I recently added a new Walther’s turnout and started having my 4-6-0’s derailing. It took a while to figure out what was wrong, but I ran a sprung truck over the spot and discovered a pothole in the plastic just off the tip of the frog. The wheel would drop in the hole, hit the frog hard and off she came. The solution was to put some CA in the hole figuring it would self level which it did. I also filed the tip of the frog down on the top a bit as well as the sides. Smooth a silk now.
6 Likes
Brent, great diagnosis and solution. Well done.
Regards, Chris
1 Like
I had the same problem with a new Walthers HO scale curved turnout. In my case, thankfully, there were no derailments, but I noticed that trains made a good bit of racket and the wheels were really hopping through the frog. Typical wheel drop. While watching a Danny Harmon video, I realized that I could try to make a flange bearing frog, not unlike the flange bearing crossing that he described in his video. I tried 0.010” styrene as a test piece, and it wasn’t thick enough. I then tried 0.020”, which worked much better.
You may notice a faint line on the white styrene where the flanges are riding it. I did go back with a needle file and ease the entry/exit points of that styrene piece. I also noticed that the closure rails did not meet up well with the frog, so I filed those areas, too. Much better, and wheels are not hopping through the frog anything like they used to. I have since painted the track, and this shim is now imperceptible.
DFF
3 Likes
This thread has me thinking I will avoid Walthers new turnouts.
Hand laid turnouts decades ago before fancy jigs from Fast Tracks, but very happy with Atlas code 83 for the last 25 or more years.
I have older Walthers slip switches and a few PECO 9.5 degree crossings, otherwise all Atlas.
When I do need a curved turnout, I have two approaches. I learned how to take Atlas #6 or #8 turnouts and “bend” them. Or I build them from scratch to fit the spot.
All the commercial curved turnouts are much too sharp for my needs except possibly in an industrial area.
Sheldon
1 Like
Hey Dave, your piece of styrene looks a lot like the piece of wood that I placed in my turnout. Except yours looks like it will still allow trains to pass regardless of how the switch is thrown. Right now, mine works fine but I’d have to pull it out when I use that turnout. I’ll go back to the drawing board and see if I can fashion a shim out of plastic. That would be a lot easier and cheaper than re-fitting every rail car with new sprung trucks. But I’ll do what I need to do. Thanks Dave
1 Like
These “repairs” to commercial turnouts tell me one thing - either the wheels rolling through them aren’t to NMRA standards, or the turnouts themselves aren’t. It’s probably the latter.
The track standards, if followed, will allow a code 110 (.110 wheel tread width) wheel (HO) to roll over the frog without the wheel ever dropping onto the gap (so the wheel never has to ride on the flange). If it does, that means the gap is too long or too wide. My suggestion would be to buy or build turnouts that follow NMRA standard S-3 for track. Here’s S-3.2, for standard (not proto or deep-flange) track: https://www.nmra.org/sites/default/files/standards/sandrp/Mech/S/s-3.2_2010.05.08.pdf
In an NMRA-compliant turnout, even code 88 (.088 wheel tread width) wheels will roll across the turnout without a problem, though the standard does not “support” this. I know because nearly all my tank cars have code 88 wheels and they run just fine over my Fast Tracks turnouts.
3 Likes
seems odd that the wheel hits the tip of the frog. the guard rails should be guiding the wheel away from the frog.
did you check that the wheels are in gauge?
Tony Koester’s method for hand laying turnout would fill the gaps around the frog with solder and use a hacksaw blade to cut the gap so that the flanges would wide on the solder
1 Like
In the photo if you look at the space from the closure rail to the frog it is three rail ties long. So my thinking is that the wheel on the frog side will be riding on the plastic briefly even if in perfect gauge. Once I ran a sprung truck and then a single wheelset over the spot, it was very evident I had a pothole in the plastic just ahead of the frog. The fact it ran through perfectly after I filled the pot hole that made the wheel drop thus hitting the frog rail, head on the end of the rail instead of being on the same plain. It was quite a noisy turnout no matter what was going over it, now it is very quiet.
1 Like
so it became out of gauge when the axle became tilted?
1 Like
I would say it was more like hitting the curb in your car. You hit the curb at speed it is going to hurt. The train wheel should smoothly roll on to the top of the frog rail, not hit the end of it due to sinking into the pothole right in front of the frog.
2 Likes
I have an Atlas Customline code 83 #4 and a new Walthers code 83 #4, and the frog dimensions are identical.
Which Custom Line? Atlas is up to Mark V.
1 Like
No idea, I don’t have the packaging and the back just says Customline and 1997.
Which is irrelevant, because I also have a Micro Engineering $4 and it’s frog dimensions are the same as the Atlas and Walthers. The so-called pothole exists in all three.
Using the NMRA gauge, the guardrail flangeway spacing is the same on all three. The only real difference I can see is that the Atlas guardrails are shorter than the other two.
Edit to add: According to a post by Sheldon from 2018:
“All code 83 Atlas turnouts have been built to Mark IV standards since introduced.”
It’s almost like following the same spacing standards leads to the same frog dimensions.
1 Like
I believe the Custom Line 5 has refined the frog. A partial inspection with an NMRA standards gauge shows it to be compliant to S-3.2 in the flangeways and the frog. As far as I know, previous Atlas turnouts were not (especially Snap Switches, which seem to have been made for the pizza-cutter-flanges of the older toy train market.
Do you mean the ones marked “Mark V”?
Snap Switches have never been NMRA compliant, I see no difference in the code 83 Custom Line turnouts I bought 25 years ago and the ones I bought a year ago.
