Atlas turnouts-mostly #6 turnouts,looking for a way to modify or repair

[TheK4Kid]

Hi guys,

 I have about 12 Atlas switches on my layout so far, and on some of them, as my engines ( BLI Steamers) the wheel flanges will "bump up" as the second set of drive wheels enters the frog. I have used a dremel and deepened the grooves, and this helps but my engines still rock back and forth crossing the switches. I have read PRO and CON for Atlas switches, and I'm about ready to tear them all out and replace them. Going into my freight yard, I was very meticulous with my track laying, getting everything straight, level ,etc, but my engines and cars derail and my engines sometimes short out.

I'm so tired of the hassle of individually modifying each switch to eliminate problems, I feel like Atlas switches are nothing but low quality junk!
Any suggestions?

TheK4Kid 

[BNENGR]

Hey TheK4Kid,

Make sure that the height of the frogs are the same as the railheads. Often, on the atlas switches, the frog height is a little greater than the height of the rails. Also make sure the top edge of the points are sharp. If they are rounded or uneven, when the wheels hit them, you have a derailment. Check the guard rails for any defects and file any excess plastic/metal.

Paul

[jrbernier]

  Before you 'rip out the switches', a few questions:

• Are these Snap-Switches, SuperSwitch or Customline turnouts?
• Code 100 or Code 83(I assume HO)?
• If Customline or SuperSwitch, what size frogs?
• What BLI steamers have the problem?

  The 'bump' going through the frog can be caused by:

• Frog rails are too high(I have had to take a fine cut mill file to 'level' them with the stock rails).
• The 'check gauge' is not correct(you will need an NMRA gauge to measure this).  The guard rail forces the wheels up.
• The wheel gauge of the engines is too tight or too wide(again, use an NMRA gauge).
• The turnout is too 'small' for a long wheelbase engine(like using Customline #4 turnouts or Snap Switches).

   I just found an Atlas Code 100 #6 turnout at the club where the metal frog casting was too high, and trains were 'bumping' as the passed through it.  I turned off the DCC track power and used the fine cut mill file to 'level' it, in place.  Why the track laying crew did not find this last year when laying the track is beyond me.  I suspect we have a few other 'installed' turnouts with the same problem.  Maybe the turnouts were pulled from the plastic tie molding process too fast and the frogs 'lifted' as the plastic cooled.

  I fear that you may have to replace the turnouts that you "Dremel'ed" - making the flangeway deeper has nothing to do with the problem.  Any RP25 flange should run through a Code 100 or Code 83 frog casting. 

  I have 46 Atlas Code 100 turnouts and 10 Code 83 turnouts on my home layout.  A little 'dressing' with a file of the points has been the only issue.  I did have to replace one of the Code 100 turnouts after a self-inflicted 'meltdown' when I shorted an old twin-coil switch machine(all have been replaced with Tortoise 'stall' motors now).

Jim

 

[Don Gibson]

WHEEL BOUNCE:  Is the frog too high,  or the flangeways too wide and the wheels drop down?

Atlas turnouts are prefabricarted with with compromised tolerances for beginners equipment - at least mine were. Relacing them (with better turnouts I found the eventual answer.

Try a MICRO ENGINEERING or WALTHERS (code 83), or SHINORARA or PECO (code 100), and I think you'll see the difference. Do they cost more? Yep.

They're better made.

 

[riogrande5761]

Jim,

All your suggestions are great but the bump in Atlas code 100 #6 turnouts I experienced was a result of the larger gap at the frog in their turnouts.  My garage layout had only Atlas code 100 and I watched trains go through my code 100 #6 turnouts and could clearly see the wheels drop down into the wide gap caused by the blunt frog.  Look at a Shinohara turnout and the gap is much smaller and there isn't the room for the wheel to drop down into the gap.  Its like a mini pot hole.  In real life you feel it when riding a passenger car as they pass through turnouts.  I observed this bumping effect on all my Atlas code 100 #6 turnouts.  The frog was level and all that.  It is because they are blunt.

Basically Don Gibson is correct.

