DoughlessOr 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
Living the dream.
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?
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.
Sheldon
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.
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.
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. LOL.
- Douglas
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.
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.
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.
Rio Grande. The Action Road - Focus 1977-1983
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
I get it. I'm not here to defend Mike.
I use roadbed, but I do not use a centerline.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Rich
Alton Junction
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.
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.
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.
Deleted.
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.
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.
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....
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.
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
And the guess work!
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
The complex is made up entirely with Peco turnouts and double slips.
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.
Lastspikemike 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. 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. Frog angle and diverging route geometry are the same for Peco #6 and Atlas Superswitch #6. Peco compresses the closure rail length by 1/2". Peco point rails are 3/16" longer than Atlas point rails. Peco crossover track spacing is 2". Atlas Superswitches create 2 5/8" track spacing. Of interest, ME #5 and Peco #5 each use the same geometry and lengths of point and closure rail. ME creates a 2 7/16" track spacing as far as I can determine without actually connecting two turnouts. Track spacing results from the length of the diverging route track. Frog angle in itself should not change that track spacing. Peco turnouts are shorter mainly because they are actually just shorter.... On the point about Atlas flex track having to be under compression when curve alignment is held by nails or glue instead of being curved to the radius required I clarify that I assumed that this leaves the inner rail slightly longer than it otherwise would be. Frankly, unless you curve the flex track exactly to the desired curve before you connect it all I have no idea how you get that inner rail length cut to correct length. I assume it's cut long and forced into alignment but I confess I don't know. I also cannot imagine how forcing the curve into place and just nsilingit there can be "easier" than bending the curve to correct radius first. The forces trying to straighten the curve that are restrained by the nails or glue come from the rails, as you would discover if you tried to curve just the tie strip bare of rails. I have a piece of Atlas flex track with only the fixed rail still there. It bends easily but still takes several attempts before it will hold any particular radius. In either direction. I compared that to the complete piece of Atlas flex track which is more than twice as difficult to curve to a constant radius. I have a 29" ribbon rail template and 24" radius Atlas sectional track to verify radii. Even curving the Atlas track so far that the ends are crossed and the curve radius in my hands is probably less than 15" the Atlas track reverts to almost straight when released. It takes many such bending operations to work a 29" radius into the piece. Even more to get close to 24" radius. I'm not posting a video of me bending the various brands of track (no interest in adding that capability to my posts) but I mean feel free to experiment yourself and post the results. That some of you go after the minutae of details in my posts to such great lengths is frankly just weird. I am not writing legal briefs. I'm just posting to a model railroading site. I write once. Correct the autocorrect and that's it. No rewrites.
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. 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.
Frog angle and diverging route geometry are the same for Peco #6 and Atlas Superswitch #6. Peco compresses the closure rail length by 1/2". Peco point rails are 3/16" longer than Atlas point rails. Peco crossover track spacing is 2". Atlas Superswitches create 2 5/8" track spacing.
Of interest, ME #5 and Peco #5 each use the same geometry and lengths of point and closure rail. ME creates a 2 7/16" track spacing as far as I can determine without actually connecting two turnouts.
Track spacing results from the length of the diverging route track. Frog angle in itself should not change that track spacing. Peco turnouts are shorter mainly because they are actually just shorter....
On the point about Atlas flex track having to be under compression when curve alignment is held by nails or glue instead of being curved to the radius required I clarify that I assumed that this leaves the inner rail slightly longer than it otherwise would be. Frankly, unless you curve the flex track exactly to the desired curve before you connect it all I have no idea how you get that inner rail length cut to correct length. I assume it's cut long and forced into alignment but I confess I don't know. I also cannot imagine how forcing the curve into place and just nsilingit there can be "easier" than bending the curve to correct radius first.
The forces trying to straighten the curve that are restrained by the nails or glue come from the rails, as you would discover if you tried to curve just the tie strip bare of rails.
I have a piece of Atlas flex track with only the fixed rail still there. It bends easily but still takes several attempts before it will hold any particular radius. In either direction. I compared that to the complete piece of Atlas flex track which is more than twice as difficult to curve to a constant radius. I have a 29" ribbon rail template and 24" radius Atlas sectional track to verify radii.
