I have a couple of open deck girder bridges that I built from ME kits. They are very short, only about 5" long but on a 24" radius curve. No problem kit-bashing to get the proper length and positioning the bridges, and they are short enough so that the ME ties sit down on the structures nicely even with the curve.
I am joining to Walthers code 83 track at each end. Since I knew this part would be tricky I laid the track sections out in the shop and formed them using ribbonrail, then let them relax before soldering. Then formed into final shape and mounted the joined track to the layout for testing using a bit of double-sided tape (the bridge track is not yet glued to the structure.) No problem getting the proper curve and gauge at the joint, but…
The cross section of the ME and the Walters track is different, and while joiners on the Walthers track are very tight they are very loose on the ME track. And I ended up with a slight ridge on top that I can feel with my fingernail (the Walters track is a bit higher). I tested with my 2-6-6-2 steamer and it runs over the joint OK but I want it to be bullet proof, so not entirely happy. Torn between leaving it as is, filing it down to smooth it out or doing it over again.
Before I join the track on the other end, and the track for the second bridge, are there any tricks that would help get the tracks from the two different suppliers joined perfectly on the 24" curve?
I have a feeling,that you have,code 70 bridge track not,code 83,if their were both 83,the track should line up and the joiner when attached,to the ME should not be loose…Check to make sure it is code 83…
Thought that too, but both the ME bridge kit boxes say code 83 and comparing end to end with the Walthers rail the height is exactly the same. The ME rail is definitely is code 83, but the thickness and width of the base is visibly smaller than the Walthers. The top of the rails would have been even if I had everything lined up perfectly. But the joiners being loose makes this tricky, and managing the curve adds to the difficulty (and the importance of getting it right!) I tried both code 83 Walthers and code 100 Atlas N scale joiners and both are very loose on the ME rails.
If I had joiners that were good and tight to both rails then it would be no problem.
After you put the joiner on the Walthers track, squeeze the other end of joiner a little tighter with piers and slide it on to the ME track. Once you get everything in place and the joint soldered, you may have to take a pass or two with a small file to smooth out any speed bumps.
Well the ties on the ME,ARE thinner,than the others,But as far as the base of the rail,being smaller,I don’t get that part,and you said you tried,N-Scale joiners… How about ME joiners??
Cheers, I just read post on ME,about joining,their flex to other,flex track,Atlas and Walthers,and there was no mention,of problems with rail joiners working…
If I remember correctly, the ME open deck comes w/ the section of ME “bridge” track (close spaces thicker ties). When I set bridges, I allow the rails of the ME bridge flex to extend off the bridge and a few inches past the abutment. I don’t think this is the case w/ that kit as the track section is too short to do this and you are attempting the rail joint @ the abutment. The reason I extend rails is for bridge anchoring and also to allow the guard rails a place to spike/ attach as well. I realize that there is a difference in the bottom web of the ME and that is your issue for rail joiners. Most bridges I have done will have the ties stripped off the length of bridge track and many times have glued “wood” ties (about 1/2 dozen or so) up to the bridge abutment and gravel/ ballast stop (either wood- early or stone/ concrete- later) The wood ties can be placed glued then sanded to exact rail height match. ( club uses 1/4" pine roadbed exclusively making this a bit easier for that tie attachment, but they can be caulked down to do the same). This allows you to spike the running rails as well as the guard rails anchoring the bridge. Easy bridge removal if nec. I don’t know if you want
Exactly what I did, except for the filing. I really concentrated on getting the gauge right and making sure the curve would be smooth. I guess I’ll give it another try and put a little more emphasis on the rail height. What about putting a little solder on top of the rail joint and then filing to help get it perfectly smooth- is this a no-no? Its not off by much- just enough to catch a fingernail and see a little movement when the wheels go over. Maybe I am just being too much of perfectionist.
My guess is that ME joiners would be much tighter, but they would have to be opened up a good bit to go over the Walthers rail. Might work much better, but not worth a special order just for ME joiners unless someone here has done it and says that’s the magic ticket.
Since I 'bashed the bridge kits a bit shorter than they come I do have extra track to overlap on the ends, and plan to do essentially what you described though my overlap will only be an inch or so. Since these little bridges are on a tight curve the track needs to be soldered to make sure the gauge stays good, so not easily removable. And trying to join the track right at the transition would make things that much harder.
I also have a wood trestle that I am working on and will strip the ties off the Walthers track and hand lay it on the bridge, with a few inches extending beyond the bridge abutments. I’ve done this in the past and its worked out well. The difference for these little bridges is the pre-made bridge track which I’ve never used before. Thinking about it I guess I could glue wood ties down on the bridge structure hand-lay the Walthers rails like the trestle, but I would need to buy or make longer wooden ties than the ones I have so that they extend over the straight bridge structure all the way through the curve.
I really like your pics- seen them before but this time took a much closer look. Our construction methods are very similar and hopefully my end result will turn out close to as good. And I also have a Con-cor B&O passenger set exactly like the one in the pic to go over the top!
