Here's what I've got so far... I can't guarantee this information is correct, but I think most of it is true. Please correct me if any of this is wrong, and please add missing items.
Atlas Code 83:
Pros:
-Cheap
-Readily available nearly anywhere
Cons:
-Black Frogs & Guard Rails
-Not NMRA compliant (i.e. noisy/rough frogs
MicroEngineering
-All metal (silver-ish) frogs & guard rails
-Relatively inexpensive
-No #8's
-Not NMRA compliant (i.e. noisy/rough frogs)
Shinohara/Walthers
-All nickel silver frog points and guard rails
-Always on back order
Handlaid (The old-fashioned way)
Pro's:
-Possibly NMRA compliant if you take your time (lots of it)
-Take a long time to make (to make well)
-Can't easily rip them up and move them unless they're built at the bench
-No spike detail if soldered, spikes too large if spiked
FastTracks Handlaid
-NMRA Compliant (seems to be the only way to get that aside from the old-fashioned way!)
-All nickel silver frogs and guard rails
-Inexpensive (after making enough of them)
-Have to buy a new jig to make a different size or use different sized rail
Central Valley Kits
-Can be curved
-Inexpensive
-Take a little more time than standard prefab turnouts
-Blackened guardrails and wing rails (are they plastic or metal?)
Peco:
(Don't know much about them, except the American prototype style are super expensive)
I've got Atlas and Peco, both code 100. My big complaint with Atlas is the switch machines. The above-ground ones are large, ugly and non-prototypical, while the under-table ones have too small a throw-rod to attach below my 2-inch foam. Since I've got a relatively small layout, I use mostly snap-switches. I can buy a snap-switch pre-packaged with a powered switch machine, but if I want a below-table unit, I need to buy that separately.
I like the solid throw on the Peco's, which have springs to hold the points against the stock rails. You don't even need a switch machine with a Peco, if you're willing to throw them by hand, because the points will stay against the rails once thrown. The Peco switch machine mounts solidly to the underside of the turnout, and can be ballasted out of sight with a little care.
I used Atlas snap-switches on my teenage layout back in the 1950's and 60's. I put everything away in boxes and took it out again a couple of years ago. I've bought all new track, but I've been able to recycle those old Atlas switch machines. Yes, 50 years old and still able to flip the points over. And Atlas hasn't changed the basic design - the screw mounts still line up perfectly. There's something to be said for consistency. They may not be pretty, but if you treat them well they'll last a long, long time.
It takes an iron man to play with a toy iron horse.
I use 3 different turnouts on my layout.
1) Shinohara
2) Atlas BROWN turnout DCC friendly code 83 (These are not the ugly black ones but are very nice and go well with Atlas code 83 brown track).
3) ME (Microengineering) code 83 with "snap" switch. (My most recent purchase, I bought these because I did not have room for an above table caboose industries ground throw. These are very very nice in that like Peco, you just flip the frog throw with you fingers and it stays put). They cost me $18 each plus a 15% discount at my LHS.
I actually like them all.
The current issue of NMRA's 'Scale Rails' have a good article about problems with using the 'standards'. It seems that most of the manufacturers have read them wrong, and the NMRA is looking at re-wiring the specs to make them more understandable. Usually this results in a too wide or too narrow check gauge. And Fast Tracks has built a special measuring device for the NMRA that makes it easier to check conformance. It appears that there is some real progress being made in this area.
That said, I use Atlas turnouts and really have had no problems with them. Most issues are the points - I file a chamfer so they are not so blunt. A couple had a high frog casting, and a mill file corrected that problem. BTW, that 'black' finish on the frog of the code 83 turnouts can be removed with the same mill file! I have also use Shinohara code 70 turnouts on a previous layout. The big problem with them is the electrical contact at the 'rivet' where the points swing from.
Jim
Modeling BNSF and Milwaukee Road in SW Wisconsin
I appreciate the work you put into this, but the subjective nature of your evaluation makes it rather difficult to fully appreciate your work. For example:
The biggest problem, that I, as a Newbie (2 years active modeling) have had with turnouts is not listed in your work, that is the incompatibility between some turnouts and track which can be a huge reliability issue. I've expanded on this topic in another thread on turnouts and posted pictures to support the issue I raise.
http://www.trains.com/trccs/forums/1210533/ShowPost.aspx
Interestingly, speaking newbie to newbie, I've chosen just the opposite direction you have chosen. By my calculations, I've wasted about $600 and 6 - 8 months time in the process. Looking back at it, I think there are two solid approaches a person can take on their layout that will serve them well.
