I have only used Atlas switches or turnouts. I have like 30 of them. They have always work well for me’ I mostly used 4 axle Diesel ’ I used those hand throw switches you used your hand to throw. I used to use the under table Atlas switches that I could control from my panel but I really like doing it manual’ But my question is are turnouts from Shinohara’ peco’ ect better than Atlas. When I expand my current layout that will have a double mainline I want to use at least no6 turouts. On my current shelf layout I use no 4 turnouts since I have like 25 of them. Or are Atlas okay. I use Atlas code 100 flex track only so far. Thanks
fender,
Atlas makes good turnouts. That said, I don’t like the “noise” of their plastic frogs and prefer “live” frogs because it gives me smoother and more reliable operation electrically. I use Fast Tracks (FT) turnouts for that reason and Caboose Industries 220S ground throws to switch the polarity of the track. You can make the FT turnous yourself using their jigs and fixtures, or purchase them individually off places like eBay. I’ve been very happy with them - both operationally and visually.
Tom
Tom,
Atlas Custom Line turnouts do not have plastic frogs. For more than 30 years Atlas Custom Line turnouts have had isolated metal frogs that can be powered. I’m looking a 1983 Walthers Catlaog specificly describing the new metal frogs and better solid rail switch points - that was even before the code 83 line. The number 4 and number 6 turnout frogs are “blackened” with a conductive metal blackener, again they are not plastic. The number 8 frogs are left silver…
The Atlas “Snap Switch”, which is a curved from train set track turnout which repalces an 18" piece of sectional track, does have an insolated plastic frog.
I have been using code 83 Atlas turnouts since their introduction, again except for the Snap Switch, they have isolated metal frogs with an electrical tab for a power feed.
Electrically Atlas turnouts are “feed through” with jumpers built in to take power past the frog. So obviously if powered frog are used the polarity must be changed by some sort of switching setup when the turnout is thrown.
I personally prefer this setup to anything that relies of the contact of the rail to conduct power.
I started out in this hobby with TruScale turnouts and hand laid turnouts, from an electrical standpoint, I would not go back.
Very happy with
Peco’s have a spring that allow you to finger flick the turnout. People seem very satisifed with their quality and they are the most compact turnouts, but they are more expensive than Atlas.
i prefer code 83 but the Atlas Custom line is also available in code 100. Some people have had to do some file work on Atlas frogs to get adequate wheel clearance.
You don’t mention DC vs DCC. The later has the option of frog juicer to supply power to your frogs. Walther code 80 is “DCC friendly” Shinohara code 100 is not.
Replacing the turnouts you now have with something else will not be a drop in fit. I’m not sure that was you plan, but I thought it should be mentioned.
I also prefer code 83. I built the first part of my layout with code 100, and kind of regret it now. It works fine, though. I used mostly snap switches and a few custom lines, mostly Atlas, on that section. I also have a few Peco turnouts there.
I now use mostly Walthers-Shinohara turnouts driven by Tortoise machines. I think these look the best.
Some turnouts simply are not made by Atlas, notably the curved ones. Peco makes short curved turnouts and Walthers-Shinohara makes longer ones.
Years ago, I started my layout with Atlas Code 100 flex track and Atlas Custom Line Code 100 turnouts. I had no issues with them. But, I eventually switched to Atlas Code 83 flx track and Atlas Custom Line Code 83 turnouts. So, like Mr. Beasely, I have a mix of the two on my layout.
During the infamous Atlas track shortage a few years back, I started buying Peco Code 83 flex track and turnouts. Peco is more expensive than Atlas, but its turnouts are more compact (shorter) than Atlas and, as someone else mentioned, the spring thrown point rails eliminate the need for a manual ground throw. I really like that where the turnouts are reachable and accessible.
I have no experience with Walthers flex track or turnouts, but I have used Walthers Shinohara Code 83 wyes, 3-way turnouts, curved turnouts, and double crossovers. All are fine and dependable, if not abused.
So, I would have to say that Atlas, Peco, and Walthers Shinohara are all reliable sources of flex track and turnouts.
Rich
FWIW I have used the Shinohara (code70) turnouts for years on both DC and, as of about 10 years ago, on a DCC layout. They have performed well and all I do to them for DCC is put insulated joiners on the diverging rails. I have not found it necessary to add any jumpers to the rails. They are somewhat less expensive than the other main stream ones but they may be a little harder to find. Just my two cents worth.
