rail joiners



Hmmm - would they work with code 83? I'd rather use a smaller joiner than the bloppy code 100 joiners!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Big Rich Soprano wrote:

You'll probably need a bigish hammer! Peco do (or did) a table in their catalogue showing rail height, foot width and head width for each of their rail sizes.
Greg.P.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

K... Thanks...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Here in the UK peco have code 83 rail joiners, part number SL-8310 or SL-8311 for the insulated ones. Perhaps they will be available soon where you are. Tony

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Thanks Tony!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

And one good turn never goes unpunished... From the Fast Tracks web site mentioned in another thread i found Micro Engineering Code 40 / 55 / 70 / 83 / 100 Rail Joiners so therefore ME has them:
http://www.handlaidtrack.com/item.php?idv2&link_str 4&partno&-083
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

If ME made two different profiles of code 70 track, I would be very, very, very, very surprised.
I would love to see comments from anyone who has experience with two different profiles of same-code track from a manufacturer. I can't see why a company would do that.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 9/14/2007 9:56 PM Mark Mathu spake thus:

So now this makes me realize I'm confused about track sizes and profiles. So I know that "code" so-and-so corresponds to its size (height, right?) in thousandths of an inch (code 70 = 0.070"). Correct?
But wouldn't N scale code 70 be smaller (narrower) than HO code 70, to be proportionally correct? Or are you saying that it's the same stuff, regardless of scale?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Sorry for the tardiness [we've got five kids with a fever, two have pink eye, those of you with kids know how THAT goes]... I assume this is the question you were paging me about?
As far as I know (I'm an HO-er), yes, code 70 rail is code 70 rail irrespective of scale.
I think the best way to see this is to look at the NMRA recommended practice for rail (RP-15.1). http://www.nmra.org/standards/rp-15_1.html Notice that there is no reference to specific scales with code 70 rail -- the dimensions are set.
But regardless of the NMRA standard, it wouldn't surprise me that different manufactures may vary in some dimensions (but not the rail height) for a given code of track. But when it comes to a single manufacturer, I've never heard of anyone offering a code of track which is different for different scales. (for eample, if you buy Micro Engineering code 70 rail, you'll get exactly the same stuff whether you're an N-scaler or an HO-scaler).
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 9/18/2007 8:46 PM Mark Mathu spake thus:

[...]
Sorry to hear that.

Well, that doesn't make any sense to me, but if it's true, it's true. (It would seem to be the N-scalers who'd be getting the short end of this bargain, by way of oversize rail.)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

code 70, to be

stuff,
two have pink

this is the

rail
that different

height) for a

manufacturer, I've never

for different

true.
end of

Keep in mind that the rail "Code" designation is just a short-hand way of specifying the rail height in thousandths-of-an-inch, and has nothing to do with scale in and of itself. E.g., Code-55 = 0.055", Code-70 = 0.070", Code-80 0.080", Code-83 = 0.083", Code-100 = 0.100" high rail.
The rail profile is set proportional to the height, not to a particular scale. So if some manufacturer decided for some reason to make rail that was 0.063" high (none do that I know of), it would be Code-63 rail and the profile would be proportional to that height.
I think it all boils down to the fact it's a lot easier to say "Code-70 rail" than "seventy thousands of an inch high rail."
Len
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 21:23:09 -0700, David Nebenzahl wrote:

They already are, with that huge tinplate looking Code 80 stuff; any Code 70 would have to be a mild improvement.
--
Steve

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Steve Caple wrote:

Not necessarily so.
The code 70 rail made by ME is wider than code 80 rail made by Atlas and Peco.
--
Venlig hilsen
Erik Olsen
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Erik Olsen DK wrote:

Early Vignols/flatbottomed rail had a much wider foot proportionately than modern much heavier rail. Replacement rail of heaver type is often intended to be laid on on the same rail fixings as the old rail, so the foot widths have to be the same even though the height is different. The track layers just add a bit more ballast to bring the joins to the same height, but placing different foot width rail on older fitting would alter the gauge.
In model railway situations it's normally quite difficult to view laid rail from both sides at once or end on, so it doesn't matter _too_ much.
Regards, Greg.P.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 19:45:21 +0200, Erik Olsen DK wrote:

But the height is the most apparent characteristic, thus a "mild improvement". I've seen photos of nice looking Code 40 in N scale, but don't know how many lines of N-scale rolling stock and locomotives can handle it. I know that my eyes sure can't, so on trackwork alone, N scale is out for me.
--
Steve

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Steve Caple wrote:

No it's not.
Have you ever actually compared Peco code 80 (as used for their N gauge track) and ME code 70 rail?
--
Venlig hilsen
Erik Olsen
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 20 Sep 2007 10:22:42 +0200, Erik Olsen DK wrote:

Could you take some close-up side by side pics and post a link to them? (from end and from side, also 3/4 from above)
--
Steve

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Steve Caple wrote:

I have some rail of both sizes but no flex track.
I'll give it a try but please be patient as I just bought my new camera. I have to learn using it first ;-)
--
Venlig hilsen
Erik Olsen
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Erik Olsen DK skriver:

Hva kamera har du nu kbt ?
Klaus
--
Modelbane Europas hjemmeside: http://www.modelbaneeuropa.hadsten.dk
Modeltog, internet, gratis spambekmpelse, elektronik og andet:
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Klaus D. Mikkelsen wrote:

Klaus asked what camera I bought. He knew that I bought one a year ago but I hadn't told him that it was stolen a few months after when some idiot broke into our house.
The new one is a Canon Powershot A640 (the old one was an A620) but because of what happened I haven't had much experience taking macro shots.
--
Venlig hilsen
Erik Olsen
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Polytechforum.com is a website by engineers for engineers. It is not affiliated with any of manufacturers or vendors discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.