# Peco turnouts install..



## flyerrich (Feb 17, 2014)

I finished installing my Peco turnouts (replaced Atlas0. Was an undertaking as you guys said it would be but was well worth it as I can see already. Much more accurate and smooth action by all my stock. Had to tear up some track and relay to get the proper alignment (my fingers and thumbs won't heal for another week). 
Next is to install some tam valley controls to operate them. 
What is the best way to remove the spring in the turnout without doing any damage?


----------



## DonR (Oct 18, 2012)

This might help.

http://www.modeltrainforum.com/showthread.php?p=1849889

Don


----------



## Cycleops (Dec 6, 2014)

I’m using some of those TVD Micro Singlets and they are really very good. Quite incredible all the options they offer.


----------



## Empire Builder 76 (Feb 11, 2016)

I'm considering dumping my code 83 Atlas Snap Switch turnouts in favor of Peco #5s or Walthers #4s.

I'm interested in why you switched from Atlas to Peco. Were you experiencing operational problems with them? Or did you change makes for other reasons?

Many thanks!


----------



## fcwilt (Sep 27, 2013)

Hi,

I never used Atlas Snap Switches but I did at one time use Atlas Custom Line.

I now use only Peco Code 83 Stream Line.

The perform great and, in my opinion, look much better.

Find some images and compare.

Frederick


----------



## flyerrich (Feb 17, 2014)

Empire Builder 76.......I decided to replace them due to derailing issues through the frogs and the movable rail not staying tight against the rail causing derails also. I had used Atlas turnouts about 30 years ago and didn't have the issues I had this time around. The moveable rail is very sloppy at the rivet and allows a lot of wobbly movement of it. The flimsy finger on the snap switch will not overcome any debris that may build up under the slider, pray tell if you get any grit under it.
The Pecos are much better quality. The feel and operation made it worth the work installing them

NOTE: I spent hours on this Forum two years ago reading about the Hobby before I built my present layout. To inform myself of new ideas, products and fellow forum comments so I would make smart decisions before I started my latest project. Well newly retired and watching my expenditures on this layout I figured that saving a few dollars on the Atlas items (they were good to me before) would be ok.
Well now I have spent a lot more $ and time than if I would have had I gone with Peco to start with. Live and learn. I did learn a lot redoing my track and I find the end results very rewarding.
You read, listen and in the end make your own decision. I look at it as not making the wrong one, not just the best one (makes me feel better).
This forum is one of the most fact/opinon/idea filled I have ever been involved with.
Hats off to all who contribute!!!


----------



## Empire Builder 76 (Feb 11, 2016)

Flyerrich,

Thank you for your sharing your experience, which is similar to what I've had with my Atlas turnouts for several months now. 

My turnouts are only four years old and have been but moderately used. Even one brand new one - bought just last week - exhibited the same problem, described below, right from the get-go. All my tracks are Atlas code 83, both 15" radius in a double reverse loop and 18" radius on the mainline trackage.

The point rails - powered by Tortoise - close quite firmly against the stock rails, and their beveled ends are quite thin and sharp. But my locos' (all are four-year old, four-axle FA diesels and one 2-8-2) wheels jump upward at exactly the same two places on the point rails, but only when _entering_ the diverging track, leading to derailment. On the mainline - in either direction - no jumping or problems at all.

The first bump occurs at the first tie beyond the throwbar, and the second exactly midway between the throwbar and the point rails' pivot junctures. The point rails are indeed wobbly, and their ends esaily come loose from the throwbar. I've even used CA to glue them in place, but that's done nothing to eliminate the problem. 

The throwbar itself is also quite wobbly, especially vertically, a concern that relates directly to what I describe in the next paragraph. The Tortoise wire also is _not _catching on the throwbar's hole, a potential problem that would conceivably cause the throwbar to "misbehave." 

When the turnouts are viewed close up at eye level (both on the layout and off), I can see that the point rails sit just a hair above their respective stock rails, not level with them as I presume they should.

And, yes, I've cheked all the requisite measurements on the turnouts, tracks, wheels, etc. with the NMRA gauge. It shows everything to be properly aligned. And my roadbed surface is completely flat and level.

So, I'm chalking this up to poor design and/or manufacturing quality on the part of Atlas. But before I decide to strengthen the British economy, if you have any other thoughts on potential causes, well, I'm all ears.

I also wrote to Peco and received its response, in green below, this morning. Did you, as Peco suggests, have to "pack" or "shore up" from underneath any of your existing tracks in order to get the Peco turnouts to cooperate with them? If so, how did you handle it? What "realignments" were necessary?

From Peco:

As you mention, the turnout templates will assist you in choosing which of our code 83 turnouts will best suit the space that you have available, but some realignment of existing tracks may be required to suit. With both having a rail height of code 83 you should have no problems joining the rails together, but some packing may be required under one of the track systems to bring everything level. 

Thanks again!


----------



## flyerrich (Feb 17, 2014)

I have had only 1 issue with height alignment. I slipped a shim under the turnout as required to meet my ok. Other than that great product. All my layout is code 100 nickel silver


----------



## Empire Builder 76 (Feb 11, 2016)

Sounds easy enough. Thanks!


----------



## Cycleops (Dec 6, 2014)

You can’t beat Peco as model railroaders over many years will tell you.


