# Atlas turnouts



## Odyknuck (Dec 31, 2015)

Upon reading a lot on turnouts on this forum, the general consensus is Peco good Atlas bad! So my question is are the Atlas offerings really that bad or more of a few bad experiences? I ask because I currently have around 50 brand new custom ones that I will be using on my new layout. 

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


----------



## Cycleops (Dec 6, 2014)

Can't comment on Atlas custom line as I've never used them, always had Peco code 83 and found them to be bullet proof. Particularly like the over centre spring.


----------



## CTValleyRR (Jul 26, 2014)

I think that's a gross oversimplification.

Peco, Walthers, and MicroEngineering all make high-quality, prototypically shaped (that is, the diverging leg is a constant angle from the frog), and with long point rails that mimic the action of the prototype turnouts. The disadvantage is that they are expensive, and they take up a lot of space.

At the other end of the spectrum are the Bachmann, Lifelike, and Atlas Snap switches, which rely on hinges / rivets and short point rails, and have curved diverging legs (because they are designed for oval, train set -style layouts). These often cause operating issues due to their abrupt turns and tight radii. Also, the hinge holes have a tendency to wear over time, creating slop in the turnout's motion which causes more issues. However, when space is tight, sometimes this is just what the doctor ordered.

The Custom line turnouts are a step up, in that they have longer point rails and prototypical geometry, but still rely on the riveted hinges, which are prone to wear. They do tend to be cheaper than the top of the line ones.

That's just my take, perhaps some other folks will add their opinions.


----------



## DonR (Oct 18, 2012)

I replaced all 20 of my new Atlas turnouts with Peco Insulfrogs about 6 months
after building the layout. The derails on the Atlas turnouts were more
than I wanted to put up with. After installing the Pecos there were NO...
NONE...ZIP...turnout caused derails. I can't say the same for the
distracted switchman...

You can fiddle with the Atlas and eventually get better service
if you are handy with tools.

Atlas flex track is as good as you can get though.

Don


----------



## Odyknuck (Dec 31, 2015)

Were they Atlas Custom line?


----------



## CTValleyRR (Jul 26, 2014)

DonR said:


> Atlas flex track is as good as you can get though.
> 
> Don


Meh. I prefer the better spike / tie plate detail and finer scale ties of Walthers and MicroEngineering, but Atlas is hard to beat for price and quality.


----------



## DonR (Oct 18, 2012)

Odyknuck said:


> Were they Atlas Custom line?


No, the Atlas turnouts I used were their regular line.

Don


----------



## brob2k1 (Dec 7, 2015)

Very interesting thread. I just purchased a number of Atlas switches because they were smaller and I have limited area to work with and I could not get the Peco to work properly in SCARM when I was trying to build my layout in there. Then again i'm new to all this so i'm sure it's something i'm doing.


----------



## DonR (Oct 18, 2012)

You may have been using sectional track and trying to work with Peco.
Their measurements and divert angle are different from Atlas. Did you
try it with flex track?

Don


----------



## Chet (Aug 15, 2014)

Most all of my turnouts are either hand laid or Shinohara code 70. BUT, in my hidden staging area, I used code 83 Atlas flex track because I got it at about a quarter of retail price andI used Atlas code 83 Customline turnouts I believe, not their basic turnouts. These turnouts have been down for many years and have given me no trouble whatsoever.


----------



## CTValleyRR (Jul 26, 2014)

brob2k1 said:


> Very interesting thread. I just purchased a number of Atlas switches because they were smaller and I have limited area to work with and I could not get the Peco to work properly in SCARM when I was trying to build my layout in there. Then again i'm new to all this so i'm sure it's something i'm doing.


Yes, Don is right. Most likely, you are trying to use a track plan that is based on loops or ovals, which is what the Atlas turnouts are designed for. Peco and the other higher end turnouts are more prototypical, where the diverging route is, for all intents and purposes, an intersecting straight line, not an arc of a curve. Unless, of course, you want to talk CURVED turnouts, which is a whole other kettle of fish.


----------



## brob2k1 (Dec 7, 2015)

DonR said:


> You may have been using sectional track and trying to work with Peco.
> Their measurements and divert angle are different from Atlas. Did you
> try it with flex track?
> 
> Don


Don,

I have yet to actually lay any track down. I'm just getting my benchwork completed if you can say that but I have my foam boards cut and laid out with my track across it. I was using SCRAM to try to build my layout there but became frustrated (i'm more of a visual let's get things going person which goes against everything i've been reading i should do) so I decided let me buy some track and a controller (i'm new to all this) and see how it all works. I purchased a bunch of flex track along with a starter set Atlas Code 83 track which is sectional to help me with my radius. 

my issue is I have around 16ft of space that's 24 inches wide and I want to connect it to an oval with two lines. I'll need to play around in SCRAM a bit more now that I have a better understanding of how the tracks go to getter.


----------



## /6 matt (Jul 7, 2015)

brob2k1 said:


> Don,
> 
> I have yet to actually lay any track down. I'm just getting my benchwork completed if you can say that but I have my foam boards cut and laid out with my track across it. I was using SCRAM to try to build my layout there but became frustrated (i'm more of a visual let's get things going person which goes against everything i've been reading i should do) so I decided let me buy some track and a controller (i'm new to all this) and see how it all works. I purchased a bunch of flex track along with a starter set Atlas Code 83 track which is sectional to help me with my radius.
> 
> my issue is I have around 16ft of space that's 24 inches wide and I want to connect it to an oval with two lines. I'll need to play around in SCRAM a bit more now that I have a better understanding of how the tracks go to getter.


If you would like some help with scarm, send me a pm and we can talk specifics. I can tell you though that you aren't going to get even one oval on a 16'x2' unless you go N scale.


----------



## bluenavigator (Aug 30, 2015)

Yea, I agree with the width of 24" - no room for HO track to go around. 

Not surprised if one will cut 36" diameter curve into half and put it on the 24" width! Just kidding! LOL

This remind me of the true story - in past we used to pull and put the various cards in the computers as being customized systems. I heard that there was a guy who tried to install the card in the box (not sure if it is video or something else) but the card is too long and could not fit in the box. So he took the card into the garage and saw it to the length to fit in the box as seated in the slot.  Yep, it happened!

I do use SCARM and it is fairly easy to use, once basic was understood.


----------



## DonR (Oct 18, 2012)

brob2k1 said:


> Don,
> 
> 
> my issue is I have around 16ft of space that's 24 inches wide and I want to connect it to an oval with two lines. I'll need to play around in SCRAM a bit more now that I have a better understanding of how the tracks go to getter.


I am assuming that you intend to have a larger module at either end of
the 2 ft wide 'shelf'. To accomodate a 22" radius you would need to have
a 5 ft width for each. That way you could have a continuous running layout
with the 'going' and 'coming' tracks parallel on the 'shelf'.

Or did you mean that you have a wider module with an oval on it and you
want to connect to it, to tracks running the length of the 'shelf'?

Don


----------

