Track Compatibility

You can join the two without shimming, but you will have noticable dips where the turnouts are located. Shimming is not hard at all and really requires little effort. The results are worth it. Also, Walthers 83 rail has a fairly wide base, wider than ME rail and wider I think than Atlas. Standard Atlas #170 joiners will obviously work, but as for low pro you can try the Peco 83 joiners. You will have to spread them a bit but they should work.

Donnell

Code 83 is code 83 or .83

Code 83 is code 83 or .83 thousands if you measure it with a micrometer top of rail to bottom of rail it is an NMRA standard so if one rail is taller than the other you bought the wrong size or it was mis-marked.

As far as rail joiners you can just use Atlas code 83 rail joiners. I would make sure the rails are snug and solder every joint to keep the electrical contact constant.

The one difference between Code 83 Walters and code 83 Atlas may be the width of the rails on the bottom where they connect with the rail joiners. The Atlas may be slightly wider but the height of both will be .83 or code 83.

Dan

You can also get away with

You can also get away with Atlas N gauge joiners for code 83, and they are much less expensive than ME's.

Steve

Atlas Code 83

I use Atlas Code 83 flex track with Atlas Code 83 turnouts and Walthers Code 83 turnouts with no problems.  I use walthers Code 83 rail joiners.

Re: Off The Shelf Track Compatibility

Unless something has changed very recently, Atlas and Walthers/Shinohara use somewhat different thickness ties.  One of the layouts in my weekly work group has Atlas 83 on the mains, with Walthers 83 turnouts, and we had to shim all the turnouts to ensure proper alignment between the two.  The difference WAS enough to be an issue - about the thickness of cardstock from Walthers Cornerstone structure kit boxes which we cut apart for the purpose.  This was too much to ignore for reliability's sake while having the thinner turnouts float between the flex track sections.

In addition, the rails are of different shapes.  Micro Engineering code 83 joiners don't like the Walthers rail, and definitely don't like Atlas, to the point of being essentially unusable.  The Atlas N scale code 80 joiners will work if you pry them a bit before sliding onto the rail (they work OK as-is on Micro Engineering code 83).  You may encounter some misalignment between the different shape railheads, but this can be mitigated with careful work and some filing.

Frankly, as someone who has installed a lot of HO flex track and turnouts, I would strongly consider using Micro Engineering or Walthers code 83 flex track if you're going with the Walthers turnouts.  Micro Engineering dealers will often give a good discount that brings ME track in line with Atlas on price (but also note that ME rail still doesn't match the cross section of Walthers 83 - this is the combination I'm using though).  Sure, you can make Atlas and Walthers work together, but it's extra work to get the installation really perfect.

I may be wrong but from what

I may be wrong but from what I understand Shinohara quit making model railroad track in 2000 so who is making Walters track now?

I did hear the Satsuma or something like that bought out the model railroad part of Shinohara steel but that was by word of mouth. Any body know for sure?

Dan

+ +

Dan,

They where still making track for Walthers in 2004 when they came out with the DCC friendly turnouts.  They make  and sell  the  code 100 and code 70 under the Shinohara name, The code 83 was made exclusively for Walthers by Shinohara.  This still applies to this day as per the Walthers web site.  Shinohara is 669 in the Walthers manufacturer list, Walthers/Shinohara is 948.  One sells code 70, code 100, the later code 83. 

It is correct to state the tie height is different and would require shimming.  Not shimming is asking for fun down the road. If the turnout dips (by no fault of your own)  you will have erratic contact between rail and tire when passing frog or anywhere on the turnout. I too assumed it would be a non issue with glue and ballast, but do we really want to chance it ?...

I would strongly consider

Does the overall height of the ME flex track match Walther's code 83? 

Frankly, Atlas code 83 has attractive pricing when purchased in bulk.  I will check a few ME dealers and see how they compare.  I would be nice if ME was close to Atlas. 

Walther's code 83 flex runs almost double the price of Atlas and I haven't noticed bulk pricing either.

