The old Thanksgiving turkey is coming, so I would take a risk and ask a question that may get me shot like a turkey on this board. I have finished my benchwork for my small modular layout. I am looking at turnouts for my small layout. My simple question is this- As to seeking a turnout, which turnout on the market has the best experience as to operational dependability and durability of the turnout parts and mechanism. Please feel free to share your reasoning and experiences with your choice.
I have Atlas snap-switches, Atlas customline turnouts and Pecos. I use the twin-coil switch machines available from each of the manufacturers to drive them, and a capacitive discharge (CD) circuit to drive the twin-coils.
First, the snap-switches and “small” Peco turnouts are small-layout items. The diverging routes are 18-inch curves, approximately. The longer customline turnouts (#6 in my case) are more prototypical.
I think the Peco turnouts will end up being the more reliable and durable. However, that’s based on the observation that these just feel more solid and well-built. In practice, I’ve had no problems with my Atlas snap-switches in 4 years of service. The Atlas customline turnouts are more prone to both occasional random derailments and stalls due to dead spots.
I haven’t long term experience with any commercial turnouts.
On my handlaid turnouts, the weak point was the soldered joint where the PC board throwbar was soldered to the points. My points were not hinged in the traditional sense of hinged points. There were gaps in the middle of the closure rails to isolate the frog electrically. With the gaps, my extended points could move slightly in the spikes. My thinking was that this would reduce the load on the solder joint. It helped but didn’t totally prevent joint failure.
From what I have read, my experience is not unusual. A couple of solutions:
solder in a small piece of shim brass at the joint to strengthen it.
instead of soldering the throwbar to the points, turn the copper surface to the bottom and have brass pins extend through the throwbar into the base of the points. Solder the pin to the points, and let the pin swivel in the throwbar.
My point in detailing this problem is that the point hinge and/or point connection to the throwbar are probably weak points in any model turnout. Good wiring (DCC-friendly) mandates the points be electrically isolated from each other, which takes away some obviously strong solutions such as metal straps.
my thoughts, your choices
Fred W
One thing with Atlas i’ve noticed is that no matter how hard i try, they never seem to derail my friegth cars. They may not be the prettiest, but they more than get the job done.
Like you, I have both Peco and Atlas turnouts on my N scale layout. Which I get seems to depend on how much money I’ve got to spend at the time. Like you, I think the Peco turnouts are more sturdy, just by the feel of them. They feel more solid. However, again, just like you, I haven’t had any problems with either. I will add that I think Peco’s over the center spring holds the points against the stock rails more firmly than the Atlas turnouts do, but I can’t really prove it.
WCU
The modular group I belong to has a Peco code 100 standard. All turnouts have to be Pecos. Some of my modules are 7 years old now and have never broken a turnout. Being tossed around and going through the harshest New England weather has not affected them in the slightest.
The bad thing about Pecos code 100 is the flangeway width. They are built to a British standard that is a bit wide. I fix that by gluing a .015 styrene shim to the guard rail across from the frogs. Another is that sometimes a wheel will bridge the little plastic insulator at the frog on the Insulfrog turnouts. The shim usually fixes that or a dab of thick ACC at the frog point fixes it. Other than that they are bullet proof and very reliable.
Pete
You didn’t buy turnouts when you bought the track? [%-)]
Since you bought Atlas Code100 track, thats the easy choice for turnouts, I guess. I happen to like the PECO in Code100, they seem a little better engineered. But might have to to shim or file a little if you use any other turnouts with the atlas Code100.
Peco,
Check out http://www.comrail.org
So which turnouts did you choose?
I am still struggling between Peco and Atlas. I like the Atlas because of the simplification of wiring, but also like the operational dependability of the Peco. I appreciate all of the insights of the board.
Simple wiring? Peco Insulfrog just drop in. No wiring involved.
Pete
I’m in the same boat with both you and MrBeasley. All my switches are either Peco or Atlas turnouts or my handlaid things–don’t have trouble with any of 'em. The only trouble I had was self inflicted when I put the handlaid turnout at too low an angle and ended up with a 2nd lead coming in at too close a distance to an industrial spur! lol!
I am going to be using DC control with my layout probably. Therefore, the Pecos would need to have separate block wiring with power being fed behind the points. With Atlas, I can have one bus and not have to worry about blocks. Pete that is why I said simple wiring with the Atlas turnouts.
Says who? That is a half true statement. Peco Insulfrogs act just like the Atlas Custom Line Mark II. Flip one over and look at the power jumper wires built into the bottom (just like an Atlas Custom Line). Then old Atlas turnouts have hot frogs and require special wiring just like the Peco electrofrogs.
What scale are we talking about here? For HO & N I prefer Peco. In HO code 100 one has to get used to the European look of them. For O-scale I liked the old AHM but they are hard to find and not a true numbered turnout (curved departure track). For G-scale I use ONLY LGB, however the PIKO seem to be the same quality - just different dimensions.