Old Fat Robert
Shinohara manufactures the only accurate (for my use) turnouts - they are 1:80 scale, 16.5mm gauge, aka HOj, with tie dimensions that agree with Japanese prototype. To see what I mean, pur one side-by-side with any other brand.
That said, Atlas, Peco and Shinohara all manufacture quality products. Peco does have the advantage of the built-in locking spring - which is a disadvantage if you are powering one with anything but fingers or a Peco point motor.
IMHO, anything that comes assembled requires inspection and ‘tweaking’ before installation. The NMRA gauge is definitely your friend in these endeavors.
As for me, I’m a happy hand-layer, and won’t even consider purchasing specialwork for my own layout.
Chuck (Modeling Central Japan in September, 1964)
Thanks guys for all the help and info.
fender,
I’m afraid its all personal preference. There are some small differences between the manufacturers most noteably in rail profile. I have found that the rail profile of micro engineering and peco seem to have a thinner rail profile. This really only presents the problem of having to ensure your rail joiners fit snuggly. I currently run atlas code 83 and am in the habbit of running the longest turnout feasable for my space considerations. I like this because I have found that i have more reliable performance from the longer #6 or #8’s and this results in almost no restrictions with regards to engine or car length. I have found that i appreciate the consistency of atlas turnouts and are therfore are my preference followed closely by micro engineering. As far as the question of code 100 vs 83, I prefer 83 only because it is more true to prototype. I hope this helps.
Thanks scalen for your help. Really good info. Thanks
Much more expensive. At MBK Atlas code 83 #6 turn out is $14 while the Peco code 83 #6 is $26. Ouch. The Peco code 100 are much more economical and I’m considering using them next time I need to build a staging yard. Due to cost, I’m still not sure about the Peco code 83 - I’m not made out of money. I may go with MicroEngineering code 83 which are reportedly good quality and cost wise are inbetween Atlas and Peco.
What are you using currently? My vote is still Atlas, for cost, wiring, switch machine installation, and track geometry.
I have had no quality issues. Sure, some of those others have finer detail/appearance, but I always put performance first. Atlas turnouts perform just fine.
And once you paint, ballast and weather track, the appearance differences are hardly noticeable. Unless of course you goal is to just to scrutinize fine details.
I would never use PECO code 100 with their curved frogs and short approach. I know lots of people who have them, and they work, but talk about not looking right…
Sheldon
Having started the track work for my ISL into the face of the “Great Atlas Track Shortage” I chose code 83 M.E. flex track & Fast Tracks M.E. rail turnouts. I like the looks of this combination and the extremely smooth & realiable operation both mechanically & electrically. My only nit-pick would be the turnout’s lack the spike detail.
Regards, Peter
Very nice trackwork Peter. Many years ago I hand laid my track and turnouts, and before that built them from TruScale kits.
I still build “specials” when needed.
On a seperate note, it seems Mico Engineeering no longer hasa web site?
Seems strange?
Sheldon
Except where specialty switches were needed, Atlas code 83:
I haven’t operated tons on the new layout but they seem ok. This layout is coming down this summer because my wife wants to sell and move, but for a future layout, I was considering ME turnouts for appearance and operability. A number of people I respect speak highly of them. That said, I have time to mull it over. I am going to save most of the track from the current layout.
Re: appearance, remember I said s
They have been working on a new site for a while now (according to what I read on their site previously). From what I read they are adding direct sales. Maybe they took down the old one before putting up new one?
To OP:
I built my most recent HO layout with Peco code 100 turnouts and Atlas Flex track. I took that layout apart and salvaged most of the track. I am reusing my code 100 in my new staging yard because it doesnt matter what it looks like as long as it works, the rest of the layout will be handlayed with ME code 83 and code 70 rail.
Jim, I notuce from your pictures it appears you are using the Atlas code 83 “super switch” rather than the “Custom Line”. I prefer the Custom Line version which does not require triming for crossovers and yard ladders.
Also I use a fair amount of #8’s, which only come in the custom line, as well as #4’s in industial aeas. Their #4 is really a 4-1/2.
I agree about the poings on the code 100 versions.
Sheldon
Actually most of the turnouts are custom line although I did have some super switches left over from a previous layout and went ahead and made use of them. I didn’t have a photo handy of the yard in a more completed state. I prefer the newer custom line over the older super switch.
Btw, the turnouts in the foreground of the second in-progress photo are #8 Walthers code 83 (made by Shinohara) and also code 70.
Thanks Sheldon, I hope that M.E.'s missing website is just some kind of glitch.
Regards, Peter