TheRailwire
General Discussion => N and Z Scales => Topic started by: Gozer the Gozerian on February 01, 2013, 01:58:41 PM
-
Ok...my plywood empire is ready for track...has been for a year...any idea when we can expect code55 track...flex and switches in the stores. I see it advertized, but no one has most of it, and my local hobby shop keeps getting messages that push it out another two weeks, every two weeks.
Frustrated in Oregon. :D
Joe
-
Equally frustrated here, but fortunately/unfortunately my serious layout progress is being pushed out in the same sort of two-week increments by room construction.
Anyway, one of the recent threads - Amherst show? - mentioned Atlas was looking at an April-May timeframe.
-
Wait for it.... [not the track, you'll see what I mean soon enough ;)].
-
Wait for it.... [not the track, you'll see what I mean soon enough ;)].
Yeah, yeah, we already know about the -2 project :trollface:
-
While the HO has shipped, the N will ship after the Chinese New Year.
-
atlas is about as reliable as my 81 camaro :|
When is FVM going to start making track and switches???
-
Wait for it.... [not the track, you'll see what I mean soon enough ;)].
HOVER-TRAINS! You don't need track!
Or model abandoned right of way.
-
Ok...my plywood empire is ready for track...has been for a year...any idea when we can expect code55 track...flex and switches in the stores. I see it advertized, but no one has most of it, and my local hobby shop keeps getting messages that push it out another two weeks, every two weeks.
Frustrated in Oregon. :D
Joe
My sympathies. My track is back-ordered. Atlas said May.
(http://www.trainboard.com/railimages/data/500/DSC08010.JPG)
-
About. To. Install. Code. 80...... Stop. Me.
-
www.desplaineshobbies.com
-
I wonder if Micro Engineering is swamped with orders. For flex, at least. Maybe rail, too.
-
Hope that isn't the new price for code 55!
-
Hope that isn't the new price for code 55!
That's been the retail price of C55 for at least 2 years. If you had the last C55 track in the US, would you discount it with people willing to pay over retail for it.
Current track retail pricing - http://download.atlasrr.com/Winter2013/2013Wintercatalog72-86.pdf
-
One word: PECO
-
One word: PECO
One word: Ugly
Might as well use C80, visually they aren't much different.
ME is the flex track solution but then what to do for turnouts other than build your own? Give it time, I figure at least May before everything is back in stock consistantly and even then there may be ripples afterwards.
-
Ok...my plywood empire is ready for track...has been for a year...any idea when we can expect code55 track...flex and switches in the stores. I see it advertized, but no one has most of it, and my local hobby shop keeps getting messages that push it out another two weeks, every two weeks.
Frustrated in Oregon. :D
Joe
Joe,
What do you need? I have a bunch of used and new switches that need a good home. I'll send you a PM with the list of what I have and then you can make an offer ;)
Brian
-
Joe,
How long was MTL track unavailable?
-
One word: PECO
+1
The plusses and minuses of Peco Code 55 have been discussed a million times. It's bullet proof, looks great when properly
used and it's easy to find.
-
I wonder if Micro Engineering is swamped with orders. For flex, at least. Maybe rail, too.
Yes, as a matter of fact, they are.
-
By SkipGear;
That's been the retail price of C55 for at least 2 years. If you had the last C55 track in the US, would you discount it with people willing to pay over retail for it.
I must be very lucky then because I've never come close to paying that much even at my LHS when they were down to their last turnouts. I've also seen some code 55 turnouts for $30 a piece on Ebay. :o
-
One word: Ugly
Might as well use C80, visually they aren't much different.
ME is the flex track solution but then what to do for turnouts other than build your own? Give it time, I figure at least May before everything is back in stock consistantly and even then there may be ripples afterwards.
ME makes turnouts in codes 70 and 55
-
ME makes turnouts in codes 70 and 55
ME makes all the turnouts you need, as long as they are all #6.
ME could have really taken a firm grip on the market if they had more turnout options ready to go when this happened.
-
ME makes all the turnouts you need, as long as they are all #6.
ME could have really taken a firm grip on the market if they had more turnout options ready to go when this happened.
I could have sworn that they have/had more turnout options.
-Cody F.
-
I believe at one time ME had a #8. Hasn't been offered for several years.
-
Code 55 track is currently slated for delivery in April & May. Joe knows the fun of moving tooling from one factory to another and then getting production ramped up, and he was only dealing with one line of track...
-
Thought I may as well go and turn over this rock again and see what comes out..
Paul from Atlas.
Any updates on the release of the Atlas Code 55 flex track and turnouts?
I got the last 38 lenghts of code 55 flex left in Australia a month or so ago and need more..
Thanks.
Brendan.
-
See this:
http://www.atlasrr.com/containershipping-track.htm
-
November for turnouts is pretty good those that get after it in the Winter months.
-
I have lost track of the years, and I mean no disrespect towards Atlas, but how long has it been since these have been "available"? Not sure what I mean by available, but does anyone know when the last container arrived? Again, not trying to start a flame war, just curious since I did lose track...so to speak.
I wonder if there will be a run of this shipment to fill the pent up demand.
Best wishes, Dave
-
Thanks for the link.
August I can cope with for the flex. November may be a challenge. (as he reaches for the Fast Tracks web site).
-
I'll be interested to see the MSRP once these arrive to compare to the last time I made a large purchase.
-
I'm more interested in if these are newly tooled turnout, or at least improved over the old ones. :)
-
I'm more interested in if these are newly tooled turnout, or at least improved over the old ones. :)
They will be the same units everybody loves to hate for some reason or other
-
They will be the same units everybody loves to hate for some reason or other
The issues some have with Atlas turnouts are well-founded and documented. Atlas has said they are going to look at what can can be done once the line is up again.
Jason
-
+1
The plusses and minuses of Peco Code 55 have been discussed a million times. It's bullet proof, looks great when properly
used and it's easy to find.
I beg to differ with you...it always looks unprototypical. I suppose if you totally buried the ties in a yard or industrial scenario it'd look okay, but if anything but the rails show...
...I've been sitting here for five minutes attempting to think of a word or two that isn't inflammatory or redundant about how Peco track looks...everything I am able to think of will probably offend somebody...so the least inflammatory word that comes to mind which I haven't used already is the word "bad".
Yeah...it looks "bad".
And, I'm not going to encourage anybody who would rather use Atlas 55 to use it, because you'll always regret using it instead of waiting.
-
Thanks for the link.
August I can cope with for the flex. November may be a challenge. (as he reaches for the Fast Tracks web site).
You really don't need expensive Fast Track jigs and fixtures...at all. However, the free printable templates at Fast Tracks are invaluable, as are the free printable templates at Proto87 Stores.
-
Bob,
Thanks for that. I have a friend that I think already has the jigs, so that makes the whole thing more economical..
Time to look into that I think.
Rgds
Brendan
-
What Bob said!
-
As much as I feel compelled to grumble about the ever-changing target dates, this will work to my favor. I won't be set up to start anything in the new place until about the time these switches will hit the street (praying they aren't moved into 2014). The question is what to do - door or LDE module???
