I’ve built this bridge
and I’ve been looking far and wide for the Walthers Code 83 bridge track for it but it’s backordered everywhere.
I can get the Micro Engineering bridge track in code 83 though. I’ve never installed bridges or bridge track before so my question is, will the Micro Engineering work just as well as the Walthers for this bridge? My mainline is code 100 so I’ll have to use transition joiners. That’s quite a little bump in transition. Does this cause problems like derailments?
Jarrell
You can make your own bridge track from code 100 and solve the problem of the rail not matching. After the code 100 is installed on the bridge take code 83 rail an install it against the spike heads of the code 100 track. This leaves about the right gap. Use contact cement or spikes to fasten the rail. At the ends make sure the guard rails do not touch or you may get a short if metal wheels contact the guard rail and the road rail at the same time…
I see no reason the ME track wouldn’t work. It should be fine. Your transition shouldn’t have a “bump”. If it does, then you will need to find out why. Are you using code 100 rail joiners instead of transition joiners? Some of us use regular rail joiners, but flatten one end for the smaller rail, then solder the smaller rail on top of the joiner making sure it’s even and straight with the other rail. Or is the bump caused by the tracks being 2 different thicknesses? If so, shim up the thinner track and taper it down for a nice gentle slope. Hope this helps.
Brad
thanks Ned, I may give that a try.
Jarrell
Brad, I’m not sure if the ‘bump’ will be enough to worry over. I was looking at some Atlas transition joiners in the hobby shop (shoulda bought some) and noticed the difference in height in the two ends. It’s not much, I’ll admit… but I didn’t know if it was enough to cause a problem or not. I may just go with the flattened on one end route.
Thanks for the suggestions.
Jarrell
Jacon,
The difference in height of the two ends of the rail joiners will cause a “bump” in the bottom of the rail. The tops should be level.
One difference about bridge track not mentioned, and you’ll notice it on the M.E. track, is the tie spacing which is closer together.
Other than the height of the rail, the difference between Atlas code 100 & 83 is in the thickness of the ties. The top of the rail of Atlas code 100 will match height with Atlas code 83 rail with a transition jointers.
Jacon,
You can cut the connecting webs from between the ties of a piece of code 100 flex and slide the ties closer together to get the correct tie spacing for bridge track. The tie length won’t quite be right, but it’s not a glaring difference. You can then use nedthomas’ suggestion of adding code 83 rail for the guard rails. No transition joiners needed this way.
HD
Ahhhh… OK… thanks Dave!
Jarrell
gsetter and HD, I appreciate the advice and I thank you for the tips!
Jarrell
If you have older or cheaper (trainset quality) rolling stock expect alot of headaches with code 83. Sagging coupler pins is another consideration.
I used a pair of Atlas Code 83 crossings where a branch line crossed my double track main (Code 100) using transisition joiners and ended up ripping it all out.
I would suggest replacing the Code 83 section of track on the bridge with Code 100 Flex track cutting the tie webs as mentioned and keep the line uniform.
No, all my rolling stock is pretty good quality, late model stuff. So, let me get this straight, see if I understand it… IF I use the code 83 bridge track with my code 100 ‘mainline’ track and IF I use transition joiners, the tops of both the code 83 and the code 100 will be even… level. But, because the code 83 rail height is a bit shorter, thus your ties are ‘higher’, then the likelyhood of mishaps is greater due to things like sagging coupler pins.
Hmmmm… I had not thought of that.
I’ll keep it in mind while deciding which way to go.
If I cut the ‘webbing’ on the bottom of the code 100 track in order to slide the ties closer together, won’t that make the track have a tendency to get out of alignment.? Well, I guess when you glue that code 83 guard rail on though, that would take care of that.
Ok. Thanks for the help!
Jarrell
No, cutting the webbing shouldn’t affect the alignment (gauge, or distance between the rails), but there is the possibility of the ties sliding/shifting. Gluing in the guardrails should resolve this issue.
