ATLANTIC CENTRALI looked uip and printed out the Fast Tracks #6. 6-1/4" lead length...... I will stick with Atlas and build my specials when I need to - without expensive jigs or PC ties. Sheldon
6-1/4" lead length......
I will stick with Atlas and build my specials when I need to - without expensive jigs or PC ties.
Sheldon
But there is the time. It takes me about an hour more time to build a Fast Tracks turnout than it would take for me to unpackage and check out a commercial turnout. I figure that's less than a 1% increase in layout construction time over using commercial turnouts. And I'm not dependent on anybody but myself for quality control.
Mark P.
Website: http://www.thecbandqinwyoming.comVideos: https://www.youtube.com/user/mabrunton
PruittI'm not dependent on anybody but myself for quality control.
That is a great advantage.
-Kevin
Living the dream.
ATLANTIC CENTRALThis is why Greg's drawing of various length turnouts with the same frog angle is not correct - he used constant radius curves and added more straight rail near the frog.
the closure curve cannot be replaced with a larger constant radius curve and still have it align with the frog. the smaller the lead-length, the tigher the radius and the curve reaches the frog angle further from the frog requiring the straight section
if any section of the closure rail curve is made a larger radius, the remainder of the curve must be tighter to remain aligned with the frog.
(think about what happens to the other part of the closure rail aligned with the frog if one part is made straighter).
these values are consistent with the numbers and calculations posted on the Catskill Archive - Frogs and Switches
greg - Philadelphia & Reading / Reading
richhotrain Length of Straight Closure Rail: ~ Atlas Custom Line Code 83 #6 turnout - 4.0" (exactly) ~ Peco Code Insulfrog Code 83 #6 turnout - 3.03125" (3 1/32") Rich
Length of Straight Closure Rail:
~ Atlas Custom Line Code 83 #6 turnout - 4.0" (exactly)
~ Peco Code Insulfrog Code 83 #6 turnout - 3.03125" (3 1/32")
Rich
Which figures, because the straight point rails on the Peco are longer than the Atlas, but yet the total distance from point tips to frog is shorter on the Peco. A shorter stright closure rail and longer point rails add up to shorter distance from tips to frog for the Peco. And the angle of departure of the point rails are different as well.
IMO, the only way that there could be longer point rail, a shorter closure rail, and shorter total distance from tip to frog is if that point tip meets the diverging rail sooner with the Peco than it does with Atlas. If the diverging stock rail of the Atlas has a slight easement near the tip, the rail will never quite meet the tip unless more length is added. And if there is an easement near the tip, the Atlas needs to have its other point rail depart gentler in order to keep the rails in gauge.
Edit: Sheldon points out the the diverging point rail of the Peco is slightly curved whereas the Atlas is straight. This would certainly explain pretty much everything I'm seeing, but way simpler.
- Douglas
gregc richhotrain The straight closure rail on the Atlas turnout is exactly 4.0" in length thanks but it's the distance from the frog to the points, not to the hinge. prototypical turnouts don't have hinged closure rails
richhotrain The straight closure rail on the Atlas turnout is exactly 4.0" in length
thanks
but it's the distance from the frog to the points, not to the hinge. prototypical turnouts don't have hinged closure rails
And the above closure curve begins immediately at the point tips. On our models, there is typically about a 2 inch straight section that leads into the curved closure rail when angled.
Doughless richhotrain Length of Straight Closure Rail: ~ Atlas Custom Line Code 83 #6 turnout - 4.0" (exactly) ~ Peco Code Insulfrog Code 83 #6 turnout - 3.03125" (3 1/32") Rich Which figures, because the straight point rails on the Peco are longer than the Atlas, but yet the total distance from point tips to frog is shorter on the Peco. A shorter stright closure rail and longer point rails add up to shorter distance from tips to frog for the Peco. And the angle of departure of the point rails are different as well. So the total curve of the closure rail has to be different. I contend that the Atlas must have slight easements at either end of its curved closure rail and/or longer straight leading into the frog....what other variable could there be....but I have no way of measuring that. And my eyeball does not see it, but it sees the gentler departure angle of the point rails.
So the total curve of the closure rail has to be different. I contend that the Atlas must have slight easements at either end of its curved closure rail and/or longer straight leading into the frog....what other variable could there be....but I have no way of measuring that. And my eyeball does not see it, but it sees the gentler departure angle of the point rails.