-
The delivery schedule shows priorities, so I guess the snap track N scale market is still a bigger share of Atlas' market than the more advanced N scaler.
That puts me in position to wonder if it wouldn't be financially and chronologically expedient to invest in a Fast Tracks set up. However, with a track plan that uses several different sizes of turnout, I certainly am NOT spending Fast Tracks $$$ amounts for jigs for #5, #7, #10 and #3.5 wye turnouts. Lucky for me, I did find a dealer with curved turnouts in stock and took advantage of that.
Now that the bug has hit again, if I wait till November to get the turnouts I need who knows where my motivation might go by then. Frustrating, but nothing to be done, and I am sure Atlas and other companies would much rather not have been through the China Syndrome situation.
I agree with Robert about Peco track. It's often a dead give away that the modeling is N scale. The track may be bullet proof when properly installed, but it doesn't look anything like what I see in real life in the USA.
-
I beg to differ with you...it always looks unprototypical. I suppose if you totally buried the ties in a yard or industrial scenario it'd look okay, but if anything but the rails show...
...I've been sitting here for five minutes attempting to think of a word or two that isn't inflammatory or redundant about how Peco track looks...everything I am able to think of will probably offend somebody...so the least inflammatory word that comes to mind which I haven't used already is the word "bad".
Yeah...it looks "bad".
And, I'm not going to encourage anybody who would rather use Atlas 55 to use it, because you'll
always regret using it instead of waiting. !!
I am happy I didn't wait. That hopefully holds true for the many operators I have hosted in the last 5 years as well.
I had to make a decision 7 years ago when I placed a bulk order and I have been extremely happy with that decision ever since.
md
-
I always used Peco and agree they are bulletproof but always looked off. And, after you go to Atlas C55, they look like HO track to my eyes. My visible level is C55 and bottom is C80 with Peco turnouts. They really look horrible when you can see them side by side.
As to well documented problems with the Atlas TO's, I only recall the first batch of No. 5's had a flaw, which has since been corrected, nothing else. Yeah, they are by necessity more delicate but they are hardly brittle.
-
I am happy I didn't wait. That hopefully holds true for the many operators I have hosted in the last 5 years as well.
md
Yes!
When I read Robert's post, I had thought to myself: Mark has no regrets whatsoever. Speaking as someone who hand-lays myself, I appreciate where Robert is coming from, of course; it's just a question of priorities. On Mark's pike, when you're standing in front of Nelson yard making up a train on the clock, you're just glad the turnouts work - and work well. (You're also glad to have the car tabs that tell you - at a glance - which cars you need to make up your train.) The C&W is one big magnificent machine, and the Peco turnouts are just a small - but important - component. Their looks aren't stellar for sure, but the aesthetics of the the layout are dominated by its dramatic scenery and fine trains, which completely draws your attention -- when you do have time to stop and look. :)
-gfh
-
For my own personal tastes, even ME track isn't good enough, much less Atlas 55. Of course if I were running the modern age and concrete ties, ME would be IT, but I'm stuck in the early 50's. Although when I write about what I use, I use the term "ME flex", but the reality of it is that I use Railcraft Flex on stuff that I'll be photographing the hell out of, and ME 55 and 40 on my transition modules that go to the show and mate up with my train buddy Gregg's modules.
Railcraft Flex was having problems when I purchased my last bundle several decades ago with excessive flash, and a few deformed ties, but it could be cleaned up easily...then, one day sometime after they turned into Micro Engineering, the spikeheads got about twice as big, a lot more regular and the ties got lighter, on all their N-scale track (70, 55 and 40).
I bought one bundle of it without looking at it closely, then used it on a module I was building and noticed that it didn't match the rail I was running it up against in the adjacent module. Good thing I hadn't done any soldering or gluing down, 'cause it got ripped up and was then relegated to areas it couldn't be seen, like on the insides of tunnels and staging yards.
All the guys in the Utah-N-Railers used ME and Railcraft track since it was our standard. We had a choice between hand-laying our turnouts or using ME's #6's, and the split was about 50/50. Frankly, the ones who used just the #6's didn't complain much about 'em, and they do look nice, especially after they're painted, ballasted and weathered. The cast NS frog is a nice touch (although too big IMO), and the over-center spring on the point is handy too as that makes the switch fully functional the moment it's laid and soldered in.
Some of the members needed specialty turnouts, and so us hand-layers made those turnouts for them or made hybrids out of ME #6's, such as #6 Wye's.
I am fully aware that there are plenty of N-gaugers who buy and use code 80 and Peco 55 and are happy with it. However, it's their "choice" and preference, which is much different than those who really want and need Atlas 55, but who decide to "settle" for Peco 55 because Atlas 55 isn't available. Even then, I'm sure there will be some who don't regret their choice, but those modelers I know, and whose layouts I work on are constantly expressing their regret in choosing code 80 or Peco 55 over ME...and (surprise) without any coaching from me!!
On the subject of Fast Track jigs and fixtures. If you feel like you gotta do it and you've got friends who will chip in so you can amortize the expense between a number of builders, THAT'S the way to do it! Just two builders cuts your expense in half, so it doesn't take long for the jigs and fixtures for four or five different numbers of turnouts to not be a major expense especially if you can find another couple of interested model railroaders. That's very creative thinking and frankly, the only thing I don't like about Fast Track jigs and fixtures is that they're so damned expensive! However, I also realize they have to be individually machined, and even with CNC machines, that's an expensive proposition.
One thing I'll emphasize is that there is no mystique about laying your own turnouts. It's just a matter of following a few mechanical rules to get them to be reliable and smooth...and remember...it takes building two to four turnouts before you'll be satisfied, so be patient and don't hesitate to ask questions.
Yeah, I know some of you just don't have any interest whatsoever in building your own turnouts and I'm not talking to you. I'm talking to the modeler who's intimidated by the prospect of building turnouts because he/she doesn't understand how they work, or how to solder, or where to go to buy materials. On a model building difficulty scale of 1 to 10, they're about a 3...and less once you get going.
Two things. (1) Micro Engineering should take some of their profits made from the lack-o-Atlas-let's-buy-ME and funnel it into another turnout...a real #8 or #10, with the associated Wye. I hope they do that, then maybe they'd generate more brand loyalty when Atlas comes back online. (2) Peco should also invest in an N-scale version of their HO Code 83 USA prototype track. The rumor has been floating around since at least 2005 that they're working on it. It'd be a big seller.
'Nuff said...
-
I will need some flex in a month or two, but I'm not about to bash Atlas, or anybody else, for the shortage.
They had a very expected supply issue in China, and I am sure they are recovering as fast as they can. I am
sure they want to sell the track as badly as everybody wants to buy it.
As for the code 55 turnout issues, they are not ancient history, they are not uncommon, and I can document them.
