richhotrain Misinformation and contradictory statements do a disservice to unsuspecting readers.
Well stated.
-Kevin
Living the dream.
LastspikemikeIn fact I recommend using Atlas 24" radius sectional track if the desired radius gets that tight. Atlas flex track is intended for broad radius curves, it appears to me.
And just speculation, but being a European company, the set bend nature of the flex track, the compact nature of the turnouts, and the sprung points of the turnouts that can be flung nearby suggests to me that Peco has small spaces/small layouts as its design premise.
Atlas has longer turnouts with more gradual diverging track geometry, points designed for electrical switch machines throwing turnouts that are 4 feet away, and flex track more consistent with sweeping curves on long mainlines.
The they make sectional track and short pieces for smaller layouts with their built in plastic switch machines to hold the points.
I think of the two that way. May be wrong, but it makes sense to me.
I don't have enough experience with Walthers, Shinohara, or ME to notice a design premise.
Edit: And to be clear, all flex track is made of steel, so short pieces of track can be difficult to take a set bend no matter what brand it is.
- Douglas
Lastspikemike What my avid readership is misunderstanding, as is very often the case, is what they think I said instead of what I actually said.
What my avid readership is misunderstanding, as is very often the case, is what they think I said instead of what I actually said.
Alton Junction
Part of the disconnect between Mike and others may be this, from what I remember, Mike had moderately sharp curves, at least on the previous layout, in the 24" radius range I believe.
Once you bend even Atlas that sharp, it is possible to have it take a bit of a set.
But it still remains easy to bend....
Sheldon
rrinker Not sure what you mean about being difficult to fit filler pieces in - I typically start building my layout that way - first I lay some turnouts that are critical to having everything positioned, then I interconnect them. To fill pieces of flex track in, I take a piece, attach it at one end using some of my 'test fit' rail joiners (ones that have been connected and disconnected many times so they fit much more loosely than fresh ones), for the track, superimposing the free end over the area where it needs to be cut. With rail nippers I cut it off, a fraction long so I can file the cut end smooth without causing a wide gap. Then a little over-bending and it snaps right in to joiners on the newly cut end. No need to pre-form anything. No need to make a piece fo flex track act like a piece of sectional track. Probably took as long to type that as it dows to hold up a piece of flex track and cut it to fit. --Randy
Not sure what you mean about being difficult to fit filler pieces in - I typically start building my layout that way - first I lay some turnouts that are critical to having everything positioned, then I interconnect them.
To fill pieces of flex track in, I take a piece, attach it at one end using some of my 'test fit' rail joiners (ones that have been connected and disconnected many times so they fit much more loosely than fresh ones), for the track, superimposing the free end over the area where it needs to be cut. With rail nippers I cut it off, a fraction long so I can file the cut end smooth without causing a wide gap. Then a little over-bending and it snaps right in to joiners on the newly cut end. No need to pre-form anything. No need to make a piece fo flex track act like a piece of sectional track. Probably took as long to type that as it dows to hold up a piece of flex track and cut it to fit.
--Randy
There are times when I needed the track to be curved immediately at the end, like a piece of sectional track, but at a radius that the sectional track wasn't offered in.
To align the route in between two turnouts, sometimes there needs to be several bends in the track at different places. Maybe a bend right at the end, maybe another at 3/4 through,etc. to avoid kinks at the joints with the turnouts.
Nothing is difficult. I was pointing out that I prefer track that holds its shape for those instances, rather than fighting track that wants to spring back to a different shape.
Different track has different properties. Some more useful than others depending upon what is needed.
But none of it is difficult, IMO.
And for Atlas flex track to become permanently bent - it has to be something tighter than the 24" radius I used on my last layout. The only time I had flex track that wouldn;t straighten back out was on an HO layout I built as a kid where I had some wildly tight curves on the trolley line - less than 8" radius. ANd that was a piece of old fiber tie Atlas flex. The only reason it wouldn't unbend is I bent it a little too hard and actually kinked the rail. The little 4 wheel Tyco trolley didn;t care though, it would bump a bit going through there but other than over the actual kink it worked great.
