Trains.com

Subscriber & Member Login

Login, or register today to interact in our online community, comment on articles, receive our newsletter, manage your account online and more!

Pro's & Con's of various Turnouts

17110 views
46 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    November 2007
  • From: California
  • 2,388 posts
Posted by HO-Velo on Saturday, October 12, 2019 9:11 AM

Brian, Interesting to learn of a commercial turnout available with solid point rails.  Liking the looks of solid point rails was one of the reasons I chose Fast Tracks turnouts, and if done right are bulletproof and smooth as silk.

Regards, Peter

  • Member since
    July 2006
  • From: 4610 Metre's North of the Fortyninth on the left coast of Canada
  • 9,352 posts
Posted by BATMAN on Friday, October 11, 2019 1:26 PM

riogrande5761

Twelve year old topic.

 

68-year-old Wonder Woman. Shame on you Jim, there is a new one ya know.

Brent

"All of the world's problems are the result of the difference between how we think and how the world works."

  • Member since
    June 2007
  • 8,892 posts
Posted by riogrande5761 on Friday, October 11, 2019 1:16 PM

Twelve year old topic.

Rio Grande.  The Action Road  - Focus 1977-1983

  • Member since
    February 2009
  • 1,983 posts
Posted by railandsail on Friday, October 11, 2019 11:36 AM
  • Member since
    July 2006
  • From: Colorado
  • 707 posts
Posted by joe-daddy on Sunday, September 9, 2007 9:27 PM

 Loco wrote:
Joe, what brand of flex track you use.... Atlas?

Yes, code 83 and the FastTracks jigs were special order setup for Atlas rail which I obtain by scrapping flex track.

Joe 

My website and blog are now at http://www.joe-daddy.com
  • Member since
    October 2006
  • 520 posts
Posted by Loco on Sunday, September 9, 2007 9:05 PM
Joe, what brand of flex track you use.... Atlas?
LAte Loco
  • Member since
    July 2006
  • From: Colorado
  • 707 posts
Posted by joe-daddy on Sunday, September 9, 2007 8:56 PM

 

This weekend, I made my first turnouts with my new FastTracks jig.  Two #8 left and one #8 right.  The first one took right at two hours to complete and another hour to figure out what was  wrong with it.  The second one took an hour and a half.  The third was right at an hour.

I like the looks of them alot, each one gets smoother and I'm of the opinion after another 3 or 4, I'll feel pretty good about building them.  What I like the most about them is that I should be able to easily build any required replacement parts I'll ever need and they really don't amount to much in the way of material. Less than one piece of flex track per turnout, about 75 cents worth of PC ties and some wooden ties.

 

 

 

My website and blog are now at http://www.joe-daddy.com
  • Member since
    August 2004
  • 2,844 posts
Posted by dinwitty on Sunday, September 9, 2007 10:11 AM

I will pretty much use snappable switches to plan in trackwork, but my prioorities, all rail frogs, guard rails don't care if plastic/metal. Then my final trackwork will be case by case situation that fits. My real goal is high detail trackwork. Handlaid/prefab, don't care. As long as I can fit the track situation. Nothing out there to fit, its all custom work, baybee.

 

 

 

 

  • Member since
    September 2007
  • 13 posts
Posted by GEUniversal on Sunday, September 9, 2007 7:54 AM

I'm using Trix C-track (code 83) and I'm verry happy with it, it might not be the most realistic for American railroading but it works fine.

 

pro's

-switch motors are buried under the roadbed

-almost sillent

-easy to work with

-visualy pleasing roadbed

-solid electrical conections

 

cons

-might not be 100% acurate for American railroads

-might be difficult to obtain in the US

 

hope this helps 

  • Member since
    October 2001
  • From: OH
  • 17,574 posts
Posted by BRAKIE on Sunday, September 9, 2007 7:38 AM

One thing I have notice of late the Atlas C100 switches is bumpier then the C83s..Still I prefer Atlas C83 over any other brand.

As far as NMRA compliance one has to remember those are recommended practices AND NOT STANDARDS and there lays the rub.I have always maintain most track RPs should be Standards..

See:

http://www.nmra.org/standards/rp12.html

http://www.nmra.org/standards/consist.html#standards

 

Larry

Conductor.

Summerset Ry.


