Atlas C55 #10 Turnout Shortage? Again? [...sigh...]

[reinhardtjh]

I knew Bob was going to chime in here eventually.  I really hope he's got all that saved in a text file for cut n' pasting because I'd hate to have to re-type all that every time.  But, if you think Bob's bad, you don't want to be on the Yahoo Handlaid Track  or ACCU-Track groups when someone gets Andy R(eichert)* going. 

I can see good points from both sides, but I can't throw any stones as all I have at the moment is some Kato Unitrack set up for testing things.  One of these days...



* Andy is the www.proto87.com guy.

[robert3985]

Keep right on beatin' that drum, Bob. I knew this was coming sooner or later.

Tell you what. My plan at last check calls for 332 turnouts. Street price each is ~$14. For $4648 I will be more than happy for you to show-up on my doorstep with tools, ties, rail and Proto87 detail parts in hand, prepared to sit quietly and crank-out a product that meets your quality standards. They must be drop-in, DCC-tolerant and have tie plate detail, as I for one do not care for the naked rails-glued-to-ties look. Deadline for completion of 25% of production is September of this year, and full work should be finished roughly mid-2019.

No? Too bad.

I'm happy with the Atlas product. It saves time, meets most of my priorities and personal nit-picking, and runs very, very well, for me. I feel badly you find it necessary to write a novel denigrating others' preferences every time this discussion occurs.

(Bring on the down-votes, guys, I can take it. This has been simmering for years.)

Just keep on complainin' about Atlas track & turnouts being suddenly hard to get.  It's gonna keep happening y'know...so ya might as well learn to live with it...or decide to change and win the battle rather than remain a victim.

I'm happy you're happy with the Atlas product, really. 

I'd be more happy with 'em if they weren't engaging in false advertising because their #5, #7 and #10 turnouts are significantly smaller than actual #5, #7 and #10's.  If they would advertise them as what size turnout they really are, I wouldn't have this bad feeling everybody who buys their product is getting a lesser product than they have been led to believe.

Why do you think I'd ever show up and build turnouts for you?  The point to my post was to suggest that you make 'em and free yourself up from being dependent on somebody else (who is evidently unreliable) to provide your turnouts. Not "too bad" for me, but too bad for you, since if I would do that, your turnouts would look and run exponentially better, run smooth as silk, be sturdy and reliable, be easy to repair if necessary and be fit to your track plan rather than the other way around. Noticeably better than any commercial N-scale track product with the possible exception of the ME#6.

Your planned layout only has 300+ turnouts?  My planned layout has about twice that many on paper so far (I'm not finished planning the Ogden/Riverdale Yards & adjacent industries yet).  Hmmmm...you're gonna have your layout all finished by mid-2019?  That's great!  As for me, I build my turnouts as I need 'em, a few here, a few there...as each LDE gets planned and built.  I've been at it now for about 15 years, so I really don't notice not having ALL of my turnouts sitting on the shelf for over a decade gathering dust, just as I haven't purchased all the lumber for every section of my layout, or every car or engine yet either.  I just buy 'em progressively, and build my turnouts progressively too...all 600+ of 'em.

Of course, like a lot of people do, you misread what I wrote.  I guess you're particularly sensitive about the subject.  I would hardly call seven lines (7) a "novel"...and I am not attempting to convert or proselytize anyone here to construct their own turnouts or "denigrate" their choice to not do so.

On the other hand, this IS TRW and your opinion that Atlas turnouts "look great" is an opinion that I disagree with, and the rules here allow me to do that, as long as I'm civil.  As a bonus, I specify exactly why I disagree, and I've done so without "denigrating" you in any way.  No reason for you to feel "badly".

When I chime in about hand-laid turnouts, it's to give those who might like making their own a look at the advantages of doing so.  Because of my posts, more than a few modelers here have decided to roll their own.  Good for them!

As I have stated many times in the past, if a good selection of well-thought-out RTR turnouts were available, I would be happy to use them.  As a matter of fact, I do use ME #6 turnouts occasionally since their quality meets my nit-pickiness...their only disadvantage being there's only one size being made.  If ME would make a #8, a #10, a #12, and a #4 wye in both C55 and C40, I would be making a lot fewer turnouts.

Eighteen (18) lines in this post.  Another "novel"???

Cheerio!
Bob Gilmore

[robert3985]

Hmmm,,, Robert I thought you used RailCraft Code 70 ....

I used RailCraft C70 flex on my first two Ntrak modules (with permission) for near compatibility with Atlas C80 on adjacent modules.

Shortly after I did this, the club changed its direction and went with RailCraft C55 for mainlines, and hand-laid C40 for branchlines, sidings, spurs and industrial trackage.  The club also allowed either ME #6 turnouts or hand-laid, with a verifying process for the hand-laid turnouts to ensure they ran reliably.

Although RailCraft C40 flex was available at the time, pizza cutter wheelsets (almost ALL wheelsets at the time) wouldn't run on it, but ran just fine on hand-laid PCB trackage since it had no spikeheads to interfere.