Option 1 pick a brand & 1 code, Atlas, Peco, Walthers and use that one manufactures product & code throughout.
Option 2, pick a brand of track you like and hand build your own turnouts designed for that type of track. My fastTracks jigs arrived this week and I'll be using Atlas rail.
Either of these directions would have been much CHEAPER, more reliable and faster than the mix and match approach the internet and LHS experts advised me to follow.
Just my 2 cents, worth nothing more and please don't flame me.
Joe Daddy
Tossing in my .02
I’ve got a test track set up, 10x10 around the room with two mains running side by side. Nothing fancy as I will be moving. After much reading and such, I decided to test out the Atlas HO Code 83 custom-line turnouts (insulated frog & NO RIVETS). I have installed two #4’s (side track), two #6’s and two #8’s for a crossover for the two main lines. The track is tacked down every few feet with Atlas nails direct to the ply-wood. Like I said, it’s just a temporary set-up for testing things out and learning.
The #4 turnouts work, but not for the Walthers Heavy Weight Passenger cars (they don’t much like the #6 but will work if you give them some room to straighten out, no back to back turnouts!) The larger engines could take the #4’s slow, but they really looked funny. (I’ve got Big Boys, Verandas, Challengers, etc). So if and when I use them it will be for staging and such.
The #6 turnouts have the “black frog” and are die-cast metal. From the previous post, I just learned one can file off the back, that’s nice to know.
The frogs on the #8 turnouts are the same color as the rails dispite what it says on the Atlas web site! The one thing about the #8’s that I’ve found is with an insulated frog, some of my engines can stall or “jump” a bit, especially when creeping along. The frog is some 2.5 inches long so power pick up could cause a minor problem for some motive power. At least this has been the case for me. At speed, they all roll across them just fine.
I currently have the manual Caboose Industries switches connected and will be setting up a tortoise here soon. On one of the #8’s, I had to slightly bend the points to better snug up to the stock rails. It may have just been one of them things. That’s all I’ve had to do thus far. I’ve not used any other brand of turnout. And from my limited experience, not sure I’m going to. The MSRP is $14.95 for the #8's (@ $10 online) and $13.95 for the #4's & #6's. The only thing that bugs me is the power pick up on the #8’s. Atlas does give you a way to power route them by using their snap relay. But I’m not sure how that will look. Not sure what to do, but I think this situation would be the same for any brand of turnout.... I'm also not sure what the deal is with their "Super Track" turnouts. The are both listed on the same page but where not available at my LHS....
Oh, I am also using their snap and flex track.
Hope that helped a bit.
I'll put in a plug for Peco. They dont need electric switch machines, they are quality, and they don't have the Atlas ugly, non-prototypical switches. Just need to pick the weight (guage?) of the rail, and whether you want to go Insulfrog (easier and adequate), or Electrofrog (harder and better in the end due to the powered metal frog.
NONE of the other switch machines have the spring which makes Peco hand throwable right out of the box, no mods needed.
The stock turnouts work fine with DCC. You can modify them if you want, but you don't have to.
If you do go with electric switches, the Peco ones are pretty good. They mount directly below the turnout in a hole dug in your foam or drilled into your plywood.
Unless some of the newer switch machines have powered INSULATED metal frogs (and I don't think anyone does that except maybe Kato and Bachmann, maybe) or you have some special requirements, Peco covers the territory.
I wish Peco would come out with powered metal frog that are also insulated (and non-power routing, that is, all routes active). This would make installing the Electrofrogs SO much easier. No need to cut gaps. But they haven't, yet......
Peco now has No. 8s L & R. I am going to order some and let you guys have my review for what it's worth.
Kato's Number 6 takes everything you can run on it. It is selectable between power routing and all live by choosing which two prongs to put the power wire. It is frightfully expensive but Rapido passenger cars and the Kato Business car glides through them without any trouble.
I throw them with a Digitrax DS 64 which come from the factory set up for bi-polar switch machines. The DS64 also has a common rail for three wire switch machines but I dont use them.
My selection of Kato is simplicity, self contained in one unit, strong roadbed and huge capacity for large engines like the Duplex. Tiny engines can stop on the frog and re-start off without stalling.
When it comes time to move them around until a pernament home can be found, that is not a problem.
They are pricey. I usually work around that by buying a few units every so often until the entire switch tree is complete.
Another downside is the instructions are very heavy in Japanese. But it is helped by idiot-proof imagery that illustrates pretty well what can be done.
