Lastspikemike Having used all three turnouts for yards: Atlas Code 83 snapswitch, Customline Code 83 #4 and Peco Code 83 #5 I can assure all and sundry that the snapswitch is unsatisactory whereas the Atlas #4 and Peco #5 are functionally equivalent.
Having used all three turnouts for yards: Atlas Code 83 snapswitch, Customline Code 83 #4 and Peco Code 83 #5 I can assure all and sundry that the snapswitch is unsatisactory whereas the Atlas #4 and Peco #5 are functionally equivalent.
We now know that the Atlas Custom Line Code 83 #4 is actually #4.5 which would seem to indicate that the frog angle is 12.66 degrees (12 degrees, 40 minutes).
So, I continue to ask, what is the frog angle on a Peco Code 83 #5?
greg's chart would indicate that it should be 11.43 degrees (11 degrees, 26 minutes).
Why don't we hear from the guy who stated that the Atlas Custom Line Code 83 #4 is the functional equivalent of a Peco Code 83 #5? Is he basing it on visual observation, or has he measured the frog angle, or does he have empirical data to support that statement?
Where do you draw the line on functionally equivalent? 1.23 degrees or less (12.66 minus 11.43)? Could it be greater than 1.23 degrees? Is Atlas Custom Line Code 83 #4 the functional equivalent of Peco Code 83 #6? #8?
Alton Junction
richhotraingreg's chart would indicate that it should be 11.26 degrees
doubt you're the only one who mis-read the chart -- that's 11 deg 26 minutes. there are 60 minutes in a degress,
so 11.43 deg.
greg - Philadelphia & Reading / Reading
gregc ATLANTIC CENTRAL Your drawing does not take any of that into account. the red straight sections on the shorter turnouts account for any combination of straighter sections in the closure rail. the blue curved section can be rotated and the red section split to account for straigher points and a straighter section near the frog Doughless Its impossible to do the math the Catskill Archive Frogs and Switches page does Doughless Your chart shows length of the turnout determined solely by a constant closure radius. the chart does not show total turnout length. it shows the "Frog distance", what i've been calling lead-length and the maximum closure rail radius. the total turnout length needs to include the rail lengths before the points and after the frog. presumably it shows the dimensions for a standard turnout of varying frog number. i wouldn't doubt there are exceptions
ATLANTIC CENTRAL Your drawing does not take any of that into account.
the red straight sections on the shorter turnouts account for any combination of straighter sections in the closure rail.
the blue curved section can be rotated and the red section split to account for straigher points and a straighter section near the frog
Doughless Its impossible to do the math
the Catskill Archive Frogs and Switches page does
Doughless Your chart shows length of the turnout determined solely by a constant closure radius.
the chart does not show total turnout length.
it shows the "Frog distance", what i've been calling lead-length and the maximum closure rail radius. the total turnout length needs to include the rail lengths before the points and after the frog.
presumably it shows the dimensions for a standard turnout of varying frog number. i wouldn't doubt there are exceptions
Ok, the discussion here is about the different model turnouts. On our models, the lengths of track past the frog and the points is not relevant.
If you adjusted your graph to account for different lengths of point rails and position them at different angles, you can get different distances between the points and frogs without changing the closure radius. (In theory, there will be an infinite number of combinations of point length, point angle, and closure rail length).
There will be "kinks" where the straight meets the closure, less severe if there is room to ease the closure into the point, and there is always a kink where the straight points diverge from tangent. Neither is enough to disrupt the performance of the models.
BTW, the new "hingeless" single blade closure/point model turnouts eliminates one of the kinks and provides a natural easement into the tightest part of the closure rail, IMO. In that respect, the new turnouts from Walthers and Peco might more closely resemble your chart.
- Douglas
gregc richhotrain greg's chart would indicate that it should be 11.26 degrees doubt you're the only one who mis-read the chart -- that's 11 deg 26 minutes. there are 60 minutes in a degress, so 11.43 deg.
richhotrain greg's chart would indicate that it should be 11.26 degrees
I edited my previous reply to correct that error.