Using some of my drafting tools, I measured both the actual Atlas turnout, and the PECO drawing.
Both have easements, both are elliptical as I described above.
The PECO is a smaller radius ellipse, as you and I have pointed out, it has to be.
Sitting here looking at the Atlas, a straight edge confirms that the curve goes nearly right up to the frog and right to the point hinge. And several French curves I have suggest that the minimum radius point is at the half way point of the total lead length, with the straight point rail just aproximating the easement curve on the frog end.
Doughless gregc richhotrain The straight closure rail on the Atlas turnout is exactly 4.0" in length thanks but it's the distance from the frog to the points, not to the hinge. prototypical turnouts don't have hinged closure rails And the above closure curve begins immediately at the point tips. On our models, there is about a 2 inch straight section that leads into the curved closure rail when angled.
And the above closure curve begins immediately at the point tips. On our models, there is about a 2 inch straight section that leads into the curved closure rail when angled.
All the low frog number prototype turnouts I have ever taken note of have curved diverging point rails. High number turnouts seem to be just the opposite, with long straight point rails.
The 3rd PlanIt software includes templates and dimensional information for almost all brands of track. Trusting that they either measured, or got the information from the manufacturer, I'm going to say that the information is correct. Here's a comparison of #6 turnouts from Atlas Customline, Peco Insulfrog and FT.
Here's data on the Code 83 Atlas Customline #6
Frog Angle: 9.5 degrees
Normal length (straight) 12"
Routing length (diverging) 10"
Entry to intersection 4-1/32"
Substitution Radius 47"
Rail Closure Radius 48-15/32"
Here's data on the Code 83 Peco Insulfrog #6
Frog Angle: 9.558 degrees
Normal length (straight) 9-3/16"
Routing length (diverging) 9-3/16"
Entry to intersection 3-1/4"
Substitution Radius 37-23/32"
Rail Closure Radius 43"
Here's data on the FT #6
Frog Angle: 9.527 degrees
Normal length (straight) 9-5/8"
Routing length (diverging) 9-17/32"
Entry to intersection 3-19/32"
Substitution Radius 33-27/32"
Rail Closure Radius 33-27/32"
The data supports the information that Douglas has provided. The Atlas would have the most gradual entry/easement. I was surprised at how sharp the Rail Closure Radius was for the FT turnout.
Ray
Greg,
No matter what any historical chart says, all evidence and my own observation shows that closure rails are seldom if ever a constant radius - prototype or model.
I understand exactly what you are saying, but since it is not a constant radius, that simply does not apply. The rate of spiral and the minimum radius can all be adjusted to line everything up for a given lead length - within certain obvious limits.
The Atlas turnout with its 7" lead, has a dramaticly flater ellipse/spiral that the 6" PECO. Anyone should be able to see that just looking at my photo in the early post.
ATLANTIC CENTRALThe Peco turnout has a curved diverging point rail (even if it looks straight at first glance), the Atlas diverging point rail is straight.
And perhaps this is what I'm noticing when I see my longer cars and locos traverse the Peco. They move away from tangent quicker.....the closure curve starts sooner, effectively. Whereas the straight points of the Atlas keeps equipment closer to tangent until it hits the closure rail. The shallow angled straight point makes an easement effect into the curved closure rail.
Its also why the hinge on the Peco is farther away from the tangent rail.....because the curved diverging point rail continues to move away from tangent as you move up its length.
The hinge of the Atlas is closer to the tangent rail because the straight rail only moves away from tangent at the constant rate its angle dictates.
Colorado Ray The 3rd PlanIt software includes templates and dimensional information for almost all brands of track. Trusting that they either measured, or got the information from the manufacturer, I'm going to say that the information is correct. Here's a comparison of #6 turnouts from Atlas Customline, Peco Insulfrog and FT. Here's data on the Code 83 Atlas Customline #6 Frog Angle: 9.5 degrees Normal length (straight) 12" Routing length (diverging) 10" Entry to intersection 4-1/32" Substitution Radius 47" Rail Closure Radius 48-15/32" Here's data on the Code 83 Peco Insulfrog #6 Frog Angle: 9.558 degrees Normal length (straight) 9-3/16" Routing length (diverging) 9-3/16" Entry to intersection 3-1/4" Substitution Radius 37-23/32" Rail Closure Radius 43" Here's data on the FT #6 Frog Angle: 9.527 degrees Normal length (straight) 9-5/8" Routing length (diverging) 9-17/32" Entry to intersection 3-19/32" Substitution Radius 33-27/32" Rail Closure Radius 33-27/32" The data supports the information that Douglas has provided. The Atlas would have the most gradual entry/easement. I was surprised at how sharp the Rail Closure Radius was for the FT turnout. Ray
Ray, that is interesting and usefull data, but most of it relates to the complete turnout assembly, to the ends of the plastic ties in the case of Atlas and PECO.
