On the Peco, both routes end at the same distance past the frog, correct? I have done that with Atlas with no issues, but admittedly I have hand laying skills........
And I solder all my rail joints...........
Sheldon
It depends on what you are making. Two Pecos frog to frog result in the same 2" center spacing as two Atlas frog to frog. I just drew it out, and two assemblines, one with Peco and one with Atlas, connect directly, with the same 2" spacing. Ladders build out a little different. Peco stock results in a 1.5" center spacing for the tracks. Atlas is 2: centers - for each track AFTER the first. The first is tight, without adding a short spacer section - 1 21/32" center between the 'main' track and the first siding in the ladder. After that, each ladder track maintains a 2" spacing.
But the Pecos are SIGNIFICANTLY shorter. The difference isn't 1", it's over 2 1/2". 9 3/16" vs 12", to be exact. Yes, you can shorten the straight lead of the Atlas, but not by THAT much, you'd have nothing left of the frog rail.
--Randy
Modeling the Reading Railroad in the 1950's
Visit my web site at www.readingeastpenn.com for construction updates, DCC Info, and more.
richhotrain Sheldon, really. Peco turnouts installed end to end take up far less space than Atlas turnouts installed end to end. It all comes down to track configuration and available layout space. Rich
Sheldon, really. Peco turnouts installed end to end take up far less space than Atlas turnouts installed end to end. It all comes down to track configuration and available layout space.
Rich
Rich, yes it depends on track configuration, but from points to frog they are the same length, I assure you, I can put an Atlas #6 anywhere you can put a Peco and both will work the same.
Alton Junction
richhotrain While I generally agree with most everything you say, Sheldon, when comparing Atlas to Peco, the one advantage of Peco over Atlas is the approximately 3 inch shorter footprint of the Peco - - - a true space saver. Rich
While I generally agree with most everything you say, Sheldon, when comparing Atlas to Peco, the one advantage of Peco over Atlas is the approximately 3 inch shorter footprint of the Peco - - - a true space saver.
Rich, not really? As I explained earlier, the diverging route us the same length on both brands. Who cares about the straight route? 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 with the PECO you have to add little 3" pieces between each turnout. Lots of fussy soldering or lots of places for bad electrical connections.
And avoiding curves that close to the frog on the straight route is better anyway.
hon30critter ATLANTIC CENTRAL For modeling any kind of Class I railroad, I have long considered 36" radius the bare minimum, with 48" being the desired goal. Sheldon Hi Sheldon: We started out with the goal of having a 36" minimum radius but we just didn't have enough space in the room. The track ran off of the benchwork in many places. However, by using Atlas Code 83 #6s we may be able to increase the radii above 32" in some places. We could go with a much simpler track plan but that is clearly not what the members want. The last permanent layout was boringly simple and we are not going there again. We asked the members to tell us what they wanted to see in the layout and we got about 50 different suggestions. We have been able to include about 2/3rds of those requests, and it doesn't look like it will be a mish mash of unrelated scenes. A couple of things to keep in mind are that not all of the curves are down to 32", and almost all of the curves have easements. 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? Another issue that was brought up at the meeting tonight will have to take into account. A couple of people mentioned that the leading trucks on older steam engines which do not have RP25 wheel flanges will derail easily on Code 83 track. Does anyone have any comments on that? Thanks Dave
ATLANTIC CENTRAL For modeling any kind of Class I railroad, I have long considered 36" radius the bare minimum, with 48" being the desired goal. Sheldon
Hi Sheldon:
We started out with the goal of having a 36" minimum radius but we just didn't have enough space in the room. The track ran off of the benchwork in many places. However, by using Atlas Code 83 #6s we may be able to increase the radii above 32" in some places.
We could go with a much simpler track plan but that is clearly not what the members want. The last permanent layout was boringly simple and we are not going there again. We asked the members to tell us what they wanted to see in the layout and we got about 50 different suggestions. We have been able to include about 2/3rds of those requests, and it doesn't look like it will be a mish mash of unrelated scenes.
A couple of things to keep in mind are that not all of the curves are down to 32", and almost all of the curves have easements. 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?
