[altterrain]

I just saw over on the GR site an addendum to Kevin's review that the new AML flex track is not code 332 but code 352 - "In his review of American Mainline track in our June 2008 issue, Kevin Strong stated that the rail size was code 332. In fact, it is code 352, which could cause compatability problems with other manufacturers' rail. We regret this error and any inconvenience it may have caused."
Is this a joke? WTF? I was going to order a couple of cases for a job but I will not if its not going to be compatible with anybody else's track or switches!!!

-Brian

 

[jimtyp]

The Accucraft site says 332. 352 doesn't make sense?


track

BTW, Caboose Hobbies has a pretty good price on this stuff.

 

[Snoq Pass]

Odd?? I think it is probably a typo.

 

[altterrain]

I doubt it is a typo (if it is then they will have to issue a correction for the correction). Somebody must have noticed a height difference and got the micrometer out. I think we need to hear K chime in on this. Maybe a follow up review is in order.

-Brian

 

[jimtyp]

Even if it is 352 that would only be a 6% difference. I put some in just last week for a new siding and I didn't notice any problems connecting it up to existing Aristo 332 track. I use rail clamps. I hand bent the track into about 9' diameter curves, it bent way easier than I thought it would. I've only made some test runs as I'm not done yet, but the locos and rolling stock haven't had any problems. I ran them through pretty fast just to make sure there wouldn't be any issues when running at normal/prototype speeds. I'll double check the connections tonight to see if I can notice any differences of where the track types meet.

 

[altterrain]

That's good to know Jim. Thanks.

-Brian

 

[jimtyp]

Took a close look at the AMS track this weekend. I have mostly Aristo 332 brass and one section of LGB 332 brass. The AMS track width seems to be right on, BUT it does sit slightly higher, so maybe the 352 is correct? I haven't had any derailment or other issues yet, but I'm not done yet with the new siding so I haven't run the train through it a lot yet.

 

[John Allman]

the track I saw at the ECLSTS was definitely taller than all the other brands. It also did not fit well with the split jaw clamps. Perhaps they "fixed" the width, but not the height issues. As it was back then, I would not recommend it unless you plan to use it exclusively. I believe Jerry (from Split Jaw) pointed that out to Accucraft. Perhaps his opinion made a little difference.

 

[altterrain]

I do plan to use it exclusively on a loop except for the Aristo switches.

Jim,

What rail clamps are you using with it? Does the AML track come with it own rail joiners? Maybe the Split Jaw over the joiner clamps are in order.

-Brian

 

[wchasr]

I've got a piece of USA trains brass sitting here on my desk and it measures .352 height.

Just for a point of reference.

Chas

 

[jimtyp]

I had some Hillman clamps left, so I used those up first. When I ran out I bought some Split Jaw. I had no issues with either, other than the AMS does sit a tad higher with both clamps. I didn't check the width at the base, I checked it at the rail top. I'll have to check the base since John pointed out that might be a little wider, but if the rails line up it may not make a difference even if there is one?

I bought my track at Caboose Hobbies and as I recall they did come with simple clamps (like Aristo) but I think I pitched them. They don't have holes/screws near the end of the rail to lock them in place like the Aristo.

 

[jimtyp]

I looked a bit closer at the base of the rail. I didn't measure it but the AMS looked to be the same width at the bottom as the Aristo and the LGB, couldn't see a difference with my eye anyway. Double checked the top rail and it looks the same width wise, that is it matches both the Aristo and LGB. The difference is definitely the height, and it seems to be at the bottom of the rail where the height comes in. The Hillman clamps work but are a snugger fit than on the Aristo and LGB rail.

 

[altterrain]

Thanks Jim. Maybe I'll just need to file a bit off the bottom of the rail where the switches connect if its a problem.

-Brian

 

[jimtyp]

Ah, great idea, I was thinking if a problem I'd file off the top, your idea is much better

 

[jctp421]

I just got some AML track and installed about 70' - attached two aristo 10' diameter switches with a mix of aristo locking rail joiners and hillman railclamps, while i noticed the difference in the size of the rail (minuscule, but noticeable nonetheless) it has produced absolutely no issues what so ever. i did not file anything down. i really made sure the clamps were tight because i noticed the tighter it got the better it seemed fit together. I am really happy with the track, and somewhat surprised that there was no issues because before this thread i had seen other posts about the size difference, but no follow up. works great for me!

also, it seems to carry the electric current great, no reason why it shouldn't, but from the first run, there was not so much as a hiccup...again really surprised and happy. I did lube the clamps with LGB conductive paste, which i have never worked with before (thoughts??) and i am really happy with the results

for the deal that was to be gotten at caboose hobbies a month or so ago, while it broke the bank, I should have gotten more. Best deal on track i have found anywhere on line. 120' = under $3 a foot including shipping. denver to upstate NY.

 

[East Broad Top]

Is this a joke?

One of the vendors at the AZ convention brought this to our attention. Truth is, I didn't notice the difference in the rail height when I connected it to a section of LGB track, so I never thought to take a micrometer to it. Let's face it--getting the height correct on "code whatever" track is one of the most basic aspects of producing track. When I got home from the convention, I checked my sample. It measured .352". The vendor who brought this up reportedly claimed an even taller measurement on his sample.

In a recent e-mail from Lewis Polk where he's touting the advantages of his particular track, he claims that some track is "roughly rolled, not extrued ... to an exact size." I have no idea of how each manufacturer's rail is produced, but different processes could have different tolerances. Perhaps this is the case with AMS's track, I don't know.

Later,

K

 

[George Adams]

The sample box i got varied in height from 352 to 370. Apparently their rail is rolled and not extruded so the tolerances are not as tight.

George

 

[toddalin]

AML literature I have from the National Convention says it's Code 332. I guess the literature in incorrect?

 

[jimtyp]

Looks that way, or the tolerances are off, one way or the other there's been a lot of folks that have seen a tad bigger than 332, including myself.

I installed some. I bent it by hand, also called the belly bender It worked great for larger diameter curves, and for a weird spot where I needed a very slight S curve. However, for the 8' and 9' diameter curves I ended up with a not very smooth curve. The price of this track is really good (about 1/3 the Aristo pre-curved track price and overall I would recommend it. If I was putting in a new layout I would use it but I'd use a rail bender for curves, just to ensure a smooth and consistent curve.

 

[altterrain]

Thanks for the input all. I already have a Train Li bender so I'll probably go with the AMS for a few reasons - longer sections, much cheaper, its a battery only layout install, and cutting the tie webbing on Aristo track is a pain in the butt.

-Brian