Hi,
I'm getting ready to build my first layout in 20 years...and my first HO-scale layout.
I plan to use Code 83 rail for the most part, and I have chosen MicroEngineering flex track since to me it looks the best.
Now I'm not trying to set up a flame war, but I'm struggling to choose turnouts to go with it. I thought about using MicroEngineering turnouts as well, but they only come in #6 RH and LH, and I wanted to use sharper turnouts (it's a small switching layout and space is a premium) - #5 and maybe even #4 in some places - and I may need additional switches and crossovers as well.
I have never built track before, but I'm willing to try hand-laying turnouts if necessary. A trusted friend suggested that in order of "goodness" I should consider:
Any thoughts/suggestions? If it matters, I will be using DCC with this layout...
Thanks!Peter
Edited: I should add, for the most part I plan to use ground throws to switch the turnouts, but I may also use tortoise-type switch machines. Again, if it matters.
Peter A. Kazmir - Leander, TexasMopac isn't just a freeway in Austin!
... there is still Peco and Walthers, who both offer code 83 track and a great variety of turnouts, including curved turnouts. Peco appears to be the most expensive choice, but their track is VERY reliable. Handlaying was an option for me as well, but I have decided against it. I will go for Peco turnouts and flex track, and use Atlas crossings, where Peco has no fit. I like Peco´s sprung points, as I will operate my turnouts manually.
You can also "mix and match" - if you like ME´s turnouts, take them, where they fit and maybe use Walthers code 83 turnouts, where you need smaller/larger turnouts. If you paint the ties and rails, no one will be able to tell your turnouts come from different sources.
CVP comes highly recommended, and a lot of folks consider them to be as realistic in HO as anything.
If you're considering handlaying turnouts, give Fast Tracks a solid look. Their products are excellent, and provide excellent results with modest effort. I've created over a dozen tunouts using their jigs, including a yard ladder that shares the same piece of stock rail all the way through four different turnouts!
I'm trying to model 1956, not live in it.
Fast Tracks products are very cost effective. the more you make, the less $ per switch. + they look fantastic and operate very well.
Walthers would be my next choice. i've used them most recently and found them very reliable; no derails right out of the box (8 months and hundreds of hours of useage = no problems!)
for special trackwork not provided by the Fast Tracks jigs or walthers, i would chose the fast tracks handlaid twisty-ties switch kit. a tad more involved but a very well thought out kit.
crossings would be purchased through the manufacture who has the respected product available.
Peter
Before you commit to the handlaid route, I would hand lay a small stretch of track on say a 2ft x 3ft base using your chosen techniques. Make sure there is at least 30 degrees of curve near your minimum radius in the track. Then, add a handlaid turnout. At the same time, lay some ME flex track and a commercial and/or Fast Tracks turnout in a similar configuration. Then you have a much better feel for which you will want to use in the future.
There are a variety of ways to "hand lay" track, just as there are a variety of different commercial track. Each method has its advocates.
I use wood ties (redwood preferred as they are the right color naturally for my prototype) that I glue, stain, and ballast before laying rail. In the future, I will try grape vine twigs and skewers to simulate hand-hewn ties. I pre-paint the rail and attach feeders before spiking. I pre-bend the rail (by hand) before laying as I have not used rail joiners in the past. I spike the rail using ME micro spikes or P87 Stores enlongated scale spikes (as soon as I get my order off). I may try using very short (cut in half) soldered rail joiners in the future to see if I like that any better. And I may invest in a rail bender in the future, too. I'm open to modifications that make my final product better. Keep in mind, though, that I'm modeling late 19th Century track that had no ties plates or creosote. Hand-hewn ties were used where there was no ready access to a saw or tie and plank mill.
Others use a mixture of wood and PC board ties so that they can solder the rail instead of spiking it. Fast Tracks (and others) use this system in turnouts. To me, while the track is more rugged, getting the PC board ties to match the wood is not all that easy.
Glued construction works well, too. Pliobond or Barge Cement does a good job of holding rail to wood or Central Valley tie strips. The advantage of CV tie strips (and their turnout kits) is the incorporation of excellent tie plate and spike head detail for those modeling track from the 1920s (or earlier) to the coming of concrete ties. Protot87 stores sells excellent detailed points and cast frogs to augment the CV turnout kits - or to use in your own turnouts.
The disadvantages of the Fast Tracks turnouts are 1) the cost of the jigs if you don't make more than 5-10 of a given type of turnout, 2) the tie plate and frog details are missing. OTOH, Fast Tracks has easy to follow videos and instructions that do an outstanding job of helping you hand lay for the 1st time.
