Need to transition some Microengineering code 83 to code 100 rail. Would filing and shimming the rails be better than using the plastic transistion rail joiners?
Thanks and regards, Peter
I personally think the plastic transition joiners are awful things. They don’t allow for a firm joint between rails of different sizes, and alignment ends up suspect where you can least afford it.
Atlas sells metal transition joiners intended for joining code 100 to code 83. They are also useful for other brands, and I’ve used them for 83 to 70, 70 to 55, and even 83 to 55. The design allows rail to be inserted at both ends, and has a notch in the center where the bottom of the joiner can be flexed until the rail heads are exactly aligned. These are a bit loose, seemingly by design, so I always solder any joint that uses them.
Another option is to make your own from a standard joiner. I’ve used other brands of joiners, and cut a notch in the middle similar to the Atlas transition joiner (using a Dremel cutoff wheel) that lets me flex the joiner vertically.
A method you’re sure to encounter is to place the larger rail in a standard joiner, and squash the other half flat so the smaller rail can be soldered on top. This also works, but does create a zone of weakness. Over the years I had a few such joints fail due to mechanical stresses from expansion and contraction of the rails and/or benchwork, so I no longer do transition joints this way. I do all of them with joiners that allow both rails to be inserted, which allows the joiner to hold the rail horizontally no matter what.
Thanks for your reply and solid info. I’ll skip the plastic joiners.
regards, Peter
I connected Atlas Code 100 and Atlas code 83 (on the .017 thicker ties) with the standard Atlas ‘universal’ joiners. Just dug out about .003 of the Code 100 tie and .020 of the Code 83 tie, then anchored the ties with latex caulk and weight loaded the joint to make the entire area level.
I don’t know if the Micro-Engineering flex requires shims under the code 83 ties. Even if it does, my technique is valid.
Chuck (Modeling Central Japan in September, 1964)
I use the Atlas metal transition joiners and solder the joint.
I have used the Atlas metal transition joiners but myself I prefer to use the pieces of transition track that Walthers sells, Codes 100 to 83; Codes 83 to 70. The pieces are about 6 inches long but can be shortened. By cutting the webbing beneath they can also be made slightly curvable. The tie height does not match other makes of track but that is an issue that can be dealt with in a variety of ways.
Dave Nelson
Are those still available? I haven’t seen them in a long time.
Dave – not only are the Walthers / Shinohara transition tracks both still available, I just checked the Walthers website and they are (gasp!) IN STOCK!
EDITED POST: I am not aware of any make of transition track, versus transition railjoiners, other than Walthers/Shinohara. Even with different tie heights, and tie spacings, I think the transition track tends to be less jolting then other methods. I have used them with some Atlas flextrack.
Dave Nelson
In the past I have used transitional track joiners with mixed results. In the short term they worked well, but over time they required repairs.
I now use the transitional track, never had a problem after.
I bought the plastic transition joiners (online) and promptly file thirteened them. Useless. My situation was mating a Walther’s/Shinahara code 83 # 7.5 curved T.O. into existing 24" radius code 100 flex trackage in my yard exit and as such I couldn’t use the straight transition track pieces.
What worked for me was the crushed code 100 rail joiner method to join 6 inch lengths of the corresponding snap track radius to the code 83 turnout. To help with the vertical alignment when soldering the crushed rail joiners I built a rudimentary jig comprised 2" long pieces of popsicle stick with a round head sheet metal screw in the center and then screwed into a length of 1x4 to hold the cut snap track rails stationary with the code 83 TO rails resting on the crushed rail joiners.
Point being IMO if I had been joining straight sections of 100 to 83 track then I would have used the NS transition joiners. Putting a curved 83 T.O. in an existing 24" radius code 100 curve track section meant I couldn’t use them.
Therein lies my problem…
I was just looking for Atlas. Thank you.
You mean like Atlas item 0551, http://shop.atlasrr.com/p-86-ho-code-83-transition-joiners.aspx, which I believe that the Atlas site says are in stock?
No, those are the joiners that I have been using. It is the transition TRACK that I couldn’t find.
Sorry about that chief. I got lost between the posts.
But if you want an Atlas transition track, why don’t you make your own? That’s what I do.
Get yourself a piece of Atlas 9 inch code 100 and a piece of code 83 snap track. Two pieces of Atlas code 100 and code 83 flex work just as well. You’ll find that Atlas makes the ties on the code 83 thicker so that the tops of the 83 and 100 rail are at the same height. Use the Atlas transition rail joiner to connect the pieces, and solder the joints. Cut the ends to the length you want. Done.
A lot less expensive than those premade transition pieces.
This conversation is going in circles. I HAVE been using the transition joiners and solder.
Again, sorry. I thought that SOMEONE was looking for an Atlas transition track, which I don’t remember them ever making. I was just offering what I thought was a less expensive alternative. I’ll go back down the basement now.
I’m not offended. You TRIED to help. I appreciate the effort. You may stay up until your TV program is over.
"For the next hour, sit quietly and we will control all that you see and hear. We repeat: there is nothing wrong with your television set. You are about to participate …"
I have a Free Mo module set that has code 70 track, because it has been mated to modules using code 83 rail, I made my own transition joiners another way. All I do is slide a shim under the smaller rail (make sure it is not under the larger size rail) in a normal joiner, no special piece of track, special joiner or crushing and soldering needed. For code 83 to 70, I use a code 83 joiner and a 0.015in styrene strip under the code 70 rail only. The shim could be somewhere around 0.060-0.080in wide. Since 0.070 + 0.015= 0.085, there is a 0.002in height difference, which isn’t noticable at all. For code 100 to code 70, use a code 100 joiner and a 0.030in thick shim. Even though styrene strip was used, if you do it quickly, you can solder the joiner in place if done quickly; I have both soldered and unsoldered joints that work equally well (I just don’t have to worry about losing a shim on the unsoldered joiner). As long as the shim is the right thickness, almost anything can be used instead of styrene: paper, wood, metal, etc. I used styrene strips because I have some leftover from other projects. Actually, the first attempt using this shim-under-the-rail method was a toothpick wedged under the smaller rail; it worked fine, but the strips are easier. Its an easy way I’ve found that works for my situation, I hope it works for yours too!