I am in the process of extending my HO layout and would like opinions on the flex track. I originally used Atlas code 83. This track laid down nicely on the cork roadbed and was easy to install, however it did not matchup well with my Peco turnouts. I had to file the rails down were they joined.
I am thinking maybe Peco or Micro Engineering flex track this time. What do you think of these products
ME is fiddly to shape, in that it holds it’s shape as you form a curve, but you have to keep working it to get the radius you want. Atlas has the free running rail and is much faster to work with.
No experience with Peco flex or turnouts to tell you about the height.
I’ve used Atlas and Peco and as long as you match code 83 to code 83 and code 100 to code 100 the rails match perfectly. I prefer Atlas flex over Peco flex and Peco turnouts over Atlas, the Peco switch machines are much better and I like the Peco point spring.
Mel
My Model Railroad
http://melvineperry.blogspot.com/
Bakersfield, California
I’m beginning to realize that aging is not for wimps.
Hi Ed,
I got caught out with this one recently. Basically my Shinohara/Walthers Turnouts and my Atlas Code 83 set-track (which both match ok) would not match my PECO SL83 Tracklengths, both Rail-profile sizewise and in appearance, re Tie-spacings.
One big difference is the height from the underside of the Tie to T.O. Rail, PECO being much greater.
Basically what other community members advised is safest to use the same make for your Track and Turnouts. From research, I have noted that ME track is not so easy to ‘flex’ as PECO is, albeit I cannot speak from experience of ME track. Paul
I’ve always used Atlas track, but for my new layout I am using Peco because of the greater variety of turnouts. So I am using Peco flex to match up. A few years ago I ordered a couple of pieces to see how it was, and it’s somewhat in the middle between Atlas and ME. Not as floppy as Atlas, but much easier to form than ME.
Comparable pricewise, if you shop. I found Yankee Dabbler beat my usual go-to, Modeltrainstuff, on Peco track and turnouts.
–Randy
I use mostly code 83 Atlas flex track and turnouts, but have never had any difficulty using Peco, Micro Engineering, Shinohara, or scratchbuilt turnouts with them.
If one brand has thicker ties than another, you could rub one end of it over some sandpaper to get a better match-up, or simply connect the rails, and allow the one with thinner ties to “float” for a few inches from the joint.
Once you add ballast, the floating ties will not only be hidden by the ballast, but also supported by it.
Wayne
I haven’t used ME HO although I do have ME On30. My club layout is all Peco code 83. If the OP is using Peco points then why wouldn’t he use Peco flex? No mixing issues then, even if ME and Peco could be used together without too much of a problem.
Bagal
For years, I used nothing but Code 83 Atlas flex track and Code 83 Atlas Custom Line turnouts on my layout. Then, during the Great Atlas Flex Track Shortage, I installed some Code 83 Peco flex track on a new section of layout. I hated Peco flex track with a passion. Too hard to work with, too hard to keep straight, and too shiny.
On my new layout, I installed Code 83 Atlas flex track once again, but I switched to Code 83 Peco turnouts because I really like the spring loaded point rails. I experience no problems with the transition points between the Atlas flex track and the Peco turnouts, no derailments, no uncouplings.
My only issue with Peco is that the color of the ties is a deeper brown than that of the Atlas ties. But once the track is ballasted, the color difference in not really noticeable except when I film videos with an on-board Mobius camera. But, then, the Mobius camera shows every little flaw anywhere on the layout. LOL.
Rich
I’ve had no problem connecting Peco code 100 turnouts to Atlas code 100 flex track and wouldn’t expect there to be an issue with Peco code 83 turnouts either.
Here is what I used to match up rail of differing heights, transition rail joiners. I suspect that would solve your “matching problems”. No filing required. I make my own now out standard rail joiners as it costs less than buying the pre-made ones sold by Atlas.
I’ve used Atlas code 83 flex on 2 of my previous two layouts but one thing always bothered me about it. The rail profile is rather wide and although it is code 83, it doens’t look like it from above.
Take a look at this comparison and see if it changes your opinion on Atlas code 83 flex:
Clearly Atlas flex has the crudest looking profile and looks the least like real rail. When viewed from above it has a wider cross section and doesn’t really look as fine as code 83 should look in comparison to code 100. The only real visual advantage is the ties and tie spikes are finer. On the plus side, Atlas code 83 is very easy to flex and form to nice smooth flowing curves; that comes in handy when forming easements too.
I’m going to try Peco code 83 flex on my next layout and have bought a case of 25 sticks to start with. It is reportedly easier to bend than Walthers Shinohara or MicroEngineering, which can be bloody stiff and difficult to bend into a smooth flowing curve. I’ve worked with the similar Walthers code 70 flex and it takes a lot of massaging and tweaking the ties to get it to the right shape. I don’t care for it much.
Color of ties used to bother me but now I paint my track so that is moot. One paint some uses as a base color is Rustoleum Camouflage brown.
That picture sure makes Micro Engineering track look pretty good to me.
Code 83 Atlas track measures .04" or 3½" rail width.
Mel
My Model Railroad
http://melvineperry.blogspot.com/
Bakersfield, California
I’m beginning to realize that aging is
I use (and love) ME track. While more expensive than Atlas, I like that it holds the proper shape when curved. The trick is removing ties which create an unsightly “V” shape. They also connect seemlessly with my Atlas code 83 turnouts.
ME flex track does look very good, but it’s the difficulty in getting it to the right shape the I don’t care for; ya gotta wrestle with it quite a bit.
Atlas forms so easily and smoothly. If you use Atlas track nails or ME spikes, that will hold it in place at that nice smooth natural curve. Same with easements.
But as seen in the profiles, the Peco rail looks pretty close to the ME rail, but easier to form.
I don’t use Peco, but have plenty of Micro Engineering. As you’ve already heard, it’s more challenging to use than most other brands.
DSC02055 by wp8thsub, on Flickr
The fine appearance may be worth enduring the learning curve depending on your priorities. The back two tracks above are Micro Engineering, both code 55 and code 83. The closest track is Shinohara (formerly sold under the Walthers brand), which is very similar to ME in workability, but has a somewhat different tie spacing and rail profile.
Any time you mix brands, there’s the potential for mismatch at the joints because of differences in rail cross section and tie thickness. If you don’t already have a stock of Peco turnouts, you may want to consider using ME turnouts for your new construction for easier installation alongside ME flextrack.
I ended up with some MicroEngineering track from Carl [8-|] so I’ll be making use of it along with the Peco and the track I saved from the last layout.
Thanks guys. You are the best.
Stay well
Ed
In my book the appearance of M.E. flex track is worth the extra effort it takes to form it. Ribbon-rail metal gauges are helpful when forming and laying. A plus about holding it’s shape is that it can be spray painted off the layout with few rail holidays.
Regards, Peter
I’m sorry, what track. That nicely weathered hopper stole may attention.
I love Micro Engineering flex track. The non weathered stuff is easy to curve and I love the tie plate and spike detail.
I standardized on Peco, mainly because it genuinely looks good, and it was the easiest to source here in Australia.
I have to say, my decision on the brand of flex track has always been based upon cost and ease of installation. Maybe I just have poor eyesight, but once my track is installed and ballasted, I cannot really discern any differences in rail profile, tie plate and spike detail.
My layout sits up 36" off the floor and I am 6’. I cannot imagine paying extra money for such details that simply cannot be seen. I simply settle for Atlas flex track which suits me just fine.
Rich