I have three kinds of code 83 trackwork. I have Atlas flex, Atlas pre-curved, and turnouts by Walthers/Shinohara. They each have a different height when joined with Atlas code 83 joiners. It seemed insignificant but some steamers like to derail at some joints.
Is it desireable to file the rail head to taper down to the lower rail? I already file a short angle as wiewed from the top to lessen derailments.
I actually think the problem might be different tie height. The Shinohara ties are shorter than the Atlas ties. I have to shim up my Walthers/Shin turnouts since I use Atlas code 83 flex. I do have to pinch the Walthers rail joiners a bit to get them tight on the Atlas track. I hope this might help.
I have the same issue with Atlas code 83 flex track and Walthers code 83 turnouts. I have found that a small piece of .040 thick styrene shim at the ends of the Walthers turnouts helps with this issue, once the ends of the turnouts are ballasted the shims become hidden.
Remember I said using code 83 joiners. By this, I meant that the bottom of the rails are equal and the only difference is the rail height. I have already shimmed the turnouts .013"
This picture shows my way. I use here code 70 and code 55 rail. Both ends are soldered to a PC board tie with matching rail top.
Wolfgang
I suspect the rail joiners do not guarantee perfect vertical alignment of the rail bases. Code 83 rail is supposed to be .083" high by definition. I believe it highly unlikely that manufacturing tolerances on the rail height are more than about .003" off either direction. The other possibility is the track is mis-labeled. Check with calipers or a micrometer to verify it is code 83 rail.
Rail head width, track gauge, and tie height are defined by individual manufacturers, and can and do vary. Atlas deliberately makes the ties on their code 83 track thicker so that their code 100 and code 83 track will both match in height. MicroEngineering rail has a thinner rail head than Atlas rail of the same code. Walters/Shinohara is usually in between. ME also sets their flex track to a narrower track gauge than Atlas does - both are still within NMRA tolerances. The Atlas widening allows a smaller radius curve without binding than the ME, but tends to promote “wallowing” on straight track.
Shimming or sanding the bottom side of ties is the preferred method to match rail heights at joints. Tapering the difference over a few inches helps, too. You still should match the inside track gauge as well. A couple of swipes with a file on the inside of the railhead can achieve this. A finger nail drawn across the inside corner of the rail at a joint should not catch.
Rails joined with a rail joiner can also kink horizontally (angular misalignment of the 2 rails), especially with Atlas flex track on curves because of the springiness of the rail. Sighting with an eye at rail height can detect most kinks. Soldering the rail joints on curves is the normal cure. On straight track, just adjust until the kink is gone.
my thoughts, your choices
Fred W
Bruce,
I do not think Atlas makes code 83 rail joiners anymore(they sell just a standard rail joiner currently). I use Walthers code 83 rail joiners and they do fit ‘tight’. I used my digital micrometer and measured several pieces of Atlas flex and Atlas code 83 turnouts. They seemed to vary from maybe .081 to .086 in height. I did not have any Walthers/Shinohara trackage to meaure, but I would expect some variance there as well. I take a small mill file to all of the rail joints as I lay the trackage to make sure they are smooth.
Are you clipping the ties under the rail joiner so that there is not ‘hump’ in your track at the joints? The tie height may be an issue, the Atlas code 83 flex track has extra high ties so that it will match up better with the code 100 flex track(at least from what I have been told).
Jim
Short answer-File the rails smooth. It won’t hurt anything. The rails are solid NS.
I’ve got some Atlas code 83 flex and sectonal track and they are the exact same rail. (just measured)[%-)]
I think Fred and Jim have hit on the cause of my problem. I cannot solder the particular joint that prompted this post as it is a turnout. The fault appears to be both the joiners and my relying on them to straighten out sloppy track underlay. I will correct the misalignment and replace the joiners with a closer fitting brand.
Thanks to all,
The joiners could very well be the problem…it is unlikely to be a substantial difference in rail height since I would guess each manufacturer gets the same Code 83 NS rail. I could be wrong.
When I have height disparities, I place one tine of a needle-nosed pliers set on top of he high rail end and the other tine under the low rail end and rotate the pliers until the rail heights are maintained aligned by the rail joiner. This means you are creating a transition joiner out of a regular joiner effecitvely by kinking it in the middle. As a result, you will have to support the lifted turnout end with cardstock shims or something like that.
Certainly you can get different joiners and try that, too. It will be interesting to hear of your report when you first use them, Bruce…I would hope that they really do solve the matter for you.
-Crandell
theres no law that says you must not solder a turnout. I have been soldering mine for years and have not had a lot of trouble with them. a couple of times I have had to remove a faulty one but it wasnt that big a problem.
I guess I`m saying that some rules need to be broken occasionally
[#ditto] Heat joint, slide joiner fully to one side, remove turnout. It’s a bit more work but it is do-able.
Shimming under the ties is my preferred method for keeping vertical misalignment to a minimum. Since I use very deep ties under my specialwork, this means either building a ramp under the flex track or shimming it to the greater height for the entire length between closely-spaced turnouts.
Shinohara used to get their rail from a small metal processing firm in Tokyo. I seriously doubt that any non-Japanese manufacturer uses the same source.
Chuck (modeling Central Japan in September, 1964)
Boy, you lucked out. There must be some serious descrepencies for that problem to occur. Because I could not refuse a fantastic deal on a job lot of brand new Shinohara code 70 at a train show I have had to routinely mix Shinohara code 70 with Peco code 75, both flex and turnouts (always using Peco joiners, the Shina joiners are too short and have no lead in) Never had a problem at the junctions with the two brands. Since then I’ve wondered if the Peco is code 70, the Shina is code 75 or that if 0.005" does not matter anyway. I was lucky, but I guess the answer is to always try before you buy.
I agree with both of you. Over many years I can count on one hand the number of turnouts I have had to remove for maintenance. Maybe three, at most. If it ever happens, go to Radio Shack (or a radio / electronics supply) and get a de-soldering kit. If you know how to solder, you can learn to un-do it just as easily.
John Timm
BRUCE:
YOU are tryiing to mix different brands and finding discrepancies. Amazing, since different extruders of rail use different tooling and have different +/- tolerances.
(2) Each offers rail joiners to fit THEIR track* (not a competitors). One size does not fit all.
ATLAS code 83 uses thicker ties. It doesn’t match anyone elses code 83, nor NMRA specs. Nor does Atlas care if it doesn’t. You’re using Atlas track (that doesn’t match anyone elses) to save money - or is there another reason?
ANSWER is **to match brands (**or modify accordingly). MOPAR parts also don’t fit GM cars.
Even Shinohara (code 100 & 70 turnouts dont fit Walthers’ Shinohara made track either - because it’s code 83.
I have Shinohara 100, 70, Walthers 83, and Micro-Engineering 70 all on the same layout, and sometimes combine smaller joiners into larger ones to adapt. That, and some judiciously placed business cards.
SIMPLEST ANSWER? - Use all same track!
EXTRUDED rail is heated enough to be squeezed out a mandrel, where temperature & speed affect size, therefor +/- tolerances come into play. One end may not match the other.
Tighter tolerances cost more , therefor prices are higher. You get what you pay for in a competative market.
PS:Fred wRight is correct. Matching height is important, but wheel flanges eventually find discrepancies in rail joints where they occur, so touch up the joint insides with a File