# Shelf layout questions



## adamsdp (Jan 19, 2021)

Hi,

I am planning to build a 2' x 8" ho shelf layout (dc) something along the lines of either design below - 








or









I have Siever's benchwork and nickel silver track that I bought 30 years ago and now have time to make a layout. This will be my first layout and I wanted to post about the following questions - 

- Will it make any sense to divide this small layout into separate electrical blocks? I am going to be the only one operating the layout. Would 2 locomotives be used on such a layout?

- I have a few Atlas snap switch turnouts and a couple of Atlas custom line turnouts. From what I have read, the custom line turnouts are superior so thinking of buying custom line for what I need and not using the snap switches. Good idea or other way to go better?

- Are Tortoise switch machines a good choice for use with the Atlas turnouts? If so, how does one deal with the situation when the Tortoise switch location ends up in the same location as the Siever benchwork support? Does one have to layout the turnouts ahead of time and move them to avoid the Tortoise switch machine landing over a support?

- I am building the layout at an offsite location and will need to transport it one time. I am going to trial fit the 2' x 8' benchwork this evening in my minivan but thinking it will fit. I can delay putting the final touches on until after transport so thinking it isn't worth the extra work to divide into modular 2' x 4' sections that can assembled/disassembled but any thought on this issue will be appreciated.

-Some of my track looks a bit dirty? and wanted to see if alcohol is good cleaner?

- I plan to use Kadee couplers and any advice about the best decoupling methods (magnetic under track vs hand magnetic tool vs hand pick) will also be appreciated.

- I have seen some nice picture of control panels that look custom made. Does anyone sell a generic control panel that can be modified?

- I am planning to use plywood under the cork roadbed. I also bought some 1" rigid foam and from what I know, it is useful on a flat layout if one is going to carve out depressions. I am not planning to do that I am thinking it can be use for building up elevations. Is plywood with cork roadbed still a good combination?

- Which of the 2 track plans look better? Is there a different direction I should consider for a 2' x 8' layout? 

Thanks in advance for any advice!

Dave


----------



## DonR (Oct 18, 2012)

A small switching layout can offer hours of challenging fun. Of the two
that you show I personally think the first is much more interesting.

Cork roadbed is a very good choice for a mainline track, however most
spur and yard tracks are flat on the ground and often have weeds growing
in them. The one inch foarm is nice but for your purposes I'd use the
paper covered 1/4" foam panels available in crafrt section of Walmart,
Hobby Lobby or Michaels. If you plan ditches etc. the thicker foam
would be a good choice.

If you run DC you may need to have an isolated track to park a second
loco. You cannot individually controll two locos on the same DC layout.
It would seem there would be little reason to have 2 locos on a small
layout such as proposed but if you do go with DCC.

Tortoise motors are a very good choice for turnout point control. You can
mount a Tortoise on the surface with a link to move the points but by
planning ahead you should be able to avoid conflict with braces or legs.

I would not advise using any 'magnetic' uncouplers on your suggested
layouts. Get aqainted with the HOG...(Hand of God) uncoupling method.
The flattened filed point of a stirrer or some such will quickly open
Kadee couplers where ever you want...it does take practise to get
good at it. If you prefer, however, you should go with the push button
undertable solenoid uncoupler. The super magnet uncouplers
would cause unwanted parting on a layout like yours with a lot
of back and forth movements.

Before you install any of the old N/S track, I'd clean it good with
soap and water followed by a wipe down using alcohol. You would
do yourself a favor by avoiding Atlas snap switches...they're notorious
for derails and failures.


Don


----------



## Old_Hobo (Feb 20, 2014)

As for electrically actuated turn-outs, a small switching siding like the one you want to build (a real one, that is) would likely have hand-thrown ground throws, so keeping that in mind, manual turn-outs would be more proto-typical....

And it’s not like you can’t reach any, being a small layout like that....

As for the brand of turn-outs, my Peco turn-outs are bullet-proof.....


----------



## Dennis461 (Jan 5, 2018)

adamsdp said:


> Hi,
> 
> I am planning to build a 2' x 8" ho shelf layout (dc) something along the lines of either design below -
> 
> ...


----------



## DonR (Oct 18, 2012)

The oldhobo didn't give you a BUM steer...Peco Insulfrog turnouts just do not
cause derail...and they are power routing so that provides a 'switchable' spur without the need of a switch
to provide a place for the inactive DC loco.

Don


----------



## MichaelE (Mar 7, 2018)

Top layout has more interest with the curve of the tracks. The second looks like an industrial yard.


----------



## adamsdp (Jan 19, 2021)

Old_Hobo said:


> As for electrically actuated turn-outs, a small switching siding like the one you want to build (a real one, that is) would likely have hand-thrown ground throws, so keeping that in mind, manual turn-outs would be more proto-typical....
> 
> And it’s not like you can’t reach any, being a small layout like that....
> 
> As for the brand of turn-outs, my Peco turn-outs are bullet-proof.....


Thanks for the reply and and is it easy to change over from hand-thrown ground throws to the Tortoise switch machines in the future? I like the idea of using the hand-thrown ground throws to start with and maybe will never want to change them. I am pretty sure all the track I have is code 100 so will look at the Peco code 100. Since I have to order the majority of the turnouts, makes sense to get the Peco if they are better.


----------



## adamsdp (Jan 19, 2021)

DonR said:


> The oldhobo didn't give you a BUM steer...Peco Insulfrog turnouts just do not
> cause derail...and they are power routing so that provides a 'switchable' spur without the need of a switch
> to provide a place for the inactive DC loco.
> 
> Don


Thanks for the help. Being power routing, does that mean that power is cut off when the spur is not switched to the mainline? Should I get the insulfrog turnouts for all locations on either layout I posted? Also, any issue if I go with dcc in the future?