----------



## flyerrich (Feb 17, 2014)

Empire builder 76
I printed out templates of the peco turnouts from their website and used these to show me where my best placement was going to be before I took up the Atlas ones. It also allowed me to see how much or how little in a few cases the track relay wood be as they are not direct replacements as Don R on this forum alerted me too.


----------



## Empire Builder 76 (Feb 11, 2016)

flyerrich said:


> Empire builder 76
> I printed out templates of the peco turnouts from their website and used these to show me where my best placement was going to be before I took up the Atlas ones. It also allowed me to see how much or how little in a few cases the track relay wood be as they are not direct replacements as Don R on this forum alerted me too.


Flyerrich,

I also printed them out for the same purpose.

What is "track relay wood"? Or, do you mean to say, "...the track really would be...?" In that case, the track really would be what?


----------



## flyerrich (Feb 17, 2014)

Grammer issues lol, I meant to say relaying track to fit up to the new Peco turnouts as you know the angles from Atlas to Peco are slightly different.


----------



## Empire Builder 76 (Feb 11, 2016)

flyerrich said:


> Grammer issues lol, I meant to say relaying track to fit up to the new Peco turnouts as you know the angles from Atlas to Peco are slightly different.


Flyerrich,

Ach so, now I understand!  How did you accomplish this? Re-laying (vs. relaying - to pass along) the track, that is? Did you insert short pieces of flextrack between the two? 

I think you've got me convinced to make the change -_ and_ support the British economy at the same time!


----------



## flyerrich (Feb 17, 2014)

I now use flextrack wherever I can.


----------



## Empire Builder 76 (Feb 11, 2016)

flyerrich said:


> I now use flextrack wherever I can.


And I may pursue the same route, now that I've already replaced a few sections in other, non-turnout related places.

Many thanks for the help!


----------



## traction fan (Oct 5, 2014)

*Atlas and Peco turnouts*



Empire Builder 76 said:


> I'm considering dumping my code 83 Atlas Snap Switch turnouts in favor of Peco #5s or Walthers #4s.
> 
> I'm interested in why you switched from Atlas to Peco. Were you experiencing operational problems with them? Or did you change makes for other reasons?
> 
> Many thanks!


Empire Builder76, and Flyerrich;

I can't really argue with your decision to switch to Pecos from Atlas. However, if you want to try making your Atlas turnouts more reliable until/instead of the change, the attached pdf titled, "Improving Atlas turnouts" explains what's wrong with the Atlas design, and what can, and can't be done to reduce derailments on Atlas turnouts. The improvements I suggest in this document (and more) are already included in Peco turnouts, right out of the box. So you may decide not to bother trying to upgrade the Atlas turnouts, that's up to you.
Walthers turnouts are actually made by Shinohara. They are good quality. My former club used them in large numbers. The only problems were the copper contacts on the points would sometimes snag, and these turnouts don't have Peco's spring to hold the points against the stock rail. I don't remember if Shinohara turnouts had the notches in the stock rails for the points to recess into. Pecos do.
The other file, "How I scratchbuild turnouts" goes into more detail about the various parts that make up a turnout, how they function, and the reasons for, and cost of, making your own.

regards;

Traction Fan:smilie_daumenpos

View attachment Improving Atlas turnouts.pdf


View attachment How I scratch build turnouts new(8).pdf


----------



## Empire Builder 76 (Feb 11, 2016)

Traction Fan,

Many thanks for what should be an educational read! Not having read it yet (this weekend's task), will what you offer in this piece provide a remedy to the point rail problem I've described above? I'd like to be able to prevent the "jumping" and subsequent derailments from occurring. Occasional derailments happen, I grant, for any number of reasons. But wheels jumping up from the rails is unacceptable.


----------



## Empire Builder 76 (Feb 11, 2016)

Traction Fan,

A very interesting and informative read indeed! It seems to be a good, practical solution to derailments caused, as you've described them, at the location of the point rails' rivets and remedied by the removal of those rivets.

However, the problem I'm experiencing with my Atlas Snap Switch turnouts - the bumping/jumping of my locos' wheels, followed by derailment - occurs at two_ other _locations, described below in my reply to Flyerrich.

My turnouts are only four years old and have been but moderately used. Even one brand new one - bought just last week - exhibits the same problem, described below, right from the get-go. All my tracks are Atlas code 83, both 15" radius in a double reverse loop and 18" radius on the mainline trackage.

The point rails - powered by Tortoise - close quite firmly against the stock rails, and their beveled ends are quite thin and sharp. But my locos' (all are four-year old, four-axle FA diesels and one 2-8-2) wheels jump upward at exactly the same two places on the point rails, but _only_ when entering the diverging track, leading to derailment. On the mainline - in either direction - no jumping or problems at all.

The first bump occurs at the first tie beyond the throwbar and the second exactly midway between the throwbar and the point rails' pivot junctures. The point rails are indeed wobbly, and their ends esaily come loose from the throwbar. I've even used CA to glue them in place, but that's done nothing to eliminate the problem.

The throwbar itself is also quite wobbly, especially vertically, a concern that relates directly to what I describe in the next paragraph. The Tortoise wire also is not catching on the throwbar's hole, a potential problem that would conceivably cause the throwbar to "misbehave."

