Magnetic switch throw for Atlas Code 55 turnouts

[Lemosteam]

Well here it is in case you did not see it in the Custom Line thread of a similar nature. Many from that thread asked for a C55 version.

Frog wiring optional. Unlike the custom line design Imwould not use a finger in the points to move them as we all know how delicat the point connection to the throwbar is.

Whoops, inserted wrong image...

Here is the correct one:

[ncbqguy]

Is there any way to fix the REMAINING deficiencies of the Atlas Code 55 turnouts?
Your magnetic point throw combined with the simple power routing solves two of the issues,   If there was a way of securing the points better to a new throwbar that would allow respacing the absurd tie spacing of the switch ties I would consider using them since nobody has stepped forward with a PECO-esque decent RTR turnout.
Charlie Vlk

[Lemosteam]

Is there any way to fix the REMAINING deficiencies of the Atlas Code 55 turnouts?
Your magnetic point throw combined with the simple power routing solves two of the issues,   If there was a way of securing the points better to a new throwbar that would allow respacing the absurd tie spacing of the switch ties I would consider using them since nobody has stepped forward with a PECO-esque decent RTR turnout.
Charlie Vlk

WITHOUT having a dissertation on the fine art of hand laying track to derail this thread (pun intended), it is not my goal to redesign a turnout. Others here may be willing to do tha

Hi Charlie, could you elaborate with a drawing or something? Are you referring to the two ties on either side of the throwbar?

As unfortunately delicate and temperamental as the C55 turnouts can be, I think I may already be pushing the limits of that just installing these snap-on pieces, which I have yet to try with physical parts, but the design is similar to the Custom Line which works well.

[Lemosteam]

Here is the device in both point positions.  The design is complete and will be available soon after testing.  I am going to try these parts as a test print on my new printer.  The pneumatic machine on the throwbar end (left and right are shown) is identical to the one on the Custom line version, so that is already tested!

Straight route:


Diverging route:

[peteski]

Yes John, the ties on the both sides of the throwbar. Fome some reason Atlas spaced them way too far from the throwbar, making the switch (the points and throwbar) very floppy. If you look at other brand switches, those ties are much closer to the throwbar.

Your device actually remedies that problem as it reduces the gaps, stabilizing the throwbar.  Actually, it is the entire device itself that stabilizes the throwbar (since the green color part doesn't fill the gap, but just nicely captures the throwbar).

[Rossford Yard]

Does the end device just slip over the throwbar, or snap in the little pinhole?  I am interested in these when I expand my layout, but would love to be able to shorten the length of the throwbar a bit for looks and spacing of tight switches. 

[Lemosteam]

@Rossford Yard , it snaps into the hole on the throwbar. If you shorten the throwbar and drill a new hole it will still work AND it will ride on top of the guide ties.

[Lemosteam]

Yes John, the ties on the both sides of the throwbar. For some reason Atlas spaced them way too far from the throwbar, making the switch (the points and throwbar) very floppy. If you look at other brand switches, those ties are much closer to the throwbar.

Your device actually remedies that problem as it reduces the gaps, stabilizing the throwbar.  Actually, it is the entire device itself that stabilizes the throwbar (since the green color part doesn't fill the gap, but just nicely captures the throwbar).

@peteski. there is a reason for the extra width and in fact I am hoping that the reduced clearance does not cause binding.  If you look at the two images of the point positions, you will realize that both points pivot on unique axes, as do the "brackets" at the front of the points. 

This means that the motion of the throwbar is actually not parallel to the guide ties as the geometry is a trapezoid. The point end of the blue and green trapezoids cause an angle to the perpendicular bisector from the base of the trapezoid (yellow centerline of track). This means that the top and base of the trapezoid are only parallel in the neutral position of the points but not at the straight and diverging positions and will cause the throwbar to actually have an angle to the guide ties during the the throwbar travel, even if it is very slight:

[Doug W]

Good work.

