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 seem to be in a minority group that feels the more flexible type like Atlas makes for smoother curves with a whole lot less effort, since it natually will form an easement. I tried ME, which is the complete opposite of Atlas - it doesn;t want to bend at all without persuasion. Frnakly, I hate it. Trying to make a smooth eased curve requires layoign it out on the subroadbed and then carefully working the track to follow the line. Atlas, all I ever had to do was secure a bit at one end to be straight, then from the other end (I usually solder 2 sections together so there are no loose joints in the middle of a curve to potentially kink) bend it in to the desired radius, and let the rest fall into place.
I’m using Peco turnouts on my new layout, because I need more variety than Atlas makes and I’m not about to hand lay. I tried that. Not for me. So I tried Peco flex - it’s sort of an in-between. It bends fairlyeasily, but not as flapping in the breeze as Atlas. When let go with no fasterners, it spring part way back, not all the way back like Atlas. Since it’s an exact match to their turnouts - I’m using Peco flex this time.
–Randy
The look of the track was more important to me than whether it was the springy type or the type that stays where you shape it to.
Walthers track stayed put where I bent it and there was a bit of a learning curve with the first few pieces. The secret when bending is to work from the far end of the piece back to where it has joined the previous piece. Once it has been shaped in place it only takes a couple of pins to hold it there until it is fastened more permanently as there is no springy force pushing against it.
Where the appearance of the track comes into play is when the layout is photographed. I am a details person and not all track looks the same to me even when just running trains. If you don’t notice such things it doesn’t matter what brand you use. If you plan to make photographing your layout as part of the hobby then you need to scrutinize the track closely before you choose.
Thanks Randy. you always come through.
Thanks Batman
I use nothing but Micro Engineering track, and I have never had trouble making curves.
Disclaimer: I use the unweathered, not the weathered, track. The weathering coating seems to increase the difficulty of bending, I have heard.
I doubt that we’re part of a minority, Randy, but I like Atlas track for the same reasons as you. It’s also more affordable than M.E. or Walthers/Shinohara flex track.
Another of my favourites is Central Valley tie strips, which appear to make me a true minority. The tie strips are probably flexible enough to make a 5"radius, but they do have very good detail, and it’s fairly easy to add the rails using contact cement. For that, I usually solder-together four or five 3’ lengths of rail, then install it in one simple operation.
For turnouts, I use ones from Atlas, Micro Engineering, Walthers/Shinohara, and Peco, along with scratchbuilt.
Wayne
I use Atlas code 83 mostly, but the lighter branchline, sidings and yards are nearly all code 70, with some code 55 on the branchline. To date almost all the code 70 is ME, but I bought a few pieces of Peco code 70 flextrack, and I like it a LOT better than the hard-to-form ME, so I’ll be using it from now on.
Turnouts are all Fast Tracks, made with ME rail (that’sd what the jigs are designed to use).
That is exactly what I have done on my new layout, Atlas Code 83 flextrack and Peco Code 83 #6 turnouts.
I use Atlas flextrack because it is easy to keep straight and it bends easily into curves. During the infamous Atlas flextrack shortage a few years back, I bought some Peco flextrack, installed it and hated it. Once shaped, it seemed impossible to get it back straight.
On my new layout, I installed mostly Peco turnouts because I wanted to rely on the spring loaded points that I could flip with my finger. On my old layout I used Atlas Code 83 #6 turnouts powered by Tortoises. That worked well, but too much wiring, running wires from DPDT toggle switches mounted on control panels to under layout Tortoises.
The connections between Atlas flextrack and Peco turnouts is seamless for me using Atlas rail joiners.
Rich
I’ll join the minority with Randy and Wayne.
I prefer Atlas flex track. I have found it to be extremely easy to work with. I only use other brands for code 70 and 55, or bridge trackage.
-Kevin
When I saw minority, I mean typical responders to these threads - most of the “high end” modelers seem to prefer ME track. That’s not saying anyoen who uses Atlas isn;t “high end” - Dr. Wayne’s photos speak for themselves.
I’ve seen plenty of “down at the scale eprson level” photos - once painted, the Atlas spike detail appear no more oversize than any others. At least for Code 83 - the Atlas Code 100 track, on the other hand… The most jarring track to me is when it’s all hand laid but only spiked every 3rdd tie or so. You sight down the rails - the turnouts flow like they were molded in place (because they were) but then you see spike…empty tie…empty tie…spike…
Was that Code 100 Peco flex? Because I’m having no problems straightening out the sections of COde 83 I have set up for a test track on my workbench. I’ve had a couple of pieces I’ve taken out of the box, made some curves with, the straightened out to slide right back into the box.
–Randy
Atlas and Peco flex for me. ME bridge track where that makes sense. Peco, W/S, and hand-laid turnouts.
To get flex track straight again, or very, very close, turn it on its side so that one end of the ties is down, and give it a solid drop/rap on a countertop. You should be good to go.
I remember the first time I tried to work with the Walthers track, I immediately thought HMMMMMM! I am not sure about this. It did not take long for me to figure it out and actually like it. I still have no real preference though, six of one…
The one thing I like about the Walthers track is when you take out the pins to stick it down it doesn’t move which made it stay perfectly aligned with my spline roadbed.
To straighten it out just turn it on its side and push it flat, just takes a second.