When the turnouts are viewed close up at eye level (both on the layout and off), I can see that the point rails sit just a hair above their respective stock rails, not level with them as I presume they should.

I've also checked everything there is to check with the NMRA gauge, which shows everything to be properly aligned and in tune.

So, given that the bumping/jumping of my locos' wheels occurs in those two different locations along the point rails, would removal and replacement of the pivots as you've detailed in your PDF piece also be a solution? Or, is another fix called for here? If so what, short of going with Peco or Walthers?

I look forward to reading your analysis and suggestions.


----------



## traction fan (Oct 5, 2014)

*Points too high, other stuff too loose.*



Empire Builder 76 said:


> Traction Fan,
> 
> A very interesting and informative read indeed! It seems to be a good, practical solution to derailments caused, as you've described them, at the location of the point rails' rivets and remedied by the removal of those rivets.
> 
> ...


 Empire Builder 76;

Yes, since you are using the powerful Tortoise switch machine, I would recommend trying all the modifications/fixes in my article, and one that I forgot to put in. In the text about adding rail joiners the procedure is intended for those unfortunate, misguided, souls who wish to retain the Atlas twin-coil machine. hwell: ???
As a Tortoise user, you can. and should, solder both ends of the rail joiners, not just the one end I mentioned. This will convert the wobbly point rails into one solid rail. This will eliminate the sloppy rivets, gaps between rails, electrical continuity problems, and a lot of mental anguish! You might even go one stage further, and replace Atlas's loose throwbar with a new one made with a printed circuit tie. That would take all the wobbliness out of the turnout. Will it solve your bump problem, I don't know, but it couldn't hurt to try all those things on one mis-behaving turnout and see if they help.

{Updating my own response here. The specific information you have discovered about where the bumps occur, strongly suggests another possible problem. (Excellent observation on your part :thumbsup: ) 
First a question. You said that you had, "checked everything there is to check with an NMRA gage." Are you certain that these checks included slowly running the gage through every millimeter of those point rails? Particularly on the offending curved route? From your excellent description of the locations, and the fact that the wheels, "jump up" it sounds suspiciously like there may be a couple of tight spots along the point rail that is only used on the diverging route, Sometimes these spots are easier felt by using the "flangeways" tabs at the opposite end of the gage from the "track" tabs. Also did you check the points with the "points" tabs of the gage? They, unlike the "track" or "flangeways" tabs, are slightly different in their spacing. This is to allow for the presence of the "extra" rail, (one of the point rails) in that measurement. As explained further along, the point rail for the diverging route should be bent into an approximate 18" radius curve, like the other rails on the diverging route. It comes from the factory as a straight rail.} 

You seem to have spotted what may be the causes of the "bumps" you are experiencing. First the points sticking up even slightly above the stock rails. They shouldn't. One possible cause may be the pressure that your Tortoise machine puts on the points to hold them tightly against the stock rails. This is very desirable to prevent "picking-the-points" type derailments; but it can also push the points up. I had this problem on some of my scratchbuilt turnouts. I had to put thin brass shims above the throwbar to keep things from going up. That works very well.
The second thing you have found, could be exacerbating the "pushed up points" thing. That is the loosey-goosey point rails and throwbar. These are one of the many design/manufacturing problems that try the souls of Atlas turnout owners! Everything that moves on an Atlas turnout has to be super easy for their anemic excuse for a switch machine to move at all. ( I refer to the original Atlas twin-coil machine, not the excellent Tortoise ) Those rivets, and point rails, and the throwbar are all loose, and can move anywhere they want, any time they want. 
Another thought, the point rails are basically straight, both of them. One should be curved, since it is part of the curved, diverging route. Back when I used Atlas turnouts (I was very young, and poor. I didn't know any better. ) I found that bending the diverging route's point rail into a curve similar to the other curved rails of the turnout, helped. You might try that. 
Do your Atlas turnouts have the notches cut into the inside surface of the stock rails, that the point rails can fit into? If not, I recommend adding them, they make a big difference in preventing picking the points. They may, or may not, be a contributer to your bump problem, but they are a very good thing to have. 
The built-in kinks of those gaps between the point and closure rails are another potential problem. Other commercial turnouts use rail joiners, I make mine with solid rails, no joints.

Apart from what's already in the file I sent, I can't guess at any more without being there, and seeing what you have seen. If all else fails, go with your original plan and replace Atlas with Peco. You won't be the first, or the last, or sorry you made the change! Many,many have done the same thing.

Good luck;

Traction Fan:smilie_daumenpos:

Photo below shows one of my scratchbuilt, N-scale turnouts. Notice the lack of gaps, or rail joiners, and the very strong, non-wiggling throwbar, also the filled and carved frog and long guard rails. These things all help prevent problems.


----------



## Empire Builder 76 (Feb 11, 2016)

Traction Fan,

Thank you for your detailed followup.

I may well tackle the solutions you suggest, yet one's initial instinct might be to return the turnouts (especially the brand new one) to Atlas, ask for a refund and suggest that its engineers go back to the drawing board!  Then again, Santa Claus was also just a childhood fantasy! 

Not only did I check everything there is to check, slowly and methodically, with the NMRA gauge (at which I'm new), so did a very seasoned modeler and solver-of-problems at the local hobby shop. While using the gauge, he wore a magnifying glasses headset (or whatever it's called) to aid in close-up, detailed inspection. He also found no problems. I may ask him to revisit those measurements just to be sure.

