Turnouts - Shinohara vs. ?

[Tom Bryant_MR]

I was using Shinohara turnouts years ago. I eventually moved to Fast Tracks. Loved them.

I see Shinohara is out of business. So, I would need to purchase all of the Fast Track jigs again.

I would welcome others experience with other turnouts in the market.

Thanks Tom

 

[da1]

All FT over a decade ago.  No regrets at all.  After completing my layout I ended up loaning my jigs to a couple other fellows in the area.  I recommend polling your local community for interest in sharing a communal set of FT jigs.

D

[crossthedog]

Hi Tom,

Walthers is now making their own turnouts and I like them fine. The sprung points are nice to flip with my finger but when I want to automate them, it's a pain to have to take the turnout out of the layout and remove the spring. The thing I don't love about Walthers and Shinohara is the shallow ties that don't match the rest of my track, which is Atlas flex. And if you want Shinohara, I think you can still get them. Someone correct me, but didn't someone buy the tooling and they're selling Shinohara turnouts under a name like IMON? Maybe I dreamed it. 

I only bought a few Walthers turnouts, and they're fine. Mostly when I buy new turnouts I buy Atlas. The price is right and they give me almost no trouble -- had to file down one of the points on a long curved turnout because it was tripping up my caboose. I've also bought old Shinoharas used at fairly good prices, too. I have never tried Peco.

If you have the patience and skill to build your own turnouts, though, and you can get ahold of Fast Tracks jigs, why would you ever settle for "storebought" turnouts again? Especially if you love them. I'd say follow the love.

-Matt

[Tom Bryant_MR]

Thanks D. Good idea! 

[Tom Bryant_MR]

Thanks Matt. It's been a while since I built one. I do remember how smooth the trucks glided thru the points and frog. No clickity-clack 

[crossthedog]

I love the clickety-clack, but I don't love my caboose coming off the rails with a fire in the stove . Bad for everyone!

I'm sure others will chime in here with much more experience with various turnouts.

And I wasn't dreaming about the Shinohara being available, or at least I was not dreaming that someone TOLD me they were available. This from Bob at ScaleLink in an email to me last year:

"When I heard that Mr Shinohara was about to retire, I invested several thousand pounds in stock as I believe the products are brilliant... A new owner is now producing the ranges with the assistance of some former Shinohara employees..."

 

Here's a link to their Code 83 stuff.

https://www.scalelink.co.uk/acatalog/Shinohara_Track___Pointwork__HO__Code_83.html

 

They also have a Code 100 catalog. I didn't buy from them because the shipping from Europe made it pointless, but they seem like straight ahead folks. What confuses me is that I'm not sure ScaleLink is the company he was referring to when he said that someone bought the Shinohara stuff. But you could certainly ask.

[richhotrain]

I have always been torn between Atlas Custom Line and Peco Insulfrog.

I used to use Atlas turnouts exclusively, mostly the #6. But, at 12" in length, the Atlas turnout takes up a lot of space, and you need some way to power it either electrically (Tortoise) or manually (Caboose Industries ground throw.

The Peco #6 Insulfrog is only 9 1/4" long, saving valuable space in yards and on crossovers. The other advantage of Peco is that the points are spring loaded, so I only need a flick of the finger to throw the points, a tremendous savings without Tortoises or ground throws.

Pricewise, Atlas is a lot cheaper than Peco. What I need is a shorter Atlas turnout that is spring loaded or a less expensive Peco turnout.

The Walthers turnout offers no conceivable advantage over Atlas or Peco.

Rich

[gregc]

richhotrain

The Peco #6 Insulfrog is only 9 1/4" long,

what makes the Atlas turnouts longer, the length of the non-diverging track?

what's the difference in lead-length, the distance between the points and the frog?

Rich, any chance you could send me a PM with your email?

[Tom Bryant_MR]

Thanks Rich. The info on Peco is good. Before I went to Fast Tracks I was using Shinohara.

(Thank you Crossthedog on Shinohara. Note, your input does not allow a reply?)

I did a cost work up on Fast Tracts. After the initial investment ~ $380 for tooling, $160 in materials for 15 switches drops cost per switch (#5) to ~ $11.

How long to recoup the $380 will depend on # switches one builds. That's just the cost side.

Quality/satisfaction is subjective ☺️

Thanks again. Will check out Peco as size/space is a factor also.

