ATLANTIC CENTRAL For modeling any kind of Class I railroad, I have long considered 36" radius the bare minimum, with 48" being the desired goal.
For modeling any kind of Class I railroad, I have long considered 36" radius the bare minimum, with 48" being the desired goal.
Rich
Alton Junction
rrinker Even #5's have a closure radius of 26" - so I guess it depends on what you are sending through the yard, but 26" radius can easily handle what is typically used for a switcher. --Randy
Even #5's have a closure radius of 26" - so I guess it depends on what you are sending through the yard, but 26" radius can easily handle what is typically used for a switcher.
--Randy
Peco Large code 100 turnout has a nominal radius of 60". Still not good for crossovers (you get an S curve). But that doesn't mean that they will not work for other main line diverging routes (use the 8s for crossovers and Large code 100s for diverging route turnouts).
You might consider handlaying (unless thats out of the question due to other factors). The fast tracks jig turnout break even is somewhere in the 20 turnout range (including cost of jigs). After that your price drops dramatically. I ran the numbers once and decided this was the way to go for my future layouts
I have a whole pile of Peco large code 100s in the basement and 89' RTTX flats and DTTX articulated well cars and SD9043s. I can mock up a section of track (or just build it into my modules) and test it if you wish.
http://www.peco-uk.com/product.asp?strParents=3309,3322&CAT_ID=3327&P_ID=17448
There is another player in the turnout jig business. Oak Hill Railroad. Ken Patterson is going to do a review of their product. I've never laid my own rail, so I don't know what I'm looking at. The template is milled aluminum
https://youtu.be/SOvzBp3pIGo
Henry
COB Potomac & Northern
Shenandoah Valley
ATLANTIC CENTRALFor modeling any kind of Class I railroad, I have long considered 36" radius the bare minimum, with 48" being the desired goal. Sheldon
Hi Sheldon:
We started out with the goal of having a 36" minimum radius but we just didn't have enough space in the room. The track ran off of the benchwork in many places. However, by using Atlas Code 83 #6s we may be able to increase the radii above 32" in some places.
We could go with a much simpler track plan but that is clearly not what the members want. The last permanent layout was boringly simple and we are not going there again. We asked the members to tell us what they wanted to see in the layout and we got about 50 different suggestions. We have been able to include about 2/3rds of those requests, and it doesn't look like it will be a mish mash of unrelated scenes.
A couple of things to keep in mind are that not all of the curves are down to 32", and almost all of the curves have easements. If I did away with the easements I could easily increase the radii but that would compromise the appearance of the trains as they enter the curves. Which is the better option? Larger radii or easements?
Another issue that was brought up at the meeting tonight will have to take into account. A couple of people mentioned that the leading trucks on older steam engines which do not have RP25 wheel flanges will derail easily on Code 83 track. Does anyone have any comments on that?
Thanks
Dave
I'm just a dude with a bad back having a lot of fun with model trains, and finally building a layout!
BMMECNYCThe fast tracks jig turnout break even is somewhere in the 20 turnout range (including cost of jigs).
We have considered going the Fast Tracks route but we decided to go with pre-made turnouts for reasons of time and a lack of experience. We have a couple of members who have built Fast Tracks turnouts but they have not come forward to offer to build a bunch for the club. Let's call it politics. I'm sure I could learn to do it but I just don't want to undertake the task.
hon30critter BMMECNYC The fast tracks jig turnout break even is somewhere in the 20 turnout range (including cost of jigs). We have considered going the Fast Tracks route but we decided to go with pre-made turnouts for reasons of time and a lack of experience. We have a couple of members who have built Fast Tracks turnouts but they have not come forward to offer to build a bunch for the club. Let's call it politics. I'm sure I could learn to do it but I just don't want to undertake the task. Dave
BMMECNYC The fast tracks jig turnout break even is somewhere in the 20 turnout range (including cost of jigs).
