Guys I have used atlas track for some time. Having trouble with other brands matching my layout track. Trying to build an extension. I need track that is easy to work with and lays down decently. Need suggestions instead of waisting my short stack of cash my wife lets me spend. ha ha
1-12-2017 added
To clear the confusion. I am talking about both, "Different Manufactures and Code." I've never had to deal with this problem before now. Thanks for the great input it has helped considerably so I can move forward. I've heard different highths and widths from codes & manuf can cause derailments in engines and cars. even the very slightest differential and I absolutely can not handle derailments.
NickyB
Hello all,
Check out this thread http://cs.trains.com/mrr/f/11/t/256138.aspx
Hope this helps.
"Uhh...I didn’t know it was 'impossible' I just made it work...sorry"
nickyb Guys I have used atlas track for some time. Having trouble with other brands matching my layout track. Trying to build an extension. I need track that is easy to work with and lays down decently. Need suggestions instead of waisting my short stack of cash my wife lets me spend. ha ha
What exact problems are you having? I have found that buying flex track in bulk is almost always cheaper than buying sectional track.
My last layout was PECO turnouts and Atlas Flex track. I only used a few short pieces of sectional track when I needed rigidity in a yard ladder. I was able to salvage 100% of the turnouts, and 90% of the rail, with the loss of the ties (Im handlaying the next one, so the ties were not worth my time or effort).
If Atlas track works for you, why not buy more? It is in stock at modeltrainstuff.com in Code 83 and 100. I sanded down the ties on some old Atlas to match micro engineering track or maybe it was to match the Walthers code 83 turnouts. Can't remember stuff anymore, but it wasn't that big a deal. Atlas is cheaper so I buy Atlas now.
Henry
COB Potomac & Northern
Shenandoah Valley
I need more building bigger yard and industrial section. Ran out of track I pulled up.
Thanks Henry Love the Chesapeake
nickyb Guys I have used atlas track for some time. Having trouble with other brands matching my layout track. Trying to build an extension. I need track that is easy to work with and lays down decently.
Guys I have used atlas track for some time. Having trouble with other brands matching my layout track. Trying to build an extension. I need track that is easy to work with and lays down decently.
In addition, the Atlas flex track snaps back to its original straight position when the curves are released whereas Peco flex track wants to take on a snake-like form.
Those are the only two brands of flex track that I have worked with. The Micro Engineering flex track has much thinner ties that don't look right when mixed with Atlas and Peco. The Walthers flex track is way too costly at double the price of Atlas flex track.
So, now that the Atlas flex track shortage is behind us, I have reverted back to the exclusive use of Atlas flex track. It is the least expensive flex track and the easiest brand of flex track to work with.
Rich
Alton Junction
BigDaddy I sanded down the ties on some old Atlas to match micro engineering track or maybe it was to match the Walthers code 83 turnouts.
I add strips of .020" x .100" styrene under every 4th tie of the Walthers 83 turnouts to bring them up the height of Atlas flex track. Its quick and easy with the traditional plastic glue.
Jim
I have used Shinohara code 83 switches, Walthers code 83 switches and Peco switches. I have also used Atlas code 83 flex track, early version and Atlas code 83 flex track new version, along with Micro Engineering code 83 flex and individual rails. None of these are compatable with any of the other ones. Then consider all the different track joiners that you need to get it all connected together.
Like others have said, you will need to get creative to get it all to work together.
Stick with one brand if you can.
SouthPenn I have used Shinohara code 83 switches,
I have used Shinohara code 83 switches,
I thought Shinohara didn't sell code 83 switches, at least under their own name. Don't they have a contract to manufacture code 83 for Walthers and it is sold uner the Walthers name? I have a number of Walthers code 83 switches (#8 curved, #6-3 way, #8 straight, and they are all Walthers branded, but IIRC manufactured by Shinohara.
Walthers code 83 switches and Peco switches. I have also used Atlas code 83 flex track, early version and Atlas code 83 flex track new version, along with Micro Engineering code 83 flex and individual rails. None of these are compatable with any of the other ones. Then consider all the different track joiners that you need to get it all connected together. Like others have said, you will need to get creative to get it all to work together. Stick with one brand if you can.
Technically you could use standard Atlas rail joiners to connect any of the above, but the trick is getting the top and inside surfaces of the rail to line up. Part of that may involve a little shimming - nob big deal and the other part would be use of a transition rail joiner.
The main "trick" to using all these different brands together is to make a transition joiner. Atlas sells them pre-made:
https://www.walthers.com/transition-rail-joiners-code-83-to-code-100
Rio Grande. The Action Road - Focus 1977-1983
riogrande5761 I thought Shinohara didn't sell code 83 switches, at least under their own name. Don't they have a contract to manufacture code 83 for Walthers and it is sold uner the Walthers name?