Rich
DoughlessIf you adjusted your graph to account for different lengths of point rails and position them at different angles, you can get different distances between the points and frogs without changing the closure radius.
certainly different lead-lengths,
but certainly with sections of the closure rail required to have smaller radius
I continue to wonder because I honestly still don't know the frog angle on a Peco #5.
gregc Doughless If you adjusted your graph to account for different lengths of point rails and position them at different angles, you can get different distances between the points and frogs without changing the closure radius. certainly different lead-lengths, but certainly with sections of the closure rail required to have smaller radius
Doughless If you adjusted your graph to account for different lengths of point rails and position them at different angles, you can get different distances between the points and frogs without changing the closure radius.
Interesting project for you if you like.
Take your illustration and adjust for straight point rails of varying length and angle off of tangent. I'd wager you could alter the length of the tangent part of the turnout from frog to point by simply playing with the point rail angle and length and not adjusting the closure radius at all.
It would depend upon how much kink you built into the joints. Which would be a function of how much kink a model locomotive could negotiate. A long steamer being the limit setter. Which would, in part, depend upon the amount of play you assume would be built into the drivers.
Effectively, you'd be chopping off the long tail of the curved closure rail and replacing it with whatever length point rail and at whatever angle could still function in order to make the overall turnout length as short as possible.
Lots of variables to consider when reaching whatever goals are the priority. Which I'm sure Peco and Atlas did when designing their turnouts.
All this dosn't mater. What dose is to match the brand and type of engine to turnouts that work. Take a simple NW2, my Shinohara turnouts work fine for Kato but not for BLI. When you get into steam it is even more problems as diferent manufactures picked lots of different dimentions as far as wheel spacing for the same exact engine and that can cause problems with certain turnouts.
richhotrain I continue to wonder because I honestly still don't know the frog angle on a Peco #5.
My protractor on PECO's published full size drawing says their #5 has a frog angle of 11.5 degrees.
And my protractor on an ATLAS #4-1/2 says it has a frog angle as I advised earlier - 12.5 degrees.
The fundimental problem with this converstaion is that yards can be layed out in a number of different ways, with various curves after the frog, various turnout spacing, various track centers, and various yard lead angles relative to the yard tracks.
You want to build a more compact yard ladder with Atlas turnouts? Trim the straight route back to the diverging route, use a greater yard lead angle, and curve the tracks after the frog like the prototype often does to get back to your track centers.
Sheldon
Doughless gregc Doughless If you adjusted your graph to account for different lengths of point rails and position them at different angles, you can get different distances between the points and frogs without changing the closure radius. certainly different lead-lengths, but certainly with sections of the closure rail required to have smaller radius Interesting project for you if you like. Take your illustration and adjust for straight point rails of varying length and angle off of tangent. I'd wager you could alter the length of the tangent part of the turnout from frog to point by simply playing with the point rail angle and length and not adjusting the closure radius at all. It would depend upon how much kink you built into the joints. Which would be a function of how much kink a model locomotive could negotiate. A long steamer being the limit setter. Which would, in part, depend upon the amount of play you assume would be built into the drivers. Effectively, you'd be chopping off the long tail of the curved closure rail and replacing it with whatever length point rail and at whatever angle could still function in order to make the overall turnout length as short as possible. Lots of variables to consider when reaching whatever goals are the priority. Which I'm sure Peco and Atlas did when designing their turnouts.
Exactly!
ATLANTIC CENTRAL My protractor on PECO's published full size drawing says their #5 has a frog angle of 11.5 degrees. And my protractor on an ATLAS #4-1/2 says it has a frog angle as I advised earlier - 12.5 degrees.
ATLANTIC CENTRAL THe fundimental problem with this converstaion is that yards can be layed out in a number of different ways, with various curves after the frog, various turnout spacing, various track centers, and various yard lead angles relative to the yard tracks. You want to build a more compact yard larder with Atlas turnouts? Trim the straight route back to the diverging route, use a greater yard lead angle, and curve the tracks after the frog like the prototype often does to get back to your track centers. Sheldon
THe fundimental problem with this converstaion is that yards can be layed out in a number of different ways, with various curves after the frog, various turnout spacing, various track centers, and various yard lead angles relative to the yard tracks.
You want to build a more compact yard larder with Atlas turnouts? Trim the straight route back to the diverging route, use a greater yard lead angle, and curve the tracks after the frog like the prototype often does to get back to your track centers.
