DoughlessThat shorter distance between the points and frog, while keeping the same frog angle, results in the points having to diverge more abruptly than the longer Atlas.
It's only a tiny bit shorter. Here is a direct comparison of a selection of turnouts I took. You can compare the Peco #6 code 83 with the Atlas #6 code 83 side by side.
The vast majority of the shortness is above the frog in the photo. I've had to trim a number of my Atlas to get them to fit my last yard, but with the shorter Peco, this will be unnecessary in most cases, maybe all.
Some who want more capacity in yards go with a #5, but the #6 is my minimum, even with the Peco being a tad shorter between points and frog.
Rio Grande. The Action Road - Focus 1977-1983
Doughless When building my layout (on the fly so to speak), I've noticed that running a long locomotive like an SD40-2 through a PECO #6 produces a sideways motion that is more severe than produced by an Atlas #6. That shorter distance between the points and frog, while keeping the same frog angle, results in the points having to diverge more abruptly than the longer Atlas. Sheldon has pointed out that the Atlas is the most geometrically "correct" turnout. It has made me second guess my wanting to use Pecos because of their compactness (which creates the motion). Especially since I've got plenty of space to use longer turnouts.
When building my layout (on the fly so to speak), I've noticed that running a long locomotive like an SD40-2 through a PECO #6 produces a sideways motion that is more severe than produced by an Atlas #6.
That shorter distance between the points and frog, while keeping the same frog angle, results in the points having to diverge more abruptly than the longer Atlas.
Sheldon has pointed out that the Atlas is the most geometrically "correct" turnout. It has made me second guess my wanting to use Pecos because of their compactness (which creates the motion). Especially since I've got plenty of space to use longer turnouts.
The complex is made up entirely with Peco turnouts and double slips.
Rich
Alton Junction
ATLANTIC CENTRAL Everything I have seen suggests they are the same angle, or close enough, but the PECO has a shorter length which results in a sharper closure radius, the curve between the points and the frog. I have not actually handled or used the PECO code 83 track, only examined it in the package, and compared mechanical drawings of it on line. Not really sure how they make the 2" center thing work out in the more compact size? I have no issues with its geometry, other than feeling the more gentle Atlas curve is still something I prefer. My challenge with PECO, other than much higher cost, is a list of electrical features that just make more work for me with my control system and the sprung throwbar that is also counter to my needs. My ground thro turnouts still need electrical feedback to the control system, so I use mini slide switches as ground throws. In my case, it amounts to paying more for features I don't need or want. Sheldon
Everything I have seen suggests they are the same angle, or close enough, but the PECO has a shorter length which results in a sharper closure radius, the curve between the points and the frog.
I have not actually handled or used the PECO code 83 track, only examined it in the package, and compared mechanical drawings of it on line.
Not really sure how they make the 2" center thing work out in the more compact size?
I have no issues with its geometry, other than feeling the more gentle Atlas curve is still something I prefer.
My challenge with PECO, other than much higher cost, is a list of electrical features that just make more work for me with my control system and the sprung throwbar that is also counter to my needs.
My ground thro turnouts still need electrical feedback to the control system, so I use mini slide switches as ground throws.
In my case, it amounts to paying more for features I don't need or want.
Sheldon
Ahh, so it is the sharper closure radius that is different on the Peco turnout. When I lay a Peco turnout over an Atlas turnout, the two don't match up in their geometry.
But, the Peco turnout ladder does result in 2" on center yard tracks. I went down to the layout and measured the yard track distances, and they are exactly 2" on center.
The Peco turnouts are way more expensive than the Atlas turnouts, but I love the shorter length and the spring-loaded throw which is ideal in yards, crossovers and crossings, as long as the area is readily accessible.
I've stepped up to Peco #8s, so all is well.
But I would say that the Atlas #6 turnout has the best combination of length and geometry for model railroads.
- Douglas
richhotrain ATLANTIC CENTRAL The frog angle of a number 6 turnout is 9.5 degrees. Ok, yard ladders are easily worked out by just playing with the turnouts, but as a user of Atlas turnouts, they fit together into perfect simple ladders with 2" track centers requiring no fillers or cutting. I use both Atlas Custom Line Code 83 #6 turnouts and Peco Code 83 #6 turnouts on my layout. I believe, but not sure, that the frog angles differ between Atlas and Peco #6 turnouts, but I can say for sure that both result in 2" on center tracks in yards without fillers or cutting. Rich
ATLANTIC CENTRAL The frog angle of a number 6 turnout is 9.5 degrees. Ok, yard ladders are easily worked out by just playing with the turnouts, but as a user of Atlas turnouts, they fit together into perfect simple ladders with 2" track centers requiring no fillers or cutting.