Ach...
You should be able to make it work...
ROAR
The Route of the Broadway Lion The Largest Subway Layout in North Dakota.
Here there be cats. LIONS with CAMERAS
richhotrain riogrande5761 I thought Shinohara didn't sell code 83 switches, at least under their own name. Don't they have a contract to manufacture code 83 for Walthers and it is sold uner the Walthers name? Correct. The name on the package is Walthers Shinohara. Rich
Correct. The name on the package is Walthers Shinohara.
Shinohara sold their own switches before partnering with Walthers. My layout was started in the late 1980s. I don't know when Walthers got involved. Late 1990s??
SouthPenn Shinohara sold their own switches before partnering with Walthers. My layout was started in the late 1980s. I don't know when Walthers got involved. Late 1990s??
I stand corrected. The Shinoharas were code 100. Code 83 track was not mainstream when I started and was hard to find and expensive. Remember, there was no internet as we know it in 1990.
I think code 83 was starting to get popular in the late-1980's from memory and Atlas began to kick off their code 83 line of flex track and #6 turnouts in the early 1990's I think. I know I began buying it in the mid-1990's mostly buying Atlas code 83 flex and turnouts for the visible parts of my layout between 1995 and 1999. During that time I bought 3 #8 Walthers curved turnouts, a Walthers #6 3-way turnout and a Walthers #6 double slip switch, all of which I saved from that layout when I tore it down and stored carefully back in their original boxes. All of those turnouts are now installed on my current layout.
The Walthers/Shinohara are/were expensive but I bought just enough of them to squeeze more length out of my storage tracks (using the Shinohara code 100 equivelents) and visible yard trackage (Walthers/Shinohara code 83 and a couple of Shinohara code 70 into the intermodal team tracks.
riogrande5761 Shinohara selling code 100 and code 70 turnouts for a long time, probably since the 1970's.
LION bought Shinohara tracks back in the 1960s. Of course him was in Japan at the time. (Thank yoou USN).
I am bit confused by this thread are we talking matching different brands of the same code track or are we talking matching code 100 to code 83 regardless of brand.
SIW is all code 100 Atlas. No compatiability issues Same Brand same code.
Joe Staten Island West
joe323 I am bit confused by this thread are we talking matching different brands of the same code track or are we talking matching code 100 to code 83 regardless of brand. SIW is all code 100 Atlas. No compatiability issues Same Brand same code.
Thats fine, but here is what the OP said in his first post:
Having trouble with other brands matching my layout track.
He iniated the issue of having trouble mixing brands, and asked for suggestions - hense this discussion. Re: mixing brands vs. mixing codes. OP's issues involved are pretty much the same as mixing codes, which you can do, (I mix codes and brands freely, although not every other piece of track, but over sections that make sense).
Sure if you used all the same code and brand, it simplifies things but you don't have to and thats my point. Use transition rail joiners, which you can buy commerically at a higher cost, or use ordinary rail joiners modified to copy their more expensive cousins and it's cheaper and then you are free to use whatever suites.
Joe, let me explain my logic. I'm on a budget right? So Atlas track, being more economical, is what I have mostly used so far. Problem is, based on my track plans and needs, I need other types of track, like code 70 for yards and sidings (= realistic) and special turnouts like broad #8 curved, 3-way, double slip etc. which Atlas doesn't make. To save money further I used code 100 in storage yards were appearance isn't an issues.
Bottom line is, there can be great advantages to having the freedom to mix brands and codes on a single layout and not being limited by only using one brand/code. The solution is fairly simple. No issues, no big deal. Does that make it less confusing?
riogrande5761 joe323 I am bit confused by this thread are we talking matching different brands of the same code track or are we talking matching code 100 to code 83 regardless of brand. SIW is all code 100 Atlas. No compatiability issues Same Brand same code. Thats fine, but here is what the OP said in his first post: Having trouble with other brands matching my layout track. He iniated the issue of having trouble mixing brands, and asked for suggestions - hense this discussion. Re: mixing brands vs. mixing codes. OP's issues involved are pretty much the same as mixing codes, which you can do, (I mix codes and brands freely, although not every other piece of track, but over sections that make sense). Sure if you used all the same code and brand, it simplifies things but you don't have to and thats my point. Use transition rail joiners, which you can buy commerically at a higher cost, or use ordinary rail joiners modified to copy their more expensive cousins and it's cheaper and then you are free to use whatever suites. Joe, let me explain my logic. I'm on a budget right? So Atlas track, being more economical, is what I have mostly used so far. Problem is, based on my track plans and needs, I need other types of track, like code 70 for yards and sidings (= realistic) and special turnouts like broad #8 curved, 3-way, double slip etc. which Atlas doesn't make. To save money further I used code 100 in storage yards were appearance isn't an issues. Bottom line is, there can be great advantages to having the freedom to mix brands and codes on a single layout and not being limited by only using one brand/code. The solution is fairly simple. No issues, no big deal. Does that make it less confusing?
