|
|
Post by thebessemerkid on Feb 20, 2014 8:48:58 GMT -8
Getting back into building a layout after many years, and am looking for input on what switches work well. Am a bit on the fence as to dcc only or some sort of mix (I have older dc-only locos and lighted cars, along with newer dcc). Aside from fidelity to prototype, how do I decide between insulated and powered frogs? Are there switches which will work for either? Can one be readily converted to another? Any types or brands to avoid? Any input is greatly appreciated  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 20, 2014 9:15:09 GMT -8
What code? 100? 83? 70?
|
|
|
|
Post by thebessemerkid on Feb 20, 2014 9:29:53 GMT -8
Since I have a penchant for Penn Central (and other rust belt roads) I can get away with code 100 for some mainlines (and maybe hidden staging yards, if c100 is cheaper/more forgiving). I would expect most will be code 83, with some code 70 for older neglected spurs.
If some switches are better than others for certain codes, that would also be useful info. Apologies if that makes the question more complex, although maybe it will elicit more input.
I've read some interesting articles on using r/c servos for controlling switches, so am considering the mechanical movement of switches seperately. If that makes sense.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 20, 2014 10:05:23 GMT -8
In code 83, the Atlas code 83 switches are horrible, especially the number 4. I'd stay with either Walthers Shinohara, Micro Engineering and I've heard lots of praise for Peco.
Code 70 is Micro Engineering, although I like Shinohara.
I can't speak for code 100 as I find the spike detail, ties and the rail much too heavy looking.
|
|
|
|
Post by riogrande on Feb 20, 2014 11:12:33 GMT -8
Jim, whats horrible out the Atlas code 83? I have around 10 of them - and plan on using them but probably won't buy anymore. Here are my observations - some of them were "short shot" - the plastic didn't fill in leaving a gap where it should have filled in between rails. That shouldn't hamper operation however. The most visually offensive thing about Atlas code 83 #6 is the points were formed from bent sheet metal rather than actual rail stock. The surface of the point rails looks rounded on the top, like the folded metal they are - very unrealistic. They probably did that to cut costs. I don't think I'll be getting anymore Atlas code 83 #6 when it comes time to buy more turnouts - I'll look at Walthers, Micro Engineering or maybe the super expensive Peco.
Yes, the code 100 spike detail is heavy looking although folks who weather and ballast say that hides the clunky look of the molded ties. Atlas code 83 track has much finer (and correspondingly fragile) tie spike detail. It's much easer to rip the rail out of the ties with rough handling. I have a Shinohara #6 which one of the end rails ripped the molded on ties out but it's fine to use as long as some spike are put in to hold everything in place and gauges. I do use code 100 in the staging yard cause looks isn't important there and saving money is.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 20, 2014 11:20:55 GMT -8
Jim, whats horrible out the Atlas code 83? I have around 10 of them - and plan on using them. Here are my observations - some of them were "short shot" - the plastic didn't fill in leaving a gap where it should have filled in between rails. That shouldn't hamper operation however. The most visually offensive thing about Atlas code 83 #6 is the points were formed from bend sheet metal rather than actual rail stock. The surface of the point rails looks like folded metal - very unrealistic. They probably did that to cut costs. I don't think I'll be getting anymore Atlas code 83 #6 when it comes time to buy more turnouts - I'll look at Walthers, Micro Engineering or maybe the super expensive Peco. Yes, the code 100 spike detail is heavy looking although folks who weather and ballast say that hides the clunky look of the molded ties. Atlas code 83 track has much finer (and correspondingly fragile) tie spike detail. It's much easer to rip the rail out of the ties with rough handling. I have a Shinohara #6 which one of the end rails ripped the molded on ties out but it's fine to use as long as some spike are put in to hold everything in place and gauges. I do use code 100 in the staging yard cause looks isn't important there and saving money is. The outside rail has a noticeable bend inward. Pick one up and look down the rail. As I stated before the number four is really bad. So if you have two straights on either end of the switch, when you are running you see the train take a noticeable inward shimmy and then back outward to straight track. The rivet on the points of the Atlas switch is also a problem at times. It can separate from the throw bar and once that happens the switch is finished. The Atlas switches are basically supped up snap track switches. They are fine for staging yards, but I had nothing but trouble with them on my now sold off massive 5x9. Sound locomotives no matter how clean the track stalled repeatedly on the Atlas frogs. |
|
|
|
Post by wp8thsub on Feb 20, 2014 11:44:09 GMT -8