Besides tie plates and realistic spike heads, the other obvious track detail that most leave off are the joiner bars between sections of rail. Model joiner bars are available from P87 Stores and some other sources. Photos of track where the builder has added the joiner bars do look incredibly realistic - see pictures of Wolf's Westport Terminal
Finally, you might consider code 70 rail for an HO switching layout instead of code 83. Most prototypes do not use 132# rail off the main line, even in the last decade. Shinohara, ME, BK, Railway Engineering all make code 70 turnouts - or you can hand lay. Walters imports and puts their name on all Shinohara's code 83 line.
my thoughts, your choices
Fred W
For my money there is only one choice Walthers/Shinahara one in the same I am in the process of building a new pike and have been amassing material for approx.a year and a half. Like many of us I am working ont he slim to none budget concept so I buy what I can afford when I can afford it.I went to the Timonium show picked up four Walthers DCC friendly #6 turnouts at a very good price form a guy selling off what he had left over I think I paid about $14.00 each. I also one picked up a dozen left and a dozen right had # Atlas turnouts at a good price and if that weren't good enough I found an LHS that was not going to carry MRR supplies any longer and had a killer blowout sale so I picked some more Atlas #6 and # 8 turnouts for $6.00 each. I was happy to find such a great deal and I now had more then enough turnouts to get me started. So after laying one of the main lines I cut in all the turnouts and had one that bugged the heck out of me. A right hand # 6 Atlas that everytime I ran heavey weight passenger cars through it I had problems with the cars passing through the points so much so that if you didn't hit it at just the right speed it would derail the car. This pass weekend I visited a large club layout on on eof hteir work session days and spoke to a few of their senior members who told me they run nothing but Walthers turnouts becasue they had too many problems in the past. So I figured what the heck let me give it a try. I removed the Atlas and installed the Walthers turnout last night and I could not believe the difference. I may have to do with the more attention to detail when they construct the Walthers as compared to the Atlas. One thing that is apparent is the placement of the holes for the spikes as compaired to the center of the tie position on the Atlas. I feel it helps hold the tunout in place much better before gluing and ballasting etc. and it actually look much more prototypical then an Altlas. Not detracting form Mico Engineerings turnouts which are also excellant the only problem is they only come in #6's unless you want to build your own.
I am at the point where before I go any further in construction I will change out my Atlas turnouts as I can afford them for Walthers and Micro. My fault for being penny wise pound foolish.
Just a thought, if you're building a switching layout you may still want to go with the largest turnouts and min radius of any curves you can fit in...not only for operation's sake, but for appearance as well. Remember in the real world even a no.6 turnout is very sharp and would probably only be found in industrial trackage and such.
I wouldn't go below a no.5 anyway, especially if you're looking at tracks paralleling each other so you have an S-curve. Engines and cars that will go thru a No.4 OK may not go thru and S-curve of a No. 4 and then a sharp 18"R curve or two No.4 turnouts in a crossover. Walthers offers no. 5 turnouts including matching Y's
I'm currently operating an L-shaped switching layout with 16" wide shelfs as benchwork, using a min. radius of 31" and No.6 turnouts exclusively.
Thanks for all the input!
I'm going to play with CADRail a little before I decide for sure, but I think I'm going with #5 minimum turnouts (but will try to use #6 where I can). I'm also torn on minimum radius, I'm thinking of 18" (with transition curves) but in most places it will be wider. I won't be running anything larger than 4-axle locos and maybe 60' boxcars (if that), and train length will be in the 6-8 car (inc loco and caboose) range. Does that sound reasonable?
I really want to go with ME turnouts for the standard #6's. For the #5's I was thinking of Peco Electofrogs or Walthers. Sounds like the consensus so far is for Walthers (of those two)?
-Peter
pkazmir I really want to go with ME turnouts for the standard #6's. For the #5's I was thinking of Peco Electofrogs or Walthers. Sounds like the consensus so far is for Walthers (of those two)?
#6 turnouts with 18" radius is probably overkill, except perhaps for crossovers. The 18" radius is so limiting in itself that larger turnouts don't necessarily help very much. I'd definitely look to increase the radius on the main runaround(s) and running tracks, even if you must leave the spurs themselves at 18"R.
If space is tight, recognize that the PECO C83 are more compact overall then the Walthers for the same switch number. (e.g., about 2 inches shorter in the #5 ... roughly 15-20%. Big difference that will add up over the full layout.)
You should look at one sample turnout from each of those manufacturers, if at all possible, before making the decision for yourself. A client of mine was sure he wanted to use Walthers because some forumites told him to. But then when he saw a PECO C83 for himself at a hobbyshop that had both, he changed his mind immediately. Some would choose the other way (and the Walthers are fine, too), but it's best if you can make the decision based on your own perception.
Personally, I'd go with the same maker of turnout throughout, if possible. I don't know what you'd gain from having two ME turnouts in a crossover and the rest Walthers or PECO. Different manufacturers use different height ties and different profile rail, even for the same code number. So the more you mix makers, the more shimming and/or filing you must do (and maybe some tweaking of rail joiners). It's not hard to do at all, but you might find it tedious if you have a lot of transitions between different makers.
Easements, even short ones, help a lot with tight curves. They aren't that hard to add and are highly recommended.
ByronModel RR Blog
Layout Design GalleryLayout Design Special Interest Group
I noticed the Peco turnouts were shorter...are they a sharper curve, or just more compact?