Peco Code 83 flex track vs Atlas flex track

Model Railroader Layouts and layout building
1

Here is a question that I’m interested in getting some feedback for.

I’m highly impressed and almost convinced that the investment of the Peco Code 83 flex track might just be worth the investment for my layout. However, in the interest of keeping costs down (which incidentally seems to keep my wife smiling too - unless I buy her shoes), the Atlas Code 83 flex track also looks pretty nice. It certainly doesn’t have the incredible ability to hold it’s flex like that of the Peco line, however I’m curious as to other’s thoughts on whether one is in any other way more superior than the other. Beside the obvious cost difference, I’m interested in hearing your opinions on any pros and cons of either brand.

Thanks all,

Chris

2

As I have said in other threads, add the turnout selection into the picture and choose them together. Mixing Peco and Atlas code 83 products creates a transition joint every time they touch each other. No big deal if you only have a couple of intersections, but imagine a 10 or 20 turnout ladder where you are instantly looking at 20-30 special transition joints.

As for the price difference, as I’ve also said many times, if I got to make the decision all over again, I’d choose Atlas code 100 and use Peco code 100 turnouts. That is the choice many modular clubs and experienced modelers around here have done.

Just my 2 cents.

Joe

My blog has a lot written about this topic.

3

My earth has crumbled and my sky has fallen!

Well…not really, but I can always use this to play the sympathy card with the wife in order to get my Peco track in bulk. Thanks for the great information ‘Joe-Daddy’. Checking out your blog was a great eye-opener, and certainly makes it easy making an educated decision on track.

I look forward to reading through your other articles. It looks like you have a wealth of knowledge, and gosh darn it, I think I’m going to tap into it and learn some more great info.

Thanks again!!

4

I use Atlas Code 83 flex track and turnouts and find them to be very reliable. On my previous layout I used a mix of Atlas Code 100, Atlas Code 83 and Shinohara Code 83 turnouts. Atlas helped the situation with the production of #8 turnouts. Now, everything is all Atlas Code 83.

5

I used all Peco code 83 flex track on my home layout and had to intermix Shinohara and Atlas turnouts and crossings because Peco didn’t make every type I needed.

I thought Peco track was more flexible than Atlas, but the biggest advantage to me was that the Peco track has no unsightly nail holes in the crossties. I fastened my roadbed and track with latex caulking instead of using nails.

Peco rail is narrower at the bottom than Atlas and Shinohara, which makes the use of metal rail joiners tricky. Peco rail joiners are too narrow to go over Atlas rail, so I used Atlas rail joiners squeezed slightly narrower on one end. There’s also a slight difference in rail height between Peco and Atlas track due to their different crosstie thickness, so some shimming had to be done where the two brands met.

None of the differences in brands caused a problem that could not be solved, but if I could have used only Peco products the layout would have been easier to build.

6

100% of the Atlas code 83 flex track that I have purchased in the past 3 years has holes that come up to but not through the top of the tie. To get a hole in the tie, you must punch or drill it through from the bottom. I Personally would have rather had the hole in the tie clean through, as I use track nails until I get the track where I want it, then I use tacky glue thined with alcohol to bond the track to the roadbed. When I ballast, I use white glue or Modgepodge to hold the gravel. At that point the holes in the track seem to disappear.

Just my 2 cent

And Cacole, the work you talk about joining the track is true, it can be overcome, but to me the reason I purchase ready to use track in the first place is so I don’t have to have the hassle of fitting dissimilar materials together. And to pay extra $$ for more incompatibles that I did not expect makes me a bit hostile, if you know what I mean. [xx(]

Good post, by the way!

Joe

7

Blush, red face, stammer (more than usual).

Thank you for the kind words, sir!

Joe Daddy

8

Joe Daddy I checked your blog. Did I understand you correctly that ME(fast track turnouts really) and Peco c83 matches nicely? I’m going to go for that combo on my next layout.