[robert3985]

Yes John, the ties on the both sides of the throwbar. Fome some reason Atlas spaced them way too far from the throwbar, making the switch (the points and throwbar) very floppy. If you look at other brand switches, those ties are much closer to the throwbar.

Your device actually remedies that problem as it reduces the gaps, stabilizing the throwbar.  Actually, it is the entire device itself that stabilizes the throwbar (since the green color part doesn't fill the gap, but just nicely captures the throwbar).

These long ties on either side of the throwbar are "headblocks" to get the terminology correct.

"Fome (for) some reason Atlas..." messed with a lot of prototype proportions when designing their Code 55 turnouts, particularly the length of the closure/point rails being very short in comparison to a properly proportioned turnout such as the ME #6.  This is strictly a cosmetic problem in all but their "#5" which in reality is about a #4.3 equivalent because of the tighter effective departure rail radii, and caused problems with some engines and cars that would easily navigate a real #5, but not a real #4.3...and it still does cause problems, which is why I NEVER recommend it.

Other problems include the mystery metal used for their plated frogs, guard rails and point rails, which look bad to start with, then get worse as the plating gets worn off.

Also, none of the Atlas55 turnouts has a proper diverging stock rail, which should be straight for several scale feet after a slight, but noticeable bend at the headblocks.  This straight rail portion is normally as long as the straight point rail is, between the diverging point rail toe and point rail heel, where there is a hinge.  The diverging stock rail starts to curve at that point, but is (again) STRAIGHT from the headblocks for a distance equal to the length of the diverging point rail.  This prototype practice makes for a more reliable switch and adds flange clearance at the headblocks between the non-aligned point rail and the diverging stock rail. Not doing that on N-scale turnouts necessitates a wider than NMRA recommendation gap between the point rail toes and their adjacent stock rails....which looks like crap, and sometimes adds operational problems.

Since I've never used an Atlas55 turnouts on any of my layout sections (nor will I ever use one) I can't speak as to the electrical problems they sometimes come with, or develop later after being in use for a while.

Peco has their own problems, as do Kato, Bachmann and ME.  The only problem properly hand-built turnouts have is that it takes an hour or two to build one.  All of the improperly designed manufactured turnouts' problems are taken care of when you build a proper turnout on your bench.

It's that simple.

Cheerio!
Bob Gilmore

[peteski]

@peteski. there is a reason for the extra width and in fact I am hoping that the reduced clearance does not cause binding.  If you look at the two images of the point positions, you will realize that both points pivot on unique axes, as do the "brackets" at the front of the points. 

This means that the motion of the throwbar is actually not parallel to the guide ties as the geometry is a trapezoid. The point end of the blue and green trapezoids cause an angle to the perpendicular bisector from the base of the trapezoid (yellow centerline of track). This means that the top and base of the trapezoid are only parallel in the neutral position of the points but not at the straight and diverging positions and will cause the throwbar to actually have an angle to the guide ties during the the throwbar travel, even if it is very slight:

I understand your explanation, but even considering what you described, to me there is still too much play in the throwbar.  Either way, it is a very poor design.

[Lemosteam]

I understand your explanation, but even considering what you described, to me there is still too much play in the throwbar.  Either way, it is a very poor design.

I agree, but I am hoping that the design will take some of that play out. Had the head blocks (thanks for the terminology correction;, @robert3985 ) beeen closer I likely would not have enough room to fit the thrrowbar magnet holder in there.

Parts are on order.

[Spades]

My one remaining Atlas code  55 turnout.  I installed a shim under the throw bar as recommend by Lance Mindheim, was able to  to get rid of the homemade spring. Like all my ME turnouts it is manual throw only.

"020″ x .040″ styrene and cut a piece just long enough to fit ... These serve as shims that prevent the throw bar from moving forward"

[Lemosteam]

Well the prints came in and success!  Will post some pics of the assembly later and will offer them at Keystone Details very soon after some minor tweaks.

[John]

Looks good .. I see a couple of risk's though ..  if the user ballasts too close to the points, glue getting into the mech, or small bits of ballast might jam it up ..  also, have you tested to see if the magnets mess with the couplers?