TrainzLuvr@peahrens My concern was actually mating Code 83 between different manufacturers (W/S turnouts to ME or Atlas flex). Perhaps that issue of matching the track and having to file and shim has been over-exaggerated in my mind and I made a big deal out of it. As you did, I want to go with Atlas flex and W/S turnouts, as I like the springy nature of Atlas flex and variety of turnout geometry that W/S offers.
I also was interested in how the slight difference in (ties) appearance of my W/S turnouts, Atlas flex track and Atlas crossings would be of importance. Some time after installing, long enough to understand that the track was performing ok, I got around to painting the track. That really blends things together nicely in terms of appearance. ( I intended to airbrush, but took the easy way and just used Rustoleum rattle can Camo #1918 Earth Brown, and liked the result).
BTW, if doing again, I definitely would not use the Atlas 90-degree code 83 crossings. The 2012 versions were a problem with handling in spec wheels, needing some filing of the plastic guard rails to create adequate clearance. So I would use W/S crossings, unless someone could advise that the Atlas 90-degree crossing quality problem had been fixed and/or was not an issue with other angle code 83 crossings.
Paul
Modeling HO with a transition era UP bent
DRfanTrainzLuvr, To be honest, I have never had a single derailment on the switch. I have run Roco, Piko, and Fleischmann european models without an issue. I have also run Proto, Mainline, Atlas, Athearn RTR, and Kadee models without any issue either. The switch also has an electric frog which prevents any dip in power when locomotives pass over it. The reason RocoLine was replaced with GEO was due to copyright issues with the former owner of ROCO, whose bad decisions almost made the company go bankrupt. The situation was so bad that part of the agreement with the new owners was that the prior owner was not to even allowed to step foot on the property after the sale.
To be honest, I have never had a single derailment on the switch. I have run Roco, Piko, and Fleischmann european models without an issue. I have also run Proto, Mainline, Atlas, Athearn RTR, and Kadee models without any issue either. The switch also has an electric frog which prevents any dip in power when locomotives pass over it. The reason RocoLine was replaced with GEO was due to copyright issues with the former owner of ROCO, whose bad decisions almost made the company go bankrupt. The situation was so bad that part of the agreement with the new owners was that the prior owner was not to even allowed to step foot on the property after the sale.
Which one are you referring to (Peco, Roco, W/S, Atlas, ME, Tillig...) :)
YouTube Channel
Website
peahrensBTW, if doing again, I definitely would not use the Atlas 90-degree code 83 crossings. The 2012 versions were a problem with handling in spec wheels, needing some filing of the plastic guard rails to create adequate clearance. So I would use W/S crossings, unless someone could advise that the Atlas 90-degree crossing quality problem had been fixed and/or was not an issue with other angle code 83 crossings.
What was the reason originally to use Atlas 90-deg crossing, if you went with W/S turnouts for the rest, and why not change it now to W/S if you know they are better?
I wanted the particular features of the W/S turnouts but when it came to the crossings I figured the Atlas should be fine as I was using their flex and considered the crossing less technically sophisticated so just chose the same as the flex.
At this point I have the Atlas corrected and have a triple 90-degree crossing setup that were shortened for needed track spacings and it would be a considerable task to rip it out and start over. Just hindsight.
I used Peco 75 to build a layout with about 35 Electrofrog turnouts and two crossings. Well made and trouble-free with all my rolling stock and locos. Requires a more delicate touch than some, or rails can pull away from ties.
Hal
cuyama wraithe Code 75 and 83 peco, work fine, the 75 is good for branch lines if you use 83 as the main.. There will still be some shimming and/or filing if one mixes codes, which the Original Poster noted that he was seeking to avoid.
wraithe Code 75 and 83 peco, work fine, the 75 is good for branch lines if you use 83 as the main..
There will still be some shimming and/or filing if one mixes codes, which the Original Poster noted that he was seeking to avoid.
