# Micro Engineering Weathered Flex Track



## Cab1 (Jul 26, 2009)

I've been looking at the Micro Engineering HO scale weathered flex track. Micro-Mark is pushing it on their website in two flavors; code 70 and code 83. They're asking $33.95 for 6 sections (36" each). They'll knock off $6 if you buy 3 bundles. I like it - at least from what I can see in the pictures. Have any of you guys used this stuff? Can I get weathered electrofrog turnouts made by Micro Engineering to match? Is there a better deal elsewhere?

SIDE NOTE:

What's the deal with code 70? Is it that much better? I have some big honking steamers, so was thinking of using code 100 on the curves and code 83 for everywhere else. It's going to be a small layout, so I'm thinking of switching to code 83 - 70. Is that gonna give me grief?


----------



## mesenteria (Oct 29, 2015)

I have never used it, but according to MANY comments across about six forums that I have visited daily since 2005, the weathered stuff is VERY hard to curve nicely due to the coating on the web of the tracks. The paint gets stuck at the sides of the tiny spike-head details. So......just sayin'.....

The size of the steamers is irrelevant to Code 70 since it works out to about 90-100 lb/ft rail. What matters is the axle loading. What matters most, to the operator, is whether or not the flanges on all wheels will clear the details at the foot of the rails such as tie plates and spike heads. With RP-25 wheel sets, which is pretty much the lowest standard across the HO hobby these days, Code 70 should be fine.

I don't happen to know, and haven't bothered to look for, a table that lists the axle loadings for a given weight of steel rail. But, you should find one easily and determine the maximum axle loading and then go to steamlocomotive.com, find the wheel type, find the road's specific locomotive, and look in the specs for weight on drivers.

Edit: Added - http://civilengineerme.blogspot.com/2012/04/wieght-of-rail-vs-axle-load.html 

This should get you close. You'd want to limit your axle loads on the Code 70 to around 23-25 tons/axle. This means all axles, those on trucks and those acting as drivers.


----------



## traction fan (Oct 5, 2014)

*Rail codes & weathering*



Cab1 said:


> I've been looking at the Micro Engineering HO scale weathered flex track. Micro-Mark is pushing it on their website in two flavors; code 70 and code 83. They're asking $33.95 for 6 sections (36" each). They'll knock off $6 if you buy 3 bundles. I like it - at least from what I can see in the pictures. Have any of you guys used this stuff? Can I get weathered electrofrog turnouts made by Micro Engineering to match? Is there a better deal elsewhere?
> 
> SIDE NOTE:
> 
> What's the deal with code 70? Is it that much better? I have some big honking steamers, so was thinking of using code 100 on the curves and code 83 for everywhere else. It's going to be a small layout, so I'm thinking of switching to code 83 - 70. Is that gonna give me grief?


Cab1;

The rail codes refer only to the height of the rail in 1000ths. of an inch, so code 83 rail is 83/1000 inches high. It's not necessary to have higher code rail on curves than on straight track. The "deal" on code 70 and other codes like 55 is that they are used to represent lighter rail that might be found on a siding or branch line, The codes are mainly about appearance, not functionality. As mesenteria mentioned, one concern about rail codes that might affect what can run on them is vertical clearance between the wheel flanges and the tie spikes. I'm an N-scaler so this concerns N-scale wheels and track, but the same thing could be possible in HO-scale. Some deep flanged N-scale wheels hit the oversized spike detail on Atlas brand code 55 flex track. Micro Engineering flex track has smaller spike detail, so those same deep flanged wheels work fine on the M/E track.

The thing that would affect your "Big honking steamers" most is curve radius, not rail code. Big locomotives look, and run better on large radius curves. I'd suggest a 24" minimum radius for large steam. Bigger still would be better.

Micro Engineering makes track with or without weathering. I much prefer the non-weathered type. Micro Engineering track does not wave around like a wet noodle as Atlas flex does. You shape it gradually, a few inches at a time, to the desired curve. Then it stays in that shape, it doesn't spring back. I like it that way, others don't. Micro Engineering sells their weathering solution separately. If you like their type of weathering, I'd do it that way, rather than buying pre-weathered track. I paint my rails after the track is laid and ballasted.

Micro Engineering's weathering prevents good solder joints. This is no big deal with flex track, you just file off a little weathering at the ends of the rails and then solder the bare rails to the rail joiner. Micro Engineering's rail joiners are much tighter than the typical Atlas ones. Some, including me, like that, others may hate it.

Micro Engineering also sells loose rail. In my post about scratchbuilding turnouts from M/E rail I cautioned people NOT to buy the more expensive, weathered, rail; since they would need to scrape nearly all the weathering off in order to solder the turnout together.

Speaking of turnouts, "Electrofrog" is a Peco term for their metal frog turnout. Micro Engineering does make turnouts, but only in #6 right and #6 left + a new "yard throat" set, with the turnouts overlapped to shorten the overall length of the string of turnouts in a yard. They do NOT make wye turnouts, curved turnouts, crossings, or anything else other than than #6 right and #6 left, yard throats, and flex track. Since I make my own turnouts, M/E's limited selection of turnouts is not a problem for me, but it might be for you.
For the same reason, I don't own any M/E turnouts so I can't tell you if they have metal frogs (alah Peco's "Electrofrog) or if the M/E turnouts come pre-weathered. You could use Peco electrofrog turnouts with Micro Engineering flex track, The rail codes (heights) would need to be reasonably close, some adaptation might be needed. They are both excellent products though.

Photos show Micro Engineering's weathering solution and one of my turnouts with painted weathering added.

good luck;

Traction Fan:smilie_daumenpos:


----------



## MichaelE (Mar 7, 2018)

A couple of the new Roco cars I have still have slightly oversize flanges and creates a distinctive mild clicking sound as the wheel flanges pass over the tie plates and spikes on code 83 track.