The point rail for the diverging route on the brand new turnout in question is indeed a bit curved (which, at first, I took to be a manufacturing error, but now understand why it's curved). To what degree is unknown, perhaps unknowable. The wheel bumping/jumping _seems_ to occur on the diverging route (outside/southern) point rail only. I say "seems" because that turnout is at the edge of the table and easily viewed at eyeball level with the facia removed. I can only view the opposite point rail in action from four feet away, too far to see if the loco's left-side wheels are also bumping. A brief trial and error tells me they're not. No matter, though. Wheel bumping is not good anywhere.

I've noted your advice to solder both ends of the rail joiners (to the point rails and to the closure rails). However, it would seem that doing so would prevent the pivoting motion necessary for the point rails to "do their thing" and move from side to side. Obviously not the case. Is that soldered joint, then, so flexible that movement is smooth and easy and not at all hindered by the soldering? Or...?

All my turnouts have the notches on the stock rails into which the nicely thinned and beveled point rail ends fit snugly and reliably. No problems there at all. Still, the point rail ends easily loosen from the throwbar (whenever and wherever...), a factory problem which you've already described. The point rails do, however, stick up a hair higher than their respective stock rails along their _entire length_, from the throwbar to the pivot junctures. That, I believe, _is_ the essence of the jumping and bumping problem. It's even visible when the turnout is off the layout and lying on a flat surface or held in my hand. The Tortoise is not at fault here.

Speaking of lying flat: when the turnout is on any flat surface - a table, windowsill, my desk and even on the roadbed - there's a slight, yet visible, vertical "rise" or "bump" right in the center. It's, in fact, even more noticeable when the turnout is on the roadbed and attached to the adjoining tracks at all three ends. Too tight of a fit, perhaps, with adjoining flex track at two of the three ends? This, despite the fact that my trusty torpedo level tells me that the roadbed there is quite level. Another manufacturing flaw, it seems. And securely nailing the turnout down in several places has no effect one way or another on the wheel bumping problem. 

I watched a video last night in which the modeler glued small, thin styrene shims to top of one end of the throwbar and under the respective rail in an effort to eliminate that pesky, loosey-goosey vertical motion of the throwbar. For him, it worked. I've also shimmed one end of the throwbar, then the other, individually, as well as both ends simultaneously. This seemed to eliminate the wheel bumping at the first tie beyond the throwbar, but not at the cited midway point along the point rails, where the front wheels continue to jump. With shimming, though, the loco proceeded more reliably and consistently through the diverging route and into the adjoining loop, but still with a slight bump of the front wheels at that midway point. Problem half solved? Maybe. I may try a slightly thicker shim to see what happens. Stay tuned! Still....another design and/or manufacturing flaw, it seems. 

Peco may be my ultimate resolution, but I may want to work my way through your and others' suggestions before deciding whether or not to supplement the British economy.


----------



## traction fan (Oct 5, 2014)

*"Bending the iron."*



Empire Builder 76 said:


> Traction Fan,
> 
> Thank you for your detailed followup.
> 
> ...


[There is another option, and it saves a ton of money, at the expense of using up a lot more time. Read through the file, "How I scratchbuild Turnouts," that I sent you. Buying a single Peco, Walthers/Shinohara, or Micro Engineering, turnout will cost about six times what it costs to make one yourself. Anyone can do it but it takes time. Read it, and see if it's something you might want to try. Doing all the modifications in my "Improving Atlas Turnouts" article will not take as long as scratchbuilding one, but
it would be a significant time investment, to achieve a less satisfying result. You can make one trial turnout from the rail in a piece of flex track, to try it out, before investing in a lot of rail.]

regards;

Traction Fan:smilie_daumenpos:


----------



## Empire Builder 76 (Feb 11, 2016)

traction fan said:


> [There is another option, and it saves a ton of money, at the expense of using up a lot more time. Read through the file, "How I scratchbuild Turnouts," that I sent you. Buying a single Peco, Walthers/Shinohara, or Micro Engineering, turnout will cost about six times what it costs to make one yourself. Anyone can do it but it takes time. Read it, and see if it's something you might want to try. Doing all the modifications in my "Improving Atlas Turnouts" article will not take as long as scratchbuilding one, but
> it would be a significant time investment, to achieve a less satisfying result. You can make one trial turnout from the rail in a piece of flex track, to try it out, before investing in a lot of rail.]
> 
> regards;
> ...


Traction Fan,

That's always an option, of course. The proverbial coin is "in the air!"

One other question I posed on my earlier reply today was this: 

I've noted your advice to solder both ends of the rail joiners (to the point rails and to the closure rails). However, it would _seem _that doing so would prevent the pivoting motion necessary for the point rails to "do their thing" and move from side to side. Obviously not the case. Is that soldered joint, then, so flexible that movement is smooth and easy and not at all hindered by the soldering? Or...?

How is it that soldering the joiner to the point and closure rails then doesn't prevent - or adversely affect - the movement of the point rails?  Is the soldered joint that flexible?


----------



## traction fan (Oct 5, 2014)

*"Bending the iron.2"*



Empire Builder 76 said:


> Traction Fan,
> 
> That's always an option, of course. The proverbial coin is "in the air!"
> 
> ...


