Mine are all in plastic sleeves, no boxes. No gaps, either - not on the diverging side of the frog. The ones on the point side of the frog, with the jumper underneath, have always been there on the Code 83 line ones. That may be a change to the Code 100 and Code 75.
Gaps are still needed on the diverging frog rails some place before the next feeders come in. The Peco insulated joiners are quite ingenious and much less visible than Atlas ones, but I will probably resort to the Dremel method since going a bit beyond the turnout is not a bad idead for an OS section detection block, and many of my other gaps will be for detection as well, the exact placement more likely to be determined after the track is laid than before.
--Randy
Modeling the Reading Railroad in the 1950's
Visit my web site at www.readingeastpenn.com for construction updates, DCC Info, and more.
This is the package:
DSC02225 by Dave Warnica, on Flickr" alt="" />
I'm just a dude with a bad back having a lot of fun with model trains, and finally building a layout!
DSC02224 by Dave Warnica, on Flickr" alt="" />
I couldn't seem to get more than one picture to link to the previous post, so I will try again. This is the front (top) of the turnout:
rrinkerHow new do they have to be? The ones I purchased in the last 3 years do not have any gaps on them after the frog.
Hi Randy:
Sorry for the delay in responding. I have been trying to set up a new photo hosting service but I'm a dinosaur with this stuff.
Anyhow, the newer turnouts come in a clear plastic sleeve instead of the traditional cardboard box. The gaps are located about half way between the point rails and the frog. There is a small jumper on the back that has to be removed to isolate the frog.
Dave
DSC02226 by Dave Warnica, on Flickr" alt="" />
hon30critter richhotrain For another, Atlas turnouts are not power routing and, at least in DCC operation, I consider this an advantage since you are not dependent upon the point rail making certain contact with the stock rail. Hi Rich: Putting jumpers on the Peco point rails is a given, as are the insulating rail joiners. The newer Peco turnouts already have the gaps cut into the rails for isolating the frogs. There is a small jumper that has to be removed. Dave
richhotrain For another, Atlas turnouts are not power routing and, at least in DCC operation, I consider this an advantage since you are not dependent upon the point rail making certain contact with the stock rail.
Hi Rich:
Putting jumpers on the Peco point rails is a given, as are the insulating rail joiners. The newer Peco turnouts already have the gaps cut into the rails for isolating the frogs. There is a small jumper that has to be removed.
How new do they have to be? The ones I purchased in the last 3 years do not have any gaps on them after the frog.
richhotrainFor one, Atlas turnouts are less expensive than Peco turnouts, as already discussed.
Yes, the Atlas turnouts are cheaper for sure. The difference in total would be somewhere around $400 Cdn. incl. tax. (assuming 60 turnouts @ $6.00 less per turnout). Nothing to sneeze at. I will mention that to the committee.
rrinker This DOES work: use insulated joiners on the two frog rails in the middle, metal joiners elsewhere. Feeder to the point side, and feeders on both of the diverging tracks. All tracks will be live no matter the point position, and there will be no shorts.
This DOES work: use insulated joiners on the two frog rails in the middle, metal joiners elsewhere. Feeder to the point side, and feeders on both of the diverging tracks. All tracks will be live no matter the point position, and there will be no shorts.
Exactly right. Piece of cake.
His other points appear to be correct as well, but this one just jumped out.
Robert
LINK to SNSR Blog
richhotrainFor another, Atlas turnouts are not power routing and, at least in DCC operation, I consider this an advantage since you are not dependent upon the point rail making certain contact with the stock rail.
Install the jumpers as shown on the back of the Electrofrog package and you are no longer reliant on point to stock rail contact for power.
No extra gaps in Atlas because, well, the gaps are in the turnout already. Power routing seems to take on a negative connotatioon, but consider this. If you put insulated joiners right ont he frog rails of a Peco Electrofrog, and then have feeders in the connecting track, just what is getting power routed? THe frog and a tiny section of rail past the frog point. The whole rest of the siding beyond the insulated joiners/ Always live no matter what way the turnout is lined. You see, it's either you put the gaps past the frog, OR the turnout routes power to the tracks beyond. Not both. The reason you put the gaps in is so you can have feeders on the frog side of the turnout.
Take 3 pieces of flex track and a Peco Electrofrog. One piece of track oon each leg.
