Finally after waiting a few years I am laying switches in my locomotive yard and decided to use some Atlas Remote #4’s because of the tight spaces. I checked the Atlas site and they offer Mark IV Turnouts #281 & #282 and Remote Snap Switch #850 & #851.
I checked the Atlas site and could not find what the difference was between these two types of switches with the exception of some extra hardware with the Snap Switch. Can anyone enlighten me?
Doc
Atlas Snap Switches look like a piece of curved snap track laid on top of a piece of straight snap track. The Atlas Mark IV is more prototypical, the diverging route is straight. The amount of divergence is given by the switch number. In a #4 turnout, the diverging route diverges 1 inch for every 4 inches. A #6 turnout diverges 1 inch for every 6 inches.
The snap track turnouts were intended to allow placement of a turnout in a snap track (sectional track) curve without throwing the curve off. A Mark IV turnout inserted in a curve will add a short straight section and the curve won’t end at 90 degrees without either cutting a piece of snap track or adding a half section of track. If you are using flex track you don’t really care. I would buy the Mark IV switches if you are using flex track. If I was using snap track (sectional track) or the snap switches are free, there is nothing wrong with using them. Trains run thru either type just fine.
The Mark IV #4 is actually a #4.5.
The snap switches have a continuous 18" radius curve through them. Which is much much sharper then the Mark IV.
Go with the Mark IVs.
Nick
Hey guys,
Thanks for the speedy responses.
Doc
The OP is concerned with space.
The snap will yeild a more condensed yard,but the other posts are correct that the curve is sharper.
Many references have been made to Atlas #4 switches “really” being 4.5. I think this refers to the custom line or “CL” “mark” series.
The OP also states “remote”. The snap is available as a packaged set,with the twin coil switch machine and an actuator button. I’m 95% sure you have to buy these seperately with CL. (BTW, I have several pics of prototype switch machines that look very simillar to the Atlas unit.)
I have a 27 car capacity 5 track yard full of snaps,and only my BLI J1 2-10-4 and T1 4-4-4-4 have difficulty. All my smaller locos are fine except a Genesis 2-8-2 which shorted because of wheel guage issues, and an MDC 2-8-0 running backwards which climbed the rail.
My main fleet is BLI 2-8-2s (some converted to 2-8-0s),2-10-0s, and 4-8-2s.
The 2-10-0s and 4-8-2s need to go slow, but can make it. Even backing. Kinda like real life. These are road engines,and shouldn’t be spending much time in yards anyway.That’s why they had switch engines.
0-6-0,0-8-0,diesels and even 2-8-8-2s sail through.
Sidings and crossovers on the main are Atlas Super Switch #6.
BTW,be carefull on price.Lots of folks want $12-14 or more for the snap remote package, but shop around and they can be had for $8-10.This starts to matter if you need 10 or more.
I actually did build this yard both ways (using CL #4 and using snap). With the CL,the track spacing is narrower, yielding a shallower yard from edge of shelf to wall, with snap, the clearance point is closer to the frog, yielding more usable yard track length, hence a shorter yard. I’ve also sucessfully cut about an inch from the straight leg,and 3/4 inch from the point leg to reduce tr
The reason I am using a more compact yard is that the yard spur comes through a tunnel from the main line. Then an in-bound and out-bound switch and track must make sharp left turns to get to the roundhouse, which is already installed.
I still have to fit the coal bunker, sand-house, water tank and ash pit on these tracks. Fortunately there is ample room in the rest of the yard for storage of locomotives and passenger cars.
Doc
Hi!
“Assuming” you are using flextrack, I would go with the Mark turnouts. If you are using sectional track, I might lean towards the snap switches. The differences quoted by earlier posters is correct.
Mobilman44
Just because you CAN substitute a snap switch for an 18" radius section doesn’t mean you have to, or should favor CL mk4 if you are not using sectional track.
What locomotives will be traversing this yard ladder?
What speed will they be traveling?
Is there a different path to get road engines to the service facility,or is the yard ladder part of the main line?
If you do go with CL mk4, watch the price of the switch nachines and actuator buttons as well, I routinely see people trying to charge $7-8 for the machines,and $2 for the buttons. You can find the machines for $3-4 and the buttons for 50 cents if you look.It’s still usually a better deal to find a reasonable price on the remote snap package,unless you really do need the mk4 (which is also more expensive).
When I first started building my layout I bought 2 of each to experiment with.
If you have 2,you can mark the locations and “leapfrog” them tosee where everything will fit.
If your running steam locomotives unless your running smaller one’s like 0-6-0’s and 0-4-0’s steam locomotives don’t generally like #4 switches. Generally speaking nothing smaller then a #6 turnout should be used when running steam locmotives.
I’m just in the process of building a new layout. All turnouts have been planned to be Atlas #4. Largest engine is Bachmann 2-8-0. It’s an industrial area with entensive switching with Proto 0-6-0 and 0-8-0. All cars are 40’ or shorter.
Even in that environment #4 looks ugly. Watching the locomotive beeing virtually separated from the tender running over #4 is a visual nightmare.
I “gave up” and bought a bunch of Atlas #6 and did it again. The usefull length of all tracks is less but it looks much better.
The only place for #4 is in very dense industrial areas with street running track and switching with 44tons and 45tons engines. Pushing a cut of two boxcars to a loadding dock over a #4 by a 45tons switcher is “cute”. Watching a 0-6-0 becoming virtually separated from the tender on the #4 is simply ugly.
I agree that Atlas #6 switches offer more realistic operation. I happened to have plenty of room for two long drill tracks to service my 7 track stub-ended yard. Instead of the usual sequential ladder, I used ys and double-slip switches to give me 7 equal length tracks, with switcher access and egress from any of the tracks, without tying up the main line. All the switches are remotely controlled by under layout motors, that are controlled by 24 double probes at each of my four DCC power districts The over-pass is for the mainline. Locos on the mainline back up to push freight cars onto the drill tracks, where they are sorted in the yard by the smaller switchers, that have access to all tracks without ever leaving the yard.
Click on any of the photos to enlarge them. Then, click on photos to the left to view parts of my layout.
The second photo shows the remainder of the yard in the opposite direction.
Instead of the usual schematic track diagram, I used a scale layout diagram of each of the four power districts, with numbered probes related to the numbered switches, for quick recognition and operation of the double probes. With a total of 96 electrically operated switches, the division of the switch controls to 4 districts was more practical than trying to dial 96 4-digit numbers on a DCC control.
Bob Hahn