Photo (1) - RailCraft C70 flex on Wilhemina Pass Ntrak module:


Cheerio!
Bob Gilmore

[robert3985]

I knew Bob was going to chime in here eventually.  I really hope he's got all that saved in a text file for cut n' pasting because I'd hate to have to re-type all that every time.  But, if you think Bob's bad, you don't want to be on the Yahoo Handlaid Track  or ACCU-Track groups when someone gets Andy R(eichert)* going. 

I can see good points from both sides, but I can't throw any stones as all I have at the moment is some Kato Unitrack set up for testing things.  One of these days...



* Andy is the www.proto87.com guy.

Andy is a good model railroad friend of mine, and I take great pride in being "bad"... 

Actually, I type at over 100wpm, so it doesn't take long to blast out eight lines of copy, which you refer to as "...all that..."so no need to cut & paste...

As opposed to what people are thinking I'm saying, I am not saying that Atlas turnouts and track is "bad"...I'm saying that it's ugly mainly because it's grotesquely out of proportion....BUT, not as ugly as everything else (excepting ME's gorgeous #6), and IS the best that's available RTR in N-scale if you want any turnouts/crossing variety...although truthfully, three straight turnouts, two wyes and one curved turnout does not comprise very much "variety".  I suppose I should include six different degrees of crossings too. 

I use ME#6's a bit, because they're really lovely (with a few simple mods), but most of my turnouts are at least #8's, so there are only two ME #6's in Echo Yard, and none anywhere else, except on my DCC test modules where there are two more.  In operation, they run flawlessly and smoothly, just as good as my handlaid turnouts, and when I went into the layout room to look at where they are, they blend right in to all the rest of the track and turnouts. 

The point to bringing up hand-laid turnouts again is mainly to alleviate the worry and whining about Atlas and their China problems by suggesting to those who may have never considered that when you build your own turnouts, you never worry about availability, and you get many other advantages also, with only the time it takes to make 'em as the chief negative point.

Cheerio!
Bob Gilmore

[Point353]

As I have stated many times in the past, if a good selection of well-thought-out RTR turnouts were available, I would be happy to use them.

Does any company offer in HO scale what you would deem to be a "good selection of well-thought-out RTR turnouts"?
If so, which one is it? If not, it's likely we'll never see such a thing made available in N scale.

[wazzou]

Does any company offer in HO scale what you would deem to be a "good selection of well-thought-out RTR turnouts"?
If so, which one is it? If not, it's likely we'll never see such a thing made available in N scale.

I think the PECO code 83 stuff in HO is pretty good.

[robert3985]

Does any company offer in HO scale what you would deem to be a "good selection of well-thought-out RTR turnouts"?
If so, which one is it? If not, it's likely we'll never see such a thing made available in N scale.

Like wazzou, I have heard that HO Peco C83 both looks excellent and has a wide variety of turnouts, crossings and other track-related, American-style products.  I can't say for sure, since I'm not involved in any degree (zero) in HO scale anything.

Which, once again, brings up the question as to the logic involved when Peco introduced their N-scale C55 track products.  It would have been just as easy/difficult to make them adhere to nearly the same proportional standards as their HO C83 "American" product, but they chose to go with the toy proportions of their N-gauge C80 track products.

A lost opportunity indeed... 

Cheerio!
Bob Gilmore

[Dave V]

Like wazzou, I have heard that HO Peco C83 both looks excellent and has a wide variety of turnouts, crossings and other track-related, American-style products.  I can't say for sure, since I'm not involved in any degree (zero) in HO scale anything.

Which, once again, brings up the question as to the logic involved when Peco introduced their N-scale C55 track products.  It would have been just as easy/difficult to make them adhere to nearly the same proportional standards as their HO C83 "American" product, but they chose to go with the toy proportions of their N-gauge C80 track products.

A lost opportunity indeed... 

Cheerio!
Bob Gilmore

I really thought Peco's N scale code 55 line was targeted toward its UK home audience.

That said I can vouch that its HOn3 turnouts look Colorado enough and have that satisfying "snap" when you throw the points.

I've given more than a little thought to investing in Fast Tracks jigs and tools for my HOn3 layout as the cost of all the tools and materials is roughly break-even with Peco for the number of turnouts I need.  There's something to be said for not having hinges that can fail.

[robert3985]

I really thought Peco's N scale code 55 line was targeted toward its UK home audience.

That said I can vouch that its HOn3 turnouts look Colorado enough and have that satisfying "snap" when you throw the points.

I've given more than a little thought to investing in Fast Tracks jigs and tools for my HOn3 layout as the cost of all the tools and materials is roughly break-even with Peco for the number of turnouts I need.  There's something to be said for not having hinges that can fail.

Their N-gauge C80 trackage would have been sufficient to continuing catering to their UK home audience, and neither C80 or C55 N-gauge Peco track looks very much like British rail, or German, or French, or Italian, or Japanese...or anything prototypical.

