Yes, that is very possible. And they would be very reluctant to change the Custom Line, they have a 70 year history of track plan books with that geometry.
ATLANTIC CENTRAL The answer is easy, the super switch was supplied by a different vendor. Are they still selling those? I did not know it was different either. I never bought them because I never liked that feature with Walthers either, the extra long straight diverging route. I often thought the super switch was being made by a different vendor, but this likely confirms it. As so it is in between the Custom Line and the PECO, and 6.5" is the NMRA Recommended Practice lead length for a #6. I have always known the Custom Line #6 is more gradual than NMRA RP's. Sheldon UPDATE: They are still listed on the Atlas website. When they came out, I wondered if they had plans for a secound intire line with features more like Walthers and then decided against it?
The answer is easy, the super switch was supplied by a different vendor. Are they still selling those?
I did not know it was different either. I never bought them because I never liked that feature with Walthers either, the extra long straight diverging route.
I often thought the super switch was being made by a different vendor, but this likely confirms it.
As so it is in between the Custom Line and the PECO, and 6.5" is the NMRA Recommended Practice lead length for a #6.
I have always known the Custom Line #6 is more gradual than NMRA RP's.
Sheldon
UPDATE: They are still listed on the Atlas website. When they came out, I wondered if they had plans for a secound intire line with features more like Walthers and then decided against it?
NMRA standards may be the answer. Perhaps Atlas wanted to also offer a turnout that was closer to the 6.5" lead length than the Custom Line (which turnout came first in their line up?).
Just by eyeball, the new Walthers turnout and even the older Shinohara look similar to the Super Track-83 (Switch) in terms of geometry. Closer to the NMRA recommendation.
- Douglas
bagal Hi all What I think has happened is that Peco had a typo, they put length as 223mm when it should be 232mm or 233mm. They have then made the scale to match 223mm which means the template is short by 9 or 10mm, or 3/8". I found this when i printed some Unifrog templates and found they were shorter than the Insulfrog templates I had on hand. Forum members assured me that the Unifrog were the same dimensions as Insulfrog. Now that I have Unifrogs on hand I can confirm they match the Insulfrog template. And yes the lead from point of frog to end of point rail is 6 1/4" as best I can measure. Sheldon, not doubting your use of Atlas. I've just got a small switching layout on 20" wide shelves so all is in reach. I initially had tortoises with stationery decoders but much happier now with finger flicking. bagal
Hi all
What I think has happened is that Peco had a typo, they put length as 223mm when it should be 232mm or 233mm. They have then made the scale to match 223mm which means the template is short by 9 or 10mm, or 3/8".
I found this when i printed some Unifrog templates and found they were shorter than the Insulfrog templates I had on hand. Forum members assured me that the Unifrog were the same dimensions as Insulfrog. Now that I have Unifrogs on hand I can confirm they match the Insulfrog template. And yes the lead from point of frog to end of point rail is 6 1/4" as best I can measure.
Sheldon, not doubting your use of Atlas. I've just got a small switching layout on 20" wide shelves so all is in reach. I initially had tortoises with stationery decoders but much happier now with finger flicking.
bagal
Here is a little story for you, way back before DCC, I thought it would be really great to be able to control turnouts from a hand held throttle. I even developed a concept design to do that on a small layout but never built it.
Fast forward 30 years, I helped a friend build a large DCC controlled layout and he put decoders on all the turnouts to allow control from the Digitrax throttles. Turned out to be a terrible way to control tunouts, far too cumbersome.
Why push five buttons when you can push one? or just flip a ground throw?
All my industrial trackage is ground throws, I just need electrical contacts on them as well, so I use little slide switches as ground throws.
I also prefer the electrical design of the Atlas, a feature not available on PECO until the Unifrog.
Already have almost every turnout I need........
ATLANTIC CENTRAL This measurement should be to the tip of the frog point, that is where the two gage lines or riding surfaces intersect. Sheldon
This measurement should be to the tip of the frog point, that is where the two gage lines or riding surfaces intersect.
Well, I've learned something.
I grabbed an old Atlas code 83 #6 turnout and measured the lead length exactly as shown. Its 6 5/8s. Turns out its a Super Switch.
The lead length of my code 83 Custom Line #6 is 7".
I always thought the difference in those two Atlas code 83 turnouts was just the throwbar supports and excess track at the diverging route. Turns out the geometry is slightly different too, with the SS being more compact overall when the excess track is removed.