I was told that only older pre-90's equipment might cause this but apparently some new equipment is also plagued with this problem.

It causes no operational problems but the noise is there.


----------



## Lemonhawk (Sep 24, 2013)

The weathered rail is difficult to solder to, unless you sand/scrape/clean off the rail. I think it does look better and use it with CV ties and when making turnouts. For the turnouts I sand the bottom of the rail until its shiny so I can solder it to the PC ties. I also sand the area I'm going to put a drop on- again just to make the soldering easier.


----------



## CTValleyRR (Jul 26, 2014)

The others have summed it up pretty nicely for you.

I will only use ME flex track, because I like the fact that it says where you put it. For me, that makes it much easier to lay track.

I don't think the weathered track is worth it. You have to remove the weathering before soldering, and clean it off the tops of the rails before running trains.

In HO scale, I've found code 83 looks exactly right. I usually buy my ME flex from MicroMark. Last I checked, they had the best prices.


----------



## Shdwdrgn (Dec 23, 2014)

One thing I don't think was mentioned was that the different codes are also appropriate to different time periods. I *believe* anything from the early to mid 1800's would use code 55. Later 1800's to early 1900's would user code 70. Somewhere after the 1920's you would start using code 83, and after about the 1960's (?) you might use code 100 for your heavy-duty mainlines. So the different size of tracks represents a combination of traffic weight and time periods.You might also consider using smaller rails for narrow gauge, trolleys, or mines.

Now granted the difference between, say, code 70 and code 83 rail is very miniscule, however you CAN see it by eye if you are looking for it, and I think the differences would be more obvious if you were doing close-up photography on your layout.

So far I have only worked with the ME flex track, but I do like how it holds its shape. This has been perfect for hand-laying some turnouts, and the bare rail solders very easily. I've picked up a few pieces of weathered flex, but I don't think it's worth the extra cost because I'll be painting the sides of my track anyway after it is laid. Also the color seems a little off to me. In certain light it appears to have a green shade to it which brings back memories of brass track.


----------



## ebtnut (Mar 9, 2017)

Code 100 rail represents the heaviest prototype rail, about 156 lbs/yd, used by the PRR in the late steam era. The rail was needed for high density traffic areas with steam locos having large axle loadings and consequent reciprocating pounding of the rails. Diesels have a much lower axle loading and no pounding so real heavy rail is not needed. Most main line rail is probably in the 140 lb. range. Lighter rail is still common in yards and on secondary lines. Code 83 is appropriate for modern main line track in HO. For yards, sidings, and branch lines Code 70 is OK. Code 70 is also OK for main lines if you're modeling the period from about 1900 through the 1920's. Note also that wheels with RP-25 contour and NMRA standard flange depth will operate on rail down to Code 40, with the caveat that Code 40 rail will need to be soldered or glued down. And, those Roco cars probably have the European NEM flanges which are deeper than the NMRA standard and will click on some Code 83 track.


----------



## Shdwdrgn (Dec 23, 2014)

Really, the heavy rail was used that early? I had no idea. I'm modeling about 1905 during a transition from narrow to standard gauge, so I'm planning on a combination of code 70 and code 55, and I might even go down to code 40 for the old mining spurs off the narrow gauge line. Hoping it will look good.


----------



## ebtnut (Mar 9, 2017)

Yes, 100 lb. rail was becoming more common in that time period. Remember that the biggest, richest roads would be first to field such rail. There would still be lots of 65 - 85 lb. rail out there. Narrow guage lines would likely be using rail in the 50 - 60 lb. range, with even lighter rail still out there (Code 40).


----------



## Shdwdrgn (Dec 23, 2014)

What's your opinion on narrow-gauge (36") logging lines in the mountains? Would code 55 or code 40 be more appropriate for a small but active line in that period? Seems to me like they would want to keep the track lightweight, and I'm planning on running two-truck Shays through that area.


----------



## traction fan (Oct 5, 2014)

*Narrow gage rail*



Shdwdrgn said:


> What's your opinion on narrow-gauge (36") logging lines in the mountains? Would code 55 or code 40 be more appropriate for a small but active line in that period? Seems to me like they would want to keep the track lightweight, and I'm planning on running two-truck Shays through that area.


 ooooo


----------



## traction fan (Oct 5, 2014)

*Narrow gage rail*



Shdwdrgn said:


> What's your opinion on narrow-gauge (36") logging lines in the mountains? Would code 55 or code 40 be more appropriate for a small but active line in that period? Seems to me like they would want to keep the track lightweight, and I'm planning on running two-truck Shays through that area.


please ignore this answer. It was dumb! I tried to erase it but no luck.


----------



## ebtnut (Mar 9, 2017)

From a practicality standpoint I would go with Code 55. With Code 40 you almost have to either glue or solder the rail down. And, at 35 lb, the rail is almost too light for logging in the 30's/40's time frame.


----------



## Shdwdrgn (Dec 23, 2014)

ebtnut said:


> From a practicality standpoint I would go with Code 55. With Code 40 you almost have to either glue or solder the rail down. And, at 35 lb, the rail is almost too light for logging in the 30's/40's time frame.


This wouldn't be quite that late, I'm modeling around 1905. I'm planning on building the Roundhouse HOn3 shays but don't have one on hand just yet. I do have some of their HOn3 2-8-0's though, which have no clearance issues on code 55 track. The driver flanges are definitely larger than what I'm seeing on some Kadee wheels, so they may not clear on code 40. Looks like ME does make HOn3 track in code 40, I should pick up a piece at the next train show just to have for reference. If nothing else, I think it would make a nice contrast where the rail transitioned from code 40 to code 70.


----------