Yes the Fast Tracks turnout is sharp.....
Keep in mind that substitution radius is just an approximation of the total diverging route result.
But again, the Atlas wins by a large margin as the most gentle #6 turnout.
They go well with my 36" radius and larger curves..... An Atlas turnout makes a good easement into curves in the 36" to 44" range - the other two, not so much.
But I knew this nearly 4 decades ago.......
Doughless ATLANTIC CENTRAL The Peco turnout has a curved diverging point rail (even if it looks straight at first glance), the Atlas diverging point rail is straight. And perhaps this is what I'm noticing when I see my longer cars and locos traverse the Peco. They move away from tangent quicker.....the closure curve starts sooner, effectively. Whereas the straight points of the Atlas keeps equipment closer to tangent until it hits the closure rail. The shallow angled straight point makes an easement effect into the curved closure rail. Its also why the hinge on the Peco is farther away from the tangent rail.....because the curved diverging point rail continues to move away from tangent as you move up its length. The hinge of the Atlas is closer to the tangent rail because the straight rail only moves away from tangent at the constant rate its angle dictates.
ATLANTIC CENTRAL The Peco turnout has a curved diverging point rail (even if it looks straight at first glance), the Atlas diverging point rail is straight.
Exactly! You got it! You sir are a better trackwork engineer than you realize.
This is one of many reasons why I have lobbied in favor of Atlas for years.
Or, build your own 7" lead #6's without any fancy jigs...... It's not hard, just time consuming.
ATLANTIC CENTRAL Doughless richhotrain Length of Straight Closure Rail: ~ Atlas Custom Line Code 83 #6 turnout - 4.0" (exactly) ~ Peco Code Insulfrog Code 83 #6 turnout - 3.03125" (3 1/32") Rich Which figures, because the straight point rails on the Peco are longer than the Atlas, but yet the total distance from point tips to frog is shorter on the Peco. A shorter stright closure rail and longer point rails add up to shorter distance from tips to frog for the Peco. And the angle of departure of the point rails are different as well. So the total curve of the closure rail has to be different. I contend that the Atlas must have slight easements at either end of its curved closure rail and/or longer straight leading into the frog....what other variable could there be....but I have no way of measuring that. And my eyeball does not see it, but it sees the gentler departure angle of the point rails. Using some of my drafting tools, I measured both the actual Atlas turnout, and the PECO drawing. Both have easements, both are elliptical as I described above. The PECO is a smaller radius ellipse, as you and I have pointed out, it has to be. Sitting here looking at the Atlas, a straight edge confirms that the curve goes nearly right up to the frog and right to the point hinge. And several French curves I have suggest that the minimum radius point is at the half way point of the total lead length, with the straight point rail just aproximating the easement curve on the frog end. Which figures, because the straight point rails on the Peco are longer than the Atlas, but yet the total distance from point tips to frog is shorter on the Peco. A shorter stright closure rail and longer point rails add up to shorter distance from tips to frog for the Peco. And the angle of departure of the point rails are different as well. So the total curve of the closure rail has to be different. I contend that the Atlas must have slight easements at either end of its curved closure rail and/or longer straight leading into the frog....what other variable could there be....but I have no way of measuring that. And my eyeball does not see it, but it sees the gentler departure angle of the point rails. If you blow up the picture in this link, you can clearly see that new PECO Unifrog clearly has a curved diverging point rail. https://yankeedabbler.com/scale-ho-peco-pco-sl-8362-ho-code-83-6-left-hand-insulfrog-turn?gclid=Cj0KCQjwpImTBhCmARIsAKr58cysLtSBYgzoY-2VhUuhnDvRoZyBlNuMn2W4sI1Yb-SDZ3MswDnDEqgaAplgEALw_wcB And that the sharpest part of the curve is also half way along the lead length, but it is a sharper curve/ellipse. Sheldon
Ok that explains it too. 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 now we're introducing a new element of a curved point rail. Yes, I would say that the new turnouts that have no hinges would tend to have a curved point rail...and springs to hold it in place. Not sure if the point rail of the Insulfrog is curved compared to the Unifrog...but not wanting to go down that rabbitt hole......
