I have somewhere around fifty Micro engineering turnouts in both code 83 and code 70 configuration. I chose Micro Engineering because I liked the look of their product. I find, however, that they require quite a bit of tweaking to perform in a reliable fashion. My “corrections” have included filing the frog guard rails to make the gauge wider. Filing the frog itself to lower its height ( BLI steamers tended to clump up over the frog- maybe the tire width is too great? Never checked.) Filing the points and smoothing the switch ties so they don’t hang up when operated normal or reversed. What do you think of the Micro engineering turnouts?
Split Reduction
For the curious in me - I don’t own any ME turnouts - was the track gauge within tolerances but narrow, or was it actually out of spec? I own flex track by both ME and Atlas, and the ME flex track is definitely slightly narrower in gauge, but still within NMRA specs.
Personally, I prefer the track gauge to be right at minimum spec. It helps stop my small steamers from nosing so badly, and makes for narrower flangeways (still within spec) that work better with code 88 wheels. Since I’m not pushing absolute minimum radius (pretty much wedded to the 3X rule), keeping the gauge narrower has no drawbacks for me.
Fred W
Yes. The flangeways were within NMRA specs with a couple of exceptions. . My feeling is that the BLI drivers tire width is a little excessive on my Mikados. I use Intermountain semi scale 33" metal wheel sets on my freight cars and have not had any problems with them moving through the turnouts. I appreciate your idea of slightly tight guage to prevent nosing. My BLI engines are loose and sloppy to allow them to negotiate 18" radius curves. Drives me nuts to watch them “waddle” down the track…
Thanks for the reply. I’m sorry you have had the problems with the ME turnouts. On the HOn3 side, the older ME code 55 turnouts on wood ties were not all that highly regarded, but the new code 70 turnouts on plastic ties appear to be a definite improvement.
Fred W
I happen to like ME turnouts only gripe is they only pre-make them in #6. I’ve put hem in where they needed a little tweaking here and there and have also installed them and run locomotives through without a hitch. No more or no less work then anyone else’s turnouts to get them just right. BLI’s tend to be a little on the finicky side and I have found they respond better through turnouts with powered frogs then noon powered. They relay on the drive wheels the tender wheels and the tether for electrical pick up. They also tend to have the connections loosen up inside the boilers and just need a screw righting to cure that problem Straight from the tech this morning from BLI
I have some Micro Engineering turnouts on my layout, code 70 #6’s, and found that the flangeways in the frog casting aren’t deep enough and cause some of my equipment to ride up on the frog. I ended up taking the motor tool and a cut off disk to the frog to deepen the flangeway and that seemed to solve the problem. I also remove the factory installed spring from the throwbar to eliminate any resistance on the switch machine.
Pat
I have one ME turnout and I had the same problems. The frog casting is not deep enough for some of my locos to go through without riding up and in some cases derailing. I also had one of the guard rails too tight and had to open it up as well. I love the detail on them but went with Walthers/Shinohara and Peco for the rest of the layout.
I too have found the frog flangeways on some ME turnouts to be a little shallow. Locomotives tend to "hobble"over them. My cure has been to take a small file and deepen the flangeways. While I have had to make these small improvements to my ME turnouts I will not hesitate to buy additional ME turnouts and recommend their use to other modlers. The beautiful thing about them is that they can be made to work with great reliability with a little judicious fiddling.
Split Reduction
Threads like these help keep me from using mass-produced turnouts. I’ll stick with hand-made.
Mark