See below. This problem exists with very nearly every single #7 turnout I have ever bought, and I have bought groups
of them over the past 4 years, from completely different shops in different states all over the country. Unless by
incredibly bad luck, they all got all their turnouts at the same time from one bad batch and sent them to me
over a 4 year period, this is not a "rare" problem. Long steam (like a 4-8-4) cannot make it through these point
rails without riding up and out unless your wheels are deliberately set too narrow on the NMRA gauge, and if you do that,
they will start jumping the frog or picking the open point rail. I have to carefully file and hand-dress almost every one to
correct this. Every once in a while, one has come right out of the package with all the rail clearances in gauge, but it is
very rare.
(http://www.maxcowonline.com/photohost/misc/atlasC55_No7_1.jpg)
(http://www.maxcowonline.com/photohost/misc/atlasC55_No7_2.jpg)
-
And be careful bending the points into a correct shape:
(https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-gqRhJakGhjY/UU_FcxUCFxI/AAAAAAAAJN4/wNLFaB6JSW0/s800/IMG_1484.jpg)
And I was just working with a piece of their flextrack. The side with the loose rail is so loose I can rock it side to side about 15 degrees each way.
-
The problem is that the points, frogs and guardrails are not cast from nickel silver. Nickel silver would easily withstand slight bending. The appear to be some sort of white metal (Zamac?) which is then plated to make it appear similar in appearance to the nickel silver. There was a thread on the A-board about these switches and I asked Atlas what metal they used. But we were never given an answer.
-
Now hold on just a minute... People seem to like to complain that Atlas track isn't available, but they also like to complain that it doesn't live up to their expectations? Is it possible people just like to complain and wouldn't be satisfied with anything?
-
Yes, some people are never happy, but please don't put everyone in that category.
Most of us are pretty easy to satisfy. Here is the short list.
1) We would like track components to be available for purchase without mult-year gaps in their availability.
2) We would like the track components to be in gauge with points that don't fall off.
These are both legitimate complaints.
Best wishes, Dave
-
As for the code 55 turnout issues, they are not ancient history, they are not uncommon, and I can document them.
See below. This problem exists with very nearly every single #7 turnout I have ever bought, and I have bought groups
of them over the past 4 years, from completely different shops in different states all over the country. Unless by
incredibly bad luck, they all got all their turnouts at the same time from one bad batch and sent them to me
over a 4 year period, this is not a "rare" problem. Long steam (like a 4-8-4) cannot make it through these point
rails without riding up and out unless your wheels are deliberately set too narrow on the NMRA gauge, and if you do that,
they will start jumping the frog or picking the open point rail. I have to carefully file and hand-dress almost every one to
correct this. Every once in a while, one has come right out of the package with all the rail clearances in gauge, but it is
very rare.
Agree that the gauge on No.7's is a continuing issue. I seem to have gotten more in-gauge than out, but I've still had to fix about 50% of them in exactly the same area Max points out in his photos. I don't bend the points; instead, I use a very fine tapered grinding wheel in a dremel or a diamond file to take just a bit of the metal off at the narrow point, either from the stock rail or the points or both - you can see from Max's photos exactly where the problem lies.
I'm also frankly unhappy about the plating issue. I didn't know about the plating, and I clean my track agressively before each operating session with 1000-grit sandpaper. Over time, this has worn off the plating on some of the frogs/points. It hasn't affected operation any, but you can see the slightly "copperish" color underneath. I had no idea about this until reading about it on this and other forums.
The truth is that building your own turnouts, as Bob Gilmore does, would be preferable. In my case, I just didn't want to take the time to learn that skill and then take the time to deploy it over the 70+ turnouts I needed for my layout. In retrospect, that was probably a mistake. Live and learn.
I'll probably end up doing one more layout at some point in my life, and if I do, I'll either make my own turnouts or hire someone to make them for me (custom turnouts made with Fast Tracks jigs are available out there if you look; they are expensive in comparison to Atlas' offerings, but the operational quality is likely far better and then you get points and frogs made from real nickel-silver rail). It's ultimately just a matter of investment of either time to make them or money. I'm at the age where time has become more important to me ;).
As for Peco - I used Peco in each of my first two layouts, Code 80 on my first and Code 55 on my second. I still prefer the spring-over-point design that permits you to use the turnout without an external linkage of any kind. I find this particularly useful in switching areas, where you can "flick the points" to do your switching instead of fumbling with an out-of-scale ground throw or a switch or lever on the fascia. But I finally switched to Atlas because of the appearance issue. If Peco would do a US-prototype rail in N scale (like they do in HO), I'd buy it in a heartbeat. I don't understand why they don't, particularly since they have the widest array of switches and specialty trackwork of any manufacturer (tooling costs, I guess). I think they'd compete favorably with Atlas, even though they are a bit more expensive, IF they'd fix the appearance issue. (It would also be cool, I think, if Peco made a code 40 track by doing the same thing they do with their code 55: bury the track further in the ties; such a track profile would be very useful in N scale, and the way Peco does it would make the resulting track still very robust, as well as compatible with existing lo-profile wheelsets. One can dream . . . )
John C.
-
I have to agree that there is room for (and perhaps even a burning need for) another commercially produced, high-end turnout line in N, especially one that included code 40 options. They would probably be expensive, but in the era of $30-40 freight cars, there must be a market for $30-40 turnouts. :|
-
Now hold on just a minute... People seem to like to complain that Atlas track isn't available, but they also like to complain that it doesn't live up to their expectations? Is it possible people just like to complain and wouldn't be satisfied with anything?
No. This is just a very up front forum. A complaint is something without merit.
They will need to tweak some things again as this is a new factory and molds for things like the flex track needed completely redone molds.
-
I have to agree that there is room for (and perhaps even a burning need for) another commercially produced, high-end turnout line in N, especially one that included code 40 options. They would probably be expensive, but in the era of $30-40 freight cars, there must be a market for $30-40 turnouts. :|
I wish Micro Engineering would step up to the plate on this. There is more to life than #6. :|
(Didn't they used to do a #8, many moons ago? Maybe the mold broke?)
-
I wish Micro Engineering would step up to the plate on this. There is more to life than #6. :|
(Didn't they used to do a #8, many moons ago? Maybe the mold broke?)
I was on top of the ME/Railcraft turnout availability when it first started, and let 20+ club members know about them, which was THE major influence in switching over to code 55 on our club modules. The club bought a pot full of 'em since they were the only show on the road (even with just #6's). As far as I know, they never offered anything but a #6...ALTHOUGH...they did offer hand-built PCB turnouts for a while in various #'s...and they were pretty bad. When they got out of it, I happened to hear they were getting rid of some of the materials used to make them, and I was able to buy ALL (about 500 linear feet) of their PCB ties in 1' lengths for about 27 bucks (if I remember properly). I have used those strips of PCB now for over two decades to make my own turnouts, and I've got enough for another two decades.
Get smart Micro Engineering. Now is the perfect time to introduce a couple more, well-built, good-looking turnouts...maybe even some in code 40 to go along with your 40 flex.
