I know that many of you are already saying-O not this argument again. But please have mercy on this newbie in the hobby. Here is my thoughts. Correct me if I am wrong.
The Peco Code 83 insulfrogs are very nice, but you had better have some dough in your pocket They seem to not have any mechanical defiencies expect maybe the frog. Most of you stated that nail polish could handle that issue.
Now what about the Atlas code 83 super switch. It has a plastic frog. Is this a place of locomotive potential awkardness in constant speed. Someone on the board stated that the tabs under on the throwbar needs to be soldered to make the turnout more dependable. These are my thoughts.
Please help this newbie decide which is a better turnout. What are the pluses and minuses of each. To set one argument down, I do not mind paying more if the product is going to be more reliable and durable. Please be honest and help. Thanks.
Look Again - The Atlas Customline and Super Switch line of turnouts have an insulated metal frog. I may be anodized ‘black’ but it is metal and can be powered via external contacts like those in the Tortoise machines.
That said, the Peco code 83 line of US type turnouts is pretty impressive, and the ‘cost’ is too! The overall quality of the Peco turnout is better, and they have the ‘spring lock’ point feature. The Atlas code 83 turnouts sometimes have a rough or high frog, but that can be fixed with a few swipes of a fine mill file. This also gets rid of that black coating. I have been using the Atlas turnouts, and for the cost - they are a good value. I have only run across one turnout that had the frog sitting so high I could not file it down. I suspect it was pulled from the injection molding machine while it was still too hot.
The thing that I hatted about the old Atlas code 100 turnouts was the large rivets in the point rail hinges. You couldn’t GIVE me one of those. But their code 83 turnouts are much better. I am using them and like them for the price. If I didn’t have to worry about money, I would use the Walthers ones made by Shinahora. I am using some Peco’s too, but they are for my small amount of code 70/75 spurs.
Be careful with the generalizations simply by brand name.
Peco code 83 track is quite different from their other lines, including the design of the frog. While the wiring remains the same (Insulfrog or Electrofrog), as does the springing of the points, little things like the spacing and insulation of the rails at the frog have changed.
Similarly, Atlas Custom-Line turnouts (and their derivative Super Switch) have been made since the 1960s. Over the years there have been at least a dozen changes in various production runs. Early runs had plastic coated frogs with relatively little metal. And large grommets for point hinges. Since Atlas moved production to China, at least 2 different OEMs with slightly different size ties and rail have been used.
If comparing Atlas, you need to compare specific production runs you are using/considering because the features/flaws will be different, depending on the batch. And no - there is no batch number for easy identification. But knowing this does help explain the wide range of experiences folks have had with the Atlas turnouts.
The Peco has been a much more consistent product over the years, but again there are deliberate differences in the North American prototype code 83 line, compared to Peco’s other British prototype track lines. So unless the report states Peco code 83, it may not necessarily apply to your case.
I DO NOT have any Atlas or Peco switches, so my answer may be qustionable. (I have to wonder how many have actually had both?)
ALL ‘prefab’ switches seem to have some compromises to enable manufacturing efficiency, so if you want near perfection, go with switch kits you spike into place, to get superior results. My personal thoughts are ‘switches cause most derailments’ (gaps to cross) so is not the place to derail a $300 engine or string of cars.
Atlas & Peco code 83 turntouts /switches are both new designs and both should be OK. (Based on past performances I would select Peco over Atlas as being better made); plus Atlas code 83 is all code 100 high - to match their code 100. Remember what I said about compromises?
More important should be that Peco’s power route, where Atlas’ do not. The Industry is switching over to insulated frogs - plastic or metal - for those buying DCC. (Both work).
Peco offers both ‘Insulfrog’ (for DCC)and ‘Electrofrog’ turnouts. ‘Insulfrog’ means ‘insulated frog’.(guess what electrofrog means). ‘Power routing’ means the frog changes polarity with the throw. One can insulate the inner ‘frog’ rails with plastic joiners if you want. Big deal!
