What I call snap switches, all have plastic frog and cannot be electrified. Very short wheel base locos or locos with dubious electrical pickup may need electrified frogs. But that is not an absolute. Some of us do fine with our 45 tonners and dead frogs.
Your bigger problem is that turnouts are not interchangeable. They are different lengths and angles. Is it functionally and appearance-wise worth it to rework the track? That is up to you.
Peco are better quality. Period. That’s not opinion. That’s easily provable fact.
Anecdotally, I’ve returned four Atlas turnouts with manufacturing errors. Peco returns? Zero.
My Atlas turnouts have worked flawlessly for close to 30 years and I’ve never had a defective Atlas turnout in 60 years. I have had three of the most used turnouts give me a problem from 25 years of service so I guess that makes them less superior to Pecos.
Mel
My Model Railroad
http://melvineperry.blogspot.com/
Bakersfield, California
I’m beginning to realize that aging is not for wimps.
I have all but two turnouts that are Atlas on my current layout (21 of them to be specific) and I admit I have one or two problems but I chaulk that up to getting most of them used. (In the past, i would purchase them in lots or older types as in Mark 2s or 3s to save money. I have also had an occasional problem with the machines but that’s a different problem but I get those the same way as well.) The other two are code 100 Insul-frog Pecos only because I needed 3-ways to fit the needed track design and geometery. They are equipped with ground throws as trying to fit machines on them proved to be a bit too much and they are in reasonable reach.
A lot of the needed turnout depends on what equipment you are running. Bigger/longer equipment needs larger turnouts. (i.e. an F7 can get away with a #4 while an SD-60 would most likely need at least a #6 or even a #8.)
Fascinating. Congratulations on your ability to preserve the layout.
I have removed several layouts from homes, and none of them were designed to come apart in pieces. A few of them looked like they would, but trackwork and/or scenery always made that impossible.
-Kevin
Peco turnouts do not have a shorting issue. The heel of the frog is narrower than other turnouts, so equipment that has wider tread or out of gauge or excessive slop might cause the track to short. Their geometry makes them more compact than Atlas, so it might not be a suitable drop in replacement.
If the rest of the layout is Atlas track, I would recommend using Atlas turnouts or Micro Engineering.
Do you know whether the existing switches are 18" snap switches, or the lesser-known 22" snap switches?
I ask because although they are both called snap switches, operationally the 22" is much better than the 18". The 22" creates a nice smooth curve on the diverging route, rather than the kink seen on the 18".
I use several 22" snap switches on my layout. The diverging route is about the same smoothness, maybe slightly better, than a #4. So if the turnouts are 22" snap switches, I suggest you keep them, provided your trains run through them OK.
At a glance the 18" and 22" look similar because both have plastic frogs. You can tell the difference because the 22" snap switch is overall longer (10.5" rather than 9"), and the curved diverging route is much longer.
Re: motors, personally I made my own using geared DC motors, at a cost of about $3 per turnout. But you’ll need to have (or be ready to learn) a bit of electronics knowledge before going down that road.
You didn’t specify which do not have shorting issues, but only Electrofrog can truly fit that description. I’ve been reading a lot of folks having issues with Peco Insulfrog turnouts indeed having shorting issues; those issues now extend to the new Unifrog as one hobbyist demonstrated in a Youtube video, and he was using newer HO rolling stock. The metal tread can bridge the two rails of opposing polarity where they are close together near the frog. The Unifrog have the same design and can also short out if a metal wheel tread bridges the gap.
Yes, you can paint some finger nail polish to insulate the surface of the rail in the offending area, but I’d rather not have a layout full of them and have to deal with that issue. Some, as Clint Eastwood would say, are feeling lucky and don’t have the issue. Some not so much.
Maybe its semantics. I’m aware of several people reporting issues with some of their equipment over some of their Pecos, but to say that Pecos have a shorting issue is to imply that every car or loco will short over a Peco every time, and that the issue is widespread.
It would be helpful if these folks would diagnose exactly why some of their equipment shorts out a Peco and other pieces of equipment do not, rather than implying its random chance that everybody simply has to take.
I have been running over Pecos on my last layout and the portion that’s completed on my
I’ve never implied that nor have I ever heard of anyone else implying it either; it serves no purpose to suggest something that is far from the truth.
In the case of Peco Insulfrog and Unifrog, I call it a design weakness, because there is the potential due to the frog design, for shorts to occur as I described earlier. Due to this, I don’t plan to buy any Peco Insulfrog or Unifrog turnouts in the future. I’ll either hunt down Electrofrog or try out the new Walthers line of turnouts. Since the Peco code 83 Electrofrog #6 were discontinued late last year, I’ve hunted down enough to cover my needs hopefully.
Some have indeed diagnosed the issue. Sometimes it’s because the wheel tread is flat and not sloped and that causes the gap to be bridged even though the tread is not particurly wide.
The random chance element enters in because people have potentially hundreds of models running and they may not have the time or energy to critically check the wheels on every model. Personally, I would argue that it’s better to have a turnout that does not add a potential for shorting to the equations, and that saves me having to chase down the problem. Chasing down shorts is a hassle as it is, let alone add in additional potential to the mix.
[quote]
I have been running over Pecos on my last layout and the portion that’s completed on my new layout and I n
Hello All,
My question is why do you want/need to “upgrade” these turnouts.
Please realize that An Atlas “Snap Switch” does not refer to the type of mechanism that throws the points on the turnout, it refers to the turnout itself.
The frog (or “size”) of a Snap Switch is approximately a 4-1/2.
As has been posted replacing these turnouts will require some major reworking of the existing track plan.
If you want to change HOW the turnouts are controlled you can do that without having to replace the turnout.
Brand “X” turnouts do not have to be thrown by brand “X” solenoids, servos, and/or slow-motion motors. You can mix and match, with certain caveats.
On my pike I throw both Atlas Remote Switch Machines along with PICO PL-11s. Both are a dual-solenoid type. I use the Atlas Switch Control Box (#56) to throw both through a PECO Capacitive Discharge Unit (CDU) with no problems.
As far as the trackwork on your inherited pike as the saying goes, “If it 'aint broke, don’t fix it.”
However, if you want powered frogs you will need to upgrade to turnouts with metal frogs- -which, as has been posted- -the Snap Switches don’t have.
Atlas Custom Line turnouts do have the potential to power the frog but they are not a direct replacement for Snap Switches and will require track realignments.
Hope this helps.
Actually no, an Atlas 18" radius snap switch is about a #3-1/2 frog angle and the 22" radius snap switch is barely a #4.
The Atlas Custom Line turnout labeled “#4”, is really a #4-1/2. Lay a snap switch on top of a Custom Line #4, not even close.
Sheldon
I concur. If you fit just one snapswitch into a layout with “proper” turnouts you will immediately notice the difference.
Snapswitches have a function but it’s well worth the effort to avoid using one if you can fit a straight turnout into the same spot.
We discovered all this completely by accident. Well, plus some useful instruction from this forum, some courteous and some maybe not so.
I’ll go so far as to say just never use a snapswitch unless you really, really have to. If you have to then fit the 22" radius in preference.
Look over your situation carefully and with imagination and often you can find a way to fit a proper geometry turnout instead.