Tom

[Doughless]

The difference in lengths between Peco and Atlas is in the distance between the points and the frog.  The PECO point rails diverge from tangent at a steeper angle than Atlas.  Its noticeable to me when comparing how trains move through the points on both turnouts.  The diverging route in Atlas has a bit of an easement built in which gives it more length but ends up with the same frog angle.

The Atlas #6 has the best geometry, especially for longer cars, than any other #6, IMO.

[richhotrain]

gregc

 

richhotrain

The Peco #6 Insulfrog is only 9 1/4" long, 

what makes the Atlas turnouts longer, the length of the non-diverging track? 

what's the difference in lead-length, the distance between the points and the frog?

Rich, any chance you could send me a PM with your email? 

greg, on the Peco #6 Insulfrog, the frog is set back from the divergent end by 3/4". On the Atlas Custom Line #6, the frog is set back from the divergent end by 2 3/4". Using a metal tape measure, the Peco frog is 7/8" long, whereas the Atlas frog is 1 1/4" long. The length of the turnout is 12" for Atlas and 9 1/4" for Peco. When the two turnouts are placed over one another, the divergent sides match exactly.

Let me check if I can send you a PM.

Rich

Edit Note: I was in the midst of writing this reply when Douglas posted his reply.

[richhotrain]

Doughless

The difference in lengths between Peco and Atlas is in the distance between the points and the frog.  The PECO point rails diverge from tangent at a steeper angle than Atlas.  Its noticeable to me when comparing how trains move through the points on both turnouts.  The diverging route in Atlas has a bit of an easement built in which gives it more length but ends up with the same frog angle.

The Atlas #6 has the best geometry, especially for longer cars, than any other #6, IMO. 

I am too lazy to go down to the basement for a third time this morning to measure turnouts, LOL, but I am measuring and comparing the two turnouts from the tail ends of the turnouts.

Rich

[richhotrain]

Doughless

The PECO point rails diverge from tangent at a steeper angle than Atlas. 

I won't challenge that statement without a third trip downstairs, but at the moment, I disagree with that statement, subject to being corrected.  

Rich

[Doughless]

richhotrain

 

 

Doughless

The PECO point rails diverge from tangent at a steeper angle than Atlas. 

 

 

 

I won't challenge that statement without a third trip downstairs, but at the moment, I disagree with that statement, subject to being corrected.  

 

Rich

 

You have to make sure the tips of the points are compared perfectly, there is more track between the tips and the end of the track on the Atlas than the Peco.  I see my Peco starting its diverging path slightly sooner than the Atlas....about half the thickness of the rail.

If the frog angles are the same (assuming not a fraction different), and the radius of the diverging track is the same, then the difference is that Atlas has a slight easement when transitioning from tangent to diverging....making the beginning of the diverging route slightly longer and pushing the frog up the length of the track..... and that is what I see when longer cars roll through the Atlas compared to peco, where its more abrupt.

Also, the solid portion of the inner diverging track...the hinge...is farther away from the outside tangent rail on the Peco than the Atlas.  Forces the angle of the points to be slightly more severe. 

Basically, the Atlas has a gentler departure from tangent than the Peco, with the remainder of the geometry the same, and that accounts for the slightly longer length of the Atlas from points to frog.   

[gregc]

Doughless

The PECO point rails diverge from tangent at a steeper angle than Atlas.

that's odd because that angle is what defines the frog #

the diverging rails are typically straight (see Catskill Archive)

richhotrain

greg, on the Peco #6 Insulfrog, the frog is set back from the divergent end by 3/4". On the Atlas Custom Line #6, the frog is set back from the divergent end by 2 3/4". Using a metal tape measure, the Peco frog is 7/8" long, whereas the Atlas frog is 1 1/4" long. The length of the turnout is 12" for Atlas and 9 1/4" for Peco. When the two turnouts are placed over one another, the divergent sides match exactly.

thanks for all the detail, but i don't see the distance from the points to the frog.

the extra track in front of the points and after the frog can be cut off if needed.   it's the lead-length and frog #/angle the matter.  the short the lead-length the tighter the closure rail radius

 

441

 

[wrench567]

   One has to remember that the Peco code 100 is HO/OO that's really built to OO standards. The code 83 line is HO standard. The OP is probably wanting code 100 due to Shinoharra was mostly code 100 or code 70. I don't recall them having a code 83 line.

