# Rail joiners



## piperman (Jan 17, 2015)

Confused as usual.
Atlas list a #551 code 83 transition joiner and a #170 HO universal rail joiner.
I emailed Atlas to ask which I should use to join code 83 track.

Answer was: #170 is the rail joiner to use ( they work on code 100 and 83 )
The #551 is used to join 100 to 83.
These are their exact words.

If this is true that a #170 works on 100 or 83 why would there be a requirement for a #551?

I don't understand the Atlas answer.

What do you guys use to join code 83 rail and if it is a #170 do you have to give it a bit of a squeeze to keep it in place? 

Regards
Piperman


----------



## Old_Hobo (Feb 20, 2014)

Don't know the answer as regards part numbers, but you should give the joiner a bit of a squeeze in any case......tighter is alwas better for conductivity.....


----------



## flyboy2610 (Jan 20, 2010)

The 551 is used to compensate for the height difference between code 83 and code 100.


----------



## traction fan (Oct 5, 2014)

*Joining two different height rails*

Piperman;

The transition joiner acts like a step, allowing you to join a short rail to a taller one. 
There are other ways of doing this. Since I don't know how far along in hobby knowledge you are or what tools/skills you have; I'll just mention them and let you decide which you prefer.
If you have a Dremel tool you can use it to cut a slot in the taller, code 100, rail; even with 
the bottom of the shorter, code 83 rail. Then use a normal, straight code 83 joiner from the code 83 rail into the slot in the code 100 rail. This should result in the tops of the two rails being even with each other. Soldering this joint will hold everything together.
Speaking of soldering; sometimes you can solder 1/2 the length of the top of one rail joiner to 1/2 the bottom of the other. This basically creates your own transition joiner. I've used both these methods when joining code 55 and code 80 track.
Since you can get joiners that are specifically made for the transition you need I would go with them as that would be the simplest way. I don't have that luxury in N scale.

Regards;
Traction fan


----------



## lovin it (Nov 21, 2012)

I don't know how many times you need to join code 100 to 83 on your layout, but they make a short section of track that transitions from 100 to 83 where you use the code 100 joiner on one end and code 83 joiner on the other. Walthers has them, here is the web address:

https://www.walthers.com/exec/searc...rds=restrict&instock=Q&split=30&Submit=Search


----------



## CTValleyRR (Jul 26, 2014)

So the previous posters have explained why you might want a transition joiner. Its not that the universal joiners don't fit, it's that they don't properly align the railheads. You can achieve the same thing by shimming the track and bending a universal joiner, but it's fiddly.

Crimping joiners is a good ideal, soldering them is even better. Leave an unsoldered joint every 6-8 feet (some recommend an even closer spacing), and run a feeder wire to every soldered section.


----------



## piperman (Jan 17, 2015)

let me try again with my question.
I do not want to join code 83 to code 100.
I want to join code 83 to code 83.
Atlas says I should use #170 HO UNIVERSAL rail joiner.
This joiner works on code 83 or 100.
This seems wrong as I would think it would be loose on 83 if it fits on 100.

The question is: Do you folks use #170 on code 83 and is it not loose?
I would think there would be a smaller joiner for code 83.
Is there a code 83 joiner? 

Regards
Piperman


----------



## MtRR75 (Nov 27, 2013)

I have never used code 83 track, but isn't the only difference the height of the rail?

The Atlas rail joiners that I use for code 100 track wrap around the bottom of the rail. I can see where a shorter rail might not make any difference -- as long as the width and thickness of the bottom part of the rail are the same.


----------



## flyboy2610 (Jan 20, 2010)

MtRR75 said:


> I have never used code 83 track, but isn't the only difference the height of the rail?
> 
> The Atlas rail joiners that I use for code 100 track wrap around the bottom of the rail. I can see where a shorter rail might not make any difference -- as long as the width and thickness of the bottom part of the rail are the same.


I may be wrong, (I know, imagine that, huh?) but it's my understanding that Atlas code 83 is basically a shortened version of their code 100. In other words, the only difference is the height of the rail. The base of the rail is the same for both codes. Other manufacturers make their code 83 smaller in all dimensions, but not Atlas.
That's what I've heard anyway.


----------



## piperman (Jan 17, 2015)

Great I now understand why the #170 will work on both 83 and 100.

Thanks for the info.
Piperman


----------



## CTValleyRR (Jul 26, 2014)

MtRR and Flyboy are exactly correct. Since the joiners go on the bottom of the rail, the code of the rail doesn't make any difference in the fit of the joiner. Even in track from manufacturers who do scale down the size of the rail, the lower part of the rail is close enough that you don't usually have an issue. I have used Atlas unversal joiners on Microengineering flex track and Walthers Shinohara turnouts (all Code 83 products).

Although I will caveat that by saying that solder holds my joiners in place, not friction.

Sorry for the confusion. You made the question too easy and we all overthought it.


----------



## Aberdeen (Mar 23, 2015)

*How do you remove rail joiners?*

How do you remove rail joiners. I finally got one off a Bachmann EZ Track, but I tore up the track doing it. 

I was trying to make a joint between EZ Track and Kato Unitrack. I'll have to shim up the Kato, because it has a lower road bed. The road bed connectors all have to come off.


----------



## CTValleyRR (Jul 26, 2014)

"If it doesn't fit, force it. If it doesn't force, use a bigger hammer. If it breaks, it needed replacing anyway."

Not the way to approach model railroading. Generally speaking, finesse is better than force. A standard rail joiner that has not been soldered in place just slides off with a gentle tug of a pair of needle nose pliers.

That said, I'm not sure the rail joiners on EZ Track are designed to come off. To join the two kids of track, first check to see of either manufacturer makes an adapter piece for the others track. If not, your best bet would be to cut all protrusions off the end of each piece using a razor saw. Butt the ends together and shim as necessary to align them. If you need an electrical connection across the joint, solder a thin wire (16-18 AWG) across the joint (you can drill holes and go through the roadbed for a neater appearance).


----------



## MtRR75 (Nov 27, 2013)

CTValleyRR said:


> I'm not sure the rail joiners on EZ Track are designed to come off.


I don't know about EZ track, but I've got some older, cheaper track (Life-like, I think), that looks like Atlas track. On this track the rail joiners are clearly crimped onto one end of the track, and are not designed to be removed. I was able to remove one once, by carefully prying it open with needle nose pliers -- destroying it and leaving the track intact. But it was too much work. I replaced the old track with Atlas track.


----------



## Aberdeen (Mar 23, 2015)

Thanks, gentlemen, for the replies. 

 Turns out that I don't have to do the modifications, as Kato makes the radiuses that I need, I was just too dense to understand Kato's nomenclature. 

If my engineering college finds out, they rip up my 1968 degree. When they do that, they'll make me stand up in front of everyone and do me like Chuck Conners in branded.


----------

