Any problems, concerns, etc with these compared to other brands for DCC use?
Since the Mark V turnout is the newest offering by Atlas, and introduced well into the DCC era, I doubt there would be any problems at all to worry about.
Overall, Atlas turnouts are very high quality.
-Kevin
I’ll second what Kevin said. Atlas turnouts are high quality, dependable, and will last the duration of your layout. As far as dcc goes, I can’t say for certain, but I think they have an optionaly powered frog. You should be fine to leave the frog dead, or power it with your preference of switch machine, ground throw, etc.
Atlas turnouts were DCC friendly before there was DCC.
Been using Atlas turnouts for about 35 years, always happy.
Sheldon
Some QA problems:
http://cs.trains.com/mrr/f/11/t/289594.aspx
But DCC isn’t an issue.
Atlas metal frogs can be powered but powering frogs has nothing to do with being suitable for DCC.
Power routing turnouts such as Peco before Unifrog and Micro Engineering can produce some difficulties when powered by DCC because DCC often does not use any isolated blocks. You can’t have Peco Electrofrog power routing turnouts connected to DCC power from both directions but then you can’t with DC either.
Im new to this DCC stuff.
I’m new to this DCC stuff.
-
Why power the frogs, then?
-
Peco SLE-88 a Unifrog?
-
How do you avoid having power from both directions?
Thanks.
In DC did you ever use power routing all rail turnouts like Shinohara, Walthers, or TruScale? Did you ever build your own turnouts? If not I suggest you stay with Atlas or buy some good books like Paul Mallery’s trackwork handbook and his two electrical books.
Sheldon
That is OK.
Frogs only need power if you intend to run very small locomotives where crossing over a short dead piece of track (the frog) would cause the locomotive to stall.
I have limited experience with Peco turnouts.
Using Atlas turnouts, this really does not matter so much.
As Sheldon suggested, Atlas turnouts are the easiest to use, and require no special electrical knowledge.
I have been involved with the building of a couple of large layouts using Atlas HO scale turnouts and everything was OK.
-Kevin
As far as DCC is concerned there does not seem to be any problem with the Mark V. However, at least the #6 turnouts have a serious problem with the point hinge falling apart. Nice idea, but the retaining ring on the bottom that holds the points in place falls off easily and is very difficult to replace. Out of the 8 new turnouts on the club modules, three have needed to be replaced before they even went in operation.
I’ll answer your questions as listed based on my experience/knowledge.
-
Probably only needed for equipment with limited electrical pick-up. Think a trackmobile or (typically) older locomotives that only got power from two wheels on each rail.
-
That is an electrofrog. The third letter is the tell. No third letter is an insulfrog, an E is an electrofrog, and a U is a Unifrog.
-
Insulated rail joiners. However, depending on your track layout, wiring, and/or goals, these may not be necessary. Would need more detail to provide advice on this.
Hope this helps.
I too am new to DCC and for that matter to Block control for DC. This electrical stuff only seems complicated. DCC is definitely easier to use than Block control DC.
Generally speaking you won’t need to power the frogs using the newer locomotives. For quite a long time now good locomotives have been equipped with all wheel electrical pickup.
Peco Unifrog are not power routing. Peco joined the “all routes powered” club. Unifrog can be made power routing by clipping a couple of jumper wires if desired. Walthers new line of turnouts are also not power routing but can be converted in much the same way if desired. Unifrog’s claim to fame is making the unpowered frog very tiny indeed. With a power wire already attached in case it proves not small enough. Previously Peco Insulfrog and Electrofrog were power routing. Insulfrog are DCC compatible. Electrofrog turnouts need frog rail isolation if power can reach the turnout from the diverging route. Peco doesn’t intend to make either older style turnout, and has or shortly will cease production. #6 and slip switches are now only made in Unifrog version. Other frog numbers are to be updated to Unifrog soon if not already.
Micro Engineering turnouts are neither power routing nor all powered, which can be puzzling at first. ME fit isolated metal frogs but have no power jumpers under the frogs so the diverging routes (inner frog rails) are not powered at all. ME are DCC friendly in that way.
A siding that ends in a bumper will never have power routed back towards the turnout. Power routing turnouts work fine for DCC when used for a dead end sid
The layout is #56 Dayton & Northern in the 101 Track Plans. Thinking of using Peco code 100. I will power frog due to short engines.
