0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
The issue with the #5s is that there was a batch with bad metallurgy in the frogs (from what I remember).Otherwise they're just as ok as the other switches.
That and people complained about the gauge through the Atlas #5 turnouts. But, the turnout was never the problem. That problem was related to most N scale locomotives (at least back when I was in N scale) coming from the manufacturer with a back-to-back wheel spacing that was too narrow. Spreading the wheels to proper gauge would address that problem.DFF
Good suggestion - I tried substituting ME #6 instead of Atlas #5 and that only loses about 1" off of each yard track, which is acceptable.The main issue there is that ME code 55 #6 are made of Unobtaininum right now (they've been on backorder for quite some time). They are also quite expensive (circa $40 each), but as I don't need a lot of them that's not a showstopper.
My Bachman 2-6-6-2 won't go through it because its drivers are gauged too narrow.
George, does the design of this loco make it impossible to bring the flanges into NMRA compliance? (I have one these in a box ... somewhere )
I don't think it's impossible. @mmagliaro did a whole writeup on how to fix this, but I haven't yet gotten around to doing it.
Regards the #5 vs. #7 in the yard ladders - is there any particular reason you can’t compromise on a #6? I’ve used #7’s in my Field, BC yard (I’ve got 19 feet on this wall) and #6’s in Golden where space is more limited. I don’t really understand the geometry of the switches, but it seems to me that there is a big jump in overall length of the switch between the #6 and the #7, as compared to the difference between a #5 and #6, and between a #7 and #8. I suggest you print out some paper templates of your various options (from FT for example) and lay them out and see what works.
Well I hope you all aren’t too tired of hearing about Whitcomb switchers.