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.
Rich
Alton Junction
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.
Dave
I'm just a dude with a bad back having a lot of fun with model trains, and finally building a layout!
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.
Sheldon
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?
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.
--Randy
Modeling the Reading Railroad in the 1950's
Visit my web site at www.readingeastpenn.com for construction updates, DCC Info, and more.
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.
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 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.
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.
- Douglas
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.
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.
Well, I do agree there, that is why I stick with mostly Atlas.
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.
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..
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
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.
hon30critter The Peco #5s would seem to be the best choice whether we use Peco or Atlas for the rest of the layout.. Dave
At one time, I used Atlas #4 turnouts for my yards and spurs but eventually sold them all off. They are just to tight for uninterrupted reliability. But, that's just me.
The Atlas 4's are a bit tight, but everything I have went through them no problem, other than my big 4-8-4's. And even they could make it with the drawbar in the furthest spot and going very slow. A ##5 has a closure rail radius of 26" which should support anythign that would actually need to negotiate a yard ladder. Those Atlas #4's really are a #4.5 frog angle, but that is a radius of about 22", which is probably too small. #6's are way out there for a yard space, little gain for a lot of space used.
Randy and Rich,
I agree completely, I would not use Atlas #4 (4.5) or any #5 for a yard. I do use them for industrial trackage.
The point people miss is that as turnout number increases, closure radius increases exponetially, making a #6 much "bigger" than a #5.
It is this simple fact that make #6 turnouts nearly "universal" for our modeling, they are big enough to work well and look realistic.
ATLANTIC CENTRAL It is this simple fact that make #6 turnouts nearly "universal" for our modeling, they are big enough to work well and look realistic. Sheldon
Yep - Dave you should be good with just about anything through a no 6.
I have to agree with Rich on this point. #6 all the way for yards. It is not my layout (or my business for that matter) but isn't the club trying to present an accurate portrayal of railroading as it truly was/is? I would prefer the larger turnouts and by extension, the smaller yard capacity, because of the appearance of reality. Just my thoughts.
Old Fat Robert
No 6 for me too in yards.
And here is the thing for a club. You don't want to limit what can run in the yard so #6 should handle long cars well, such as TOFC flat cars, autoracks, passenger cars etc.
Rio Grande. The Action Road - Focus 1977-1983
trainnut1250 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 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
Well, depends on the switch mechanism I suppose. I'm using servos and my own controller, which I'm designing to kill the power completely, move the points, change the polarity, and reapply power. There's at least one commercial one that does this as well. There's also a commonly published method to alter a Tortoise to have the internal contacts only make a connection near the ends of the throw. This was a common issue on the older non-DCC friendly Walthers turnouts. As long as the Tortoise was well-aligned it was fine but one of the nice things about them and similar style mechanisms is they don't have to be dead on lined up to work well.
Now, while I am confident a #5 will handle anything I intend to run (a 60 foot passenger car is the longest car, and has no business in the freight yard, and the furthest in my big 4-8-4's should go are the AD tracks and loco service, which are #6, but they should also negotiate a #5), I did plan my whole ayrd with #6's after all. The whole thing, except for a few cosmetic crossovers using #8's, is #6 since at least in the model world they will handle anything. I'm not really constrained by yard space since I have a whole wall to work with, and even with #6's, the shortest yard track still holds the longest train I intend to run on a regular basis. That limitation is more because of the overall size of the layout and not determined by the yard size.
richhotrain 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. Do it! Rich
Do it!
I'll start my own thread, but I just realized after I posted that I have ready made benchwork for a small ISL type layout - the 2 narrow sections from my old layout. Just strip track and roadbed (actually, strip off the foam entirely), and cut the 2x4 piece of plywood into 2 strips of 1x4, instant 1x8 ISL. But my focus now really needs to be on removing everything from the basement, not building a layout. Plus I'd need more than 4 turnouts.
Randy, what size and brand turnouts would you use?
For either a quicky switching layout or my full basement plan? I'm goign Peco Code 83 all the way this time. Peco for the big layout because of the variety of options vs Atlas for turnout sizes, including curved. And I really liek the Peco flex track, it's got finer detail than the Atlas, plus it's slightly stiffer than Atlas but not so tight that it's hard to form smooth curves like ME. For the quick small layout, Peco because I already have 3 #5's and a wye I picked up a few years ago as samples, along with half a dozen sections of flex (and another half dozen, well, pairs of rails and tie strip, because what arrived was completely demolished in shipping. Vendor sent a replacement order that came through just fine. And it was well packaged, too - they seriously had to be using the package as a baseball bat to destroy the flex like that.
rrinker And I really liek the Peco flex track, it's got finer detail than the Atlas, plus it's slightly stiffer than Atlas but not so tight that it's hard to form smooth curves like ME.
