I’ve been thinking about Pro’s & Con’s of various prefab turnouts, as well as other construction methods, while planning my future layout. (Having made no progress so far, I’m thinking about dropping the handlaying approach in favor of quicker progress…)
Here’s what I’ve got so far… I can’t guarantee this information is correct, but I think most of it is true. Please correct me if any of this is wrong, and please add missing items.
Atlas Code 83:
Pros:
-Cheap
-Readily available nearly anywhere
Cons:
-Black Frogs & Guard Rails
-Not NMRA compliant (i.e. noisy/rough frogs
MicroEngineering
Pros:
-All metal (silver-ish) frogs & guard rails
-Relatively inexpensive
Cons:
-No #8’s
-Not NMRA compliant (i.e. noisy/rough frogs)
Shinohara/Walthers
Pros:
-All nickel silver frog points and guard rails
-Relatively inexpensive
Cons:
-Always on back order
-Not NMRA compliant (i.e. noisy/rough frogs)
Handlaid (The old-fashioned way)
Pro’s:
-Cheap
-Possibly NMRA compliant if you take your time (lots of it)
With my limited knowledge, I would say that you are missing only Central Valley kits…that I know of. Joe Fugate is a fan of these kits. Others have agreed, so maybe they’re worth a look-see?
I’ve got Atlas and Peco, both code 100. My big complaint with Atlas is the switch machines. The above-ground ones are large, ugly and non-prototypical, while the under-table ones have too small a throw-rod to attach below my 2-inch foam. Since I’ve got a relatively small layout, I use mostly snap-switches. I can buy a snap-switch pre-packaged with a powered switch machine, but if I want a below-table unit, I need to buy that separately.
I like the solid throw on the Peco’s, which have springs to hold the points against the stock rails. You don’t even need a switch machine with a Peco, if you’re willing to throw them by hand, because the points will stay against the rails once thrown. The Peco switch machine mounts solidly to the underside of the turnout, and can be ballasted out of sight with a little care.
I used Atlas snap-switches on my teenage layout back in the 1950’s and 60’s. I put everything away in boxes and took it out again a couple of years ago. I’ve bought all new track, but I’ve been able to recycle those old Atlas switch machines. Yes, 50 years old and still able to flip the points over. And Atlas hasn’t changed the basic design - the screw mounts still line up perfectly. There’s something to be said for consistency. They may not be pretty, but if you treat them well they’ll last a long, long time.
Atlas BROWN turnout DCC friendly code 83 (These are not the ugly black ones but are very nice and go well with Atlas code 83 brown track).
ME (Microengineering) code 83 with “snap” switch. (My most recent purchase, I bought these because I did not have room for an above table caboose industries ground throw. These are very very nice in that like Peco, you just flip the frog throw with you fingers and it stays put). They cost me $18 each plus a 15% discount at my LHS.
Like Drilline I use Atlas DCC friendly Code 83 turnouts. I like them and have never had any issues with any of them. Most of them are #6’s but I have a bunch of #4’s as well as a few Wye’s. They are not noisy at all.[:O]
The current issue of NMRA’s ‘Scale Rails’ have a good article about problems with using the ‘standards’. It seems that most of the manufacturers have read them wrong, and the NMRA is looking at re-wiring the specs to make them more understandable. Usually this results in a too wide or too narrow check gauge. And Fast Tracks has built a special measuring device for the NMRA that makes it easier to check conformance. It appears that there is some real progress being made in this area.
That said, I use Atlas turnouts and really have had no problems with them. Most issues are the points - I file a chamfer so they are not so blunt. A couple had a high frog casting, and a mill file corrected that problem. BTW, that ‘black’ finish on the frog of the code 83 turnouts can be removed with the same mill file! I have also use Shinohara code 70 turnouts on a previous layout. The big problem with them is the electrical contact at the ‘rivet’ where the points swing from.
I appreciate the work you put into this, but the subjective nature of your evaluation makes it rather difficult to fully appreciate your work. For example:
Cheap vs inexpensive when inexpensive is about twice the cost of cheap makes me wonder what expensive really is.
