My entire layout is HO Atlas 100 code, since the Atlas turnouts are in short supply, I have been thinking of purchasing code 83 turnouts, either Atlas ( if I can locate any) or Peco turnouts. Can I have code 83 turnouts meeting code 100 track, will I be causing any problems doing this, could this cause possible derailments or other issues?
I've got some code 83 switches meeting with code 100 track with no issues. Use Pelle Soeborg's trick to join them together; put the joiner on the code 100 as normal, but use a pair of pliers to squeeze the other end flat. Then place the code 83 rail on top of the flattened part of the joiner and solder in place. Easy and effective.
Stu
Streamlined steam, oh, what a dream!!
Stu and I agree. There are several ways to do this, but the important thing is to make sure the top running surface of the two rail heads meet in such a way that there is not bump over the gap, and also that the inside flange faces of the rail heads are aligned. However you achieve that is subject to imagination, ingenuity, materials, and tools. Just make sure the alignment stays that way...and that's the trick. Make the joint robust so that one or the other rail doesn't shift and negate all that careful work. You can use thin wooden slivers under the shorter rail, or bend joiners, or flatten joiners, or even use the adapter joiners with the kink already built-in.
If you use the transition joiners, beware! They work great, but getting them on takes some work. When I was mating Peco Code 83 turnouts to Atlas Code 100 track, one of the two ends, I forget which now, required some filing of the two flanges comprising the rail foot. Otherwise, I ended up driving the other end into my fingers or bending it so much that I had to discard the joiner; it is designed to flex a bit, and is weaker as a result.
Crandell
This brings up an interesting question. Does anyone know of a track gauge that has code 100 on end and code 83 on the other? Or, would you have to spike the rails so that the different sizes line up and maintain alignment through the soldering process? I'm thinking that tinning the top of the flattened end of the rail joiner after installing on the code 100 rail. Then holding the code 83 on top of the flattened end while soldering.
Marlon
See pictures of the Clinton-Golden Valley RR
Marlon:
Shouldn't the track gauge be the same for code 100 and 83?. The rail size is different but the gauge stays the same.
Joe
Rastafarr Use Pelle Soeborg's trick to join them together...
Mark P.
Website: http://www.thecbandqinwyoming.comVideos: https://www.youtube.com/user/mabrunton
I have used the Walther's Transition track on a couple of places on my layout. It is about 4-5 inches long with one end made from code 100 and the other end code 83 rail and they are soldered together in the middle. Very easy to use but you need the space for it and sometimes I had to cut one end short to fit.
-Bob
Life is what happens while you are making other plans!
I built Phase 1 of my layout with Code 100 track, but I switched (pun inteded) to Code 83 for Phase 2. There are only two points (pun intended) where I have to transition between the two. I used Walthers transition tracks in both places, because I was able to do it on a straight section and it was just easier that way. Doing a butt-end transition wouldn't be that difficult. It's just a matter of shimming to get the height right.
But, if your suggestion is to mix Code 83 turnouts with Code 100 track pretty much everywhere, I wouldn't recommend that. Even when you're only using one Code, every track joint is a potential problem. It will be much harder to make sure it's done right if you have lots and lots of 100<-> 83 transitions. If you're going to use Code 83 turnouts, you'd might as well just use Code 83 track as well.
It takes an iron man to play with a toy iron horse.
I'm in the same situation, my layout was built using Atlas Code 100 track. Last spring I built a trestle and used Micro Engineering's Bridge Flex Track which of course only comes in Code 83 and 70. I also bought the their transition joiners that go from code 100 to Code 83. The problem with them was, they are insulated joiners and I wanted the track power to run through the bridge and connect both ends of the bridge together, electrically. I also wanted to be able to slide the joiners off of the bridge track onto the the adjoining abutment rails, so I could lift the bridge out while fitting it and adding the hard shell scenery base and finishing the scenery. So, having been a tool and die maker, I decided to file the code 100 rail down to meet the code 83 would be the best way to provide the transition needed. Removing .013 proved to be pretty easy to do and I'm very happy how it all turned out.
NP 2626 "Northern Pacific, really terrific"
Northern Pacific Railway Historical Association: http://www.nprha.org/
Brunton Rastafarr Use Pelle Soeborg's trick to join them together...Pelle Soeborg's trick? Oh, please. I've been using that "trick" for over 20 years.
