There are no code 100 curved T.O’s with 20"/24" radii w/insulated frogs available. Walther’s #6.5 code 83 curved T.O.'s are 20"/24" and would fit perfectly to allow me cut one in to a 24" radius curve. The short length NS code 100 to 83 transition tracks obviously won’t work in this circumstance. I’ve read mostly negative comments about using NS transition rail joiners and positive comments about using the “crush and solder” method of flattening one end of a code joiner, laying the code 83 turnout (or track) on top of the crushed joiner and soldering.
Would appreciate pro and con comments and alternative methods if any…
I have quite a number of c83 to c100 track transitions and have used both methods stated above.
I have found that the biggest problem is getting the tops of the rail even!
This is the most important thing that needs to be done to keep derailments at a minimum but also the hardest!
I would solder the c100 side of the joint and then bend the other half of the joint on the c83 side up to get the c83 rail to be even with the c100 rail tops.
Once this was even I then would solder the c83 rail to the jointer.
Word of caution… If the radius needs to be exact (splicing into existing track) then check closely. WS curved turnouts don’t measure exactly as their specifications state. They are a little less than stated radius especially on the diverging route.
The previous poster is obsiously as familiar with W/S curved turnouts as am I. I ordered six of their curved Code 83 #7.5 turnouts seven years ago for my second layout based on the specs listed for that turnout. Boy was I disappointed. The outer curve was per spec, but the inner route was at least three inches less in radius than advertised. I had to butcher them, including slitting all the webbing between the ties, so that the inner and outer routes beyond the frog would widen a bit.
Don’t worry about marrying Code 83 rails to Code 100. You can shim them or simply rely on ballast grains to suspend the elements so that they work together with their flange faces and rail tops flush with each other. But do be suspicious that you are getting the advertised inner radius with the curved W/S turnouts. They may have re-tooled them in the intervening years, but I haven’t heard of it.
I have many curved W/S code 83 turnouts. As stated by Crandell, the outer curve is as advertised; however, the diverging route is consistently 2" less than indicated (not 3’', at least not in mine which have all been purchased in the last few years). Therefore, the #6.5 is really 24/18, not 24/20.
Dang it. I’m sure glad you posted that info. The 20" inside radii was a perfect fit to conform to my existing yard trackage (I’m creating a runaround I didn’t perceive I needed until I started test running to position my uncoupler magnets).
Bumping up to a #7 to gain a larger inside radius (24"-2" = 22") I could live with but the outer 28" radius would be too big to work into the available space of my 24" main line trackage in this area. Better to find out now given the retail cost of these T.O.'s…which floored me by the way. But I do need the runaround and the only option is to deal with the 18" inside radius I guess. … Decision, decisions, decisions…
Dante was the first guy to bring curved turnout dimensions to my attention. He is absolutely correct.
What I do is to get a curved turnout with the proper inside track dimension to my needs and then work with I have with the outside dimension. Or vice versa.
As far as mixing Code 83 and Code 100 on a curve with a curved turnout, my advice is to forget it. Unless you are King of the Bullet Proof Track Laying Empire, you are only asking for trouble. Personally, I wouldn’t do it.
Shake hands with the king! … [(-D] But, yeah, I appreciate the cautionary mention. With this my 40th year in the hobby and my last new (retirement) layout build (6th or 7th…can’t remember) I know the importance of getting the mechanical aspects right.
This said, at this late stage in the hobby I opted to stay with code 100 vs switching over to code 83 because of the considerable cost - as in 34 turnouts and switch machines plus the amount of trackage I had plus the bridges I built with code 100 track installed, etc. - just too much invested in both time and money. My only concession to “modernizing” was switching to DCC for the function and sounds fun factor it brings to the hobby…which hasn’t been what I’d call a chump change investment let alone switching to all code 83 to boot.
Have the turnout custom built…There are several custom builders on Ebay that you could get to do custom work. I contacted one of them several years ago about a custom turnout… Not cheap, but you are looking at only one turnout. I never pulled the trigger and scratch built the turnout instead…
In terms of track laying, there are lots of things more difficult than switching codes in the middle of a curve and installing curved turnouts… I think difficulty is a relative thing.
Obviously, I can see how switching codes on a curve might want to be avoided, but here it appears to be necessary as the poster is having trouble locating code 100 curved turnouts. Scratch building a curved code 100 turnout for this spot would be the other option, that would be quite a bit harder than what we are discussing here…
I mix codes freely all over my layout in a variety of situations and have had no problems doing this. All track work has to be carefully installed, regardless of difficulty or skill level of the installer.
While I have only done code 83 to code 70 transitions - including code 83 turnout to code 70 flex track, my experience is that the crush the rail joiner/solder method is more trouble then its worth. I just couldn’t get the beasty flat enough. That being said, I slide the smaller rail into the larger rail joiner, and carefully aligned vertically and horizontally and then soldered in place. Let cool and do a thumbnail check at the joint. Small differences can be adjusted with a file - larger ones might need to be resoldered (its a judgement call). With a curved turnout you will have to be very careful not to introduce a kink at the joints - but with some care it should work ok. Make sure you have some heat sinks (even a damp paper towel will work) on hand to keep from melting things. When done do a ‘roll test’ and maybe run the most unforgiving loco you have through it too.
You could try a test rig of splicing in a curved section of code 83 to code 100 to get the process worked out in your mind before doing the actual thing just so you can see the pitfalls to avoid.
Just to add, guys, the only code 100 curved T.O. available is a Peco and the outside radius is something just over 19" with the inside radius a bit over 17’ which would be way too tight to use. This is why I started looking at code 83 and found the W/S code 83 curved T.O.s with insulated frogs.
As someone mentioned another option would be to build one in place - which I’ve never attempted up to now during my 40 years in the hobby and given the complexities is definitely not on my bucket list at age 73.
In my way of thinking code 83 rail inside edge to inside edge dimension would have to be the same as code 100 to meet NMRA HO standard. So it follows that the difference in rail head to tie level - i.e. wheel flange clearance - is also a non-issue in that any engine or rolling stock that runs on code 83 will run equally well with code 100. And with respect to installing a code 83 curved T.O. into an existing code 100 section of 24" radius track, other than the where the ends of the T.O. rails join the code 100 rail I just don’t see a mechanical problem once the rolling stock is inside the code 83 curved T.O. …unless it doesn’t meet NMRA standard of course.
We have had discussions before,you and I,we are I believe the same age… I have great confidence in you that you can accomplish what you want to do… So,‘‘Get er done’’…
Well thank you! Patience is one of the few benefits of “gettin’ old”…or more correctly a necessity now with my train world viewed through trifocals, snails pace movement getting down on my creeper for the under layout work (and getting off the darn thing and getting up…) and of course resting up to go out for supper! [(-D]
Isn’t it pretty common practice to have to shim a W/S code 83 curved turnout to match with Atlas code 83 flex, as their overall heights don’t match? Why would matching the height to code 100 be anymore troublesome?