Empire Builder 76;

Soldering the closure rails to the point rails does affect the movement of the points, but as I mentioned in the middle of my last response, they will bend enough to get where they need to go. The Tortoise will be able to move them easily, the original Atlas twin -coil machine is too weak to do so. You may have to cut off a few of the plastic "spikes" to get the necessary movement. Nothing drastic, just cut a spike or two and test it. Real turnouts, and the ones I build, don't have rivets, or loose rail joiners like Peco, and Shinohara turnouts do. They work fine without them as long as you have a reasonable amount of force to move them. The Tortoise motor has plenty.

Traction Fan:smilie_daumenpous:


----------



## Empire Builder 76 (Feb 11, 2016)

traction fan said:


> Empire Builder 76;
> 
> Soldering the closure rails to the point rails does affect the movement of the points, but as I mentioned in the middle of my last response, they will bend enough to get where they need to go. The Tortoise will be able to move them easily, the original Atlas twin -coil machine is too weak to do so. You may have to cut off a few of the plastic "spikes" to get the necessary movement. Nothing drastic, just cut a spike or two and test it. Real turnouts, and the ones I build, don't have rivets, or loose rail joiners like Peco, and Shinohara turnouts do. They work fine without them as long as you have a reasonable amount of force to move them. The Tortoise motor has plenty.
> 
> Traction Fan:smilie_daumenpous:


Thanks. I missed that part. I just sent you a PM too.


----------



## traction fan (Oct 5, 2014)

*My bad*



Empire Builder 76 said:


> Thanks. I missed that part. I just sent you a PM too.


 I helped you miss that part.:smilie_auslachen: I did put my answer in [brackets], but I didn't use a couple of carriage returns to get the answer down under your question, as I had done with all the other answers: thus making it harder to find.
I received your PM and replied. I need to consult with my wife, (she really knows computers, I don't.) To get a simple version of word. The word version I first used to post those documents on the forum wouldn't open for several members. That's why I re-posted them as pdf files.

Traction Fan:smilie_daumenpos:


----------



## Empire Builder 76 (Feb 11, 2016)

traction fan said:


> I helped you miss that part.:smilie_auslachen: I did put my answer in [brackets], but I didn't use a couple of carriage returns to get the answer down under your question, as I had done with all the other answers: thus making it harder to find.
> I received your PM and replied. I need to consult with my wife, (she really knows computers, I don't.) To get a simple version of word. The word version I first used to post those documents on the forum wouldn't open for several members. That's why I re-posted them as pdf files.
> 
> Traction Fan:smilie_daumenpos:


Well, we're partners in crime then!  I'm headed to your PM reply now.


----------



## Empire Builder 76 (Feb 11, 2016)

Traction Fan,

A few followup questions:

1) I looked at a Peco turnout at the hobby shop today. It, like Atlas' turnouts, has a gap between each point rail and its adjacent closure rail, as you'd expect. Granted, the gap is much smaller (almost not visible), and the ends of the two rails line up precisely, unlike Atlas, in which the ends are a tad off center straight out of the packaging. 

Given those design similarities then, what makes Peco that much superior to Atlas? That is, why won't the Peco, in time, develop the same loose point rail and wobbly throwbar problems as I've described?

2) The Peco turnout also has metal rivets, embedded in a plastic base, just like Atlas. 

Wouldn't the Peco rivets also eat away at the plastic over time, as do the Atlas?

After all, Atlas has been making turnouts for decades (perhaps based on a 40-year design model), yet they're still selling. If problems such as I'm experiencing with Atlas turnouts had been rampant or even just commonplace over the decades, then the company would have either improved its design and manufacturing or folks would have just stopped buying them. From what I see that's not the case, although such headaches may be more common than I realize.

I'm guessing, then, that in both cases it comes down to Peco's greater attention to detail and superior design and manufacturing techniques. Perhaps better materials as well. Your thoughts?

3) Where can I buy single lengths (12", 36") of code 83 nickel silver rail?

Many thanks!


----------



## traction fan (Oct 5, 2014)

*Atlas and Peco turnouts*



Empire Builder 76 said:


> Traction Fan,
> 
> A few followup questions:
> 
> ...




Empire Builder 76;

[I'm not sure which Peco turnout you were looking at. I have never seen one with rivets. They use rail joiners to fasten the point rails to the closure rails. Their throwbar is much more rigid (solid plastic piece encloses both point rails) and does not have rivets. The frogs come in two basic types. Plastic and metal. They call them "Insulfrog," (plastic) and "Electrofrog"(metal)
The Peco turnouts have very rugged construction and they are very reliable in terms of not causing derailments. That last item is their big claim to fame in the experienced model railroader community. DonR, who I think is the mysterious "Mark, no Don" has been using the same HO-scale Peco Insulfrog turnouts for several decades without any derailments on, or caused by, turnouts. The international modular group, Ntrak discourages the use of any turnouts in their three loop main lines; but if you do use turnouts, on an Ntrak module, their specification is that "They must be of the Peco type." These folks set up huge display layouts at train shows and shopping malls, and they do not want any derailments! They routinely operate 50+ car trains, and the public wants to "See the trains go" not go off the rails.
Walthers/Shinohara, and Micro engineering also make high quality turnouts.