hon30critter ATLANTIC CENTRAL For modeling any kind of Class I railroad, I have long considered 36" radius the bare minimum, with 48" being the desired goal. Sheldon Hi Sheldon: We started out with the goal of having a 36" minimum radius but we just didn't have enough space in the room. The track ran off of the benchwork in many places. However, by using Atlas Code 83 #6s we may be able to increase the radii above 32" in some places. We could go with a much simpler track plan but that is clearly not what the members want. The last permanent layout was boringly simple and we are not going there again. We asked the members to tell us what they wanted to see in the layout and we got about 50 different suggestions. We have been able to include about 2/3rds of those requests, and it doesn't look like it will be a mish mash of unrelated scenes. A couple of things to keep in mind are that not all of the curves are down to 32", and almost all of the curves have easements. If I did away with the easements I could easily increase the radii but that would compromise the appearance of the trains as they enter the curves. Which is the better option? Larger radii or easements? Another issue that was brought up at the meeting tonight will have to take into account. A couple of people mentioned that the leading trucks on older steam engines which do not have RP25 wheel flanges will derail easily on Code 83 track. Does anyone have any comments on that? Thanks Dave
ATLANTIC CENTRAL For modeling any kind of Class I railroad, I have long considered 36" radius the bare minimum, with 48" being the desired goal. Sheldon
And this explains why I have no interest in being in a club - been there, done that.
As for large flanges, some will be ok on code 83, some of the oldest and worst offenders will not. But steam loco lead truck derailments likely have more to do with wheel gauge than older flange size.
Dave, just keep in mind, the actual turnout foot print is virtually the same for anybody's #6, so again, ATLAS offers the best price, the least track cutting and piecing in many cases, reversable throw bars, and no spring to remove before installing slow motion switch motors. They fit together to make crossovers and yard ladders with no cutting and filler pieces.
I would keep the easments, but easments should only be adding a small amount to the "circle", and when a curve starts directly off the diverging route of a turnout, there is little need for an easment, the turnout is an easment.
Just my view,
Sheldon
While I generally agree with most everything you say, Sheldon, when comparing Atlas to Peco, the one advantage of Peco over Atlas is the approximately 3 inch shorter footprint of the Peco - - - a true space saver.
richhotrain While I generally agree with most everything you say, Sheldon, when comparing Atlas to Peco, the one advantage of Peco over Atlas is the approximately 3 inch shorter footprint of the Peco - - - a true space saver. Rich
Rich, not really? As I explained earlier, the diverging route us the same length on both brands. Who cares about the straight route? You can easily trim the straight route of the Atlas back with no problems if you really need to, but to build a yard ladder with the PECO you have to add little 3" pieces between each turnout. Lots of fussy soldering or lots of places for bad electrical connections.
And avoiding curves that close to the frog on the straight route is better anyway.
Sheldon, really. Peco turnouts installed end to end take up far less space than Atlas turnouts installed end to end. It all comes down to track configuration and available layout space.
richhotrain Sheldon, really. Peco turnouts installed end to end take up far less space than Atlas turnouts installed end to end. It all comes down to track configuration and available layout space. Rich
Rich, yes it depends on track configuration, but from points to frog they are the same length, I assure you, I can put an Atlas #6 anywhere you can put a Peco and both will work the same.
It depends on what you are making. Two Pecos frog to frog result in the same 2" center spacing as two Atlas frog to frog. I just drew it out, and two assemblines, one with Peco and one with Atlas, connect directly, with the same 2" spacing. Ladders build out a little different. Peco stock results in a 1.5" center spacing for the tracks. Atlas is 2: centers - for each track AFTER the first. The first is tight, without adding a short spacer section - 1 21/32" center between the 'main' track and the first siding in the ladder. After that, each ladder track maintains a 2" spacing.
But the Pecos are SIGNIFICANTLY shorter. The difference isn't 1", it's over 2 1/2". 9 3/16" vs 12", to be exact. Yes, you can shorten the straight lead of the Atlas, but not by THAT much, you'd have nothing left of the frog rail.
Modeling the Reading Railroad in the 1950's
Visit my web site at www.readingeastpenn.com for construction updates, DCC Info, and more.
On the Peco, both routes end at the same distance past the frog, correct? I have done that with Atlas with no issues, but admittedly I have hand laying skills........
And I solder all my rail joints...........