If you don’t like rivets @ the points, look at Micro-Engineering. Keep in mind rivets reinforce point pressure against the rails. If I were a newbie starting out, I’d go Peco ‘Insulfrog’.
What wonderful answers were given to me. Let me first correcr something. I do not know why I said plastic frogs instead of metal frogs. Thanks for the correction.
What I am looking for is I am looking for the best protypical turnout I can get without a lot of wiring. For example, the Atlas code 83 would only need one set of wires with a power pack. (I am not into DCC yet.) The Peco insulfrog would need wiring behind the points to power the blocks.
Why buy Pecos at a higher price when you get good protypical look when Atlas code 83 Super Switches look just as good with less wiring.
Again, correct any misconceptions and help this newbie again with his struggle.
The Atlas code 83 should still only need one set of wires after getting into DCC (if it’s the same code 83 that I have), and has been trouble free for me - even for the turnout that didn’t quite fit properly in my track plan and has some decent sized canyons for gaps in the rails on two ends.
I have never used Peco’s product so I can’t really give an objective answer one way or another on them.
My personal preference recommendation is the Atlas since that is where my experience is; but my advice would be to look at which would most closely match your goal of minimal wiring (probably the Atlas) and then standardize on that particular brand. They are both good products and will do the job you ask them to.
Not quite sure what you mean here. I believe that the overall height of the structure from the bottom of the ties to the top of the rail is the same, but the rail itself is 0.083 inch high. The difference is the thickness (height) of the ties. Makes it easy to transition from code 100 to code 83.
In that case look at the Micro-Ebngineering, its more prototype, but if you really want lower cost lower cost, go Atlas. Side by side comaririson or 1 of each should settle it.
Fraid I still don’t see what that particular concern might be. Yes, the height is the same, but when it is all buried in ballast, the appearance of the code 83 should be better than the code 100. You had alluded to something about compromises, so I was just wondering what the compromise was.
Ahh the great switch debates rage on…My suggestion would be to check out Micro Engineering. I have purchased and compared all the brands/trimlines being discussed here.
I favor reliability and appearance when it comes to trackwork. My opinion (just my opinion) is that I wouldn’t use the Atlas because of the ugly frog and points assembly, didn’t like the Peco code 83 because of quality (issues with the stamped points rails), price (at nearly $30.00 MSRP they better be perfect) and look (oversize throwbar ties). I ended up choosing the Micro Engineering, although I would definately use the Fastracks system if I were to start over again…Currently I am using BK and ME to finish out the switches on the layout.
I recommend personally examining all of the brands and making the decision based on what you see…Each modeler makes their decisions based on skill level, appearance preferences and price point. After looking at what is out there you might make a different decision than I made based on your set of guidelines…
Atlas code 83 RAIL is .083" high. The ties are deeper, so that the TOP of code 83 railheads will line up with the TOP of code 100 rails if the modeler chooses to butt the two types of Atlas flex track end to end.
As far as Peco vs Atlas vs Shinohara/Walthers vs (fillintheblank) turnout quality/cost debate, I, personally, have a clear winner - hand lay your own. Absolutely the cheapest (unless you use jigs,) almost certain to be higher quality (the end user is the quality control inspector) and guaranteed to fit the track geometry on the layout plan.
Hand laying turnouts is NOT sub-nuclear particle physics. Even this arthritic old coot can do it. Try it, you may like it.
Chuck (modeling Central Japan in September, 1964 - on Atlas flex and handlaid specialwork)
First off, forget your 2 wire theory. To have a dependable layout, you should have a set of feeder wires about every 6’ of track and to each siding. (regardless of the type of turnout, DC OR DCC) Wires cheap. Track dead spots lead to hair loss.
I use Atlas code 83 and find they have 2 problems. The frogs have a dip in them that will cause your trains to rock and wobble over them. And the point throw bars are a little weak where they connect to the point rails. Both problems can be corrected with some plastic shims pretty easily.