Even curving the Atlas track so far that the ends are crossed and the curve radius in my hands is probably less than 15" the Atlas track reverts to almost straight when released. It takes many such bending operations to work a 29" radius into the piece. Even more to get close to 24" radius.
I'm not posting a video of me bending the various brands of track (no interest in adding that capability to my posts) but I mean feel free to experiment yourself and post the results.
That some of you go after the minutae of details in my posts to such great lengths is frankly just weird. I am not writing legal briefs. I'm just posting to a model railroading site. I write once. Correct the autocorrect and that's it. No rewrites.
Again Mike, your posts where confusing because virtually no one responding understood your position that you consider it desirable for the track to stay bent. A fact that you did not share until deep into the conversation. A pretty important point in my mind.
Once I glue down the tie strip, the force of the rail is of no consequence, and has never caused me issues.
Deleted
riogrande5761 Doughless 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. 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. If Peco made #7 turnouts, I buy them but a yard with #8's would reduce capacity significantly.
Doughless 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.
If Peco made #7 turnouts, I buy them but a yard with #8's would reduce capacity significantly.
Only a tiny bit shorter, but the longer point rails comprss the closure radius even more.
LastspikemikeFrog angle and diverging route geometry are the same for Peco #6 and Atlas Superswitch #6. Peco compresses the closure rail length by 1/2". Peco point rails are 3/16" longer than Atlas point rails.
That would suggest that the Peco closure rail has a tighter radius than the Atlas closure rail, which it does not. And which would be a problem.
When thrown to the diverging route, the point rails of the Peco have more space between them and the stock rail than does the Atlas, beginning immediately, which accounts for the more abrupt motion of the locomotive upon entering the diverging route. The gentle radius of the closure rail is longer in the Atlas because its shorter point rail is closer to the stock rail, thereby requiring a longer curve (IOW, more distance) to hit the frog at the proper angle.
Said simpler. Since the radius of the closure rail is the same, more of the Peco's overall diverging geometry is comprised of a strait point rail, so it has to come off the stock rail at a great angle than the Atlas in order to achieve the same frog angle, which it does simply by looking at both. Its more compact design is achieved by a more abrupt diverging angle of the straight point rails rather than a longer distanced curved rail.
You could have an even more compact turnout if you had no closure rail and the straight point rails diverged off the stock rail at a #6 frog angle. That would be a really abrupt motion.
We may be talking passed each other.
The other side, the curved stock rail, both Peco and Atlas have the same closure. In order to have a more compact turnout, that closure radius of the Peco starts almost immediatley at the throwbar.
On the Atlas, the radius immediately after the throwbar is straighter, and the angle of the point rails is thereby more gradual.
The Atlas has more of a built-in easement along its curved stock rail from throwbar up to frog.
As we know, longer stuff looks better entering a curve when the curve has an easement.
The geometry of the Atlas #6 is better than the Peco#6, IMO.
Lastspikemike If the point rail is longer and the closure rail shorter and the whole assembly (point plus closure rail) is also shorter then the radius of the closure rail must be tighter in the Peco. Whether I was referring to nailing down the flex track before it is fully curved or not makes no difference to the inherent characteristics of the flex track. I was describing the inherent differences and I still am. "Easier" or " more difficult " may be subjective opinion but relative ease of persuading Atlas track to reach and keep a certain radius is objectively testable. I've done that. Atlas flex track is the most difficult of the four brands to bend into a desired curve whether you are going to nail that curve down or not. By far. I just did this again not more than a few minutes before the relevant post. Threw down the glove an' all. Anyone want to embarrass themselves posting an Atlas flex track wrestling session video? Anyone?
If the point rail is longer and the closure rail shorter and the whole assembly (point plus closure rail) is also shorter then the radius of the closure rail must be tighter in the Peco.
Whether I was referring to nailing down the flex track before it is fully curved or not makes no difference to the inherent characteristics of the flex track.
I was describing the inherent differences and I still am. "Easier" or " more difficult " may be subjective opinion but relative ease of persuading Atlas track to reach and keep a certain radius is objectively testable. I've done that. Atlas flex track is the most difficult of the four brands to bend into a desired curve whether you are going to nail that curve down or not. By far.
I just did this again not more than a few minutes before the relevant post.
Threw down the glove an' all. Anyone want to embarrass themselves posting an Atlas flex track wrestling session video?
Anyone?