-
I make it a point to bring up my Atlas C55 problems because I'm hopeful that they are listening. There was the great flex track shortage because the mold had broke. After it was re-cut and the track was again available I bought one of those big $250 boxes of it. I found that every single piece had a loose rail. And every piece had spikes that stuck up too high, but only on about 9" of one side. It was a little bit disappointing and I now dig into that same box when I need rail to hand lay turnouts.
Before this I had always used ME flex so I didn't know it was a problem.
I do use their #11 turnouts and ME flex without problems.
The sad thing about all this is the Atlas track is it's still the only REAL option.
-
HI SHIPSURE!! Why don't you bug Micro-Trains to buy out and revamp Micro Engineering's N Scale track line, since
they don't really do much with it anymore? ;) :)
-
HI SHIPSURE!! Why don't you bug Micro-Trains to buy out and revamp Micro Engineering's N Scale track line, since
they don't really do much with it anymore? ;) :)
I second that!!!
Hmm... then everyone
will start complaining
about Micro-Trains' track...
(http://bayouline.com/o2.gif)
-
MTL was going through the same thing with their Z scale track, it wasn't available for a long time.
-
Y'know...making closure points isn't that big a deal. I had a couple of club members (Utah N-Railers) break their Atlas #7's closure points (as pictured) and it was a pretty easy proposition to just make new ones, and install 'em while the rest of the turnout was in place, using PCB headblocks and throwbar.
They didn't want to do it, so I did it 'cause makin' just the closure points is a helluva lot easier than makin' the whole turnout. Seems like I did the ME turnout trick and used a partial rail joiner for the hinges, soldered onto the closure rails' heels, then inserting the closure points' heels into the rail joiner, then soldering the tips of the points to the PCB throwbar.
Worked pretty well and saved several turnouts.
-
They didn't want to do it, so I did it 'cause makin' just the closure points is a helluva lot easier than makin' the whole turnout. Seems like I did the ME turnout trick and used a partial rail joiner for the hinges, soldered onto the closure rails' heels, then inserting the closure points' heels into the rail joiner, then soldering the tips of the points to the PCB throwbar.
That is also the same way Peco hinges their switch points.
-
They didn't want to do it, so I did it 'cause makin' just the closure points is a helluva lot easier than makin' the whole turnout. Seems like I did the ME turnout trick and used a partial rail joiner for the hinges, soldered onto the closure rails' heels, then inserting the closure points' heels into the rail joiner, then soldering the tips of the points to the PCB throwbar.
I've done the same thing with a curved turnout, and another #7 .. dremel out the hinge ties, then just put rail joiners in, and make some new rails .. I've also used a dremel to grind down oversize closure rails on the curved turnouts .. you shouldn't have to - Atlas factory QC leaves a lot to be desired with the, especially with the cost of these things now..
-
Y'know...making closure points isn't that big a deal. I had a couple of club members (Utah N-Railers) break their Atlas #7's closure points (as pictured) and it was a pretty easy proposition to just make new ones, and install 'em while the rest of the turnout was in place, using PCB headblocks and throwbar.
They didn't want to do it, so I did it 'cause makin' just the closure points is a helluva lot easier than makin' the whole turnout. Seems like I did the ME turnout trick and used a partial rail joiner for the hinges, soldered onto the closure rails' heels, then inserting the closure points' heels into the rail joiner, then soldering the tips of the points to the PCB throwbar.
Worked pretty well and saved several turnouts.
Thanks for the tip Bob!
I'll store that for future reference in case I need to replace the points on any of mine.
-
I've done the same thing with a curved turnout, and another #7 .. dremel out the hinge ties, then just put rail joiners in, and make some new rails .. I've also used a dremel to grind down oversize closure rails on the curved turnouts .. you shouldn't have to - Atlas factory QC leaves a lot to be desired with the, especially with the cost of these things now..
That's actually a great point. Back when you could get them for $7-$8, it wasn't so bad, but I bet that when the new shipment arrives they'll be approaching $20.
-
Agree that the gauge on No.7's is a continuing issue. I seem to have gotten more in-gauge than out, but I've still had to fix about 50% of them in exactly the same area Max points out in his photos. I don't bend the points; instead, I use a very fine tapered grinding wheel in a dremel or a diamond file to take just a bit of the metal off at the narrow point, either from the stock rail or the points or both - you can see from Max's photos exactly where the problem lies.
I'm also frankly unhappy about the plating issue. I didn't know about the plating, and I clean my track agressively before each operating session with 1000-grit sandpaper. Over time, this has worn off the plating on some of the frogs/points. It hasn't affected operation any, but you can see the slightly "copperish" color underneath. I had no idea about this until reading about it on this and other forums.
The truth is that building your own turnouts, as Bob Gilmore does, would be preferable. In my case, I just didn't want to take the time to learn that skill and then take the time to deploy it over the 70+ turnouts I needed for my layout. In retrospect, that was probably a mistake. Live and learn.
I'll probably end up doing one more layout at some point in my life, and if I do, I'll either make my own turnouts or hire someone to make them for me (custom turnouts made with Fast Tracks jigs are available out there if you look; they are expensive in comparison to Atlas' offerings, but the operational quality is likely far better and then you get points and frogs made from real nickel-silver rail). It's ultimately just a matter of investment of either time to make them or money. I'm at the age where time has become more important to me ;).
As for Peco - I used Peco in each of my first two layouts, Code 80 on my first and Code 55 on my second. I still prefer the spring-over-point design that permits you to use the turnout without an external linkage of any kind. I find this particularly useful in switching areas, where you can "flick the points" to do your switching instead of fumbling with an out-of-scale ground throw or a switch or lever on the fascia. But I finally switched to Atlas because of the appearance issue. If Peco would do a US-prototype rail in N scale (like they do in HO), I'd buy it in a heartbeat. I don't understand why they don't, particularly since they have the widest array of switches and specialty trackwork of any manufacturer (tooling costs, I guess). I think they'd compete favorably with Atlas, even though they are a bit more expensive, IF they'd fix the appearance issue. (It would also be cool, I think, if Peco made a code 40 track by doing the same thing they do with their code 55: bury the track further in the ties; such a track profile would be very useful in N scale, and the way Peco does it would make the resulting track still very robust, as well as compatible with existing lo-profile wheelsets. One can dream . . . )
John C.
+1 on using a diamond cutting disc, file, etc. I actually use a diamond drum in a Dremel to remove meterial from the insides
of the point rails at the narrow spots. I have never tried to bend the point rails to correct this problem, and I don't see how
that would help. By the time you bend it enough to widen the gauge out to where it needs to be, the general
curvature and shape of the point rails would really be whacked.
Oh, and did anyone mention the throwbar which is so sloppily attached to the point rails that it often lets them
float upwards until the tips of the point rails actually stick up above the main rails. This will cause the train to
jump up over the bump as it enters the switch (if it can stay on the track at all). I often have to shim, file,
and/or press the point rails firmly down on the throwbar and then heat-seal the plastic nubs over with a soldering
iron on the underside. The throwbar is just too thin and flexible, and the point rail attachements are way too cheesy.