Of course you should have the freedom to mix track if you want. I chose not to do so because track apperance was not a prority, over uniformity.
Our club layout in the mid 60's was all 'Lambert-Shinohara' code 100 track. The turnouts came in either orange or brown cardboard wrappers(and cost something like $2.25/each)!
I was in Japan(courtesy of the US military) in 1971. I visited Shinohara and they would make track for anyone if the order was big enough. Lambert Associates had no exclusive 'deal' for US distribution then.
Modeling BNSF and Milwaukee Road in SW Wisconsin
joe323 Of course you should have the freedom to mix track if you want. I chose not to do so because track apperance was not a prority, over uniformity.
Code 83 rail is all 0.083" high. Or something very close. This is not the problem.
The problem is everyone makes the base of the rail a different width. Getting a good tight fit in the rail joiner is a real pain. The transition track joiners are made to connect code 100 to code 83. Micro Engineering rail joiners are a tight fit on their rail, but almost imposible to get on Shinohara switches. Shinohara joiners are a great fit on their switches, but a really sloppy fit on Micro Engineering rail.
I usually solder all my joints which keeps everything tight.
riogrande5761 The original poster had an issue "trouble mixing brands" thus the discussion and possible solutions and my response. One possible answer, if he was having trouble mixing brands (the issue reported in the first post), there is a fairly simple solution to it = buy and use transition rail joiners or, if possible make some out of standard rail joiners. Using transition rail joiners, the OP can mix brands (and codes) if he found it expedient to do that. If a person didn't need to switch between brands or codes but a couple times, it shouldn't cost much to get a couple packs of the transition joiners. Also note, some shimming might, in some cases be needed, when going from one brand or code to another; I use old business cards to do that. Cheap and cheerful and effective.
The original poster had an issue "trouble mixing brands" thus the discussion and possible solutions and my response. One possible answer, if he was having trouble mixing brands (the issue reported in the first post), there is a fairly simple solution to it = buy and use transition rail joiners or, if possible make some out of standard rail joiners.
Using transition rail joiners, the OP can mix brands (and codes) if he found it expedient to do that. If a person didn't need to switch between brands or codes but a couple times, it shouldn't cost much to get a couple packs of the transition joiners.
Also note, some shimming might, in some cases be needed, when going from one brand or code to another; I use old business cards to do that. Cheap and cheerful and effective.
SouthPenn Code 83 rail is all 0.083" high. Or something very close. This is not the problem. The problem is everyone makes the base of the rail a different width. Getting a good tight fit in the rail joiner is a real pain. The transition track joiners are made to connect code 100 to code 83. Micro Engineering rail joiners are a tight fit on their rail, but almost imposible to get on Shinohara switches. Shinohara joiners are a great fit on their switches, but a really sloppy fit on Micro Engineering rail.
It could be that the ties are slightly higher, but upon visual inspection they seem to be the same height. South Penn says that all Code 83 rail is 0.083" high, and I will take him at his word, so the ties must be different heights.
As far as rail joiners are concerned, Peco rail joiners are too tight when joining Peco and Atlas flex track and Atlas rail joiners are too loose. Transition joiners are available to connect Code 83 and Code 100 track, but I prefer the transition track to transition rail joiners for connecting different rail Codes.
Jim's idea of using business cards as shims is a good one although I prefer styrene sheet strips since they are waterproof whereas business cards are not.
richhotrain Without the use of a caliper, a tool that I do not own, I cannot say for sure what the difference is between the dimensions of Atlas Code 83 flex track and Peco Code 83 flex track. But I can say, from experience and usage, that Atlas Code 83 flex track sits higher than Peco Code 83 flex track. Visually, I cannot detect why that is, even with the use of my Optivisor. It could be that the ties are slightly higher, but upon visual inspection they seem to be the same height. South Penn says that all Code 83 rail is 0.083" high, and I will take him at his word, so the ties must be different heights.