Another issue that was brought up at the meeting tonight will have to take into account. A couple of people mentioned that the leading trucks on older steam engines which do not have RP25 wheel flanges will derail easily on Code 83 track. Does anyone have any comments on that?
Thanks
Dave
And this explains why I have no interest in being in a club - been there, done that.
As for large flanges, some will be ok on code 83, some of the oldest and worst offenders will not. But steam loco lead truck derailments likely have more to do with wheel gauge than older flange size.
Dave, just keep in mind, the actual turnout foot print is virtually the same for anybody's #6, so again, ATLAS offers the best price, the least track cutting and piecing in many cases, reversable throw bars, and no spring to remove before installing slow motion switch motors. They fit together to make crossovers and yard ladders with no cutting and filler pieces.
I would keep the easments, but easments should only be adding a small amount to the "circle", and when a curve starts directly off the diverging route of a turnout, there is little need for an easment, the turnout is an easment.
Just my view,
hon30critter BMMECNYC The fast tracks jig turnout break even is somewhere in the 20 turnout range (including cost of jigs). We have considered going the Fast Tracks route but we decided to go with pre-made turnouts for reasons of time and a lack of experience. We have a couple of members who have built Fast Tracks turnouts but they have not come forward to offer to build a bunch for the club. Let's call it politics. I'm sure I could learn to do it but I just don't want to undertake the task. Dave
BMMECNYC The fast tracks jig turnout break even is somewhere in the 20 turnout range (including cost of jigs).
We have considered going the Fast Tracks route but we decided to go with pre-made turnouts for reasons of time and a lack of experience. We have a couple of members who have built Fast Tracks turnouts but they have not come forward to offer to build a bunch for the club. Let's call it politics. I'm sure I could learn to do it but I just don't want to undertake the task.
BMMECNYCThe fast tracks jig turnout break even is somewhere in the 20 turnout range (including cost of jigs).
I'm just a dude with a bad back having a lot of fun with model trains, and finally building a layout!
ATLANTIC CENTRALFor modeling any kind of Class I railroad, I have long considered 36" radius the bare minimum, with 48" being the desired goal. Sheldon
There is another player in the turnout jig business. Oak Hill Railroad. Ken Patterson is going to do a review of their product. I've never laid my own rail, so I don't know what I'm looking at. The template is milled aluminum
https://youtu.be/SOvzBp3pIGo
Henry
COB Potomac & Northern
Shenandoah Valley
rrinker Even #5's have a closure radius of 26" - so I guess it depends on what you are sending through the yard, but 26" radius can easily handle what is typically used for a switcher. --Randy
Even #5's have a closure radius of 26" - so I guess it depends on what you are sending through the yard, but 26" radius can easily handle what is typically used for a switcher.
Peco Large code 100 turnout has a nominal radius of 60". Still not good for crossovers (you get an S curve). But that doesn't mean that they will not work for other main line diverging routes (use the 8s for crossovers and Large code 100s for diverging route turnouts).
You might consider handlaying (unless thats out of the question due to other factors). The fast tracks jig turnout break even is somewhere in the 20 turnout range (including cost of jigs). After that your price drops dramatically. I ran the numbers once and decided this was the way to go for my future layouts
I have a whole pile of Peco large code 100s in the basement and 89' RTTX flats and DTTX articulated well cars and SD9043s. I can mock up a section of track (or just build it into my modules) and test it if you wish.
http://www.peco-uk.com/product.asp?strParents=3309,3322&CAT_ID=3327&P_ID=17448
ATLANTIC CENTRAL For modeling any kind of Class I railroad, I have long considered 36" radius the bare minimum, with 48" being the desired goal.
For modeling any kind of Class I railroad, I have long considered 36" radius the bare minimum, with 48" being the desired goal.
