I am considering using Atlas snap track curved pieces (HO, Code 83, 18" or 22") and Shinohara flex track sections together. Aware of cosmetic differences such as slightly different brown color. Will the two kinds of track function smoothly together?
The Atlas ties are probably thicker than the Shinohara ties resulting in a slight mismatch at the railhead. Probably not enough to matter but you might want to take a file to the transition joint. Another possibility would be to put thin shim 2" or 3" starting at the rail joint under the Atlas track but. personally, I wouldnt bother.
On my layout I used Atlas code 83 flex track and Shinohara turnouts. Same issue. No problem.
I also use Atlas flex track and Shinohara turnouts. I use WS foam roadbed, which is softer and more flexible than cork. I think this combination is enough to make up for any slight dfference in height, as I seldom have to shim the track to get the railheads even.
I’ve had the best luck with Atlas rail joiners. I hope you can find them. They continue to be in short supply.
I’m using Shinohara code 70 flex track connected to my Shinohara code 70 #8 turnout which is, in turn, connected to Shinohara code 83 #8 turnouts. I’m using my old Atlas code 83 rail joiners (long out of production but snapped up when Atlas stopped making them). I prefer the lower profile of the code 83 joiners but the Atlas universal joiners should work too, just bigger.
Thanks very much for the feedback. Very helpful. Just to be clear, are you suggesting filing the rails to level the height?
Thanks for your reply. Very helpful.
Thanks for your reply. Very helpful. Just to be sure, is WS foam roadbed Walthers Shinohara?
I wasn’t suggesting you file the rails, only that you could do so if you wished. But I would suggest you check the alignment of the inner edge of the rail heads. If these do not align very closely derailments might be a problem. This would warrant filing.
I’m pretty sure “WS” meant Woodland Scenics.
Because of the visual difference between Atlas and other brands, it might help to disguise the combination if it occurs at a grade crossing which hides the ties for a few inches.
If you need a shim I use either sheet styrene or those “Your Name Here” fake credit cards that American Express amoung others sends.
Dave Nelson
I built my current HO code 83 layout with a similar disconnect; i.e., Atlas flex and Walthers-Shinohara turnouts. I believe the rail (only) heights, being code 83, should be the same. I used Atlas N80 rail joiners, which are nice and tight, even need a bit of pre-loosening to get on easily. The rails thus join together in a nice joint, the only issue being whether the tie heights are different.
So the rails should mate well, unless there’s a difference in the Shinohara vs. Walthers-Shinohara profile. IIRC, the Atlas has the thicker ties, made to mate with code 100 track at the top of that railhead, if joining Atlas code 100 to code 83. So, when joining the Shinohara code 83 to Atlas code 83 track, there exists a 0.017" gap at your joint below the thinner Shinohara ties. Some people ignore it (thus, tight rail joiners count to keep the rails well mated). Plus ballast, if added and glued, I’d think would tend to hold things in concert if some thin ties were floating.
But some say to address the height gap with a shim. I did this by shimming my W-S turnouts with (lacquered) cardboard from the turnout boxes, though I had some 0.015" styrene to use also. I’d consider, in your case, shimming the Shinohara track near the Atlas ttrack for a few inches, then seeing if any remaining (vertical) transition in the continuing Shinohara flextrack was bothersome from a visual standpoint, not likely a problem at all.
My question is, why would you want to do that?
Why not just use flex track?
Rich
Rich:
I used 22" snap track to lay out my curves, and then used the pieces up on the last couple of curves I laid. (cheap Me).
Dave
So, the idea is to use pre-formed sectional track for the curves and flex track for the straight runs?
Rich
Welcome to the forums.
WS roadbed is Woodland Scenics.
Have fun,
Richard
That method works quite well…I used that method on my few loop layouts…Solder the joints and you’re good.
I have often wondered why Atlas only makes 22" and 24" radius curved sectional track.
Rich
I just checked Atlas’s HO track catelog and in both codes 83 and 100 they show four radii: 15, 18, 22 and 24 inch.
We can only guess why Atlas doesn’t offer larger radii curves, especially because so much rolling stock out on the market either won’t work well on most sharp curves or looks bad on them. Perhaps they are catering to beginners who typically look at layouts in myopic 4x8 sheet of plywood format, which dimensionally requires very sharp curves.
The good news is there are other options out there if one wants to stick with modular track, such as KATO’s Unitrack in HO - which comes in curve radii ranging from 21 inches to 31 inches in radius. To me this is much better as many wish to run longer rolling stock and engines these days.
Atlas also makes 15" and 18" snap curves.
To answer your question and to hazard a guess I fully believe 22" and 24" is the more acceptable curve for small home layouts.
To be sure if I was to build a loop layout(recall I prefer ISLs) I would want to use the largest curve possible like (say) the 24" curve and again I would solder the joints.
Yes,I know how to make flex track curves if anybody is wondering but,for some unknown reason I like using the ready to use (prefab?) curves…
Yes, richhotrain, that’s the idea if practical. Because of space limitations, I would use Atlas snap track in 18" and 22" for curves, than Walthers-Shinohara for straighter sections and turnouts(all code 83). As to the “why?”, I’m new to the hobby, and admit to being a little intimidated by trying W-S flex. I purchased quite a bit of it when on sale. Thanks for your feedback. Very helpful.
Yeah, you’re right. I consider the 15 and 18 snap track and the 22 an 24 sectional track.
Rich