Without the use of a caliper, a tool that I do not own, I cannot say for sure what the difference is between the dimensions of Atlas Code 83 flex track and Peco Code 83 flex track. But I can say, from experience and usage, that Atlas Code 83 flex track sits higher than Peco Code 83 flex track. Visually, I cannot detect why that is, even with the use of my Optivisor.
I can confirm that the Atlas ties are higher than the Peco ties and that the rail heights are identical, whereas the base of the Atlas rail is wider than the base of the Peco rail.
richhotrain I can say, from experience and usage, that Atlas Code 83 flex track sits higher than Peco Code 83 flex track. ... As far as rail joiners are concerned, Peco rail joiners are too tight when joining Peco and Atlas flex track and Atlas rail joiners are too loose. Transition joiners are available to connect Code 83 and Code 100 track, but I prefer the transition track to transition rail joiners for connecting different rail Codes. Jim's idea of using business cards as shims is a good one although I prefer styrene sheet strips since they are waterproof whereas business cards are not. Rich
I can say, from experience and usage, that Atlas Code 83 flex track sits higher than Peco Code 83 flex track. ...
If a rail joiner is too loose, no problem, I just pinch it tighter with a pair of needle nose pliers and it will no longer be loose. Easy fix.
Transistion track, of course, is another solution - but the cost will really add up if you have to make many transitions. Your call. I am a tightwad so I have never bought a transition track. Plus I've got a lot of transition points = much higher cost with transition track.
I've put a bunch of code 70 track in my yard and some ten places where code 70 attaches to code 83, and a two spots where code 83 transitions to code 100 (each end of the staging yard). I may be missing more. And are there code 70 to code 83 transition tracks even made? Anyway, lots of code transition points and not a problem.
Add to that I've got many more places different brands of track meet - way more - insert a Walthers code 83 curved turnout between Atlas code 83 flex track in 3 places, a Walthers #6 double slip switch between Atlas code 83 - you get the idea - same goes in staging where I inserted Peco, and Shinohara turnouts into Atlas code 100 track in at least 7 or 8 places, as needed. Not a problem!
I can eliminate all of that bother by using transition rail joiners and lay track as is appropriate for the location - light rail in sidings and yards, medium rail in the mainline where 132 lb rail was common, and code 100 in staging where appearance is not important and durability and lower cost is more important.
As for shims, I haven't had any problems with business cards, they are thin enough that I can get the job done in most case by layering 1, 2 or 3 as needed. Plastic is an option, again, at a slightly higher cost - old business cards are free - sheet plastic not terribly expensive. I haven't noticed any problem with the business cards swelling or anything. I suppose you could hit them with a little Scotchbard or paint to make them more moisture resistant if your planning on soaking them good.
Re. rail and tie thickness. Both vary with brands and codes. Interestingly my Atlas code 100 has thinner ties and thicker rail, and my Atlas code 83 has thinner rail and thicker ties, so it balances out - I don't really need to shim when those are joined. Just a transition rail joiner because the bottom of the rail is at different heights, so you bend a "step" in the rail joiner so it can shift positions between the bottoms of the rail where they meet - the tops being flush and even, and the inner rail surfaces, if thats necessary.
Bottom line is you can pretty much join any brands or codes, with transition rail joiners and shims (where necessary). Soldering those joints locks them in place (or you could spike them if you don't want to use solder) - I do both.
To clear the confusion. I am talking about both, "Different Manufactures and Code." I've never had to deal with this problem before now. Thanks for the great input it has helped considerably so I can move forward.
nickyb To clear the confusion. I am talking about both, "Different Manufactures and Code." I've never had to deal with this problem before now. Thanks for the great input it has helped considerably so I can move forward.
The standards appluy to the rail sitting on top of the tie. Some brands have metal extending into the tie, some ties are thicker than other ties.
On the realroads tracks are also made to different standards. BNSF cuts in a turn out on their mainline, protects it with a derail, and the Ethanol Plant can cuild whatever they want. Differnt ties, different size rail: no problem, until the inspectopr comes to certify it for use by their locomotives and equipment.
The Halliburton Frac Sand Depot west of town, BNSF ust in the switches and Halliburton used concret ties and heavier rail than even the mane line has. BNSF supplied these with automatic switches and signals controlled from Ft. Worth, but once on the peoperty, the switches are manual. This plant takes in 100+ car unit trains with road poaer on their property.
The Ethaol plant is switched by a local, (Track Warrants) but the turnouts have been retro fitted to have electric controls that will display restricting signals it the turn outs are aligned to the plant.
Does this answer the OPs question? We like them are always putting different brands of track together, comming back years latter and cutting in a switch, even if made by the same manufacturer may be constructed to slightly differnt speciffications.
According to LION you just make things work. It is easier than it looks.