Snagging coupler pins would not be based on track code. It would not matter if it’s code 100 or code 55, if they’re gonna snag, then they’ll snag. The only thing that would matter is if you have older cars with large wheel flanges; if all your equipment has RP25 flanges, then you should be ok down to code 55 track. If the coupler pins are snagging, then you gotta raise them up (won’t get into that here, tho’).
Brad
Another thought if you’re going to use code 100 on the Walther’s bridge is the vertical height and the height of trains you plan to operate. A Club member friend has a series of these bridges on a module set and double-stack containers will not fit under the top of the bridge (they hit the top support). He says (haven’t verified this) that double-stacks will fit if code 83 track is used instead of code 100. (He used code 100 as it was a Club specification.) Something you might want to check out for yourself.
Another easy way to make a transition is to use a code 100 rail joiner, and insert a shim under the code 83 part of rail. for example, a small piece of brass 0.015 inch thick, cut to the width of the base of the rail can be forced under the code 83 rail in the jucnction. You can also make your own separate transition on the workbench soldering up a transition as described.
One caution: after assembly be sure that the gauge side of each rail are aligned. The head of code 83 and code 100 rail will probably be different in width, make the gauge sides match. if necessary, run a small file along the gauge sides of the rails and along the tops until the joints feel smooth to the touch. (a good ideal on all rail joints)
Ed
To further “muddy the waters”, I am going to build the Walther’s bridge (was not aware of the ME bridge) BUT I have a different situation to address. I am going to come onto the bridge w/th single Code 83 track connecting a #8 turnout in middle of bridge, with then 2 tracks emerging on the other end. Is there going to be any special consideration for that. Will use hand throw on turnout (could not connect powered one) as using hand trowns all along the front side of layout.
Anyone ever done anything like that?
[banghead]
I built this bridge for a previous layout and had the same problem with no one seeming to have stock for the Walthers bridge track. So I asked the guys at the LHS, (Trains West in Albuquerque, NM). They recommended I try Central Valley bridge ties 1902-10. It was a perfect fit; I stripped down one of my Atlas flex tracks Code 100, cut both rails in half, and I was able to make-up two 18" long bridge track sections. The Central Valley instructions were easy to follow, everything was self gauging. The bridge track sections are about 3" long and I used 5 for each side(15") so there was 1 1/2" of overhang on each end. I then took some of the stripped down ties from the flex and added to the ends where the rail overhang was and then tied into the track on the layout using standard Code 100 rail joiners. According to Central Valley I could have used Code 83 with their same tie plate holding system or even smaller rail probably using contact cement and gauges just to be sure.
One note on the question about running a turnout on this doubletrack bridge: you should run a couple of I - Beams under the diverging route side for the sake of authenticity, that is what the prototype would do if they were to do such a thing. The big problem here is, would the prototype actually do this. I know that from an engineering, mechanical, physics standpoint that there would have to be consideration for the lateral forces of switching tracks while on a bridge.
Thanks for the feedback. I just gotta decide which way I’m going to go with this. I’m visiting a large hobbyshop tomorrow in the Atlanta area and they may… just may… have the Walther’s bridge track in stock.
Yeah… right… 
Jarrell
Here is a solution that worked for me. Central Valley makes bridge tie sections that come without rail. You can buy them in scale 72’ lengths (HO) and glue code 100 rail onto them. They are easily lengthened or cut shorter. I used a piece of Atlas flex track and removed all of the ties from the middle and left about 6" worth of ties beyond each end of the bridge to connect to the approach. There is a small height difference between the bridge ties and the Atlas ties that can easily be shimmed at the approach to the bridge without problem. Glueing code 83 rail to the center for the gaurd rails makes for a great looking bridge. However, if you are running double stacks, the additional height of the Central Valley ties will not allow clearance for the stacks. I remedied this by glueing an appropriate sized I-beam to the bottom of each side of the trusses of the bridge where it attaches to the bridge deck. This will raise the entire upper structure of the bridge enough to clear double stacks. After painting and weathering, even some of the rivet counters that have seen the layout did not notice it until I pointed it out. Here is the Central Valley main page. www.cvmw.com Go to the bridge kit link and you will find them listed. Walthers also carries a short version of the same part by Central Valley (210-190210).