I think MR recently did the Blackriver Junction layout with Kato.
> ME (Microengineering) code 83 with "snap" switch.
I am very interested in these. Do they have plastic or metal frogs and if they are metal frogs are they gapped by ME or do you have to cut the gaps.
Does ME have a website with specs?
Just a correction for "handlaid the old fashioned way". Scale size and near scale size spikes, highly detailed cast frogs, tie plates, and anything else you could want to make a highly detailed model of 20th Century turnouts is available from http://www.proto87.com/. Components are available for both NMRA-spec and Proto87-spec turnouts. Frogs, points, and other parts are available to replace the stock Central Valley kits, too. No financial connection or incentive on my part.
Time differences between the options are not nearly as great as is implied in the comparisons. From bare roadbed to completely finished turnout with ballast, wiring, and under the table throw installed (powered or manual is about the same) takes ham-fisted me 4 hours (2 evenings of 2 hours each) for the old-fashioned handlaid. Extra detailing (using cast frogs, adding accurate turnout bars, tie plates, etc) could add another hour or so. In my experience, it takes at least an hour for much lesser results, but same degree of completion, for a commercial turnout.
How many times are you going to go back to a commercial turnout to fix a problem that you eliminated from the get-go on a handlaid turnout? How many turnouts are on your layout? My point is that for 20 turnouts or less, the handlaid differential is almost nothing when ongoing maintenance is taken into account. A large layout is a whole 'nother world, where construction time vs maintenance time must be carefully considered in almost every aspect of the layout. Ask Joe Fugate.
Actually, mid-size layouts probably get the biggest payoff from good commercial turnouts. By "good" commercial turnout, I mean one that is consistently close enough to NMRA spec to provide reliable tracking, and no stalling or shorts with a wide variety or equipment. A "good" turnout will continue to provide this performance over time, which minimizes maintenance time. A "good" commercial turnout will minmize both layout construction and maintenance time.
If you have a source of good commercial turnouts (as defined above) then the remaining trade-offs vs handlaid are looks, price, and time.
IMHO, until a turnout (of whatever variety) meets my criteria of "good", it's not elegible for any other comparisons. Turnouts that work reliably over time are critical to happiness with a layout.
just my thoughts, your choices
Fred W
Loco wrote:Safety Valve, are the Kato turnouts your talking about come with the road bed attached and snap together? Can't remember the name... quick track some such....
They are called Unitrack.
The one thing I can do is to use the Kato re-railer (Small ramp) with a notch in it to remove the joiners and use it with regular code 83 flextrack and cork roadbed with some adjustments to the road bed's height such as may happen at bridges etc.
Yes, Unitrack... I actually have a few of them when I first set up my temporary track. Then I took it down and started play'en around with the flex to get a hang of things.
Hummm interesting that you married them to flex track.....
Loco wrote: Yes, Unitrack... I actually have a few of them when I first set up my temporary track. Then I took it down and started play'en around with the flex to get a hang of things. Hummm interesting that you married them to flex track.....
Not yet. They can be rather easily. I have not yet gotten that far. At the moment im working a wye problem which will be solved once the third leg is worked out on the workbench. Everything else is gravy.
As a Brit I have used Peco since the year dot mainly due to availability,durability and cost, I have used their HO & N track on layouts in the past. One layout I built with them followed me around the world for almost 10 years whilst I was in the RAF and were still giving superb service until I ditched the layout, I passed the turnouts to a friend who is still using them to this day which makes them about 15 years old.
I don't know if this item is available in North America but Peco here in the UK sell an extender bar and an underside mounting kit. The mounting kit allows the turnout motor to be mounted in a similar way to a Tortoise and operate via a small diameter hole in the benchwork, removing the need to mount the turnout motor directly to the turnout with the 4 lugs. The extender bar is used to allow the turnout motor to be used on thicker benchwork and if I remember it's about 2" long but comes with a connector to join the bar to the turnout motor, this can be shortened by cutting or lengthened by using a longer piece of bar.
Shaun
With all this turnout talk, I felt motivated to create a short shoot.
http://s181.photobucket.com/albums/x173/fallsvalleyrr/?action=view¤t=KatoUnitrack6Switch.flv
This is with the Duplex. The Radius on both sides of the turnout is 34 1/8" in a 10 degree curve. The second curveback is also 10 degrees. There is a small amount of overhang on the inside drive axles and some offset in the couplers.
http://s181.photobucket.com/albums/x173/fallsvalleyrr/?action=view¤t=J1Kato6Switch.flv
This one is the long wheelbase PRR J1, Ive not have had to make any increase in power to get it through the switch as it used to need it on the much smaller ones. If it is possible, I think this tender is even bigger than the Duplex and rocked a little through.
