After laying the track on my layout I wanted to operate on it to detect any flaws before ballasting. All my locos and rolling stock ran flawless, including my 3 axle heavy weight passenger cars and all of my steam engines so now in the ballasting process. Just purchased a BLI M1B 4-8-2 Pennsy steamer. Great engine BTW. Anyhow along with the engine came “Murphy” It seems that when going through one of my cross over tacks the leading truck wanted to derail when it reached the guard rail for the frog.I watched it very close as it creeped thriough and the front axle would rise up just enoigh to stop rolling but not enought to actually dreail. My first thoughts were something was in the guard rail but not the case. Got my trusty guage out and check the wheels and track, all in spec. After about a half hour of frustration trying to figure out what was wrong with the Peco turnout I finallt saw the problem. I use Atlas code 100 flex track and Peco code 100 turnouts. Nope, not what your thinking. they match perfectly. I have two cross overs and to achieve the 2 1/4" spacing between the tracks I purchased a pack of four 1 1/2" code 100 snap track pieces to go between the turnouts. What I noticed finally was the ther was a difference in the height of the rail and when the secound axle would “climb” to the Peco rail it would lift the front axle of the truck. I couldn’t figure why the difference in rail height and why I hadn’t noticed it before. I took up the track enought to take that snap track section on and and also checked the other cross over and the rails matched on that one. Why not this one? Ok, got the old micrometer out and miked the offending rail and another snap section that came in the pack. the unused ones measured .100" tall. The offending one measured .082" tall, a difference of .018". So- not all track is equal, even within the same brand. Yes I should have noticed the difference when I first layed the track. that was my mistake. But like my Dad used t
That “wrong” piece might simply have code 83 rail installed, placed in error in that 4-pack.
That was my thought too, but the ties are black and I think the code 83 has brown ties?? I’m just thankful I haven’t ballasted that part of the layout yet, so all is good as they say.
In that case I’m thinking that there was a piece of Code 83 rail in the Code 100 production line.
China gives us lower prices, but quality control sometimes suffers.
Quality control. A piece of “code 83” rail ended up in the supposedly code 100 track. I once had a turnout that was supposed to be code 70, but the closure rails were both code 83. Of course I didn’t detect the problem until after I had the turnout installed as part of a yard ladder.
Two thoughts:
-
I have read that clothing manufactures when packing say 3 dozen of an item and they are several short they grab another size to make up the difference.
-
Maybe it was because I didn’t have snap track on hand but when I needed a short piece of track I cut the flex to length. Didn’t always get it right the first time but persistence pays off.
Bob
Having spent ten years in first level quality control, I agree. However the problem belongs to the company whose name is on the package.
If Atlas, or XYZX wants stuff made, it is up to them to set quality standards and proceedures, and then INSURE THEY ARE FOLLOWED.
My work place was audited every six months by QS9000, and it was a waste of time and money. We got three weeks notice, and they checked that all paper work was done. Before one audit, a boss phoned me to ask how much time I would need to get ready for the audit. He was shocked when I said that we were ready at all times.
I was never asked to demonstrate my ability to do any of the tests that I documented, nor was anyone else, just do the paperwork.
If your immediate boss wants things done right, they will be, if he wants every test documented as perfect, he’ll get it.
Being a member of a strong union, I never had to sign off on poor results being acceptable. That is not true in many places, so top bosses need to check,check,check.
Dave
I have always used Atlas flex track. Years ago I started with code 100 and switched to code 83 when it was readily available and the price came down. I used up most of my supply and ordered more. The new code 83 came with different height ties which I didn’t realize. Of course I had put all my flex track in one container and just grabbed a section when I needed it. After laying about 25 sections of track, my test car found every bump. At least they weren’t ballasted.
And I agree with Dave. QS9000 is nothing but a paper chase. A lot of paper.
I too use that combination, but am surprised you don’t have a height match issue. On virtually all my joints between the Atlas flex and Peco turnouts, the Peco rail was higher. I unfortunately didn’t notice right away and had to go back through and re-solder some rail joints, correcting the height issue as I do so. I’m curious the age of the track you are laying. Most of mine was bought in the fall of 2014.
I bought the same combination in 2004 and before, no height issues.
Dave
Oops… Someone put the wrong size rail in the box at the factory…
Easy fix, take the joiner off, flatten half, solder the 83 rail bottom on top of the flattened joiner, should now match. (If you said ME, I would have suggested a ME joiner shoved all the way onto the 83, then slide that into half of the Atlas joiner, works every time. ME joiners do not go well with Atlas rail though…)
Or, if absolutely necessary, pull up the offending piece.
Even easier fix - put a shim under either the ties or the roadbed.
I mix and match - flex from several sources, rail salvaged from snap-track or damaged flex. stick rail, some bought in Tokyo half a century ago… Thanks to checking every joint (and inserting shims where needed) the running surface is uniformly free of abrupt ‘steps.’ That includes all of my specialwork - which I fabricate myself.
As for quality control, one of my past job titles was USAF Quality Control Inspector. Since I was inspecting repair actions on aircraft, the physical condition of the machine was somewhat more important than the paperwork - but the paperwork had to be right before I’d sign off the repair. Now, on the layout, I’m somewhat more casual about the paperwork.
Chuck (Modeling Central Japan in September, 1964)
Water Level Route, in answer to your question I purchased my Peco SL-95 & 96 Medium radius turnouts and Atlas #168 code 100 superflex track and also Atlas rail joiners back in Nov of last year when I started my layout and then in Jan, they match perfectly. Also I do not solder the rail joiners on my turnouts. Ken
Interesting. I too used the Atlas joiners and they were always a snug fit on both companies rails so it really surprised me the first time I watched one of my steamers “climb” one of the offending joints. The mismatched joints were hardly perceptible when rolling stock went over them. Not all of the joints between the Atlas and Peco had the issue, but I would say a good 1/3 did. Glad to hear others have not had the same issue. Now to figure out what I did wrong…
This may not be the issue, but sometimes if a burr is left on the bottom of a rail it will make it ride highter in the joiner or if the tab left after cutting the joiners apart are not flattened out. I’ve had that happen too. Just a thought here. Ken