The frog angle of a number 6 turnout is 9.5 degrees.
Ok, yard ladders are easily worked out by just playing with the turnouts, but as a user of Atlas turnouts, they fit together into perfect simple ladders with 2" track centers requiring no fillers or cutting.
I use both Atlas Custom Line Code 83 #6 turnouts and Peco Code 83 #6 turnouts on my layout. I believe, but not sure, that the frog angles differ between Atlas and Peco #6 turnouts, but I can say for sure that both result in 2" on center tracks in yards without fillers or cutting.
ATLANTIC CENTRAL Thank you Jim for adding that excellent explanation and photos I did not have time to provide. Your method, my method, Dr. Wayne, and mot people I have helped to build layouts for and with, is all basically the same and founded in good engineering principals. Which as you point out, actually reduces the work.... Sheldon
Thank you Jim for adding that excellent explanation and photos I did not have time to provide. Your method, my method, Dr. Wayne, and mot people I have helped to build layouts for and with, is all basically the same and founded in good engineering principals.
Which as you point out, actually reduces the work....
And the guess work!
I would need a big stick affixed perfectly perpendicular to the floor with a string and a pencil to draw the precise radius curve I would need onto the benchwork. And my arms aren't long enough to hold the stick plum and still make a 40 inch radius curve on the table top.
Here are two methods that have worked for me so far.
Temporarily afix a piece of wood to attach a trammel to.
Or use a tripod.
DoughlessJim, I'm always impressed by your work. I would not say that my method is flying by the seat of my pants. My layouts aren't that complicated.
For sure the less complicated makes it easier to have fewer controls and to design and lay strictly by eye. (which is sort of seat of the pants). My last layout was a bit more like that although I did sketch it out to scale but with far less detail, only enough to be sure the major elements would fit.
riogrande5761 There is no need for a predetermined center line. I like the flex track that stays bent since I can adjust the radius of the curves to as broad as possible by seeing it lay exactly as it would. To me its a wash. Either spend lots of time designing and planning, making sure that every move was correct before, or put up some simply table tops then take more time to design you lay. While my scale drawing doesn't go to a high level of detail, they do flesh out to scale where all major curves, aisle, sidings, yards etc will go. So I generally always, track plan first, then benchwork designed to fit the main layout plan with aisle. It sure seems if you just design/build table tops, then you sort of flying by the seat of your pants and hope everything will fit them without knowing for sure. With enough experience and good spacial perception, you may be able to get away with it. In my case however, all primary track, whether mainline, sidings, yards, etc. all have centerlines drawn in on painted Homasote or wood subroadbed. Here you can see staging yard center-lines including curve-centers, easement markings etc. pre-drawn prior to track going down. From the opposite angel, track now down. Straight center-lines must be drawn in first, then curve center-lines drawn to fit with easements to join the centerlines. The offsets are about a half inch here. I used a camera tripod with a trammel to draw the curve center-lines. In the engineering world, those are part of what are called controls. Or generically, references. I can't imaging just picking a spot and start laying track because I don't know where key things like beginnings or curves with easements will be located, or beginning/ends of sidings etc. Even on a flat table top, I need centerlines and then had to position key things like turnouts before adding flex track, because those things had to fit near the ends of curves on either side to maximize the use of the space. Turnouts are all test positioned and lined up before laying. Previous layout: Current layout: Fighting track that wants to be straight just makes that way a little more frustrating. Definitely a preference thing, but stiff track that comes straight in the box has to be wrestled with to get it into smooth flowing curve. I have some stiff code 70 Shinohara and you constantly have to work it back and forth to eventually get a curve and after that you have to work the ties that are all wonky. It takes a lot of time and effort to get stiff track just-so and smooth and even, where as with Atlas, it is nearly effortless and quick. Time spent up front designing and engineering, or time spent laying the actual track. Its seems the same to me. A matter of preference. I'm glad that different producers make a variety of products. Choose your poison. Thankfully we can choose and avoid extra work. BTW, do people draw centerlines when building yards? If so, how do you get frog angles correct? A protractor? I've been enjoying the hobby for 40 years, and I still cannot tell you what the diverging angle of a #6 turnout is. LOL. See my photo above, and this one from the other angle. After I have drawn in all my center-lines at the spacing I choose, such as 2-inches or whatever, then I determine where the controlling turnouts, such as the first one in a ladder or the first one after a curve going to the yard, and place them on the center-line. Then I position turnouts that will connect to them on the adjacent center-line. If the fit together as is, good. If they need to be trimmed to fit, I trim them. But more often than not, I may need to add a short piece of track or rail to connect them after I line them up by eye. So far it's worked very well such as on my last yard here. You have to work from key turnout points and build from there and the yard grows that way.