Complaining? Heck no. I bring these things up because I keep hoping that Atlas will get these problems corrected.
In many ways, these are really nice turnouts. They are so close.
-
+1 on using a diamond cutting disc, file, etc. I actually use a diamond drum in a Dremel to remove meterial from the insides
of the point rails at the narrow spots. I have never tried to bend the point rails to correct this problem, and I don't see how
that would help. By the time you bend it enough to widen the gauge out to where it needs to be, the general
curvature and shape of the point rails would really be whacked.
Oh, and did anyone mention the throwbar which is so sloppily attached to the point rails that it often lets them
float upwards until the tips of the point rails actually stick up above the main rails. This will cause the train to
jump up over the bump as it enters the switch (if it can stay on the track at all). I often have to shim, file,
and/or press the point rails firmly down on the throwbar and then heat-seal the plastic nubs over with a soldering
iron on the underside. The throwbar is just too thin and flexible, and the point rail attachements are way too cheesy.
Complaining? Heck no. I bring these things up because I keep hoping that Atlas will get these problems corrected.
In many ways, these are really nice turnouts. They are so close.
After reading the above, I've decided to go with Micro Engineering turnouts. And maybe make my own turnouts for special situations.
Hmm... Did Kiz say Micro
Engineering termites...?
(http://bayouline.com/o2.gif)
-
After reading the above, I've decided to go with Micro Engineering turnouts. And maybe make my own turnouts for special situations.
Vincent, ME turnouts have some of their own issues...
I would consider getting a couple of each and trying them out. The results you get could be much different than what others are reporting.
For instance I have dozens of Atlas Code 55 #7's on my layout.
And you know how many where I've had to adjust the points to avoid derailments with my 80+ loco's and 600 cars?
0.
I may be taking a leap here but I think the narrowness issue may affect certain steam loco's more than it does diesels for whatever reason. I don't run steam, even though a 2-8-8-2 has been run on my layout without incident. And it doesn't seem to affect freight or passenger cars for whatever reason.
I did have a couple turnouts where the points did come up too far above the rest of the rail which caused a lurch. A small, thin piece of styrene wedged between the throwbar and the bottom of the rail was a fast and effective fix.
-
Vincent, ME turnouts have some of their own issues...
I would consider getting a couple of each and trying them out. The results you get could be much different than what others are reporting.
For instance I have dozens of Atlas Code 55 #7's on my layout.
And you know how many where I've had to adjust the points to avoid derailments with my 80+ loco's and 600 cars?
0.
I may be taking a leap here but I think the narrowness issue may affect certain steam loco's more than it does diesels for whatever reason. I don't run steam, even though a 2-8-8-2 has been run on my layout without incident. And it doesn't seem to affect freight or passenger cars for whatever reason.
I did have a couple turnouts where the points did come up too far above the rest of the rail which caused a lurch. A small, thin piece of styrene wedged between the throwbar and the bottom of the rail was a fast and effective fix.
I would agree that ALL manufactured turnouts have some issues. As Max points out, the issues with Atlas hasn't kept him from using them and haven't kept me from installing 77 of them on my layout, which operates beautifully with a bunch of 2-8-4 Berks as the main power, with an occasional visit from a UP Big Boy, N&W Y3 (2-8-8-2), Clinchfield Challenger, and Kato SP GS-4 that somehow end up lost in northern Ohio on the NKP in 1957 :).
If you want absolute perfection, the only way to get there is build your own or hire someone to build them for you. Even as much as I loved Peco's turnout design, they were also flawed: the guardrails were spaced too wide for NMRA gauge, which means that if your wheelsets were perfectly gauged, there was a 50-50 chance they would pick the point of the frog and derail. The solution? Glue an .010 strip of styrene to each of the plastic guardrails to narrow the gauge between the guardrail and stock rail. I did this on every single Peco turnout I owned (over 120 of them). Worked perfectly, but still an issue that had to be fixed.
The simple fact is that to get manufactured turnouts at a price point that is affordable for most folks, there are tolerance issues that never will be completely resolved. So buy, fix what needs fixed, and be happy. Or roll your own.
John C.
-
The simple fact is that to get manufactured turnouts at a price point that is affordable for most folks, there are tolerance issues that never will be completely resolved.
This is the absolute truth. Many moons ago, I consulted with Micro Engineering on the design of their #6 switch, and so I know first-hand the issues they faced. One reason we haven't seen more of them from ME is because of the costs they incurred developing their first one.
-
Vincent, ME turnouts have some of their own issues...
Hmm... Kiz is designing
a layout without ANY
turnouts...
(http://bayouline.com/o2.gif)
-
The simple fact is that to get manufactured turnouts at a price point that is affordable for most folks, there are tolerance issues that never will be completely resolved. So buy, fix what needs fixed, and be happy. Or roll your own.
Tossing the yellow flag on this one. I 'll admit I don't have DKS's depth of knowledge with the manufacturing issues, but if you think for a second about tolerances I say this is urban myth stuff. The tolerances on a set of gears in a Kato drive train, the scale fidelity in new rolling stock, the precision of many of the new metal bodied T/COFC cars from BMLA and others? Nah, tolerances on turnouts cannot be affordably met. Not possible? Just not done yet.
If I'm wrong, please politely tell me why turnouts are different?
I've not had bad experiences with Atlas yet, but have heard the stories from people who have. Could be assembly error in the plant in China. Can't imagine putting those things together all day long is much fun, even for a small salary.
What I have seen though is that people tend to blame track for derailments and other issues immediately and overlook wheels and car standards. I built an NTRAK module with 3 Atlas C80 crossings in the mains and several guys who derailed there blamed my complicated module design. Finally the guy who bitched the most said one thing too many, and I flipped his engine upside down, put an NMRA standards gauge on his wheel sets and showed him how out of gauge they were.
We had an equation. BT + BW = DR BT + GW = FP BW + GT = FP GW + GT = NP
BT = Bad Track BW = Bad Wheels DR = derail GW = Good Wheels GT = Good Track and NP = No Problems
It's not always the track.
-
We had an equation. BT + BW = DR BT + GW = FP BW + GT = FP GW + GT = NP
BT = Bad Track BW = Bad Wheels DR = derail GW = Good Wheels GT = Good Track and NP = No Problems
It's not always the track.
What does FP mean? Few Problems?
-
This is the absolute truth. Many moons ago, I consulted with Micro Engineering on the design of their #6 switch, and so I know first-hand the issues they faced. One reason we haven't seen more of them from ME is because of the costs they incurred developing their first one.
Now that they've learned what some of the problems will be (learned from designing their first and only turnout), it would seem logical that ME ought to be at the point in their business to produce a second turnout...after all, it's been about 25 years or so (1/4 of a century) since the introduction of their #6.
After reading the above, I've decided to go with Micro Engineering turnouts. And maybe make my own turnouts for special situations.
Vincent, that's a good idea...'specially the part about learning to build your own turnouts when #6's won't fit.