Modeling the Reading Railroad in the 1950's
Visit my web site at www.readingeastpenn.com for construction updates, DCC Info, and more.
riogrande5761 Doughless Not sure I understand the debate here. These are not criticisms, just facts: Atlas will not hold a bend on its own. Whatever curve you want to make must be secured in some way immediately or else it wants to always spring back, to at least a wider curve. Aye! But, if you bend it too tightly, it will not bend back to straight. Not sure that matters, but its a fact. I don't know what radius "too tightly" is, but the metal definitely gets a nonstraight permanent bend in it once it gets bent too tightly. I've never bent Atlas track enough for it to not spring back. The sharpest radius I have curved Atlas flex to is 24"R which is the sharpest curve on my last layout. I don't know how sharp you gotta torture it to reach the "won't spring back" stage. Atlas will not bend at the very ends unless the end is well secured, like soldered to another piece of track first. Great for large sweeping curves with easements, not so great for smaller areas. For smaller areas, like odd lengths in between turnouts, Atlas needs to be bent tightly so it holds its bend, and adjusted until its bent into the right curve. None of this is a problem. It takes different techniques. Based upon 20 years and two layouts with nothing but Atlas track. Yes. I've had no problems bending the ends; sometimes I solder the track together on curves and it will bend as if it were one long piece and flow nicely. I can also use spikes if needed where I need to hold a curve at the end. None of this is rocket science. I have never quite seen a guy like LSM. When you are wrong, you are wrong. What is the problem with admitting it and moving on? I'll bet that he was good at dodgeball in grammar school. Rich We've been down that road before. It's pretty nutty. I've wondered to myself if LSM is "on the spectrum" or something like that. At some point we have to just leave it be.
Doughless Not sure I understand the debate here. These are not criticisms, just facts: Atlas will not hold a bend on its own. Whatever curve you want to make must be secured in some way immediately or else it wants to always spring back, to at least a wider curve.
Not sure I understand the debate here. These are not criticisms, just facts:
Atlas will not hold a bend on its own. Whatever curve you want to make must be secured in some way immediately or else it wants to always spring back, to at least a wider curve.
Aye!
But, if you bend it too tightly, it will not bend back to straight. Not sure that matters, but its a fact. I don't know what radius "too tightly" is, but the metal definitely gets a nonstraight permanent bend in it once it gets bent too tightly.
I've never bent Atlas track enough for it to not spring back. The sharpest radius I have curved Atlas flex to is 24"R which is the sharpest curve on my last layout. I don't know how sharp you gotta torture it to reach the "won't spring back" stage.
Atlas will not bend at the very ends unless the end is well secured, like soldered to another piece of track first. Great for large sweeping curves with easements, not so great for smaller areas. For smaller areas, like odd lengths in between turnouts, Atlas needs to be bent tightly so it holds its bend, and adjusted until its bent into the right curve. None of this is a problem. It takes different techniques. Based upon 20 years and two layouts with nothing but Atlas track.
None of this is a problem. It takes different techniques.
Based upon 20 years and two layouts with nothing but Atlas track.
Yes. I've had no problems bending the ends; sometimes I solder the track together on curves and it will bend as if it were one long piece and flow nicely. I can also use spikes if needed where I need to hold a curve at the end. None of this is rocket science.
I have never quite seen a guy like LSM. When you are wrong, you are wrong. What is the problem with admitting it and moving on? I'll bet that he was good at dodgeball in grammar school. Rich
Rich
We've been down that road before. It's pretty nutty. I've wondered to myself if LSM is "on the spectrum" or something like that. At some point we have to just leave it be.
It will spring back to a broad curve, but not back to stright. And I'm talking after its been secured at both ends and bent, not just playing with it out of the box.
But I don't even know why the point was raised. Who cares if it springs back to straight or not?
And if you are trying to form a curve say of a length of 20 inches or less, trying to align the special curve to fit in between two turnouts, the very end of the Atlas flex will not bend easily, making it difficult to form a consistent curve all the way through the 20 inches.
As you said, its not rocket surgery. If Atlas is good for making natural easements, then it is poor at making a curve with a consistent radius completely through the curve. (It must be permanently bent beforehand, IMO)
I build switching layouts, branch line layouts. So I prefer the hold-its-bend qualities of flex track and have nearly no use for easements.
Lastspikemike Sure. I suppose four boxes of Atlas flex track isn't enough experience to support assertions of opinions. How much rail bending does qualify one to opine, one muses quietly to oneself? You may not agree with and may even actively dislike my views but they are useful to somebody.
Sure. I suppose four boxes of Atlas flex track isn't enough experience to support assertions of opinions. How much rail bending does qualify one to opine, one muses quietly to oneself?
You may not agree with and may even actively dislike my views but they are useful to somebody.
Rio Grande. The Action Road - Focus 1977-1983
SeeYou190 Lastspikemike Atlas is VERY hard to bend into a curve Lastspikemike Sure you can "easily" bend Atlas track Whatever. -Kevin
Lastspikemike Atlas is VERY hard to bend into a curve
Lastspikemike Sure you can "easily" bend Atlas track
Whatever.