Where 2 switches form a cross over, where are insulated joiners used? Each mainline will be on separate power districts.
The Dayton and Northern is a 6’X12’ rectangle that is open in the middle. Outer and inner loops that go around the rectanlge with an egine facility, yard and sidings. The plan in the book shows gaps that would be needed to mutiple train operation on a DC layout. There are no return loops in this plan so technially for DCC operation, there don’t need to be any gaps in the track on the layout as published, even at the crossovers.
Remember, when using DCC that direction is controlled by the decoder in the engine not the polarity on the track so you don’t need to isolate any of the tracks from each other with this plan. Not sure that you really mean power districts for each of the loops because they don’t need to be controlled separately using DCC and a layout of this size could be powered by even the smallest of DCC systems available for muti-train operation.
This is all assuming that you are using the published version of the plan and aren’t making any changes to the plan as it is. Are you making any changes to the plan as published? Hope this helps.
Scott Sonntag
I would suggest a couple of things here:
First take some time to thoroughly aquaint yourself with the basic wiring schemes for turnouts - good turnout wiring practices are pretty much the same for DCC and DC. To get started either Sheldon’s books or cruise on over to Alan Gartner’s site (caution - it can be overwhelming)
One of the things that makes this more complicated is that many track makers have changed how their switches are wired over the years. For example the Peco electrofrog - when you find versions from different years they are wired differently, same with shinohara and micro enginering.
This is another reason why it is important to learn about basic switch wiring schemes so you can deal with anything you might encounter…
Another suggestion is to buy some different turnouts from the varioius manufacturers and see which ones suit you best. Now if you are looking to build a small layout this might be overkill, but if the project is large, it can be an enlightening thing to do.
Have fun,
Guy
Kevin, I would only slightly quibble with the words “only” and “very small” here. My old Roundhouse Atlantic 4-4-2 from the 1970s is not what I would call a small engine at all, and it will go over very few unwired turnout frogs without jerking just a bit or stopping altogether. It can nowise make it across the big (Atlas) curved turnout frogs without electrical assistance. That’s why I’m powering all my frogs (and also so that I can run my dad’s old Mantua 0-4-0 booster, which hasn’t got a prayer traversing any unpowered frogs).
-Matt
You create power districts for DCC in the same way as for DC but you need not to use common rail wiring. Double isolate each end of each power district. For crossovers connecting two mainlines each in its own power district I would insulate/gap the joints where the two diverging routes of the turnouts connect. Anywhere else will put the turnouts in the same power district.
You don’t need separate power districts to run DCC unless you have more than one power booster. Only reversing sections must use a separate isolated power district/block.
My Mantua 2-6-6-2 is the only locomotive I have which will stall across the Atlas curved turnout. I imagine it wouldn’t make it over a #8 either. Those are large frogs. Mine has left driver pickup on one driver set and right driver pickup on the other set. Not ideal and not current practice where all drivers and all tender wheels commonly pick up power.
As an addition to my own comment: I would agree with many of the latest comments, in that you might have to experiment to see which brand of turnout works with the plan that you have chosen. The book mentions that the default on all turnouts are a #4 frog except where specified and nothing is specified on the 23 turnouts on this plan…
Scott Sonntag
Code 100 or Code 83? Because the code 83 products are not Mark V, and only the #8 code 83 Custom Line turnout is even identified with any “Mark” designation - Mark IV.
I have no doubt that you had some problem turnouts, defective product does happen. But I have nearly 100 Atlas Custom Line code 83 turnouts from various production dates and runs since their introduction up to recent production and have had no problems, especially no problems with the point hinge. And I can see no noticeable difference between any of them.
Atlas “Mark V” turnouts, just introduced this past spring, are an improved version of the CODE 100 TURNOUT, bringing the code 100 product up to the appearance and tollerance standards the code 83 product has always had - THAT DOES NOT MAKE THE CODE 83 PRODUCT “MARK V” - Altas has never called them that.
READ THE PRESS RELEASE CAREFULLY - it clearly says MARK V is code 100.
I will leave you all to the rest of this non sense, all my trains have been running just fine on the 100 defective Atlas turnouts I have…
Sheldon
Sounds to me they are not actually defective if trains are running fine. Or are you taking the Mickey out of the other people posting here.