I am replacing all of my Atlas turnouts with Peco medium and long radius turnouts. Does anyone have experience with Peco #4 turnouts?
DMK
No, but others have suggested an Atlas #4 is really closer to a 4.5 so maybe consider using Peco #5 to replace them. That’s what I use. We have only two Atlas #4 Customline Code 83 left and we replace ours with Peco #5. I think you’ll prefer those in the long run.
The Peco long (actually large) radius turnout is pretty close to a #7. I don’t use any smaller than that so can’t comment.
The internet suggests Peco Code 100 medium have a 12 degree frog and a 36" effective radius (around 900 mm). I believe the diverging route is in fact curved. Large have the same frog but a 60" radius.
The Peco Code 83 #5 we use instead of Atlas #4 have an 11.4 degree frog and a 26" effective radius. We use Peco #6 for mainlines and they work almost as well as their #8 but occupy a lot less real estate.
Peco #6 have a 9.5 degree frog and a 1 meter or about 40" radius.
I’m not sure Peco makes a #4 straight turnout. Their #4 is a Wye.
I want to use a PECO 4 on a siding. I assume that I will not experience any problems on the straight portion?
DMK
What you are thinking of are the turnouts/switches with the plastic frogs. Those are designed to maintain a R18 curve. The customline switches with metal frogs are true #4s.
Last I checked PECO doesn’t actually list their turnouts by #'s. (Did they update their line?) It’s Short/Medium/Long. You kind of have to be careful. It’s kind of roughish that a peco short switch = #4. But it isn’t exact. I found their curved turnout has an inner radius of 17" which caused derailments of my steam.
Hi Dave,
I’m no “track expert”, but I just scrapped my layout of almost 20 years (which had Atlas turnouts) to start a new one. My new layout I’ve started uses Peco code 83 track and turnouts (Electro-Frog) version. It’s like a dream, no more stalls or de-railing. Currently, Peco only makes one version of the #4 and #7 turnouts for some reason.
I’m sure someone else in the forum could explain, but I found that if a small radius turnout is used with track connected that doesn’t have tight radius, even many 6-axial locos will still pass without derailing. I’m thinking my reply doesn’t address your question.
FYI - I used the software “AnyRail” to plan my new layout, and comes with all the Peco track products in it’s library. It’s very easy to use and will graphiclly show you if any point in out plan goes under a specified radius.
Good luck on your project. Bruce
Peco Code 83 Streamline is sold by frog number.
Our Atlas Code 83 Customline turnouts are not great compared to our Peco #5 so we don’t buy any more of the Atlas.
Walthers makes both #4 and #5 in their new product line (also #6, #8 and huge #10).
ME makes #5 and up as far as I know, no #4.
I can’t seem to understand the question, so I’ll give my thoughts on the subject in hopes that it helps somehow.
Peco has two different types of turnouts. Turnouts that have the diverging rails curve after the frog, and diverging rails that are straight after the frog.
The curved routes are labeled small, medium, and large RADIUS; denoting that they are curved. While a person can certainly calculate what the frog is, its kind of useless information because once the track keeps curving after the frog, the angle at which the diverging tracks line up with any connecting track is different than the angle of the frog you just calculated…follow?
In these turnouts, the compactness or broadness of the radius is what matters, because those kinds of turnouts are used for certain applications…hence the terms small, medium, and large RADIUS.
The turnouts with the straight “post-frog” diverging tracks maintain the same angle as the frog all the way to the next piece of track, and will meet the next piece of (parallel tangent) track at the same angle they left the frog…because the diverging tracks are straight.
These tracks are labeled by the frog#, because the frog angle is the important part of the track design info.
So intermingling RADIUS turnout terminology with FROG# turnout terminology fails to see the fundamental difference in the turnouts.
If you want to replace an Atlas #4 turnout with PECO, you want to talk about what FROG# turnout would be the best replacement, and pretty much discard the RADIUS terminology and turnouts. Putting curved “post-frog” diverging tracks into a plan that calls for straight “post-frog” diverging tracks will cause a lot of misaligned track.
Peco gives both the frog angle and radius of their turnouts on their website.
I dont think Peco has a #4, but a "small " is roughly equivalent?
If you put a “small” RADIUS turnout where the diverging tracks keep curving after the frog, those track ends are likely not going to join the next piece of track at the same angle that a #4 FROG turnout does.
Are you asking, “is the angle at which the tips if the “small” curved diverging tracks meet the next piece of track at (about) the same angle as the tips of the straight diverging tracks of the #4?”
PECO has their templates online, free. You should be able to print off all of their turnouts to see how each compares to the other.
Are you talking about Peco’s code 100 track or the code 83? Generally Peco’s code 100 is a Eurpoean style that doesn’t conform to the North American numbered turnout scheme. Their code 83 is North American conforming.
If the latter, as someone else said I would avoid #4 and go with the #5.
If the former, I have had good results with the Peco “short” turnouts.
I cannot speak to the Peco code 75. I know nothing about it, other than it exists.
Peco Code 75 is British style.
The OP’s question doesnt make any sense. If he is talking medium and large then he is referring to code 100. If he is referring to #4 then he is referring to code 83, and if he really means #4 then he is referring to a #4 wye as Peco doesnt have a straight #4.
If he is referring to a code 100 “small” then i would suggest they are best for small locos and best to use medium or large if he has room.