Old Fat Robert Sheldon & Dave: I am in total agreement with Sheldon's statement on a properly set up #6 turnout being more than adequate for your needs. That being said, however, the difference in physical and operational appearance between a 6 and an 8 is substantial. I am not trying to change any minds here, I am just thinking this is a club layout after all. Just my thoughts. Old Fat Robert
Sheldon & Dave: I am in total agreement with Sheldon's statement on a properly set up #6 turnout being more than adequate for your needs. That being said, however, the difference in physical and operational appearance between a 6 and an 8 is substantial. I am not trying to change any minds here, I am just thinking this is a club layout after all. Just my thoughts.
Old Fat Robert
No offense to Dave and his group, but why worry about turnout appearance with curves as sharp as 32"? Number 6 turnouts are well enough proportioned for curves that size.
hon30critter I will go back and have a look at using Atlas #6s. The only place that I think I really need #8s is at a double crossover.
I will go back and have a look at using Atlas #6s. The only place that I think I really need #8s is at a double crossover.
cuyama ATLANTIC CENTRAL compared to PECO code 100 I believe that the comparisons the OP was making were to PECO HO Code 83, which has straight frogs and straight diverging legs, just like Atlas*. *Except for the handy #7 curved turnout, for which Atlas does not offer an equivalent.
ATLANTIC CENTRAL compared to PECO code 100
I believe that the comparisons the OP was making were to PECO HO Code 83, which has straight frogs and straight diverging legs, just like Atlas*.
*Except for the handy #7 curved turnout, for which Atlas does not offer an equivalent.
I understand, I was refering to his original design which he explained was based on PECO code 100, mentioned both in this thread and his previous thread about turnouts.
hon30critterI will go back and have a look at using Atlas #6s. The only place that I think I really need #8s is at a double crossover.
And perhaps not even there, at least for performance. Frog #s are tools, not status symbols.
Layout Design GalleryLayout Design Special Interest Group
ATLANTIC CENTRALcompared to PECO code 100
hon30critter richhotrain rrinker The difference is, as Sheldon notes, pretty much insignificnt. The Peco is 12 21/32" long along the straight route and the Atlas is 13 1/2". richhotrain Maybe for one turnout, 27/32'', or about 7/8", difference. But that adds up once you start stringing a bunch of turnouts along the layout. Rich Rich has the problem exactly right. Even just two Atlas #8s in a "string" adds enough length to totally mess with the 32" minimum radius we want to maintain. We could make the benchwork wider but we would be sacrificing aisle space and we don't want to go there. Our old fixed layout had about 30" between it and the portable layout. When two people wanted to go past one another they had to be on really intimate terms! I will go back and have a look at using Atlas #6s. The only place that I think I really need #8s is at a double crossover. Thanks again, Dave
richhotrain rrinker The difference is, as Sheldon notes, pretty much insignificnt. The Peco is 12 21/32" long along the straight route and the Atlas is 13 1/2".
richhotrain Maybe for one turnout, 27/32'', or about 7/8", difference. But that adds up once you start stringing a bunch of turnouts along the layout. Rich
Rich has the problem exactly right. Even just two Atlas #8s in a "string" adds enough length to totally mess with the 32" minimum radius we want to maintain. We could make the benchwork wider but we would be sacrificing aisle space and we don't want to go there. Our old fixed layout had about 30" between it and the portable layout. When two people wanted to go past one another they had to be on really intimate terms!
Thanks again,
Dave, sounds like you don't need #8's at all. Anything that will run on 32" radius, it will go through a properly set up #6, even a crossover.
AND, the big advantage in my view of any North American style trackage compared to PECO code 100 is the true straight frogs, especially when pairing them into crossovers.
And again, #6, #4 or #8, the Atlas products build yard ladders and crossovers with no cutting and no spacers........
richhotrainrrinker The difference is, as Sheldon notes, pretty much insignificnt. The Peco is 12 21/32" long along the straight route and the Atlas is 13 1/2".
richhotrainMaybe for one turnout, 27/32'', or about 7/8", difference. But that adds up once you start stringing a bunch of turnouts along the layout. Rich
ATLANTIC CENTRAL The PECO code 100 still has a 12 degree frog, no mater its other geometry, that makes it a #5.
May be sufficient for the OP. ME has a ladder system now using #5 turnout geometry. I prefer #6 myself and have used Atlas #6 after filing the points for more reliablity (per an old MR magazine article on tuning turnouts.