     Pete.

[John-NYBW]

richhotrain

I have always been torn between Atlas Custom Line and Peco Insulfrog.

I used to use Atlas turnouts exclusively, mostly the #6. But, at 12" in length, the Atlas turnout takes up a lot of space, and you need some way to power it either electrically (Tortoise) or manually (Caboose Industries ground throw.

The Peco #6 Insulfrog is only 9 1/4" long, saving valuable space in yards and on crossovers. The other advantage of Peco is that the points are spring loaded, so I only need a flick of the finger to throw the points, a tremendous savings without Tortoises or ground throws.

Pricewise, Atlas is a lot cheaper than Peco. What I need is a shorter Atlas turnout that is spring loaded or a less expensive Peco turnout.

The Walthers turnout offers no conceivable advantage over Atlas or Peco.

Rich

 

I agree with you on the advantages of Peco but the extra length of Atlas is a minor issue because it's not difficult to cut length off either of the diverging tracks.

Last night I posted and admittedly long winded explanation of replacing a problematic Atlas #8 with a Peco #7 curved turnout. Surprisingly, the Peco has wider radii on both curves of the turnout and early testing seems to show it is going to perform much better at handling my full length passenger cars. 

[crossthedog]

wrench567

Shinoharra was mostly code 100 or code 70. I don't recall them having a code 83 line.

My Code 83 Shinos must be counterfeits, then. :/

That would explain why I got such a good deal on them.

-Matt

[crossthedog]

Tom Bryant_MR

(Thank you Crossthedog on Shinohara. Note, your input does not allow a reply?)

Tom, I'm not sure what you mean by not allowing a reply. This forum has bizarre and inconsistent technical anomalies. I used to be able to PM members, for example, but it doesn't work anymore.

-Matt

[Pruitt]

I started making my own turnouts using Fast Tracks jigs about twenty years ago, and I've never looked back.

They perform better than any commercial brand I ever used, including Peco, Shinohara, Walthers (the older versions) and others, and especially better than Atlas, which were always problematic for me.

I haven't tried the newer turnouts that have come out since about 2002. And at 25 to 30 bucvks a pop, I'm not about to. I build #6 turnouts in code 83, 70 and 55 using the same jigs (the 55 takes special attention, since the base of the rail is narrower than the 83 and 70 rail bases are), for about $10 each, complete.

If I can build turnouts that function well, believe me anyone can.

[wrench567]

crossthedog

 

 

wrench567

Shinoharra was mostly code 100 or code 70. I don't recall them having a code 83 line.

 

 

My Code 83 Shinos must be counterfeits, then. :/

 

That would explain why I got such a good deal on them.

-Matt

 

  I stand corrected. I have some code 100 and my industrial lead is code 70. I don't remember seeing a code 83 from them.

    Pete.

[wrench567]

  I built a couple of the Central Valley turnout kits but modified using solid rail points and circuit board ties in spots. I also made the frogs. They have been trouble free. No jigs or file aids needed.

    Pete.

[Doughless]

quote user="gregc"]that's odd because that angle is what defines the frog # the diverging rails are typically straight (see Catskill Archive)[/quote]

The point rails on the Atlas and Peco model turnouts are straight.  Then the track begins to curve at the hinge.  Depending upon their angle of divergence, length, and if the diverging curve has an easement just after the hinge or leading into the frog, two different turnouts can get to the same frog angle.

 How else is one brand shorter from points to frog than another, if the frog angle is the same?  It must be in the geometry of the point rails and diverging tracks.

 

[richhotrain]

Doughless

 

richhotrain 

Doughless

The PECO point rails diverge from tangent at a steeper angle than Atlas.  

I won't challenge that statement without a third trip downstairs, but at the moment, I disagree with that statement, subject to being corrected.   

Rich 

You have to make sure the tips of the points are compared perfectly, there is more track between the tips and the end of the track on the Atlas than the Peco.  I see my Peco starting its diverging path slightly sooner than the Atlas....about half the thickness of the rail.

If the frog angles are the same (assuming not a fraction different), and the radius of the diverging track is the same, then the difference is that Atlas has a slight easement when transitioning from tangent to diverging....making the beginning of the diverging route slightly longer and pushing the frog up the length of the track

Agreed. I took another trip down to the basement and checked more closely. There is a slightly sooner and steep divergent on the Peco compared to the Atlas when both turnouts are measured from the tip of the tail of the turnout. That said, if you pull the Atlas turnout back about 1', the divergent rails on both turnouts seem to match. 