Magnus

9

Magnus, I found Peco code 83 turnouts to be 100% compatible wiht ME RAIL. I’ve never seen ME turnouts. My recommendation to anyone, is to be aware of these insidious little differences then test carefully on a small sample to verify your situation. Manufacturers can make changes and adjustments to their lines without notice.

Atlas on Atlas is more than good enough for me.

Just my 2 cents!

Joe

10

I had a Peco turnout at home and I tried it against one of my Fast track turnouts. Pretty much a perfect match.

Magnus

11

Hi, I know there are plenty of similar threads subsequent to this one, but I would like to roast this old chesnut, since it includes joe-daddy’s blog (track laying\track) and I have unwittingly become a victim of incompatability between manufacturers products (this is not a ‘which is best’?)

Until recent years, PECO have always fobbed-off UK Railway Modellers of ‘OO’ scale 4mm:12" (1:76.2, 16.5mm gauge) with Code100 ‘Streamline’, which is European outline. ‘OO’ gauge Sleeper (Ties) spacings are larger.

I chose Shinohara HO Turnouts because I felt they were far more realistic looking than PECO products. Shinohara/Walthers, Micro-Engineering, Tillig and I believe Atlas, do not have milled-out Stock-rails & Points, as do PECO Turnouts.

I then ordered some PECO SL-8300 and looked forward to receiving it. Opening the box - Ugh, what thin, spidery looking stuff. It was not going match Shinohara.

Did a bit of checking using a Dial Caliper. I have 2 No. Tillig Turnouts, just for reference. NMRA website says C83 is 126 Lb rail at 7.1" high.

A.R.E.A. Dudley Rail Profile: 127Lbs Height=7.0"=.080" Head=3"=.035" Web=21/32"=0.007" Foot=6.25"=.072"

Taken measurements below include the height from U/side of Tie-Base to T.O. Rail Head = OverRail, OR

Shinohara: OR = .142" Head = .040" Web = .024" Foot = .080"

PECO : OR = .173" Head = .032" Web = .016" Foot = .067"

Tillig : OR = .165" Head = .032" Web = .016" Foot = .067"

Out o

12

Who is there to “control” what the manufacturers do - other than the customer? The NMRA does not control anything. Their standards are recommendations, nothing more, nothing less.

13

I decided in 2011 on Walthers-Shinohara code 83 turnouts (because of the wide selection then) and Atlas flex. The W-S have thinner ties, so a 0.015" cut out cardboard shim was added under the turnouts to help match the rail heights and support the turnout ties. I used N scale code 80 rail joiners, as they are smaller and look better than their larger cousins. They are tight, so need some pre-installation wiggling on a piece of slightly sharpened code 83 rail.

I do recall folks discussing the relative ease or difficulty of creating joints on curves, preventing a kink, using different flex brands. I don’t recall the pros & cons for each. For the Atlas flex, I would cut back some ties, create a soldered rail joint(s) joining the two pieces when extended relatively straight, then create the curve with the nice tight joints and caulk the curve down (pinned until dry).

As far as appearance goes, it will vary with the modeler’s attention and opinions. I was not over concerned about that, thinking that my planned painting of track would mitigate any appearance differences between brands. My mix of Atlas flex (and crossings) and W-S turnouts looks fine to me, after painting.

14

I don’t recall noticing any problems using Atlas code 83 flex track with Peco, Micro Engineering, and Walthers/Shinohara turnouts, nor with using M.E. code 83 rail on Central Valley tie strips, when connected to either Atlas track and turnouts, or the above mentioned ones.
Once the rail joiners (I use either code 70 or code 55) are soldered in place, tie thickness is of no consequence, and once ballast has been added, any visual discrepancies will not be noticeable.

For flex track, I prefer Atlas, as it easily forms its own easements for curves, although for appearance, the Central Valley tie strips have become a favourite for me.

