Connecting Code 83 to code 100 track


E

eddie

New Member
What is the easiest and best way to connect a piece of code 100 flex track atlas to a code 83 track? Thanks.

I am adding some siding using code 100 track that someone gave me - the main line is code 83.
 
They make adapter jointers or I've seen guys add a jointer to the code 100...smash end shut with plyers and place he code 83 on top of the smashed jointer and solder it. Or just solder them together with top edges even height.
 
I've found the transistion joiners don't work too well but you can give them a try. Atlas makes them and they are only a few bucks for 24 of them. I use Bob's smach and solder method. It's stonger, you don't have electrical conductivity issues, and you can even add a little shim brass to even up the railheads if the smash method doesn't get them exactly right. Run a fine tooth file over the joint when you're done and you should be good to go.
 
Walthers / Shinohara part #948-897 code 100 to 83 transition track is the easiest of all. I used the transition joiners on curves and yes they are a bear to work with.
By the way, the proto translation for transition joiners is "compromise bars". (in case you were wondering:) )
 
resurecting this old thread :)

i'm looking at what is decribed as code70 HO switches by shinohara. after running a bit with atlas snap switches i really want something better.
so, is there such thing as code 70 in ho? if so, i would guess same mixed-code soldering technique would apply here... your thoughts? is it to shallow?
 
Yes, both Shinohara and Micro Engineering make code 70 switches in standard HO. Code 70 rail, points, and frogs are also available to make Fast Track handlaid switches. Are you using Atlas code 100 or code 83 track now? Code 100 to code 70 would be quite a transition and would require some shims as well as the smashed joiner technique. Code 83 to code 70 should be a lot easier. I would be wary about having larger code track and smaller code switches though. Unless you get all the transitions perfect, they are likey to be source of derailments. I would at least go with code 70 track coming out of the switches and make my transitions out on the main, preferably straight, track. As long as you are running equipment built in the last 10 years or so, flange clearance shouldn't be a problem.
 
Prototypically, mainlines have the heavier rail (code 83) while the sidings have lighter rail (less than code 83). Code 70 is suitable for a prototypicaly scaled siding.

Down at the model railroad club that I belong to, we try to use Peco switches whenever possible when replacing old rail, or adding new rail. The mainline at the club is code 100 (we didn't build the layout, we bought it from a club that decided to move and start a new layout) Peco doesn't do code 100 (that we know of) so we shim the code 83 switches and rails, bridges, etc up with playing cards up to the correct height, then jam in a code 83 connector, solder the joint, and when the rails are buried in ballast, no one can tell the difference.
 
Peco offers code 100 as well, but I don't know if it is based on North American tie plate design or not, since it is a special order item around here.
 
it probably isn't since all of our tracks, switches, and bridges have the same tie size and spacing. We only buy the code 83 switches. The mainline is Atlas flex track.
 
I've been on a lot of railways that would be comparable to code 83 mains with code 100 switches. The Pine Falls line not far from here uses 85lb on the mains, 110 lb thru switches and crossings, and other various sizes on some curves.
A real pain in the butt when running equipment that needs adjusting every time it changes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.



Back
Top