There is no need for a predetermined center line. I like the flex track that stays bent since I can adjust the radius of the curves to as broad as possible by seeing it lay exactly as it would. To me its a wash. Either spend lots of time designing and planning, making sure that every move was correct before, or put up some simply table tops then take more time to design you lay.
To me its a wash. Either spend lots of time designing and planning, making sure that every move was correct before, or put up some simply table tops then take more time to design you lay.
While my scale drawing doesn't go to a high level of detail, they do flesh out to scale where all major curves, aisle, sidings, yards etc will go. So I generally always, track plan first, then benchwork designed to fit the main layout plan with aisle. It sure seems if you just design/build table tops, then you sort of flying by the seat of your pants and hope everything will fit them without knowing for sure. With enough experience and good spacial perception, you may be able to get away with it.
In my case however, all primary track, whether mainline, sidings, yards, etc. all have centerlines drawn in on painted Homasote or wood subroadbed.
Here you can see staging yard center-lines including curve-centers, easement markings etc. pre-drawn prior to track going down.
From the opposite angel, track now down.
Straight center-lines must be drawn in first, then curve center-lines drawn to fit with easements to join the centerlines. The offsets are about a half inch here.
I used a camera tripod with a trammel to draw the curve center-lines.
In the engineering world, those are part of what are called controls. Or generically, references. I can't imaging just picking a spot and start laying track because I don't know where key things like beginnings or curves with easements will be located, or beginning/ends of sidings etc.
Even on a flat table top, I need centerlines and then had to position key things like turnouts before adding flex track, because those things had to fit near the ends of curves on either side to maximize the use of the space. Turnouts are all test positioned and lined up before laying.
Previous layout:
Current layout:
Fighting track that wants to be straight just makes that way a little more frustrating.
Definitely a preference thing, but stiff track that comes straight in the box has to be wrestled with to get it into smooth flowing curve. I have some stiff code 70 Shinohara and you constantly have to work it back and forth to eventually get a curve and after that you have to work the ties that are all wonky. It takes a lot of time and effort to get stiff track just-so and smooth and even, where as with Atlas, it is nearly effortless and quick.
Time spent up front designing and engineering, or time spent laying the actual track. Its seems the same to me. A matter of preference. I'm glad that different producers make a variety of products.
Its seems the same to me. A matter of preference. I'm glad that different producers make a variety of products.
Choose your poison. Thankfully we can choose and avoid extra work.
BTW, do people draw centerlines when building yards? If so, how do you get frog angles correct? A protractor? I've been enjoying the hobby for 40 years, and I still cannot tell you what the diverging angle of a #6 turnout is. LOL.
See my photo above, and this one from the other angle.
After I have drawn in all my center-lines at the spacing I choose, such as 2-inches or whatever, then I determine where the controlling turnouts, such as the first one in a ladder or the first one after a curve going to the yard, and place them on the center-line. Then I position turnouts that will connect to them on the adjacent center-line. If the fit together as is, good. If they need to be trimmed to fit, I trim them. But more often than not, I may need to add a short piece of track or rail to connect them after I line them up by eye. So far it's worked very well such as on my last yard here.
You have to work from key turnout points and build from there and the yard grows that way.
Jim, I'm always impressed by your work.
I would not say that my method is flying by the seat of my pants. My layouts aren't that complicated. An around the room plan with either no peninsulas or one in the middle sort of dictates what the trackplan is going to look like. I don't have track double back on itself if it can be helped so the trackplan is pretty obvious. Its a matter of deciding where to put the long sidings and the big industries, and where to hide/disguise minimal staging, and where to put that nest of turnouts that always seems to dictate how much stuff can be put into an area.