Atlas will not bend at the very ends unless the end is well secured, like soldered to another piece of track first. Great for large sweeping curves with easements, not so great for smaller areas. For smaller areas, like odd lengths in between turnouts, Atlas needs to be bent tightly so it holds its bend, and adjusted until its bent into the right curve.
Lastspikemike Not the case (har har) as we began with old traded in Atlas flex track. Plus we bought a number of individual sticks from necessarily randomly opened boxes. All of it is the same.
Not the case (har har) as we began with old traded in Atlas flex track. Plus we bought a number of individual sticks from necessarily randomly opened boxes. All of it is the same.
Was it fiber tie Atlas from way back when dinosaurs roamed the earth?
Sure you can "easily" bend Atlas track, it is after all flex track. But it won't stay bent to the curve you bend it to. It springs back, as you all point out.
Which of course makes it easy to get nice straight sections if it were ever used curved before. In fact that quality made it easy peasy to re-use Atlas flex used on previous layouts. Much of it had been used on curves. When I dismantled the layout, it was easy to bundle it into stacks of straight rack. The springy nature makes easy to work with.
Here I have salvaged my Atlas flex track off my last layout. It straightened back out for bundling nice and easy.
I stored it in bundles in a box until it was time to lay track again:
Here I've reused all of the code 100 Atlas flex in the new staging yard with 11 double ended tracks.
You are all entitled to your opinions of course, as am I.
It's not opinion, its fact regarding Atlas flex easy to bend and unbend. If you wanted to drop by, I'd be happy to demonstrate it.
Atlas is the cheapest Code 83 track currently available. There are good reasons why that is so.
The flex track is totally fine to use and Atlas has even improved the rail profile and molded ties not long ago. I've bought a couple of boxes for my staging yard and highly recommend it based my own experience. I did, however, switch to Peco code 100 turnouts because I wanted the finger flick feature.
These are all Peco turnouts but include a Peco code 83 curved at the bottom and a Shinohara curved #8 in the distance upper left.
Peco code 100 Electrofrog turnout connected to brown tie Atlas code 100 flex (upper right).
LastspikemikeAtlas is VERY hard to bend into a curve
LastspikemikeSure you can "easily" bend Atlas track
LastspikemikeAtlas is VERY hard to bend into a curve of constant radius all the way to the ends.
Lastspikemike Atlas will not straighten back out completely
I don't know what you bought, but it is not easy-to-bend and back-to-straight Atlas.
LastspikemikeSure. I suppose four boxes of Atlas flex track isn't enough experience to support assertions of opinions. How much rail bending does qualify one to opine, one muses quietly to oneself? Atlas is definitely the stiffest and you can easily test that objectively. Atlas is VERY hard to bend into a curve of constant radius all the way to the ends.
I'm with Rich on this one. Maybe you got a 4 boxes of bad Atlas. I've been using Atlas track since the 1980's and have bought both code 100 and code 83 periodically since then right up to a few months ago. Atlas has Allways (without exception) been VERY easy to bend and cannot even remotely be thought of as stiff. it is nice and springy and EASY to bend.
Atlas is also visibly clunkier and that can be objectively measured. I haven't done that but I deduce this from the way the Atlas joiners don't fit other brands and other brands of joiners don't fit Atlas (although the new Walthers joiners are a good tight fit onto Atlas rail, better than Atlas joiners.)
The last couple boxes of Atlas code 83 I bought in recent months has obviously been retooled; and yes, it as easy to bend as ever , but now the rail profile is much finer and the molded tie detail is finer than the older Atlas code 100. It may be "clunky" compared to ME, or Peco or then new Walthers but many after they paint and weather will tell you it's blends it pretty well then.
So far I've used my Atlas joiners on Atlas flex, Peco code 100 turnouts and Shinohara code 100 turnouts. No problems at all.
Lastspikemike richhotrain Lastspikemike Atlas is "springiest" Walthers next, Peco next and ME isn't springy at all. Atlas is very hard to get into shape, especially at each end, but once it's there it stays there. You can't really straighten Atlas track fully once it's taken a curve properly. Totally disagree. Atlas is soooooo easy to shape. And when you release it, Atlas Code 83 (and Code 100) flextrack springs back to straight. Rich Yes. I know opinions differ. Obviously "difficult" and "easy" are subjective opinions. My description of why I find these four different tracks so different is possibly more useful than my reference to difficult or easy.
richhotrain Lastspikemike Atlas is "springiest" Walthers next, Peco next and ME isn't springy at all. Atlas is very hard to get into shape, especially at each end, but once it's there it stays there. You can't really straighten Atlas track fully once it's taken a curve properly. Totally disagree. Atlas is soooooo easy to shape. And when you release it, Atlas Code 83 (and Code 100) flextrack springs back to straight. Rich
Lastspikemike Atlas is "springiest" Walthers next, Peco next and ME isn't springy at all. Atlas is very hard to get into shape, especially at each end, but once it's there it stays there. You can't really straighten Atlas track fully once it's taken a curve properly.
