Since the OP has received his desired information, it looks like it's time to saddle up and mosey on over to some other discussions. I do agree that the courtroom bickering is getting a bit old and far too common.
Tom
https://tstage9.wixsite.com/nyc-modeling
Time...It marches on...without ever turning around to see if anyone is even keeping in step.
This thread could have ended with the first two replies by Mel and myself, assuring the OP that #4 turnouts would work quite fine with his shorter freight cars and smaller locos running a slower speeds. We both praised our Atlas Custom Line Code 83 #4 turnouts as perfect for his setup. That is all that the OP was asking for.
Rich
Alton Junction
SeeYou190 Deleted
I am not enjoying the sniping and back biting that is becoming the norm in this forum.
Henry
COB Potomac & Northern
Shenandoah Valley
Deleted.
-Kevin
Living the dream.
Lastspikemike I did not say, nor did I intend to imply, that our trains ran at full speed through any Atlas Customline #4. Saying that I did say that is a waste of time.
I did not say, nor did I intend to imply, that our trains ran at full speed through any Atlas Customline #4. Saying that I did say that is a waste of time.
Lastspikemike I also did not say that yard tracks were negotiated at high speed. You just thought I had.
I also did not say that yard tracks were negotiated at high speed. You just thought I had.
Nope, not for a moment am I thinking that equivalent means identical.
Since a loco running thru an Atlas #4 in the yard must go slower than if the turnout were a Peco #5 in order to avoid “issues”, the two turnouts must not be functionally equivalent. If they were, then a Peco #5 would be the functional equivalent of an Atlas #6. And so on.
DoughlessTake your illustration and adjust for straight point rails of varying length and angle off of tangent.
could you show me your diagram?
DoughlessI'd wager you could alter the length of the tangent part of the turnout from frog to point by simply playing with the point rail angle and length and not adjusting the closure radius at all.
i believe your saying chop the closure rail of some radius R at some angle from the points. lets say 10 deg. (like where the blue and red lines in my drawings meet)
you could certainly replace it with two straight lengths 5 deg leading away from the stock rail and a 5 deg bend such that the end aligns with the closure rail of radius R at 10 deg. You could make them more curved, but again would have a sharp kink or a sharp curve where meets the closure rail of radius R.
and of course, as manufacturers do, they use a relatively straight set of points and a curved closure rail, but its radius is < R. (as my diagrams suggest with the blue and red lines)
i doubt your loco would operate any better on a closure rail that has kinks or one that has a tighter radius than R
greg - Philadelphia & Reading / Reading
LastspikemikeI used the redundant phrase "functionally equivalent" to assist your comprehension of what I wrote.
Sheldon, aren't you glad Mike can help you with your lack of comprehension?
He is quite the helpful fellow.
Rich, YOU are most welcome, happy to help.
Sheldon
ATLANTIC CENTRAL So I did two more tests with my PECO printouts. Yes, they go together to make crossovers with 2" track centers. NO, they do not stack up to make yard leads with 2" track centers. Stacked up with no spacers, and no curve past the frog, they make yard leads with track centers of 1-5/8" - not working here. The extra straight length on the Atlas straight route is what gives you the 2" track centers.
So I did two more tests with my PECO printouts.
Yes, they go together to make crossovers with 2" track centers.
NO, they do not stack up to make yard leads with 2" track centers.
Stacked up with no spacers, and no curve past the frog, they make yard leads with track centers of 1-5/8" - not working here.
The extra straight length on the Atlas straight route is what gives you the 2" track centers.
I've been trying to explain this stuff for years, I might be done.
ATLANTIC CENTRAL My protractor on PECO's published full size drawing says their #5 has a frog angle of 11.5 degrees. And my protractor on an ATLAS #4-1/2 says it has a frog angle as I advised earlier - 12.5 degrees.
My protractor on PECO's published full size drawing says their #5 has a frog angle of 11.5 degrees.