----------



## adamsdp (Jan 19, 2021)

DonR said:


> A small switching layout can offer hours of challenging fun. Of the two
> that you show I personally think the first is much more interesting.
> 
> Cork roadbed is a very good choice for a mainline track, however most
> ...


Thanks for all the helpful information. Would mounting the Tortoise on the surface, be the top surface and then hidden? I will test out the uncoupling methods you mentioned and maybe add the solenoid uncouplers later. Thanks for the comment about the layouts. At first, the second layout looked more structured and like the yards I see when I drive in my area. The first looked a bit chaotic at first, but the more I look at it, the more interesting it appears.


----------



## Old_Hobo (Feb 20, 2014)

Although, if you should get into a modular layout in the future, the second one would just plug right in.....just a thought......


----------



## CTValleyRR (Jul 26, 2014)

So, laundry lists like that are hard to reply to and cover everything. Here goes:

While you can divide it up into electrical blocks, there is no real reason to do so with one that size. You can run one loco on DC, or as many as you can cram on in DCC. Practically, any more than 2 would be difficult to do.

Atlas Snap Switches stink. Use them to prop open the door of your layout room, but keep them off your layout Custom Line are pretty good; Peco, Walthers, or MicroEngineering are better still.

Tortoise machines work with any turnout. So do a number of others, or you can use servos. My personal preference is servos from Tam Valley Depot. Interference under the layout isn't too hard to manage. I prefer to avoid extensions, as the length of the wire gets too flexible. You can relocate the interference (harder with the prefab Sievers), move the turnout, use a bell crank to offset the turnout, or embed the turnout motor in your foam surface.

2x8 should fit in your van. If it doesn't, rent a small truck or cargo van. Splitting it into modules for a one-time move is more trouble than it's worth.

Alcohol and many other solvents CLEAN just fine, but it's better to use a non-polar solvent. Kerosene is really good, as is WD-40 Contact Cleaner (not the regular stuff) or CRC Contsct Cleaner and Preservative). Non-polar solvents help your track STAY clean as well. The May 2019 issue of Model Railroad Hobbyist (available free on-line) has a more thorough discussion and a long list of potential cleaning solvents.

There is nothing wrong with the plywood and cork combo, but I'd just use the foam and skip the plywood. You don't need it. The foam is plenty strong enough. On a little switching layout like that, you're not going to have too much in the way of relief anyway.

How to uncouple cars is a matter of personal preference. I've always uses an uncoupling pick made from a bamboo skewer. Under track magnets, to me, aren't worth the time and effort, or the lower reliability.

I have seen control panel kits, but for a layout that size, just mount a button on the fascia. But they're not at all hard to make if you want to go that route. I've made 2, using Lauan plywood and Chartpak tape.

The combo of cork and plywood still works, but it's unnecessary expense and weight. The foam will work fine by itself, and it's plenty strong enough. Make your relief with Sculptamold, plaster cloth, hardshell, or other technique, you don't have room for a lot of relief on that layout anyway.

The top layout plan is more aesthetically pleasing, but since coupling is harder on a curve, the lower may perform better.

Hope that helps.


----------



## adamsdp (Jan 19, 2021)

Thanks for the additional replies


----------



## adamsdp (Jan 19, 2021)

I know this must have been asked many times before. Since I am going most likely going to order all new turnouts, should I think about going to code 83? If so, would all Peco track be the best way to go? Thanks.


----------



## Old_Hobo (Feb 20, 2014)

I would go to code 83, and use all Peco, even though it’s a little more expensive.....and, code 83 will look better on those short, small sidings than code 100.....IMO, as per usual.....


----------



## traction fan (Oct 5, 2014)

adamsdp said:


> Hi,
> 
> I am planning to build a 2' x 8" ho shelf layout (dc) something along the lines of either design below -
> View attachment 552919
> ...


Dave;

I'm going to perhaps disagree with the others, and suggest that dividing your 2' deep x 8' long layout into two 4' long sections might be beneficial. (Key word "might" depending on you and the conditions you're dealing with.) I have never used Sievers benchwork, so I don't know if it can easily be divided or not.
Even if it fits inside your van, an 8' length of anything can be awkward to get around corners, and up/down stairs. Wiring, and possibly mounting switch machines, is easier if you can turn the layout upside down and work on it. Do you have an 8' long table or workbench to do this on? Since you're building the layout off site, I'm guessing you may not have the space to do that at home. However, because the layout is already small, you may not have any serious problem moving it, especially with another person helping you. If you adopt the suggestion to use Caboose Industries ground throws, or simply the springs already built into Peco and Micro Engineering turnouts for manual switching, you won't need to mount any switch machines on the bottom of your layout. The Tortoise is a fine machine, but they cost money, and stick down about 4' below the table or need to be disguised if mounted on top, and you don't really need them if you're OK with manual control of your turnouts.