Jim, whats horrible out the Atlas code 83? ... The outside rail has a noticeable bend inward. Pick one up and look down the rail... The rivet on the points of the Atlas switch is also a problem at times. It can separate from the throw bar and once that happens the switch is finished. I've had quite a bit better experience with Atlas 83. I got a deal I couldn't refuse on enough Atlas 83 #6s to do my whole main yard, added some #8s I bought elsewhere, and mine work very smoothly. The Atlas tie strip is molded with a bend of varying severity on nearly every code 83 turnout I've seen. Fortunately, the entire problem is between the frog and the heels of the points, and it's easy to cure. With the turnout upside down, use a cutoff wheel in a motor tool to remove plastic webbing between the ties from under alternate rails (i.e. cut under the straight route on one set, the diverging route on the next, and repeat), turning the problem area of the turnout into flex track. This takes less than a minute. Flip it over and you should be able to straighten it into perfect alignment. The code 83 #6 and #8 don't have rivets for the points, but the electrical connection there can still fail. Soldering jumpers around it always cures the issue, but isn't common enough for me to do it to every turnout up front. I address this on an as-needed basis. I've never had a mechanical failure here. Also, Atlas frog castings are frequently misaligned vertically, and occasionally are off horizontally. I use a mill file to get the top of the frog even with the surrounding rails, and a combination of a knife and jeweler's files to eliminate any casting flash around the frog. I also take the mill file to the tops of the points to ensure a smooth transition to the closure rails. This takes about as much time to describe as to actually do. Tuned as described, Atlas code 83 turnouts perform about as well as any others, and probably better than some. I can move long cuts of cars through my yard ladders with nary a wiggle, and nothing derails.  Aesthetic compromises do enter into the equation, and the Atlas frog castings do look coarse even after weathering. Since the tops of guard rails and wing rails are not wear surfaces on the prototype like the running rails, you can paint any exposed metal to reduce visual impact. This especially helps on the #8s since the guard and wing rails are so long. I have since added this extra weathering to the turnout in the above photo and all others in the same yard. |
|
|
|
Post by riogrande on Feb 20, 2014 12:02:45 GMT -8
Rob, I'll have to look at my Atlas #6 code 83 turnouts for that inward bend. If I see that I'll employ the alternating web cut to straighten them out. I've noticed with Atlas if you do some judicious filing and tweaking, they can be made to run reliabley. Painted and ballasted they blend in pretty nicely.
|
|
|
|
Post by wp8thsub on Feb 20, 2014 12:30:09 GMT -8
Getting back into building a layout after many years, and am looking for input on what switches work well. Am a bit on the fence as to dcc only or some sort of mix (I have older dc-only locos and lighted cars, along with newer dcc). You might want to try out several brands and decide which blend of compromises you can most easily live with. Unfortunately there is no perfect brand of HO turnouts, as they all require a certain amount of tune-up for best operation. My layout uses code 70 and 83 turnouts from Micro Engineering and Shinohara/Walthers. I also have code 83 only from Atlas and Central Valley kits, plus a couple scratchbuilt to fit special situations. They all work fine. If you want code 100, Shinohara makes code 100 turnouts and track that look better than typical toylike code 100 from other manufacturers. Most code 100 looks awful because of the spikes, ties and rail contour far more than the size of the rail itself. I don't have any Peco, and have never been too excited about them, so others can opine on Peco.
The big advantages to "DCC-friendly" insulated frogs are that you won't cause a short by running into a turnout that's thrown against you, and that points always stay the same polarity as the adjacent stock rails (which can be useful to prevent shorting with long wheelbase steam locos, not to mention eliminating the need for contact with the stock rail to maintain electrical flow). If you have locos that stall on dead frogs, frogs can be powered using various methods like switch machine contacts or the Tam Valley "Frog Juicer."
I already detailed my experience with Atlas in a post above.
Shinohara sells codes 70 and 100 under its own name, and 83 under Walthers. Shinohara brand is still power-routing/live frog in design (not DCC friendly), but can be used with DCC anyway. I haven't converted any of mine to insulated frogs and they work fine with DCC. Current production Walthers 83 turnouts have insulated frogs, but you may encounter older product. I have examples of each and again they work OK.
These turnouts are older Walthers 83, combined with Micro Engineering (ME) flex track. The rail coss section between these brands doesn't exactly match, plus Walthers' rail head is wider, so you have to exercise care in installation to get smooth joints. The price of Walthers flex is outrageous (more than double the list price of ME) so I avoided buying any in favor of ME track.