Approximately, yes. I would grab one of my Atlas ones and hold it up against a Peco but I don't have ay Peco #6 on hand. It looksliek you'd have to chop the Atlas awfulyl close to the frog - there might be one or two ties holdign a TINY piece of rail on - I'd think you would have to CA that little piece of rail in palce AND solder it to the next piece. You might be able to trime a tie's worth off the point end, so you'd have to trim equally less off the frog end to get the same results.
rrinker Approximately, yes. I would grab one of my Atlas ones and hold it up against a Peco but I don't have ay Peco #6 on hand. It looksliek you'd have to chop the Atlas awfulyl close to the frog - there might be one or two ties holdign a TINY piece of rail on - I'd think you would have to CA that little piece of rail in palce AND solder it to the next piece. You might be able to trime a tie's worth off the point end, so you'd have to trim equally less off the frog end to get the same results. --Randy
Depending on how you count, there are 5-6 ties from the frog to the end of the diverging route on both the Atlas and Peco, cutting the Atlas back to that point leaves those same 6 ties on the straight.
Now, the Peco may be slightly shorter from frog to points, but I don't think it is by much. And if it is it likely has a tighter closure radius, not something I want....
I will measure an Atlas tonight, but I'm pretty sure the Atlas is 10" long on the diverging route and 12" on the straight. If you remove the straight back to the diverging route, and then shorthen the point end 1/2", you are within 1/8" to 1/4" of the Peco dimensions.
And one more tie on the straight and diverging route, and you are exactly the same as the Peco.
But I still don't see the advantage 99% of the time.
hon30critter If I did away with the easements I could easily increase the radii but that would compromise the appearance of the trains as they enter the curves. Which is the better option? Larger radii or easements? Thanks Dave
If I did away with the easements I could easily increase the radii but that would compromise the appearance of the trains as they enter the curves. Which is the better option? Larger radii or easements?
According to John Armstrong in his Track Planning for Realistic Operation, it's better to have smaller radius curves with easements than larger radius curves without easements.
You can easily trim the straight route of the Atlas back with no problems if you really need to, but to build a yard ladder
Yes, I do it all the time with my Atlas turnouts where-ever necessary. Trimming turnouts is something I do where necessary as long as there is enough rail left to attach rail joiners and a bit of a margin.
Rio Grande. The Action Road - Focus 1977-1983
They are both proper #6 turnouts, so they have the same closure radius, no curve through the frog itself liek the Peco 100 and 75, or a Snap-Switch.
ANd since there is some extra space before the points on Peco as well, removing that ups the difference in total length again :)
I was going to also reply on the easements - it's illustrated very well in Track Plannign for Realistic Operation (there's that pesky book again..). Armstrong calls it "coefficient of lurch" and shows clearly that an 18" radius curve with an easement is actually smoother than a 22" radius curve without. The larger the radius, the less this become an issue - if you can put 48" and broader curves everywhere, you may indeed get away without much if any easement.
Okay. I've got brand new Peco code 83 and Atlas Custom Line code 83 #6 turnouts in my hands. For you kids at home, the Custom Lines are the turnouts with the short diverging track, unlike the Super Turnouts that have longer diverging tracks.
Aligning the tips of the points shows the Peco turnout to be shorter from point to frog than the atlas turnout, by about three ties. The diverging track is about three ties shorter. The tangent track is a full 12 ties shorter, but that's just because of the excess track on the Atlas.
While the Atlas can be trimmed to be as long as the stock Peco, the Peco can be trimmed as well.
For pure compactness, the Peco is clearly shorter in all ways.
When I align the tangent rails of both turnouts perfectly, the Peco's diverging track comes off a bit sooner. I don't thing the frogs, the angles, are different, rather the Peco's departs the tangent rails sooner. Interestingly, the sliding points (entire rails) are much longer on the Peco, by about three ties.
Somebody smarter than me would have to calculate the imbedded radius. It looks to me that the imbedded radius from points to frog is broader in the Atlas, which would seem to be the case.
