Hey guys so I have spent the last hour researching this and have not found much. I have quite a few N scale code 80 turnouts that I plan to use instead of replacing. Problem is all my flex is code 55. I know they make transition joiners but for $5 for 4 pairs I would rather modify or shim myself. For those who use both codes what works best for you as far as your transitions? Did you shim using styrene or some other method? Thanks!
I have only used different codes of rail in HO scale.
.
For 83 to 70, or 70 to 55, I used a thin strip of 0.012" brass strip inside the rail joiner below the thinner rail and soldered the connection. It works very easy.
Finding suitable brass strip might be the problem.
-Kevin
Living the dream.
In HO I copied the transition rail joiners sold commerically by taking my Demel and cutting out a slot in the top of a standard rail joiner and bending a step into it so I could make rail of different sizes match at the top of the rail.
I just couldn't see paying the price for a pre-made transition joiner for multiple locations where rail transitioned.
Rio Grande. The Action Road - Focus 1977-1983
riogrande5761 In HO I copied the transition rail joiners sold commerically by taking my Demel and cutting out a slot in the top of a standard rail joiner and bending a step into it so I could make rail of different sizes match at the top of the rail. I just couldn't see paying the price for a pre-made transition joiner for multiple locations where rail transitioned.
I agree. I have quite a few spots that need to transition and why pay if i don't have to. I will have to see how hard it would be to modify joiners in N like you did in HO. I like Kevin's idea also and brass would work better than thin styrene to shim that may melt when I solder the rails.
Peco Code 55 is not really Code 55. A lot of dealers go out of their way to describe it as visible Code 55.
It has two flanges, and I think the bottom one measures out to about Code 82. So, the transition is not as severe as it sounds. A small file and a little 600-grit sandpaper and you're there. The joiners (whether Atlas or Peco) might need to be pinched and squeezed a little with small needle-nose pliers, but that's not too big a deal.
I've made dozens of such transitions; no physical or visual issues to worry about.
Good luck.
Robert
LINK to SNSR Blog
I have two Walthers transition tracks from Code 100 to Code 83 in HO scale. They work fine. They are about 5 inches long and straight track. I only had two places where different rails met, though, so the expense was worth it to just continue track laying and not worry about kinks and derailments.
It takes an iron man to play with a toy iron horse.
MisterBeasley I have two Walthers transition tracks from Code 100 to Code 83 in HO scale. They work fine. They are about 5 inches long and straight track. I only had two places where different rails met, though, so the expense was worth it to just continue track laying and not worry about kinks and derailments.
Sure, if money is no object why not.
I had no "worry" and no "kinks and derailments" because I fixed the rail flush/smooth at the top and inside surfaces and soldered the joint so it's fixed in place.
The OP is N-scale so assuming you can get transition track in N-scale, I would assume transition track will be the most expensive vs. transition joiners.
Anyway, I've found I can make my own transition joiners in a minute or so time and save on cost. YMMV naturally. The OP is looking for cheaper options, not more expensive. Its pretty easy to roll your own transistion joiners, especially with a dremel and cut-off disc which can be used to grind out a slot in top-middle part of the joiner allowing a step to be bent into it. ... and Bob's your uncle!
riogrande5761Sure, if money is no object why not.
Nah - if money is no object you'd trash the code 80 turnouts and buy new code 55's.
I have the right to remain silent. By posting here I have given up that right and accept that anything I say can and will be used as evidence to critique me.
I think Atlas now labels its joiners as both Code 83 and Code 100. They do work, but the track needs shimming to get the railheads even.
I was doing the new phase of my layout, when I transitioned from 100 to 83, just about when the Great Track Shortage happened. Fortunately, I had stockpiled track, but I had one heck of a time finding appropriate joiners.
carl425 riogrande5761 Sure, if money is no object why not. Nah - if money is no object you'd trash the code 80 turnouts and buy new code 55's.
riogrande5761 Sure, if money is no object why not.
There are degree's of money no object eh?
Changing codes is definitely an order of a magnitude more expensive, or brands.
MisterBeasley I think Atlas now labels its joiners as both Code 83 and Code 100. They do work, but the track needs shimming to get the railheads even.
At one time Atlas did sell specific code 83 joiners and then discontinued them and just labeled the ordinary joiners as compatible with code 83 and 100 track. When they discontinued the code 83 joiners, which I preferred, I looked for them at train shows and everywhere I could and stockpiled them. I still have some from the stockpile and saved a bunch from the last layout.
I liked the Atlas code 83 joiners because they were low profile and much more inconspicuous. I've heard others have substituted N scale code 80 joiners and it works on HO code 83 track, and maybe one or two other alternatives to the big universal joiners.
Of course, it goes without saying that shimming may be needed. It depends on the track.