I apologize in advance for the high levels of background noise, I dont live in a quiet house.
MisterBeasley wrote: I've got Atlas and Peco, both code 100. My big complaint with Atlas is the switch machines. The above-ground ones are large, ugly and non-prototypical, while the under-table ones have too small a throw-rod to attach below my 2-inch foam. <snip>.I like the solid throw on the Peco's, which have springs to hold the points against the stock rails. You don't even need a switch machine with a Peco, if you're willing to throw them by hand, because the points will stay against the rails once thrown. The Peco switch machine mounts solidly to the underside of the turnout, and can be ballasted out of sight with a little care.
I've got Atlas and Peco, both code 100. My big complaint with Atlas is the switch machines. The above-ground ones are large, ugly and non-prototypical, while the under-table ones have too small a throw-rod to attach below my 2-inch foam. <snip>.
I agree with Mr. Beasley.
I used to use Atlas turnouts years ago, but the switch machines are plastic and continually require adjusting. I got tired of derailments due to points not being snug against the rails
In yards (or other areas where turnouts are frequently thrown) I use Peco turnouts with Peco switch machines. I love the spring loaded snap and the fact that the springs keep the points tight against the rails. The snap isn't prototypical, but they make up for it with reliabilty.
I also use Walthers/Shinohara in other areas with Tortoise switch machines.
My biggest criticism of Peco is the lack of variety, whereas Shinohara has lots of neat things like double crossovers.
Craig
DMW
Dallas Model Works wrote: MisterBeasley wrote: I've got Atlas and Peco, both code 100. My big complaint with Atlas is the switch machines. The above-ground ones are large, ugly and non-prototypical, while the under-table ones have too small a throw-rod to attach below my 2-inch foam. <snip>.I like the solid throw on the Peco's, which have springs to hold the points against the stock rails. You don't even need a switch machine with a Peco, if you're willing to throw them by hand, because the points will stay against the rails once thrown. The Peco switch machine mounts solidly to the underside of the turnout, and can be ballasted out of sight with a little care.I agree with Mr. Beasley.I used to use Atlas turnouts years ago, but the switch machines are plastic and continually require adjusting. I got tired of derailments due to points not being snug against the railsIn yards (or other areas where turnouts are frequently thrown) I use Peco turnouts with Peco switch machines. I love the spring loaded snap and the fact that the springs keep the points tight against the rails. The snap isn't prototypical, but they make up for it with reliabilty.I also use Walthers/Shinohara in other areas with Tortoise switch machines.My biggest criticism of Peco is the lack of variety, whereas Shinohara has lots of neat things like double crossovers.
I am surprised that Atlas even offers their switch machines. IMHO,they are way below the rest of the quality of the product line. I use Tortoise with my Atlas and like them very much. The Tortoise is almost the same price as a Peco solenoid and turnout position switch.
I got over my attraction to the Peco spring because of my dislike for their solenoid turnout motor. A few days with the Atlas/Tortoise and I've never considered anything else.
Joe
electrolove wrote:I vote for Peco code 83. They can look really nice when ballasted.The latest turnout from them is a #7 curved. I think they will continue to release more turnouts.
Great! I have a bunch of them I want to unload, #5's with motors and switches. $25 bucks a piece.
We need to keep in mind that Atlas makes TWO separate "brands" of turnouts. The CUSTOM-LINE and the SNAP SWITCH. They are VERY different from each other and we need to make sure not lump them into the same pot.
My issue with ANY brand of turnout is the potential for a stall on the frog if it's insulated on #8’s. A frog is a frog is a frog. And I’m thinking that ANY brand of #8 turnout is going to have this problem - hand build or not. Am I wrong here?? I see the only true solution would be adjusting the pickup’s on the loco. OR, I go with the power routing option with the #8’s on the main line. And that’s the only place where I would use them is the main line. Yards and branch line would use the #6 or #4.
I think we all agree that reliability, durability, are all key factors here and must weigh heavy when considering overall cost. With my limited use of any switch, for me, for right now, I think I’m going to go with the Custom-Line.
For one thing, $10 vs. $25 (Peco) with a difference of $15! That’s HUGE. Being new, I am going to make mistakes, at some point I know I’m going to rip one apart. This is a given. Ten buck mistake, hey it’s do-able. $25 buck mistake and things are not so fun anymore. Maybe I’ll find out that the cost of Peco (or other top brands) are worth it in certain areas of my layout. But as yet, I’ve not heard reason against the Custom-Line with the exception of the spring loaded benefit of the Peco, which, is only a benefit when using in a manual setup.