There is a material difference in track planning with Custom Lines vs the SS. I never knew that.
And why would Atlas bother to take the expense to design two different geometrys of their two code 83 #6 turnouts? What is the point?
My Peco Insulfrog #6 lead length measures 6.25 inches.
Meanwhile, the Unifrog #6 template's lead length measures 5 7/8ths.
ATLANTIC CENTRAL richhotrain ATLANTIC CENTRAL richhotrain Do we have data on the length and lead-length of the Walthers Code 83 #6 turnout? Rich Not on the new ones, I might have an old one somewhere here to measure. But in recent times I have only bought double slips from Walthers. Sheldon Thanks, Sheldon. I was inquiring about the new ones. Rich Agreed, it would be interesting to know. Sheldon
richhotrain ATLANTIC CENTRAL richhotrain Do we have data on the length and lead-length of the Walthers Code 83 #6 turnout? Rich Not on the new ones, I might have an old one somewhere here to measure. But in recent times I have only bought double slips from Walthers. Sheldon Thanks, Sheldon. I was inquiring about the new ones. Rich
ATLANTIC CENTRAL richhotrain Do we have data on the length and lead-length of the Walthers Code 83 #6 turnout? Rich Not on the new ones, I might have an old one somewhere here to measure. But in recent times I have only bought double slips from Walthers. Sheldon
richhotrain Do we have data on the length and lead-length of the Walthers Code 83 #6 turnout? Rich
Do we have data on the length and lead-length of the Walthers Code 83 #6 turnout?
Rich
Not on the new ones, I might have an old one somewhere here to measure. But in recent times I have only bought double slips from Walthers.
Thanks, Sheldon. I was inquiring about the new ones.
Agreed, it would be interesting to know.
Alton Junction
ATLANTIC CENTRAL No worries. So the PECO is 1/4" longer than their own drawing, but still enough shorter than the Atlas to make the closure radius smaller, and make the whole thing more compact. And a reminder, the straight route on the Atlas is longer to make yard ladders with 2" centers on the diverging routes - it can be cut off if needed. Sheldon
No worries.
So the PECO is 1/4" longer than their own drawing, but still enough shorter than the Atlas to make the closure radius smaller, and make the whole thing more compact.
And a reminder, the straight route on the Atlas is longer to make yard ladders with 2" centers on the diverging routes - it can be cut off if needed.
ATLANTIC CENTRAL Rich, I am puzzled by your measurements. The two Atlas turnouts on my desk right now measure 7" lead length. I will take a picture when I get back home. Sheldon
Rich, I am puzzled by your measurements. The two Atlas turnouts on my desk right now measure 7" lead length. I will take a picture when I get back home.
But, no good deed goes unpunished!
Sheldon, you are correct. The lead-length on the Atlas is 7.0", and the lead-length on the Peco is 6 1/4". My bad. I was measuring from the tip of the point to the beginning of the frog, not the "point of the frog".
I corrected my previous reply.
Just before Peco replaced the #6 Insulfrog with the Unifrog, I bought some of the final Peco #6 Insulfrogs. They measure 9 5/32" in length, and the "lead-length" is 6 1/4" from the tip of the point to the point of the frog.
The Atlas Custom Line #6 turnout is exactly 12.0" in length, and the "lead-length" is 7" from the tip of the point to the point of the frog.
So Doug, what is the lead length of the turnouts you have?
From the tip of the points to the tip of the frog?
