I need to make transition joiners between code 100 Atlas track and code 83 bridge track. I think the way to do this is simply flatten one half of a regular Atlas rail joiner, place the joiner on the code 100 track, place the bridge track resting on top of the flattened part and solder the both of them to the joiner. Is that the way it is done?
JaRRell
If the rail tops will be even, then I say yeah, go for it.
Hello “Jarrell,” That’s the way I do it. I’d recommend that you solder the joiner to the larger rail first. Check the mating rails to see how well the height matches before soldering, and if necessary you can adjust by filing the flattened part of the joiner. Then tin the flattened part of the joiner and the bottom of the smaller rail, which mean to heat them and melt solder onto them. Then it should be very easy to solder the base of the smaller rail to the flattened part of the joiner. Good luck, Andy
Now thats good advice I remember when you had a column in MR which I read every month,always good advice in that column,good luck Andy
jacon 12;
Glad you posted this topic. Right now my current layout is inoperative and is, most likely. going to remain that way. It is probably going to be two years before I am going to be able to start a new one - in the meantime I have a whole group of locomotive superdetailing projects to keep me busy.
About three weeks ago I posted a topic in the Layout and Layout Design section concerning the feasability of using N-Scale Code 40 rail - got several interesting responses indicating that it is not unrealistic so I’m headed in that (future) direction. My future layout will utilize Code 55, oversized as it is, for the mainline and Code 40 for sidings, side tracks, and spurs/industrial trackage. Going to have a lot of matings between different height rail.
Jarrell,
You don’t “need” to do anything more than to add both rails to the joiner as usual. Believe it or not, trains won’t fly off the rails into outer space because of the little bump.
True, it’s best if that bump wasn’t there, so you might want to file down the joint until it’s smooth. The added benefit of this method in your situation is that you’ll be able to remove the bridge without unsoldering the rails, which is always a tedious and messy process.
On my last layout, I used codes 83, 75, 70 and 55. ALL of my switches were code 75, and all but two of my diamonds were code 83. By the time I had to dismantle the layout, my entire mainline was laid and running, but I had only gotten around to filing down about half the height gaps. And guess what? I didn’t have a single rail-related derailment.
Ray. Interesting observations. When you say file down the joint, are you talking about just filing the code 100 rail top a little?
I always wince when I answer for others, but I think he meant to file the squeezed down joiner. Filing down the railhead means a shorter, local, grade that will still be revealed by rolling stock as they traverse the joint. A rail head that meets height by being supported below from the correct height will not have that, in all likelihood. Or, at least, the transitional grade will be considerably longer.
I believe Atlas makes transition joiners for mating code 83 & 100. Atlas makes their track so that the overall height is the same, the code 83 has thicker ties. 1:1 scale also uses transition joiners when mating different rail sizes. Full-size joiners bolt onto the sides of the rail, then the surfacing crew should come by and tamp everything level.
Or a guy could just put it together (code 83 &100) in a regular joiner and see what happens. If stuff falls off, a little filing might do the trick.
What I do is use my Dremel and a cutting wheel and cut a section of the curled top part out right in the middle of the joiner down to the base… This allows the joiner to move like the Atlas made ones but is stronger where it grabs teh rails. Works nicely.
Many, many years ago, I used to make my own joiners for connecting code 100 and code 70 rail together. I would use the code 100 joiners, cut a grove in the top halfway down with a dremel. Then I squeezed one half of the joiner as flat as I could and the two would meet without much of a bump. The code 70 rail was soldered to the joiner and then meshed with the code 100 rail. For code 83 to 100, you will have to file down the sqeezed part until the code 83 mates well with the code 100 rail. I have done that to connect code 83 and code 70 rail. It should work very well for you and is a fairly easy project.
Actually, I did mean to file down the rail head. Adding a tiny “hump” on the top of the rail joint that’s only .017" high isn’t going to hurt anything, and certainly isn’t going to introduce a “grade” onto the mainline. If you’ve stared down the mainlines of most secondary lines in this country, you’ll have noticed much larger humps in real life!
I should tell that to my rolling stock.