To the original poster.  Here is the deal.  Atlas turnouts are the cheapest "non toy trainset"  turnouts on the market.  As is most often, you get what you pay for.  If you want higher quality, then I suggest you spend more and buy Walthers, Shinohara, Peco or Tilig or Micro Engineering.  They cost more but they don't bump either, or it is virtually inperceptable.

I've run Atlas code 100 turnouts, they bump yes, but generally and with a little fine tuning they are very reliable.  The bump is caused by the gap (pot hole if you will) because the molded frog is so blunt compared to the better quality turnouts.

Moral of the story, spend less, get cheaper lower quality, spend more, get better smoother etc.  Atlas doesn't make junk BTW, but they do offer turnouts which cost nearly half the better quality turnouts.  If you can't afford the better brands, then Atlas turnouts can be made to operate reliably for sure.  But they look cruder and you'll get more bumping too. 

[TheK4Kid]

riogrande5671,
First I shouldn'thave said Atlas switchews are "junk", I was just tired and frustrated at the time!
I slowly ran my Bli engines -a T1 Duplex, an M1a, and M1b, and a J1 trhough the code 100 #6 switches, and YES, I can "SEE" exactly what you are talking about, the wheels "drop down into" as if they just hit a "pot hole".

What I see as being the problem is the "gap" between the "frog point" and the rail is slightly too long, not giving support to the wheels, and they "drop down" just as you described.
I did however also find the guard rail on one side was higher than the  rail next to it, not much, but just slighlty.
My mistake when I bought the switch was listening to one of the so called "expert train guys" at a LHS who recommended the #6 switches.I also have some other Atlas switches  on the layout, and they too have the "pot hole" but ot as bad as the #6 switches.

So I'll replace a couple of them and observe the results. Thanks for your input, I apprecaite it.

TheK4Kid 

[riogrande5761]

riogrande5671,
First I shouldn'thave said Atlas switchews are "junk", I was just tired and frustrated at the time!
I slowly ran my Bli engines -a T1 Duplex, an M1a, and M1b, and a J1 trhough the code 100 #6 switches, and YES, I can "SEE" exactly what you are talking about, the wheels "drop down into" as if they just hit a "pot hole".

Thank you, thank you, thank you!  heh heh.  Atlas code 100 turnouts basically have a pot hole!  LOL  The frog is blunt and leaves a wider gap that other more expensive turnouts which have a sharper frog that sticks out more and leave more rail to ride on and a smaller gap.

What I see as being the problem is the "gap" between the "frog point" and the rail is slightly too long, not giving support to the wheels, and they "drop down" just as you described.
I did however also find the guard rail on one side was higher than the  rail next to it, not much, but just slighlty.

Yep, and any rail or frog that is slightly high can be filed down but the pot hole will still be there.

My mistake when I bought the switch was listening to one of the so called "expert train guys" at a LHS who recommended the #6 switches.I also have some other Atlas switches  on the layout, and they too have the "pot hole" but ot as bad as the #6 switches.

The #6 turnouts are longer and will have a longer gap too.  That is logical.  I used only #6 or larger because I wanted my longer base engines and cars to run more smoothly through them and they aren't "That" much bigger than #4.  In the olden days when I was a teen, I remember my Athearn SD45 with 6 axles and it didn't like #4 turnouts at all.  So I vowed after that to use #6 as a minimum.

Anyway, the guy at the shop may have perceived you as a beginner and/or not wanting to spend alot on expensive turnouts and recommended Atlas.  Frankly, Atlas are fine for novices and people on a tight budget.  I used them on my first large garage layout and they did the job.  I still use them in staging tracks where visibity is low and I don't care about looks as much, so I use all code 100 in staging on my 2nd layout, all dismantled now.

So I'll replace a couple of them and observe the results. Thanks for your input, I apprecaite it.

TheK4Kid 

Lots of good choices.  Peco are very nice and make a US prototype now.  They used to be European only.

[wctransfer]

Well, If its giving you operating troubles (which it looks like it is) than I can see why you'd be upset, but real frogs and switches in yards arent perfect either. I have a diamond on my layout and its rough, just like the real things. You can clearly see the wheels go down and up when going over the diamond, and I have had no derailments when doing the correct speed limit (which isnt real slow, but prototypical). A little bounce isnt a bad thing, unless its causes trouble and derailments.