IMO, I think that availability is the main problem with Atlas 55 turnouts (and track). As I offered in a previous post, replacing the closure points isn't that big a deal (if you discover you need to do that). However, the plated frog has always been an eyesore for me, but looks a lot better when the turnout is painted, ballasted and weathered...as long as you don't Bright-Boy the plating off.
I've installed a lot of ME #6 turnouts when assisting other club members to construct their modules, and the main problem with them has been some ME turnouts constantly drop their closure point rails at the heel (they come out of the modified rail joiners regularly). The easy way for our club member to make sure this didn't happen was to install the actuating rod that comes up through the throwbar so that it presses back (towards the frog) and keeps the closure point rails in the hinges. That always fixed that problem.
I should say that the closure rails dropping out of the hinges problem always happened when we removed the over-center spring to make the turnouts ready for the throwbar control rod from the Tortoise switch machine under the subroadbed. I always installed a stiffer, more heavy-duty control rod than that supplied with my Tortoises, mainly since the throwbars on my hand-built turnouts are not as free-moving as commercial ones are. A thicker wire with the ends ground down to a smaller diameter solved any "throwing problems" that painting, ballasting and weathering might induce also on the ME turnouts.
Another problem that I (or any other club members) never encountered is a "hump" in the cast NS frog on ME #6's. Since, in my experience, that never happened...I don't have any comments on it, but comments are available in various threads here.
But, the main problem with ME turnouts is that they're available in only one size...which is a big problem. Luckily, a #6 is a good size to be stuck with.
When I compare an Atlas #7 and an ME #6 side by side, it appears to me that the ME turnout's ties are spaced more prototypically, there is more rail-furniture detailing, the frog and closure point rails are NS (so there's no plating to Bright-Boy off and you can adjust the closure point rails without breaking them) and they have the over-center spring so they're immediately operational until you get around to installing whatever you'll use to remotely align them.
I also note that the Atlas #7 isn't a lot longer than the ME #6, and it should be. Several of my fellow former Utah N-Railers took a close look at the Atlas 55 turnouts and discovered the "effective radius" of the diverging route on the switch portion of the turnout is much shorter than if it were properly built to prototype proportions. The Atlas 55 #10 is especially out of proportion this way, and the diverging route radius is small enough on the Atlas 55 #10 that a lot of the advantage of using a larger number turnout is negated.
One member decided to continue to use the #10, but to rebuild it by inserting a new diverging stock rail and rebuilding the turnout from the frog back to the headblocks. His rebuilds were about 2" longer than the stock Atlas 55 #10.
As for myself, I have no problem using RTR turnouts and I've got three ME # 6's on my back track at Echo, with new PCB headblocks, throwbars and re-worked closure point hinges. Every time I look at 'em, the frogs look way to big to me (and they are) and I'm happy they're not in the foreground. If ME made other sized turnouts (with a few improvements) I'd use them. But, they don't, so I build 99% of mine.
I have problems with my hand-built turnouts too. Although I don't allow a turnout I've built on the layout unless it's been tested and functions "perfectly", the one thing that's missing from all of my turnouts in the past has been spikehead and rail furniture details (rail braces, friction plates, frog bolts, point reinforcing plates, etc.).
I jumped up and down in joy when I found Proto87 Store's frets of turnout details in N-scale, but when I actually got several of these frets in-hand, I was (firstly) amazed at how blinkin' small all of those details were, then (secondly) after I'd installed them on one of my turnouts, at how invisible they were after all that effort (took me three times as long to build a turnout with these details)...especially when sighting along the tracks, seeing the details on my Railcraft flex stop at my turnouts (even with the Proto87 Stores details glued on) then start up again after the turnout...which really bugs me.
A message to Proto87 Stores: Make your N-scale turnout detail frets for code 55 too. You'll sell a lot more of 'em, and I won't have to modify every blinkin' one of 'em when I apply them to my code 55 mainline turnouts!
I guess what I'm sayin' is that there is no "perfect" solution. There are compromises no matter what we do as far as turnouts, track and just about everything else is concerned in model railroading.
Many of the ex-members of the Utah N-Railers (now abandoned) still use nothing but ME #6's and are perfectly happy with that. Many of them are still making their own turnouts and are happy with that too...some of them have decided to invest in expensive Fast Tracks jigs and fixtures, which have greatly speeded up their hand-building process for all those #8's they want on their layouts. Most of the hand-builders still build turnouts using paper templates (like I do) which works just fine both from a time and expense standpoint, and some of them use both ME and Atlas turnouts. However, ALL of them continue to use ME flex because its detailing is a lot finer than Atlas' offering...and it IS available at this point.
I should say that several of them have decided to continue to use Atlas 80 or Kato Unitrack on their home layouts since ripping that up and starting over with code 55 would be time and cost prohibitive for them. I work on those layouts, and attempt to make the best of the situation.
I agree with basementcalling, and when I decided to make my turnouts to "tight" NMRA standards, it became necessary for me to make sure my motive power was perfectly gauged. When certain club members started complaining, I did exactly the same thing...took the complainer's engine off the track, flipped it over and applied my NMRA clearance gauge to his wheelsets. The next meeting included a motion for a new club operation rule that only engines that had been checked and cleared for gauge could be run on the layout. I still do this on my own modular layout, 20 years later.
But, all of us enjoy the hobby because of, or in spite of our track choice. The lesson is that what you choose NOW will probably be what you're stuck with until you decide to build a new layout...which could be a long time.
Choose wisely.
-
...if you think for a second about tolerances I say this is urban myth stuff. The tolerances on a set of gears in a Kato drive train, the scale fidelity in new rolling stock, the precision of many of the new metal bodied T/COFC cars from BMLA and others? Nah, tolerances on turnouts cannot be affordably met. Not possible? Just not done yet.
I'd say it's definitely not an urban myth. Making precision gears and casting RTR track switches are two extraordinarily different things, like comparing apples and cucumbers. A gear is a single piece that can be tooled with great precision because it has a regular, symmetrical shape. Precision gears are so easy and cheap to make that you'll find them inside little wind-up toys. Take one apart and check out those teeth--much finer than those in an N scale loco. The rest of the parts of a typical loco are similarly easy to tool, relatively speaking, since they are all individual, stand-alone parts, the precision of which can easily be calculated.
Track, on the other hand, involves countless points along the way from start to finish that can influence accuracy, primarily because the rail and ties must be cast together, which is very different from casting gears or gearboxes. Start with extruding the rail; cutting it to length and bending it to shape; casting a separate frog and guard rails; tooling an irregular, asymmetrical mold for the ties that will hold all of these separate parts in place (nine of them, on average, not including the welded-in electrical jumpers), and still allow them to be ejected from the mold. This is probably the biggest point of potential error in the process, since some slop is required to accommodate the individual tolerance issues of each of the separate parts. Then, one must perform the injection with hopefully the least amount of warping, shrinkage, etc. Finally, you have the separate add-in parts, such as the points; in the case of Atlas, these are cast, likely because it's cheaper than machining individual pieces of rail to shape, then devising some way of connecting them to a throw rod (see the ME design for an alternative, which isn't ideal, either). These parts must fit with enough slop to allow ease of assembly and movement but be held rigidly enough to maintain proper position, which is a tricky balancing act.
