Recently, I was browsing through the 2010 Walthers Reference Book and came across a page in the track section that listed a number of Shinohara curved track radii, ranging from 22" radius all the way up to 36" radius, each manufactured in a 30 degree section such that 12 sections would form a complete circle. However, Shinohara only makes the curved sectional track in Code 100.
Too bad. I would kill for Code 83 curved sectional track with a larger radius such as 34" and 36" to design a broadly curved double main line. The only Code 83 curved sectional track without attached road bed that I am aware of is Atlas track and that stops at 24" radius.
I know all of the arguments against sectional track - - - toylike in appearance, too many rail joints, no provision for easements, etc. I consider myself a serious modeler, and I currently have completed my third large, landscaped layout using Code 83 flex track for the curves. But, I still struggle with kinks, uneven joints, etc. I have tried to solder joints to form larger pieces of curved flex track but with less than total success.
Has anyone tried the Shinohara Code 100 curved sectional track? If so, what is your impression?
I emailed Walthers about the possibility of Code 83 curved sectional track in the future, but their reply was simply that they have no control over what Shinohara manufactures, they just act as a distributor. Hmmm. I see track in the Reference Book labelled Walthers Shinohara, so Walthers must have some degree of interaction with Shinohara whereby they could easily find out or influence the future direction of track manufacture.
Anyone else out there on the forum that would purchase Code 83 curved sectional track if it were available?
I have no direct answer or solution for you, but it sounds like you want a very even and regular curve and are having a hard time getting flex track to do your bidding, so to speak. Apart from the tired old saws “try try again” and “practice makes perfect” I have three thoughts.
One is to consider the preformed roadbed from Ribbonrail made of upson board. You can buy it in sections that create curves from 16" radius right up to 48" radius. Perhaps using this preformed roadbed would “force” your flex track laying into being more even and smooth at joints. You could even use some sections of larger radius to create an approximation of easement curves. The product is neatly made and should mate well with cork on the tangents.
If you don’t like upsom board (pressed paper product) I believe Northeastern makes a preformed wood roadbed for 30" curve.
The second thought is to make your own wood roadbed of the radius you want. Again my thought is that hard roadbed that forces the flex track to be laid to a certain radius might make you happier with the results.
Third, some makes of flex track are easy to bend (Atlas) and for me those are the hardest to get an even radius at joints. I don’t even try anymore. Other makes are hard to bend and keep a curve once it is bent to that curve. Micro Engineering is an example, and that is the make I use on curves, even though I have lots of old Atlas I need to use up.
Ribbonrail makes metal radius tools or templates that fit between the rails and help to bend flex track to a fixed radius (sometimes needing some intervention) but they really only work with makes of flex track that are hard to bend and hold the bend. So if you solder two lengths of flex track together for example before laying the track, and then run the
I’m with Dave on the Ribbonrail templates. I found them extremely accurate and easy to work with when I was laying my curves out on my own layout. Though I use Code 100 for my mainline, I did end up laying the curves with Sinohara flex-track, which holds a curve much better than the Atlas. You will probably need to do additional spiking as you work the Ribbonrail along the radius.
I will admit that on a particularly tricky section of my model railroad (a sheer cliff that drops about 6 actual feet to a cement garage floor), I finally ended up using 36" radius Bachmann EZ track sections, as I just didn’t trust my own flex-track expertise in that particular area. It’s worked extremely well for the past 8 or so years, even though I had to transition the roadbed up to the Bachmann height (which is about 1/4" taller).
I would think that if you don’t mind transitioning from Code 83 to Code 100 on curves, the Sinohara sectional track would work okay. Just remember that with sectional track you’ll be safer if you run additional feeders to the track, since you’ll have more track joiners to work themselves loose (and they will, believe me!).
But I certainly go with Dave on the Ribbonrail template suggestion.
When laying my curves with Atlas code 83 flex at whatever radius was called for, I cut both the plywood and extruded foam at the target radius (using the center of track as the reference point). Where the track was at grade, I used one of the precut sections to trace the outline and backed into the center of track radius point.
I agree with the previous comment about Shinohara flex track: it retains the shape (due to the unique way the ties are attached to both rails). This pretty much avoids the outer rail’s tendency to develop a kink in the curve. I spent too many hours just last weekend correcting a kink that emerged as the rail joiner relaxed and allowed the rail end to move - just enough that my SD70 trucks went rogue each time. And the joint had been soldered - obviously not as well as it should have been.