Wayne

15

Hi Gentlemen,
Thank you for your replies. Another reason I chose Shinohara was because of the range of Curved Turnouts. Comparing the gap between the Ties, PECO SL-8300 = 1/8” (3mm) whilst Shinohara = 5/32” (4mm) This is the visually unacceptable (to me at least) How or why has this difference come to be?
Ulrich, if PECO can market a Track system from AREA specifications (and well done them) then why have the NMRA not determined this and included it in their guidelines from years ago, re the key dimensions that I quoted? It should not be left up to anyone to do it by design and manufacture alone. I have searched thru the NMRA standards and if it is there, I may have missed it. Most manufacturers abide by the Wheel & Guard rail B2B’s and the Coupling centre height.
In my time as a Draughtsman, I have designed ANSI or DIN Pipework knowing that which ever Pipe/Flanges/Fittings I use – they will all be compatible (I also do Quality Control & Inspection)
Whilst the NMRA cannot force manufactures to adhere to their specifications, I find the Tie-gap variation a bit incomprehensible. I think I will have to cut my losses and ditch the PECO track and hope that Atlas is a closer match to Shinohara.
Regards to you all, Paul

16

I guess many of us are just not that fussy…

I use Atlas code 83 track and turnouts, and some Walthers turnouts for slip switches.

In general, the curved turnouts on the market are useless for my purposes, as their inner radius are all too sharp to conform with my 36" minimum standards.

I started out in this hobby in 1968 with TruScale wood roadbed track…

And learned early to handlay track and build turnouts.

When the Atlas and Walthers products do not meet my needs, I simply build what I need.

After it is all painted and ballasted, it all

17

That’s probably true. My experience has been that Shinohara code 83 and Atlas code 83 match up well and are pretty much interchangeable, IMO.

OTOH, Peco code 83 track has a different profile than either brand in width or height that causes a significant and noticeable “speed bump” when performing slow speed switching moves if Peco is attached to either. If you were going to use Atlas flex and Peco turnouts, you would have to do some shimming and/or filing to get the transitions smooth. Not to mention the rail joiners would have to be squeezed more tightly on one side to accomodate the Peco track relative to the Atlas.

Since I’ve decided upon Peco code 83 turnouts for my layout, I will be “forced” to use Peco flex as well. Just as well, I like the way the Peco flex holds its bend.

18

The NMRA isn’t involved here for the simple reason that the NMRA standards are for smooth and compatible operation, not any particular prototypical appearance.

Much like the DCC standards don;t say one brands equipment has to connect to anothers, except for the signal on the track. The standards for wheels and track simply mean that compliant wheels will run reliably on compliant track. It doesn;t mean brand A’s track will line up with brand B’s track without shimming or otherwise adjusting the connection so that the top and inside of the rails line up.

I am using all Peco on my new layout, in a large part because of their greater variety of turnouts compared to Atlas. I’ve tried fitting curved turnouts on my plan - it just doesn;t work. You are tied to whatever radius they make, so the rest of the curve has to be adjusted, or have a section that is different right in the middle of it. The only way to get true flowing trackwork with turnouts on curves is to hand lay them in place. Unless you take the radius of the commercial curved turnout as your baseline and design the whole layout around a single turnout geometry - which seems way too restricting to me.

–Randy

19

Yes. I was able to use several Walthers curved turnouts on my previous layout but the new layout looks more problematic for that. As Sheldon mentioned, the inside radius of many of the curved turnouts, not just Walthers, is too tight and restrictive.

The Peco curved turnout is really not very useful. Its outer radius is about 60 inches and the inner about 30, if I were to guess. That difference helps keep the overall length very compact, in keeping with Peco’s general theme, but that broad outer radius is difficult to lay into the middle of a curve. It might be useful as part of a spiral easement…of sorts.

OTOH, the smaller 4 inch drop between the outer and inner radii of Walthers curved turnouts makes them extremely long pieces of track, especially the #7.5 and #8 products. I have read where the drivers of heavy steam locos can actually splay the extremely long point rails on the higher numbered Walthers curved turnouts, if not stabilized in some way.

20

Personally, I find the PECO C83 Curved turnouts to be great and I use them a lot in designs for folks. It depends, of course, on the type of layout and specific track arrangements.