If you run one locomotive on DC, or two+ locos on DCC, there won't be much under layout wiring. Two wires to the track from the power pack or DCC controller, will suffice. Some other wiring might be necessary, depending on the type of turnouts used. Micro Engineering turnouts and Peco "electrofrog", or "unifrog" turnouts have metal frogs that can be wired to provide power to the locomotive, just like any other piece of rail. However doing that requires a wire to each frog, and some device to switch the polarity of that wire & frog.
That would mean a little more wiring under the layout. A powered metal frog is most important if you are using short switcher locomotives with few wheels, like an 0-6-0 steam switcher or a Plymouth six wheel diesel switcher, or older, locomotives with more wheels, but only a few of those wheels that actually pick up power. Newer locomotives tend to have all-wheel electrical pickup. They can usually run smoothly through a plastic frog turnout like the Peco "Insulfrog," or even the Atlas "snap switch" without stalling. The Atlas snap switch has plenty of other issues, so I'm not recommending it. The derailment issues can be fixed (see file "Improving Atlas Turnouts") I agree that if you're planning on replacing the turnouts anyway, then Peco, or Micro Engineering, turnouts would be much better choices than Atlas.

One more thing for you to consider is whether you are fairly sure you want to stick with DC control, or might upgrade to DCC later.
DCC offers some advantages, even on a small switching layout. For one thing DCC typically makes a considerable improvement in slow speed performance of locomotives, and switching is done at very slow speeds. DCC also lets you have sound from the locomotive(s) which could add some extra fun to switching. Another thing being experimented with, and already available on some high end locomotives is uncoupling by DCC anywhere on the layout. Be aware though that this only operates the couplers on the locomotive, not the cars. If you use the stick method the guys have suggested, that works anywhere and on cars as well as locomotives. The same is possible with magnetic delayed uncoupling.

If you think you might want DCC for this layout then that can also have a bearing on turnout choices. There is such a thing as the DCC friendly/compatible configuration built into some turnouts.* It helps prevent possible short circuits between some of the rails in a turnout. Micro Engineering, and Peco Unifrog turnouts have this DCC friendly capability built in, and Peco electrofrog turnouts can be easily modified to it. So, if you think DCC is a reasonable present/or future possibility for this layout I recommend buying Micro Engineering, or Peco Unifrog turnouts. On the other hand, If you plan on sticking to DC, then I recommend Peco Insulfrog or Unifrog turnouts. (The unifrogs come wired as insulfrogs)

Good Luck & Have Fun;

Traction Fan 🙂

[ *DonR doesn't believe in it, but it's true. 😄]


----------



## Stejones82 (Dec 22, 2020)

Just to muddy the waters, this Highland Terminal plan will be the basis for my switch/shunt yard: 









The Highland Terminal - Carendt.com


New York Central Railroad: Highland Terminal HO Trackplan 6×1 ft (180×30 cm) [This layout was originally published at Rich Weyand’s Tractronics website in 1994. An expanded article about the plan was published in Model Railroad Planning 2005. This article is a reprint (with updated graphics) of...




www.carendt.com





Carendt also has some other plans for shelf layouts. I, too, am just getting started and am also asking lots of questions to these seasoned vets. And getting lots of good advice and suggestions. 

Just for temporary running, I bought an oval's worth of Atlas Tru-Tack. I had to take one turnout back as it was shorting. The replacement is also doing a weird thing: As the loco moves through the turnout going forward, the reverse cab light flickers briefly on, as if the turnout is reversing polarity somehow very briefly, but the momentum carries the loco through. It is an infrequent, intermittent thing, but I definitely see it occur with both the locomotives I have (A Bowser and a Walthers). So far, my multimeter has not shown me the cause. 

Anyway, not to hijack your thread, just chipping in that if you do not have Atlas already, then I think I would stay away from it. 

I'm thinking about Code 70 rail for my yard and 83 for the main looop. 

Steve


----------



## DonR (Oct 18, 2012)

Adam

The Peco Insulfrog turnouts are what we call power routing. Yes, that means if points are
set for main track, the diverting tradk goes electrically 'dead', This is helpful if you want
to park a loco.

I have not usual the Tortoise motors...but I understand that if you have an undertable brace
conflict with undertable Tortoise you can mount it on the top surface of your layout...you could
disguise it with a 'shed' or 'bushes'. 

Peco PL10 turnout motors are twin coil solenoid. They mount directly to and under the turnout frame and
require a hole in the benchwork about around 1"X1" which you would cut out with a saber saw.
The Tortoise motor would mount to underside of
benchwork with a 'drilled' hole for the 'throw'.

Don


----------



## traction fan (Oct 5, 2014)

Stejones82 said:


> Just to muddy the waters, this Highland Terminal plan will be the basis for my switch/shunt yard:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Steve;

Atlas True-Track Is basically Atlas sectional track with a roadbed piece on the bottom. The turnouts for True-Track are Atlas "Snap Switches" mounted on roadbed. Your "phantom intermittent reverse light may be a variation on the old problem of a wheel bridging the two short rails coming out of the frog. They are opposite polarities, so if a wheel managed to contact the wrong rail, or both rails, it might make the loco think it was in reverse for a second, and turn on the back up light. You might try putting some clear nail polish on the short rails where they meet the frog. That may cure the problem.

Traction Fan


----------



## Stejones82 (Dec 22, 2020)

traction fan said:


> Steve;
> 
> Atlas True-Track Is basically Atlas sectional track with a roadbed piece on the bottom. The turnouts for True-Track are Atlas "Snap Switches" mounted on roadbed. Your "phantom intermittent reverse light may be a variation on the old problem of a wheel bridging the two short rails coming out of the frog. They are opposite polarities, so if a wheel managed to contact the wrong rail, or both rails, it might make the loco think it was in reverse for a second, and turn on the back up light. You might try putting some clear nail polish on the short rails where they meet the frog. That may cure the problem.
> 
> Traction Fan


Thanks, I will try that


----------



## CTValleyRR (Jul 26, 2014)

traction fan said:


> Steve;
> 
> Atlas True-Track Is basically Atlas sectional track with a roadbed piece on the bottom. The turnouts for True-Track are Atlas "Snap Switches" mounted on roadbed. Your "phantom intermittent reverse light may be a variation on the old problem of a wheel bridging the two short rails coming out of the frog. They are opposite polarities, so if a wheel managed to contact the wrong rail, or both rails, it might make the loco think it was in reverse for a second, and turn on the back up light. You might try putting some clear nail polish on the short rails where they meet the frog. That may cure the problem.
> 
> Traction Fan


FWIW, True track isn't "basically" that. It's EXACTLY that. You can pull the track off the roadbed and use it by itself if desired.


