Atlas Code 55 deliveries

[basementcalling]

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.

[basementcalling]

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...

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.

[mmagliaro]

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).

[robert3985]

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:


Bottom view of code 55 #8 PCB hand laid turnout:


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:


Here's a photo of them on a code 55 #4 Wye hand laid turnout w/closure points installed:


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.

[GaryHinshaw]

[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:



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

[mcjaco]

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.   

[chicken45]

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.

[MichaelWinicki]

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. 

[DKS]

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.

[chicken45]

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. 

[spr1955]

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.

[davefoxx]

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

[Chris333]

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.

[VonRyan]

...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.

[DKS]

...I'd love to come up with a manufactured throw-bar that was a "snap" to install.

Hmmm...