Compatibility of Old Pullman Code 148 turnouts and Atlas Code 148 40" flex track

• If you can score some N.O.S. early 1970's atlas rail joiners that would eliminate the slop of the latest generation of Atlas rail joiners, especially when joining with the closer to scale web of OP turnouts.  Otherwise pre-squeeze late joiners for a better fit.

Sight down the diverging rails to see how the point of the frog is set.  Those frogs were made with a multipurpose adjustable  jig and frequently the frog point is off set to one side or the other. A thin file can be used to trim the offending over reach of a frog point.  Keep that file handy !

Also check the gauge.  frequently needs a tune up.  The tip  of the points can also be rounded a tad to relieve point picking.

Some folks have con words on the OP product but with a little TLC they can work OK.  Generally speaking they are not plug n' play.  lots of folks use the newer Atlas turnouts but they too have their own con stories.

Brad Strong of Signature Switches provides reasonable priced custom switches of any configuretion.  O Scale turnouts also makes ROW detailed turnouts for rivet counters. 

Thanks for the input. I guess that begs the question: Is the Atlas flex track or the Micro Engineering track a better fit to use with the Old Pullman components? Right now I haven't made my major flex track purchase and can go either way. I know Micro Engineering track is a bit hard to form into curves, but if it's a perfect fit I can use it. Just want to get some information before I dump a load of hard earned cash into my track purchase.

Thanks again to any and all who chime in...

If you are not a rivet counter you may wish to check out what may  be available with OP flex track.  OP track has ties which will match the OP turnouts.  You may want to wait until you know better what you desire in track appearance.

I just scored a quantity of OP  and ME track so I know it is out there.

For appearance the ME track and the above mentioned turnouts are great.

Stoneboro Branch posted:

I guess that begs the question: Is the Atlas flex track or the Micro Engineering track a better fit to use with the Old Pullman components?  Just want to get some information before I dump a load of hard earned cash into my track purchase.

Thanks again to any and all who chime in...

2 Rail

Quite a while back when I was buying track, I bought some of each (Atlas and ME) because I had the opportunity to do so, and the price was right. Comparing the rails (looking at the end profile/shape)  AT THAT POINT IN TIME, there was NOT a great deal of difference in the two.

What I'm getting around to is, I'm guessing things (as in rail shape) might change if  the origin of those products (meaning the ACTUAL maker, as in some Chinese manufacturer) has changed over the years.

Might be best to compare your Old Pullman rail ends to what you plan to buy.

Tim LaGue (sp?) was the last owner of OP and the original owner was a guy named Beat Hug (really). Don't know if they both used the same rail to make their stuff???? I am GUESSING (emphasis on guessing) both might have used Right O' Way for their rail.

Not trying to discourage you, but just tossing out some of the possibilities.

Maybe others here can amplify/enlighten.

Simon

I have a mix of OP, ME and AtlasO code 148 flex track.  There are minimal issues with mixing the products as the rail height and tie thickness are virtually the same.  Rail thickness is finer on ME flex track (and turnouts built with Right -O Way rail) than the code 148 rail in OP and AtlasO flex track.  But that can be accommodated by soldering the rail joiners where differing cross section rails meet. 

There is a larger variation in rail thickness (not height) between OP code 125 products and today's ME and Right-O Way rail.  Older OP code 125 was quite a bit wider at the base of the rail, and slightly wider at the head.  To my surprise the last batch of OP code 125 flex track I purchased in 2006 used Right-O-Way rail.  As a result the rail was "sloppy" in the OP plastic tie strips.  This can cause wheel drop issue if you run fine scale wheels, but has not been an issue with wheels of .145" wheel width (or larger) found on today's 2 rail imports.

In the 1970'/80's Atlas imported a line of code 155 flex track made in Austria by Roco.  The ties were molded in black plastic and had European style bolts to hold the rail.  The .007 difference in rail height between code 148 flex track and the Atlas/Roco code 155 flex track can easily be accommodated by soldering the joiners and making a few strokes with a file. If you can find used Atlas/Roco flex track in good shape it can be a real money saver.  One caution however - early production Atlas/Roco flex track used nickle silver plated brass rail and the plating can wear off.  In response to negative feedback, mid to late production Atlas/Roco flex track was produced with solid nickle-silver rail.  Scratching the side of the rail with a knife will show if the rail is plated or not.    As an economy move I used Atlas/Roco flex track for all my hidden staging track saving hundreds of dollars. 

I second Tom Tee's recommendation regarding old style Atlas/Roco rail joiners for use with code 148 track.  They do a far better job of holding the rail in vertical and horizontal alignment than today's AtlasO joiners made in China.  For code 125 rail lately I've been using Peco O scale rail joiners.   

If you need them, I  have a 13 bags of 18 pcs  each of  those Peco rail joiners brand new & left over available for code .125" . 

I used them primarily on the early Atlas skinny rail.  A hair tight but workable..