And my protractor on an ATLAS #4-1/2 says it has a frog angle as I advised earlier - 12.5 degrees.
ATLANTIC CENTRAL THe fundimental problem with this converstaion is that yards can be layed out in a number of different ways, with various curves after the frog, various turnout spacing, various track centers, and various yard lead angles relative to the yard tracks. You want to build a more compact yard larder with Atlas turnouts? Trim the straight route back to the diverging route, use a greater yard lead angle, and curve the tracks after the frog like the prototype often does to get back to your track centers. Sheldon
THe fundimental problem with this converstaion is that yards can be layed out in a number of different ways, with various curves after the frog, various turnout spacing, various track centers, and various yard lead angles relative to the yard tracks.
You want to build a more compact yard larder with Atlas turnouts? Trim the straight route back to the diverging route, use a greater yard lead angle, and curve the tracks after the frog like the prototype often does to get back to your track centers.
So, Atlas #4s and Peco #5s aren't functionally equivalent as our guy finally acknowledges.
Lastspikemike Atlas Customline #4 functions as well as Peco or ME #5 in a yard or siding environment. "As well" can be expressed as "functionally equivalent". Up the speed and the Peco #5 is a better choice. Build yards with Peco #5 and you'll be happy. We ran long consists at full speed through a #5 turnout in both directions with no issues.
Atlas Customline #4 functions as well as Peco or ME #5 in a yard or siding environment. "As well" can be expressed as "functionally equivalent".
Up the speed and the Peco #5 is a better choice. Build yards with Peco #5 and you'll be happy. We ran long consists at full speed through a #5 turnout in both directions with no issues.
Doughless gregc Doughless If you adjusted your graph to account for different lengths of point rails and position them at different angles, you can get different distances between the points and frogs without changing the closure radius. certainly different lead-lengths, but certainly with sections of the closure rail required to have smaller radius Interesting project for you if you like. Take your illustration and adjust for straight point rails of varying length and angle off of tangent. I'd wager you could alter the length of the tangent part of the turnout from frog to point by simply playing with the point rail angle and length and not adjusting the closure radius at all. It would depend upon how much kink you built into the joints. Which would be a function of how much kink a model locomotive could negotiate. A long steamer being the limit setter. Which would, in part, depend upon the amount of play you assume would be built into the drivers. Effectively, you'd be chopping off the long tail of the curved closure rail and replacing it with whatever length point rail and at whatever angle could still function in order to make the overall turnout length as short as possible. Lots of variables to consider when reaching whatever goals are the priority. Which I'm sure Peco and Atlas did when designing their turnouts.
gregc Doughless If you adjusted your graph to account for different lengths of point rails and position them at different angles, you can get different distances between the points and frogs without changing the closure radius. certainly different lead-lengths, but certainly with sections of the closure rail required to have smaller radius
Doughless If you adjusted your graph to account for different lengths of point rails and position them at different angles, you can get different distances between the points and frogs without changing the closure radius.
certainly different lead-lengths,
but certainly with sections of the closure rail required to have smaller radius
Interesting project for you if you like.
Take your illustration and adjust for straight point rails of varying length and angle off of tangent. I'd wager you could alter the length of the tangent part of the turnout from frog to point by simply playing with the point rail angle and length and not adjusting the closure radius at all.
It would depend upon how much kink you built into the joints. Which would be a function of how much kink a model locomotive could negotiate. A long steamer being the limit setter. Which would, in part, depend upon the amount of play you assume would be built into the drivers.
Effectively, you'd be chopping off the long tail of the curved closure rail and replacing it with whatever length point rail and at whatever angle could still function in order to make the overall turnout length as short as possible.
Lots of variables to consider when reaching whatever goals are the priority. Which I'm sure Peco and Atlas did when designing their turnouts.
Exactly!
richhotrain I continue to wonder because I honestly still don't know the frog angle on a Peco #5.
I continue to wonder because I honestly still don't know the frog angle on a Peco #5.
