06-29-2010, 08:04 AM
Josh, the base of various rail manufactured by different manufacturers may be different, so that sometimes the rail joiners of one manufacturer won't fit the rail manufactured by someone else. Nachoman's solution is slightly different than the one proposed by tin goat, but if you can get the joiner to slide onto the rail both either method will work. With nachoman's solution, you would solder the joiner onto the larger code rail, then crush the portion extending off the rail to give a double thickness of joiner material. Then you solder the smaller code rail on top of the crushed end of the rail joiner. The double thickness of joiner lifts the rail enough to make the top of the rail even with the larger code rail. You will probably need to put a thin shim under the ties of the smaller rail to fill the space between the cork and the ties that raising the rail to the higher code will cause.
A friend in the modular club is running code 100 on his mainline tracks (required by the club module standards) and code 83 on his sidings with code 70 on some of his spur tracks. He tried both the Walthers transition joiners that are design similar to tin goat's suggestion and the method suggested by nachoman. He preferred to use nachoman's method, and felt that the Walthers transition joiners were to weak for reliability, but I would say the method you use would be whatever works for you.
A friend in the modular club is running code 100 on his mainline tracks (required by the club module standards) and code 83 on his sidings with code 70 on some of his spur tracks. He tried both the Walthers transition joiners that are design similar to tin goat's suggestion and the method suggested by nachoman. He preferred to use nachoman's method, and felt that the Walthers transition joiners were to weak for reliability, but I would say the method you use would be whatever works for you.