I am using Atlas Code 83 flex track and Atlas Custom Line #6 turnouts on my layout.
I need to install a 9.5 degree crossing from the divergent track of the turnout on the outer track across the inner track.
Only Shinohara makes a 9.5 degree crossing and it is Code 100.
Am I going to have a problem if I file down the rails on the crossing to match the Code 83 profile of the flex track and turnout?
Rich
If it was me, I would shim the code 83 up so that the rail heads line up. Atlas makes a flexible joiner.
Do not file the code 100 down to code 83. Install the crossing and adjust the roadbed to keep the top of the rail level. You will have four code 100/83 transitions but it should work fine.
Atlas makes code 83 to 100 transition rail joiners. You might try those.
Good luck
Paul
A trick I have read about but never tried, is to flatten the end of a code 100 rail joiner after it is attached to the crossover’s rails and solder the code 83 rail to the top of it. This supposedly makes the tops of the different codes of rail even out.
That is a common way of doing transitions between different rail sizes.
Do this to make transition joints from the 83 rails to the 100 diamond. (It sounds like that’s what the original poster is describing. Please start using the proper terms: A “crossover” is a pair of switches allowing a train to switch between parallel tracks. Two tracks crossing each other is a crossing (not crossOVER) or commonly “diamond” (or “diamond crossing”).)
The Peco won’t work - PCO-SL8364? What about the old Atlas Roco Code 83 series. Seems like they had a 10 degree crossing. Unfortunately, other than that I do not have a solution other than to suggest building one from scratch. I am curious though, that seems an odd thing to do. Why not just diverge from the inner track?
First off, in the prototype world it is common to install heavier rail crossings since they are more durable in a situation that our full-size brethren would rather avoid.
Atlas code 83 (with its thicker ties) should be a close tie bottom to rail top match with the Shinohara diamond. If you use caulk to anchor track, a little extra thickness will allow you to level everything - just put something flat and rigid on top and weight it until the caulk sets. Atlas `Universal’ rail joiners will work without modification - just cut enough clearance in the Code 83 end ties to handle the .020 inch space required below the code 83 rail base.
Don’t try to file .017 inch of material off the Shinohara rail unless you want to have real T-section rail - look, Ma, no railhead!
Chuck (Modeling Central Japan in September, 1964 - code 83, with code 100 specialwork)
Rich:
I’d use the Atlas ‘combo’ rail joiners. I use Code 100 on my mainline and code 83 in my yard, and used the Atlas rail-joiners as a transition. Works smooth as butter, LOL!
Tom
Walthers has some code 83 to code 100 rail joiner adapters as I recall, similar to Atlas. It would be best to add some shims under the code 83 ties as well.
Richard
TZ, that is a fair question and, as a partial answer, I could, but I wish to avoid the resulting S-curve with a follow-up crossover to the outer track.
But, the real reason that I want a crossing through the inner track to reach the outer track is to provide a direct route to and from the passenger station to the main line. My layout protocol follows the old C&NW where trains move counter clockwise on the outer track and clockwise on the inner track. Here is the resulting track diagram showing arrivals and departures using this protocol.
On the right side of the diagram, trains are departing westbound and arriving from a westbound direction. On the left side of the diagram, trains are departing eastbound and arriving from an eastbound direction. You can visualize the crossings through the inner tracks to the outer tracks.
Rich
Hmm, I seem to have overlooked that possibility. I don’t know why that would not work. I have no familiarity with Peco or with the Electrofrog. Since it is a crossing with no movable points, why would the frog be powered? Or maybe the better question is whether I need to do anything special in terms of wiring if I use that crossing on my layout which, for what it’s worth, is DCC.
Rich
Thanks, everyone, for your suggestions. They are all very helpful.
I really like the idea of soldering the Code 100 crossing to Code 83 connecting tracks so that the top of the rails match. I also like the idea of using lower profile roadbed, perhaps N scale roadbed, beneath the crossing with shims necessary to bring the two profiles in alignment with one another.
But, I also like the idea of the Peco Code 83 crossing which I missed in my initial search. I am going to start a separate thread to get some additional information on this crossing.
Rich
Rich that Peco PCO-SL8364 crossing is indeed insulfrog, no need to do anything special with the wiring.
You can order it from Will at CC Hobbies.
Michael, you are right, thanks. It is Insulfrog. The SLE8364 is Electrofrog. Duh.
Rich