"Stay Alert, Don't get hurt  Safety First!"

  • Member since
    July 2006
  • From: Colorado
  • 707 posts
Posted by joe-daddy on Saturday, September 8, 2007 10:04 PM
 Dallas Model Works wrote:
 joe-daddy wrote:
 Dallas Model Works wrote:

What is this compatibility issue?

Atlas Code 83 flex and Peco Cocde 83 turnouts are exactly what I use and I've never had any problems at all.

What are you referring to? 

 Here is the problem I've had with the combination.

http://www.trains.com/trccs/forums/1210533/ShowPost.aspx

 

Joe 

Was that the right link? When I pulled it up, I got something about young people, N scale and the 'net.

 

http://www.trains.com/trccs/forums/1210533/ShowPost.aspx 

My website and blog are now at http://www.joe-daddy.com
  • Member since
    May 2015
  • 779 posts
Posted by Dallas Model Works on Saturday, September 8, 2007 9:51 PM
 joe-daddy wrote:
 Dallas Model Works wrote:

What is this compatibility issue?

Atlas Code 83 flex and Peco Cocde 83 turnouts are exactly what I use and I've never had any problems at all.

What are you referring to? 

 Here is the problem I've had with the combination.

http://www.trains.com/trccs/forums/AddPost.aspx?PostID=1211973

 

Joe 

Was that the right link? When I pulled it up, I got something about young people, N scale and the 'net.

 

Craig

DMW

  • Member since
    October 2006
  • 520 posts
Posted by Loco on Saturday, September 8, 2007 9:20 PM
I got up off my.... bottom.... lol and went to measure the Atlas Custom Line #6's.  They are @1.5 inches!  That's a whopper of a difference. 
LAte Loco
  • Member since
    February 2005
  • From: Vancouver Island, BC
  • 23,330 posts
Posted by selector on Saturday, September 8, 2007 9:13 PM

I cut my gaps @ 2.25", but I don't see why a person couldn't get that even a bit shorter.

You might be right about the extra 0.25" in length making quite a difference, especially to a smaller loco, and/or one with no flywheel.

As for the jigs, yes that is a problem.  I knew I'd be running heavy steam, and I wanted fast and accurate traverses of turnouts on my main with Niagaras and a PRR T1 Duplex doing scale speeds near 50-70 mph.  Turns out that the turnouts are the least of my worries.  Some of my grade transitions needed some tuning, but not the turnouts.

Chuck (TomikawaTT) would urge you to learn how to make a turnout from scratch, which oddly the Fast Tracks system enabled me to do, and to simply make what you need where you need it.  They are surprisingly easy once you have built a couple.  So, maybe decide on a jig for those that you will need in the greatest number, or get a jig for those that you want to be the slickest, and then build the others doing some fudging and judging.  I built two completely different turnouts, one a curved wye, and the other a curved that must be close to a #10.  I cheated on the frog for the latter by using the block jig for the #8's, which works okay...not whoopee okay, just well enough that I can get my passenger trains through them at decent speed.

Regards,

-Crandell

  • Member since
    October 2006
  • 520 posts
Posted by Loco on Saturday, September 8, 2007 8:49 PM

It's so good to be wrong!  I sent an e-mail to them asking how long the frog is for there #8's.  The Atlas turnout is @2.5 inches long.  From looking at the web site, it would appear that they would be much shorter.  But inquiring minds.... Hey, if you wouldn't mind maybe you could do a measurement of one you built?

I must say, after looking at the vids of them building turnouts, it does look interesting.  Just wish one jig could do more than one turnout.... ah well.

LAte Loco
  • Member since
    July 2004
  • From: Carmichael, CA
  • 8,055 posts
Posted by twhite on Saturday, September 8, 2007 8:45 PM

I use Code 100 on my main and code 93 in my yards, and 99% of my turnouts are Sinohara--#5 in my yard, #6 on my main and the curved #8 in a few places where I have to have a curved turnout.  They've been in place for about 6 years, and hardly any problems (the problems I had were alignment on the #8 curved, and not the turnouts themselves).  I have one Peco that I bought because my LHS was temporarily out of Sinohara, and though the turnout is just fine, the wiring was an absolute NIGHTMARE!  (wiring is not my strongest suit, LOL!).  For the most part, my turnouts are hand-thrown, since they are all within easy reach. 

