Using Atlas code 83 flex with Walthers turnouts

[rxanand]

For one part of my new layout (I'll  post an article about it soon), the design is such that curved turnouts are absolutely necessary for everything to work. The only ones that work properly are in the Walthers code 83 line (I am using number 7). I am using Atlas flex track and turnouts for the rest of the layout. all of the curved turnouts are confined to just one part of the layout.

I did a test fit of Atlas flex with the Walthers turnout and it would appear that there is definitely a level mismatch. Atlas ties are significantly thicker. I can think of several solutions:

1. Shim up the whole turnout with styrene. Should be pretty easy to cut sheet some Styrene for this purpose. These turnouts are pretty big however.
2. Grind down the the ties in the Atlas track thats close to the turnout to bring the Atlas track down to the right level.
3. Gouge out a shallow pit in the roadbed (cork) to allow the Atlas track to descend to the level of the turnout.
   
4. Use some Walthers flex track immediately adjacent to the turnouts to move the Atlas-Walthers transition to some other place where its easier to deal with.

Any recommendations? I am in favor of solutions 1 and 4 but I can be talked out of it :-)

[Don Z]

Shim the turnout with cardstock....like from a cereal box. That should bring the turnout up to the level of the flex track.

Don Z.

[tomikawaTT]

Shim the turnout with cardstock....like from a cereal box. That should bring the turnout up to the level of the flex track.

Don Z.

Going with styrene is a bit of an overkill.  I have used thin cardstock (a big pack of 24 sheets costs about as much as a single sheet of styrene of the same size.)  Where the mismatch is bigger, I use the stock from saltine cracker boxes (free.)

My situation is the reverse of yours - the wood ties under my hand-laid turnouts are a thick shim plus a thin shim taller than the Atlas ties under either code 83 or code 100 flex track.  Both varieties of Atlas have the same vertical height measured from the railhead to the tie bottoms, which is why their code 83 ties are so deep.

Chuck (modeling Central Japan in September, 1964)

[loathar]

I'd use styrene under the turnout. Card stock will get wet and break down when you glue your ballast.

[wjstix]

On my last layout I Walthers turnouts with some sections having Walthers code 83 flextrack, and some having Atlas. To be honest I don't remember noticing a difference in height or doing any shimming, I just used the track 'as is' and it worked fine...guess I was too dumb to know better!!

[loathar]

On my last layout I Walthers turnouts with some sections having Walthers code 83 flextrack, and some having Atlas. To be honest I don't remember noticing a difference in height or doing any shimming, I just used the track 'as is' and it worked fine...guess I was too dumb to know better!!

If I remember right it's only about .010". Pretty EZ to over look.

[jamnest]

On my previous layout I used Walther's Code 83 turnouts with Atlas Code 83 flex track and I didn't notice any difference and trains ran fine.  This was before atlas made #8 turnouts, and the old Walthers turnouts were not DCC friendly.  I have not tried any of the new Walther's DCC friendly turnouts.

JIM

[jbinkley60]

On my last layout I Walthers turnouts with some sections having Walthers code 83 flextrack, and some having Atlas. To be honest I don't remember noticing a difference in height or doing any shimming, I just used the track 'as is' and it worked fine...guess I was too dumb to know better!!

Same here.  I use WS foam and glue, which I think might be a little more forgiving.

 

[rxanand]

I am a little surprised by all those who did not notice any problems with track height. I found the height difference to be very noticeable when I put the track on my kitchen table which is a flat  hard surface. Cork is also pretty hard and does not seem to be much more forgiving. Perhaps this height difference is not a problem with softer material like foam, vinylbed or Homasote.

In my layout, some of the Walthers turnouts are connected by short segments of flex track. In this configuration, it would seem to me that the track would be like a roller coster if I did not fix the height problem.

Also, many thanks to everyone for their suggestions. I will be taking the shim approach. 

 

[Anonymous]

If the switch has code 83 rail, and your flex track is code 83, there should not be a problem.

Should one or the other be code 100, there are transition joiners availible that can change the heights for you without shimming.

[tomikawaTT]

If you lay your track and turnouts on latex caulk a little extra pressure on the deep-tie flex should equalize things.

Chuck (modeling Central Japan in september, 1964)

[Driline]

Shim the turnout with cardstock....like from a cereal box. That should bring the turnout up to the level of the flex track.

Don Z.

I used this method for over 25 turnouts. No problems here. I actually used the cardstock the turnouts came in.

[Jake1210]

If the switch has code 83 rail, and your flex track is code 83, there should not be a problem.

Should one or the other be code 100, there are transition joiners availible that can change the heights for you without shimming.

 

The thing is is that the ties on the Atlas track are taller than the Shinohara. This creates the difference in height.

 

And if it is only 0.010" just take a file to the Atlas rail where needed and file the rail down to the Shinohara's level.

[Blind Bruce]

I sure cannot recommend filing the rail height. In the first place, a rail joiner will bring the tops of the rails together resulting in the .012" gap beneath the turnout. In the second place, filing the rail invites dirty, scratched tops and may even cause derailments if not done exactly right.

BTW, I use Walthers turnouts with Atlas flex and shim with styrene.

[selector]

If the switch has code 83 rail, and your flex track is code 83, there should not be a problem.

Should one or the other be code 100, there are transition joiners availible that can change the heights for you without shimming.

I can only relate my own experience with this matter, and I know that there must be several manufacturers of rails, ties, and the joiners.  However, whatever it was that I used for transition joiners between my Code 100 and the Peco Streamline Code 83 turnouts could best be described in terms that I would feel uncomfortable using on this forum.

If you use transition joiners, you will very likely find that you must do a lot of dressing of the foot of the Code 100 side with a small metal file because the joiners are unlike any Code 100 joiner in fit...they are exceedingly tight.

That's #1.  Two, in the process of actually getting the joint established with all of this activity, it is very likely that your rail heads will not match in height because you will have bent the angled shank between the two ends of the joiner.  So now you will have to slide a thin metal object under the low end and press upwards to re-establish the parity between the two rail tops.  Then, if you forget to support the raised rail, it will eventually depress with use and you will have accomplished squat. 

So, be prepared to learn lots when you do this, and for gosh sakes don't forget to support the higher rail sections, at least at the joint.

[larak]

I use two thicknesses of 1" wide wood verneer. It comes on a roll. Got lots of it from a retired cabinet maker. It works just fine. Easy to cut too. With any shimming remember to leave a gap for the tortoise piano wire if you plan to go that route.

Karl