----------



## adamsdp (Jan 19, 2021)

traction fan said:


> Dave;
> 
> I'm going to perhaps disagree with the others, and suggest that dividing your 2' deep x 8' long layout into two 4' long sections might be beneficial. (Key word "might" depending on you and the conditions you're dealing with.) I have never used Sievers benchwork, so I don't know if it can easily be divided or not.
> Even if it fits inside your van, an 8' length of anything can be awkward to get around corners, and up/down stairs. Wiring, and possibly mounting switch machines, is easier if you can turn the layout upside down and work on it. Do you have an 8' long table or workbench to do this on? Since you're building the layout off site, I'm guessing you may not have the space to do that at home. However, because the layout is already small, you may not have any serious problem moving it, especially with another person helping you. If you adopt the suggestion to use Caboose Industries ground throws, or simply the springs already built into Peco and Micro Engineering turnouts for manual switching, you won't need to mount any switch machines on the bottom of your layout. The Tortoise is a fine machine, but they cost money, and stick down about 4' below the table or need to be disguised if mounted on top, and you don't really need them if you're OK with manual control of your turnouts.
> ...


Thanks for all the great information. I will think about dividing the layout into two 4 foot sections. I am still leaning toward just one 2' x 8' section but will do some measuring and trials of carrying the the bench assembled before laying track. I was reading somewhere that the electrofrog may be preferred over the isulfrog for slow speed operation. The unifrogs look like they don't come in code 100 so if I want to use my existing Atlas track, would going with the electrofrog make sense or can one mix code 83 turnouts with code 100 track? I don't know if I will end up with dcc but sounds like some nice abilities and want to keep that option available.


----------



## adamsdp (Jan 19, 2021)

DonR said:


> Adam
> 
> The Peco Insulfrog turnouts are what we call power routing. Yes, that means if points are
> set for main track, the diverting tradk goes electrically 'dead', This is helpful if you want
> ...


Thanks for explaining and power routing sounds like a good ability for the sidings to be able to park a locomotive. I am thinking of starting with the ground throws and adding Tortoise motors later.


----------



## traction fan (Oct 5, 2014)

adamsdp said:


> Thanks for all the great information. I will think about dividing the layout into two 4 foot sections. I am still leaning toward just one 2' x 8' section but will do some measuring and trials of carrying the the bench assembled before laying track. I was reading somewhere that the electrofrog may be preferred over the isulfrog for slow speed operation. The unifrogs look like they don't come in code 100 so if I want to use my existing Atlas track, would going with the electrofrog make sense or can one mix code 83 turnouts with code 100 track? I don't know if I will end up with dcc but sounds like some nice abilities and want to keep that option available.


adamsdp;

If you think DCC is a future possibility, Electrofrog, and Unifrog, are both fine turnouts so you can use either of those you like. As I stated in my earlier response, the Unifrog comes with the DCC friendly configuration factory installed, but the Electrofrog needs some simple modification to have the DCC friendly configuration. (There are online videos showing how this is done)
I think the reason whatever you read said that Electrofrog might be better for slow speed operation is that it has a metal frog that can be powered. This goes back to the thing I mentioned earlier about small locos with few wheels picking up power. If you have locomotives with 8-wheel pickup, then they would work as well on an unpowered frog (i.e. Insulfrog) since at least some of the wheels would still be picking up power while other wheels were on the plastic frog. 
However, since the Insulfrog does not have a metal frog, it isn't, technically, capable of the full-on DCC friendly configuration. That configuration includes a metal frog that is electrically isolated from all the other rails in the turnout. On a more practical level, you could still use Insulfrog turnouts with DCC. With all-wheel pickup locomotives, there wouldn't be any actual operational difference.

I'm an N-scaler so I don't use code 83 track. (That's more of an HO thing. 😄) 
However I did have a weird experience with Peco code 55 turnouts that I'll pass on, in case there is a similar situation with Peco HO-scale code 83 turnouts.
Peco's N-scale "code 55" turnouts, and flex track, don't actually have code 55 rail. Instead they use code 78 rail, with part of the rail buried in the thick tie strip. That's fine, it makes a strong turnout even stronger. However, Peco also used rail with two flared bases, one at the normal position at the bottom of the rail, and a second one higher up. The upper base is apparently intended for connecting to other brands of actual (55/1000ths" high) code 55 track. For reasons defying logic, Peco did not provide a slot for a rail joiner to slide into at this upper base location. The result is that Peco's "code 55" track & turnouts won't mate with any other brand of code 55 track, without some major Dremel surgery, and soldering the resulting hot mess together. Peco "code 55" track will mate with any brand of N-scale code 80 track, using the bottom base.
I don't know if the same odd situation applies to HO-scale code 83 Peco track & turnouts, or not. Hopefully some HO modeler who uses Peco code 83 track can answer that question.

Normally different codes of rail can be mated as long as the tops of the two different code rails are at the same height. This means shimming up the track with the smaller rail. I do this on my layout. All exposed track is Micro Engineering code 55, but my hidden track is Atlas code 80.