For example, Atlas code 100 track has thinner ties and Atlas code 83 has thicker ties (more square when looking at them from the ends). So that pretty much equalizes the surface of the rail when both are on the same surface. The thing that is at different elevations is the bottom of the rail. If you have a transition joiner, which has step bent into it, you put the lower step on the bottom of the code 100 rail is lower than the bottom of the code 83 rail and line up the top of the rail flush, and as necessary, the inside surface as well. By soldering that joint, it will be fixed into place and not shift. It should be a solid even connection that wheels roll over smoothly if done right.
Little, if any, shimming is needed when joining Atlas code 100 to Atlas code 83 because of the tie thicknesses, possibly by design. Other brands or scales, shim as necessary.
Assuming most of this being discussed is for HO since code 83 and 100 are being mentioned. I don't plan to buy transition tracks or joiners and would rather do it myself to save $$. I have 3 kids, 2 still in diapers so I need to save money wherever I can lol. I understand its going to be a little harder to work with being n scale but thats ok with me. I will see how sanding/filing may work and if not then shimming. Unless any other N scaler's have any better ideas as to what has worked good for them.
riogrande5761In HO I copied the transition rail joiners sold commerically by taking my Demel and cutting out a slot in the top of a standard rail joiner and bending a step into it so I could make rail of different sizes match at the top of the rail.
This is exactly the way I did it when in HO. The Dremel cutoff disc is .025" which is exactly what you need to make code 80 match up with code 55. After you cut the slot like Jim describes put the rails in each end and take a pair of needle nose pliers, put one tip under the code 55 rail and the other tip over the code 80. Then twist the pliers until the tops are flush. The resulting joint is not strong enough to hold long term, but it will certainly hold long enough to get it soldered.
And... a better way to do the shim method (IMO) is to cut the web and head from a section of the code 80 rail about 1/2 the length of the rail joiner with your rail nippers. Then file the remaining rail base down to .025" thick. Put a joiner on it and sit the code 55 rail (also in the joiner) on top of what's left of the code 80 base. Center the point where the rail heads come together in the joiner, solder and then as Jim said, Bob's your uncle.
carl425 riogrande5761 In HO I copied the transition rail joiners sold commerically by taking my Demel and cutting out a slot in the top of a standard rail joiner and bending a step into it so I could make rail of different sizes match at the top of the rail. This is exactly the way I did it when in HO. The Dremel cutoff disc is .025" which is exactly what you need to make code 80 match up with code 55. After you cut the slot like Jim describes put the rails in each end and take a pair of needle nose pliers, put one tip under the code 55 rail and the other tip over the code 80. Then twist the pliers until the tops are flush. The resulting joint is not strong enough to hold long term, but it will certainly hold long enough to get it soldered. And... a better way to do the shim method (IMO) is to cut the web and head from a section of the code 80 rail about 1/2 the length of the rail joiner with your rail nippers. Then file the remaining rail base down to .025" thick. Put a joiner on it and sit the code 55 rail (also in the joiner) on top of what's left of the code 80 base. Center the point where the rail heads come together in the joiner, solder and then as Jim said, Bob's your uncle.
riogrande5761 In HO I copied the transition rail joiners sold commerically by taking my Demel and cutting out a slot in the top of a standard rail joiner and bending a step into it so I could make rail of different sizes match at the top of the rail.
Nice, good to know I have a few options. Both of these sound like they would work for me. Thanks! After rereading these a couple times this shim method sounds like it would work nicely. I must admit I'm still a little Confused on the method of replicating the transition joiners.
I bought a set of Atlas transition joiners and notice the looked like ordinary joiners with a slit or gap in the middle, which is there to allow a step up or down to be created this allowing the bigger rail bottom to sit lower than the smaller rail.
Shimming isnt always necessary. What matters most is the tops of the rail match.
As for making my own, I simply used my Dremel to copy what Atlas sold commercially.
riogrande5761 I bought a set of Atlas transition joiners and notice the looked like ordinary joiners with a slit or gap ga the middle, which is there to allow a step up or down to be created this allowing the bigger rail bottom to sit lower than the smaller rail. Shimming isnt always necessary. What matters most is the tops of the rail match. As for making my own, I simply used my Dremel to copy what Atlas sold commercially.
I bought a set of Atlas transition joiners and notice the looked like ordinary joiners with a slit or gap ga the middle, which is there to allow a step up or down to be created this allowing the bigger rail bottom to sit lower than the smaller rail.
I will have to try to find some of those Atlas ones. I have only found one company with transition joiners so far and it was micro engineering.
CTConrail I will have to try to find some of those Atlas ones. I have only found one company with transition joiners so far and it was micro engineering.
Here is what the Atlas HO transition joiners look like. If you can find that in N and make your own, it should save on cost.