- Douglas
Doughless Okay. I've got brand new Peco code 83 and Atlas Custom Line code 83 #6 turnouts in my hands. For you kids at home, the Custom Lines are the turnouts with the short diverging track, unlike the Super Turnouts that have longer diverging tracks. Aligning the tips of the points shows the Peco turnout to be shorter from point to frog than the atlas turnout, by about three ties. The diverging track is about three ties shorter. The tangent track is a full 12 ties shorter, but that's just because of the excess track on the Atlas. While the Atlas can be trimmed to be as long as the stock Peco, the Peco can be trimmed as well. For pure compactness, the Peco is clearly shorter in all ways. When I align the tangent rails of both turnouts perfectly, the Peco's diverging track comes off a bit sooner. I don't thing the frogs, the angles, are different, rather the Peco's departs the tangent rails sooner. Interestingly, the sliding points (entire rails) are much longer on the Peco, by about three ties. Somebody smarter than me would have to calculate the imbedded radius. It looks to me that the imbedded radius from points to frog is broader in the Atlas, which would seem to be the case.
I thought so, I'll stick with the broader curve of the Atlas......
And the non sprung throw bar, the easy yard ladder construction, and the lower price.
Doughless For pure compactness, the Peco is clearly shorter in all ways.
So where does Micro Engineering code 83 #6 turnouts fit into this equation? I dont presently own any, nor Peco code 83 #6 either, but am considering one or the other for a yard ladder.
ATLANTIC CENTRAL I'll stick with the broader curve of the Atlas...... And the non sprung throw bar
I'll stick with the broader curve of the Atlas......
And the non sprung throw bar
Someone has computer all the dimensions for ALL the peco track, very kind of them:
http://caldernorthern.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/pecoturnoutdimensions.pdf
Yes, the Code 83 is in there. Since they are built to NMRA standards, the closure rail radius is 43" for the #6, as it should be. I doubt the Atlas is larger. Should be identical.
richhotrain ATLANTIC CENTRAL I'll stick with the broader curve of the Atlas...... And the non sprung throw bar Sheldon, what you fail to take into account is that the spring loaded throwbar is highly desirable in situations where you don't need a Tortoise (or some similar slow motion switch machine) or don't want the ugliness of a manual throw (such as the Caboose Industries monstronsity). If you don't need the spring, my 7-year old grandson can remove it for you. Rich
Sheldon, what you fail to take into account is that the spring loaded throwbar is highly desirable in situations where you don't need a Tortoise (or some similar slow motion switch machine) or don't want the ugliness of a manual throw (such as the Caboose Industries monstronsity). If you don't need the spring, my 7-year old grandson can remove it for you.
And that is fine. I use sub minature slide switches as ground throws because even on manually thrown turnouts I need and want additional electrical contacts, for the powerd frog and for track power routing.
Randy can say what he likes, but if the distance from the end of the points to the frog is shorter, the points are longer, and the frog angle is the same, as Doughless reports, than the closure radius has to be sharper at least by some small amount. It's not magic, it's mechanical engineering/drafting, my first profession.
Look, PECO makes nice products, I just prefer the particular set of features of the Atlas. High on that list is building yard ladders without short little sections of track, second is the isolated frog that can be powered, without a list of modifications done to the turnout first.
Since I don't need or want the "extra" features PECO offers, why pay the money?
Another big plus for me with Atals is the reversable throw bar, which is important with my slide switch ground throws.
What I still don't get is where there are that many situations that would require jambing turnouts so close together? I have designed and built my share of layouts. Designed more than a few for others as well as myself, and helped build many of those I designed for others. Never had that many situations where a shorter straight route solved any problems.......but then again I'm not much for spaghetti bowl track plans?
Hi again gang:
Randy - I have that chart. It provides a lot of good information. I can get the same information for the Atlas turnouts from 3rd PlanIt. When I select any turnout and click on 'properties' the program shows all the turnout data.
Everyone - I have completed two revisions of the track plan, one using Peco Code 83 and the other using a combination of both Atlas and Peco Code 83. I was able to maintain the minimum 32" radii in the all - Peco version with #8s on the mainline where necessary. With the Atlas/Peco version, using Atlas #6s on the mainline made it an easy fit.
The reason I did the Atlas/Peco mix was so I could use Peco #5s in the yard ladders and the service areas. They are 3/4" shorter than the Atlas #4s and the frog angle is 3 degrees less.