My other layout, had Atlas #6, and I liked them (after filing down the points), but they didn't seem to like slow-speed operation either on main or yard.  Them or me, I don't know.  But I sure like the Sinohara's, and they like all my locomotives and rolling stock, so far. 

Tom

  • Member since
    February 2005
  • From: Vancouver Island, BC
  • 23,330 posts
Posted by selector on Saturday, September 8, 2007 8:24 PM
 Loco wrote:

My issue with ANY brand of turnout is the potential for a stall on the frog if it's insulated on #8’s.  A frog is a frog is a frog.  And I’m thinking that ANY brand of #8 turnout is going to have this problem - hand build or not.  Am I wrong here?? 

I would respectfully say you are wrong, Loco.  I have several Fast Tracks handlaid #8's, with frogs gapped per Tim Warris' specs, and none of my locos, including a P2K SW8, have any troubles traversing those frogs.  All turnouts are fed from both ends, but the frogs are deader'n road salt.

  • Member since
    July 2006
  • From: Colorado
  • 707 posts
Posted by joe-daddy on Saturday, September 8, 2007 7:27 PM
 Dallas Model Works wrote:

What is this compatibility issue?

Atlas Code 83 flex and Peco Cocde 83 turnouts are exactly what I use and I've never had any problems at all.

What are you referring to? 

 Here is the problem I've had with the combination.

http://www.trains.com/trccs/forums/AddPost.aspx?PostID=1211973

 

Joe 

My website and blog are now at http://www.joe-daddy.com
  • Member since
    May 2015
  • 779 posts
Posted by Dallas Model Works on Saturday, September 8, 2007 7:07 PM
 joe-daddy wrote:
 Loco wrote:

snip

For one thing, $10 vs. $25 (Peco) with a difference of $15!  That’s HUGE.  Being new, I am going to make mistakes, at some point I know I’m going to rip one apart.  This is a given.  Ten buck mistake, hey it’s do-able.  $25 buck mistake and things are not so fun anymore.  Maybe I’ll find out that the cost of Peco (or other top brands) are worth it in certain areas of my layout.  But as yet, I’ve not heard reason against the Custom-Line with the exception of the spring loaded benefit of the Peco, which, is only a benefit when using in a manual setup.

But then I’m still new and learning things everyday!  May be I’ll spring for a few Peco turnouts and see if there is truly a $15 diffence..... Oh wait, I can't buy #8!

IF you are committed to Atlas Code 83 flex track, the Peco code 83 is not only twice as expensive but it is incompatible and requires significant work to overcome the compatibility issues.  The Atlas custom line and Mark 4 are good turnouts. Their turnout machine is awful, but the turnouts work reasonably and reliably.

Joe 

What is this compatibility issue?

Atlas Code 83 flex and Peco Cocde 83 turnouts are exactly what I use and I've never had any problems at all.

What are you referring to? 

 

Craig

DMW

  • Member since
    October 2006
  • From: United Kingdom
  • 198 posts
Posted by whywaites on Saturday, September 8, 2007 4:55 PM

You can still use Peco with Tortoise turnout motors as I have done, here in the UK alot of people use Seep motors or Fulgurex. As for the price difference all I can say is you get what you pay for.

Shaun

"Flying is easy. all you have to do is throw yourself at the ground and miss" Douglas Adams
  • Member since
    October 2006
  • 520 posts
Posted by Loco on Saturday, September 8, 2007 3:31 PM
Yup Joe, going with the Atlas Flex, for now.
LAte Loco
  • Member since
    July 2006
  • From: Colorado
  • 707 posts
Posted by joe-daddy on Saturday, September 8, 2007 2:58 PM
 Loco wrote:

snip

For one thing, $10 vs. $25 (Peco) with a difference of $15!  That’s HUGE.  Being new, I am going to make mistakes, at some point I know I’m going to rip one apart.  This is a given.  Ten buck mistake, hey it’s do-able.  $25 buck mistake and things are not so fun anymore.  Maybe I’ll find out that the cost of Peco (or other top brands) are worth it in certain areas of my layout.  But as yet, I’ve not heard reason against the Custom-Line with the exception of the spring loaded benefit of the Peco, which, is only a benefit when using in a manual setup.