Alec

[TheK4Kid]

Well, If its giving you operating troubles (which it looks like it is) than I can see why you'd be upset, but real frogs and switches in yards arent perfect either. I have a diamond on my layout and its rough, just like the real things. You can clearly see the wheels go down and up when going over the diamond, and I have had no derailments when doing the correct speed limit (which isnt real slow, but prototypical). A little bounce isnt a bad thing, unless its causes trouble and derailments.

Alec

Derailments are a problem, almost constantly if diverging onto the yard lead, but going straight through down the mainline, I only occasionally have a derailment.

TheK4Kid 

[riogrande5761]

Well, If its giving you operating troubles (which it looks like it is) than I can see why you'd be upset, but real frogs and switches in yards arent perfect either. I have a diamond on my layout and its rough, just like the real things. You can clearly see the wheels go down and up when going over the diamond, and I have had no derailments when doing the correct speed limit (which isnt real slow, but prototypical). A little bounce isnt a bad thing, unless its causes trouble and derailments.

Alec

Very true, and like you said, real railroad cars bounce going through turnouts too.  Ride a passenger train and you will experience it first hand!  So its not all bad.  Atlas just have bigger speed bumps than others.

[loathar]

I noticed that pot hole on my code 83 customlines too. Don't have any derailment problems, but the bounce and noise are pretty bad. You should see the bounce on their 30 degree crossings! The advise given about filing the frog and guide rails is about all you can do.
Are you sure everything is in gauge? Most of my derailing problems were caused by out of gauge wheels.

[hobo9941]

I was reluctant to spend the money for a little piece of sheet metal, but that track gauge is the best money I ever spent. I am amazed at how many wheels on brand new out of the box cars are out of gauge.

[TheK4Kid]

My wheels and trucks on my engines are in gauge, they just don't like that "pothole" in these #6 switches.I have a smaller IHC 4-4-0 that isn't as sensitive, but it too also hits the pothole.
It will take the divergent route without derailing, but the longer wheel base BLI's won't.
I was adding up the switches I'll need to replace with Peco's or Walthers and I will need 9 of them.
Going straight thru on the mainline the BLI's just "bump" a little but don't derail, but taking the divergent route, even very slow, they derail.
I just don't want to keep putting up with the frustration, so if it costs more.... well it costs more!

Having BLI's derailing or laying over on their side isn't a happy situatuion either, they costs enough in the first place!I don't need to be repairing or repainting them.

 TheK4Kid

[TheK4Kid]

I'm looking at an older Walthers HO catalog ( 2004) and also looked on walthers website.Which Peco would be a replacement for an Atlas code 100 #6  Customline turnout?

Walthers #6 is slightly shorter in length(Atlas #6 Customline is 12 inches) but should work. I can definetly see the difference in the "gap" between the rails and the frog, much less on Peco and Walthers.Makes me wonder why Atlas doesn't correct this problem???

TheK4Kid 

[daveinga]

I got rid of the "pothole" by glueing short strips of .010 thick plastic to the bottom of the frog gap.  Just enough thickness to support the flange across the gap.  No more bump.  No derails.  Adjust the thickness to accommodate the flange depth of your rolling stock - no more, no less.  A lot cheaper than a new turnout.  Not a lot of work either.

[B&Le]

You can always handlay switch like what I am starting to do. It is cheaper, they look better, and perform better if you know what you are doing.

[TheK4Kid]

I got rid of the "pothole" by glueing short strips of .010 thick plastic to the bottom of the frog gap.  Just enough thickness to support the flange across the gap.  No more bump.  No derails.  Adjust the thickness to accommodate the flange depth of your rolling stock - no more, no less.  A lot cheaper than a new turnout.  Not a lot of work either.

Hi daveinga, Could you possibly post a picture of what you did? I am trying to envision how you did this ".010 styrene fix"

I would like to not have to rip my switches out if there is a decent solution.