So, Atlas #4s and Peco #5s aren't functionally equivalent as our guy finally acknowledges.
Lastspikemike Atlas Customline #4 functions as well as Peco or ME #5 in a yard or siding environment. "As well" can be expressed as "functionally equivalent". Up the speed and the Peco #5 is a better choice. Build yards with Peco #5 and you'll be happy. We ran long consists at full speed through a #5 turnout in both directions with no issues.
Atlas Customline #4 functions as well as Peco or ME #5 in a yard or siding environment. "As well" can be expressed as "functionally equivalent".
Up the speed and the Peco #5 is a better choice. Build yards with Peco #5 and you'll be happy. We ran long consists at full speed through a #5 turnout in both directions with no issues.
So I did two more tests with my PECO printouts.
Yes, they go together to make crossovers with 2" track centers.
NO, they do not stack up to make yard leads with 2" track centers.
Stacked up with no spacers, and no curve past the frog, they make yard leads with track centers of 1-5/8" - not working here.
The extra straight length on the Atlas straight route is what gives you the 2" track centers.
I've been trying to explain this stuff for years, I might be done.
ATLANTIC CENTRAL So I did two more tests with my PECO printouts. Yes, they go together to make crossovers with 2" track centers. NO, they do not stack up to make yard leads with 2" track centers. Stacked up with no spacers, and no curve past the frog, they make yard leads with track centers of 1-5/8" - not working here. The extra straight length on the Atlas straight route is what gives you the 2" track centers.
Rich, YOU are most welcome, happy to help.
LastspikemikeI used the redundant phrase "functionally equivalent" to assist your comprehension of what I wrote.
Sheldon, aren't you glad Mike can help you with your lack of comprehension?
He is quite the helpful fellow.
-Kevin
Living the dream.
DoughlessTake your illustration and adjust for straight point rails of varying length and angle off of tangent.
could you show me your diagram?
DoughlessI'd wager you could alter the length of the tangent part of the turnout from frog to point by simply playing with the point rail angle and length and not adjusting the closure radius at all.
i believe your saying chop the closure rail of some radius R at some angle from the points. lets say 10 deg. (like where the blue and red lines in my drawings meet)
you could certainly replace it with two straight lengths 5 deg leading away from the stock rail and a 5 deg bend such that the end aligns with the closure rail of radius R at 10 deg. You could make them more curved, but again would have a sharp kink or a sharp curve where meets the closure rail of radius R.
and of course, as manufacturers do, they use a relatively straight set of points and a curved closure rail, but its radius is < R. (as my diagrams suggest with the blue and red lines)
i doubt your loco would operate any better on a closure rail that has kinks or one that has a tighter radius than R
Nope, not for a moment am I thinking that equivalent means identical.
Since a loco running thru an Atlas #4 in the yard must go slower than if the turnout were a Peco #5 in order to avoid “issues”, the two turnouts must not be functionally equivalent. If they were, then a Peco #5 would be the functional equivalent of an Atlas #6. And so on.
Lastspikemike I did not say, nor did I intend to imply, that our trains ran at full speed through any Atlas Customline #4. Saying that I did say that is a waste of time.
I did not say, nor did I intend to imply, that our trains ran at full speed through any Atlas Customline #4. Saying that I did say that is a waste of time.
Lastspikemike I also did not say that yard tracks were negotiated at high speed. You just thought I had.
I also did not say that yard tracks were negotiated at high speed. You just thought I had.
Deleted.
SeeYou190 Deleted
I am not enjoying the sniping and back biting that is becoming the norm in this forum.
Henry
COB Potomac & Northern
Shenandoah Valley
This thread could have ended with the first two replies by Mel and myself, assuring the OP that #4 turnouts would work quite fine with his shorter freight cars and smaller locos running a slower speeds. We both praised our Atlas Custom Line Code 83 #4 turnouts as perfect for his setup. That is all that the OP was asking for.
Since the OP has received his desired information, it looks like it's time to saddle up and mosey on over to some other discussions. I do agree that the courtroom bickering is getting a bit old and far too common.
Tom
https://tstage9.wixsite.com/nyc-modeling
Time...It marches on...without ever turning around to see if anyone is even keeping in step.