This works: COnnect poower to the piece of flex track that connects tot he point side. No insulated joiners or gaps cut anywhere. The two pieces of track past the frog will be live when the points are lined to go to that track. There will be no shorts. The track NOT lined will be dead.
This does not work: Same track connection but noot add a second set of feeders to one of the diverging tracks. If the points are line for that track, all is fine, but line the points to the other track and there's an instant short.
hon30critter - Atlas turnouts work fine, but nobody is raving about any advantages they might have.
- Atlas turnouts work fine, but nobody is raving about any advantages they might have.
For one, Atlas turnouts are less expensive than Peco turnouts, as already discussed.
For another, Atlas turnouts are not power routing and, at least in DCC operation, I consider this an advantage since you are not dependent upon the point rail making certain contact with the stock rail.
One further advantage is the ability to power the metal frog on the Atlas turnout without concern for additional gapping. The Peco Electrofrog requires those two additional gaps on the inner frog rail.
Rich
Alton Junction
Peco Code 100 products don't use a numbered frog angle, they are more like Atlas Snap Track in that regards. Peco Code 83 uses actual numbered frogs witht he appropriate angle, like Atlas Custom Line (although an Atlas Custom Line #4 actually has a #4.5 frog). The Atlas #8 should also be about 7.15 degrees. Frog number is how many units away you go to get 1 unit apart. So for a #8, it means you go 8 inches past the frog you are 1 inch apart. Or 8 centimeters to get 1 centimeter, or 8 hoozits to get 1 hoozit apart. The angle that results is arctan(1/frog). Geometry anyone? SOACAOTOA, that ancient tribe of Native Americans? (sowcahtoe-ah) Tangent of an angle is opposite length over adjacent length. Draw out a frog and the oppoosite side is the seperation (1 unit) and the adjacent side is the distance (for a #8, 8 units) So the tangent of the frog angle is 1/8, meaning the angle itself is the inverse tangent (arctangent) of 1/8.
Similarly this is why prototype curves are laid out in degrees. Unless you know the secret of the Nazca Lines, you can't stand above the Earth and use a giant stick and draw a radius. But you CAN measure an angle and walk out a 100 foot tape measure to the next point and make a whole lot of line segments 100 feet long each diverging from the previous one by a set angle.
Thanks Randy and Rich for sharing your experiences with Atlas turnouts.
Here is where I'm at regarding the choice of turnouts so far:
- We (the club) have based our decisions on using Peco turnouts so far, and nobody is telling me that there is anything wrong with Peco turnouts. In fact they get pretty high accolades whenever anybody talks about them.
- All turnouts require feeders and gaps to work properly if you want live frogs, so it really doesn't matter which brand we use.
Please allow me to ask a couple more questions:
- What is the actual frog angle on an Atlas #8 turnout? I have the Peco specs and there is a major difference between their Code 100 turnouts (12 degrees) vs their Code 83 #8 turnouts which are 7.15 degrees. The #6s are 9.5 degrees IIRC. What are the Atlas specs?
(And yes Robert, I could look them up myself but this is a much more interactive way of finding the facts).
Thanks
I've always used Atlas, the last two layouts were all Code 83. Never had an issue. I've never even powered the frogs. While I don't have any 2 axle critters (yet), I've never had a stalling issue on the Custom Line #4 or #6, the way some people report with even larger 4 axle power.
I am switching to Peco not because of issues with the Atlas, but because Peco's 83 line has a wider variety of turnouts, including curved ones, and I don't want to deal with soldering and filing rails trying to match Atlas rail to Peco rail ESPECIALLY around the places I'd need a Peco turnout like for a specific curved one. Matching things on tangent track is one thing, but where you already have side forces on the wheels? I've tried hand laying, just not for me, or I could just strip rail from Atlas flex track and make anything I need with matching rail.
