It has become impossible to buy Micro-eingineering and Peco turnouts (switches)
Lately. Im wondering how compatible the new Walthers turnouts are with code 83
turnouts from Micro-engineering and Peco. Anyone have some insight and advice?
I moved recently. Dismantling the layout and moving it destroyed a Walthers wye turnout for my carfloat apron and damaged a Walthers/Shinohara curved turnout. I’m hoping to find exact replacements, too.
Walthers turnouts I do have work fine with my Code 83 track, mostly Atlas flex track.
The Walthers’ current issue of their new turnouts are, as far as I know, derived from new tooling or what they purchased from Shinohara, depending on the item. I have used all of these over time, most recently the Micro Engineering #5 ladder system, but mated to Peco Streamline #6 Code 83.
On my second layout, I used six different W/S curved turnouts and found them to be of good quality. I even mated them to Atlas Code 100 railstock without any problem, and I was essentially still a novice.
The quality is there. You just need to figure out how to get the two bearing surfaces lined up. It’s not difficult with ballast, bent joiners, the usual…
I cannot say about any slight differences in rail profile from the others, but physical examination of each #6 turnout between Atlas, Peco, ME, and Walthers from the blessed inventory of my LHS revealed that the Walthers geometry is similar to the compactnesss of the Peco.
Of the 4, the Atlas #6 is a bit of an outlier compared to the others and is the longest from points to frog. ME being next.
If that’s all you can get, I’d buy a couple and test fit them where necessary with the other brands you already have. I found on a previous layout I needed to do some trimming to get turnouts to fit as needed.
I used the 2012 vintage code 83 Walthers-Shinohara turnouts with Atlas code 83 flex track. One detail was that the Atlas flex had thicker ties, so when the W-S turnout was connected by the rail joiners, the turnout ties would float slightly.
I understood that the Atlas code 83 flex intentionally had thick enough ties to mate at the rail head with Atlas code 100 track, such that the rail heads would match if connected directly. But whatever, the 0.017" tie thickness is there wrt to mating with the W-S turnout.
Some said they just ignored the difference, especially if eventually ballasting, which would tend to support the floating turnout. I decided to shim the turnouts, first using 0.015" sheet styrene, then just making a cutout of the turnout box cardboard (which I clear coated to resist ballasting water).
Perhaps a minor detail, but for those who may be unaware of tie height differences of one brand turnout to another brand flex track of the same rail code.
Walthers new #6 turnouts are built for 2 3/4" crossover centres which is the widest of the four brands. Presumably, Walthers intends that you trim the diverging routes to suit.
The total length of the Walthers is closer to that of the ME (I only have a Code 70 ME but assume the geometry is the same as for their Code 83) but the ME has a longer point entry straight than either Atlas or Walthers. The ME builds a crossover with 2" track centres and Atlas builds 2 1/2" track centres. Edit: I should clarify I refer only to Atlas super switches which presumably Atlas intends you to trim to your desired size. Regular Code 83 turnouts have shorter diverging routes.
Peco are just more compact.
Peco tie thickness matches their railhead to Atlas.
Walthers ties are about half the thickness of Atlas ties and I would shim up the Walthers if I joined the two types.
I don’t have any ME Code 83 handy.
Rail profile on the Walthers is closer to Atlas than to Peco but the bottom flange is thinner than Atlas. One thing I really appreciate about Walthers new track is their Code 83 rail joiners give an excellent snug fit right out of the package, no squeezing down of the joiner is required. The Walthers joiners fit tightly onto Atlas rail.
Atlas Custom Line rurnout build 2" track center crossovers, Atlas Super Switches, and Walthers are intended to be trimmed as needed.
“Compact” is code for sharper closure radius and less easement effect…
If the ME is shorter than Atlas but has longer points, that too means sharper closure radius and possibly less easement effect even with the long points.
I have never purchased a ME turnout, never liked the price, selection (lack), or the features.
The likelihood that any turnout will just drop in to replace another brand, or a product produced by a different vendor, is always slim…
Sheldon
How do the rail spikes compare? And other fine details?
It is always preferable to trim than to need to install a short jumper rail.
Another reason I prefer other brands to Peco.
The only brand that I consider to have good enough detail is Micro Engineering. I have used their products on dioramas.
For actual layouts, when it comes to track, wheels, and couplers, reliability and durability are preffered over adherance to scale fidelity.
-Kevin
If anyone is interested, making a crossover with Peco #8 turnouts creates 2" center spacing on the mains (measured by a ruler since I do not own a micrometer).
The compactness of the Peco makes the length from points to frog of the Peco #8, 1 and 7/8s inch longer than the Atlas #6.
From my experience I believe all Peco Code 83 turnouts result in 2" spacing for crossovers and their diamond crossing is configured to do the same when used with Peco #6 turnouts.
Agreed. That is my experience as well with Peco #6 crossovers. Same for Peco #6 double slips matched up with Peco #6 turnouts.
Rich
I would not worry about compatability of the Walthers switches with other track. I have used lots of different track brands together in different codes and never had a problem fitting them together. This can be a bit intimidating to some one who is new to the hobby but it is not hard to mate up track components from different companies and get bulletproof track work.
Contrary to other comments in this thread, it is possible to have great looking track and reliable track at the same time. ME switches look great and operate very reliably, the issue is that there are only #6s and the track ladder #5ish offerings in HO. Hopefully the new Walthers products have stepped up the detail and accuracy while offering greater variety in HO.
Have fun,
Guy
That is generally true in my experience. On my new layout, I use Atlas Code 83 flextrack with Peco Code 83 turnouts double slips. No compatibility problems whatsoever.
Rich
The only thing to watch for when mixing and matching is rail joiners. Peco and ME make the tightest fitting joiners. ME joiners are also very short, more similar to prototype fishplates. I tend to open up the very ends of the ME joiners a very small amount with a flat blade screwdriver to ease initial fitting.
Las mentiined, I really like Walthers new Code 83 joiners. They seem to slide on easily but grip tightly.
Every new rail joiner from Atlas doesn’t fit their Code 83 rail worth a darn. They may slide on but they are so loose fitting that they also slide off. They claim theirs are "universal. Code 83 and 100 in one joiner. Well, they ain’t.
I have never concerned myself much with how rail joiners fit, because every joint (except insulated ones) is soldered. Rail joiners cannot be trusted long term for electrical contact, and as a DC operator I have no need for feeder drops every 3-6 feet.
Typically I have electrical sections as long as 50-60 feet with no issues fed by a single feeder.
Sheldon
Yep, I view rail joiners as strictly rail alignment devices. They can be relied upon laterally but not vertically. I have had derailments, especially from the pilot trucks on steamers, where one rail is higher or lower than the adjoining rail.
Rich