Guys I have used atlas track for some time. Having trouble with other brands matching my layout track. Trying to build an extension. I need track that is easy to work with and lays down decently. Need suggestions instead of waisting my short stack of cash my wife lets me spend. ha ha
1-12-2017 added
To clear the confusion. I am talking about both, “Different Manufactures and Code.” I’ve never had to deal with this problem before now. Thanks for the great input it has helped considerably so I can move forward. I’ve heard different highths and widths from codes & manuf can cause derailments in engines and cars. even the very slightest differential and I absolutely can not handle derailments.
What exact problems are you having? I have found that buying flex track in bulk is almost always cheaper than buying sectional track.
My last layout was PECO turnouts and Atlas Flex track. I only used a few short pieces of sectional track when I needed rigidity in a yard ladder. I was able to salvage 100% of the turnouts, and 90% of the rail, with the loss of the ties (Im handlaying the next one, so the ties were not worth my time or effort).
If Atlas track works for you, why not buy more? It is in stock at modeltrainstuff.com in Code 83 and 100. I sanded down the ties on some old Atlas to match micro engineering track or maybe it was to match the Walthers code 83 turnouts. Can’t remember stuff anymore, but it wasn’t that big a deal. Atlas is cheaper so I buy Atlas now.
I, too, have used Atlas flex track extensively on my layout. During the 2-year shortage on Atlas flex track, I started using Peco flex track and ran into similar problems with trying to match the rail profile. Although I was trying to match up the two brands of Code 83 flex track, the Atlas rail height is slightly taller than the Peco rail height.
In addition, the Atlas flex track snaps back to its original straight position when the curves are released whereas Peco flex track wants to take on a snake-like form.
Those are the only two brands of flex track that I have worked with. The Micro Engineering flex track has much thinner ties that don’t look right when mixed with Atlas and Peco. The Walthers flex track is way too costly at double the price of Atlas flex track.
So, now that the Atlas flex track shortage is behind us, I have reverted back to the exclusive use of Atlas flex track. It is the least expensive flex track and the easiest brand of flex track to work with.
I add strips of .020" x .100" styrene under every 4th tie of the Walthers 83 turnouts to bring them up the height of Atlas flex track. Its quick and easy with the traditional plastic glue.
I have used Shinohara code 83 switches, Walthers code 83 switches and Peco switches. I have also used Atlas code 83 flex track, early version and Atlas code 83 flex track new version, along with Micro Engineering code 83 flex and individual rails. None of these are compatable with any of the other ones. Then consider all the different track joiners that you need to get it all connected together.
Like others have said, you will need to get creative to get it all to work together.
I thought Shinohara didn’t sell code 83 switches, at least under their own name. Don’t they have a contract to manufacture code 83 for Walthers and it is sold uner the Walthers name? I have a number of Walthers code 83 switches (#8 curved, #6-3 way, #8 straight, and they are all Walthers branded, but IIRC manufactured by Shinohara.
Technically you could use standard Atlas rail joiners to connect any of the above, but the trick is getting the top and inside surfaces of the rail to line up. Part of that may involve a little shimming - nob big deal and the other part would be use of a transition rail joiner.
The main “trick” to using all these different brands together is to make a transition joiner. Atlas sells them pre-made:
Buy one of the Atlas transition joiners and if you have a Demel with a heavy cut-off type disc, you can easily take a standard code 100 joiner and grind out the top center of it. Then you can bend a “step” into the joiner and join not only code 83 to code 100 but you can join different brands together and ajust them so the top and inside of the rail are aligned and then solder them together if you want them to be rock sta
Shinohara sold their own switches before partnering with Walthers. My layout was started in the late 1980s. I don’t know when Walthers got involved. Late 1990s??
Yes, thats my understanding - Shinohara selling code 100 and code 70 turnouts for a long time, probably since the 1970’s. It has always been my understanding that the Walthers/Shinohara partnership was strictly for the code 83 line of track, and Shinohara has always, and up to the present, still manufactured the code 70 and 100 track under their own name. Mine came in brown boxes with the Shinohara label and bought well after the Walthers/Shinohara partnership was initiated.