And then, there's Atlas. They keep selling because they do some very effective marketing, and their turnouts are a little cheaper. This is particularly true of powered, or remote control, turnouts. When you pay thirty bucks for any of the better brands of turnout, and add on another twenty for a Tortoise switch machine, that twenty-five dollar Atlas with a built-in switch machine looks like a real bargain to new modelers, who don't know any better. They don't know that their trains are going to derail on that Atlas turnout, often, or that the "bargain" switch machine may only move the points half way whenever it feels like it, that is until it goes up in smoke the first time they hold the Atlas button down more than two whole seconds. Also a lot of trains are bought by people who see them as toys, and therefore somewhat disposable. The cheap train set locomotive runs round and round the Christmas tree until it ingests enough carpet fiber to clog it and then they throw it out. If they move on to a 4x8 sheet of plywood, they get their track plan from an Atlas book, or Atlas online equivalent, and dutifully buy each piece of Atlas track, including turnouts, that the(Atlas) list says they need. That's all they know at that stage. They may not even know there are other brands, much less the quality difference between them. If they stick with model railroading longer, they learn more about it; just as one would with any other endeavor.
The scenario of a modeler switching from Atlas to Peco is pretty common. I don't know of anyone who has ever switched from Peco to Atlas. 
In fairness to Atlas, it is possible to improve them enough to make them reasonably reliable. Sometimes a simple filing of the points is enough. In other cases more may be needed; which is why I wrote "Improving Atlas Turnouts, and included all the fixes I know of. Different, individual, Atlas turnouts may need all, or only some, of those fixes. Atlas turnouts have plenty of fans who stick with them for years, and never switch to another brand. The real "Problem child in the Atlas lineup is the HO-scale "Snap switch" with the 18" radius curve built in. The amount of mechanical malarkey involved in trying to shoehorn a very tight curve inside a turnout never ceases to amaze me, but not in a good way. Other Atlas turnouts like their Custom Line ones with actual frog numbers like #4,#6 etc. are better, as are all the other brands, partially because they don't have a curved route. Both routes are straight track. (If you are using the 18" radius type, no other turnout will have the same geometry. You will need to re-lay some track in order to fit a Peco,Shinohara, or Micro Engineering turnout in place of an Atlas "Snap Switch." Even Atlas's N-scale version of the "snap switch" is better since it has a much broader radius curve (equivalent to 38" radius in HO)

Building my own, I feel I can make a better (In terms of my own satisfaction, smooth path through the frog, and rugged reliability) than anything I can buy. However, the few commercial turnouts on my layout are all Peco.]

regards;

Traction Fan:smilie_daumenpos:

Photos below show the frog, throwbar, and points of one of my Peco N-scale turnouts. Please ignore the rather garish paint job on the frog. I did that to illustrate another article I wrote.


----------



## DonR (Oct 18, 2012)

Traction fan:

I checked again my certificate from the Portola Railroad
Museum and sure enough it says DonR...not one mention
of mysterious Mark. Maybe we should have a special
investigation of this nefarious character.

That scandal put aside, I certainly agree, Peco turnouts
are trouble free. There may be a 'dog' from time to
time but I haven't found one. You can look at the
typical Peco and see the quality. The engineering and
craftsmanship that goes into these turnouts are why
you just do not have derails caused by them.

Don


----------



## Empire Builder 76 (Feb 11, 2016)

DonR said:


> Traction fan:
> 
> I checked again my certificate from the Portola Railroad
> Museum and sure enough it says DonR...not one mention
> ...


Don,

Point the finger of blame at me for thinking you were Mark!  A message you wrote on the forum in 2016 complimenting Traction Fan for his hand-made turnout manual mysteriously found its way in a series of PMs that he and I had over the past two days. Thus, I read it quickly - mis-rememberhing your name - and wondered to TM just how anyone else's message snuck into a PM between two other individuals. 

Scandal squashed. Cyber goblins, be gone! Now glad to know who you really are! 

I'm on the road to becoming a Peco convert.


----------



## Empire Builder 76 (Feb 11, 2016)

traction fan said:


> Empire Builder 76;
> 
> [I'm not sure which Peco turnout you were looking at. I have never seen one with rivets. They use rail joiners to fasten the point rails to the closure rails. Their throwbar is much more rigid (solid plastic piece encloses both point rails) and does not have rivets. The frogs come in two basic types. Plastic and metal. They call them "Insulfrog," (plastic) and "Electrofrog"(metal)
> The Peco turnouts have very rugged construction and they are very reliable in terms of not causing derailments. That last item is their big claim to fame in the experienced model railroader community. DonR, who I think is the mysterious "Mark, no Don" has been using the same HO-scale Peco Insulfrog turnouts for several decades without any derailments on, or caused by, turnouts. The international modular group, Ntrak discourages the use of any turnouts in their three loop main lines; but if you do use turnouts, on an Ntrak module, their specification is that "They must be of the Peco type." These folks set up huge display layouts at train shows and shopping malls, and they do not want any derailments! They routinely operate 50+ car trains, and the public wants to "See the trains go" not go off the rails.
> ...


Traction Man,

Well now, that calls for another visit to the local hobby shop tomorrow!  I'll examine several different Peco turnouts to see what's there - and what's not. I do indeed remember you saying that Pecos are rivet-free. Then again, what I saw at the hobby shop sure looked like rivets. 

