Does anyone primarily use flex track for their layout? I'm shopping and this seems like a good rout to go. Thoughts? Thanks.
I use nothing but flex track on my layout and I'm 100% happy with it. Making smooth joins between track sections on curves of small radius can be tricky so probably best to solder such joins.
My track is code 55 Peco, but over there in the US I would think that you would have easier access to Atlas track (either code 55 or code 80) as well as MicroEngineering track.
Webbo
G'day from Australia, Bryan, and welcome to the NGF! :thumbsup:
You will find that probably the majority of modellers on this forum use flexible track, although Kato Unitrack has it's adherents, as do the various Setrack systems.
The British firm, Peco, produces a large range of flexible track in many gauges. In N, the track comes in Code 80 and Code 55 flavours, both with a large range of pointwork (turnouts). Code 55 has a more scale appearance, and a greater range of components.
I believe Atlas do a flexible track range in the US.
A question regarding Kato flexitrack.
As I am having difficulty in joining my Peco track, using track joiners. I am thinking of using Kato track. As they all come pre ballasted AND with track joiners fitted. But as I have had to use 3 different pieces of flexitrack, my question is :-
Do I have to use standard track joiners ?
AND as I am running a DCC layout, what if I don't join the track and simply put drop wires to the track on either side of the join ? As it is easier for me to solder than use track joiners.
Kato do not make flexitrack as such, although it is easy to create a flexible piece - just cut through the plastic, with a fine saw, from underneath, stopping when you get to the rail. Fifer Hobbies, (www.fiferhobby.com (http://www.fiferhobby.com)) show how to do this. Although I have not tried it, I believe it is possible to connect Kato and Peco track by removing the joiner from the Kato piece and then using a standard joiner to connect the two - someone will be along who can say for certain. As regards not joining the track and using droppers on either side of the join - should work. My layout is split into sections using insulated Kato joiners, with droppers either side - it is the same principle.
Link for making Kato flexitrack - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qXXLdEv_dqY (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qXXLdEv_dqY)
"Kato do not make flexitrack"
Thanks for the info.
Someone needs to tell the designers of "SCARM" software !
Quote from: dannyboy on September 22, 2017, 06:04:48 AM
Kato do not make flexitrack as such
Erm, this worries me as I have some on my SCARM design.
Rails of Sheffield seem to sell it https://www.railsofsheffield.com/kato-21-000-flexible-track-808mm-JJJA13706 (https://www.railsofsheffield.com/kato-21-000-flexible-track-808mm-JJJA13706)
Is this not flexi track?
21-000 is actually standard Atlas N flexitrack and has no track bed like the 'normal' Kato Unitrack.
Yes, a bit naughty to be calling that Unitrack, it won't match the 'normal' stuff aesthetically at all. I've heard of people 'slitting' the base to enable a bit of flex, but AFAIK there is no true Unitrack flexible track out of the box.
If you're using Peco/Atlas flex track you don't need joiners at all if you can ensure alignment (dont underestimate that!). There's a great looking layout developing on RMWeb - Crofton (IIRC) which uses no joiners. Obviously with Kato they're integrated.
Thanks everyone for your reply. I have been planning to use code 55 track because of the large number of radius options. There is something I like about planing a track that conforms to these spicific constraints. Change is good. Thank you.
Yep, only thing to be aware is that Peco code 55 (if you're modelling UK) is not actually code 55, it's code 80 with the rail embedded in the sleepers. Atlas code 55 (which is more common in the US, and is to US design) is actually 0.055" section rail, so the two don't join that easily, and you'll need to ensure all your stock has finer flanges for Atlas stuff.
Bryan
Atlas code 55 has a sleeper spacing and turnout design that is closer to North American prototype than has Peco. Conversely, Peco is more robust than Atlas and has spring loaded turnouts. Both Peco and Atlas have a similar range of turnout configurations so they are fairly equivalent in that regard. I have a North American layout and use Peco 55. When I designed my track layout, Atlas had a much more limited turnout choice than they do now. If I were to put my layout together nowadays, I think it would be a 50:50 toss-up between Peco and Atlas.
Webbo
A cool assessment. :thumbsup:
Quote from: njee20 on September 22, 2017, 10:16:11 AM
Yep, only thing to be aware is that Peco code 55 (if you're modelling UK) is not actually code 55, it's code 80 with the rail embedded in the sleepers. Atlas code 55 (which is more common in the US, and is to US design) is actually 0.055" section rail, so the two don't join that easily, and you'll need to ensure all your stock has finer flanges for Atlas stuff.
Does this mean that,in regards to Peco Code 55/Code 80
1) They are compatible i.e can join them together, and
2) If the rail is embedded in the sleepers, does this mean the code 55 is more robust when you ift it? I've found that lifting glued-down code 80, even if you are very careful, can result in the track separating from the sleepers and I can't get it back into place!