Hi Ed, Writing as a (UK) Newbie to Model Railroads, my experiences are:
Shinohara: No No (albeit Walthers may have improved their new version) I found the Track was all too ready to pop-out from the scale Spikes. An unbelievable reluctance to curve and even with 30" (genuine) ‘Tracksetters’ in place, it just kept trying to straighten-up and forced the ‘Tracksetters’ out!!! Never again.
Atlas: Easy to flex and curve (sliding rail to the inside, as per Atlas website) No problems + it is very robust and takes a few knocks. Just needs a good No. of Pins to initially keep it in place. I used this for 24" Rad curves - I didn’t even bother trying with my Shinohara track.
Peco: Excellent almost “slinky-smooth” ability to flex, curve and stay put. It is robust and scale dimension-wise, bang to rights as per American Railroad standards + the Rail-joiners are very unobtrusive.
Conclusion: I will probably relay all my Mainline with Peco and relegate the Shinohara to Spurs. Paul
At the time I was building my layout (1995) there was a fellow that had an extensive layout in his basement and he used code 83 Shinohara. I was sold.
PRR_9616-FA2x by Edmund, on Flickr
Plus they had a huge selection of turnouts and crossings. Some of my crossovers are #10. I’m sure I purchased at least 200 m of flex track.
PRR_T-E7_sm by Edmund, on Flickr
I never had a bit of trouble making transitions or curves. There were a few places I forgot to trim off the little nubs on the ends of some of the ties (molding gates) Most of my visible joiners were Atlas N scale or Micro Engineering. Very tiny.
Of course, all for naught since it is no longer made. Still, I’d use it again. It has been carrying trains on almost a daily basis for 26 years and hasn’t given me a bit of trouble.
Regards, Ed
Atlas and Walthers are made with the same structure. Both have gaps in the tie strips between every other tie under the sliding rail. Atlas also has a gap every 9" under the fixed rail. Walthers has no tie gaps under the fixed rail and uses a lighter cross section rail. When you bend either only the one rail slides through the ties. The inner rail in the bend is the one you cut off. For S bends the best technique is to treat the longer curve as the main curve so that the inner rail is cut off. If you treat the sliding rail as the outer rail the end slips out of the tie strip. It is easier to bend if you bend with the inner rail sliding. Both are springy and hard to form curves but as you do they will create smooth transitions. Both tend to spring back so you need to over bend to allow for this. Also, while they create nicely transitioned 36" curves they are very hard to make longer curves with because the ends do not bend easily into the same radius. Each piece naturally eases at each end.
Atlas flex track matches their sectional track. They even make “ends” of four ties incorporating the handy recesses to accommodate the joiners neatly. I use Atlas sectional track for any curve tighter than 25" radius, it’s just easier.
Peco uses softer plastic. The rails will pop out of the tie strips more easily. Bending the ends is as difficult as for Atlas or Walthers but for a different reason, the rail ends tend to pop out from under the flimsy spike heads. Peco also has gaps in the tie strips under both rails. However, under one rail the gaps are every so often not every other tie. I don’t have a piece of Peco track handy but I recall the more fixed rail has tie gaps every four inches, approximately. I may be mistaken. Otherwise the rails and the bending characteristics are similar to Atlas and Walthers. One important difference, either rail will slide through the spikes. Peco has on
All of you guys and gals are the best. you are always there with help and answers. That is what makes this hobbie so nice. A very nice bunch of folks. Thank you.
Hi Ed, That looks like pretty good track laying to me. I hope I can get mine to that standard.
The main reason I chose Shinohara, was the greater range of T/O’s available, especially Curved ones. Also I needed a 30 degree Diamond + 2 No. #4 T/O’s. These were not available from Peco.
Some time ago, I did contact Walthers and ask if they would continue offering the same full range of track, now that Mr. Shinohara had retired. I hope they do so. Regards, Paul
My plans or for the visible part of my layout, I’m using Peco code 83 (Electrofrog) turnouts and flex track.
I did use code 100 Peco turnouts but Atlas code 100 flex in staging and the ties on the Atlas flex are thinner to the track dips down a bit from the turnout to the flex. It could use a bit shimming for that transition.
I have some Shinohara code 70 track I bought years ago because I wanted code 70. Sure, it looks great but I am not Liam Neeson with “special skills” and it’s like wrestling with an anaconda to get it to look good. Perhaps the guy with that great looking layout must have mastered laying it well and smooth. Great for him, and maybe you but, for me a big NO. I’m sure once it is down it is bullet proof, but getting it nice and smooth and even, I prefer track I can form more easily and looks good.
The Walthers version of Shinohara is as easy (or difficult, depending on your point of view) as Atlas. Both have firm spring back effects. This makes forming the bend harder work, requiring more force, but pretty much prevents over bending making smooth curves easy.
It’s a bit of an exaggeration to describe this as difficult. I have thrown down a piece of each brand at some point swearing never to use that brand again. After I calm down I realize that all four brands have been well designed, well thought out and have advantages and disadvantages that make brand choice personal rather than objectively better or worse. It’s cheap enough stuff to warrant buying one piece of each and see which suits you better. I’ll bet there’s a spot on any layout for a piece of each brand.
The differences between Walthers and Atlas are minimal. Walthers looks better but Atlas is nice and robust, fits their sectional track and turnouts perfectly and is very easy to join up. Peco is just plain beautiful, but real rail is anything but. ME works very hard to make their track look prototypically hand laid. For a modern machine laid and maintained prototype Peco looks best. For CWR and machine placed or maintained ballast the other three brands look more accurate.