Shinohara code 70 #6s are often wide in check gauge at the points, which is difficult to completely cure due to how they are manufactured. They also often have crooked tie strips, which can be cured as I described earlier for Atlas. Walthers turnouts also have gauge problems at the points (the #8 curved are especially bad) or the extremities of the routes. You may need to slice some spikes off and relay rail to get it back in gauge. If you have any semi-scale code 88 wheelsets this is almost mandatory for the curved turnouts, as the gauge can be wide enough the narrow wheel treads can fall right off the rail at the points.
For #6, I like Micro Engineering. They are DCC friendly (again older production weren't), and the frogs and points are very smooth in operation. They also have a finer look around the frogs than other RTR turnouts and the spike heads are smaller. Too bad ME doesn't offer #8s.
The smoothest operating turnouts I have I built from Central Valley kits. The kit throwbars are a poor design, and some parts of the instructions are best ignored (e.g. forget the foil strip to supply power to the closure rails and use jumper wires instead, solder the frog point or use a commercial frog casting instead of using rails loosely shoved into the plastic frog block casting, be mindful of back-to-back shorting possible where the closure rails reach the frog and gap accordingly). Once you get used to building them you might like them. A photo and general description of my fix for the throwbar design is here model-railroad-hobbyist.com/node/9168 . One visual advantage of CVT kits is they have ties more closely spaced under the frogs, reflecting typical prototype practice, which no other manufacturer offers. The cast points also require no notching of the stock rails.
Track here lacks final weathering or ballast as of the photo date, but shows a Micro Engineering #6, and a #8 crossover from Central Valley. Note the tie spacing around the frogs on the latter, and the extra gaps I added where the closure rails meet the frogs. I know some users of CVT turnouts have reported them being flimsy, but if assembled properly I haven't found that to be the case. Nearly every train I run during an op session uses one or both of the turnouts in this crossover, and they're dead solid reliable.
Instead of the Barge cement recommended in the CVT instructions to secure rail, I started using flexible CA like Poly Zap which both works great and is fast.
|
|
|
|
Post by grahamline on Feb 20, 2014 12:38:30 GMT -8
Rob, do you have any observations so far on how well the CV switches' cast points wear during use?
Joe B in Portland
|
|
|
|
Post by wp8thsub on Feb 20, 2014 12:45:36 GMT -8
Rob, do you have any observations so far on how well the CV switches' cast points wear during use? I can't tell you about truly long term durability, as my examples have been in for a maximum of about three years. The points are cast from white brass, so they theoretically should be as tough as any other part of the track. I can say from filing the castings they are certainly not soft or brittle. |
|
|
|
Post by grahamline on Feb 20, 2014 12:47:36 GMT -8
That was quick. I'm experimenting with a couple CV switches and also P:87 Shops RP25-compatible switches, along with Details West frogs and other toys.
Joe B
Portland OR
|
|
|
|
Post by thebessemerkid on Feb 20, 2014 14:30:28 GMT -8
Atlas seems to have different lines, mark 3, mark 4 etc. Does everyone do this? Is there a guide to which versions are DC only, dcc only, DCC/DC compatible or convertible?
|
|
|
|
Post by wp8thsub on Feb 20, 2014 14:51:01 GMT -8
Atlas seems to have different lines, mark 3, mark 4 etc. Does everyone do this? Is there a guide to which versions are DC only, dcc only, DCC/DC compatible or convertible? Atlas "mark" designations essentially refer to changes made with frog and point construction (plastic vs metal frogs, throwbar attachment, stamped vs cast point rails). Any Atlas turnout you're likely to encounter will function the same in the layout, and the code 83 versions mostly look the same as when they were introduced (i.e. the #6 has a metal frog and stamped points, while the #8 has cast points), while there's more variation in the code 100 line. Other manufacturers do not use a designation system like that. There's no such thing as a DC only or DCC only turnout. A "DCC friendly" turnout will have an isolated frog and point rails that stay the same polarity as the stock rails regardless of how they're thrown. Of the brands listed in my earlier post, they break down like this: DCC Friendly: - Atlas
- Walthers (current production, code 83 manufactured by Shinohara but sold under the Walthers brand)
- Micro Engineering (current production)
- Central Valley
Not DCC Friendly: - Shinohara (code 70 and 100 sold under their own brand)
- Original production Micro Engineering
- Original production Walthers (code 83 Shinohara sold under the Walthers brand)
As I already noted, any of these CAN be used with DCC, so in that sense are "compatible." Anything you scratchbuild can be varied so you determine whether it's "friendly" or not. |
|
|
|
Post by trebor on Feb 20, 2014 19:58:09 GMT -8
I've made turnouts DCC friendly, a pain in the caboose, but on certain days so is getting out of bed. Any switch with stamped points is poo poo. I run soldered connections to all rails including points which eliminates a loth of problems.