I read the reply (#6) from @BoxTunnel (http://www.ngaugeforum.co.uk/SMFN/index.php?action=profile;u=5189) about flexitrack and thought "Oops - things have changed since I last bought some Unitrack, or am I going gaga?" and then read the reply from @newportnobby (http://www.ngaugeforum.co.uk/SMFN/index.php?action=profile;u=264) - thanks for clarifying that Mick and saving my sanity. :beers:
Quote from: RMurphy195 on September 22, 2017, 03:17:23 PM
Does this mean that,in regards to Peco Code 55/Code 80
1) They are compatible i.e can join them together,
Yes sort of :) with care and adjustment and a wee bit of fiddling, there is recent 2-page discussion
with some pictures (edit, sorry my pictures all gone as I have been told not to perpetuate any myths ) here :
http://www.ngaugeforum.co.uk/SMFN/index.php?topic=38641.0 (http://www.ngaugeforum.co.uk/SMFN/index.php?topic=38641.0)
I have found code 55 to be stronger than code 80 regarding flexitrack as, sometimes, code 80 rail can pull out of the chairs when curving it. Also, code 55 has arrows under the sleepers showing which way to bend it, although maybe code 80 has caught up with that. I don't know. I always try to avoid having joins in flexitrack on bends, and certainly do not use plastic joiners in bends :no:
Quote from: MalcolmAL on September 22, 2017, 03:52:57 PM
Quote from: RMurphy195 on September 22, 2017, 03:17:23 PM
Does this mean that,in regards to Peco Code 55/Code 80
1) They are compatible i.e can join them together,
Yes sort of :) with care and adjustment and a wee bit of fiddling, there is recent 2-page discussion with some pictures here :
http://www.ngaugeforum.co.uk/SMFN/index.php?topic=38641.0 (http://www.ngaugeforum.co.uk/SMFN/index.php?topic=38641.0)
There's no sort of. You can easily join them, you just need to do something to support the join. As discussed in that thread as you say.
Code 55 is definitely stronger too, you almost never get the rail pulling out of the chairs if you catch it.
Quote from: newportnobby on September 22, 2017, 04:05:33 PM
I have found code 55 to be stronger than code 80 regarding flexitrack as, sometimes, code 80 rail can pull out of the chairs when curving it. Also, code 55 has arrows under the sleepers showing which way to bend it, although maybe code 80 has caught up with that. I don't know. I always try to avoid having joins in flexitrack on bends, and certainly do not use plastic joiners in bends :no:
Sadly there is no other way when you have 6-7' radius curves on your layout. Some of my curves are over 3 lengths of flexi. It's a hard life. :D
Matt
Quote from: njee20 on September 22, 2017, 06:13:18 PM
There's no sort of.
You can easily join them,
Thank you for entirely missing the big yellow smiling face,
and pardon me for not telling the guy it is easy and for bothering him with a link to some further reading !
Eh? You implied to me it was in some way difficult, i simply countered that it's not, and agreed that there's sound advice in the thread, in which you and I participated... ???
Quote from: newportnobby on September 22, 2017, 04:05:33 PM
I have found code 55 to be stronger than code 80 regarding flexitrack as, sometimes, code 80 rail can pull out of the chairs when curving it. Also, code 55 has arrows under the sleepers showing which way to bend it, although maybe code 80 has caught up with that. I don't know. I always try to avoid having joins in flexitrack on bends, and certainly do not use plastic joiners in bends :no:
Remember that this applies to Peco flex in 55, but not to other makes. With the OP in the US, the predominant track systems are Atlas, and Atlas flex in 55 is definitely not stronger than 80. Availability and designs of Peco, Atlas and MicroEngineering were all discussed in an earlier thread initiated by the OP in January, and he's using Atlas:
http://www.ngaugeforum.co.uk/SMFN/index.php?topic=36018.msg422123#msg422123 (http://www.ngaugeforum.co.uk/SMFN/index.php?topic=36018.msg422123#msg422123)
In addition to the relative sturdiness of the Peco product, the design also makes using older stock less of a challenge if they have oversized flanges...something that even Atlas 80 has become an issue with on the frogs.
Jon
Quote from: mattycoops43 on September 22, 2017, 07:01:02 PM
Quote from: newportnobby on September 22, 2017, 04:05:33 PM
I have found code 55 to be stronger than code 80 regarding flexitrack as, sometimes, code 80 rail can pull out of the chairs when curving it. Also, code 55 has arrows under the sleepers showing which way to bend it, although maybe code 80 has caught up with that. I don't know. I always try to avoid having joins in flexitrack on bends, and certainly do not use plastic joiners in bends :no:
Sadly there is no other way when you have 6-7' radius curves on your layout. Some of my curves are over 3 lengths of flexi. It's a hard life. :D
Matt
If only I had the space for such large radii, Matt. However, I would venture the strain on the joiners is not so high at 6-7ft radius.
For everybody's information
Peco track is widely available here in the US.
BUT it's generally cheaper to buy it from Hattons, et al, rather than buying it locally.
VAT deduction covers the shipping and their is no import duty in the US for model trains.
Regards,
John P
Quote from: njee20 on September 22, 2017, 08:03:35 PM
Eh? You implied to me it was in some way difficult, i simply countered that it's not, and agreed that there's sound advice in the thread, in which you and I participated... ???
"Eh?" > Wot ? !
"You implied to me" > I did no such thing, you may have implied that, I have no control over your feelings nor assumed implcations,
I am just considerably miffed at being chastised by DrAl when I agreeably supported your view that it was all 80 really when in my true view that it is only nearly so ! within a margin of error ! Well in my feeble hands 3 thou +/-2 on a mic is a whisker
If it is a bump to others then I am sorry I strayed into this one.
It is of little concern to me, please carry on.
.
@Jon898 (http://www.ngaugeforum.co.uk/SMFN/index.php?action=profile;u=3998)
You're good! The problem was I got out all of my old code 80 Atlas track, and I couldn't do what I wanted. I discovered code 55 track has a lot more options, started planning my new track. Then I got the Idea that this flex track might be a lot less messing around than with 6" pieces and connections. Here I am. I may still go with Atlas as the general consensus seemed to be it's almost as good as Peco but cheaper. Thanks.