Good points, Sheldon about the Atlas reversible throwbar and the metal frog.
I have over 60 turnouts on my layout and almost all of them are Atlas Custom Line, so, for the most part, I fall in the Atlas camp.
I first bought Peco turnouts during the infamous Atlas track shortage.
I mainly use Peco turnouts and crossings to reach yards from my outer mainline over my inner mainline. The Peco crossings match the Peco turnouts in terms of geometry which the Atlas crossings and turnouts don't.
And, I use Peco turnouts when I want to take advantage of the spring loaded throwbar.
And, yes, Peco turnouts are too expensive to populate an entire layout.
riogrande5761 So where does Micro Engineering code 83 #6 turnouts fit into this equation? I dont presently own any, nor Peco code 83 #6 either, but am considering one or the other for a yard ladder.
The Micro Engineering #6 turnout has a long diverging route like the Atlas "super switch" that must be trimmed for making crossovers.
They have the their yard ladder turnout system which is #5 turnouts, but info on that is not even on their web site right now, least not that I could find, except the prices for the items are on the PDF price list.
I don't really trust the #5 turnout idea, not much different/bigger than the Atlas Custom Line #4, which is really a #4-1/2.
And the lack of other items, #8's, crossings, etc, along with the prices, leaves me cold regarding ME - but I have used their bridge track quite a bit.
richhotrain Good points, Sheldon about the Atlas reversible throwbar and the metal frog. I have over 60 turnouts on my layout and almost all of them are Atlas Custom Line, so, for the most part, I fall in the Atlas camp. I first bought Peco turnouts during the infamous Atlas track shortage. I mainly use Peco turnouts and crossings to reach yards from my outer mainline over my inner mainline. The Peco crossings match the Peco turnouts in terms of geometry which the Atlas crossings and turnouts don't. And, I use Peco turnouts when I want to take advantage of the spring loaded throwbar. And, yes, Peco turnouts are too expensive to populate an entire layout. Rich
True, Atlas does not make a 9.5 degree crossing that would match the #6 turnout, but I actually found that you can put a small "curve" in the #6 after the frog and use the Atlas 12.5 degree crossing for that same move. It worked amazingly well.
But I would also think the Atlas turnout should work fine for that with the PECO 9.5 degree crossing?
I have also successfully "curved" #8 and #6 Atlas turnouts into very large radius curved turnouts.
Again PECO is good quality, just past my limit on the deminishing return scale......
ATLANTIC CENTRAL True, Atlas does not make a 9.5 degree crossing that would match the #6 turnout, but I actually found that you can put a small "curve" in the #6 after the frog and use the Atlas 12.5 degree crossing for that same move. It worked amazingly well. But I would also think the Atlas turnout should work fine for that with the PECO 9.5 degree crossing?
ATLANTIC CENTRALbut then again I'm not much for spaghetti bowl track plans?
Hi Sheldon,
Yes, the plan is a bit of a spaghetti bowl. We have justified the design for several reasons:
1. We want to be able to have as many operators at one time as we can, therefore the more track we can fit in the better, within reason.
2. We want significant changes in track elevation without extreme grades. Maximum grade is 2%. The elevation difference between the highest and lowest points is 11 1/2". The track crosses over itself at that point to add additional interest.
3. We have limited space. We are trying to do a club layout that has both operating opportunities for several people at once, and be visually interesting, in 500 sq. ft.
4. The previous permanent layout had none of the above and it was as boring as toast without butter.
ATLANTIC CENTRALsecond is the isolated frog that can be powered, without a list of modifications done to the turnout first.
Peco has made the job of powering the frog separately pretty simple on its latest versions. The lead to the frog is already attached, and the gaps before the frog are already there. All that needs to be done is to remove a couple of jumpers at the gaps and that takes about 10 seconds.
We are going to add stuff to any turnouts that we use, namely jumpers between the closure rails and the point rails and jumpers between the closure rails and the stock rails. That will be done regardless of brand.
We will have to remove the Peco springs. No big deal.
I do understand your points and I appreciate your taking the time to post. Same with everyone else. The decisions are not made yet and the information provided by forum members is playing a significant part in the decision making process.