I usually start by having a vision, then sketch it roughly. I use #8 and #6 turnouts and broad radius curves, so there is never much ability to cram a lot of precisely placed track on the layout. Plenty of room to play with angles.
I guess think of it like an artists painting. They make some rough sketches, big bold lines that provide the bones of the painting, but then they fill in the details as they go and one detail sort of gets changed based upon how another detail turned out. They don't really paint a landscape by designing a paint-by-numbers plan, where applying the paint in the predescribed areas is the final simple step.
I've noticed that in the model railroading hobby, a lot of math and detailed electronics are discussed. I think different dispositions or personalities have different outlets for understanding issues and solving problems.
Deleted.
ATLANTIC CENTRAL The point with Mike is he does not explain what you just explained he just makes his own dogmatic statements with no context and tells others they are wrong, without allowing them to know all of HIS facts as it relates to his situation.
The point with Mike is he does not explain what you just explained he just makes his own dogmatic statements with no context and tells others they are wrong, without allowing them to know all of HIS facts as it relates to his situation.
Doughless I get it. I'm not here to defend Mike.
I get it. I'm not here to defend Mike.
My attitude on forum posts is to either remain silent if you don't know or at least state that you are guessing or speculating. There have been instances where I believed my reply was correct when I posted it, but once corrected I acknowledged that I was wrong. At least that way, other readers of the thread won't get confused by misinformation.
Doughless Since my layouts have no grades...usually midwest flatlands, not unlike Texas panhandle, any grainger line, or a future retirement layout based in Florida, all of my layout benchwork is simply 24 to 30 inch deep table tops laid along the walls with triangles built into the corners. There is no precise cutting of subroadbed. There is no need for a predetermined center line. I like the flex track that stays bent since I can adjust the radius of the curves to as broad as possible by seeing it lay exactly as it would. To me its a wash. Either spend lots of time designing and planning, making sure that every move was correct beforehand, or put up some simple table tops then take more time to design you lay. Fighting track that wants to be straight just makes that way a little more frustrating. Time spent up front designing and engineering, or time spent laying the actual track. Its seems the same to me. A matter of preference. I'm glad that different producers make a variety of products. BTW, do people draw centerlines when building yards? If so, how do you get frog angles meeting the ladder correct? A protractor? I've been enjoying the hobby for 40 years, and I still cannot tell you what the diverging angle of a #6 turnout is.
Since my layouts have no grades...usually midwest flatlands, not unlike Texas panhandle, any grainger line, or a future retirement layout based in Florida, all of my layout benchwork is simply 24 to 30 inch deep table tops laid along the walls with triangles built into the corners. There is no precise cutting of subroadbed. There is no need for a predetermined center line. I like the flex track that stays bent since I can adjust the radius of the curves to as broad as possible by seeing it lay exactly as it would.
To me its a wash. Either spend lots of time designing and planning, making sure that every move was correct beforehand, or put up some simple table tops then take more time to design you lay. Fighting track that wants to be straight just makes that way a little more frustrating.
BTW, do people draw centerlines when building yards? If so, how do you get frog angles meeting the ladder correct? A protractor? I've been enjoying the hobby for 40 years, and I still cannot tell you what the diverging angle of a #6 turnout is.
I do spend time beforehand drawing the contemplated layout on quadrille paper where you can easily make precise curves with whatever radius I choose, usually 32" or broader.
The fact that Atlas flextrack springs back to straight is fine with me. I use RibbonRail Metal Track Alignment Gauges to set precise curves. My easements are on both ends of the curves so the radius toward the middle of the curve is all that matters since the easements will be broader.
I don't draw centerlines when building yards because using #6 turnouts (Atlas or Peco) on the ladder will produce 2" on center yard tracks.
ATLANTIC CENTRAL The frog angle of a number 6 turnout is 9.5 degrees. Ok, yard ladders are easily worked out by just playing with the turnouts, but as a user of Atlas turnouts, they fit together into perfect simple ladders with 2" track centers requiring no fillers or cutting. One could argue that engineering trackwork on a blank table top before laying track should be even easier than those of us doing open grid with subroadbed, but whatever works. Do you use roadbed? The real point is not one method over the other. The point with Mike is he does not explain what you just explained he just makes his own dogmatic statements with no context and tells others they are wrong, without allowing them to know all of HIS facts as it relates to his situation. Whatever works for you, I'm not not building a layout on a flat tabletop. Sheldon
One could argue that engineering trackwork on a blank table top before laying track should be even easier than those of us doing open grid with subroadbed, but whatever works.