If Peco HOn3 turnouts have a tendency to break, I would certainly invest in the tools to make more reliable turnouts.  However, modifying the stock hinges might prove to be another, less time-consuming alternative.

Cheerio!
Bob Gilmore

[Dave V]

If Peco HOn3 turnouts have a tendency to break, I would certainly invest in the tools to make more reliable turnouts.  However, modifying the stock hinges might prove to be another, less time-consuming alternative.

Cheerio!
Bob Gilmore

I don't have any reason to expect they will, even though it's "possible."  I've been using code 80 Peco switches (much to your chagrin, no doubt!  ) for 11 years on the Juniata Division with no hinge failures.  I'm quite happy to continue to use Peco in HOn3 if I can find them cheap.

[jdcolombo]

I don't have any reason to expect they will, even though it's "possible."  I've been using code 80 Peco switches (much to your chagrin, no doubt!  ) for 11 years on the Juniata Division with no hinge failures.  I'm quite happy to continue to use Peco in HOn3 if I can find them cheap.

I won't say Peco switches NEVER break, but I would note that we have Peco's that are over 20 years old on our Ntrak layout that still work like new . . .

If Peco had an N scale Code 55 line like their Code 83 HO stuff, I would use it in a heartbeat.  We've moved to using Peco Code 55 flex track (instead of Atlas Code 80) on our Ntrak layout simply because the stuff is nearly indestructible.

John C.

[wazzou]

Agreed, a PECO North American C55 line would be awesome, but I don't see it coming in my lifetime.   

[robert3985]

I don't have any reason to expect they will, even though it's "possible."  I've been using code 80 Peco switches (much to your chagrin, no doubt!  ) for 11 years on the Juniata Division with no hinge failures.  I'm quite happy to continue to use Peco in HOn3 if I can find them cheap.

I experience no "chagrin" whatsoever at what other modelers choose to use.  My choice to not ever use code 80 trackage on any N-scale layout or module I built for myself was strictly my own choice, and I've laid, painted & ballasted PLENTY of both Peco and Atlas C80 on my model railroad friends' layouts and modules.   

Photo (1) - Atlas C80 (maybe Peco...I didn't look) I laid on my friend Nate's layout a few years back:


On the other hand, I never hear anybody talking about Peco track suddenly becoming unavailable, unlike Atlas.  Although my opinion is that Atlas C55 trackage looks exponentially better than Peco C55, if I weren't such a track-nazi, I'd probably go with the Peco C55 product because I am pretty sure it will always be available, and...it's got a lot more variety than Atlas C55...and frankly, properly painted, ballasted and weathered, it looks better than I thought it would before actually doing it.

Let's see how many down-votes THIS comment gets!  Personally, I don't give a rat's a$$...so bring 'em on! 

Cheerio!!
Bob Gilmore

[jdcolombo]

I used Peco Code 55 for many years, before starting my current layout in 2010 and switching to Atlas.  But honestly, I miss my Peco, mostly because of the ability to use turnouts without having separate switch machines or ground throws or whatever.  In industrial areas, it's just a lot more intuitive to look where you are going, "flick" the points to the right way, and do your thing, than look at a track diagram, figure out which DPDT switch you have to throw to make the turnout flip, etc.  (and for those folks who use routes with DCC, that's even worse IMHO).

Yes, my Atlas Code 55 looks better, but not THAT much better after painting/ballasting.  And if you're not doing close-up photography for a railroad mag or to impress your friends, no one notices the tie spacing.  I still think Peco could sell a lot of Code 55 North American prototype stuff in N scale, but I have no hesitation in recommending the current Peco line to folks who aren't obsessed about the "look" and want something that is bullet-proof, available, and relatively simple to use.

John C.

[Dave V]

Atlas code 55 looks great.  But the quality control is a pain.  I had to replace two turnouts on the Midland and, by the time I tore up Enola, half the frogs I'd powered were no longer powered.

Frankly I thought myself into paralysis over which track compromise I'd make with the next big N scale project.  Track compromises played a nontrivial role in driving me out of N scale.  It's funny...  The gauge of HOn3 trackage isn't that much wider than N but the track seems vastly more robust.  Plus it looks like it should...no inverted T-rail.

I know, I know...  "Handlay."  I got it.  But in N scale I wasn't convinced I could do it...at least not until I resolved some medical issues that were challenging my fine motor skills.  Maybe now I could do it.  But I don't want to.  In the 21st century, I should think a fully fleshed-out line of North American track components and prototypical rail that doesn't fall apart, doesn't have profound gauge issues, doesn't go electrically dead at random, or isn't made of Chinese mystery-metal shouldn't really still be a pipe dream.

Although I'm keeping some of my N stuff I'm disappointed that N scale track systems haven't really kept up with the quantum leaps in locomotives and rolling stock in terms of performance AND appearance.