I have seen many people use different brands of track for turnouts and flex track, but does anyone do it with flextrack.
Reason being is that I like Atlas flex code 83 for straights and minor curvatures, but prefer ME code 83 flex for my curves. I like the how in the curves the ME stays how and where I put it, making it easier to lay correctly and easier to glue down. The atlast when forming into curves always wants to go back straight, making it more difficult to do correctly. I like the fact the the atlas offers flexibility on the straights and will allow you to adjust it easily but still want to maintain a relatively straight line. The ME for me holds it shape too well when layout straight areas and is a pain to work with because I find you have to start over and re-straighten it if you over form it.
This isn’t to say the either product can’t be used for either curves or straights, this is just what I prefer.
For turn outs I prefer peco but that’s not really the point of this since many people do it this way.
I have been replacing most of my curves recently with the ME flex and am very happy with the results. Any slight difference in look blends away with weathering and ballast. I am sure the observant modeler could pick out the difference but 99.9999999% of the people who see my layout are not model railroaders.
Anyway, I though this would be helpful to some and just wanted to see if I am the only one. I know in the beginning it’s all intimidating and hopefully this will let newer modelers know it’s okay to mix and match everything.
There is no reason not to mix track. Two things you may find are a slight difference in the height of the top of the track due to the height of the ties (code is for the rail only) a short shim at the joint to support should be suffecient. The other thing you may find is a difference in the looks of the ties, guess that depends on the brands you are using. I am not familiar with the looks of the ME track,
Ironic that you prefer ME for the curves. I see lots of posts on the forum about how tricky bending ME can be for making curves and “why doesn’t it curve as easily as Atlas?” It’s cool to get an opposing view point.
I use ME for all my visible trackage because I like the detail and railhead profile. I do agree with you about the straight track, it can be a bit finicky, but worth it in the end.
Had to laugh. I use ME flex for all track except for the handlaid track I have at various locations on the layout. Fell in love with ME many years ago and can’t break off the affair.
If someone has manufactured flex track, I bet I have a piece of it somewhere on my layout, because I tend to buy what’s on sale.
Sometimes, there are minor issues with height and appearance, but after shimming and ballasting, and sometimes a little judicious filing, the difference is only noticable if you’re really up close and looking for it.
The HO layout I built two layouts ago used a mix of flex track. The majority of it was Atlas code 100 but I had a dozen or so sections of what I believe was Model Power flex mixed in. I was desperate at the the time and found it cheaply at a show.
Although I’ve always preferred Atlas track primarily because its what I’ve always used, the mixing and matching has never caused a problem for me. On my N scale layout now I’m using Atlas flex with Peco turnouts. and even have some old Lifelike branded sectional track that I reused on the cassettes that will interface with the layout.
My present layout as been built out to its present state using a wide variety of flex track - Atlas code 100 (and one length of Code 83,) ancient re-lay Shinohara code 100, even some brass-rail ‘Made in Italy’ flex my sister scored at a yard sale (used in back-in staging where locomotives will never run.) There is also a small amount of raw rail laid on pine board (Look, Ma, no ties!) and a rather larger amount of hand-laid specialwork on wood ties. All of it functions as designed, and my only derailment problems have been traced to rolling stock problems, not the trackwork.
One thing I do which is a major contributor to reliable trackwork is to de-burr EVERY rail end, and then remove the sharp corner at the top inside of the railhead at every joint. All it takes is a gentle stroke of a file. You don’t want to remove much metal, just a barely-visible facet about 1mm long and 1/5th or so of that wide.
A little trick for laying Atlas flex on curves - pre-bend it. Keeping the fixed rail to the outside, gently force the flex into a much tighter curve than you intend it to hold. It will spring back to a curve, rather than straight. With a little practice, you can get it to take and hold any reasonable curvature. I have one length of Code 100, pre-formed to 350mm radius, sitting in the steel-stud trough of a not yet installed 540 degree ‘partial helix.’ It’s been there for a year, not fastened to anything, in a layout space where temperatures can vary by 50 degrees over 12 hours and have run from a low somewhat below freezing to a high of 120. So far, it hasn’t shown any tendency to straighten.
As long as the rails are in gauge, the rail ends line up (both horizontally and vertically) and there are no kinks, at rail joints or elsewhere, rolling stock will track reliably. The manufacturer or specific type of track is irrelevant.