Thanks,

 TheK4Kid 

[TheK4Kid]

Bump

[TheK4Kid]

daveinga,

If you're still out there, I'd like to see some pictures of how you corrected the problem with styrene strips if you could post some pictures please.
Anyone else have this problem and find a solution besides ripping out the offending  turnouts and
repairing them in place?

Thanks,

TheK4Kid 

[reklein]

K4, I think you just lay a tiny sliver of .010 in the flangeway to raise it so the wheels ride on the flanges as they go thru the turnout. I have Atlas #6s on my layout and was having trouble with locos stalling on some frogs and not others. I checked with a straight edge and sure enough the frog was higher than the surrounding rail. After a little work with the file, most of the problem was cured,even my 0-6-0 swtchers will run thru the frog without stalling.Agood tool for checking turnout probles is a flat car made of clear plexi so that you can watch the trucks go thru the turnouts and see what is happening.Wonder if a guy could video that and slow it down for a little better observation.

BTW the high frog idea came to me from this thread.

[TheK4Kid]

reklein
Thanks for the reply!
I'll give this a try.

TheK4Kid 

[selector]

Fellas, the problem with the turnouts we use is that they are very sharp for railroading.  We use them because we have to, and the manufacturers of both the turnouts and the engines account for this.  Unfortunately, due to poor tolerances so that derailments are minimized, the other big problem associated with the commercial turnouts, as Joe Fugate has pointed out repeatedly, is that the wing rails on either side of the frog do squat to get the wheel/driver tires across the gap...which they most certainly do on the properly gauged Fast Tracks and Central Valley kit turnouts...and on the prototype.

If you haven't already invested the few minutes of watching Tim Warrris' video at handlaidtrack.com, where he explains this very problem with commercial turnouts, do it soon so that you get a good, clear, and strong sense of the congenital defect in virtually every commercial turnout.

What theK4kid is seeing is his wheels being "let down" by the unfriendly wing rails on his turnouts.

[jktrains]

Guys, the proposed solution of inserting a .010 piece of styrene is addressing the sympton and not fixing the problem.  The better solution is to narrow the gap between the frog point and the closure rails and eliminate the so-called 'pothole'.  How?  Fill it in with a bit of metal repair epoxy.  Fill it in completely and then recut the flangeway with either a hacksaw blade or, if you good and have steady hand, a dremel with a cut off disk.  Having a flexible shaft on your dremel will allow you get the cut-off disk perpendicular to the railhead.  Doing this extends the point of the frog and closes the gap into which the wheel is dropping. 

[reklein]

Good answer JKTrains. I had seen the plastic thing done but had not tried it myself,I did see it as a solution in one of the mags in recent years. I was thinking how to narrow that gap and you have given the answer.You'd have to be really careful not to get too high with the plastic thing and if you're running different wheel sets then what. Narrowing the gap will do it regardlees of the pizza cutters you're running.

[BlueHillsCPR]

The better solution is to narrow the gap between the frog point and the closure rails and eliminate the so-called 'pothole'.  How?  Fill it in with a bit of metal repair epoxy.  Fill it in completely and then recut the flangeway with either a hacksaw blade or, if your good and have steady hand, a dremel with a cut off disk.  Having a flexible shaft on your dremel will allow you get the cut-off disk perpendicular to the railhead.  Doing this extends the point of the frog and closes the gap into which the wheel is dropping. 

 

That is exactly what I was thinking.  Build it up with an epoxy and file/grind it to perfection!

[TheK4Kid]

Guys, the proposed solution of inserting a .010 piece of styrene is addressing the sympton and not fixing the problem.  The better solution is to narrow the gap between the frog point and the closure rails and eliminate the so-called 'pothole'.  How?  Fill it in with a bit of metal repair epoxy.  Fill it in completely and then recut the flangeway with either a hacksaw blade or, if you good and have steady hand, a dremel with a cut off disk.  Having a flexible shaft on your dremel will allow you get the cut-off disk perpendicular to the railhead.  Doing this extends the point of the frog and closes the gap into which the wheel is dropping. 

jktrains,

Thanks for your time in answering.I actually debated the .010 strip idea, then got an idea in my head, what if I filled it in with JB WELD? So I am trying this on one turnout.I thought I can recut the flangeways very carefully by hand, and I have a set of very small hobby files, so I am waiting for the epoxy to setup.
If I ruin the turnout, it is only one turnout and I have some spares.
I'll see if this works and post my results on here later.