And I really liek the Peco flex track, it's got finer detail than the Atlas, plus it's slightly stiffer than Atlas but not so tight that it's hard to form smooth curves like ME.
richhotrain rrinker And I really liek the Peco flex track, it's got finer detail than the Atlas, plus it's slightly stiffer than Atlas but not so tight that it's hard to form smooth curves like ME. During the prolonged, and infamous, Atlas track shortage, I started using Peco flex track, but I cannot figure that stuff out. I love the way that Atlas flex track springs back to shape, but Peco is tough to straight back once you bend it. And I struggle with Peco flex track trying to match up the ends of the rails. It is all a big mystery to me when it comes to Peco flex track. Rich
rrinker
During the prolonged, and infamous, Atlas track shortage, I started using Peco flex track, but I cannot figure that stuff out. I love the way that Atlas flex track springs back to shape, but Peco is tough to straight back once you bend it. And I struggle with Peco flex track trying to match up the ends of the rails. It is all a big mystery to me when it comes to Peco flex track.
Rich, you aren't the only one I've heard who dislikes Peco flex track. I even know a Brit who hated it - I think he didn't like the tie spacings commenting it was wrong or not prototypical. He is a Brit who lives here in northern Virginia and has been part of a modular group called Potomac Module Crew but was modeling the Northern Pacific. I was kind of surprised being that's his "home town" brand - Peco being make in the UK.
I know some complain about springy track but I love it, it can be formed into a very smooth flowing curve exactly because of that springy nature and with much ease. The stiff kind you have to massage it over and over and over, it takes alot of faffing around to get it smooth. Sure I can do it. I've got some Walthers/Shinohara code 70 flex and used it in my yard. It takes 4 times as long to get it shaped right. With Atlas springy flex, it's fast and easy.
But, for my next layout I'm giving serious thought to Micro Engineering but thats stiff track too. *sigh*
ATLANTIC CENTRALDave, 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.
Hi Sheldon:
I was going by what the 'Properties' window in 3rd PlanIt said about the Atlas #4 turnouts so my numbers could be wrong. I'll look into it somemore but I doubt that we will use #4s anywhere on the layout.
Last night I reworked one end of the yard to use #6 Atlas turnouts and it came out fine. The yard still has lots of space. However, I spent quite some time trying to use Atlas #6s in the ladder at the other end of the yard and I couldn't get it to work. I haven't given up. I'll just have to do the ladder differently.
The engine service area also uses Peco #5s and I tried to put Atlas #6s in there without moving any of the tracks. I couldn't get it to work but, again, revising the whole service area track plan would probably solve that.
I would definitely use somebody's #6's in an engine service area, because yoou never know what sort of power someone will want to run. #5's shoould handle pretty much anything in plastic but there are plenty of not even monster brass steamers that won;t go through a turn that relatively tight, whereas the #6's radius exceeds any I've ever heard of (some of those many-driver monsters need 40-42" minimum!).
As for the Peco flex - I find it easy to curve, much easier than ME (I got a few pieces of ME to try, too). To straighten it out, bounce it on the tie ends (stand it on edge and drop it from a few inches up) to get it back in alignment. Or use a straight edge, or, I have some Ribbon Rail tools that will do the job. As for the ends on a curve - I don;t see the difference from Atlas or any other flex track? Just cut the ties off, trim the ends with a rail nipper, clean with a file, and connect them together. Save the cutoff ties, sand them down, and fill in the missing ones prior to ballasting. The result of curving it is just like any other flex, one rail will protrude past the other. The rails do slide, just not as freely as the sliding side on Atlas. But unlike Atlas, BOTH sides can slide. So no worrying about which rail to put on the outside of the curve, with Peco they are both the same. If you think the Peco is too stiff, don't even bother with ME. The ONLY way to curve ME is to gradually work along it, forming the curve.
OK, I have been able to redraw the parts of the yard and the service area that were still using Peco #5s. The #5s have been replaced with Atlas #6s.
At this point the only Peco turnouts that we would have to use would be Code 83 curved units, and Atlas is supposed to be releasing their Code 83 curved turnouts this fall.
The design committee will now have to choose between using (almost) all Atlas or all Peco. It will be interesting to see the price difference.