ONLINE
STORE
"ASK THE BACH MAN"
FORUM
PARTS, SERVICE,
& INFORMATION
CATALOGS AND
BROCHURES

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
June 20, 2018, 11:02:07 PM
Home Help Search Login Register
News: Check out the photo gallery link above or >click here< to see photos of recently announced products!
+  Bachmann Message Board
|-+  Discussion Boards
| |-+  HO
| | |-+  FLEX TRACK BRANDS
« previous next »
Pages: [1] Print
Author Topic: FLEX TRACK BRANDS  (Read 2720 times)
MarkM

View Profile
« on: February 13, 2007, 10:01:28 PM »

I have used Atlas code 83 flex track and am pretty happy with it.  Other brands are usually twice as expensive or more.  Any real advantage to the the more expensive brands of flex track?
Logged
Nigel

View Profile
« Reply #1 on: February 13, 2007, 10:56:23 PM »

Hi Mark;

Some of the other brands are slightly more realistic, and all that I am aware of have ties which .017" thinner than the Atlas code 83 ties.

Atlas made thier ties thicker so that the top of the rail matches code 100 track.

If you use Atlas code 83 turnouts (or any code 100 turnouts) with the Atlas code 83 flex track, no shims are needed.  If you want to use other companies' turnouts, you'll have to shim the turnout .017".

Model Power code 83 flex is a bit cheaper than Atlas.  I have not sampled it, and do not know if it has thicker or thinner ties.
Logged

Nigel
N&W 1950 - 1955
Bill Baker

View Profile
« Reply #2 on: February 14, 2007, 11:09:33 AM »

Nigel,

About 4 or 5 years ago I was laying some Atlas code 100 to their code 86 and noticed an ever-so-slight difference in elevation between the two.  My LHS said there were Atlas adapters (for lack of another term) that I could use to join the two codes together.  They are about 3 inches in length. I bought some and inserted them between the two different codes of track and it resulted in a smooth transition. In looking at the Atlas on-line catalog I do not see them advertised. 

In light of your post describing the two Atlas codes being at the same heigth, I am wondering if this is a new design and if these adapters are still needed?  My code 100 was quite old.

Thanks, Bill
Logged

Bill
jayl1
Guest
« Reply #3 on: February 14, 2007, 11:38:39 AM »

Not exactly an answer to your question but Walthers makes/imports transition track for changing one code of rail to another.
Logged
Bill Baker

View Profile
« Reply #4 on: February 14, 2007, 11:58:10 AM »

Jay, come to think of it, it might have been ordered through Walthers rather than Atlas.  It's been some time ago and I've slept since then.
Logged

Bill
Jake

"Scenic route of the world"


View Profile
« Reply #5 on: February 14, 2007, 07:41:51 PM »

Nigel,

About 4 or 5 years ago I was laying some Atlas code 100 to their code 86 and noticed an ever-so-slight difference in elevation between the two.  My LHS said there were Atlas adapters (for lack of another term) that I could use to join the two codes together.  They are about 3 inches in length. I bought some and inserted them between the two different codes of track and it resulted in a smooth transition. In looking at the Atlas on-line catalog I do not see them advertised. 

In light of your post describing the two Atlas codes being at the same height, I am wondering if this is a new design and if these adapters are still needed?  My code 100 was quite old.

Thanks, Bill


You do know code refers to the height of the rail in 1000ths of an inch right?

Anyway I would use Atlas, Walthers-Shinohara looks to be good and all, but almost everything is almost always on back order. Undecided So atlas would be my advice, cheap, prototypical, and readily available.
Logged

Co Admin/Founder of the North American Narrow Gauge Modelers!
http://www.getphpbb.com/phpbb/northamericanna.html
www.myspace.com/vfb1210

JIMMY!! HAFF AR LODE JUST DROPPED LOOS!!!
Jim Banner

Enjoying electric model railroading since 1950.


View Profile WWW
« Reply #6 on: February 14, 2007, 08:37:37 PM »

I think most of us realize that the code is the height of the rail in thousandths of an inch.  But Nigel was talking about the height of the track.  Setting the rail heads the same height above the roadbed sounds like a great idea.  I wish I had thought of that on my large scale layout where I hand lay my track.  Most of it is code 250 but I have some code 332 where it gets walked on.  Life would have been simpler if I had used ties .083 thicker for the code 250.  Oh well, live and learn.   
Logged

Growing older is mandatory but growing up is optional.
Pages: [1] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  
Powered by SMF | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!