At a glance, the point rails are the same lengths on both turnouts and the point rails hinge at the same distance.

The divergent rails give every appearance of being straight, not curved.

Rich

 

 

 

[richhotrain]

John-NYBW

 

richhotrain

I have always been torn between Atlas Custom Line and Peco Insulfrog.

I used to use Atlas turnouts exclusively, mostly the #6. But, at 12" in length, the Atlas turnout takes up a lot of space, and you need some way to power it either electrically (Tortoise) or manually (Caboose Industries ground throw.

The Peco #6 Insulfrog is only 9 1/4" long, saving valuable space in yards and on crossovers. The other advantage of Peco is that the points are spring loaded, so I only need a flick of the finger to throw the points, a tremendous savings without Tortoises or ground throws.

Pricewise, Atlas is a lot cheaper than Peco. What I need is a shorter Atlas turnout that is spring loaded or a less expensive Peco turnout.

The Walthers turnout offers no conceivable advantage over Atlas or Peco.

Rich 

I agree with you on the advantages of Peco but the extra length of Atlas is a minor issue because it's not difficult to cut length off either of the diverging tracks.

I consider it more than a minor issue because each Peco saves 2 3/4" of length. That's a lot on a yard ladder or a crossover. Sure, you can cut the extra length off of the Atlas turnout, but eventually I sell everything that I previously bought, so I am not about to modify original equipment in such a manner since it will be more difficult to sell.

Rich

[Doughless]

I think you should notice that the hinges on the Peco are farther up along the diverging route than Atlas.  The point rails are longer and more severely angled...just a wee bit to get that wee bit more compactness. 

Rolling stock simply breaks away from tangent more abruptly on the Peco then the Atlas.  I notice the difference, others may not.  

[richhotrain]

Doughless

I think you should notice that the hinges on the Peco are farther up along the diverging route than Atlas, pushing the hinge closer to the middle of the tie very slightly. The point rails are longer and more severely angled...just a wee bit to get that wee bit more compactness. 

Rolling stock simply breaks away from tangent more abruptly on the Peco then the Atlas.  I notice the difference, others may not.   

Without my checking any more closely, especially involving a fifth trip down to the basement, I guess that I really don't care if there are slight differences in geometry. In this case, as is true with many other aspects of model railroading, the "close enough" rule is applicable.

As I have changed over from Atlas Custom Line Code 83 #6 turnouts to Peco Code Insulfrog Code 83 #6 turnouts over the years, and with each succeeding layout, I have gained space with Peco, I have simplified the points throw, and there is absolutely no difference in performance of steam engines, 6-axle diesels, or 85' passenger cars. That is what really matters in such a comparison of turnouts.

I am not criticizing your attention to detail or exactness, Douglas. I just don't think that it matters when choosing between Atlas Custom Line Code 83 #6 turnouts and Peco Code Insulfrog Code 83 #6 turnouts.

Rich

[gregc]

Doughless

gregc

that's odd because that angle is what defines the frog # the diverging rails are typically straight (see Catskill Archive)

The point rails on the Atlas and Peco model turnouts are straight.  Then the track begins to curve at the hinge.  Depending upon their angle of divergence, length, and if the diverging curve has an easement just after the hinge or leading into the frog, two different turnouts can get to the same frog angle.

How else is one brand shorter from points to frog than another, if the frog angle is the same?  It must be in the geometry of the point rails and diverging tracks.

yes, the lead-length can vary for the same frog#/angle resulting in tighter & constant closure rail radii.  (radius, lead-length, frog#)

seems turnouts aren't so standard

[gregc]

what are the lead-lengths of the Peco and Atlas?

it's the lead-length and radius of the closure rail that determine how well a loco moves thru the turnout

705

[richhotrain]

gregc

it's the lead-length and radius of the closure rail that determine how well a loco moves thru the turnout 

If there is a difference in the movement of a locomotive or a piece of rolling stock through these two turnouts, it is imperceptible, at least to me. What should matter to a layout operator is whether a turnout is prone to derailments or unintended uncouplings. That should not be an issue with a properly installed Atlas Custom Line Code 83 #6 turnout or a Peco Code Insulfrog Code 83 #6 turnout.

Rich