Different Manufacturers of Flex Track - what are the differences

[tcf511]

To this point, I've been working on HO modules and using plain old Atlas Flex Track. I was browsing the Walthers online catalog and saw that there are quite a few manufacturers and that the prices vary widely. I'd be using code 100 because I already have a ton of Peco Insulfrog turnouts in code 100. Can anyone tell me why Micro Engineering, PECO and Shinohara cost so much more. Are there performance differences or is it just the esthetics of looking more realistic? Is one brand easier to lay than another? Thanks.

[subman]

If you want to buy your Peco C100 track from Walthers at full retail then its` expensive but you can buy the same track from Cherry Creek Hobbies at a 32% discount and even cheaper if you buy a full box (25 pieces). Don`t compare Walthers prices with the good internet discount houses like MB Klein , Trainworld and others. I use Walthers when others don`t carry what I want and they have it. I can say that their sale item prices are very good though.

[jrbernier]

  Apart from cost, various trackage may have features like the 'spring lock' points you find in your Peco turnouts.  The Atlas trackage is basic good stuff, but does not have  the fine detail, the sprung points, or some of the geometry selection available with other lines.  The Shinohara code 100 has been around since the late 60's.  It is not DCC friendly, and does not have the sprung points as well.  M-E trackage is very detailed, but is limited to #6 turnouts in code 83, 70, & 55.  It also seems to be in 'short supply'.  The Walthers/Shinohara code 83 trackage is a very complete line, but has had availability issues through the years.

  My layout is laid with Atlas trackage, and it is available most of the time.  I really like the new Peco code 83, but the cost/availability is a factor.  I suspect any new layout will use Atlas products with a few Walthers/Shinohara turnouts.

Jim

[loathar]

I don't think ME makes code 100. Walthers track is code 83. Shinohara makes C100 and it looks really good. More prototypical tie spacing and spike heads.
Atlas and Model Power C100 look about the same. Not very realistic looking but but they are bullet proof. The Model Power is stiffer and harder to work with than the Atlas.
I don't know anything about the Peco C100 except that it's pretty expensive.

[tcf511]

Thanks very much for the replies. I really wasn't contemplating paying list at Walthers but the catalog is a great information source. I think I'll either stick with Atlas flex track or try the Peco. As I mentioned, I already have a ton of Peco insulfrog turnouts.

[dknelson]

The Atlas track is very easy to flex, very "springy" -- it does not hold a curve once bent, but always straightens itself

By contrast, Micro Engineering, Shinohara, and Precision Scale Co flex track is rather difficult to bend, particularly to a smooth curve, but once bent it tends to stay put.  I happen to prefer those more rigid makes for my curves, while Atlas is good for the tangents.  Ribbonrail track gauges help force the rail to the right curvature.

Appearance-wise, Atlas track holds the rails to the ties with what look like shoe boxes.  The other makes do a better job of simulating spikes.   The Atlas ties to my eyes also look clunky. 

The reason I use so much Atlas is that I bought up all the track (and cork roadbed) that a friend of mine pulled up when his wife made him move out of state about one month after finishing his layout.  

Dave Nelson

 

[Don Z]

Tim,

Here's a visual reference for you. The track in the foreground is Atlas Code 83, the track in the rear is MicroEngineering Code 83. Notice the difference in the spike detail.

Don Z.

[bobwhitten]

The Shinohara track is considerably stronger than most brands and is very important when forming curves.

My personal opinion is that very few items on a layout are more important than good track. And the Shinohara turnouts are good quality and work very well. My layout is all Shinohara, track and turnouts - with the Shinohara rail joiners.

All rail joints are soldered - with rail joiners. All track is contact cemented to W/S plastic roadbed which allows the track to shrink or expand without pulling apart. Laying track is quite a bit of work and well worth investing a few dollars.

Bob Whitten
Email: [e-mail]

[tcf511]

Thanks very much Bob and Don. I am leaning toward the Woodland Scenics roadbed this time around. In the past I've alway used cork. I think I'll try to view the differences in how they look at an upcoming railroad show.

[fwright]

Tim

I might suggestmatching the characteristics of your roadbed to the characteristics of your track.

As stated earlier, Atlas flex track is very "springy".  It's inexpensive.  It's not the most realistic looking.  It makes for very smooth curve transitions.  But the springiness makes joints on curves and fastening the track near the end of curves critical to ensuring the desired curve is held throughout the piece of track.  If you are using pins, nails, or spikes to hold the track down, a roadbed with a lot of "give" is going to be more difficult to keep the track in place.  Even if you use glued construction, you are faced with holding the track in place while the glue sets.

At the other extreme is ME flex track.  Much more difficult to bend into a consistent curve, especially near the ends of a piece.  There is a thread addressing this very issue in the last few days.  But once bent into a curve, ME will hold the curve until you do something to change it.  So having a roadbed with "give" is not an issue.  What is more of an issue with ME track is consistent vertical support.  The track is more fragile than Atlas - the rail is not as beefy (for better appearance) and it will pop out of the "spikes" more easily.  Even support is more important than for Atlas - especially Atlas code 100 - which can span short gaps or dips in support more easily.

Personally, I don't care for either cork or Woodland Scenics roadbed, and I have expressed my reasons in the past.  If using a commercially prepared roadbed, I would choose Vinylbed, Homabed, or True-Scale milled wood roadbed.

My thoughts, your choices

Fred W

[tcf511]

Thanks for the feedback. I'm not locked into much of anything so far except that I have 20 or so Peco Insulfrog code 100 turnouts that I want to use because I already have them. My questions are for a layout I'm building at what will turn out to be my retirement home in Florida. So far, my HO experience is limited to modules and they don't present the same challenges that a permanent layout with more complex trackage would.

[modelmaker51]

Here's another option:

It's ModelPower code 100 and only cost $1.25 or so a stick. I've got hundreds of feet of it on my layout