Traction Fan 🙂


----------



## adamsdp (Jan 19, 2021)

traction fan said:


> adamsdp;
> 
> If you think DCC is a future possibility, Electrofrog, and Unifrog, are both fine turnouts so you can use either of those you like. As I stated in my earlier response, the Unifrog comes with the DCC friendly configuration factory installed, but the Electrofrog needs some simple modification to have the DCC friendly configuration. (There are online videos showing how this is done)
> I think the reason whatever you read said that Electrofrog might be better for slow speed operation is that it has a metal frog that can be powered. This goes back to the thing I mentioned earlier about small locos with few wheels picking up power. If you have locomotives with 8-wheel pickup, then they would work as well on an unpowered frog (i.e. Insulfrog) since at least some of the wheels would still be picking up power while other wheels were on the plastic frog.
> ...


Thanks again for the help! A lot to learn about turnouts. I am leaning still towards the Electrofrog for use with my existing code 100 Atlas track. I ran across a thread on a different forum that said the Electrofrog code 100 are based on British standards so the flanges are too wide for NMRA standards and need to be shimmed 0.015 for reliable operations. I am hoping to keep things as simple as possible and with that in mind, is this an issue and if so, is it will all Peco code 100 track? I want to keep the modifying to a minimum so not sure if code 100 that needs the flanges shimmed or code 83 with the height needed to be shimmed is the better way to go? Should I consider just a different brand turnout or will those have their specific issues as well?


----------



## traction fan (Oct 5, 2014)

adamsdp said:


> Thanks again for the help! A lot to learn about turnouts. I am leaning still towards the Electrofrog for use with my existing code 100 Atlas track. I ran across a thread on a different forum that said the Electrofrog code 100 are based on British standards so the flanges are too wide for NMRA standards and need to be shimmed 0.015 for reliable operations. I am hoping to keep things as simple as possible and with that in mind, is this an issue and if so, is it will all Peco code 100 track? I want to keep the modifying to a minimum so not sure if code 100 that needs the flanges shimmed or code 83 with the height needed to be shimmed is the better way to go? Should I consider just a different brand turnout or will those have their specific issues as well?


adamsdp;

I think you may be "over worrying" this whole subject.
First of all, turnouts don't have "flanges" I think you mean "flangeways."
Flangeways are the trough-shaped things just inside the running rails, and across from the frog. Flangeways are simply a path for the flange part of a wheel to travel through. (hence "flangeways" like "roadways" or "walkways")

The purpose of a flangeway is to guide a "wheelset" (two wheels on the same axle) safely through the turnout. Flangeways force one wheel to stay close to the running rail. This, in turn, forces the other wheel on that axle to pass through the proper side of the frog. (In fact, the frog has it's own short flangeways built-in.)
The information you saw about the flangeways being too wide to meet NMRA standards is correct, but certainly not limited to Peco turnouts, and I doubt it has anything to do with the fact that they are based on British prototypes.
The "All American" Atlas turnout has the same problem. It's the main (though not only) reason that Atlas "Snap Switches" are so prone to derailments.
In fact, every brand of commercial turnout I've ever used, with the sole exception of Micro Engineering turnouts* has flangeways that are too wide. Somehow Peco seems to work super-reliably, in spite of their wide flangeways. They seldom, if ever, cause derailments. This is why they are so popular with, and so highly recommended by, experienced model railroaders.

I have added shims to both Atlas, and Peco, turnouts.
On the Atlas turnouts it makes a remarkable reduction in derailments.
The only reason I bothered adding shims to my Peco turnouts is because they are in a hidden staging yard, and I wanted all the reliability I could possibly get. One of the files I sent you, "Improving Atlas turnouts" shows how this flangeway shimming is done. It's really quite simple.

I don't see any reason to use a different brand of turnout, Peco is excellent, so use Peco turnouts. Electro frog is fine, but you may need to modify them for DCC. (fairly easy to do) Unifrog comes with the DCC configuration built-in.

Rail codes are all about appearance, not function.
Code 100, or code 83, will both work equally reliably. If you have code 100 track, and you don't care that the rail isn't the most realistic height,** then I would simply use code 100 turnouts with it. That way you won't need to shim up the code 83 turnouts to match the height of the code 100 track.

Don't worry, be happy; 😄

Traction Fan



* Micro Engineering turnouts have flangeways that are a tiny bit too narrow, rather than too wide. This is easily fixed. A single pass with a Dremel tool, or a little filing correct the width.

** The height difference between code 83 and code 100 is a whopping 17/1000ths of an inch!


----------



## DonR (Oct 18, 2012)

So often you hear that if you run DCC you should use
Electrofrog turnouts. Fig newtons! DCC is just fine
on any quality turnout...plastic or electro frog.

The major reason most folks use Electrofrog turnouts is that they have
short 4 wheel switcher locos, or locos that do not use all wheel power pickup.
I had more than 20 Peco Insulfrog turnouts and never had a pause
or stall on them...all my locos were of 4 wheel truck all wheel power
pickup designs. 

Electrofrog turnouts must use an insulated joiner in BOTH frog
rails to avoid short circuits. That means you could possibly
need additional track drops just beyond the insulated joiner
depending on your track design.

Don


----------



## adamsdp (Jan 19, 2021)

traction fan said:


> adamsdp;
> 
> I think you may be "over worrying" this whole subject.
> First of all, turnouts don't have "flanges" I think you mean "flangeways."
> ...