Do you use roadbed?
The real point is not one method over the other. The point with Mike is he does not explain what you just explained he just makes his own dogmatic statements with no context and tells others they are wrong, without allowing them to know all of HIS facts as it relates to his situation.
Whatever works for you, I'm not not building a layout on a flat tabletop.
I use roadbed, but I do not use a centerline.
So the final track lay curve iteration serves as the guide. I draw a line about 1/4 inch in front of the track and line the roadbed up to that front line.
I start with building the curves. I don't have many. Or first lay the nest of turnouts that have to be at the precise angles to fit everything into the shelf. The rest is just straight track or slightly curved flex track to fill in the blank.
BTW, if I were to build major grades, I would give the subroadbed proper benchwork support. I can't see me using woodland scenic risers on a table top. I don't get that.
If I was ever going to build a layout that depicted mountainous scenery like the Appalachians or the Rockies, etc, I'd probably have to take enough time to plan things to where once I busted out the jigsaw to cut my 3 inch wide ribbon of curved plywood, I was dead sure about what radius I was going to use. Changing from a 31 inch to a 32.5 inch after the fact would require another chunk of plywood.
I suppose that once I had that cut and secured, I would draw a center line, then use a two piece roadbed system to align the far side of the road bed up to the center line, then shove the front side up along the other piece forming the common shape of roadbed that we know. Once all that work is done, laying track and securing it as I go, with either a few nails or glue, would be a last and relatively minor step in the entire process.
BTW, do people draw centerlines when building yards? If so, how do you get frog angles meeting the ladder correct? A protractor? I've been enjoying the hobby for 40 years, and I still cannot tell you what the diverging angle of a #6 turnout is. LOL.
Lastspikemike One new point is raised about whether the curves are to be formed and then secured or to be formed in part by securing the track to the roadbed.
One new point is raised about whether the curves are to be formed and then secured or to be formed in part by securing the track to the roadbed.
Even with the flex track that stays bent, I don't see the reason or advantage to this approach? Are you putting any kind of roadbed under this track?
Lastspikemike I prefer to lay track and then secure it. Reason is the rail length is affected by any remaining tension in the curve. If you form the curve and secure it while under tension the shorter inner rail will be too long, always. That tends to force the joint in the outer rail apart over time.
I prefer to lay track and then secure it. Reason is the rail length is affected by any remaining tension in the curve. If you form the curve and secure it while under tension the shorter inner rail will be too long, always. That tends to force the joint in the outer rail apart over time.
I'm not even sure I understand what you are describing here?
The inner rail will always be longer on a curve, slide the rail of the next section or cut the inner rail off.
My rail joints on curves never move apart or have problems over time?
All my rail joints are soldered, either two sections are soldered together in advance, and/or all joints (except insulated ones) are soldered after the track in down.
Been soldering all my rail joints since 1968, and my father soldered all his rail joints before me - even on a layout he only put up for Christmas. A layout that had wood roadbed track.
Lastspikemike This may be more important when using Woodland Scenics foam riser benchwork because it isn't particularly rigid. The plaster cloth provides any horizontal rigidity. I want the track to just lie there.
This may be more important when using Woodland Scenics foam riser benchwork because it isn't particularly rigid. The plaster cloth provides any horizontal rigidity. I want the track to just lie there.
I'm sure it is. I can't even get my head around the Woodland scenics foam risers.........
I have wood and power tools, and I am very good with both. I don't need to move my layout, or take it apart.
As I said before, I engineer my track at the roadbed stage, there is no figuring it out as I go along.
Again I refer you to my earlier pictures.
SeeYou190 Doughless Or does it just start a debate over what method of laying track is better? If we can discuss it like civilized people. My plan is to do something different with my next layout. Instead of using roadbed, I am going to bevel the sides of 1/2" Homasote for the roadbed profile, and lay the tracks directly onto the homasote. I tried this on my benchwork section experiment, and really liked the final result. I just fasten the track in place as I move along. I am a nailer, not a gluer. The problem is, it will be difficult to "fudge" the track a little if something does not line up. Am I heading into trouble? -Kevin
Doughless Or does it just start a debate over what method of laying track is better?
