hon30critter Regarding the issue of mixing turnout brands, I did some experimenting with yard ladders so I could compare the various options. Based on 2" yard track centers and a five turnout ladder, here are the numbers: - Atlas Code 83 #6s with the turnouts back to back - ladder length 60". - Atlas Code 83 #4s with the turnouts back to back - ladder length 45". - Peco Code 83 #5s with a 1 13/16" spacer between turnouts - ladder length 48 5/8". The Atlas #6s have a frog angle of 9.5 dgrees. The Atlas #4s have a frog angle of 14.25 degrees. The Peco #5s have a frog angle of 11.5 degrees. The Peco #5s would seem to be the best choice whether we use Peco or Atlas for the rest of the layout.. Dave
Regarding the issue of mixing turnout brands, I did some experimenting with yard ladders so I could compare the various options. Based on 2" yard track centers and a five turnout ladder, here are the numbers:
- Atlas Code 83 #6s with the turnouts back to back - ladder length 60".
- Atlas Code 83 #4s with the turnouts back to back - ladder length 45".
- Peco Code 83 #5s with a 1 13/16" spacer between turnouts - ladder length 48 5/8".
The Atlas #6s have a frog angle of 9.5 dgrees.
The Atlas #4s have a frog angle of 14.25 degrees.
The Peco #5s have a frog angle of 11.5 degrees.
The Peco #5s would seem to be the best choice whether we use Peco or Atlas for the rest of the layout..
Dave
Dave, I'm pretty sure the Atlas #4 has a frog angle of 12.5 degrees, it is actually a #4-1/2.......even though they call it a #4.
The frog angle matches the Atlas 12-1/2 degree crossings.
Sheldon
I'm just a dude with a bad back having a lot of fun with model trains, and finally building a layout!
richhotrainDave, maybe you already covered this issue in this thread or an earlier thread, but I am curious about the cost of the project.
richhotrainIf you care to share, what is your estimated cost of this new layout?
We are still waiting for a couple of quotes on the track and turnouts and related supplies so we only have a vague picture of what it will cost. I'll have to ask the club if they are willing to share that information when we have it. Some items have given us pause, like the cost of Tortoise machines and ancillaries. I have about 40 used Tortoises which I paid peanuts for. Since I'm not likely going to build my own layout due to back problems I may offer those to the club.
richhotrainIs this covered with regular dues? Is there a special assessment imposed on each member?
Thanks to the financial savy and prudence and sheer hard work of past and present members, the club has more than sufficient funds in the bank to cover the anticipated cost of the layout.
richhotrainAre you concerned with the availability of required track, both flex track and turnouts?
We have been advised that it might take two or three months to acquire all of the Peco turnouts. I don't think that will be an issue because there will be lots of work to be done before we start laying track.
richhotrain 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? Maybe, but I don't like to mix different brands of turnouts and crossings. The Code 83 rail profiles of Peco and Atlas don't match. Rich
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?
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?
Maybe, but I don't like to mix different brands of turnouts and crossings. The Code 83 rail profiles of Peco and Atlas don't match.
Rich
Well, I do agree there, that is why I stick with mostly Atlas.
Yes. A very important point. Shinohara matches the Atlas profile pretty well. I think ME does too.
The Peco track is in a world of its own, so you kind of have to go all-Peco to avoid shifting profiles.
The profile seems a bit thinner, so I think it looks better on switching/branchline layouts, which is something that matters to me.
I like Atlas turnouts, but not their crossings. I try to use shinohara crossings to mate with atlas turnouts and flex track, but the selection is limited.
- Douglas
rrinker 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. --Randy
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.
--Randy
The Atlas is three ties longer from points to frog.
Just eyeballing it, the Peco's closure rails have a consistent curve from points to frog whereas the Atlas has a longer straight portion of closure rail as it approaches the frog. And, the Atlas' point rails are three ties shorter than the Peco despite the distance from point to frog being three ties longer. So if the Atlas is more straight near the frog, and has shorter point rails , the closure rails must have a slight "kink" in it to achieve the same frog three ties later than the Peco. , I don't know over what length the closure radius is measured, from points to frog in its entirety or if it finds the tightest "kink" in a non consistent curve...if that makes sense. I think somehere within the Atlas closure rail the radius is actually tighter than the Peco's more consistent curve.
