Greetings,
I have been lurking for a while, but this is my first post.
I’m going to start a new layout shortly, and I was wondering about the quality difference between the Walthers code 83 turnouts vs Atlas code 83. (Specifically #6)
My second question is: I have designed my layout using the Atlas track planning software. Are the Walthers products compairable in dimensions, or will using the Walthers products require a redesign?
Thanks in advance.
Regards,
Frank V.
The dimension will not be exact - length of the straight leg, amount the diverging leg extends, etc vary between brands. You will probably have to do some adjusting to switch, but both brands have room to cut off some excess length.
I’ve used nothing but Atlas on my last two layouts. The difference in quality was not worth the huge difference in price to me, all my equipment rolls through the Atlas track at warp speed with absolutely no derailments. And while there was recently a few things from Atlas get low on stock, Atlas is generally more available than the Walthers.
Once the rails are painted and the ballast installed - it all looks about the same.
–Randy
I use the Walthers code 83 turnouts for my layout. I use # 8 for the mainline and # 6 for the yard and industrial spurs. I used Atlas turnouts about 20 years ago on a previous layout. They worked great but were not as prototypical looking. These aspects have changed. I think that the Atlas turnouts will be good for your layout. As rrinker says, after painting and ballasting the track, they all look about the same. The one advantage that Walthers has with respect to turnouts is that it has curved turnouts which can really help conserve space on the layout. I have not seen any curved turnouts produced by Atlas but I may be wrong.[*-)]
I’ve been using nothing but Atlas code 83 for years now, and I use to hand lay my track.
The turnouts are much improved over years ago and like Randy says, once you paint and ballast them they look just fine.
You can actually curve them a very little bit if you need to and I have actually built a curved trunout with points and frog from an Atlas #8 rather than building it from scratch.
Personally, what realy got me away from hand laying or more expensive products like Walthers was from an electrical standpoint I have come to prefer the prewired feed through design of the Atlas product.
I don’t use DCC, but the Atlas design has allways been what is considered DCC “friendly”.
Several friends and one club in my area also have large layouts recently constructed with mostly Atlas turnouts. These layouts all run flawlessly.
So why pay more?
Sheldon
I also vote for atlas as I have about 75 of them on my currant layout. I am using Dcc with sound so the frog must be powered.I am using tortise machines so powering the frog is quite simple as I have just lately found out. I found that NHS hobbies has the cheapest prices on track and switches. Check around you may find someone else yet with cheaper prices.
I will also add that while Atlas seems to get a bad rap for being ‘cheap’ and making locos and cars bounce through poorly made frogs and guard rails - on my previous layout, and car or loco that actually exhibited a bounce through the Atlas turnouts was found to have out of gauge wheelsets. Adjusting or replacing them as required resulted in nice smooth operation.
–Randy
That’s an important point. I have some of each on my layout. I used Atlas machines for the Atlas turnouts (Code 100) on the older part of my layout. I’ve switched to Walthers turnouts with Tortoise machines on the new section. With some of my short, 4-axle engines, I have dead spots at the Atlas frogs. The basic Atlas machines do NOT provide contacts for wiring the frogs, so I just live with the problem and give the engines a little shove when they stall.
Other than that, though, I’d say that the Atlas turnouts have operated flawlessly for quite a few years now.
But the new Walthers “DCC friendly” turnouts have dead isolated frogs as well? I have never used Atlas switch motors and have always powered my Atlas frogs. Atlas provides a simple lug to attach a wire for that purpose.
My remote controlled turnouts have Tortoise motors, my manual turnouts have minature slide switches for ground thows tthat provide both frog power and power routing if needed.
My mainline turnouts are powered and “tower controlled”, all turnouts that would maunal on the prototype have my simple ground throw slide switch - inexpensive, effective and they fit between tracks in crowded yard areas.
Sheldon
I installed wires to power my Atlas frogs - but I haven’t hooked up a single one yet. NONE Of my locos, sound or otherwise, have an issue crossign the unpowered frog. If I had little 25-ton critters like Wolfgang has, then I’d need pwoered frogs. But my 44-tonner handles them just fine with no headlight flicker, and I have two steam locos with sound plus one F7 B unit, and there are no sound dropouts either.
You can;t solder to the Atlas frogs, at least not easily. You cna buy just the hardware that comes with the Snap Relay to use as an attachment or do the easy thing - just get some 1-72 brass screws like I did. I didn’t have to tap the hole, just drive the screw in, it’s just the right size and will cut threads for itself even though they aren;t self-tapping screws. I put the screw in from the bottom. Then I solder a wire to the screw to use as the frog feeder. This all requires nothing more than a hole drilled under the frog area to fish the wire through. The screw does not protrude, I turn it in until the screw is level with the top of the hole. Until the track gets painted the brass end of the screw shows. A dab of paint while paintign the sides of the rails will fix that.
–Randy
Thank you for all your input.
I think I will stick with the Atlas product.
Best Regards,
Frankv