I do think the Pecos look better. Everything is hidden. The Atlas 4's and 6's, at least, have the attachment for the frog power off to the side of the frog. The pot metal they use for the frogs does not take solder well, what I ended up doing was running a brass screw into the provided hole from underneath and soldering to that. No screw head then shows on the top side, and the screw was turned in so the bottom was flush with the hole, then hit with a dab of black paint to help hide it. Peco already has a wire attached for the frog underneatht he turnout, plus the whole thing is made of rail so you can easily solder on your own. The point hingers are much more solid on Peco but I never had a problem with Atlas. The molded in detail of the Peco looks nicer, and there are none of the annoying 'box' ties at the ends. The end ties on Pecos are totally normal looking ties except the space under the rail is hollowed out slightly to allow a rail joiner to slide under. It's usually a giveaway in model photos if there is any Atlas track and you see those box ties at the ends of turnouts. The point spring in the Peco - it does mean the layout can be operational without any switch motors installed, but it's easiest to remove the spring from the bottom before the turnout is mounted, and for any sort of slow motion machine like servos or a Tortoise, you'll want the spring disengaged.
hon30critter OK, now I'm going to be really honest. Maxman asked me what was wrong with Atlas turnouts and I lied. I said I didn't know of any problems with them. In fact, I think that Atlas turnouts are not well made. I am speaking of the point rails specifically. The hinges seem to be very sloppy. The Peco point rails seem to me to be better connected to the closure rails. In reality none of that really matters because the club has decided to install jumpers between the closure rails and the point rails on all of our turnouts regardless of the manufacturer. However, I would still really like to hear from those of you who have used Atlas turnouts successfully or otherwise. Please tell me about your Atlas experiences. Thanks, Dave
OK, now I'm going to be really honest. Maxman asked me what was wrong with Atlas turnouts and I lied. I said I didn't know of any problems with them. In fact, I think that Atlas turnouts are not well made. I am speaking of the point rails specifically. The hinges seem to be very sloppy. The Peco point rails seem to me to be better connected to the closure rails. In reality none of that really matters because the club has decided to install jumpers between the closure rails and the point rails on all of our turnouts regardless of the manufacturer. However, I would still really like to hear from those of you who have used Atlas turnouts successfully or otherwise. Please tell me about your Atlas experiences.
Thanks,
Dave, I have loads of experience with both Atlas Custom Line turnouts (both Code 83 and Code 100) and Peco Code 83 Insulfrogs.
I first used Atlas Custom Line Code 100 turnouts back in early 2004 when I first got into HO scale. Eventually, I shifted to Atlas Custom Line Code 83 turnouts when I bought my Walthers Cornerstone 130' non-DCC turntable which came with a factory installed Code 83 bridge track. Then I began using "transition tracks" to connect the Code 100 and Code 83 track sections of my layout. Atlas makes very few Code 100 "specialty" track such as bridge track, 3-way turnouts, wyes, and curved turnouts.
Atlas Custom Line turnouts look great and operate quite reliably. I have never had a problem with the operation and dependability of an Atlas Custom Line turnout and that includes the point rails. I have over 70 Atlas turnouts on my layout. The one problem that I have experienced with Atlas turnouts is on the ends of the turnouts where the rails come up out of their plastic spikes. If you are not careful when removing a turnout from the layout for any reason, and I sometimes am not careful, you can pull the rails up out of their plastic spikes. That said, the same problem can occur with the Peco turnouts.
I also have some Peco Insulfrogs on my layout. The reason for this is that I needed to install some crossings from my outer mainline over my inner mainline to reach yards and sidings. The Peco crossing angle matches the Peco turnout perfectly, not so with Atlas.
I highly recommend Atlas Custom Line turnouts.
richhotrainThe Atlas Custom Line turnouts, both Code 83 and Code 100, have metal frogs and can be easily powered. Unlike Peco turnouts, Atlas Custom Line turnouts are not power routing. The Atlas turnout has a longer footprint than the Peco turnout. For some, that is a disadvantage since the Peco is 9 inches and the Atlas is 12 inches.
Thanks Rich,
The additional length of the Atlas turnout may not be a problem. I started to re-draw my club layout plan with the Peco Code 83 #8s which are 12.65" long. I haven't got very far but it would seem that the plan can accommodate the longer turnouts.
hon30critter I haven't looked into Atlas turnouts, and I have limited knowledge of them. The main issue for the club is to be able to power the frogs. How do you do that with the Atlas turnouts (I know the Snap switch frogs can't be powered)? Dave
I haven't looked into Atlas turnouts, and I have limited knowledge of them. The main issue for the club is to be able to power the frogs. How do you do that with the Atlas turnouts (I know the Snap switch frogs can't be powered)?
maxmanSorry, but I forget. What exactly was wrong with the Atlas code 83 #8?
Nothing that I know of. The layout design committee has focused on Peco turnouts, specifically the Electrofrogs, so that we can run two axle critters.