Also to be clear, the Atlas “#4” is really a 12.5 degree #4.5, so its frog angle is likely different from the other #4’s on the market which have traditionally been real #4’s.
I just want to know why others have all these issues with Atlas turnouts that I have never had? And I operate on a number of large layouts in my area, most built with mostly Atlas Custom Line, which also operate with no issues?
My equipment does not wobble, bumb, derail, stall …
As for the new Walthers, don’t have any don’t plan to buy any. I have older (15-20 years ago) Walthers double slip switches, they work fine.
No PECO (a few new 9 degree crossings, no turnouts old or new), no Micro Engineering (except bridge track) and no troubles with the 120 Atlas turnouts I have.
Sheldon
1 Like
Yes. Sorry I wasn’t clear on that.
It’s good Atlas has always worked for you. My home experience (many years ago. like half a century!) was just the opposite. Never trusted Atlas since then.
At the club we have quite a few of the Custom Line turnouts of several vintages - probably all the way back to the first Custom Lines, though I can’t be sure (a lot of donated track can be found on the layout). My long-wheelbase steamers and tank cars with code 88 wheels (I know - not standard) don’t like those older turnouts, but we replaced the oldest with the Mark V ones, and their performance is much better. I still don’t run personal equipment at the club much because:
- It doesn’t stay on the track real well (more relaxed track standards than I have at home, and the older turnouts - including some Snap Switches)
- Too easy to damage details and weathering moving the equipment back and forth
- We’re always open to the public, and I honestly don’t want a novice unintentionally abusing my equipment.
1 Like
There is a big difference between the code 83 line and the old 60’s code 100 turnouts, which have had some upgrades over the years, but did not get seriously retooled until recently.
Even the code 83 snap switch works great as an industrial area turnout, at least for my 50’s era layout.
The Atlas code 83 line did not even come out until 1996/97 and was not in full availability until about 2001.
So yes, 45/50 years ago - the old code 100 line had some issues.
You are comparing apples and oranges.
So no company can make a so-so product 4 decades ago and then have a shot with you with something completely new and redesigned?
Glad I’m not that way, I love my fleet of Bachmann Spectrum steam locos and we all know what Bachmann was making 40 years ago.
Atlas code 83 was so good, and so affordable, the first time I used it, I said “self, you don’t have hand lay track ever again”. And except for special situations, I have not.
So obviously you still need track laying skills to get the best results, but as far as I am concerned it is a great product. I love not having to trim turnouts to make 2" center crossovers and yard ladders. I love its electrical properties, I love the reversible throw bars. I love the price compared to Walthers or PECO - who have features I don’t want.
Sheldon
1 Like
I have not belonged to a traditional club in a LONG time - like 40 years. No interest in the traditional club setting anymore. I don’t take my equipment anywhere to run.
I belong to a round robin group, different member layout every week, run their stuff, work on their layout. So I laugh every time some cornball says “if you just try DCC you will love it” - I’ve been operating DCC on a bunch of basement empires for over 25 years - I designed a few of those layouts.
Most of them have Atlas code 83 track, all these layouts run great.
Sheldon
1 Like
No I’m not. I tried Atlas turnouts many years ago. They were crap then, and even in the early 2000’s they were still not NMRA-compliant. The Custom Line Mark IV is included in that not-compliant category. Meanwhile I had better luck with Shinohara and Peco, both of which were considered much better than Atlas’ best offerings in that timeframe. Then Fast Tracks jigs came out and put them all to shame. Used properly, Fast Tracks tools produce a fully NMRA compliant turnout, and when they came out there was NO fully compliant commercial turnout available. I don’t know about now, but I really don’t much care when it comes to personal use, as I’m comfortable building my own turnouts for three or four dollars rather than buying a possibly not-fully-compliant commercial turnout for over $20 (sometimes well over $20).
I have several Spectrum steamers. Great locomotives. I have several more Proto 2000 Heritage steamers from Life-Like. We know what they used to be like too. So I’m not “that way.” I just know what works for me and what doesn’t, and what I’m willing to gamble on and what I’m not. Trackwork falls into the latter category.
1 Like
OK, we all do what works for us.
I learned how to build NMRA spec turnouts 5 decades ago from the great modelers at the Severna Park Model Railroad Club without expensive fixtures from Fast Tracks. When I need a truly special turnout, I will build it to fit, Fast Tracks does not have fixtures for that other than making parts, I don’t need a jig to make a frog or a set of points.
Honestly, I don’t want to spend my time building the 120 turnouts that will be on my current layout.
I have them already, mostly paid for a decade or more ago, and I have never had any operational problem with them. Many of the local modelers I hang out with around here have had the same positive experience with Atlas.
In my experience, every Atlas code 83 turnout has been NMRA compliant “enough”. I prefer the electrical features of their design, I prefer the building block geometry that builds crossovers and yard ladders without cutting.
I will tell you where the Atlas Custom Line #6 is not NMRA compliant - it is longer and more gradual than the NMRA specs, another feature I like about it. Similarly their “#4” is really a #4.5 at 12.5 degrees.
I have even “curved” them to create very large radius curved turnouts, and have used the frogs and points to hand lay special turnouts.
Nothing wrong with Fast Tracks, its a great system, but it is pricey to get setup in, especially if you have a desire for multiple turnout sizes on your layout.
As for prices, I won’t buy PECO because I’m not paying that kind of money for a product full of features I don’t need or want. The new Walthers turnouts are the same way.
I have some Walthers double slips from 10-15 years ago, they are perfect for my needs in that department.
Honestly I just get tired of all the product bashing, most of which I feel is unjustified, be it Atlas, Bachmann, Athearn or whoever.
Sheldon
1 Like