The fundimental problem with this converstaion is that yards can be layed out in a number of different ways, with various curves after the frog, various turnout spacing, various track centers, and various yard lead angles relative to the yard tracks.
You want to build a more compact yard ladder with Atlas turnouts? Trim the straight route back to the diverging route, use a greater yard lead angle, and curve the tracks after the frog like the prototype often does to get back to your track centers.
All this dosn't mater. What dose is to match the brand and type of engine to turnouts that work. Take a simple NW2, my Shinohara turnouts work fine for Kato but not for BLI. When you get into steam it is even more problems as diferent manufactures picked lots of different dimentions as far as wheel spacing for the same exact engine and that can cause problems with certain turnouts.
- Douglas
DoughlessIf you adjusted your graph to account for different lengths of point rails and position them at different angles, you can get different distances between the points and frogs without changing the closure radius.
gregc richhotrain greg's chart would indicate that it should be 11.26 degrees doubt you're the only one who mis-read the chart -- that's 11 deg 26 minutes. there are 60 minutes in a degress, so 11.43 deg.
richhotrain greg's chart would indicate that it should be 11.26 degrees
doubt you're the only one who mis-read the chart -- that's 11 deg 26 minutes. there are 60 minutes in a degress,
so 11.43 deg.
I edited my previous reply to correct that error.
gregc ATLANTIC CENTRAL Your drawing does not take any of that into account. the red straight sections on the shorter turnouts account for any combination of straighter sections in the closure rail. the blue curved section can be rotated and the red section split to account for straigher points and a straighter section near the frog Doughless Its impossible to do the math the Catskill Archive Frogs and Switches page does Doughless Your chart shows length of the turnout determined solely by a constant closure radius. the chart does not show total turnout length. it shows the "Frog distance", what i've been calling lead-length and the maximum closure rail radius. the total turnout length needs to include the rail lengths before the points and after the frog. presumably it shows the dimensions for a standard turnout of varying frog number. i wouldn't doubt there are exceptions
ATLANTIC CENTRAL Your drawing does not take any of that into account.
the red straight sections on the shorter turnouts account for any combination of straighter sections in the closure rail.
the blue curved section can be rotated and the red section split to account for straigher points and a straighter section near the frog
Doughless Its impossible to do the math
the Catskill Archive Frogs and Switches page does
Doughless Your chart shows length of the turnout determined solely by a constant closure radius.
the chart does not show total turnout length.
it shows the "Frog distance", what i've been calling lead-length and the maximum closure rail radius. the total turnout length needs to include the rail lengths before the points and after the frog.
presumably it shows the dimensions for a standard turnout of varying frog number. i wouldn't doubt there are exceptions
Ok, the discussion here is about the different model turnouts. On our models, the lengths of track past the frog and the points is not relevant.
If you adjusted your graph to account for different lengths of point rails and position them at different angles, you can get different distances between the points and frogs without changing the closure radius. (In theory, there will be an infinite number of combinations of point length, point angle, and closure rail length).
There will be "kinks" where the straight meets the closure, less severe if there is room to ease the closure into the point, and there is always a kink where the straight points diverge from tangent. Neither is enough to disrupt the performance of the models.
BTW, the new "hingeless" single blade closure/point model turnouts eliminates one of the kinks and provides a natural easement into the tightest part of the closure rail, IMO. In that respect, the new turnouts from Walthers and Peco might more closely resemble your chart.
richhotraingreg's chart would indicate that it should be 11.26 degrees
Lastspikemike Having used all three turnouts for yards: Atlas Code 83 snapswitch, Customline Code 83 #4 and Peco Code 83 #5 I can assure all and sundry that the snapswitch is unsatisactory whereas the Atlas #4 and Peco #5 are functionally equivalent.
Having used all three turnouts for yards: Atlas Code 83 snapswitch, Customline Code 83 #4 and Peco Code 83 #5 I can assure all and sundry that the snapswitch is unsatisactory whereas the Atlas #4 and Peco #5 are functionally equivalent.