If we can discuss it like civilized people.
My plan is to do something different with my next layout. Instead of using roadbed, I am going to bevel the sides of 1/2" Homasote for the roadbed profile, and lay the tracks directly onto the homasote.
I tried this on my benchwork section experiment, and really liked the final result. I just fasten the track in place as I move along. I am a nailer, not a gluer.
The problem is, it will be difficult to "fudge" the track a little if something does not line up.
Am I heading into trouble?
-Kevin
No, you are not headed for trouble. That's how we always did it with hand layed track before products like Homabed.
Homabed, or milling your own, I always engineer the roadbed, then lay the track where the roadbed is.
Look at my earlier posted pictures.
I have to go now, more later.
DoughlessOr does it just start a debate over what method of laying track is better?
Living the dream.
I think the consensus is that Atlas track is preferred for those who secure the track immediately as they lay it, since that's what its springy nature requires for it to stay bent (or enough track attached to both ends to provide enough weight/friction to hold the whole shmear in place).
Others who like to have some time between laying and securing prefer track that stays bent under it own weight.
Does that answer OPs question?
Or does it just start a debate over what method of laying track is better?
Well folks, we ain't going to break this wild horse. Lets move on.
Lastspikemike What my avid readership is misunderstanding, as is very often the case, is what they think I said instead of what I actually said.
What my avid readership is misunderstanding, as is very often the case, is what they think I said instead of what I actually said.
I didn't get a Bachelor of Science and Master of Science degree with lousy reading comprehension. Our other readers seem to, by consensu, seem to agree on the basics here. Words mean things.
richhotrain
As my British wife would say, this feels like a wind-up and we are getting the Mickey taking out of us. This ain't a case of tomato / tomahto.
As the Canadians say, take off!
If Atlas is good for making natural easements, then it is poor at making a curve with a consistent radius completely through the curve. I haven't found Atlas flex to be poor at making a curve with a consistant radius on my past 4 layouts. Quite the opposite. I draw a centerline and I lay it on the centerline with the tracknail holes dead on it, or on the seam of the cork that follows the centerline. I nail it down that way and eyeball it to be sure it's smooth. Tweak if necessary. Very easy. If Altlas get a bit of a set from bending it sharp, it's plenty flexible enough to bend it straight again and follow a straight centerline.
If Atlas is good for making natural easements, then it is poor at making a curve with a consistent radius completely through the curve.
I haven't found Atlas flex to be poor at making a curve with a consistant radius on my past 4 layouts. Quite the opposite. I draw a centerline and I lay it on the centerline with the tracknail holes dead on it, or on the seam of the cork that follows the centerline. I nail it down that way and eyeball it to be sure it's smooth. Tweak if necessary. Very easy.
If Altlas get a bit of a set from bending it sharp, it's plenty flexible enough to bend it straight again and follow a straight centerline.
Lastspikemike I respect your views. However, I am pretty sure that "most people" aren't on this forum, not even close. And I mean most model railroading people. I post from my experiences. I make no claim that my preferences are preferred by anyone else. I certainly make no claim that my way is the better way. It is for me. I can say for sure that Atlas flex track is hard to work with. Harder than the other three brands. But clearly that is from my own particular experience with all four brands. Maybe another new participant will encounter the same experience I did. Maybe even most new people getting into the hobby will. Who knows? I will say that there are a number of posters to this forum who hold and express some pretty dogmatic opinions. Even passing them off as fact rather than merely opinions. It can be very off putting to new posters. I know. I am new here, relatively.
I respect your views. However, I am pretty sure that "most people" aren't on this forum, not even close. And I mean most model railroading people.
I post from my experiences. I make no claim that my preferences are preferred by anyone else. I certainly make no claim that my way is the better way. It is for me.
I can say for sure that Atlas flex track is hard to work with. Harder than the other three brands. But clearly that is from my own particular experience with all four brands.
Maybe another new participant will encounter the same experience I did. Maybe even most new people getting into the hobby will. Who knows?
I will say that there are a number of posters to this forum who hold and express some pretty dogmatic opinions. Even passing them off as fact rather than merely opinions. It can be very off putting to new posters.
I know. I am new here, relatively.