|
|
|
|
Post by wp8thsub on Feb 20, 2014 21:40:59 GMT -8
Any switch with stamped points is poo poo. Well OK then. Some people don't like them, I get it. None of the turnouts I have with stamped points give me any trouble, and it's certainly not because I have low standards for operational quality. I'll grant they don't have the realism of cast points from CVT or Proto 87 Stores.  I got some photos tonight of turnouts in my Junction City yard, as I really had no useful ones to illustrate my earlier post. Above is a view of the east end showing how they're weathered and integrated into the scene. This is well above typical operator eye level.  Here's part of the west end with a viewing angle closer to what an operator would see. This whole yard's Atlas 83 save for a lone curved Walthers turnout, and all stamped points on the #6s (there are crossovers on both ends with Atlas #8s that have cast points). The rest of the layout uses Micro Engineering, Shinohara, etc. The aesthetic compromise inherent with Atlas track is certainly there, but I wouldn't be using these if they didn't work well. Operation through these turnouts is just as smooth as with any of the other brands on the layout, with nothing bouncing around or derailing. |
|
|
|
Post by riogrande on Feb 21, 2014 4:59:43 GMT -8
While I do agree that, up close and personal, stamp points or one-piece frogs don't look great. If you obsess on that, I guess you may think they are poo. But seeing is believing and Rob certainly has illustrated that after you tweak, paint, ballast and weather, everything blends in pretty nicely and gives a nice looking final product - no denying. Frankly, the end result of realistic looking track that operates reliably is what I'm after, not pleasing the ferrophiles who have fine champaign tastes and fat wallets to fund them.
I can say with certainty that there are products which some would turn their nose up at, like Atlas code 83 #6 turnouts or covered hoppers with molded on details, but Rob has proven that those turnouts can be made to look quite good and Mellow Mike taken many low cost freight cars and made them look really fine.
|
|
|
|
Post by trebor on Feb 21, 2014 12:32:53 GMT -8
The stamped points I referred to are like on old Atlas snap switches. I like a point that is formed from rail, or cast as long as there is not a rolled flange surface. i had too much trouble with long wheel base trucks climbing the point rail on diverging routes, particularly with tighter radius turnouts.
|
|
|
|
Post by riogrande on Feb 21, 2014 12:52:55 GMT -8
I think we all would prefer points formed from rail in an ideal world. Speaking for myself, at the time I bought my Atlas code 83 #6 because I was on a tight budget and was trying to build a decent sized yard. The Atlas turnouts were considerably more economical at that time than the "better brand" turnouts. Things are a bit different now so we'll see what happens if/when I need to buy more turnouts.
As for tighter radius turnouts, I was so traumatised by them when I was a teen, I decided I would stick with #6 or higher and just avoid trouble. My bread and butter diesels being SD45's and tunnel motors, that seems like the best thing to do.
|
|
|
|
Post by TBird1958 on Feb 21, 2014 13:30:44 GMT -8
Any switch with stamped points is poo poo. Well OK then. Some people don't like them, I get it. None of the turnouts I have with stamped points give me any trouble, and it's certainly not because I have low standards for operational quality. I'll grant they don't have the realism of cast points from CVT or Proto 87 Stores. I got some photos tonight of turnouts in my Junction City yard, as I really had no useful ones to illustrate my earlier post. Above is a view of the east end showing how they're weathered and integrated into the scene. This is well above typical operator eye level. Here's part of the west end with a viewing angle closer to what an operator would see. This whole yard's Atlas 83 save for a lone curved Walthers turnout, and all stamped points on the #6s (there are crossovers on both ends with Atlas #8s that have cast points). The rest of the layout uses Micro Engineering, Shinohara, etc. The aesthetic compromise inherent with Atlas track is certainly there, but I wouldn't be using these if they didn't work well. Operation through these turnouts is just as smooth as with any of the other brands on the layout, with nothing bouncing around or derailing. This is beautiful track work, I enjoy all the pics of your layout - Thank you! |
|