 SELECTOR--the reference to the website is appreciated, I'll go check it out.Thanks again!
PS-I do have a flexible shaft for my Dremel.

TheK4Kid 

 

 

[fwright]

A standard hacksaw blade held in your hands produces near-perfect HO flangeways every time.  I learned this building turnouts Jack Work style.  Don't worry about filing accurate angles at the frog.  Just get it approximately right and fill the whole thing with solder.  Then carefully saw out the flangeways with the hacksaw blade.  Saw the flangeways deep enough so no flanges bump up passing through.  In my case, the solder served the same purpose as your JB Weld.

Fred W 

[Anonymous]

Kid: There's a lot of good advice in the posts here.   Here's another factoid that you may take some comfort in:

  Linn Wescott wrote an article for MR years ago (I think '63 or '64) entitled "Can Derailments be Banished?"  One of the things he said surprised him was that the Atlas #6  gave more trouble than the #4.  One would expect just the opposite given the bigger radius, etc. of the #6.  I know the tooling of the Atlas switches has changed since this article was written, but in the odd 40 plus years I've been fooling with the custom line switches, it has been my experience that the #6s are far more prone to causing problems than the #4s. 

  So it's not just your imagination.  Most be some kind of tolerence problem meets geometery.

  I'm not knocking Atlas products, or those who use them.  I've got plenty myself, and most of them give good service.  But I know how frustrating it can be when you run into a problem like this.  If the various fixes suggested here don't work for you, I'd rip up the track and replace with something that operates to your satisfaction.

JBB

[TheK4Kid]

Kid: There's a lot of good advice in the posts here.   Here's another factoid that you may take some comfort in:

  Linn Wescott wrote an article for MR years ago (I think '63 or '64) entitled "Can Derailments be Banished?"  One of the things he said surprised him was that the Atlas #6  gave more trouble than the #4.  One would expect just the opposite given the bigger radius, etc. of the #6.  I know the tooling of the Atlas switches has changed since this article was written, but in the odd 40 plus years I've been fooling with the custom line switches, it has been my experience that the #6s are far more prone to causing problems than the #4s. 

  So it's not just your imagination.  Most be some kind of tolerence problem meets geometery.

  I'm not knocking Atlas products, or those who use them.  I've got plenty myself, and most of them give good service.  But I know how frustrating it can be when you run into a problem like this.  If the various fixes suggested here don't work for you, I'd rip up the track and replace with something that operates to your satisfaction.

JBB

 

Thanks JBB

I apprecaite your reply as well as all of those who have chimed in here and offered different ideas.It is like the old saying, two heads are better than one, and three are better and so on.What I had done was put my two parallel mains in first, and got all my wiring, bus lines, feeders, etc done first, and had the turnouts in place, but no track running off of them, I left my sidings and yard to be done next.Everything was running fine around the mains after a few minor track adjustments.Then I started on my yard, and adding my yard lead, looking at possible placements of my Walthers 130 foot turntable.Started getting yard track layed, and had the lead in and run around track done first, then decided to try a few trains running through the turnouts.
This is when I found the problem. There is and was a slight "bump" as the trains ran down the mainlines through the #6 turnouts, but the problem became much more pronounced when  taking the diverging tracks.
This is when I realized I had a frustrating problem. I have nine #6 turnouts in place at this time.
So now I was hoping to find a reasonable solution, with ripping them out and replacing them as the last acceptable solution.
But if this is what it takes, then this is what I will do.Of course it will slow down other progress on the layout, but then, life doesn't always proceed as planned or hoped for.

But I have learned a great deal from many on the forums here.

Thanks to all!

TheK4Kid 

 

[daveinga]

I am here, but I do not have a photo.  Might be able to make one in a day or so.  Hang tight.