Turnouts - Shinohara vs. ?

[gregc]

isn't that the same drawing i posted at 8:02.

i'm looking for the lead length which it identifies as "lead" being from the point-of-switch to point-of-frog

[richhotrain]

greg, your drawing was no help because it didn't identify the actual "lead length".

So, I researched the issue and found this link.

http://www.pcrnmra.org/pcr/clinics/Kolm-TurnoutsWhatYouNeedtoKnow-PCR2008-handout.pdf

Here is a drawing from that link with a visual description of the "lead-length". Is this what you are looking for?

Rich

[riogrande5761]

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

Fast tracks sounds great, but it requires TIME.  Nice for those who have hobby time.  A layout take a lot of time as it is, but for those of us who don't have much hobby time, we have to use good quality modular track.  So while some of these solutions sound really wonderful, they aren't possible if you don't have the time to do it.  But that doesn't mean someone can't build a well designed and well operating model RR.

[gregc]

one measurement, lead-length.   the closure rails include the points.

[richhotrain]

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

greg, you keep upping the ante. How many more measurements can one make? You did say that the length of the straight closure rail was what you were looking for! 

Rich

[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

[SeeYou190]

rrebell

Shinohara made code 83 for Walthers.

Shinohara also marketed the Code 83 line under their own name in the familiar brown boxes outside North America.

crossthedog

My Code 83 Shinos must be counterfeits, then.

Nope. They sure look genuine to me.

The code 83 line marketed by Walthers was made by Shinohara and said "Shinohara", not "Walthers" on the back side of the tie strips. 

-Kevin

[rrebell]

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.

 

Shinohara made code 83 for Walthers and then made their DCC freindly ones for Walthers also.

[richhotrain]

gregc

are you sure it's only 4" and not closer to 6"

it's the total distance from the tip of the point to the tip of the frog

 

The straight closure rail on the Atlas turnout is exactly 4.0" in length.

Rich 

[hardcoalcase]

crossthedog

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. 

-Matt   

I fix the thin tie thickness in Shinohara and Walthers turnouts with a styrene (.020” x .100”) strip added under every 4th tie to bring the rail tops level with the Atlas Code 83 flextrack; per a tip in a MRR article.

Jim

[gregc]

are you sure it's only 4" and not closer to 6"

it's the total distance from the tip of the point to the tip of the frog

[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

[richhotrain]

gregc

 

richhotrain

Wouldn't that distance simply be the length of the closure rail? 

the straight closure rail 

Ok, I will measure them.

Rich

[gregc]

richhotrain

Wouldn't that distance simply be the length of the closure rail?

the straight closure rail

[richhotrain]

gregc

 

the distance between the points and frog is simply a measurement, not some geometric feature. 

Wouldn't that distance simply be the length of the closure rail?

Rich

[peahrens]

crossthedog

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.

I used the Walthers-Shinohara code 83 turnouts on my 2012 layout and was made aware of the tie height difference here.  Some folks just let the rail joiners and ballast handle the way the turnout would tend to float.  I added a shim as others suggested, either a piece of 0.015" styrene sheet or a clear coated (to avoid swelling during ballasting) cutout of the W-S turnout box, which happened to be the right thickness.

I believe the background was that the Atlas code 83 flex track (which I also used) had thicker ties to mate veritically with code 100 track.  Thus the 0.017" thicker ties on the Atlas code 83 flex than the W-S code 83 turnouts, designed to mate with Walther code 83 track with the thinner ties.  Apologies if I have this story wrong or misunderstood. 

[gregc]

Doughless

They are very close.

ok, thanks

Doughless

If we build curves by creating and easement from tangent to curve, wouldn't we want to do the same when building a turnout?

my diagrams illustrate various geometries using a constant and therefore maximum radius for the given lead-length.    any easement (broadening) somewhere on the closure rail requires a tighter radius elsewhere in order to match the frog angle.

the Catskill Archive - Frogs and Switches page describes prototypical turnout dimensions, including constant turnout radius (table 35)

the reason for prototypical easements are necessary to give trucks time to pivot on curves

Doughless

IOW, a "lead length" at the opposite end of the curve

the distance between the points and frog is simply a measurement, not some geometric feature.

869

[Doughless]

gregc

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

gregc

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

Because your blue line is constant and tends to depart from tangent at the same angle, what you say would be true.

But since our models have straight points, a sharper departure angle causes the front end of a car (especially a long cars or loco) to noticeably lurch sideways faster...before the truck is even on the closure rail.

I see the difference in performance.  Others may not.  Its why I prefer the geometry of the Atlas #6.

[Doughless]

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

 

I don't know which is longer.  They are very close.  It may also not be straight.  It could be a gradual easement from minimum closure rail radius leading into a straight lead length.  Nothing says that your blue line has to be constant radius throughout. 

Your diagrams show curves intersecting with the tangent route.  Our models have straight points that diverge from tangent at a measureable angle. IOW, a "lead length" at the opposite end of the curve...and possible easement of the closure rail into that.

If we build curves by creating and easement from tangent to curve, wouldn't we want to do the same when building a turnout?  A longer easement into a radius requires more linear inches of track, and Atlas is fractionally longer from points to frog.  The combo of lead lengths, any easements, and angle of divergence explains it, but I could not tell you the exact measurements.  Good luck with that.

 

[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 

[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

[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

[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

[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]

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

[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

 

 

 

[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.

 

[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.

[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.

[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.