Gize: I want to replace a #6 ATLAS turnout with a curved Peco turnout. How compatible is ATLAS with PECO track? (Really need a curved #7 at this spot.) Thanks in advance, Andy Chandler
reasonably compatible, enough to make it practrical.
When mated on a perfectly flat surface, the Peco rail is not only higher but sits somehow higher on its ties than the Atlas (and visually looks a bit taller -
I measured with dial calipers calibrated to actual HO. The Atlas code 100 rail comes out to 8 1/2 inches tall. The Peco Code 100 comes out to nearly exactly 9 inches tall – that is measuring purely the rail itself.
The overall height, rail and tie for Peco: 1 foot 4 inches. For Atlas 1 foot 2 inches.
The rail cross sections differ slightly as well. But in actual practice, when laying track the rail joiners work on both. I lay track on a bead of adhesive caulk that seems to naturally even out the relatively slight differences between the two where they meet. The thinest sort of shim for other methods of track laying should work.
Where the railhead tops meet there is, yes, a slight bump that you can feel with your finger (and hear when a wheel hits). A few passes with a file followed by finest grit sandpaper or emery cloth or buffing with a Dremel seems to take care of the problem, assuming it is a problem.
Nearly all makes of rail and track have slight differences of this type – the rail and the overall rail + tie height.
Dave Nelson
Since the Original Poster mentions a curved # 7 turnout, he’s probably referring to PECO C83. If it’s being mated to Atlas C83, you’ll need a bit of shimming and a touch of a file to match the railheads. Not onerous.
From a geometry standpoint, definitely not a drop-in replacement, but you probably have that figured out already.
Byron
Yes for code 83 you can match them up. The PECO needs a minor shim and touching up with a file is a good idea. I use ATLAS, PECO and Walthers code 83 together. My favorites are the PECO and the curved turnout from them performs extremely well.
I have 3 Peco curved turnouts used with Atlas Code 100 track. They work fine, but it took some effort to keep the tracks aligned. The rail cross-sections aren’t exactly the same, and you can’t depend on rail joiners to hold them together. In particular, this is a problem when using flex-track, because it wants to straighten out and this causes a sideways force on the rail joiner. I’d strongly recommend soldering any joints where flex track meets up with the Peco turnout. Check the alignment both horizontally and vertically.
Well, I guess ignorance is bliss.
I used Atlas code 100 flextrack and Peco turnouts including two curved one and never noticed a height problem but that may be because I used WS foam roadbed. As has been mentioned caulk also eliminated that problem.
My only problem with flex track didn’t occur with the curved turnout but with two conventional turnouts. I had made the curve of the flex track begin right at the turnout but increasing the radius of the curve by a hair solved that issue.
Happy Railroading
Bob
I do agree with the shims…and typically my first resort is to use the thin cardstock liners in teabag boxes and other packaging of that nature. I also used the adapter joiners in most cases, although they are great stiletto blades on the thumbs if you neglect to use a metal file to dress the larger rails. However, once you ballast the area, and take some pains to ensure some of the material is shoved under the suspended smaller rail lengths, the shims become superfluous.
-Crandell
Thin strips of styrene at the junction is all that is needed to line them up. I use Atlas track and have a couple of Walthers Shinohara curved turnouts and they get along great together.