Atlas is "springiest" Walthers next, Peco next and ME isn't springy at all.
Atlas is very hard to get into shape, especially at each end, but once it's there it stays there. You can't really straighten Atlas track fully once it's taken a curve properly.
Totally disagree. Atlas is soooooo easy to shape. And when you release it, Atlas Code 83 (and Code 100) flextrack springs back to straight.
Yes. I know opinions differ. Obviously "difficult" and "easy" are subjective opinions.
My description of why I find these four different tracks so different is possibly more useful than my reference to difficult or easy.
You are either mistaken about Atlas flextrack or you are making your assertions without first hand knowledge.
Peco track has a slightly smaller base profile than Atlas and Walthers, allowing smaller rail joiners to be used with ease.
I like the look of the Atlas code 80 Nscale joiners rather than the larger code 100 joiners typically used.
Its too hard to splay the ends of the code 80 joiner to fit on the Atlas code 83 track. IIRC, ME and Walthers both mate with Atlas code 83 better than Peco (which is a bit of an outlier) so I assume the base of the rail in those brands has the same profile as the others.
ATLANTIC CENTRALSurely nothing wrong with the old Walthers/Shinohara turnouts, I still have few laying around from back in the day
According to Rob Spangler, some of them are out of gauge and need to be improved by regauging for reliable operatoin. I've had issues with the bronze wiper under the points locking up the points so the can't be moved. They also aren't reliable for passing electricity.
On the other hand, the old Shinohara turnouts have been the best looking for many years, but they do have some flaws. Hopefully the new redesigned Walthers will keep the great appearance but eliminate the flaws those made for them by Shinohara.
SeeYou190 richhotrain This debate could go on and on, but I remain convinced that the "best" Code 83 flextrack is Atlas. Atlas has always been plenty good enough for me. Reliable and well made. Quality control has been spot-on. richhotrain Totally disagree. Atlas is soooooo easy to shape. And when you release it, Atlas Code 83 (and Code 100) flextrack springs back to straight. Yes, Atlas is the easiest to use. That can't really be debated. ATLANTIC CENTRAL Still Atlas track and turnouts here, not even a question or any interest in reasons why others are "better". Not better, but I use old style (Non-DCC-friendly), Walthes/Shinohara turnouts. The power routing and solid metal frogs match my needs perfectly. -Kevin
richhotrain This debate could go on and on, but I remain convinced that the "best" Code 83 flextrack is Atlas.
Atlas has always been plenty good enough for me.
Reliable and well made. Quality control has been spot-on.
richhotrain Totally disagree. Atlas is soooooo easy to shape. And when you release it, Atlas Code 83 (and Code 100) flextrack springs back to straight.
Yes, Atlas is the easiest to use. That can't really be debated.
ATLANTIC CENTRAL Still Atlas track and turnouts here, not even a question or any interest in reasons why others are "better".
Not better, but I use old style (Non-DCC-friendly), Walthes/Shinohara turnouts. The power routing and solid metal frogs match my needs perfectly.
Surely nothing wrong with the old Walthers/Shinohara turnouts, I still have few laying around from back in the day.
And if you want power routing, they are a good choice.
Since I do all my power routing with the relays that control the turnouts, which also manage the X section wiring at each interlocking, power routing turnouts actually work against me.
But I do understand your approach, I built several layouts wired that way.
richhotrainThis debate could go on and on, but I remain convinced that the "best" Code 83 flextrack is Atlas.
richhotrainTotally disagree. Atlas is soooooo easy to shape. And when you release it, Atlas Code 83 (and Code 100) flextrack springs back to straight.
ATLANTIC CENTRALStill Atlas track and turnouts here, not even a question or any interest in reasons why others are "better".
Still Atlas track and turnouts here, not even a question or any interest in reasons why others are "better".
I have Walthers double slip switches, but everything else is Atlas or scratch build specials where needed.
