Hello again, this is an offshoot of my last topic on Shinohara curved turnouts. Don Gibson recommended that instead of using a #8 curved turnout that has more reliability issues, I look into ME turnouts. I was taken by surprise, as I had not known that ME produced turnouts. The price is right (Peco is a bit too expensive), and they are available.
If you have used ME turnouts, any thoughts, comments or remarks that I should consider? This would be my first experience as conveyed above with ME turnouts and the yard lead in which they would be used is a core portion of the layout.
Thanks,
Heck…why not go with the CD70 series of turnouts that ME produces.
ME turnouts are first class and worth every penny.
David B
David, I certainly feel that the look of code 70 is amazing. It looks perfect for areas like yards on railroads with limited capital and not much reason to improve the infrastructure. However, flawless operation is an absolute must, which has kept me from using code 70. But thanks for the comment on ME quality. If you have used Shinoharas, how do you feel they compare? Any place where one might be better than the other?
Hmmm…If I had to choose I would go with ME turnouts.
As per reliable operations, the CD of the rail has nothing to do with it. It all has to do with rolling stock reliability.
I think that Shinoharas are Dated and they have an issue the MEs dont; the pivot of the stock rails is too close to the points and lends itself to shorting out if the locomotive’s wheels are too tight in gauge.
David B
Interesting. You have pretty much sold me on ME, although the code is still an issue. I agree that it is on the rolling stock reliablity, no doubt about it. However, code 83 is more forgiving of such problems. I use 83 normally and have no derailments whatsoever not caused by operator error[:-^]. Additionally, because of the yard body’s position about 12 inches from the fascia behind the A/D tracks (for which I’ve already ordered #8 Shinoharas), the difference will not be as noticeable or as effective and clearing derailments will be more difficult. I appreciate the suggestion though. I may choose to use code 70 on other parts of the layout as the visual appeal is definitely much, much higher.
I also have gone to using ME track and turnouts. They cost more than some of the other mfgrs, and delivery is slow because this is a side line for his other wire products, so he waits until he has sufficient orders and makes a big run. However, his quality and proto-typeness is second to none in my opinion.
That’s it. Grayfox, you and David together have made me a convert to ME (I’m a pretty easy sway).[:D]
Of course, the optimal turnout IMHO is the FastTracks ones.
David B
Oh boy. Now that’s another whole jar of cookies.
…but a cheaper jar of cookies. Talk about reliable turnouts…
David B
Do you guys have links to any sites that show good pics of the ME stuff? All the sites I’ve seen with their stuff just show crappy little thunb nails or just text lists and prices.
YOSHI:
WALTHERS’ turnouts are Code 83 and Electricly different than Shinohara’s ‘Power routing’ design. The ME is also code 83 and matches Walthers’ ‘DCC friendly’ electrical characteristics .
For those reasons they make a good substitute - as well as being of comparable “Quality”.
‘Curved switches’ offer tracking problems that ‘straight’ NMRA types don’t have. That is the principal reason I thought it makes a poor choice for a #1 yard lead.
PS: SHINOHARA Products does not offer Code 83 (yet). (It’s a Walthers contract item).
Don, yes, by Shinohara I was implying Walthers Shinohara. You’re right, I should have made the distinction in my post.
Loathar, I wouldn’t be surprised if it is hard to find pictures of them. The LHS owner said that they are a side business for ME, so they aren’t as common.