Mike, it could be you find it hard to work with because you have some fixed idea about how to lay track that others are not bound to.
You can see my pictures, that was not hard to do at all.
I don't need or want flex track to stay bent before I glue it down, (that is why I use real ahesive) I want it to flex readily as I position it on the already carefully layed out roadbed or guidelines.
Sounds to me you are making this process harder than it needs to be. Or you think you can skip some vital step like actually laying out where the track will go in advance?
But I agree with the others about how you express yourself. You dance around key ideas rather than just saying them.
I gravitate away from people who cannot simply ask the real question or state the real issue.
So the real issue is you expect the track to bend and stay bent. Well there is plenty of that in the track market and I for one will not fight you for it. You are welcome to it. It all costs more and is hard to work with.
I find those products hard to work with, and I have a bit more than 4 boxes of flex track under my belt in the last 50 years.
Not to mention a fair amount of hand layed track back in the day. A skill I mastered at age 16 thanks to my father and several other highly skilled craftsman willing to teach me.
Install your track however it works for you, on whatever works for you, with whatever attachment method that works for you. But my wide association with modelers in this region, and my years behind the counter in the hobby shop, gives me total confidence in my opinion of what most people are using and doing.
A little less than 2 years ago I started my layout with no prior experience. I got Atlas code 83 because it was cheap (a 1$ got me over a foot.) The track stayed straight after hours of fiddling with curves and even showed me my ruler was crooked I have a straight one now.
The snap back was helpful for me since at the end of the curve it lined itself up. I use nails through the pre-drilled holes to hold down my track. Yes, people hate them, but when you paint the tops brown and you don't have to pry up track with a hammer, they're great.
The switches do have a bit of bending in them, but they're straight on either end and the cheapest ones available. For a first time track layer, my track is incredibly smooth and runs great, I've never had any derailments (besides the occasional elbow to a hopper)
A few times now I've had to move a curve or re-position a switch and the track was really easy to place into the shape I wanted it. All I had to do was move both ends to the right spot and everything worked out.
This is what I've experienced as a first time layout builder. It helps to have an open mind and to try other's methods, even in just a little experiment. Track is just a little bit of metal and plastic
Max Karl, MRL and BNSF
LastspikemikeI attract a lot of attention which is, frankly, just plain weird.
Mike,
No, it is not weird that you attract a lot of attention. You do it on purpose. The way you structure your responses is done very intentionally to provoke additional responses from others to correct you. Then you get what you want, attention, and you go and seek more.
That is not weird, that is the predictable outcome of your behaviour. Your motivations remain unclear, but it is completely intentional by design.
Since, by your own words (which I am sure you have contradicted elsewhere), you are a beginner, I would suggest that you stop providing answers and start asking questions. That will benefit all, but most effectively, yourself.
You will notice I do not answer questions about prototype railroads, DCC, electronics, track planning, scratchbuilding wooden buildings, etc, etc. Even after building five personal layouts, two club layouts, several layouts with friends, I still do not know everything.
The time has come for you to also recognize, and submit to, your own limitations.
Lastspikemike ATLANTIC CENTRAL Part of the disconnect between Mike and others may be this, from what I remember, Mike had moderately sharp curves, at least on the previous layout, in the 24" radius range I believe. Once you bend even Atlas that sharp, it is possible to have it take a bit of a set. But it still remains easy to bend.... Sheldon In fact I recommend using Atlas 24" radius sectional track if the desired radius gets that tight. Atlas flex track is intended for broad radius curves, it appears to me. What my avid readership is misunderstanding, as is very often the case, is what they think I said instead of what I actually said. A piece of thin spring steel is easy to bend but impossible to form into a curve (unless you force it beyond its spring failure point). Atlas flex track is hard to bend into the desired curve. Very hard. It remains easy to bend, to no purpose. Anyone who thinks Atlas flex track is easy to bend into the desired curve has insufficient experience with Walthers, Peco and ME flex track, each of which is far easier to bend to the desired curve. As I intimated, ME may well be a bit too easy in that respect.
ATLANTIC CENTRAL Part of the disconnect between Mike and others may be this, from what I remember, Mike had moderately sharp curves, at least on the previous layout, in the 24" radius range I believe. Once you bend even Atlas that sharp, it is possible to have it take a bit of a set. But it still remains easy to bend.... Sheldon
Part of the disconnect between Mike and others may be this, from what I remember, Mike had moderately sharp curves, at least on the previous layout, in the 24" radius range I believe.