I’ve had my Walthers (made by Shinohara) code 83 turnouts since the mid-1990’s and I think they had been around a few years by then; Walthers may have started offering their line of code 83 made by Shinohara in the early 1990’s or late 1980’s. Maybe someone remembers when the adds started appearing in MR magazine? I remember seeing them but don’t recall when.
I stand corrected. The Shinoharas were code 100. Code 83 track was not mainstream when I started and was hard to find and expensive. Remember, there was no internet as we know it in 1990.
I think code 83 was starting to get popular in the late-1980’s from memory and Atlas began to kick off their code 83 line of flex track and #6 turnouts in the early 1990’s I think. I know I began buying it in the mid-1990’s mostly buying Atlas code 83 flex and turnouts for the visible parts of my layout between 1995 and 1999. During that time I bought 3 #8 Walthers curved turnouts, a Walthers #6 3-way turnout and a Walthers #6 double slip switch, all of which I saved from that layout when I tore it down and stored carefully back in their original boxes. All of those turnouts are now installed on my current layout.
The Walthers/Shinohara are/were expensive but I bought just enough of them to squeeze more length out of my storage tracks (using the Shinohara code 100 equivelents) and visible yard trackage (Walthers/Shinohara code 83 and a couple of Shinohara code 70 into the intermodal team tracks.
I am bit confused by this thread are we talking matching different brands of the same code track or are we talking matching code 100 to code 83 regardless of brand.
SIW is all code 100 Atlas. No compatiability issues Same Brand same code.
Thats fine, but here is what the OP said in his first post:
He iniated the issue of having trouble mixing brands, and asked for suggestions - hense this discussion. Re: mixing brands vs. mixing codes. OP’s issues involved are pretty much the same as mixing codes, which you can do, (I mix codes and brands freely, although not every other piece of track, but over sections that make sense).
Sure if you used all the same code and brand, it simplifies things but you don’t have to and thats my point. Use transition rail joiners, which you can buy commerically at a higher cost, or use ordinary rail joiners modified to copy their more expensive cousins and it’s cheaper and then you are free to use whatever suites.
Joe, let me explain my logic. I’m on a budget right? So Atlas track, being more economical, is what I have mostly used so far. Problem is, based on my track plans and needs, I need other types of track, like code 70 for yards and sidings (= realistic) and special turnouts like broad #8 curved, 3-way, double slip etc. which Atlas doesn’t make. To save money further I used code 100 in storage yards were appearance isn’t an issues.
Bottom line is, there can be great advantages to having the freedom to mix brands and codes on a single layout and not being limited by only using one brand/code. The solution is fairly simple. No issues, no big deal. Does that make it less confusing?
I am bit confused by this thread are we talking matching different brands of the same code track or are we talking matching code 100 to code 83 regardless of brand.
SIW is all code 100 Atlas. No compatiability issues Same Brand same code.
Thats fine, but here is what the OP said in his first post:
Having trouble with other brands matching my layout track.
He iniated the issue of having trouble mixing brands, and asked for suggestions - hense this discussion. Re: mixing brands vs. mixing codes. OP’s issues involved are pretty much the same as mixing codes, which you can do, (I mix codes and brands freely, although not every other piece of track, but over sections that make sense).
Sure if you used all the same code and brand, it simplifies things but you don’t have to and thats my point. Use transition rail joiners, which you can buy commerically at a higher cost, or use ordinary rail joiners modified to copy their more expensive cousins and it’s cheaper and then you are free to use whatever suites.
Joe, let me explain my logic. I’m on a budget right? So Atlas track, being more economical, is what I have mostly used so far. Problem is, based on my track plans and needs, I need other types of track, like code 70 for yards and sidings (= realistic) and special turnouts like broad #8 curved, 3-way, double slip etc. which Atlas doesn’t make. To save money further I used code 100 in storage yards were appearance isn’t an issues.