But then I’m still new and learning things everyday! May be I’ll spring for a few Peco turnouts and see if there is truly a $15 diffence..... Oh wait, I can't buy #8!
Loco wrote:snipFor one thing, $10 vs. $25 (Peco) with a difference of $15! That’s HUGE. Being new, I am going to make mistakes, at some point I know I’m going to rip one apart. This is a given. Ten buck mistake, hey it’s do-able. $25 buck mistake and things are not so fun anymore. Maybe I’ll find out that the cost of Peco (or other top brands) are worth it in certain areas of my layout. But as yet, I’ve not heard reason against the Custom-Line with the exception of the spring loaded benefit of the Peco, which, is only a benefit when using in a manual setup. But then I’m still new and learning things everyday! May be I’ll spring for a few Peco turnouts and see if there is truly a $15 diffence..... Oh wait, I can't buy #8!
snip
IF you are committed to Atlas Code 83 flex track, the Peco code 83 is not only twice as expensive but it is incompatible and requires significant work to overcome the compatibility issues. The Atlas custom line and Mark 4 are good turnouts. Their turnout machine is awful, but the turnouts work reasonably and reliably.
You can still use Peco with Tortoise turnout motors as I have done, here in the UK alot of people use Seep motors or Fulgurex. As for the price difference all I can say is you get what you pay for.
joe-daddy wrote: Loco wrote: snipFor one thing, $10 vs. $25 (Peco) with a difference of $15! That’s HUGE. Being new, I am going to make mistakes, at some point I know I’m going to rip one apart. This is a given. Ten buck mistake, hey it’s do-able. $25 buck mistake and things are not so fun anymore. Maybe I’ll find out that the cost of Peco (or other top brands) are worth it in certain areas of my layout. But as yet, I’ve not heard reason against the Custom-Line with the exception of the spring loaded benefit of the Peco, which, is only a benefit when using in a manual setup. But then I’m still new and learning things everyday! May be I’ll spring for a few Peco turnouts and see if there is truly a $15 diffence..... Oh wait, I can't buy #8!IF you are committed to Atlas Code 83 flex track, the Peco code 83 is not only twice as expensive but it is incompatible and requires significant work to overcome the compatibility issues. The Atlas custom line and Mark 4 are good turnouts. Their turnout machine is awful, but the turnouts work reasonably and reliably.Joe
Loco wrote: snipFor one thing, $10 vs. $25 (Peco) with a difference of $15! That’s HUGE. Being new, I am going to make mistakes, at some point I know I’m going to rip one apart. This is a given. Ten buck mistake, hey it’s do-able. $25 buck mistake and things are not so fun anymore. Maybe I’ll find out that the cost of Peco (or other top brands) are worth it in certain areas of my layout. But as yet, I’ve not heard reason against the Custom-Line with the exception of the spring loaded benefit of the Peco, which, is only a benefit when using in a manual setup. But then I’m still new and learning things everyday! May be I’ll spring for a few Peco turnouts and see if there is truly a $15 diffence..... Oh wait, I can't buy #8!
What is this compatibility issue?
Atlas Code 83 flex and Peco Cocde 83 turnouts are exactly what I use and I've never had any problems at all.
What are you referring to?
Dallas Model Works wrote:What is this compatibility issue?Atlas Code 83 flex and Peco Cocde 83 turnouts are exactly what I use and I've never had any problems at all.What are you referring to?
Here is the problem I've had with the combination.
http://www.trains.com/trccs/forums/AddPost.aspx?PostID=1211973
Loco wrote: My issue with ANY brand of turnout is the potential for a stall on the frog if it's insulated on #8’s. A frog is a frog is a frog. And I’m thinking that ANY brand of #8 turnout is going to have this problem - hand build or not. Am I wrong here??
My issue with ANY brand of turnout is the potential for a stall on the frog if it's insulated on #8’s. A frog is a frog is a frog. And I’m thinking that ANY brand of #8 turnout is going to have this problem - hand build or not. Am I wrong here??
I would respectfully say you are wrong, Loco. I have several Fast Tracks handlaid #8's, with frogs gapped per Tim Warris' specs, and none of my locos, including a P2K SW8, have any troubles traversing those frogs. All turnouts are fed from both ends, but the frogs are deader'n road salt.