Stay tuned!


----------



## traction fan (Oct 5, 2014)

*First Mark/Don Now Traction Fan becomes Traction "Man?"*



Empire Builder 76 said:


> Traction Man,
> 
> Well now, that calls for another visit to the local hobby shop tomorrow!  I'll examine several different Peco turnouts to see what's there - and what's not. I do indeed remember you saying that Pecos are rivet-free. Then again, what I saw at the hobby shop sure looked like rivets.
> 
> Stay tuned!


Empire Builder 76;

Reading the previous post, I was wondering who "TM" was. Now I see it's Traction Man. Is he related to "Mystery Mark?" Unless Peco has made a drastic change in design, they should look like my photos, minus the garish colors. The original color was a more restful chocolate brown.

Traction Fan:smilie_daumenpos:


----------



## Empire Builder 76 (Feb 11, 2016)

traction fan said:


> Empire Builder 76;
> 
> Reading the previous post, I was wondering who "TM" was. Now I see it's Traction Man. Is he related to "Mystery Mark?" Unless Peco has made a drastic change in design, they should look like my photos, minus the garish colors. The original color was a more restful chocolate brown.
> 
> Traction Fan:smilie_daumenpos:


Traction Fan,

I've fired my typist for that egregious error! But you have to admit it does have a certain ring to it! The Pecos I saw here do have that chocolate brown color. As for rivets or joiners....stay tuned.


----------



## traction fan (Oct 5, 2014)

*Fan, Man, Potato, Potaaato, Peco, or Piko?*



Empire Builder 76 said:


> Traction Fan,
> 
> I've fired my typist for that egregious error! But you have to admit it does have a certain ring to it! The Pecos I saw here do have that chocolate brown color. As for rivets or joiners....stay tuned.


 You can re-hire the typist, if you want, since, after all, I am a man. as well as a fan 
A weird possibility has occurred to me. There are two brands of model train products that have very similar names; Peco and Piko. Peco (pronounced PEA co,) is the British firm that makes the fine turnouts we have been discussing. Piko (pronounced PIE co.) is a different firm, (headquartered in eastern Europe, I think,) that also makes a range of model train products. They (Piko) are not very well known here, and many have never heard of them. If Piko makes turnouts, they may have some rivet-bearing design, similar to Atlas, I don't know. It's therefore just possible, albeit a very long shot, that you were shown a Piko turnout rather than a Peco one. This is so weird that it's beginning to sound like that Pilot/Pirate song from Gilbert & Sullivan's "The Pirates of Penzance!"

regards;

Traction Fan:smilie_daumenpos:


----------



## Empire Builder 76 (Feb 11, 2016)

Empire Builder 76 said:


> Traction Man,
> 
> Well now, that calls for another visit to the local hobby shop tomorrow!  I'll examine several different Peco turnouts to see what's there - and what's not. I do indeed remember you saying that Pecos are rivet-free. Then again, what I saw at the hobby shop sure looked like rivets.
> 
> Stay tuned!


Traction _Fan_,

Well, the jury is _in_! I looked closely at the several different types of Peco turnouts my hobby shop sells. Here's the rundown:

1) Code 83: All rivets. Identical in design and appearance (both top and bottom) to Atlas'. Not a rail joiner in sight on any of them.

2) Code 100: On the insulfrogs, the point and closure rails are both tucked into the same pair of plastic, molded-on tie spikes, with barely a visible gap between the two rails. On the electrofrogs, there is no connector at all, and only the two wires for conductivity underneath. The gap is basically non-existent.

It looks like, then, that Peco changed its design from the time you bought yours. When was that? What code do have?

The photos on the Peco website (and elsewhere) are not big enough to see such fine detail, though there is definitely something between the two rail ends.

I e-mailed Peco several days ago about this questions, as well as others, and am still awaiting a reply.

Yikes!


----------



## fcwilt (Sep 27, 2013)

Empire Builder 76 said:


> Traction _Fan_,
> 
> 
> 1) Code 83: All rivets. Identical in design and appearance (both top and bottom) to Atlas'. Not a rail joiner in sight on any of them.


I suppose it depends on what you consider to be a rivet.

At the joint between the point rails and the closure rails there is a little piece of metal (round with a rectangular bit sticking out) that provides electrical connection between the two pieces of rail.

This upper metal piece has two tabs that pass through the ties and another small round lower metal piece. The tabs of the upper are bent over against this lower metal piece to hold the upper in place.

The point rails have a little tab sticking out the bottom of the rail. The tabs pass through small slots in the tie bar. The ends of the tabs are twisted underneath the tie bar to hold the point rails in place.

Neither of these are, strictly speaking, rivets.


I have primarily Peco Streamline Code 83 on my layout, with a few turnouts constructed using Fast Track products.

I prefer the appearance of the Peco turnout over, say, Atlas Custom Line. The dark guard rails and frog of the Atlas are not to my liking. I also do not care for the odd shaped ties at the ends of the turnout.

I cannot speak to any Atlas products made in the last decade or so but based on past experience with Atlas products the Peco turnouts are much more reliable when it comes to keep the trains on the rails.