We now know that the Atlas Custom Line Code 83 #4 is actually #4.5 which would seem to indicate that the frog angle is 12.66 degrees (12 degrees, 40 minutes).
So, I continue to ask, what is the frog angle on a Peco Code 83 #5?
greg's chart would indicate that it should be 11.43 degrees (11 degrees, 26 minutes).
Why don't we hear from the guy who stated that the Atlas Custom Line Code 83 #4 is the functional equivalent of a Peco Code 83 #5? Is he basing it on visual observation, or has he measured the frog angle, or does he have empirical data to support that statement?
Where do you draw the line on functionally equivalent? 1.23 degrees or less (12.66 minus 11.43)? Could it be greater than 1.23 degrees? Is Atlas Custom Line Code 83 #4 the functional equivalent of Peco Code 83 #6? #8?
ATLANTIC CENTRALYour drawing does not take any of that into account.
DoughlessIts impossible to do the math
DoughlessYour chart shows length of the turnout determined solely by a constant closure radius.
gregc richhotrain Interchangeable in what sense? two ways on the mainline, replacing a longer #6 turnout with a smaller #6 that has a tigher closure rail radius may lead to more derailments with longer wheel base locos. and it's also possible a turnout is the same length, because of the length of rail before the points and after the frogs, but the lead-length and closure rail radius are smaller i don't know whether your atlas or pecos are shorter. but presumably it's obvious that if you used one as a template for locating yard switches but use a mix of the two in the ladder, the longer one may not fit in the same space nor line up the same as the other because of the position of the frog relative to the points. (and i assume you wouldn't mix)
richhotrain Interchangeable in what sense?
two ways
on the mainline, replacing a longer #6 turnout with a smaller #6 that has a tigher closure rail radius may lead to more derailments with longer wheel base locos. and it's also possible a turnout is the same length, because of the length of rail before the points and after the frogs, but the lead-length and closure rail radius are smaller
i don't know whether your atlas or pecos are shorter. but presumably it's obvious that if you used one as a template for locating yard switches but use a mix of the two in the ladder, the longer one may not fit in the same space nor line up the same as the other because of the position of the frog relative to the points. (and i assume you wouldn't mix)
gregcany shortening of the lead length or broadening of any section of the closure rail requires some section of the closure rail to be a tighter radius than that in the chart. making the points straighter requires tightening the radius elsewhere
Not if you purposely lengthen or shorten the entire turnout. Or adjust the angle of the striaght point rails diverging from tangent.
Your chart shows length of the turnout determined solely by a constant closure radius. Varying the radii of the closure rail and adding or shortening the straight components (the red line and the (undrawn) point rails) as well as how severe the points angle away from tangent is how the model manufacturers make their turnouts longer or shorter than the others....all the while keeping the tightest part of the closure radius the same as other producers.
Its impossible to do the math (without having a geometric goal in mind) because there are three different sections of rail between the frog and the point. The closure rail itself could have an easement on either side that feathers the curve into the straight parts.
Its not infinite of course. There will be a point where you run out of lateral space to keep going, but playing with the length of the three sections and the angle of the points is why different model turnouts have different geometries.
Atlas generally having the longest turnout, IOW, the longest length of rail between the frog and the point, as any other manufacturer.
And the sections all have to closely match the shape of outside stock rail to keep the train on the track, so the differences are minimal.
Edit: keeping in mind that the radius of the curved closure rail, or the "closure radius" is not the same thing as the (estimated) "embedded radius" of a turnout. The embedded radius is essentially the radius of the closure and the straight sections (red line and points). Atlas being the longest turnout, it has the broadest embedded radius of any turnout, but the actual radius of the closure rail at its tighest point is no tighter or broader than any other turnout (IMO, not having micrometered the different turnouts).