Black vs metal vs nickel silver frogs is difficult to grasp. In reality there are at least three types of frogs, plastic (typically black or brown), cast (all metal) and soldered rail frogs.
It has been my experience that code 83 Atlas turnouts are rather intolerant of old non rp25 wheel sets while code 100 Atlas seems to accomodate them well.
The biggest problem, that I, as a Newbie (2 years active modeling) have had with turnouts is not listed in your work, that is the incompatibility between some turnouts and track which can be a huge reliability issue. I’ve expanded on this topic in another thread on turnouts and posted pictures to support the issue I raise.
Interestingly, speaking newbie to newbie, I’ve chosen just the opposite direction you have chosen. By my calculations, I’ve wasted about $600 and 6 - 8 months time in the process. Looking back at it, I think there are two solid approaches a person can take on their layout that will serve them well.
Option 1 pick a brand & 1 code, Atlas, Peco, Walthers and use that one manufactures product & code throughout.
Option 2, pick a brand of track you like and hand build your own turnouts designed for that type of track. My fastTracks jigs arrived this week and I’ll be using Atlas rail.
Either of these directions would have been much CHEAPER, more reliable and faster than the mix and match approach the internet and LHS experts advised me to follow.
Just my 2 cents, worth nothing more and please don’t flame m
I’ve got a test track set up, 10x10 around the room with two mains running side by side. Nothing fancy as I will be moving. After much reading and such, I decided to test out the Atlas HO Code 83 custom-line turnouts (insulated frog & NO RIVETS). I have installed two #4’s (side track), two #6’s and two #8’s for a crossover for the two main lines. The track is tacked down every few feet with Atlas nails direct to the ply-wood. Like I said, it’s just a temporary set-up for testing things out and learning.
The #4 turnouts work, but not for the Walthers Heavy Weight Passenger cars (they don’t much like the #6 but will work if you give them some room to straighten out, no back to back turnouts!) The larger engines could take the #4’s slow, but they really looked funny. (I’ve got Big Boys, Verandas, Challengers, etc). So if and when I use them it will be for staging and such.
The #6 turnouts have the “black frog” and are die-cast metal. From the previous post, I just learned one can file off the back, that’s nice to know.
The frogs on the #8 turnouts are the same color as the rails dispite what it says on the Atlas web site! The one thing about the #8’s that I’ve found is with an insulated frog, some of my engines can stall or “jump” a bit, especially when creeping along. The frog is some 2.5 inches long so power pick up could cause a minor problem for some motive power. At least this has been the case for me. At speed, they all roll across them just fine.
I currently have the manual Caboose Industries switches connected and will be setting up a
I’ll put in a plug for Peco. They dont need electric switch machines, they are quality, and they don’t have the Atlas ugly, non-prototypical switches. Just need to pick the weight (guage?) of the rail, and whether you want to go Insulfrog (easier and adequate), or Electrofrog (harder and better in the end due to the powered metal frog.
NONE of the other switch machines have the spring which makes Peco hand throwable right out of the box, no mods needed.
The stock turnouts work fine with DCC. You can modify them if you want, but you don’t have to.
If you do go with electric switches, the Peco ones are pretty good. They mount directly below the turnout in a hole dug in your foam or drilled into your plywood.
Unless some of the newer switch machines have powered INSULATED metal frogs (and I don’t think anyone does that except maybe Kato and Bachmann, maybe) or you have some special requirements, Peco covers the territory.
I wish Peco would come out with powered metal frog that are also insulated (and non-power routing, that is, all routes active). This would make installing the Electrofrogs SO much easier. No need to cut gaps. But they haven’t, yet…
Kato’s Number 6 takes everything you can run on it. It is selectable between power routing and all live by choosing which two prongs to put the power wire. It is frightfully expensive but Rapido passenger cars and the Kato Business car glides through them without any trouble.
I throw them with a Digitrax DS 64 which come from the factory set up for bi-polar switch machines. The DS64 also has a common rail for three wire switch machines but I dont use them.