I got into this hobby by buying a Bachmann train set with the Bachmann EZ track; the initial part of my layout being 4’ x 8’ using EZ track. As the layout expanded I continued using EZ track until it just did not seem to work as well as I wanted, so I then started using Atlas 100 Flex Track. In the interest of economy, I did not replace the EZ track, but did the necessary shimming for the two different tracks to merge. This may not meet with the approval of many modelers, but it has worked for me. I do have some problems with my layout and when I figure out how to post pictures I will do so and ask for help to make the layout better. Hopefully, corrections can be made without dismantling the layout and starting over.
On my first–circa 1979–HO-Scale layout I used different brands of Code 100 flex and did have an issue with tie thickness. My next layout was built with Code 83/Code 70 and since it was all produced by Shinohara there was no tie thickness issue. I tried various brands of Code 80 flex for my first N-Scale layout with the same tie thickness issues. Since then i have used Rail Craft/Micro Engineering Code 55 flex exclusively and, of course, there has been no tie thickness issues. I have yet to try any of the new Atlas Code 55 track but before i did I would very closely check the tie thickness–I HATE SURPRISES OF THAT NATURE!
Well you said it your happy with the result and thats all that counts. On this railroad I general have kept every thing all Atlas code 83 that only because I got a deal on 2 cases of it from a LHS that was going out of business. I couldn’t walk away from $100 for both cases.Then I decided to build my new Lakehurst yard extension and decided lets do this prototypically and was off to find me some code 70. Well I found this hole in the wall hobby shop not very far from where I live who had a bunch of old dc junk mostly euro rail stuff and ancient AHM and Athearn stock so old the boxes were faded so bad you could hardly read them and same went with much of the rolling stock that must have been displayed in or near a window. So I figured oh well this was a wasted trip but I asked the guy any way and he said all I got for HO is this stuff I’ll give you a good deal on ME code 70 weathered flex track. Giving him my best poker face how much he said $50 for the whole bunch I sell mostly O and G gage so I’ll cut you a deal. Sold! I would never pay the price for M?E weather track not because it’s not great stuff but rather because I’m cheap and figure once it’s down and weathered and ballasted it’s hard to tell the difference.
If you hold a piece of M/E and Atlas up and look at the ends with a magnifying glass you will see the profile is a wee bit different but nothing that can’t be worked with. From what I understand thats the same for every brand of track but it’s obviously no big deal as many have stated on a friends layout we needed to place a .0001 styrene shim under the M/E track where it met the Shinohara turnouts. again no biggie.
FYI one little trick to laying Atlas flex track on curves is if you need to solder two lengths together to make the curve do it on the work bench first rather then when it’s in place on the layout.Also I have adopted latex adhesive caulk to secure my track to the roadbed and use push pins to hold it in place and some weight if necessary. The stuff sets up in about
Well, yes, I have used several different brands of track on the Yuba River Sub. The main line, which is laid with code 100, is a mixture of Atlas and Sinohara, and even one stretch of (GASP! [:O]) Bachmann EZ 36" code 100 sectional track (there is a reason for this, BTW). The yard track, laid with code 83 Atlas, with Peco code 83 turnouts.
Thanks for all the replies as I enjoyed reading every one of them. I especially liked the deal on the code 70 ME flex, I mean WOW, that was a steal.
I have tried different methods with the code 83 atlas, including soldering two pieces together. It has just never satisfied me enough and there is always one engine that doesn’t like a particular curve.
The engines just seem to glide right around the ME curves, even seems a little quieter although that could be my imagination.
It’s a little tricky to get the feel down for working it but once I did it just flows well. I can assemble and have the ME running much quicker on the curves than atlas. I also like the fact I don’t have to tack it down immediately so I can run trains through it and make any adjustments I need before gluing it. With atlas it is more difficult.
I used Atlas code 83 flextrack for my entire layout, except for curved turnouts and a trestle. I used Peco curved turnouts and ME trestle track on my scratchbuilt trestle. I read a tip the other day on the forum about putting a thin shim of blister packaging under the turnout rails. This makes sure they stay flush with the stock rails. I’ve done it on a couple of troublesome turnouts and it really worked. The Atlas turnouts that I use have a tendency to be a little loose. Shimming them fixed that problem.
