The first turnouts I ever handbuilt were done back in about 1975, using methods from an MR article out of the 1950’s. I was amazed when they really worked! They were supposed to be somewhere between a #4 and #6, but I think one or two came out to something closer to a #3.
120 hand-built turnouts would be an investment in time, to be sure. If Atlas is reliable, that’s good. The Mark V seem to be very solid on our club layout - built well and equipment rolls through with no problems.
Regarding the NMRA spec - S-3.2, the Standard Scale Track Spec, does not address length or frog number or anything like that. It deals only with operability features - gauge at frog, point spread, flangeway width and such. I checked most of those elements (not all) for the club and the #6 Custom Line Mark V did meet the spec. So they may well get a conformance warrant when a full review is done by the NMRA.
Curving a straight commercial turnout is not something I would have ever thought to try! Kudos to you for making it work!
I’ve done that successfully, on both legs. Just check the gauge carefully after you make the modification. My C truck locos tended to derail there. I had to spread it a little at the point of curvature with needle nose pliers, then insert a couple of spikes to hold it in gauge.
Agreed, S3 does not address other dimensions, but the Recommended Practices do, The Atlas #6 is longer the RP specs which makes it a bit smoother with as bit larger substitution radius, making the diverging route a very nve easement.
Curving them is actually pretty simple, remember I am talking large radii here, like 36" on the inside route.
RP-12 and 13?
Not following an RP isn’t a compliance “violation.” Only standards are considered when it comes to determining if a product is NMRA compliant or not.
Agreed and understood, my point is most of the other commercial turnouts are at, or very close, to RP-12 & 13. The Atlas #6 turnout is longer which I consider an advantage.
While I am a 57 year member of the NMRA and appreciate all the work that has gone into the Standards and RP’s, my modeling purchases do not hang on the presence of a compliance certificate.
doesn’t a standard suggest that any commercial turnout compliant with the stand (e.g. #6) can replace any other compliant turnout from any other vender?
does the standard specify the lengths of track from the from or before the points? ??
No, the Recommended Practices suggest lengths from the point to the frog and other dimensions for various standard frog angles, similar to the various prototype references.
The track and wheel standards ensure that one manufacturer’s equipment can roll on another manufacturer’s track, as long are both follow the standard.
The track standard specifies flangeway width, point spread and such. Does not even try to address turnout length, frog angle, lead-in lengths or any of that stuff.
Yes, it is small and subtle but it makes a difference in my opinion. I have not compared it to Fast Tracks either.
Understand, I think Fast Tracks is a great system if you are really into building your own turnouts. Like a lot of things in the hobby, I think it is pricey to get setup in. I have seen them in use and they do look and work great.
But by the time they came along, as I explained, it was not even something I was interested in considering.
So, the PECO code 83 North American line #6 turnout measures exactly 6" from the frog tip to the end of the points.
The Atlas code 83 Custom Line #6 measures 7" from the frog tip to the end of the points.
This is a full scale accurately printed template from PECO for their code 83 #6.
Their own scale on the drawing clearly shows the 6" length from points to frog.
Laid over it and lined up frog to frog, clearly the 9.5 degree frog angle is the same, but the Atlas #6 custom line is a full inch longer from points to frog.
Sure is these days! When I got started with them a bit over 20 years ago, a full set of tools was just over $100. I’ve built around 75 turnouts, so it was a good investment.
The same set of tools now would be just shy of $300 (not including shipping). While commercial turnouts have gone up also, I don’t believe they’ve tripled in price.
That’s for sure. Until a few years ago, I used nothing but Atlas Custom Line #6 turnouts on my layout. Recently, I have begun using Peco Insulfrogs. I really like them, but they are pricey. I have never owned any Walthers turnouts. I have always thought that they are overpriced.
Rich, you are taking advantage of the built in throw bar spring correct? For that kind of operation they are great. For slow motion switch machines you must remove that feature you paid extra money for?
And, having a few smaller locos, I like powering the frogs.
Even where I have manual turnouts, I depend on track position to direct track power. And I don’t trust switch points to do that. So I use mini slide switches as ground throws to power the frogs and direct power.
I have Walthers double slip switches, they work fine.
A great many of my turnouts were bought when they were $12 a piece.