Piled on top of all of the above is how strenuously the manufacturer is supervised in order to maintain minimum tolerances, which by itself can introduce all kinds of additional errors, since the Chinese are well known to cut as many corners as possible and do the absolute minimum amount of work necessary in order to achieve approval from the buyer (as opposed to manufacture the product to specification). The alternative is to crank up the level of QC, and check more than one out of every Nth switch for accuracy (where N can be quite large), then return the rejects--which will naturally add to the product cost.
So, yeah, precision switches are achievable; affordable is another question, since it's a given that the higher the precision, the higher the costs. Are you ready to shell out $30 for a guaranteed 100% NMRA-compliant switch? I was looking to manufacture Z scale track; the deeper I dug into the process, the less inclined I was to pursue the project, and eventually dropped it. Believe me, I'd much rather manufacture locomotives, as much of a different kind of headache as they are.
-
When I compare an Atlas #7 and an ME #6 side by side, it appears to me that the ME turnout's... ...have the over-center spring so they're immediately operational until you get around to installing whatever you'll use to remotely align them.
You mean you can use the turnouts straight out of the package??? You can snap the turnout one way or the other??? and the train can go straight or left/right as the case may be? You don't have to rig up something to throw the turnout???
Hmm... it's not hard to
amaze Kiz...
(http://bayouline.com/o2.gif)
-
You mean you can use the turnouts straight out of the package??? You can snap the turnout one way or the other??? and the train can go straight or left/right as the case may be? You don't have to rig up something to throw the turnout???
Yes, Virginia, the ME switches are just like Peco switches. You can use them right out of the box, although it's not recommended--throwing the switches by pushing on the points causes strain on the throw bar, which will fail prematurely. This applies to both Pecos and MEs.
-
Sounds reasonable, David. I wondered how different shrink rates and such would impact tolerances of the different materials.
Perhaps different techniques are needed or different materials. I doubt "some assembly required" turnouts would fly in today's RTR weathering included market.
Going back to cutting 3/4 inch plywood with a butter spoon.
-
You mean you can use the turnouts straight out of the package??? You can snap the turnout one way or the other??? and the train can go straight or left/right as the case may be? You don't have to rig up something to throw the turnout???
Hmm... it's not hard to
amaze Kiz...
(http://bayouline.com/o2.gif)
If you use the Atlas turnouts on foam subroadbed a simple sewing pin through a hole on the throwbar lets you do the same thing, although eventually the foam wears out and loses its grip. I did this for quite some time testing track alignments on a previous layout.
-
Having used ME code 55 exclusively on my previous PRR layout, I can say that it was mighty nice track. The turnouts,
however, were not without their problems.
1. Point rails would pull out of the joiner hinges
2. Throwbar would break off the tips of the point rails (it's a solder joint, and resoldering only fixes the problem
temporarily until it breaks again).
3. I had some that were narrow in the point rails, just like the Atlas, although much less often
In the end, I went with Atlas this time because their stuff used to be much more available and they had a much better
variety of turnouts (not to mention crossings, which ME doesn't make).
Once the rail is painted and the track is ballasted, I think both look terrific (although ME does look a little better,
and its slightly higher clearance off the tie spikes really does avoid some nasty flange problems. I've had
Kato F units scrape on the ties of some Atlas code 55, requiring some file-down of the spike head detail, and Kato
F units do not have "big" flanges.
Whomever is reading this from Atlas, don't take this as a slam against your product. Heck, I am USING it.
I just think that these tolerance issues really need to be addressed. Personally, if the turnout price is $15 or $16, I would
gladly pay another $5 if these things had the QC problems fixed (throwbar stiffness and point rail gauge especially).
-
Having used ME code 55 exclusively on my previous PRR layout, I can say that it was mighty nice track. The turnouts,
however, were not without their problems.
1. Point rails would pull out of the joiner hinges
2. Throwbar would break off the tips of the point rails (it's a solder joint, and resoldering only fixes the problem
temporarily until it breaks again).
Hand laid turnouts built the "regular" way have the throwbar problem also. Although it's common practice to not have hinges on the closure rails between the frog and the closure points. I don't like the way the turnouts look without hinges and I've finally figured a way to ensure the closure points don't break off after a while...which they inevitably will if just soldered to a PCB throwbar. Here's a pic, which I've posted elsewhere, that shows how I have solved both the "look" and "function" of attaching closure points to a PCB throwbar. It'll look better after it's installed, painted, ballasted and weathered, but this gets you the view as to how I do it so's I don't have to worry about the points coming detached anymore.
Top view of code 55 #8 PCB hand laid turnout:
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-JMgLMiSAKds/UEQHqP2uuoI/AAAAAAAABnE/yh1cJ89RQtI/s0/2nd_Iterarion_Throwbars02.jpg)
Bottom view of code 55 #8 PCB hand laid turnout:
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-rZ8KFdaAjl8/UEQKxH6WtRI/AAAAAAAABoI/KDdKfV4VGpo/s0/2nd_Gen_T-bars_Bottom001.jpg)
The second throwbar is cosmetic and functionally the switch works just as well with only the main throwbar. The closure points are not soldered to the PCB throwbar, but the .010" brass wire is on top of the throwbar. As you can see, the brass wire is only bent over on the bottom of the throwbar. I suppose it could be soldered too, but I didn't think it was necessary. The hardest part is drilling the hole in the foot of the rail, and without a fixture, it's always in a slightly different spot, so care needs to be taken to ensure the closure points are where they oughta be in relation to the stock rails and maintaining the proper gap clearance.
As to hinges, I use Proto87 Store's etched hinges and they work GREAT.
Here's a photo of them before installing the tri-planed Proto87 Store Closure Points for you to get an idea of their simplicity and how they work:
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-g0OY90xKzpg/UEGKMrkjoCI/AAAAAAAAAww/zHJYg_ETwqY/s0/_DSC7617.JPG)
Here's a photo of them on a code 55 #4 Wye hand laid turnout w/closure points installed:
(https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-wrjr04r_onc/UECIqT7Ps9I/AAAAAAAAAzg/PYELUUeIT0c/s0/_DSC7596.JPG)
Note that the closure point rails are scale length, which is why I build turnouts to "tight NMRA" standards...meaning that the clearances are all tight, which allows me to get the lengths of components pretty close to prototype lengths and still have the switch and frog areas function smoothly and reliably.
This whole thing can be done on either an ME or Atlas 55 turnout as these are the problem areas on both RTR turnouts. For 13 to 18 bucks each, you'd think you wouldn't have to worry about stuff like this, but I gotta say that not much innovative thought has gone into the problems associated with attaching closure points to the heels of the closure rails and attaching the points to the throwbars.
