is only apparent when you view Scaletrax from over head.  Ballasted and at normal viewing angles, you really can't tell.  See Rich Battista's website for pictures.

The problems with Atlas track are more of a learning curve than a problem.  I was able to bend flextrack to O72.  I cut 3 grooves in a pair of 3 1/2 cutoffs from a 2x4 stud to grab the track with.  This made bending and holding much easier.  I held it in place with the block and drove the track screws.  You have to be careful not to drive the screws too deep or you will pull the tie off the rail.  If a rail joint falls on a curve, I cut the rail ends even, added the tie end strips and drove 2 screws in them.  Then I added the new flex track section but did not bend it until I drove 2 screws in the end ties.  Now I could bend the rail without a kink in the joint.

For older switches, I add a wire feed to each center rail piece (4 of them) in case the jumpers fail.  This is easier to do at the bench now, rather than crawling around on a completed layout to troubleshoot and add feeds. 

I run both 2 rail and 3 rail rolling stock without any problems on O72 and #5 Atlas switches.

Bob

 

Couldn't have said it better myself. I wasn't able to get my flex to O-72 so I just bought rigid track for my one curve that is that tight. 

I use Atlas O and I have never had an issue. I am currently building a new layout, but I have attached some pictures from my old layout I took down. If you ballast the track properly, then the tie height really is irrelevant. I also weathered the rails to look like rust and rail dust.  I do plan on making some sort of removable cover that goes over the Atlas Switch Machines. Maybe hallow out some foam board and make it look like a slight hill that blends in with the ground. Something easy so I can still access the machine. Maybe this will help some folks out.

-Eric

Pine Creek Railroad posted:

TEXASSP,

   If the ScaleTrax Switches now work correctly with Tin Plate Trains, I am very willing to take another look at them.  I have always liked both RealTrax and ScaleTrax except for the constant problems I had with the Switches, I actually sold all my Switches long ago.  Have you run any Tin Plate thru your switches, does it work on a constant running basis?  I still have a nice loop of Scale and RealTrax that I use without switches, on my inner most loop, the track does run my Tin Plate well, if the switches have been upgraded to handle my Tin Plate Engines and 12 wheel Tenders, I definitely would like to know it.  I would love to add them into my new Train Room layout.   If the switches have been upgraded and now work correctly, in that case my opinion is that Allan L should definitely plan his layout with the ScaleTrax.  He already owns the Track.

PCRR/Dave

PCCR/Dave,

Your post just helped me with a decision process, as I have now decided to eliminate a few switches that were giving me problems.  The others are working well, and I really need them because due to the footprint of the benchwork, I need the non-derailing switches to keep the size of the layout within the space.  Another Forum friend had also mentioned that he usually strives to minimize switches on mainlines, so that suggestion also helped with my decision.

I used MTH Scaletrax on my layout since 2003 and the switches have always operated fine. The only issue I had was the plastic toggle switch they give you with the switches. Don't use those as I have had a couple of those stick leaving the switch motor energized. This was early on in building layout. Threw out those and bought mini metal toggles switches for my fascia on the layout. Track is one of the best looking and more scale than any other 3R track . Only thing better is 2 rail.

Here are a couple shots from my layout.

Will echo what CSX Al says about ScaleTrax above

"Track is one of the best looking and more scale than any other 3R track . Only thing better is 2 rail. "

I also like Atlas and will try it on my next layout but the oversized rail (especially the black one!) still bothers me.   Scaletrax really does look better overall but the tie spacing became an issue as I moved more towards a full-scale look.  I may kick myself however as the Atlas rails appear 'too crowded' in most cases...

SCALETRAX thin center rail also lends itself to being camouflaged (more so in areas that have a limited viewing angle)

pennsy484 posted:

SCALETRAX thin center rail also lends itself to being camouflaged (more so in areas that have a limited viewing angle)

Nice Shot! Have seen great results with Atlas. My only exposure to Scale Trax is the switch found in the MTH Union Pacific MOW gondola with swtich load. Its nice but have not seen it available any where down here in Texas.

Also, my apologies for being off topic but please tell me more about the construction of the highway overpass?!

In my opinion, Scaletrax is the best choice for 3-rail track.  Low profile rails, thin center rail and easy to work with flex track.  Older switches like mine have some short problems with some Lionel engines with their wider rollers.  To fix this I bevel the ends of the rollers using a dremel whenever I see a short permanently fixing the problem.  MTH rollers have insulation on the end of the rollers for that reason.  The newer ScaleTrax switches were modified to fix this and work much better.  Besides that, the switches and switch machines have been working flawlessly for 11yrs.  I have had Ross switches in the past and there work great, but have the larger rails which are not compatible with ScaleTrax.  The wider ties spacing is not a problem for me although they could be a little closer.   Another plus for me is that my MTH 2-rail engines with scale wheels work great with ScaleTrax.  If I were to do it all over, I would definitely stay with ScaleTrax.  Here are some photos:

www.toytrainsontracks.com

MichRR714 posted:

I strongly considered Atlas track but did not want to deal with shortages of switches.  I could have used Atlas track and Ross switches but didn't care for the "mixed look".  In the end I used what I thought looked good, was available and reliable.  That choice was Gargraves flex track and Ross switches.

I was told at the hobby shop that I visited yesterday that of the members in a local Club that used these two track systems, 11 members have GG/Ross layouts and 8 members have Atlas layouts that may incorporate some Ross switches (not including other track choices, of course, as we were discussing these two track choices. Additionally, this is certainly not a scientific sampling!).

He also mentioned that I might want to do a cost comparison before I made any decision.

Rich Battista posted:

 

 

Rich

Wow, that 3rd rail in the last photo is almost invisible! 

Seriously though, your ScaleTrax looks great! 

Did you replace one of your loops with 2-rail track for your MTH Protoscale 3/2 engines?  Any more 2-rail plans?

Bob 

Another thing to reiterate about scaletrax is that the tie gap issue really disappears once ballasted and weathered.  Rich really has the process down, and following his advice yields great results.  For me scaletrax flex was easier to work with than flex in HO and N Scale following the staggered connection method Rich shows in his videos.

Bob,

  No 2-rail loop, just trickery.  I "photo-shopped" out the middle rail for fun.  Doesn't it look good though!?   I do plan on having at least one loop, and maybe a whole new layout in 2-rail some day.  if I go soley 2-rail I'll have to sell all my steamers, and some Lionel diesels, but keep all my MTH diesels.

Thanks everyone.

Rich

Nice job! 

You probably made some 2-railer hearts skip a beat or two . . .

Awsome! Thanks everyone for the advice!