I was wondering if any other HO modelers have mixed Micro Engineering’s code 83 flex track with Walthers code 83 DCC friendly turnouts? Which rail joiner did you use?
I know from experience that Atlas code 83 and Walthers turnouts are not a good match. The Walthers ties are thinner creating a situation where the turnout doesn’t sit flat on the roadbed. Shimming is an option, but adds extra work.
I have also heard of using N scale rail joiners on code 83 track somewhere, maybe an MRR project?
Hi, I use N-scale rail joiners on my Atlas C-83 and Peco C-75 flextrack. I usually have to spread the openings a bit with a jacknife to get them started on the rails; tapering the rail ends to remove the square corners also helps. Once that is done, they seem to work well and don’t look huge and out-of-place. I solder a drop wire to each piece of track so I’m not dependent on the joiner to carry current.
I agree about the pain to set up a shim to get the rail height correct when mixing different manufacturers. It’s just something that needs to be done. It’s only a few thou, but even 5-thou can be a big bump in trackwork!
For more aggravation, you can slightly file the roadbed down instead… definitely a pain!
Have fun, George
I used Atlas rail joiners as well as ME joiners, I never found them to be too much of a problem. What you will have to do is locate a .001 styrene shim under the ME rails where they meet the turnout. All manufactures of track for some reason have different profiles. If you break out your trusty magnifying glass and hold several different pieces next to each other you will see a difference in the profiles of each one. Why they do this is beyond me and whats even more puzzling is why hasn’t this ever been addressed by the NMRA. They are supposed to be the guardians of all that is model railroading so issues like track, turnout, & rail-joiner comparability should not be an issue.
I picked up on a little trick from David Pop I saw on one of the MR how to videos that may help you, take a piece of code rail and solder it to a piece of tubing to be used as sort of a handle file the end of the rail to some what of a point. This will make it easy to slide into the rail-joiner and size it for lack of a better term. I have yet to use rail-joiners that don’t need a little tweaking now and then.
So which prototype tie size, roadbed profile, rail size, rail profile, tie material, etc., should be the universal standard? Even rail profiles of the same basic weight classification differ slightly over the years, and from railroad to railroad. Tie thickness has also changed over the years, too. And concrete ties have quite a different profile from wood ties.
The NMRA does have standards that affect critical wheel and track dimensions. Track, rail, and tie heights are not a critical dimension from the point of view of our trains staying on the track. Neither is rail base width nor rail base height - both of which affect rail joiner fit. Would you outlaw Peco’s N scale code 55 track because Peco added a secondary web to secure the rail to the ties? The Peco system allows oversize flanges to roll on code 55 rail, where Atlas code 55 track does not. FWIW, Midland had a similar double web rail and tie system in HO in the 1950s.
Atlas specifically designed their code 83 track to match their code 100 track without shimming or using special rail joiners. This allowed beginners to add to their layouts easily without throwing out their old code 100 track. The fact that Atlas code 83 doesn’t match up perfectly with other makes of code 83 track is probably a plus in Atlas’s eyes. You are more likely to stay an Atlas customer because e