May be sufficient for the OP. ME has a ladder system now using #5 turnout geometry. I prefer #6 myself and have used Atlas #6 after filing the points for more reliablity (per an old MR magazine article on tuning turnouts.
Even #5’s have a closure radius of 26" - so I guess it depends on what you are sending through the yard, but 26" radius can easily handle what is typically used for a switcher.
–Randy
Rich has the problem exactly right. Even just two Atlas #8s in a “string” adds enough length to totally mess with the 32" minimum radius we want to maintain. We could make the benchwork wider but we would be sacrificing aisle space and we don’t want to go there. Our old fixed layout had about 30" between it and the portable layout. When two people wanted to go past one another they had to be on really intimate terms!
I will go back and have a look at using Atlas #6s. The only place that I think I really need #8s is at a double crossover.
Thanks again,
Dave
Dave, sounds like you don’t need #8’s at all. Anything that will run on 32" radius, it will go through a properly set up #6, even a crossover.
AND, the big advantage in my view of any North American style trackage compared to PECO code 100 is the true straight frogs, especially when pairing them into crossovers.
And again, #6, #4 or #8, the Atlas products build yard ladders and crossovers with no cutting and no spacers…
Sheldon
I believe that the comparisons the OP was making were to PECO HO Code 83, which has straight frogs and straight diverging legs, just like Atlas*.
*Except for the handy #7 curved turnout, for which Atlas does not offer an equivalent.
And perhaps not even there, at least for performance. Frog #s are tools, not status symbols.
I understand, I was refering to his original design which he explained was based on PECO code 100, mentioned both in this thread and his previous thread about turnouts.
Sheldon
Sheldon & Dave: I am in total agreement with Sheldon’s statement on a properly set up #6 turnout being more than adequate for your needs. That being said, however, the difference in physical and operational appearance between a 6 and an 8 is substantial. I am not trying to change any minds here, I am just thinking this is a club layout after all. Just my thoughts.
Old Fat Robert
Don’t overlook the fact that the Peco Code 83 #6 is only 9 inches long.
Rich
No offense to Dave and his group, but why worry about turnout appearance with curves as sharp as 32"? Number 6 turnouts are well enough proportioned for curves that size.
For modeling any kind of Class I railroad, I have long considered 36" radius the bare minimum, with 48" being the desired goal.
Sheldon
Ain’t that the truth. Trouble is, not many of us has the space.
Rich
Peco Large code 100 turnout has a nominal radius of 60". Still not good for crossovers (you get an S curve). But that doesn’t mean that they will not work for other main line diverging routes (use the 8s for crossovers and Large code 100s for diverging route turnouts).
You might consider handlaying (unless thats out of the question due to other factors). The fast tracks jig turnout break even is somewhere in the 20 turnout range (including cost of jigs). After that your price drops dramatically. I ran the numbers once and decided this was the way to go for my future layouts
I have a whole pile of Peco large code 100s in the basement and 89’ RTTX flats and DTTX articulated well cars and SD9043s. I can mock up a section of track (or just build it into my modules) and test it if you wish.
http://www.peco-uk.com/product.asp?strParents=3309,3322&CAT_ID=3327&P_ID=17448
There is another player in the turnout jig business. Oak Hill Railroad. Ken Patterson is going to do a review of their product. I’ve never laid my own rail, so I don’t know what I’m looking at. The template is milled aluminum
Hi Sheldon:
We started out with the goal of having a 36" minimum radius but we just didn’t have enough space in the room. The track ran off of the benchwork in many places. However, by using Atlas Code 83 #6s we may be able to increase the radii above 32" in some places.
We could go with a much simpler track plan but that is clearly not what the members want. The last permanent layout was boringly simple and we are not going there again. We asked the members to tell us what they wanted to see in the layout and we got about 50 different suggestions. We have been able to include about 2/3rds of those requests, and it doesn’t look like it will be a mish mash of unrelated scenes.
A couple of things to keep in mind are that not all of the curves are down to 32", and almost all of the curves have easements. If I did away with the easements I could easily increase the radii but that would compromise the appearance of the trains as they enter the curves. Which is the better option? Larger radii or easements?
Another issue that was brought up at the meeting tonight will have to take into account. A couple of people mentioned that the leading trucks on older steam engines which do not have RP25 wheel flanges will derail easily on Code 83 track. Does anyone have any comments on that?
Thanks
Dave
We have considered going the Fast Tracks route but we decided to go with pre-made turnouts for reasons of time and a lack of experience. We have a couple of members who have built Fast Tracks turnouts but they have not come forward to offer to build a bunch for the club. Let’s call it politics. I’m sure I could learn to do it but I just don’t want to undertake the task.
Dave
That’s too bad that the experienced club members have not come forward to volunteer or at least share their experience with handlaying turnouts. What they ought to do is run a clinic for other members to share their experience and conduct a ‘how to’ workshop.
Rich
And this explains why I have no interest in being in a club - been there, done that.
As for large flanges, some will be ok on code 83, some of the o
While I generally agree with most everything you say, Sheldon, when comparing Atlas to Peco, the one advantage of Peco over Atlas is the approximately 3 inch shorter footprint of the Peco - - - a true space saver.
Rich
Rich, not really? As I explained earlier, the diverging route us the same length on both brands. Who cares about the straight route? You can easily trim the straight route of the Atlas back with no problems if you really need to, but to build a yard ladder with the PECO you have to add little 3" pieces between each turnout. Lots of fussy soldering or lots of places for bad electrical connections.
And avoiding curves that close to the frog on the straight route is better anyway.
Sheldon
Sheldon, really. Peco turnouts installed end to end take up far less space than Atlas turnouts installed end to end. It all comes down to track configuration and available layout space.
Rich