Great information and very helpful! I will stick with the Peco code 100 turnouts since the bottom line is that they work well for my application and can be used later with dcc with minor modifications. Thanks for clearing things up. It is hard to know what is important and what isn't at first and easy to get lost in the weeds.

The first layout design in the original post calls for no. 4 turnouts. The layout design is 7' long and my benchwork is 8' so I have some extra room. Would it be best to stick with no 4 turnouts or go with either no. 6 or 8? Thanks!


----------



## adamsdp (Jan 19, 2021)

DonR said:


> So often you hear that if you run DCC you should use
> Electrofrog turnouts. Fig newtons! DCC is just fine
> on any quality turnout...plastic or electro frog.
> 
> ...


Good to know and I will keep the track drops in mind for the Electrofrogs when doing the wiring.


----------



## traction fan (Oct 5, 2014)

adamsdp said:


> Great information and very helpful! I will stick with the Peco code 100 turnouts since the bottom line is that they work well for my application and can be used later with dcc with minor modifications. Thanks for clearing things up. It is hard to know what is important and what isn't at first and easy to get lost in the weeds.
> 
> The first layout design in the original post calls for no. 4 turnouts. The layout design is 7' long and my benchwork is 8' so I have some extra room. Would it be best to stick with no 4 turnouts or go with either no. 6 or 8? Thanks!


adamsdp;

If you have room for them, I'd recommend using # 6 turnouts. On your little switching layout you could probably get away with # 4s, but when backing a string of cars through turnouts, it's better to make their route through the turnouts as gentle, and close to straight, as possible. Number eight turnouts are quite long and take up a good deal of limited layout length. Unless you're planning to switch with massive articulated steam locomotives, or do your switching at 70 scale miles per hour, # 8 turnouts would not be needed.
The first layout in your original post has one crossover (slightly right of center horizontally and centered vertically.)
The second layout has three crossovers. On crossovers, it's a good practice to use larger frog # turnouts since the train must first head one way, and then the opposite way, as it passes from one track to another through the crossover. (i.e. first right, then left.) This is sometimes a major issue with Atlas "Snap Switches" because of their unique geometry. The diverging route is a sharp curve on the HO-scale Snap Switch. That means the train must first turn sharply to the right, and then slam into a sharp left turn. Other brands of model turnouts, including Peco, have two straight routes, and no curved route, so this is less of a problem. Still, if you have the room, the crossovers might be a good place to use # 8 turnouts, if you want. The # 6 turnouts would be OK too, so if # 8s wont fit easily, just use # 6s.

The photo below shows some turnouts I built, with two # 8 turnouts forming the crossover, and a # 4 turnout to the right. You can see the difference in length, the # 8s are nearly twice as long as the # 4, and how sharply the diverging route splits off the main on the little # 4.

Have Fun;

Traction Fan 🙂


----------



## scottmac99 (Dec 3, 2019)

I’ve built two small ‘shunting puzzle’ / switching layouts kind of like yours in the last couple of years.
I model in Bachmann On30, so the track is standard HO scale.

First layout:
. Design is based on as close as I could get to John Armstrong’s classic switching puzzle layout.
. Track is code 100 Peco with Peco Electrofrog turnouts
. At one end I have an Atlas HO turntable, which is basically used to move locos from one track to another (saves me around 50cm of baseboard length I would otherwise need). The turntable is manually controlled.
. The turnouts are also manual, using the finger method or else (if I want to look more “professional”) moved with one of those shaslick wooden sticks. The stick is also handy for making sure things uncouple when over the magnets.
. The baseboard started life as an Ikea shelf, 190cm long.
. Control is via the simple Bachmann DCC controller.

Second layout:
. This is based on the British Inglenook pattern, I tried to make it a 3/2/2 when the original format was 5/3/3 but didn’t quite succeed (not enough space)
. Track is some second-hand Atlas HO code 83 from a huge job lot I bought, including their pretty average turnouts.
. Again everything is manual.
. This one is on a baseboard I framed up myself, about 120cm long.
. Control is via a Hornby DCC controller.

Both layouts:
. By far the best performing locos I use are two Bachmann On30 Whitcombs. These are as heavy as a brick, superb slow runners, and totally unfazed by dodgy turnouts.
. Almost all buildings and background flats are card models that I have adapted, most from the fabulous Clever Models range.
. With DCC, as someone above has commented, there is no magic to the wiring, but I did use a lot of connection points to make sure my less-than-reliable trackwork didn’t impede electrical continuity.
. Cork sheeting underpins everything.
. Some fairly bad photos attached (I hope). Still work in progress in both cases. Layouts are never ever finished.

What would I do differently next time? 
. I'd take even more care with laying track.
. I'd use powered uncoupling magnets, i.e. ones I can toggle on and off. The current arrangement (in both cases) can be a bit hit and miss, plus the more recent Bachmann On30 trucks/wagons, while very very nice, seem to comprise a fair bit of metal (which is good) but that means they can and do sometimes actually move by themselves when the metal bits are attracted by the magnets.


----------



## adamsdp (Jan 19, 2021)

traction fan said:


> adamsdp;
> 
> If you have room for them, I'd recommend using # 6 turnouts. On your little switching layout you could probably get away with # 4s, but when backing a string of cars through turnouts, it's better to make their route through the turnouts as gentle, and close to straight, as possible. Number eight turnouts are quite long and take up a good deal of limited layout length. Unless you're planning to switch with massive articulated steam locomotives, or do your switching at 70 scale miles per hour, # 8 turnouts would not be needed.
> The first layout in your original post has one crossover (slightly right of center horizontally and centered vertically.)
> ...


