riogrande5761 Take a look at this comparison and see if it changes your opinion on Atlas code 83 flex:
Take a look at this comparison and see if it changes your opinion on Atlas code 83 flex:
I've had no problem connecting Peco code 100 turnouts to Atlas code 100 flex track and wouldn't expect there to be an issue with Peco code 83 turnouts either.
Here is what I used to match up rail of differing heights, transition rail joiners. I suspect that would solve your "matching problems". No filing required. I make my own now out standard rail joiners as it costs less than buying the pre-made ones sold by Atlas.
I've used Atlas code 83 flex on 2 of my previous two layouts but one thing always bothered me about it. The rail profile is rather wide and although it is code 83, it doens't look like it from above.
Clearly Atlas flex has the crudest looking profile and looks the least like real rail. When viewed from above it has a wider cross section and doesn't really look as fine as code 83 should look in comparison to code 100. The only real visual advantage is the ties and tie spikes are finer. On the plus side, Atlas code 83 is very easy to flex and form to nice smooth flowing curves; that comes in handy when forming easements too.
I'm going to try Peco code 83 flex on my next layout and have bought a case of 25 sticks to start with. It is reportedly easier to bend than Walthers Shinohara or MicroEngineering, which can be bloody stiff and difficult to bend into a smooth flowing curve. I've worked with the similar Walthers code 70 flex and it takes a lot of massaging and tweaking the ties to get it to the right shape. I don't care for it much.
Color of ties used to bother me but now I paint my track so that is moot. One paint some uses as a base color is Rustoleum Camouflage brown.
Rio Grande. The Action Road - Focus 1977-1983
For years, I used nothing but Code 83 Atlas flex track and Code 83 Atlas Custom Line turnouts on my layout. Then, during the Great Atlas Flex Track Shortage, I installed some Code 83 Peco flex track on a new section of layout. I hated Peco flex track with a passion. Too hard to work with, too hard to keep straight, and too shiny.
On my new layout, I installed Code 83 Atlas flex track once again, but I switched to Code 83 Peco turnouts because I really like the spring loaded point rails. I experience no problems with the transition points between the Atlas flex track and the Peco turnouts, no derailments, no uncouplings.
My only issue with Peco is that the color of the ties is a deeper brown than that of the Atlas ties. But once the track is ballasted, the color difference in not really noticeable except when I film videos with an on-board Mobius camera. But, then, the Mobius camera shows every little flaw anywhere on the layout. LOL.
Rich
Alton Junction
I haven't used ME HO although I do have ME On30. My club layout is all Peco code 83. If the OP is using Peco points then why wouldn't he use Peco flex? No mixing issues then, even if ME and Peco could be used together without too much of a problem.
Bagal
I use mostly code 83 Atlas flex track and turnouts, but have never had any difficulty using Peco, Micro Engineering, Shinohara, or scratchbuilt turnouts with them.
If one brand has thicker ties than another, you could rub one end of it over some sandpaper to get a better match-up, or simply connect the rails, and allow the one with thinner ties to "float" for a few inches from the joint.
Once you add ballast, the floating ties will not only be hidden by the ballast, but also supported by it.
Wayne
I've always used Atlas track, but for my new layout I am using Peco because of the greater variety of turnouts. So I am using Peco flex to match up. A few years ago I ordered a couple of pieces to see how it was, and it's somewhat in the middle between Atlas and ME. Not as floppy as Atlas, but much easier to form than ME.
Comparable pricewise, if you shop. I found Yankee Dabbler beat my usual go-to, Modeltrainstuff, on Peco track and turnouts.
--Randy
Modeling the Reading Railroad in the 1950's
Visit my web site at www.readingeastpenn.com for construction updates, DCC Info, and more.
Hi Ed,
I got caught out with this one recently. Basically my Shinohara/Walthers Turnouts and my Atlas Code 83 set-track (which both match ok) would not match my PECO SL83 Tracklengths, both Rail-profile sizewise and in appearance, re Tie-spacings.
One big difference is the height from the underside of the Tie to T.O. Rail, PECO being much greater.
Basically what other community members advised is safest to use the same make for your Track and Turnouts. From research, I have noted that ME track is not so easy to 'flex' as PECO is, albeit I cannot speak from experience of ME track. Paul
"It's the South Shore Line, Jim - but not as we know it".
ME is fiddly to shape, in that it holds it's shape as you form a curve, but you have to keep working it to get the radius you want. Atlas has the free running rail and is much faster to work with.
No experience with Peco flex or turnouts to tell you about the height.
Henry
COB Potomac & Northern
Shenandoah Valley
I am in the process of extending my HO layout and would like opinions on the flex track. I originally used Atlas code 83. This track laid down nicely on the cork roadbed and was easy to install, however it did not matchup well with my Peco turnouts. I had to file the rails down were they joined.
I am thinking maybe Peco or Micro Engineering flex track this time. What do you think of these products