Even when I am joining two pieces of Walthers track together I give every rail a light pass with the file. If you do this on the bottom of the rail at the corners and across the bottom you will find the joiner will slide right on and still be nice and snug. Sometimes the corners act like little burrs and dig into the joiner.
My first priority would be to make sure there are no kinks at the joint. Make sure the track is really secure under the joint so a kink won’t develop down the road. Solder does not make a good leveler. Use a very small fine file and go slow. You will be surprised how little work it takes to get rid of that tiny lip.
I got a set of little files at Home Depot for about $4.50. The files are all different shapes. One of the best investments I have made.
Unfortunately ME code 83 and Walthers/Shinohara code 83 are not at all the same shape. The base, web and rail head are all different dimensions, and the only thing that really matches is the height. A joiner that is too tight on Walthers can indeed be loose on ME since the base on the Walthers rail is thicker.
Whenever I have these two brands coming together, I like to have a soldered joint that I can file to ensure alignment is maintained over time. When adding track to a bridge, I extend the rails out from the bridge both directions, and hand lay on wood ties for a few inches, using ties of the same dimensions as the adjacent flex track. If I need to remove the bridge at some point, it’s then easy enough to heat the joiners and move them along the hand laid rail, and to pull out a few spikes. The bridge can just as easily be reinstalled and the approach rails spiked back down.
I have experienced exactly what you are currently dealing with. I use code 83 exclusively, and have had to make ME and Walthers rail work together. You are correct - the rails are not the same shape, from one brand to another. For a good, tight fit, I have found that ME HO code 83 joiners are the best to have on hand for nearly all applications. I use a jeweler’s tweezer (sharp pointed tip) to spread the joiner end to make it go on the Walthers (or anybody’s except ME) rail, after I round the rail end and base just a little with a file to remove any burrs or sharp edges. On curves, soldering the connection is a very good way to retain gauge and radius. Soldering all connections removes all doubt. Sometimes the rail heights differ at a joint, and a little filing is required. In spite of NMRA standards, sometimes a perfect fit is elusive without reforming the rail. The more attention paid to trackwork, the better everything works. Have fun.
I do have an assortment of small files, and use them to dress the track ends before putting the joiners on and also run one across the finished connection just to remove any burs or excess solder. The Walthers joiners really work great as long as I am joining two sections of Walthers track. And Atlas N joiners need to be spread a little in order to slide them on the Walthers track, but they also result in a good connection especially if the joint is soldered. So until now I haven’t had to do any filing to “level” a joint.
I think I have the full picture now, and going about it pretty much the same way everyone here is describing. Think I’ll go ahead and order some of the ME joiners to see if they work better though. No point in getting in a rush especially since there are plenty of other areas on the layout to work on.
Instead of filing the tops of the higher rails to level the joint, shim the low track up until its rail tops match the higher ones - a piece of paper, folded as many times as necessary, will do the job. If necessary, unspike or loosen that track to spread the transition over a greater distance. If the bottoms of the rails at the joint are then at different heights, file the bottom of the lower rail to raise it.
Likewise, if the bottom of the Walthers rail is too wide, use the file take a little material off both sides of those rails until they’re the same width as the ME ones, then use ME joiners to make the connection.
The only time I’ve ever filed rail tops is on Atlas turnouts, some of which had abnormally high frogs.
The ME joiners arrived today and I gave them a shot on the track for the second bridge. It took a few minutes to find the right tool to spread the top of the joiner wide enough to start the Walthers rail (even after filing a lead-in on the rail.) But they fit the ME bridge track perfectly and the joints turned out great- good and tight with the rails perfectly even. I went ahead and soldered them since the bridge is on a 24" radius curve, fit the track on the layout and tested. Much better- just as good as any of the other joints I’ve made.
I will re-do the connections that I am not satisfied with on the other bridge using ME joiners over the weekend.
Lesson learned- opening up rail joiners that are too tight is a better way to go than trying to close in joiners that are too loose.
I have a dial calipers (the dial readout is calibrated to HO scale – no longer made but I read somewhere that someone else might be coming out with them, maybe MicroMark?) that measures things down to very fine tolerances. When you first get one of these calipers you start to measure stuff just for fun because it gets down to HO inches! I decided to measure the height of rail and was surprised.
Quite apart from the fact that the cross sections of various makes of rail the same “code” are not the same, I found that one outfit’s “Code 100” did not match another make’s Code 100. Moreover even the same nominal brand of track did not always match. Some very old Atlas Code 100 brass snap track did not exactly match some more recent Code 100 NS flex track for example. And so on down the line – Code 83 and Code 70: change the make of track and things did not always match up exactly in terms of actual height, which after all is what the “code” is referring to. For the most part the differences were not gross, but could be measured. And since our railjoiners, unlike the prototype fishplates, make all rail start with the same flat base, I am not surprised that slight differences can be detected with a fingernail when run along the track. From a tracking perspective, however, I suspect differences is railhead width matter more, since those are what would catch a flange unless the inside edges can be made seamless.