ATLANTIC CENTRAL Doughless bagal Sheldon, interesting exercise you did with the Peco #6 template. However the template is not correct. The actual length is 233mm, not 223mm. But that probably doesn't alter the point you make. Like another poster I have replaced my W/S code 83 and Tortoises with Peco Unifrog. All are within easy reach and I find manual changing easier than looking for a switch. This discrepancy is starting to work its way into the forum as a fact, so lets make sure we're accounting for everything. Does the website simply have a typo? Or is the actual template not representative of the actual track. If so, is the discrepancy in closure curve radius, the length of the switch points, the lead length....or just the tail of the tracks past the important parts? Are we sure that the discrepancy is not the result of a minor computer sizing issue, where the Peco statement is accurate but the template is somehow sized slightly smaller...which would also effect the width of the ties slightly or the gauge of the tracks? And I assume we are talking Unifrog templates and not Insulfrog templates....just wondering if the old Insulfrog templates are accurate relative to actual track length....that this issue has been ongoing for years....decades....or has it just emerged with the new Unifrog? The template I printed says 223mm, and measures 223mm, the printed scale on the template matches my architects scale perfectly. The info others have presented, Ray and Rich, suggests the overall length is between 1/4" to 7/16" longer and the lead length MAY be 1/4" longer. I don't have a PECO turnout to measure. It does appear that the PECO template may not be correct to the actual product they are delivering. Sheldon
Doughless bagal Sheldon, interesting exercise you did with the Peco #6 template. However the template is not correct. The actual length is 233mm, not 223mm. But that probably doesn't alter the point you make. Like another poster I have replaced my W/S code 83 and Tortoises with Peco Unifrog. All are within easy reach and I find manual changing easier than looking for a switch. This discrepancy is starting to work its way into the forum as a fact, so lets make sure we're accounting for everything. Does the website simply have a typo? Or is the actual template not representative of the actual track. If so, is the discrepancy in closure curve radius, the length of the switch points, the lead length....or just the tail of the tracks past the important parts? Are we sure that the discrepancy is not the result of a minor computer sizing issue, where the Peco statement is accurate but the template is somehow sized slightly smaller...which would also effect the width of the ties slightly or the gauge of the tracks? And I assume we are talking Unifrog templates and not Insulfrog templates....just wondering if the old Insulfrog templates are accurate relative to actual track length....that this issue has been ongoing for years....decades....or has it just emerged with the new Unifrog?
bagal Sheldon, interesting exercise you did with the Peco #6 template. However the template is not correct. The actual length is 233mm, not 223mm. But that probably doesn't alter the point you make. Like another poster I have replaced my W/S code 83 and Tortoises with Peco Unifrog. All are within easy reach and I find manual changing easier than looking for a switch.
Sheldon, interesting exercise you did with the Peco #6 template. However the template is not correct. The actual length is 233mm, not 223mm. But that probably doesn't alter the point you make.
Like another poster I have replaced my W/S code 83 and Tortoises with Peco Unifrog. All are within easy reach and I find manual changing easier than looking for a switch.
This discrepancy is starting to work its way into the forum as a fact, so lets make sure we're accounting for everything.
Does the website simply have a typo? Or is the actual template not representative of the actual track.
If so, is the discrepancy in closure curve radius, the length of the switch points, the lead length....or just the tail of the tracks past the important parts?
Are we sure that the discrepancy is not the result of a minor computer sizing issue, where the Peco statement is accurate but the template is somehow sized slightly smaller...which would also effect the width of the ties slightly or the gauge of the tracks?
And I assume we are talking Unifrog templates and not Insulfrog templates....just wondering if the old Insulfrog templates are accurate relative to actual track length....that this issue has been ongoing for years....decades....or has it just emerged with the new Unifrog?
The template I printed says 223mm, and measures 223mm, the printed scale on the template matches my architects scale perfectly.
The info others have presented, Ray and Rich, suggests the overall length is between 1/4" to 7/16" longer and the lead length MAY be 1/4" longer.
I don't have a PECO turnout to measure.
It does appear that the PECO template may not be correct to the actual product they are delivering.
See my edit above. Yes, I agree, Peco does not have the size of its turnout correctly represented by the template on its website.
Does the website simply have a typo? Or is the actual template not representative of the actual track?
Edit: I do not have Unifrog. I have the old Insulfrog. I compared my actual Insulfrog track to the Unifrog template and the Insulfrog is a full 3/8 inch longer than the Unifrog template. The Insulfrog I have is 9.125 inches or 232 mm.
I assume that Peco did not redesign the entire turnout just to change the wiring and to eliminate the hinge, so I would guess that the template on peco's webstie does not reflect the actual size of the new Unifrog turnout.
If we assume that the Unifrog has the same length and geometry as the older Insulfrog, then the length of the Unifrog is the 232/233mm and the template that says its 223mm is sized wrongly on the website.
Really?
You are talking about the overall length?
Why would their own drawing be wrong?
Where is the extra 7/16"? I don't own a metric ruler.
Is the lead length the same as the drawing? 6"?
In any case, as you say, it is clear the lead length is nowhere near the 7" lead length of the Atlas, so it must have a sharper closure radius.
And again, for the 357th time, if a layout with all manual turnouts and no electrical feedback on their position works for your goals, the little springs are wonderful.
But some of us have other operational interests and goals, CTC signaling with working interlockings, multiple types of operational scenarios on the same layout (display, CTC, walk around tower control). Then there is controlling turnouts in hidden staging - and in my case DC power routing.