The new Walthers turnout...subject of the OP, may have a curved diverging point rail since I think they do not have hinges.
ATLANTIC CENTRALExactly! You got it! You sir are a better trackwork engineer than you realize.
Thanks. Conceptually, I understand all of it pretty well...enough to get me to try stuff and then to get into trouble. Explaining it mathmatically is not my training.
Building a crossover with #6 Atlas turnouts provides a slight easement effect into and out of the crossover. Its something that I would notice.
Peco would not do that (as much) and I don't know of the new Walthers would do that as much, because their distance from tip to frog looks similar to Peco. But that would have to be further investigated.
ATLANTIC CENTRALThe rate of spiral and the minimum radius can all be adjusted to line everything up for a given lead length - within certain obvious limits. The Atlas turnout with its 7" lead, has a dramaticly flater ellipse/spiral that the 6" PECO.
Once again, an elegant description compared to my cumbersome and wordy attempt.
Pruitt ATLANTIC CENTRAL I looked uip and printed out the Fast Tracks #6. 6-1/4" lead length...... I will stick with Atlas and build my specials when I need to - without expensive jigs or PC ties. Sheldon At $15 (or more) savings per turnout, it doesn't take long for the Fast Tracks jigs to pay for themselves. But there is the time. It takes me about an hour more time to build a Fast Tracks turnout than it would take for me to unpackage and check out a commercial turnout. I figure that's less than a 1% increase in layout construction time over using commercial turnouts. And I'm not dependent on anybody but myself for quality control.
ATLANTIC CENTRAL I looked uip and printed out the Fast Tracks #6. 6-1/4" lead length...... I will stick with Atlas and build my specials when I need to - without expensive jigs or PC ties. Sheldon
At $15 (or more) savings per turnout, it doesn't take long for the Fast Tracks jigs to pay for themselves.
Mark, I understand.
I started in this hobby building TruScale switch kits, then learned (was taught by the masters at the Severna Park Model Railroad Club) how to just build them completely from scratch. I built several layouts with all hand layed track and switches.
I still build specials when I need to, but Fast track jigs are of minimal use for that.
I know you and others have all these "quality issues" with Atlas - that has not been my experiance - at least not with the products they have made in the last 20-25 years.
A lot of people will accuse me of living in the past, in this hobby and in other ways. But what I don't do is judge current products based on some experiance from a different product 40 years ago. I have not had any serious quailty issues with Atlas code 83 track, and the few issues that do exist with their product are easily adjusted during installation.
I have MANY friends in this part of the country with basement filling layouts with hundreds of Atlas turnouts that work just fine and have worked for decades.
So it is hard for me to understand some of the problems that people complain about?
And they cost a lot less than PECO and Walthers....
But at this point acquisition cost is not an issue for me, I already have 90% of the 140 turnouts the new layout will require, most purchased a decade or two ago, a fair percentage never installed, still new. The rest salvaged from the last layout because it never reached the "ballast" stage, or they were in staging yards.
But at the end of the day, I simply don't want to spend my time building turnouts, especially since a great number of them will be in hidden staging yards.
The Atlas turnouts that I have bought recently as I stock up for the layout build are just like my older ones and cost on average $20.
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.
Alton Junction
richhotrain 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.
That is a legitimate concern whenever you get any differing opinions about anything you are happy with.
You might love your car, but if you read a few technical reviews on why your model car has shortcomings, you might enjoy it less.
I try not to listen to people pointing out what I am doing wrong, but things still sneek in and irk me.
Less time analyzing, more time running trains, greater happiness.
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
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.
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.
? 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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
Does the website simply have a typo? Or is the actual template not representative of the actual track.
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.
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
See my edit above. Yes, I agree, Peco does not have the size of its turnout correctly represented by the template on its website.