Got that right. That method is as old as joiners. The only real drawback is the resulting joint is somewhat weak compared to a standard one where the joiner resists stresses that can otherwise cause the solder to fail. It doesn't necessarily happen often, but still does.
I like the Atlas code 83/100 transition joiners. They're useful for other codes, too, inlcuding 83 to 70 or 70 to 55, even 83 to 55. The Atlas joiner uses a good idea; it's mostly a standard joiner shape, with a notch in the middle so it can be bent to allow the rail heads on both sides to line up. Using a motor tool and cutoff wheel, or only a file, you can create your own transition joiners out of pretty much any joiners, and bend them just the same as the Atlas product. Once soldered in place they're very strong and ensure reliable alignment across the joint.
Rob Spangler
JoeinPA Marlon: Shouldn't the track gauge be the same for code 100 and 83?. The rail size is different but the gauge stays the same. Joe
I wasn't sure if the cross section of code 100 and code 83 were the same. Otherwise, they wouldn't have code 100 gauges with a different part number as the code 83 one.
I have to agree with MrBeasly, I wouldn't recommend having all my turnouts code 83 and all my track code 100. That is way too many transitions on a layout and as he mentioned, every joint on a turnout must be very good. The Altas transition track section I mentioned earlier is great for straight applications but you are just introducing many more track joints. Just my suggestion.
Medina1128 JoeinPA Marlon: Shouldn't the track gauge be the same for code 100 and 83?. The rail size is different but the gauge stays the same. Joe I wasn't sure if the cross section of code 100 and code 83 were the same. Otherwise, they wouldn't have code 100 gauges with a different part number as the code 83 one.
maxman Medina1128 JoeinPA Marlon: Shouldn't the track gauge be the same for code 100 and 83?. The rail size is different but the gauge stays the same. Joe I wasn't sure if the cross section of code 100 and code 83 were the same. Otherwise, they wouldn't have code 100 gauges with a different part number as the code 83 one. I'm not sure what "gauges" you are speaking of. I have several locations where I have transitioned from Atlas code 83 to Atlas code 100 and I have not had a problem. The track gage is the distance from inside of rail to inside of rail and is the same whether the track is code 83 or code 100 (scale 4 foot, 8-1/2 inches). Atlas, in their infinite wisdom, made their code 83 track with thicker ties than what is found on the code 100 (unless something has recently changed). So the top surface of the rails provides a smooth joint. I have made my own transition tracks by using sections of snap track. I cut a piece from the code 83, a piece from the code 100, and join them with the transition joiners. I solder the pieces together. The Walthers transition piece (I don't believe that Atlas makes them) does not work as well because the tie thickness is made to match with the Walthers/Shinohara track components, which have thinner ties than what Atlas uses.
Yes, I realize what track gauge is. I guess, what I'm referring to are two separate definitions of gauges:
I only point this out as a reference in using a tool to maintain track alignment while soldering the rails to the rail joiner, when using one that is flattened at one end, while setting the rail on top of that end.
So, in order to maintain track gauge with a thicker railhead, the centerline of the rail would have to be moved slightly outward. I only point this out, because for the majority of modelers using wider tread wheelsets, it's not an issue. But, it could become one with using proto wheelsets with narrower treads.
And, in actuality, the Atlas code 83 track has thinner ties, to maintain a more prototypical appearance than code 100. I DID find out that Atlas carries a code 100 track with brown ties, but it aligns with code 100 with black ties. If Atlas made thicker ties for their code 83 track, there would be no need for transition rail joiners.
Medina1128 And, in actuality, the Atlas code 83 track has thinner ties, to maintain a more prototypical appearance than code 100. I DID find out that Atlas carries a code 100 track with brown ties, but it aligns with code 100 with black ties. If Atlas made thicker ties for their code 83 track, there would be no need for transition rail joiners.
Marlon, I'm not sure how much you've used of the different codes of Atlas track or code 83 from other brands. The differences aren't quite what you seem to be thinking.
I use Atlas code 100 in my staging yard, and have a transition to Atlas 83 on one end, and Micro Engineering or Shinohara 83 on the other. Atlas code 83 and code 100 track have ties of different thickness so the rails end up at the same height. Use Atlas code 100 against some other brand of 83, and you have to shim the ties at the transition as the whole difference will be in the rail height instead.