I know I am not in the main stream on this, but I would much rather build my advanced DC control system than invest both the time and money for:
I have no interest in onboard sound, I need "signal blocks" anyway for CTC, the features DCC would add to my operational goals are minimal.
richhotrain To my way of thinking, the Peco spring design is an important innovation in turnout operation. The spring is removable for those who do not want or need spring loaded points, but for those that do, no need for expensive switch machines or unsightly manual ground throws. I first saw the Peco turnout in operation on a YouTube video about operations. Several operators were walking around a club layout flicking the points with their index fingers. I was sold. Speaking of sold, I have sold off almost 70 Tortoises and Atlas turnouts and replaced them with Peco turnouts. Although Pecos are a lot more expensive than Atlas turnouts, the sale proceeds of my used Tortoises and Atlas turnouts was more than enough to cover the cost of the Peco turnouts. Rich
To my way of thinking, the Peco spring design is an important innovation in turnout operation. The spring is removable for those who do not want or need spring loaded points, but for those that do, no need for expensive switch machines or unsightly manual ground throws.
I first saw the Peco turnout in operation on a YouTube video about operations. Several operators were walking around a club layout flicking the points with their index fingers. I was sold.
Speaking of sold, I have sold off almost 70 Tortoises and Atlas turnouts and replaced them with Peco turnouts. Although Pecos are a lot more expensive than Atlas turnouts, the sale proceeds of my used Tortoises and Atlas turnouts was more than enough to cover the cost of the Peco turnouts.
I understand the attraction of the PECO spring, so does Walthers......
It is not a new idea, long before PECO, modelers made their own simple over center springs for manual turnouts. Dr Wayne has I believe published a few pictures.
If you don't need remote control, and you don't need other electrcial support (contacts), no question it is great for walk around concept layouts.
But as noted, if I really wanted that, I could just make them for my Atlas turnouts - true they would be seen, between the rails or off to the side.
Virtually all the industrial and yard turnouts on my new layout will be manually thrown, but I need electrical contacts, for dwarf signals and power routing.
So I will use sub-miniature slide switches as ground throws.
They are cheap and easy (and already bought years ago).
But the rest of the turnouts will be hidden staging tracks, and CTC controlled interlockings. The switch machine and its features are un-avoidable, as is the need and ability to control turnouts from more than one location.
One thing is for sure, if I was going to use PECO code 83, I would be using a lot of #8's.
richhotrain I started thinking the same thing last night and again this morning. Replace my #6 turnouts with #8 turnouts. Rich
I started thinking the same thing last night and again this morning. Replace my #6 turnouts with #8 turnouts.
Its not very feasible to build a yard ladder out of #8's regardless of the relative compactness of the Peco. It shallow angle simply takes too much length to achieve enough lateral separation to get the 2 inch spacing.
My switching layout has a main district that's 25 feet long by 26 inches deep. I have only 4 industries on it, and they call for only about 20 car spots in the entire space. No curve radius in the district is much sharper than the closure radius of the Peco #8. Stuff is really spread out and it makes the layout looks spartan compared to many layouts I've seen photographed. The #8's everywhere and broad curves everywhere require that much space. But I like the look.
Edit: I do have a three track yard built using Peco #8's. From curve to curve...the points to the end of the curve of the third track, is 60 inches. Even too long for what I ideally have space for, but I switch out 73 foot centerbeam flats and 73 foot woodchip hoppers, so I wanted the #8s.
A more reasonable person would probably be fine with #6s in the yard, since long cars look fine when being switched slowly in a yard setting.
I would normally reserve using #8s on mainline sidings, crossovers, and some passenger car areas. I would think if somebody built a mainline crossover using Atlas #6s, they could hopefully find the extra 8 inches needed to build it out of Peco #8s, but maybe not.
ATLANTIC CENTRAL ? Atlas code 83 has never used rivets on the points, and the code 100 has just been redesigned without them. Unless you are calling the tabs rivets? Yes, the Atlas design expects pressure, no different than the PECO spring. Sheldon
? Atlas code 83 has never used rivets on the points, and the code 100 has just been redesigned without them. Unless you are calling the tabs rivets?
Yes, the Atlas design expects pressure, no different than the PECO spring.
The way the point rails are held in place at the hinge, a tab tucked under the track, is typically looser out of the box than the similar Peco design. Like I said, the point rails......switch rails....are a wee bit sloppier on the Atlas than the Peco, from my experience. No performace issue, just a feel of stability.