Thanks for the information about turnouts and thinking will order some #6 and test them out in the crossovers with the locomotives I have and also see how #8's would fit on the overall layout. 

I ran across the following PECO Electrofrog Instructions and good instructions for the Electrofrog. The only I don't understand is the need for the insulated joiners at f, i, h, and j? 

Do you have any thoughts on decoupling - hand pick vs hand magnet vs magnetic vs magnetic delayed, undertrack vs between the rails or electric powered uncoupler?


----------



## Stejones82 (Dec 22, 2020)

scottmac99 said:


> I’ve built two small ‘shunting puzzle’ / switching layouts kind of like yours in the last couple of years.
> I model in Bachmann On30, so the track is standard HO scale.
> 
> 
> ...


Hmmm ..... 

What size is that TT? What are the lengths of that steam and tender? 

I like the shunting puzzle concept and want to build one in. If I read you correctly, you advise that electromagnetic coil operated uncouplers are worth the expense? Right now the plan is to build the switch yard close to primary control station, so manual switch operation and uncoupling is possible. But, I want to go automatic!! I want remote operated turnouts and am very interested in remote uncoupling. But the plan I'm looking at has 8 magnets. WHo has a place with good prices for good electro -decouplers? 

Nice post, well done! 

Steve


----------



## traction fan (Oct 5, 2014)

adamsdp said:


> Thanks for the information about turnouts and thinking will order some #6 and test them out in the crossovers with the locomotives I have and also see how #8's would fit on the overall layout.
> 
> I ran across the following PECO Electrofrog Instructions and good instructions for the Electrofrog. The only I don't understand is the need for the insulated joiners at f, i, h, and j?
> 
> Do you have any thoughts on decoupling - hand pick vs hand magnet vs magnetic vs magnetic delayed, undertrack vs between the rails or electric powered uncoupler?


I don't understand the reasoning behind installing those insulated rail joiners at F,I, H, & J either, unless they are simply block boundaries for operating two trains on a DC layout?

I do suggest you modify your turnouts before you install them. That way, If you go to DCC, you won't have to tear your turnouts out to modify them, quite possibly damaging them in the process.
By The way, why not go to DCC right away? You're only likely to run one, or two, locomotives, so buying them with DCC and sound installed won't be all that much more than buying the same locos as DC models.
DCC controllers are fairly reasonable too. I use the NCE Powercab which has the entire DCC system in one small, hand-held unit. All you do to "install" it is connect two wires from the controller to the track. It's easy to program, easy to use, and full-featured, so you won't "outgrow" it. Cost is $200, but I've seen it discounted well below that.

The modified electrofrog turnout will have an isolated frog, which will need to be powered, The recommended Peco switch machine, and the added set of contacts, (PL 13 or 15) will throw the points and automatically set the frog to the right polarity. The diagram of the modifications to the electrofrog turnout looks pretty simple and straightforward. If you modify your turnouts before installing them, they will work fine with DC or DCC. I do suggest you look at the YouTube video on modifying a Peco Electrofrog for DCC also.

Uncoupling method is simply a matter of personal preference, all methods work. I do advise NOT using the "permanent magnet visible between the rails" type though. It's constantly "on", and has been known to uncouple cars when you don't want them uncoupled. i.e. when you're trying to pull a string of cars over the magnet. Track magnets also attract steel wheels & axles. This fact has caused unwanted movement by two cars being uncoupled, just when you have them where you want them. All magnetic uncouplers, except perhaps the Rix tool, require accurate positioning of the metal "air hose" trip pins hanging below the coupler. Too high, it won't uncouple. Too low, it can snag on crossings & turnouts. The horizontal position needs to be right too. Now all these adjustments only need to be done once, and unless you have a whole lot of cars to deal with, it won't take long, and it's easy, if less-than-spellbinding, to do.

I have never tried the Rix hand-held magnetic uncoupling tool. I don't see any reason it wouldn't work, but it looks a bit bulky, and on a small layout you will probably have tight clearances between the train and some buildings.
A boxcar is normally spotted with it's door in line with, and very close to, the freight door of a warehouse, built as close as possible to the track. The Idea being to transfer freight across a minimal gap between car and warehouse. Ramps are often used for heavier items that are moved with a two-wheel cart, pallet jack, or forklift. The ramps are usually short though in order to support the weight of a loaded forklift, without bending. So, your going to be operating very close to buildings. I'm not sure the Rix uncoupling tool would fit.

Electromagnetic uncouplers work, but they cost more, and draw enough current to overheat if left on for more than a few seconds. The cost shouldn't be an issue if you can find a central location where one uncoupler can serve several, or ideally all, tracks. I use a larger Kadee/Micro-Trains permanent magnet. It is designed to mount under the track, but I hinged mine at one end. That way I can turn it "On" or "Off" by raising it into a just-below-the-track position, or letting it fold down where it won't uncouple .

The limiting factor on all magnetic/electromagnetic uncouplers is that you can only uncouple when directly over the uncoupler. It's possible, though tricky, to uncouple a car and push it into a desired location, but that's not as convenient as being able to uncouple anywhere, including after the car is positioned in the desired spot. The stick method does this, and it does it from above, and between the cars, not next to both sides like the Rix tool. It is very cheap, but takes some practice to uncouple cars without derailing them. It also does not use the magnetic trip pins under the coupler at all. Modelers using the stick method often cut off the trip pins just below the coupler, so they don't have to deal with them. Using stick uncoupling doesn't look as realistic as either of the under-the-track options, but I don't know if that matters to you or not.