Rio Grande. The Action Road - Focus 1977-1983
riogrande5761 hon30critter Then I learned that the Peco Code 100 turnouts may not be the best choice because of the rather sharp frog angle (12 degrees regardless of turnout size). In particular, Byron (cuyama) warned me that there may be problems with longer equipment in crossovers because of the sharp angle. I choose to respect his advice. Which Peco code 100 turnout? I have a couple of the "large" radius turnouts and they appear to be fairly close to #6 turnouts I have. Perhaps Cuyuma can comment on the actual geometry. I like to stick with a #6 minimum and the large peco seem pretty close. The motive would be to try and save some money. I feel I have an obligation to the club to explore all possible options. We are looking at a total of 75 - 80 turnouts. The Peco code 83 turnouts are quite pricey, so as nice as they are, that will add up a good deal over a large number. I've compared MBK's price for Peco code 83 #6 at $26 and the Atlas code 83 at $14, so that is an extra $12 each. Thats $960 extra to go with Peco code 83 over the Atlas if you bought 80 turnouts ($12 each x 80 turnouts). There is a middle ground with MicroEngineering #6 - MBK price is $19 IIRC - that is an option i am considering on with my next layout. Edit: fixed price difference - dang calculator in Windows
hon30critter Then I learned that the Peco Code 100 turnouts may not be the best choice because of the rather sharp frog angle (12 degrees regardless of turnout size). In particular, Byron (cuyama) warned me that there may be problems with longer equipment in crossovers because of the sharp angle. I choose to respect his advice.
Then I learned that the Peco Code 100 turnouts may not be the best choice because of the rather sharp frog angle (12 degrees regardless of turnout size). In particular, Byron (cuyama) warned me that there may be problems with longer equipment in crossovers because of the sharp angle. I choose to respect his advice.
Which Peco code 100 turnout? I have a couple of the "large" radius turnouts and they appear to be fairly close to #6 turnouts I have. Perhaps Cuyuma can comment on the actual geometry. I like to stick with a #6 minimum and the large peco seem pretty close.
The motive would be to try and save some money. I feel I have an obligation to the club to explore all possible options. We are looking at a total of 75 - 80 turnouts.
The Peco code 83 turnouts are quite pricey, so as nice as they are, that will add up a good deal over a large number. I've compared MBK's price for Peco code 83 #6 at $26 and the Atlas code 83 at $14, so that is an extra $12 each. Thats $960 extra to go with Peco code 83 over the Atlas if you bought 80 turnouts ($12 each x 80 turnouts).
There is a middle ground with MicroEngineering #6 - MBK price is $19 IIRC - that is an option i am considering on with my next layout.
Edit: fixed price difference - dang calculator in Windows
The PECO code 100 still has a 12 degree frog, no mater its other geometry, that makes it a #5.
A #6 is 9.5 degrees.........
riogrande5761 I've compared MBK's price for Peco code 83 #6 at $26 and the Atlas code 83 at $14, so that is an extra $12 each. Thats $160 extra to go with Peco code 83 over the Atlas if you bought 80 turnouts.
I've compared MBK's price for Peco code 83 #6 at $26 and the Atlas code 83 at $14, so that is an extra $12 each. Thats $160 extra to go with Peco code 83 over the Atlas if you bought 80 turnouts.
Mike
rrinker The difference is, as Sheldon notes, pretty much insignificnt. The Peco is 12 21/32" long along the straight route and the Atlas is 13 1/2".
The difference is, as Sheldon notes, pretty much insignificnt. The Peco is 12 21/32" long along the straight route and the Atlas is 13 1/2".
The difference is, as Sheldon notes, pretty much insignificnt. The Peco is 12 21/32" long along the straight route and the Atlas is 13 1/2". Per #rd PlanIt which usually has the geometry correct. The diverging side of the Atlas is significantly shorter though - on the Peco the diverging side extends to the straight side, the Atlas stops short.