Doughless richhotrain Doughless And the differences in the geometry of the two is not great enough to have any bearing on performance of the two brand of turnouts, to be clear. I simply see the long loco run through the points differently, and I like the smoothness of the Atlas better, but choose Peco for other reasons. That was the point that I was making earlier in this thread. All of this mathematical discussion about the geometry of the turnouts is somewhat interesting, I guess, but it just relates to appearance and does not affect performance. What I fear now is that the next time that I go down to the layout, I will be watching my motive power and rolling stock moving through my Peco turnouts less elegantly than they were before this thread began. Rich LOL. I actually thought about those ramifications before I posted my observations....but then ignored it. It's exactly what happenened to me the first time I noticed it. Saw it every time after that. I resolved the issue by switching to Peco #8's. Its a new layout and I have the space, so I could do that. Sorry for bringing it up...... The sometimes too-high pot metal frog on the Atlas I can live with. If they could simply update the engineering of their points....do something about the rivets which cause the moving rails to be a bit sloppy, and add a spring, I'd prefer the Atlas. I think Atlas works well with....maybe even designed for...a switch machine, where I finger flick the points and like the feel of more stability and stay-putedness the Peco offers.
richhotrain Doughless And the differences in the geometry of the two is not great enough to have any bearing on performance of the two brand of turnouts, to be clear. I simply see the long loco run through the points differently, and I like the smoothness of the Atlas better, but choose Peco for other reasons. That was the point that I was making earlier in this thread. All of this mathematical discussion about the geometry of the turnouts is somewhat interesting, I guess, but it just relates to appearance and does not affect performance. What I fear now is that the next time that I go down to the layout, I will be watching my motive power and rolling stock moving through my Peco turnouts less elegantly than they were before this thread began. Rich
Doughless And the differences in the geometry of the two is not great enough to have any bearing on performance of the two brand of turnouts, to be clear. I simply see the long loco run through the points differently, and I like the smoothness of the Atlas better, but choose Peco for other reasons.
And the differences in the geometry of the two is not great enough to have any bearing on performance of the two brand of turnouts, to be clear. I simply see the long loco run through the points differently, and I like the smoothness of the Atlas better, but choose Peco for other reasons.
That was the point that I was making earlier in this thread. All of this mathematical discussion about the geometry of the turnouts is somewhat interesting, I guess, but it just relates to appearance and does not affect performance. What I fear now is that the next time that I go down to the layout, I will be watching my motive power and rolling stock moving through my Peco turnouts less elegantly than they were before this thread began.
LOL. I actually thought about those ramifications before I posted my observations....but then ignored it.
It's exactly what happenened to me the first time I noticed it. Saw it every time after that. I resolved the issue by switching to Peco #8's. Its a new layout and I have the space, so I could do that. Sorry for bringing it up......
The sometimes too-high pot metal frog on the Atlas I can live with. If they could simply update the engineering of their points....do something about the rivets which cause the moving rails to be a bit sloppy, and add a spring, I'd prefer the Atlas.
I think Atlas works well with....maybe even designed for...a switch machine, where I finger flick the points and like the feel of more stability and stay-putedness the Peco offers.
Doughless richhotrain Doughless And the differences in the geometry of the two is not great enough to have any bearing on performance of the two brand of turnouts, to be clear. I simply see the long loco run through the points differently, and I like the smoothness of the Atlas better, but choose Peco for other reasons. That was the point that I was making earlier in this thread. All of this mathematical discussion about the geometry of the turnouts is somewhat interesting, I guess, but it just relates to appearance and does not affect performance. What I fear now is that the next time that I go down to the layout, I will be watching my motive power and rolling stock moving through my Peco turnouts less elegantly than they were before this thread began. Rich LOL. I actually thought about those ramifications before I posted my observations....but then ignored it. It's exactly what happenened to me the first time I noticed it. Saw it every time after that. I resolved the issue by switching to Peco #8's. Its a new layout and I have the space, so I could do that. Sorry for bringing it up......
Doughless The sometimes too-high pot metal frog on the Atlas I can live with. If they could simply update the engineering of their points....do something about the rivets which cause the moving rails to be a bit sloppy, and add a spring, I'd prefer the Atlas. I think Atlas works well with....maybe even designed for...a switch machine, where I finger flick the points and like the feel of more stability and stay-putedness the Peco offers.