My selection of Kato is simplicity, self contained in one unit, strong roadbed and huge capacity for large engines like the Duplex. Tiny engines can stop on the frog and re-start off without stalling.
When it comes time to move them around until a pernament home can be found, that is not a problem.
They are pricey. I usually work around that by buying a few units every so often until the entire switch tree is complete.
Another downside is the instructions are very heavy in Japanese. But it is helped by idiot-proof imagery that illustrates pretty well what can be done.
I think MR recently did the Blackriver Junction layout with Kato.
Safety Valve, are the Kato turnouts your talking about come with the road bed attached and snap together? Can’t remember the name… quick track some such…
Just a correction for “handlaid the old fashioned way”. Scale size and near scale size spikes, highly detailed cast frogs, tie plates, and anything else you could want to make a highly detailed model of 20th Century turnouts is available from http://www.proto87.com/. Components are available for both NMRA-spec and Proto87-spec turnouts. Frogs, points, and other parts are available to replace the stock Central Valley kits, too. No financial connection or incentive on my part.
Time differences between the options are not nearly as great as is implied in the comparisons. From bare roadbed to completely finished turnout with ballast, wiring, and under the table throw installed (powered or manual is about the same) takes ham-fisted me 4 hours (2 evenings of 2 hours each) for the old-fashioned handlaid. Extra detailing (using cast frogs, adding accurate turnout bars, tie plates, etc) could add another hour or so. In my experience, it takes at least an hour for much lesser results, but same degree of completion, for a commercial turnout.
How many times are you going to go back to a commercial turnout to fix a problem that you eliminated from the get-go on a handlaid turnout? How many turnouts are on your layout? My point is that for 20 turnouts or less, the handlaid differential is almost nothing when ongoing maintenance is taken into account. A large layout is a whole 'nother world, where construction time vs maintenance time must be carefully considered in almost every aspect of the layout. Ask Joe Fugate.
Actually, mid-size layouts probably get the biggest payoff from good commercial turnouts. By “good” commercial turnout, I mean one that is consistently close enough to NMRA spec to provide reliable tracking, and no stalling or shorts with a wide variety or equipment. A “good” turnout will continue to provide this performance over time, wh
The one thing I can do is to use the Kato re-railer (Small ramp) with a notch in it to remove the joiners and use it with regular code 83 flextrack and cork roadbed with some adjustments to the road bed’s height such as may happen at bridges etc.
Yes, Unitrack… I actually have a few of them when I first set up my temporary track. Then I took it down and started play’en around with the flex to get a hang of things.
Hummm interesting that you married them to flex track…
Not yet. They can be rather easily. I have not yet gotten that far. At the moment im working a wye problem which will be solved once the third leg is worked out on the workbench. Everything else is gravy.
As a Brit I have used Peco since the year dot mainly due to availability,durability and cost, I have used their HO & N track on layouts in the past. One layout I built with them followed me around the world for almost 10 years whilst I was in the RAF and were still giving superb service until I ditched the layout, I passed the turnouts to a friend who is still using them to this day which makes them about 15 years old.
I don’t know if this item is available in North America but Peco here in the UK sell an extender bar and an underside mounting kit. The mounting kit allows the turnout motor to be mounted in a similar way to a Tortoise and operate via a small diameter hole in the benchwork, removing the need to mount the turnout motor directly to the turnout with the 4 lugs. The extender bar is used to allow the turnout motor to be used on thicker benchwork and if I remember it’s about 2" long but comes with a connector to join the bar to the turnout motor, this can be shortened by cutting or lengthened by using a longer piece of bar.
This is with the Duplex. The Radius on both sides of the turnout is 34 1/8" in a 10 degree curve. The second curveback is also 10 degrees. There is a small amount of overhang on the inside drive axles and some offset in the couplers.
This one is the long wheelbase PRR J1, Ive not have had to make any increase in power to get it through the switch as it used to need it on the much smaller ones. If it is possible, I think this tender is even bigger than the Duplex and rocked a little through.
I apologize in advance for the high levels of background noise, I dont live in a quiet house.