Once you bend even Atlas that sharp, it is possible to have it take a bit of a set.
But it still remains easy to bend....
In fact I recommend using Atlas 24" radius sectional track if the desired radius gets that tight. Atlas flex track is intended for broad radius curves, it appears to me.
A piece of thin spring steel is easy to bend but impossible to form into a curve (unless you force it beyond its spring failure point).
Atlas flex track is hard to bend into the desired curve. Very hard. It remains easy to bend, to no purpose. Anyone who thinks Atlas flex track is easy to bend into the desired curve has insufficient experience with Walthers, Peco and ME flex track, each of which is far easier to bend to the desired curve. As I intimated, ME may well be a bit too easy in that respect.
Now finally the real truth comes out, in this statement - It remains easy to bend, to no purpose.
Mike, those other brands do not hold their shape because the metal rail bends and stays bent. Their rail is just as "springy" as Atlas.
Those other brands stay bent because the grip of the tie strip on both rails is tight and equal.
With Atlas flex track, all the gaps in the tie section are on one side. The non gapped side of the tie strip grips that rail tightly. The rail on the gapped side of the tie strip is not gripped tightly and freely allows the track to return to a straight condition.
I dislike all those brands of flex track that stay bent, they are the hardest to lay in a smooth flowing curve, or to lay perfectly straight because they will not lay tight against my aluminum yard stick.
I don't know how you lay track, or what kind of layout and engineering you do in advance of laying track.
But to repeat what I have said about glueing down track with adhesive caulk rather than cheap painters caulk, I know within an 1/8" were the track is going and I don't have to do it over or adjust it more than some small fraction of an inch.
I passed mechanical drawing, geometry, and 1/87 scale civil engineering.
Here is some of my lazer straight and flowing curves with Atlas flex track.
Mike, I hate to tell you this, but what you don't like about Atlas flex track is EXACTLY what most people do like about it.
PS - take note - no cork, no foam......
ricktrains4824My take on Track: DISCLAIMER - My Opinions Only!
Rick, all very well said. Thank you.
My Opinions Only:
Trackage:
Atlas Track: I use Atlas flex for straights and larger radius curves. Works well with RibbonRail tools. I use Atlas sectional track for 24 inch radius and below.
Shinohara Flex: I found it takes too much fidgeting to get it straight, but it is workable for curves.
Peco: I use Peco code 70 flex track, and like it, but I do not use much code 70.
Micro Engineering: Similar to how I use Peco, I only use Micro Engineering code 55 HO flex track and code 83 bridge track, but not much of either.
New Walthers Flex: No Experience.
Handlaid: No Worthwhile Experience.
Turnouts:
Atlas: Only used in N scale in the 1980s, so no worthwhile experience.
Walthers/Shinohara: Old style non-DCC is my all-time favorite. I have accumulated my lifetime supply, so I am good.
Peco: Used on my N scale Dream House layout and friend's N and HO scale layouts. Top-notch product with very good "track" record.
Micro Engineering: No experience.
Handlaid: No experience.
My take on Track: DISCLAIMER - My Opinions Only!
Atlas - Great for straights and perfect on easement curves, lousy for consistent radii curves.
Shinohara - Middle of the pack, tends to work ok for most curves, and straights. Takes some working for both, but very usable.
Peco - No Experience.
ME - Best for constant radii curves, or arrow straight if straight edge/gauge used. Ribbon Rail gauges or FastTracks SweepSticks a must for ease of use. Can be done without these helpful tools, but way easier with them.
New Walthers Flex - No Experience.
Handlaid - Takes the most work, but can be super smooth. Spikes every tie tend to not happen, but if you are 3 feet away, not an issue.
Atlas - Perform well, but points need sharpened for best perfrformance.
Walther's/Shinohara - Slight filing needed on points and frog, but tend to work well. Better selection than Atlas.
ME - Sharpest points of the ready-made variety, tend to work well with most layouts.
Handlaid - Takes the most work, but when done properly offer flawless performance. Infinite configurations possible.
Ricky W.
HO scale Proto-freelancer.
My Railroad rules:
1: It's my railroad, my rules.
2: It's for having fun and enjoyment.
3: Any objections, consult above rules.