I don't care about your tests,
It is a mute point for me, and many others, since we have no need for Atlas flex to KEEP its radius until it is fastened down.
A point I think I made clear more than a page ago.......
Once the PolySeamSeal drys, that track is not going anywhere.
Again, I like the "springy" nature of Atlas because it never kinks as you lay the curve in the adhesive, allowing that careful adjustment to my carefully installed roadbed.
And the PolySeamSeal sets quickly enough that only a nail or two and some small weights keep the track in place until it is set.
LastspikemikeIf the point rail is longer and the closure rail shorter and the whole assembly (point plus closure rail) is also shorter then the radius of the closure rail must be tighter in the Peco.
No, the angle of the point rail is sharper. The Atlas curved stock rail has a built in easement near the throwbar where the Peco does not. An easement is more gradual requiring more distance, and the angle of the parallel point rails must accomodate the easement.
Whether or not the point rails are longer or shorter is the simply the end result of whats needed for the turnout to function.
The design goal for Atlas was an easement, IOW, better geometry.
But, Peco has other advantages.
Doughless Lastspikemike If the point rail is longer and the closure rail shorter and the whole assembly (point plus closure rail) is also shorter then the radius of the closure rail must be tighter in the Peco. No, the angle of the point rail is sharper. The Atlas curved stock rail has a built in easement near the throwbar where the Peco does not. An easement is more gradual requiring more distance, and the angle of the parallel point rails must accomodate the easement. Whether or not the point rails are longer or shorter is the simply the end result of whats needed for the turnout to function. The design goal for Atlas was an easement, IOW, better geometry. But, Peco has other advantages.
Lastspikemike If the point rail is longer and the closure rail shorter and the whole assembly (point plus closure rail) is also shorter then the radius of the closure rail must be tighter in the Peco.
Yes, there are a lot subtleties to the differences between these turnouts.
But for me the Atlas wins in the geometry department and in the electrical department. Specific factors of my control system are made easier by the Atlas design without having to modify the turnout.
Lastspikemike Anyone want to embarrass themselves posting an Atlas flex track wrestling session video?
And you claim not to intentionally provoke responses with what you write?
I believe you are suggesting that people like me, that prefer Atlas flex track, have a difficult time using it, and need to "wrestle" it into place.
This is not true. Atlas track is easy to use. I just spike it in place as I move along, trim the ends evenly, dress with a file, attach another piece, and move on. That would be a boring video.
And... I gave you more of the attention you are craving.
I know this is mainly a code 83 discussion, but I'll briefly comment that I disliked my code 100 Atlas turnouts; I used code 100 instaging. I was able to get most of my Peco large code 100 turnouts for around $18 or 19 each, which isn't that much more than the new price of Atlas code 100 #6. Plus, as you can see by my photo, Peco code 100 large roughly equate to a #7 turnout, making them more broad than a #6.
Back to code 83. I don't dislike my Atlas code 83 turnouts that much, and still plan to use the bunch that I saved from my last layout, mostly new or like-new. But there are two things I dislike about them. One is the cast frog (it's an appearnce thing, but yes, that can be mitigated by painting/weathering). The other is you must have a switch machine, either manual or electric.
Lets look at the cost thing for a second. The Peco for more expensive yes, and the code 83 even more than the code 100. But you don't have to provide a switch machine so that does mitigate some of that cost you would have to spend on an Atlas, or other turnouts not having the finger flick feature holding the points firmly to one side or the other.
Back to Atlas. I wish to simpify my yard work by not installing electric switch machines and all the wiring and the control panels etc. That will take me a lot of extra time and effort. So manual throw is fine since I can reach nearly all of the turnouts. But ... if I used Atlas, I'd have to install a manual throw. I've got some Caboose Industries for my present Atlas turnouts, but my hands are getting a bit arthitic, and they are fiddely to operate. Finger flick is easier for me to operate. So by using Peco, or the new Walthers if I can get my hands on them, I avoid the expense and effort of any switch machines.
As for lurch, in yards at slow speeds, I don't mind if my yard turnouts are #5.9 rather than 6, or whatever you call them. For mainline operation, #8 should and I have a bunch of them. If I run out of Peco Electrofrog #6 as I do have only a limited number of them, I'll switch to Walthers #6 which hopefully will come available in the coming weeks.