But then I’m still new and learning things everyday!  May be I’ll spring for a few Peco turnouts and see if there is truly a $15 diffence..... Oh wait, I can't buy #8!

IF you are committed to Atlas Code 83 flex track, the Peco code 83 is not only twice as expensive but it is incompatible and requires significant work to overcome the compatibility issues.  The Atlas custom line and Mark 4 are good turnouts. Their turnout machine is awful, but the turnouts work reasonably and reliably.

Joe 

My website and blog are now at http://www.joe-daddy.com
  • Member since
    October 2006
  • 520 posts
Posted by Loco on Saturday, September 8, 2007 2:42 PM

We need to keep in mind that Atlas makes TWO separate "brands" of turnouts.  The CUSTOM-LINE and the SNAP SWITCH.  They are VERY different from each other and we need to make sure not lump them into the same pot.

My issue with ANY brand of turnout is the potential for a stall on the frog if it's insulated on #8’s.  A frog is a frog is a frog.  And I’m thinking that ANY brand of #8 turnout is going to have this problem - hand build or not.  Am I wrong here??  I see the only true solution would be adjusting the pickup’s on the loco. OR, I go with the power routing option with the #8’s on the main line.  And that’s the only place where I would use them is the main line.  Yards and branch line would use the #6 or #4. 

I think we all agree that reliability, durability, are all key factors here and must weigh heavy when considering overall cost.  With my limited use of any switch, for me, for right now, I think I’m going to go with the Custom-Line.

For one thing, $10 vs. $25 (Peco) with a difference of $15!  That’s HUGE.  Being new, I am going to make mistakes, at some point I know I’m going to rip one apart.  This is a given.  Ten buck mistake, hey it’s do-able.  $25 buck mistake and things are not so fun anymore.  Maybe I’ll find out that the cost of Peco (or other top brands) are worth it in certain areas of my layout.  But as yet, I’ve not heard reason against the Custom-Line with the exception of the spring loaded benefit of the Peco, which, is only a benefit when using in a manual setup.

But then I’m still new and learning things everyday!  May be I’ll spring for a few Peco turnouts and see if there is truly a $15 diffence..... Oh wait, I can't buy #8!

LAte Loco
  • Member since
    July 2006
  • From: Colorado
  • 707 posts
Posted by joe-daddy on Saturday, September 8, 2007 1:26 PM

 electrolove wrote:
I vote for Peco code 83. They can look really nice when ballasted.



The latest turnout from them is a #7 curved. I think they will continue to release more turnouts.

 

Great!  I have a bunch of them I want to unload, #5's with motors and switches. $25 bucks a piece.

Joe

My website and blog are now at http://www.joe-daddy.com
  • Member since
    February 2005
  • From: Sweden
  • 2,082 posts
Posted by electrolove on Saturday, September 8, 2007 1:20 PM
I vote for Peco code 83. They can look really nice when ballasted.



The latest turnout from them is a #7 curved. I think they will continue to release more turnouts.

I will add Tillig to the list.

http://www.reynaulds.com/tillig/tillig1.html







More pictures of Tillig and Peco

http://www.modelrailforum.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=980&hl=tillig+elite
Rio Grande Zephyr 5771 from Denver, Colorado to Salt Lake City, Utah "Thru the Rockies"
  • Member since
    July 2006
  • From: Colorado
  • 707 posts
Posted by joe-daddy on Saturday, September 8, 2007 1:02 PM
 Dallas Model Works wrote:
 MisterBeasley wrote:

I've got Atlas and Peco, both code 100.  My big complaint with Atlas is the switch machines.  The above-ground ones are large, ugly and non-prototypical, while the under-table ones have too small a throw-rod to attach below my 2-inch foam.  <snip>.

I like the solid throw on the Peco's, which have springs to hold the points against the stock rails.  You don't even need a switch machine with a Peco, if you're willing to throw them by hand, because the points will stay against the rails once thrown.  The Peco switch machine mounts solidly to the underside of the turnout, and can be ballasted out of sight with a little care.

I agree with Mr. Beasley.

I used to use Atlas turnouts years ago, but the switch machines are plastic and continually require adjusting. I got tired of derailments due to points not being snug against the rails

In yards (or other areas where turnouts are frequently thrown) I use Peco turnouts with Peco switch machines. I love the spring loaded snap and the fact that the springs keep the points tight against the rails. The snap isn't prototypical, but they make up for it with reliabilty.

