HO flex track Pros and Cons???

[AF350]

Who all makes HO code 100 flex track nickel silver?

ATLAS, PECO, ME??? any others out there?

What are the advantages of each what pit falls to avoid?

[RobertInOntario]

I found flextrack to be a little messy to work with but there are some skills you can acquire to join it & make the curves better.

AFAIK, think Atlas and Peco are the main manufacturers of HO code 100 flex track nickel silver.

This may be slightly off-topic, but if you're building small layouts (like me) I think set-track is better (easier to use for making curves, etc.) but if you're building a large layout, that flextrack is much better. By small layouts, I mean micro ones, i.e. 4x6' or smaller.

Rob

[AF350]

The layout in question would be a club modular type layout at the moment it occupies an 8 x 12 foot area when put together. Will use 9" sectional pieces to join the modules and flex for curves and long straight sections.

[nachoman]

The only knock on Atlas code 100 is the oversize "spike" detail. But if you are going code 100, you probably aren't too concerned with such details. The more detailed brands are considerably more expensive, and many people can't justify the cost. Some people don't like Atlas because it is "too flexible", but others prefer it that way. But from a running standpoint - Atlas flextrack works as well as anything else. An even less expensive option is Model Power (assuming it is still made). I have used model power code 100 flex before, and I couldn't tell much of a difference between it and Atlas. For better rail profiles and tie/spike details - Micro Engineering is hard to beat.

[MasonJar]

The layout in question would be a club modular type layout at the moment it occupies an 8 x 12 foot area when put together. Will use 9" sectional pieces to join the modules and flex for curves and long straight sections.

Our modular club (<!-- w --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.hotrak.ca">www.hotrak.ca</a><!-- w -->) has similar standards, although a couple of years ago we went from 9" joiners to 6". THe track on the mainline must be Code 100 - although what brand is up to you. I think most use Atlas for the cost. However, the track on the modules must terminate with a minimum of 3" of snap track, partly to mate with the joiner track (which is also "snap" track), and partly because the sectional stuff is much more rigid. We changed that standard because in a lot of cases, the flex track ends were being pulled up or forced out of alignment by the repeated insertion and removal of the joiner track. Once it had peeled up (so to speak) it was nearly impossible to fix.

Hope that helps. You can see all the standards on the site above.

Andrew

[BR60103]

I only use Peco (with a few lengths of scale British track) and now I've gone to code 75.
I like working with Peco. Both rails slide; I think in some of the others only one slides. The newer switches have finer flangeways than they used to. It does flex more easily than some makes -- whether that's good or bad is your call. I find that it helps to have a template for making smooth curves; I have some 6 to 9 inches long that fit between the rails (and some about 3" long that I haven't used).
I find Peco acceptable for N. American track. It's a bit American looking for British but a lot of use use it anyways. The code 100 takes almost everything I have back to the early 60s.

[rrinker]

I've had good luck with Atlas track and components, so I continue to use is (code 83). The spike and tieplate detail isn't s grossly out of scale like the Atlas code 100 track, the flex easily forms a smooth curve, and I've never had a problem with the Custom-Line #4 and #6 turnouts - any odd bumps or jumps have been traced to out of gauge wheelsets rather than a defect in the turnout. Once painted and ballasted, it looks as good as anything.

--Randy

[Steamtrains]

AF....I've used Atlas NS flex 100 exclusively on my layout, mated to Peco 100 medium and large switches. Best of both worlds..!! Once painted the "oversize" tends to be much less noticeable...

[Charlie B]

I used Model Power for mine, and when it is weathered and ballasted it will be fine. I had some Atlas too and the only difference is the Model power is a lot cheaper, and not as flexible.
Charlie

[ak-milw]

I like the ME track for looks and details but it dosen't flex at all. I have been using Atlas and Peco with ME and Peco turnouts.


8-)

[Lester Perry]

I use Atlas code 100 flex track and have no problems with it. If you use the three foot rule you can't see any detail problems. I did paint it which apparently helps. I also stagger the joints by about 1 1/2 feet. this makes for easier and smoother curves. I am changing switches from Atlas to Peco very slowly, $$$$. Much better switch and very much worth the extra money. Also I would never go back to sectional track as it is too limiting.



You cant do this with sectional.

[Sumpter250]

Most modular groups go with code 100 rail, to accommodate some members with older locos or rolling stock, with larg flanges on the wheels.
Snap track / sectional track, as stated, is very limiting.
Flex track, by most manufacturers is pretty much the same all round, so, if there's no manufacturer specified in the module standards, go with what is easiest to find, or if there is a selection, the least expensive.
On my new modules, the "two track main line", is Atlas code 100. The dual gauge line is ME code 83, with a hand spiked code 83 rail for the narrow gauge added.

[ocalicreek]

Ditto to what has been said about MicroEngineering track. I bought some on sale at a LHS that was going out of business. Pre-weathered, code 83, sure looks purty but is a devil to get it to flex just the way you want it to. The way the ties are joined from below causes funny kinks here and there and the rail doesn't slide like I want it to. When those pieces are gone I'll be using Atlas code 83 with brown ties exclusively. The ME is beautiful and will be used 'up front' where the tie plate & spike detail may be noticed but once it's gone there'll be no more...unless of course I run across another great deal in which case I may just have to live with the fussy non-flexibility... :?

Many engines with deep flanges can be ground down by carefully and gently applying a sharp, clean file to the flange while spinning the wheels, with power applied through wires & pickups. Just DO NOT run the engine upside down or all those metal filings will fall right back into the gears & possibly into the open frame motor (if it's an old steamer). Metal filings will scratch and pitt nylon & plastic gears and cause rough performance, even possibly permanant damage to a motor. Lay the engine on its side and work slowly, periodically checking flanges with an NMRA gauge. This way you can run on lighter rail with no trouble.

I understand if it's a modular setting where a variety of equipment will be run this may not be an option...but consider raising your group standards for engines & rolling stock to include performance of all equipment on code 83 track. The lighter rail makes trains look so much heftier and the realism gained is a nice bonus. Any rail, properly gauged and substantially laid, can perform well every time, regardless of code. Why not take an extra step and gain some realism?

Galen

[Selector]

I believe Roco makes Code 83 flex, but also the fixed lengths.

I like Model Power and Atlas Code 100, but it is most certainly over-sized, taking on the scale weight equivalent of 165 pound rail. It doesn't look that way in many images and not from the 200 scale feet that the eyeball usually sees it. But in some images, you can tell that it is simply too tall.



-Crandell

[RobertInOntario]

Lester and Crandell: Those are AWESOME pictures!! Rob