Where I change code I usually am at a point where I insulate, as such I have no problems with doing that and getting them right.. .008 (8 thou) difference is not that big of an issue... My smallest and largest loco's pass over well and smoothly...
One thing I have done is to change code at points mostly and the frog rails and points themselves are worse than just putting 75 and 83 together with an insulator...If I have an issue with points(switches, sorry I'm an Aussie), then I correct that but the code change is not even noticable to the loco, and if it does rock the boat, then a small file but mostly the points themselves are the issue not the code change...
Hi,
I do not recommend using ROCO Line. This is excellent system but frogs are not fully compatible with RP25 wheels, even with newer NEM standard you have problems. That does not mean that rolling stock will derail, but you will see ugly "drop in" of every wheel when going over turnout.
See here, this is the newest Roco locomotive (in original, it was used by US trops to Europe after WWII - United States Army Transportation Corps “US. Zone Österreich”):
https://www.facebook.com/1.SMEC/videos/1205286029562555/
I have tested my rolling stock (NEM and RP 25 wheels) with Roco and Peco 75 turnouts, to decide what will be used for my layout.
The result with Roco Line was the same as in video above – not compatible. On the other side, with Peco 75, everything rolls over any turnout perfectly.
In fact, if Roco would change design of turnout frog, it would be the perfect system. Roco was/is offering a special part to be installed on their turnout frogs to make frogs RP25 compatible.
Tillig is looking the best of them all (points are not hinged but made from one piece which has very elegant appearance), but is not as reliable as Peco. Furthermore, Peco is (here in Europe) considerably cheaper that Tillig or Roco. Therefore, I decided for Peco. Which code is better, depends on the prototype you model.
You can even buy one turnout of each brand and test it with your rolling stock. Then decide, what is best for you.
Regards,
Hrvoje
Spalato68,
What did you find unreliable with Tillig though?
Everything I read points that they make beautiful looking, and working, track.
I agree I do not like that dip in the frog that I see on some turnout frogs, and I did read elsewhere that Roco Line had it but hoped they fixed it since then. Their selection of turnouts is great though and track does not look that bad.
I am even prepared to order from Europe (I'm in North America) and looking at this vendor here http://www.modellbahnshop-lippe.com/ the price differences between Peco and Tillig do not look that different.
The reason I was looking at Peco Code 75 is for their realiablity and various track geometries available (3-way, wye, curved turnouts), plus the fact their turnouts are not as long which would work better in the space I have (22'x12').
Tillig is very fragile, it has the best appearance but in some situations, it is very delicate and that can be a problem. This can be a personal impression – therefore it is good to see examples in front of you.
Thank you for the details, I'm glad I asked before I made an investement into all Tillig track. :)
As it stands right now, I will most likely be switching to N scale to make better use of my space. It seems unless I have a whole basement dedicated to H0, I just can't get as much out of it in a lesser space (half the basement) without sacrificing curve radii, car and train lengths, or visual and operational aspects.
striderYou say potentially use code 75, have you looked at code 70? I've used code 70 track on CVT tie strips and CVT turnouts throughout my layout, and code 55 for the industrial sidings. It's easy and cheap. You should look into this also.
hi strider,
since you mentioned code 55, I presume you model N, and my questions about CVT are:
- with N how much harder is it to lay track it being smaller scale?
- in general with CVT how do you ensure that curves are smooth since one has to glue roadbed down first then glue rail so you cant use a curve stick to adjust angle/radius as with flex track?
- how tedious does it get, or how fast is it to handlay track?
- did you also handlay the turnouts as well, and if so was it from scratch, or jig built and which one?
No I'm sorry for the confusion, I should have mentioned I model HO. I use code 55 on my industrial sidings. you can use the CVT turnout tie strips but you have to go to Proto 87 Stores for the frog and point rails. I find it just as easy as laying flex track. I glue 3 or 4 12in sections together and lay it that way, you get smooth curves that way.