The closure and substitute radius for a #6 is probably beyond what you are using for curves - the closure radius is the tightest part of the turnout, and on a #6 that's 43". #6 are fine for most any model, #8's are probbaly best reserved for cosmetic locations, since they will indeed look good but they take up a lot of real estate. #8 closure radius is 67"!
If it were me, I would not cut down the turnouts. I did that once with a pair of Atlas Mark IV turnouts to shorten the length of a crossover and it worked...but a risky move in terms of potential damage to expensive pieces of track work.
A better option is to select the Peco #8 over the Atlas #8 since the Peco is shorter.
Or, just install #6 turnouts which are shorter for either brand and handle most equipment quite readily.
hon30critter Sorry, I should have given a more detailed explanation. Here's the reason for the question: As some of you are aware, my plan has been chosen as the design that will be used for the new club layout. The problem is that I used Peco Code 100 turnouts to build the plan (in 3rd PlanIt). I managed to make everything fit nicely in our available space using the Code 100 turnouts. Then I learned that the Peco Code 100 turnouts may not be the best choice because of the rather sharp frog angle (12 degrees regardless of turnout size). In particular, Byron (cuyama) warned me that there may be problems with longer equipment in crossovers because of the sharp angle. I choose to respect his advice. By comparison, both the Peco Code 83 #8s and the Atlas Customline #8s have a frog angle of approx. 7.15 degrees and are therefore a much better choice for crossovers, and main line turnouts in general. The problem is that both the Peco and Atlas Code 83 #8 turnouts are considerably longer than than the Peco Code 100 Large turnout that I used in the original plan. The Peco Code 83 is 12 21/32" long and the Atlas is 13 1/2" long. The Peco Code 100 Large turnout is only 10 7/32". Given that things were a tight fit to begin with, trying to fit the longer turnouts into the original plan while maintaining a minimum 32" radius (with easements) has proven to be a challenge. I have been able to make the Peco Code 83 #8s work, but the longer Atlas #8s are not working. Hence the question - "can I shorten an Atlas Code 83 #8 turnout?" (to make it fit into the same space as a Peco Code83 #8). Sounds like that's not likely possible. The motive would be to try and save some money. I feel I have an obligation to the club to explore all possible options. We are looking at a total of 75 - 80 turnouts. I would appreciate any suggestions regarding this issue. Thanks, Dave
Sorry, I should have given a more detailed explanation.
Here's the reason for the question:
As some of you are aware, my plan has been chosen as the design that will be used for the new club layout. The problem is that I used Peco Code 100 turnouts to build the plan (in 3rd PlanIt). I managed to make everything fit nicely in our available space using the Code 100 turnouts.
By comparison, both the Peco Code 83 #8s and the Atlas Customline #8s have a frog angle of approx. 7.15 degrees and are therefore a much better choice for crossovers, and main line turnouts in general. The problem is that both the Peco and Atlas Code 83 #8 turnouts are considerably longer than than the Peco Code 100 Large turnout that I used in the original plan. The Peco Code 83 is 12 21/32" long and the Atlas is 13 1/2" long. The Peco Code 100 Large turnout is only 10 7/32". Given that things were a tight fit to begin with, trying to fit the longer turnouts into the original plan while maintaining a minimum 32" radius (with easements) has proven to be a challenge. I have been able to make the Peco Code 83 #8s work, but the longer Atlas #8s are not working. Hence the question - "can I shorten an Atlas Code 83 #8 turnout?" (to make it fit into the same space as a Peco Code83 #8). Sounds like that's not likely possible.
I would appreciate any suggestions regarding this issue.
Thanks,
Dave, the geometry of the PECO #8 and the ATLAS #8 are basically identical, so the "length" of the actual turnout, from the points to the frog is effectively the same.
The length of the piece of track they are built into has no effect of their geometry, one is not magicly going to "fit" and the other not.
As I pointed out above, on the divirging route in particular they are the same length.
There is no magic bullet here - #8 turnouts take more space than #6 turnouts, brand will not fix that.
Here is the real problem, the PECO code 100 turnout is not really a #6 by any stretch, its 12 degree angle makes it approximately a #5.