Operationally, it probably doesn't matter anyway.
rrinker It's not strictly necessary because if you power the frog, then the whole internal structure from frog to points is powered via that frog power wire - it does NOT rely on point to stock rail contact. This is specifically mentioned in relation to Frog Juicers, but should apply to any method of powering the frog. --Randy
It's not strictly necessary because if you power the frog, then the whole internal structure from frog to points is powered via that frog power wire - it does NOT rely on point to stock rail contact. This is specifically mentioned in relation to Frog Juicers, but should apply to any method of powering the frog.
If you aren't using the frog juicer, this wiring arrangement can cause a short as the points will move slower than the switch changing the polarity will, leaving the point in contact with the wrong polarity before it moves. This is especailly true if you use stall motors to throw the turnouts. There are ways around this but it can cause a problem if you use DPDT to throw the turnout and change the frog polarity, a common arrangement on many layouts.
Guy
see stuff at: the Willoughby Line Site
rrinker I really need to take these #5's I have, and half dozen sections of Peco flex, and built a little switching layout and see which way works best.
I really need to take these #5's I have, and half dozen sections of Peco flex, and built a little switching layout and see which way works best.
Alton Junction
The connections between the point rail, closure rail, and stock rail on the newer Atlas Custom Line is quite solid. Even after slathering mine with paint, there was no loss of power internally - I did not avoid painting that area because I didn;t want small shiny spots to shine through. The way the parts get clamped together during manufacturing seems to be plenty tight enough for long-term reliable operatioon and keeps the paint from flowing between the parts and forming an insulating layer.
The current peco Code 83 has sections of the plastic ties cut away on the underside where jumpers/feeders can be installed, which feed the stock adn closure rails from the inside. The ties are also cut away in the area of the frog jumper you need to cut to completely isolate the frog. It's not strictly necessary because if you power the frog, then the whole internal structure from frog to points is powered via that frog power wire - it does NOT rely on point to stock rail contact. This is specifically mentioned in relation to Frog Juicers, but should apply to any method of powering the frog. I really need to take these #5's I have, and half dozen sections of Peco flex, and built a little switching layout and see which way works best.
Modeling the Reading Railroad in the 1950's
Visit my web site at www.readingeastpenn.com for construction updates, DCC Info, and more.
Dave, maybe you already covered this issue in this thread or an earlier thread, but I am curious about the cost of the project.
Is this covered with regular dues? Is there a special assessment imposed on each member?
If you care to share, what is your estimated cost of this new layout?
Are you concerned with the availability of required track, both flex track and turnouts?
hon30critter ATLANTIC CENTRAL but 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 CENTRAL second 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. Dave
ATLANTIC CENTRAL but 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 CENTRAL second 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.
Dave, the Atlas turnouts are already well connected between the stock rails and the closure rails. And they are interanlly jumpered around the frog as well. In 20 plus years I've never seen a problem with the points loosing power.
Personally, I see adding those jumpers to an Atlas turnout as an opportunity to damage the turnout with too much heat from soldering?
Yes, I understand about the frog jumpers on the PECO.
Best of luck with your project.
richhotrainBut only the Electrofrog which is metal. The Insulfrog has a plastic frog that cannot be powered.
Hi Rich:
Yes, I should have been more specific. We are going with all frogs powered regardless of whether they are Atlas or Peco. That decision may have been a bit selfish on my part because I want to be able to run all my critters. They don't all have keep alives.
As far as the other brands of turnouts, we decided from the start to keep the selection process as simple as possible. It hasn't turned out to be all that simple, but it would be a lot worse if we were looking at four or five brands of turnouts instead of two.
hon30critter Peco has made the job of powering the frog separately pretty simple on its latest versions.
Peco has made the job of powering the frog separately pretty simple on its latest versions.
ATLANTIC CENTRALbut then again I'm not much for spaghetti bowl track plans?
ATLANTIC CENTRALsecond is the isolated frog that can be powered, without a list of modifications done to the turnout first.
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
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.
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......
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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?
Rio Grande. The Action Road - Focus 1977-1983
Doughless For pure compactness, the Peco is clearly shorter in all ways.
For pure compactness, the Peco is clearly shorter in all ways.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
Thanks
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.
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
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.
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.