Thanks to Andy Reichert at Proto87 Stores for his etched hinges and the inspiration of his etched "throwbars" (which I don't use and are different than mine but got me to thinking in the right direction) and to my friend and fellow-crazy Gregg Cudworth who has been working on his own solutions for his hand-laid code 30 ribbon rail turnouts on his basement full-O-RGS in Nn3.
-
[More thread drift.] I'll put in another vote for the proto:87 store parts. The 1-piece frogs, pre-formed points, and heel blocks make the job of hand-laying relatively easy and they look great. Like Robert, I'm not a big fan of the throw-bar design, mainly because it's finicky to assemble, as it requires drilling 4 precise holes in each of 2 PC ties, gluing tiny etched clips into them, then soldering the points onto one of them. Here is a shot of one assembled per design:
(https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-cHnoOqP77Ag/UAQBDY8DjlI/AAAAAAAAELY/y1W_e6-SfYw/s800/DSCN1704.jpg)
If properly made, they're very reliable, because the main force on the points is applied via the clips rather than a shear force on a soldered joint. But I'd love to come up with a manufactured throw-bar that was a "snap" to install. I'm thinking about designing one with RP to see if the concept has promise, but that's just beginning. If it works, I wouldn't hesitate for a second to hand-lay the rest of the turnouts on Tehachapi BC. At present I'm still not committed to it for the 50 or so turnouts needed in the yards... But the alternatives are murky.
-gfh
-
It's not always the track.
QFT.
Three layouts with Atlas Code 55, and I've never had a problem with any of it. Even the dreaded #7.
9/10 I think it's the track layer, not the track. Or it's equipment.
-
I'm still up in the air on this one. My c55 #7's are coming bowed out of the box. My switch points are so flexible that they are actually bending. It's from too much pressure (which really isn't that much pressure at all, just from a caboose throw) from the throw that is bending it. It's also only an issue on one of my turnouts.
Now, I'm pretty unskilled at laying track (at least I think I am) but I liken this to building a PC. You know what you got going in to it. And should something ever break in the future, you'll know how to fix it, and have the tools for it.
So far, I'm leaning towards Fast Tracks and thinking about selling my code 55's. That being said, anyone want to buy those? Maybe someone can make them work for them.
-
I'm still up in the air on this one. My c55 #7's are coming bowed out of the box. My switch points are so flexible that they are actually bending. It's from too much pressure (which really isn't that much pressure at all, just from a caboose throw) from the throw that is bending it. It's also only an issue on one of my turnouts.
Now, I'm pretty unskilled at laying track (at least I think I am) but I liken this to building a PC. You know what you got going in to it. And should something ever break in the future, you'll know how to fix it, and have the tools for it.
So far, I'm leaning towards Fast Tracks and thinking about selling my code 55's. That being said, anyone want to buy those? Maybe someone can make them work for them.
Josh, which Caboose Throw are you using?
I've got a zillion of the 222S install and they aren't bending points.
The 222S is spring loaded.
-
My switch points are so flexible that they are actually bending. It's from too much pressure (which really isn't that much pressure at all, just from a caboose throw) from the throw that is bending it.
If the switch throw is bending the points, that's waaay too much tension. You need a spring link in there, or if the throw is already spring-loaded, it needs adjustment or replacement. There should be the lightest amount of tension on the throw bar, just enough to hold the points reliably in place.
-
I should say, this is all in the past. I am moving to center-over springs anyways.
Regardless, I'm saying the if I poke at it and another turnout with my finger with the same pressure, it only does it for the one. That leads me to believe there is something faulty about it. It was only one turnout. I've even tried different throws (same brand, Caboose, sprung) with the same result.
Oh, and washer on the heel of my wye fell out. :x
-
I don't think it's the throws. I have 100+ #7 atlas C55 on my layout. I've had to replace some because of the bowing. It is always a right hand turnout and the right closure rail, I believe that they made a gillion of these and had the wrong zinc alloy formula when they did that lot. Similar to what happened to them with the early #5's with the frog closing the gap because the zinc was "growing". The one's I've had to replace were some of the first turnouts I laid on the layout.
David P.
-
I don't think it's the throws. I have 100+ #7 atlas C55 on my layout. I've had to replace some because of the bowing. It is always a right hand turnout and the right closure rail, I believe that they made a gillion of these and had the wrong zinc alloy formula when they did that lot. Similar to what happened to them with the early #5's with the frog closing the gap because the zinc was "growing". The one's I've had to replace were some of the first turnouts I laid on the layout.
David P.
That seems to be consistent with Chris333's turnouts in his picture on Page 4 of this thread. All right hand turnouts and the point on the right side.
DFF
-
To keep the washers in I put a dab of glue on them before laying the turnout. I do this because I know firsthand how bad it sucks to have it happen to a painted and ballasted turnout.
-
...it always looks unprototypical.
Peco code 55 is prototypical, just not for the US, since it is UK style rail with rail-chairs.
It looks perfect if you use it for modelling the UK.
-Cody F.
-
...I'd love to come up with a manufactured throw-bar that was a "snap" to install.
Hmmm...
-
Hmmm...
oh yeah! 8)
-
But I'd love to come up with a manufactured throw-bar that was a "snap" to install...
Hmmm...
Let me finish:
...and was based on a precision-lasered master, cast in high-density resin, that complemented the magnificent NZT switch machines.
Hey DKS, got a minute (https://www.therailwire.net/forum/index.php?topic=29977.msg326617#msg326617)? :)
-
Has there been any recent updates from Atlas on when they expect turnouts to ship? I'm stuck with 100 sticks of code 55 flex but no turnouts. No way to lay my new trackplan! Thanks David k. Smith!!
-
Has there been any recent updates from Atlas on when they expect turnouts to ship? I'm stuck with 100 sticks of code 55 flex but no turnouts. No way to lay my new trackplan! Thanks David k. Smith!!
Coming soon to a theater near you!
http://www.atlasrr.com/containershipping-track.htm
Mark
-
When are the S-2s due in?
I'm hoping to have mine in hand before the Bedford N Scale Weekend so that it can take some spins round the NJS layout and toot its horn.
-Cody F.
-
When are the S-2s due in?
I'm hoping to have mine in hand before the Bedford N Scale Weekend so that it can take some spins round the NJS layout and toot its horn.
-Cody F.
http://www.atlasrr.com/ordership.htm
N S-2 Locomotives 4th Quarter 2013
Is the only indication from Atlas so far. I'm hoping pre-Christmas.
-
http://www.atlasrr.com/ordership.htm
N S-2 Locomotives 4th Quarter 2013
Is the only indication from Atlas so far. I'm hoping pre-Christmas.
Darn, it had been third quarter of 2013...
Well, hopefully mine will arrive before Thanksgiving so that it'll be in my motive power roster for the Thanksgiving weekend Greenberg show in Edison, NJ.
-Cody F.
-
Darn, it had been third quarter of 2013...
-Cody F.
Always 4th quarter, it's in the catalog.
http://download.atlasrr.com/Winter2013/2013Wintercatalog24-46.pdf (http://download.atlasrr.com/Winter2013/2013Wintercatalog24-46.pdf)
Jason