By observation only, the PECO #6 is a shorter turnout because the points diverge from tangent at a more severe angle than Atlas.
gregc the closure rail has to match the frog angle when it crosses the opposite angle. the values i've come up with are comparable to those in the chart from the prototype. any shortening of the lead length or broadening of any section of the closure rail requires some section of the closure rail to be a tighter radius than that in the chart. making the points straighter requires tightening the radius elsewhere ATLANTIC CENTRAL But again, on many turnouts you can clearly see the "kink" in the diverging stock rail at the tip of the points, then the straight section the length of the points, then the closure radius, then the straight section parallel to the frog, not a continious curve yes, that "closure radius" section is tighter than if the entire closure rail were of constant radius do the math
the closure rail has to match the frog angle when it crosses the opposite angle. the values i've come up with are comparable to those in the chart from the prototype.
any shortening of the lead length or broadening of any section of the closure rail requires some section of the closure rail to be a tighter radius than that in the chart. making the points straighter requires tightening the radius elsewhere
ATLANTIC CENTRAL But again, on many turnouts you can clearly see the "kink" in the diverging stock rail at the tip of the points, then the straight section the length of the points, then the closure radius, then the straight section parallel to the frog, not a continious curve
yes, that "closure radius" section is tighter than if the entire closure rail were of constant radius
do the math
I've done the math, decades ago, built plenty of turnouts from scratch, and understand the subtleties of the geometry. And I understand the differences between the various commercial turnouts on the market.
Your drawing does not take any of that into account.
So to me it seems a pointless exercise.
I don't expect one brand of commercial model turnout to exactly interchange with a different brand. That is folly as well.
PECO makes great track, Atlas make great track, Walthers makes great track. They each have advantages and disadvantages. Pick what works for you or build your own.
Busy now,
richhotrainInterchangeable in what sense?
i'm guessing that it's far easier for even long diesels to negotiate tigher turnouts than even moderate size steam locomotives. so you may not be concerned with these issues if you don't operate steam.
ATLANTIC CENTRAL richhotrain What's the point of all of this? Using the number on the package that the turnout comes in, will a #4 turnout work in a yard or won't it work? I say, it will work. Rich Rich, I tried using Atlas #4's in my yard years ago, but my operational plans call for mainline steam to pull trains in andout of randomly assigned arrival and departure tracks. My steam roster is pretty conservative size wise, but my 4-8-2's did not like the Atlas "#4-1/2", a true #4 would be a disaster, and I doubt #5's would be reliable either. Sheldon
richhotrain What's the point of all of this? Using the number on the package that the turnout comes in, will a #4 turnout work in a yard or won't it work? I say, it will work. Rich
What's the point of all of this?
Using the number on the package that the turnout comes in, will a #4 turnout work in a yard or won't it work?
I say, it will work.
Rich, I tried using Atlas #4's in my yard years ago, but my operational plans call for mainline steam to pull trains in andout of randomly assigned arrival and departure tracks.
My steam roster is pretty conservative size wise, but my 4-8-2's did not like the Atlas "#4-1/2", a true #4 would be a disaster, and I doubt #5's would be reliable either.
My reasoning was the same as yours. Whether or not in practice larger steam engines would use the yard, I was determined to make it possible, and I did.
Later, I replaced the Atlas Custom Line Code 83 #6 turnouts with Peco Insulfrog Code 83 #6 turnouts because I decided to give up Tortoise powered control for spring controlled point rails.
gregc richhotrain What's the point of all of this? understanding why frog number does not fully describe a turnout. why turnouts from different manufactures are not interchangeable. and why #4 turnouts from one manufacturer may fit better in a yard than others
richhotrain What's the point of all of this?
understanding why frog number does not fully describe a turnout.
why turnouts from different manufactures are not interchangeable.
and why #4 turnouts from one manufacturer may fit better in a yard than others
If you are referring to crossovers, I will agree that an Atlas Custom Line Code 83 #6 turnout and a Peco Insulfrog Code 83 turnout will not fit well together to form a crossover. But, in terms of mixing those same Atlas and Peco single turnouts in a yard, I don't do it but what would be the problem for those that might?