Hi everyone:
I need to order a bucket full of rail joiners so before I take the plunge I thought I would ask what your preferred brand is and why.
I am using Atlas Code 100 NS flex track and Peco Code 100 turnouts. The only exceptions will be Micro Scale Code 83 bridge track and a Peco double slip which is Code 75. Peco doesn't make a Code 100 double slip Electrofrog turnout and I need the Electrofrog for my critters.
Thanks
Dave
I'm just a dude with a bad back having a lot of fun with model trains, and finally building a layout!
I use Atlas metal joiners for my code 100 Shinohara track because they are available. But the new Atlas insulated joiners don't work with Shinohara code 100 (they do work with Atlas code 100). It appears that the Shinohara base is just a hair too wide for them. Old Atlas insulated joiners do work. Don't know if Peco is a problem.
Good luck
Paul
Hi hon30critter
Use Atlas or Peco for the code 100
I have both brands of code 100 on my layout and have had no problems mixing other than the need for the odd corn flakes box shim as track progresses
I would sugest the Peco conversion plates for the other track joints
These are the only conversion plates I know of
But why have mixed code track it would have made more sense to design a layout that did not need it.
Less problems that way.
regards John
I picked up as many Atlas code 83 packages as I could after Atlas discontinued them and am using them on my current layout where I have code 83 track. I use Atlas code 100 rail joiners on all code 100 track.
Rio Grande. The Action Road - Focus 1977-1983
I used code 83 ME metal joiners but found they were too tight and required opening using thumb tacks; Atlas was much easier. While they are larger, they easily slide on the code 83 ME track.
On the upper level of my layout (still under construction) I used Micro Engineering code55 and code70 rail joiners on my Atlas code83 flextrack, and also for the ME code 83 rail which is used with the Central Valley tie system. I'm also using a mix of Atlas, Shinohara, and Peco turnouts. The undersize joiners were, at the time, the only ones available locally. I used a cut-off disc to narrow the base of the rail and then to also to remove some material from the bottom. This allows the joiners to slip onto the bigger rail, with the added benefit that no modifications are required to the ties to account for the thickness of the joiners. I solder all joints, then use the cut-off disc to create electrical gaps where needed. These are then filled with Plastruct ABS plastic sheet, ca'd in place, then carved to match the profile of the rail. The mainline is all in place and in-service, although there are no industrial sidings yet.
Wayne
I'm using Atlas N-scale code 80 joiners with HO code 83 Walthers turnouts and Atlas flex. I also tried the ME code 83 and got frustrated with them. They look great, but require too much work to open up.
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.
Hi John:
The reason I am using Micro Engineering Code 83 bridge track is simple. I bought it without recognizing that it wasn't Code 100. Does anyone make Code 100 bridge track?
I realize that the Peco Code 75 Electrofrog double slip is not ideal when using Code 100 flex track. I bought a Peco Code 100 Insulfrog double slip but the 2 axle switching locomotives that do not have Keep Alives in them stall almost every time. I'm hoping they will do better on the Electrofrog.
Hi Wayne:
You beat me to my next thread. I was going to ask about methods of filling rail gaps.
Is there a reason for using ABS instead of styrene to fill the rail gaps? I am in the process of making all of my Electrofrog turnouts DCC friendly so I need to fill a bunch of gaps. I started with epoxy but that is a real pain to file down to the track profile so I'm looking for better methods.
I use the Atlas Code 83/100 rail joiners, they work for both types of track. For my Code 70 I use Shinohara code 70 rail joiners, though I will probably attempt to use the code 83/100 ones just to avoid purchasing different sizes of rail joiners. For transitions between code 100, 83 and 70 I use the Atlas Transition rail joiner. It is advertised as being for Code 100->83 but I also use it for 83->70 (.004 of an inch difference in rail height from its intended use, so i bend the rail joiner a little more and solder it to make it work).
hon30critterPeco doesn't make a Code 100 double slip Electrofrog turnout and I need the Electrofrog for my critters.
http://www.peco-uk.com/product.asp?strParents=3309,3322&CAT_ID=3327&P_ID=17440
Edit: or maybe not, why would they throw that in there without saying its code 75 should have different stock number
BMMECNYC:
I agree, the Peco numbering system is in some ways a bit confusing. However, the fact that they don't put the track code in their descriptions is REALLY annoying. I'm going to send them an e-mail.
On the plus side, I just discovered that they offer a short transition track to go between the Code 100 and the Code 75 rails so that should make the track laying a little less difficult.
hon30critter ...Is there a reason for using ABS instead of styrene to fill the rail gaps?....
...Is there a reason for using ABS instead of styrene to fill the rail gaps?....
Two reasons, actually: the ABS which I have is .020" thick, the same thickness as some cut-off discs which I had. However once those were used-up, I couldn't find similarly thin ones, so nowadays the gaps are cut wider and I use two (or three pieces of ABS laminated together using MEK. The other reason for ABS over styrene is the dark grey colour of the ABS, which makes the gaps pretty-well disappear:
Thanks Wayne.
I was wondering if there was some underlying scientific reason for the ABS but now I know there isn't. Your reasons do make sense however. I'll poke around in my plastic spare parts bin. I think I might have some grey styrene that might do the trick.
Merry Christmas!
I use MicroEngineering code 83 nickle silver track and both MicroEngineering metal and insulated joiners. The metal joiners are a bit tricky to install. I made a little "awl" of a short piece of code 83 track filed down to a taper to allow it to slip in the joiner and a small dowel handle. I hold the joiner with a needle nose pliers while forcing the awl into the joiner. This opens the joiner to where it can be slipped on the track
On the question about styrene and ABS as potential filer for open joints, remember that ABS stands for acrylonitrile butadiene styrenee copolymer. Both materials contain styrene. Styrene used in modeling is actually a polymer as pure styrene is a liquid. Polymerization builds a large molecule which is a solid. ABS is made by blending liquid acrylonitrile with chopped up butadiene rubber and styrene liquid to form the copolymer. ABS comes out of the polymerization process as a kind of molten blob which is squeezed into a sheet and then diced up into small cubes. The cubes are shipped to comanies that make pipe, recreational extrusions and sheet products. Both styrene polymer and ABS can be extruded into many product shapes. ABS has some strength properties that are superior to plain polystyrene. For modeling, the properties probably don't make much difference. Probably way more information than anyone would care to know about from someone who spent part of his life in the plastics business.
Jim
Jim:
I love to learn about how things are made. Your post was very interesting.
Just coincidentally, my dad was in plastics research for most of his career, and his name was Jim too! Among other things he participated in the development of plastic garbage cans. My brother still has a couple of the original models which he uses in his shop and they are still going strong 50 plus years later!
BMMECNYC why would they throw that in there without saying its code 75
Hi Andrew:
I did send Peco an e-mail regarding the lack of code specs in their website descriptions, and I actually got a response. Peco informs me that their website is going to be updated soon, and one of the changes will be to add code numbers to the descriptions.
Somehow I doubt that I can take all the credit for the change.
kasskaboose I used code 83 ME metal joiners but found they were too tight and required opening using thumb tacks; Atlas was much easier. While they are larger, they easily slide on the code 83 ME track.
I use the ME code 83 joiners, too. As far as their tightness, I made a tool to spread them slightly.
I file one end of a piece of rail into a point.
I slide the joiner onto the end, the push it into a block of wood with grooves cut into it.
Marlon
See pictures of the Clinton-Golden Valley RR
Thanks for all your answers.
I have decided to go with Peco code 100 joiners for no reason other than I found sufficient quantities from one source at a decent price here in Ontario.