Sorry, but I forget. What exactly was wrong with the Atlas code 83 #8?
rrinkerIt's like Prohibition in reverse - instead of sneaking truckloads of booze from Canada to the US, you'll be sneaking truckloads of model railroad track from the US to Canada. Parts made in England, which maybe makes it more ironic.
Mike
Woow, that's a huge difference. From Modeltrainstuff the difference between a Code 100 Electrofrog medium and a Code 83 #5 Electrofrog is $18 vs $26. Even the MSRP in USD is not double between the two. Based on USD MSRPs on those, the Code 100 is selling under MSRP in CDN, the Code 83 is selling at or above MSRP in CDN - so someone's pulling a fast one with the Code 83 there.
So - how far from the US border are you guys? You can basically get the Code 83 in the US for what you pay for the Code 100 locally. It's like Prohibition in reverse - instead of sneaking truckloads of booze from Canada to the US, you'll be sneaking truckloads of model railroad track from the US to Canada. Parts made in England, which maybe makes it more ironic.
I just had a very sobering experience. I finally got around to pricing the components for the club layout. Most of my guesses for what the various bits would cost were pretty close, with one major exception. Peco Code 83 turnouts must be made out of gold!! I can get a Peco Code 100 Large Electrofrog turnout for $24.00 Cdn. I can get a Peco Code 83 #8 Electrofrog turnout for $55.99 Cdn. Ouch!! Those prices are before any bulk purchase discounts that we may get, but even if we were to get 20% off (wishful thinking?) the Code 83 price would still be beyond what the club would be willing to spend. That kind of resolves the issue I think, although I will still suggest that we consider using Code 83 turnouts in the crossovers based on cuyama's advice on the track spacing thread.
Darn, that wasted at least a gallon of good rye that I had put back in the last hour!
To add to my last post, I want to thank the forum members who have taken the time to contribute to the discussion. Our plans are far further ahead than they would have been had I not had your help.
We spent quite some time discussing the pros and cons of going with Peco Code 83 on Monday night. The committee members were receptive to the idea, but we decided to do a bit more research before making a final decision. The club has a lot of older rolling stock so we want to have a good understanding of what implications Code 83 may have in that regard.
The two possible track plans have been fairly well refined. I'm going to polish them both so we can present them next week and ask the members to vote.
We are pretty happy with the progress that we have made with the layout designs.
To keep all of you who are following this thread up to date, I have had second thoughts about using Peco Code 100. Thanks to (edit) Byron (cuyama) I have a much better understanding of Peco Code 83 turnout geometry and it is pretty clear that they are a much better choice for things like crossovers as well as other turnout situations in general. As a result I am in the process of converting my club layout plan to Peco Code 83. So far, so good. The next step will be to convince the layout design committee to go along with me. I will have a go at that on Monday night. I'll keep you posted.
Thanks again Ed!
Cheers!!
I have carts from Harbor Freight, something like $35 when on sale.
We showed the members two preliminary track plans on Tuesday evening and they were received quite well. What we didn't get was many suggestions of what people wanted to see at the various sidings.
Both track plans were based on 36" minimum radii. By next Tuesday we hope to have the plans revised to 32" radii and we will shade the specific areas where we want suggestions for industries, towns, passenger stations or whatever. Then we will give the members another couple of weeks to give us any additional input. After that the design committee will make the decisions. We have clearly informed the members that they have their chance to speak up. Anyone who wants to critcize the plan after that will be told that they missed their chance. We have to move forward on this.
Carl425 - everyone thought your suggestion of building carts to keep all the tools and supplies close at hand for each of the various jobs was a good idea.
Phoebe VetYou can go tighter curves than the mfgr recommends if you don't mind it derailing frequently.
I think we will try to stick with 32" radius on the visible track and 28" radius on hidden track and in the yard.
You can go tighter curves than the mfgr recommends if you don't mind it derailing frequently.
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
You could also go with a smaller radius, much smaller, in areas that will be hidden. Knew one layout where the space for a return loop was just not there as they wanted a 42" radius because they were into passenger trains. They went for the 42" on one side of the loop and something like 27" (if I remember right, may have been even smaller) on the unseen part.
No laughter from this quarter. I determined long ago that a 32" radius curve is the ideal compromise for a track intensive layout. Good move, Dave, on the part of your club. That extra 4" may be critical in providing for additional track needs such as sidings.