Since Peco doesn;t fix one side like Atlas, the outside rail does tend to slip out of the spike detail. But I haven't had any problem with getting it back in when straightening a piece. Even working it in the air, instead of flat on the bench - the trick is to hold the rail you don't want to move firmly at the end you want it to statyy and then bend the track. Haven't broken off any spikes, either, and I keep playing around with the same three pieces on my workbench.
Don't seem to have any problem bending a piece that's already connected at one end and having it open gaps at the joint I don't want - similar method of pressing on one rail, or not pressing - if you firmly press the outside rail to the ties at the free end, it WILL pull away from the joint at the other end, so it's sort of the opposite of trying to make the rail move in the ties - DON'T hold it tightly so it can slide and stay connected.
After testing, I don't see this being any more difficult that Atlas when I get to the layout, since any curve will be formed with at least 2 pieces soldered together first. It's just springy enough to form a smooth curve without having to hand walk along the ties and carefully lining everything up like ME. That's the real difference between a springy track liek Atlas on oen end and stiff track like ME on the other - you MUST draw a full centerline, or some sort of guide line, or use templates like Ribbonrail, with ME track. With the more springy forms of flex track, you mostly just need the start and end point of the curve, the track will naturally form a smooth curve between those points. Only reason I am using Peco over Atlas is to avoid having to file and fit every track joint with a turnout, since Peco has a much wider variety of turnouts so I don;t have to attempt any more handlaying, plus the Peco turnouts just look better.
Yes, this debate could go on forever.
This debate could go on and on, but I remain convinced that the "best" Code 83 flextrack is Atlas. I have tried other brands, but Atlas gives me the best performance in laying straight track and in forming curves.
Period.
eds-trains I am in the process of expanding my HO layout. I think I used Atlas code 83 flex track on the original layout with Peco #6 turnouts. I know some flex track holds a curve better than others during track laying. I'm looking for opinions and recomendations as to what flex track people like the best. Thanks for you input
I am in the process of expanding my HO layout. I think I used Atlas code 83 flex track on the original layout with Peco #6 turnouts. I know some flex track holds a curve better than others during track laying. I'm looking for opinions and recomendations as to what flex track people like the best.
Thanks for you input
I'll just toss my 2 cents worth in. Some prefer the really "stiff" flex track saying it holds it's shape. I have some older Walthers flex made by Shinohara and it definitely holds it's shape, but it's bloody difficult to get shaped to a smooth flowing curve. You have to spend a lot of time massaging it over and over to gradually work it to the desired curve. And the ties tend to get wonky so you have to work those along to get them straight and even as well.
It takes a lot of extra time and effort to get the same results as springy Atlas track, which forms smoothly and evenly with very little effort and almost no time. That's what I like about Atlas springy track. It forms smooth and even with little effort. I don't need track to hold it's shape; fastening it down with spikes or track nails is what hold the shape quite nicely. Once I am happy with it, I can ballast and then remove track nails.
LastspikemikeJust fitting Walthers flex track today. Relatively easy to work with. Does not bend as smoothly as Atlas but is much easier to shape. Atlas track nails and Peco track spikes do not fit into the holes in the ties in the Walthers flex track. Walthers sells these pins: https://www.walthers.com/code-83-track-fastening-pins
How easily does it bend or form? I have noted Walthers is one of the more expensive flex track options at $7 per stick (in 5 packs at MBK). By comparison Peco comes in a box of 25 at MBK for $135 which comes out to $5.40 per stick.
Here's another vote for code 83 ME track. While more expensive than Atlas, I like that it holds the curve apparently better. You also can get the weathered type which saves a bit of time/money.
Everybody has an opinion. I use Micro Engineering exclusiviely for the visible track sections on my layout. All three codes - 83, 70 and 55. In hidden trackage I use Atlas code 100. ME is harder to bend but the quality of the finished product is worth it.
While it is true that the other brands look good with paint, ME looks better to my eye.
Guy
see stuff at: the Willoughby Line Site
deleted.
LastspikemikeAtlas and Walthers are made with the same structure. Both have gaps in the tie strips between every other tie under the sliding rail.
By Walthers I presume you mean Shinohara-made? There is no "sliding rail" on Shinohara flex track.
LastspikemikeWalthers has no tie gaps under the fixed rail
Shinohara has every-other tie gapped alternately.
Shinohara_C83 by Edmund, on Flickr
Regards, Ed
LastspikemikeThe Walthers version of Shinohara is as easy (or difficult, depending on your point of view) as Atlas. Both have firm spring back effects.
I have 13 boxes (130m) of Walthers code 83 on the layout and it is not springy at all, it stays where you put it the first time.
Brent
"All of the world's problems are the result of the difference between how we think and how the world works."