Walthers/ME matching

"Does the overall height of the ME flex track match Walther's code 83?" 

Yes, it's very close.  I don't have to shim when mixing these two.  A couple local ME dealers will give 20% off, maybe more on big orders, which keeps ME track very competetive with Atlas, especially considering how well ME works with Walthers 83 turnouts.  Pricing on Walthers/Shinohara flex rules it out for me.  The minor differences in rail cross section vs. the Walthers 83 don't significanly alter the value proposition for using ME instead.  Note that even if you do go with ME flex, I still wouln't necessarily recommend ME's code 83 rail joiners to connect it with the Walthers 83 - the fit is VERY tight on the Walthers rail.

If you don't have an ME dealer close by, they seem pretty easy for the shops to work with.  My nearest hobby shop became a dealer when I needed a large-ish order.

Level Track

Any roughness or dips in the track is also derailment and reliability problems.

Shim the ties so the rails are nice and level. Get your trackwork perfect before ballasting and finishing it. Extra time getting things right will pay off later. Cutting corners on trackwork will not make you happy in the future. You can't just roughly slap track together and expect reliable operation down the road; you're just creating potential future frustrations.

Final Thoughts on ME and Walthers

Since my local hobby shop doesn't carry ME, I contacted them and they are sending a sample in the mail - that's great customer service.  Then I started looking at a few of the many ME dealers listed on their website and found that in bulk, ME flex is only slightly more than Altas.  In many cases only a difference of 22 cents per 36" section.

So, for only a bit more, I think I'm going with the ME flex.  Time to call the track gang!

Code 83 is code 83 or .83

Not to nitpick, but it would be 0.083" (or 83 thousandths of an inch) for the rail height. However, the difference is in the thickness of the ties: you need to shim the Walthers/Shinohara turnouts by approx 0.020" (0.5mm) to match the overall height of the Atlas track.

Rail height matching is what

Rail height matching is what the goal is and shimming the ties if just a fact of life when building model railroads when your using different track manufactures.

I have made a point to keep only the same type, code and manufacturer of flex track while building my railroad and I understand the problems involved with using different code and manufacture flex track and learned the hard way many years ago. My suggestion is to try to use all of one type track or manufacturers flex track until it is used up and then use the alter-net manufacture flex, that way you will limit the number of places you will need to shim or sand down the thicker ties and only need to do it once or twice.

Try not to make the mistake of alternating from one manufacturer to the next and back again and again.

I also found rather than shim the thinner ties it is much easier to glue (using Contact cement) a full 8-1/2 inch X 11 inch sheet of 80 grit sand paper to a flat piece of 3/4 in thick plywood about the same size or just a little larger than the sheet of ply wood and carefully using a circular motion sand one end for about 6-8 inches until you have a smooth bevel down to the thickness required to to match the thinner rails.

Of corse there are other ways to do this but I found this way the fastest and easiest to achieve the proper bevel thickness.

Dan

mixing rails compatability atlas and shinohara

i went to the hobby store today because i researched this topic and found this thread. the difference is height on the Atlas opposed to the Shinohara rail is .015 and, yes this is because of the difference is the ties, not the rail, although i did notice a little discrepancy in the curved rail set.  this is negligible. by putting a sheet of .005 sheets of  evergreen sheet styrene and tripling them up is when i saw them even. so a sheet of .015 would be ideal if they have i haven't checked yet. 

walthers and atlas code 83

On my last layout, I used Atlas code 83 flex with Walthers code 83 turnouts.  I did not shim the turnouts, and did have some contact problems with my locomotives due to the 'bump.'  I liked the Atlas code 83 flex due to attractive pricing, but i think the Walthers turnouts are sharp.  However, on my current layout I went all Atlas code 83.  From a operating opinion, I'm glad I went all Atlas.  I do wish they would make code 70 (code 55 would be great).  I wanted to do code 55, but Micro Engineering does not make No.4 turnouts in code 55, and I have no interest in handlaying turnouts.