I also use Walthers/Shinohara in other areas with Tortoise switch machines.

My biggest criticism of Peco is the lack of variety, whereas Shinohara has lots of neat things like double crossovers.

I am surprised that Atlas even offers their switch machines.  IMHO,they are way below the rest of the quality of the product line. I use Tortoise with my Atlas and like them very much.   The Tortoise is almost the same price as a Peco solenoid and turnout position switch. 

I got over my attraction to the Peco spring because of my dislike for their solenoid turnout motor.  A few days with the Atlas/Tortoise and I've never considered anything else.

Joe 

 

Joe 

 

My website and blog are now at http://www.joe-daddy.com
  • Member since
    May 2015
  • 779 posts
Posted by Dallas Model Works on Saturday, September 8, 2007 12:50 PM
 MisterBeasley wrote:

I've got Atlas and Peco, both code 100.  My big complaint with Atlas is the switch machines.  The above-ground ones are large, ugly and non-prototypical, while the under-table ones have too small a throw-rod to attach below my 2-inch foam.  <snip>.

I like the solid throw on the Peco's, which have springs to hold the points against the stock rails.  You don't even need a switch machine with a Peco, if you're willing to throw them by hand, because the points will stay against the rails once thrown.  The Peco switch machine mounts solidly to the underside of the turnout, and can be ballasted out of sight with a little care.

I agree with Mr. Beasley.

I used to use Atlas turnouts years ago, but the switch machines are plastic and continually require adjusting. I got tired of derailments due to points not being snug against the rails

In yards (or other areas where turnouts are frequently thrown) I use Peco turnouts with Peco switch machines. I love the spring loaded snap and the fact that the springs keep the points tight against the rails. The snap isn't prototypical, but they make up for it with reliabilty.

I also use Walthers/Shinohara in other areas with Tortoise switch machines.

My biggest criticism of Peco is the lack of variety, whereas Shinohara has lots of neat things like double crossovers.

 

Craig

DMW

  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Saturday, September 8, 2007 12:37 PM

With all this turnout talk, I felt motivated to create a short shoot.

 http://s181.photobucket.com/albums/x173/fallsvalleyrr/?action=view&current=KatoUnitrack6Switch.flv

This is with the Duplex. The Radius on both sides of the turnout is 34 1/8" in a 10 degree curve. The second curveback is also 10 degrees. There is a small amount of overhang on the inside drive axles and some offset in the couplers.

 http://s181.photobucket.com/albums/x173/fallsvalleyrr/?action=view&current=J1Kato6Switch.flv

This one is the long wheelbase PRR J1, Ive not have had to make any increase in power to get it through the switch as it used to need it on the much smaller ones. If it is possible, I think this tender is even bigger than the Duplex and rocked a little through.

I apologize in advance for the high levels of background noise, I dont live in a quiet house.

  • Member since
    October 2006
  • From: United Kingdom
  • 198 posts
Posted by whywaites on Saturday, September 8, 2007 9:35 AM

As a Brit I have used Peco since the year dot mainly due to availability,durability and cost, I have used their HO & N track on layouts in the past. One layout I built with them followed me around the world for almost 10 years whilst I was in the RAF and were still giving superb service until I ditched the layout, I passed the turnouts to a friend who is still using them to this day which makes them about 15 years old.

I don't know if this item is available in North America but Peco here in the UK sell an extender bar and an underside mounting kit. The mounting kit allows the turnout motor to be mounted in a similar way to a Tortoise and operate via a small diameter hole in the benchwork, removing the need to mount the turnout motor directly to the turnout with the 4 lugs. The extender bar is used to allow the turnout motor to be used on thicker benchwork and if I remember it's about 2" long but comes with a connector to join the bar to the turnout motor, this can be shortened by cutting or lengthened by using a longer piece of bar.

Shaun

"Flying is easy. all you have to do is throw yourself at the ground and miss" Douglas Adams

Subscriber & Member Login

Login, or register today to interact in our online community, comment on articles, receive our newsletter, manage your account online and more!

Users Online

There are no community member online

Search the Community

ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
Model Railroader Newsletter See all
Sign up for our FREE e-newsletter and get model railroad news in your inbox!