----------



## adamsdp (Jan 19, 2021)

traction fan said:


> I don't understand the reasoning behind installing those insulated rail joiners at F,I, H, & J either, unless they are simply block boundaries for operating two trains on a DC layout?
> 
> I do suggest you modify your turnouts before you install them. That way, If you go to DCC, you won't have to tear your turnouts out to modify them, quite possibly damaging them in the process.
> By The way, why not go to DCC right away? You're only likely to run one, or two, locomotives, so buying them with DCC and sound installed won't be all that much more than buying the same locos as DC models.
> ...


Thanks again for the help. I will look at modifying the turnouts for dcc before installing as you mentioned so I don't have to tear them out later. I want to start with dc. I have 2 nice Atlas engines and bought a sound module 6 years ago from Soundtraxx and had them program it for use with dc. Probably not as good as dcc sound but it connects to track power where it senses changes in voltage levels/changes in voltage levels and puts out appropriate sounds. Part of it is nastolgia. I grew up in the 70's and had a friend with a layout - 2 cab controller, Atlas selector switches, etc. and want to recreate something similar.

I will check out the youtube videos on modifying Electrofrogs for dcc before ordering so I will know what I am getting into. Doesn't sound too hard though. Thanks for the details on the Rix uncoupler. Hinging the Kadee magnet is a nice idea and do you use a mechanical lever to move it? I have a Kadee uncoupling tool on order so will try that out and keep in mind the details you mentioned. Thanks!


----------



## scottmac99 (Dec 3, 2019)

Quote: 


Stejones82 said:


> What size is that TT? What are the lengths of that steam and tender?


The TT is the standard Atlas HO TT. It is just and only just long enough to handle both the steam outline On30 Forney and the diesel Whitcombs. Why the "stop" sign? Because the electrical springy thingies that carry the power on the underside of the TT broke, and buying replacements would have set me back about $US30 when I added in postage. So I hard-wired it instead and use the little 'stop' building to cover up my less-than-perfect wiring/soldering. Since the photo was taken, I have painted the winding mechanism matt black, which looks much better than the plastic grey look in the photos.

Quite some years ago, I built another shunting puzzle layout ... PAGE 98a - June 2010 - Carendt.com.

The above-track magnets on this layout were a mistake - they look fugly, and they are too close to curves for them to work properly.


----------



## CTValleyRR (Jul 26, 2014)

adamsdp said:


> Do you have any thoughts on decoupling - hand pick vs hand magnet vs magnetic vs magnetic delayed, undertrack vs between the rails or electric powered uncoupler?


I have two of these. They work, but they're bulk, and sometimes hard to fit between the cars, especially on a curve. It pretty much requires two hands, or a lot of dexterity with one hand, to use these.

I also have a half dozen picks made from a length of dowel and a bamboo skewer. I think these work much better.


----------



## traction fan (Oct 5, 2014)

adamsdp said:


> Thanks again for the help. I will look at modifying the turnouts for dcc before installing as you mentioned so I don't have to tear them out later. I want to start with dc. I have 2 nice Atlas engines and bought a sound module 6 years ago from Soundtraxx and had them program it for use with dc. Probably not as good as dcc sound but it connects to track power where it senses changes in voltage levels/changes in voltage levels and puts out appropriate sounds. Part of it is nastolgia. I grew up in the 70's and had a friend with a layout - 2 cab controller, Atlas selector switches, etc. and want to recreate something similar.
> 
> I will check out the youtube videos on modifying Electrofrogs for dcc before ordering so I will know what I am getting into. Doesn't sound too hard though. Thanks for the details on the Rix uncoupler. Hinging the Kadee magnet is a nice idea and do you use a mechanical lever to move it? I have a Kadee uncoupling tool on order so will try that out and keep in mind the details you mentioned. Thanks!


adamsdp;

Hinging the permanent, under-the-track, magnet is not my idea, it is actually in the directions that come with the magnet, as an alternative to having it constantly "ON" and invisible below the track. Kadee used a piece of string to pull the magnet up to the "ON" position. I use a gear motor to drive the magnet up & down.

Traction Fan 🙂


----------



## Stejones82 (Dec 22, 2020)

scottmac99 said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> Quite some years ago, I built another shunting puzzle layout ... PAGE 98a - June 2010 - Carendt.com.
> ...


Nice, Scott, I didn't realize I was chatting with a celeb! I'm still looking at the Highland Terminal for mine, but also still browsing. 

My new 4-6-2 and tender measure just over 11 inches, so a 12 inch TT is what I'm looking At. I want the Pacific to bring in cars, then go to the shed. After sorting with diesel, the steam locomotive takes up the train for a run in the Mainline. 

At least that is the idea.


----------



## adamsdp (Jan 19, 2021)

CTValleyRR said:


> I have two of these. They work, but they're bulk, and sometimes hard to fit between the cars, especially on a curve. It pretty much requires two hands, or a lot of dexterity with one hand, to use these.
> 
> I also have a half dozen picks made from a length of dowel and a bamboo skewer. I think these work much better.


Good to know and I will pick up a bamboo skewer. Thanks!


----------



## adamsdp (Jan 19, 2021)

traction fan said:


> adamsdp;
> 
> Hinging the permanent, under-the-track, magnet is not my idea, it is actually in the directions that come with the magnet, as an alternative to having it constantly "ON" and invisible below the track. Kadee used a piece of string to pull the magnet up to the "ON" position. I use a gear motor to drive the magnet up & down.
> 
> Traction Fan 🙂


I will put a Kadee magnet on order to give it a try. Good option to be able to move the magnet when needed. Thanks!


----------

