FLEX TRACK BRANDS

[MarkM]

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?

[Nigel]

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.

[Bill Baker]

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

[jayl1]

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

[Bill Baker]

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.

[Jake]

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. So atlas would be my advice, cheap, prototypical, and readily available.

[Jim Banner]

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.