Hello everyone. I finally got enough pieces of my track to start putting my layout together. Last night I found out that Walthers Code 83 turnouts have rails that are significantly larger than Peco Code 83 flextrack. Further complicating matters, the Walthers turnouts are significantly lower profile than the Peco flex track. So, I need to shim my turnouts and jam my joiners into the turnout rails while the flextrack rails “float” in the joiners. All of this leads me to question my decision to use Walthers turnouts. Should I consider switching to Peco turnouts for compatability? Any thoughts/comments?
I would use all the same manufacturers turnouts not mix and match. It seems okay to mix and match flex track with turnouts but not turnouts with turnouts.
They will always be a little different.
I agree with UP4018: although I don’t really care who makes my flextrack (I’m using Atlas, Peco, Micro Engineering, Shinohara and Walthers, in codes 55, 75 and 83), all my switches are Peco code 75. Of course, I really LIKE Peco switches, both for their quality and for the sprung points.
I’ve used a combination of Shinohara code 70 track and switches and peco switches (Peco where they can be reached for manual operation and Shinohara for Tortoise operation) and haven’t had any problem even though the Peco are code 75 as opposed to shin. code 70. The combination of different rail sizes and profile height compounding the problem might make a glitch. As far as the variation in fit of the rail joiner, try using a diagonal cutting pliers to crimp the joiners onto the loose rail. Should work I do it all the time to correct loose joiners.
I can compensate for the difference in profile, but I was a bit startled by the difference in size (rail width mainly). I (foolishly) thought code 83 meant something in terms of size - thus all code 83 parts would be (nearly) the same size. Never make that mistake again.
Nevertheless, I have all the same turnouts (walthers) and all the same flex track (peco), but as I mentioned before, they are different sizes. So matching them introduces a factor I was not anticipating. No biggy, just a hastle I don’t need.
At this point, since Peco doesn’t make curved turnouts (that I could find), I will stick with the walthers’s turnouts and press on. Thanks for the opinions.
Peco does make curved turnouts, but I don’t think the code 83 ones are available, yet. I have a code 100 wide radius curved tunout with code 83 flex track. I bought some transition joiners (save your money). I just used regular rail joiners and shimmed the code 83 track on the first one. One the second one, I marked where the curved turnout would be and sanded the roadbed to sink it a little bit to make the railtops even. Both worked. The code number for various track just refers to rail height, if I’m not mistaken, not rail profile.
I haven’t had time to check, but don’t the NRMA standards cover the dimensions of the rails? I guess they don’t cover the rail tie height though? Althought the Peco rails are smaller than Walthers, the Walthers rail ties are much smaller in height. Live and learn. I should be able to test drive the mainline in a couple of days - if the heat lets up.
I never could keep up with all of these different track codes, but all I know is that “Code 100 track”, usually seems to work for me better than the Life-Like “snap track” or whatever it’s called. I also despise the track (I believe is Life-Like “snap track”) with the plastic roadbed. Ughh! It seems to break and need sanded instantly. I’m sure that Walthers and Peco 83 work fine though, as I will soon replace all of my track as well, and maybe it’ll be Code 83.[8][8D]