i am a new mrr’er (well been into it for ages but im starting a layout)
Help me choose.
Peco Electrofrog
Pro: Come power routing
Pro: Hidden Motor
Pro:a large assortment of switches is available
Con: Difficult to put motor and roadbed
Con: Costs more
Con:switch motor costs alot
Con:difficult to set up motor
Atlas Switches
Pro:cost less
Pro:easy and cheap to set up motor
Con: The motor is visible
Con: Not as big a selection compared to peco
Pro:Easier to lay the roadbed
Con: I need to learn how to insulate them so they power route.
Any other points you have or suggestions for deciding please mke them
Hard for me to comment, since my recommendation would be “neither” at least as you’ve stated it.
I’d suggest walthers/shinohara or atlas customline with under-table switch machines such as the tortoise. But I don’t do power-routing turnouts, as you seem to, so I’m not sure how valid that is.
Pavariangoo, You’ve done an excellent job researching and determing pros and cons between the two. Now it’s a matter of weighting your own criteria to decide which is more important TO YOU. If cost is the biggest factor, go Atlas. If you can afford it and the added features/ quality is more important go Peco. (You can also do some of each with Atlas tucked away where the switch machine isn’t as distracting, and Pecos down front with hidden motors). I did the same weighting Pros and Cons process, and I decided to use all Atlas. I like to save the money for other things on the layout. They’re plenty reliable, and more readily available here. I’m willing to make that trade off and accept the visible switch machines, since I really don’t want to mess with the under the table mounting, and they don’t bother me that much. I also like being able to electrically control a switch from more than one place (which you can’t readily do with a motor).
It’s also easy to operate a stall-type switch motor from more than one location. In any case, if pavariangoo is planning to use the PECO switch machine, it is also a solenoid-type (just like atlas), so electrically the two are similar.
you can use a tortoise or other under-table switch motor with either the peco or the atlas turnouts . personally i think the peco look better , but i’ve seen some photos here of well painted and ballasted atlas track that looked really nice , you just have to put a bit of extra effort into it . if cost is the more imourtant factor then it’s an easy decision … atlas wins
kchronister brings up walthers/shinohara track , also a good choice and i think they have the greatest variety of turnouts , crossovers , curved turnouts etc
you forgot the walther’s code 83 and the shinohara (A code 100 version of the code 83)…basically they are the same as a pecos except on the pecos turnout, in order to use a tortoise machine you have to remove the spring…the code 83 or the shinohara look as good as the pecos, have about as many different varieties of turnout styles and the best…i’ve found that they cost less…I use Atlas #4 and #6 mark IV turnouts and shinohara …both work with the tortoise machine but the shinohara looks better than an Atlas…the Atlas look OK after i cut the funny ties off and make a few more modifications…chuck
I’m using Atlas code 83 for all my standard switches and CVMW for anything I need to curve.
You can use under table switch machines for either. This really comes down to the Ford/Chevy debate.Both have good points, both have bad points.
Wow!!!Thanks for the responses, i needed something to bring up my mood today.
So what do you mean with this?
“'m willing to make that trade off and accept the visible switch machines, since I really don’t want to mess with the under the table mounting, and they don’t bother me that much. I also like being able to electrically control a switch from more than one place (which you can’t readily do with a motor).”
I was commenting that with a solenoid (or “snap”) switch which uses momentary contact to throw, you can easily have a set of buttons in more than one place… such as at a control panel as well as on the fascia near the switch itself. You can then operate it from either location. Following my post, however, Byron corrected me and said that it’s also easy to do that with a “motor” type switch machine. I figured it would be more complicated… not sure how you’d do it. Probably not a crucial consideration in the overall scheme of things anyway.
You should research Atlas turnouts further. The Atlas Custom-Line turnouts do not have motors on the surface; but are designed for under-mount motors.
These models have insulated metal frogs so power-routing is as simple as soldering a power feeder to the frog (via a small metal connector on the end of a tie). They are available in HO-scale (codes 100 and 83); and N-scale (code 55).
One plus to the Peco switches is that they don’t need motors at all–they have a built-in spring that keeps them in one direction or the other. If you are still planning on the small sort of layout you were discussing a few months back, then reaching over to throw a switch won’t be any more difficult than throwing a switch on a panel.
4 by 5 is still small enough to operate turnouts by hand–if cost is that much of an issue, then getting up and walking two or three feet to throw a turnout shouldn’t be any great stressor. But if you do, do yourself a favor and drill the holes under the turnout so you can later install switch machines once you have the financial means to do so. Easier than yanking the switches back up to make the holes later…
Jetrock-
Thanks for the great idea… I’ve been struggling with whether to change over from my top-mount Atlas controllers to Tortoise on my new layout. But I have gazillions of the Atlas ones, and decided I needed to save money and just use them… but drilling the wholes for future possible upgrade without removing turnout… now why didn’t I think of That? [banghead]