Put Atlas 83 and another brand side by side and the difference is quite apparent. No other brand is built around concerns of the two rail sizes working together, so nobody else uses extra thick ties on their code 83. You do have to be careful transitioning between Atlas 83 and other brands due to this, as well as differences in the rail profile, so I limit where I have to join them. Looking from the top, Atlas 83 uses narrower ties than their code 100, so from that persepctive the 83 looks more to scale. From a realism standpoint, the extra thickness isn't a problem, as the bottom part of the tie strip gets buried anyway.
The transition joiners are strictly to accommodate differences in the rail. Put a length of Atlas 100 against Atlas 83, and you automatically get the rail heads the same height thanks to the ties. The problem becomes one of making a secure joint, since the base of the code 100 rail will be .017" below the base of the code 83. The transition joiner has a slot in the middle which allows the joiner to be bent down by that .017" so it will slide over both rail bases.
Medina1128 Yes, I realize what track gauge is. I guess, what I'm referring to are two separate definitions of gauges: The distance between rails is referred to as its gauge. The tool used to set the distance between the rail is also referred to as a gauge. A quick check with a set of dial calipers showed that: The thickness of the railhead on Atlas code 83 is .039", while the thickness of the railhead of Atlas code 100 is .044". The width of the Micromark code 83 track gauge channels (Item # 83699) is also .039". Since I don't have access to a code 100 track gauge, I can't verify the channel width. I only point this out as a reference in using a tool to maintain track alignment while soldering the rails to the rail joiner, when using one that is flattened at one end, while setting the rail on top of that end. So, in order to maintain track gauge with a thicker railhead, the centerline of the rail would have to be moved slightly outward. I only point this out, because for the majority of modelers using wider tread wheelsets, it's not an issue. But, it could become one with using proto wheelsets with narrower treads. And, in actuality, the Atlas code 83 track has thinner ties, to maintain a more prototypical appearance than code 100. I DID find out that Atlas carries a code 100 track with brown ties, but it aligns with code 100 with black ties. If Atlas made thicker ties for their code 83 track, there would be no need for transition rail joiners.
I did not know that you were talking about the MicroMark gage tools.
However, I think I have to disagree with some of your other comments. While it is true that the width of the railheads are different, that has nothing to do with the rail gage in the traditional sense of the distance between the rails. I would suspect that the MicroMark grooves are wider for code 100 than for code 83 to accommodate the different rail widths. However, if you check the distance between the parallel grooves on each tool that distance should be the same to maintain the track gage. There is no moving out of the railheads slightly to maintain the track gage. Further, if this were true, then there would have to be two different NMRA track gages, would there not?
Regarding the flattened rail joiner method, I don't use that. I prefer the transition rail joiners. They work very well for me and I don't need any special tool to keep things in lateral alignment.
My comments about the difference in tie thickness are based on my experience with the Atlas products, specifically the snap track pieces that I cut up to make the transition sections. For those pieces, the code 83 ties are thicker and the rail heights compared to code 100 match. And just to confirm the numbers, I just went to the basement and did some quick measurements of pieces of Atlas code 100 and 83 flex track that I have.
For code 100, the overall height of the track from bottom of tie to top of rail was 0.168 inch. The tie thickness was 0.071. For the code 83, the overall height was 0.170 and the tie thickness was 0.087. I believe that those numbers confirm my statement.
Maybe Atlas has changed the construction, or maybe the ties just look thinner to you, or maybe what you are looking at is not really Atlas track. Walthers code 83 components are thinner in vertical dimension, so I have to shim them up to get them to match Atlas code 83.
I see now that you were referring to three point track gauges not the NMRA track gauge. Yes you would need two different gauges since the gauges fit on the rail head rather than between as in the NMRA gauge. I wasn't able to find a code 100 three point gauge in the MicroMark catalog. Maybe they think that no one hand lays code 100 any more.
Edit: Spoke too soon. Micro Engineering has a code 100 gauge and good old Walthers lists it.
Maxman; You are correct, Atlas doesn't make the transition track section as I had mentioned, it is Walthers. But they do work very well.