Frederick


----------



## Empire Builder 76 (Feb 11, 2016)

traction fan said:


> You can re-hire the typist, if you want, since, after all, I am a man. as well as a fan
> A weird possibility has occurred to me. There are two brands of model train products that have very similar names; Peco and Piko. Peco (pronounced PEA co,) is the British firm that makes the fine turnouts we have been discussing. Piko (pronounced PIE co.) is a different firm, (headquartered in eastern Europe, I think,) that also makes a range of model train products. They (Piko) are not very well known here, and many have never heard of them. If Piko makes turnouts, they may have some rivet-bearing design, similar to Atlas, I don't know. It's therefore just possible, albeit a very long shot, that you were shown a Piko turnout rather than a Peco one. This is so weird that it's beginning to sound like that Pilot/Pirate song from Gilbert & Sullivan's "The Pirates of Penzance!"
> 
> regards;
> ...


Traction Fan,

Not at all the case.


----------



## traction fan (Oct 5, 2014)

*My Pecos*



Empire Builder 76 said:


> Traction _Fan_,
> 
> Well, the jury is _in_! I looked closely at the several different types of Peco turnouts my hobby shop sells. Here's the rundown:
> 
> ...


 Empire Builder 76;

My Peco turnouts are N-scale. They don't have a rail code marked on the bottom, but the rail measures 75/1000ths high which makes it a code 75 I guess. All my Pecos are many years old. I did buy a few at Reeds, my LHS, recently but they were from the used bargain box and had obviously been recycled fro somebody's layout. I couldn't resist the $5 ea. price. Pretty good for a still working turnout that casts about $30 new.

So, now you have a lot of information, and some decisions to make.

1) You can stick with your current Atlas turnouts, if modifying one, or two, test samples will make them reliable. I would recommend returning, if possible, the bent one(s) since I don't think you will be able to ever make it(them) really reliable. If they can't be returned for a refund, I would trash them. The other, non-bent, Atlas turnouts should be improved, following my pdf, one-at-a-time, and then thoroughly tested by operating trains over them. Testing should include backing a train, at medium speed, through both routes. If all works well, good. If not, I'd go shopping for some better turnouts. 

2) Despite any design changes, I have enough confidence in Peco's long-standing excellent quality to still recommend them. If you are still concerned about rivets, etc. in the new design, then Walthers/Shinohara would be my next recommendation. They do have one rivet in the center of their(metal) throwbar, but the Belmont Shore N-scale club (where I was a member for 11 years) uses Shinohara turnouts by the hundreds, and has done so for decades, without major problems. The only problems I can recall, concerned bending of the tiny copper contacts attached to the points, and the lack of a Peco-style spring. The first problem was more likely the result of heavy-handed track cleaning by some of the club members, than a design fault. The second merely meant that these turnouts needed to have switch machines attached to keep the points where they needed to be. 

Then there is my "other option" suggestion, scratchbuilding your own turnouts. This not only saves lots of money, but by following the instructions in my pdf, you can build a rock-solid, non-derailing, very reliable, turnout with no rivets, no plastic parts, (except for a few thin pieces used only as insulators), no gaps, no kinks, no loose parts, and the only rail joiners will be those that connect it to the other track. I would recommend trying it, with at least one turnout, before rejecting the idea.

good luck with whatever you choose;

Traction Fan:smilie_daumenpos:


----------



## Lemonhawk (Sep 24, 2013)

I really like making my own turnouts. I use CV ties http://www.cvmw.com/ and put a few PC ties in, but you can just follow the direction on the web site. I also use http://www.proto87.com/ points, they also explain how to make your own turnouts without the expense of the fastTracks jigs that are just not necessary. I also use CV ties and ME rail instead of flex track. Just looks a lot better and easier to keep joints from being across from one another.


----------



## Empire Builder 76 (Feb 11, 2016)

traction fan said:


> Empire Builder 76;
> 
> My Peco turnouts are N-scale. They don't have a rail code marked on the bottom, but the rail measures 75/1000ths high which makes it a code 75 I guess. All my Pecos are many years old. I did buy a few at Reeds, my LHS, recently but they were from the used bargain box and had obviously been recycled fro somebody's layout. I couldn't resist the $5 ea. price. Pretty good for a still working turnout that casts about $30 new.
> 
> ...


Traction Fan,

Well now, that clarifies things a bit.  Quite a bit. Different scale, different code, _real_ old - and used at that at $5 a clip.

A close reading of the Peco website reveals that the company introduced its code 83 line only in 2004. Practically yesterday. And with that, a new design - _sans_ rail joiners. So the rivets are in today's code 83, though few, I guess, would argue the quality and long-term dependability of Peco products, no matter the design. 

I'm equally sold on Peco and Walthers/Shinohara and most likely will dump Atlas soon. But first I'll glue a shim or two in a couple of them to see how it affects operation, for good or bad, and may try your repair method as well. Building my own per your instructions might make a good project for next winter. 

The last words on Peco and Walthers turnouts:

1) How are the point and closure rails connected on the Walthers/Shinohara turnouts? The best I can tell from the small photos on the Klein and Walthers sites is that there looks to be something akin to a rail joiner (black or brown) doing the job. Just what is that? An actual rail joiner or something else?

Here's the link - with the better photo - from Walthers.

https://www.walthers.com/code-83-nickel-silver-dcc-friendly-4-turnout-right-hand

2) Since I use the Tortoise, is there any advantage to having the Peco - with its point rail spring - over the Walthers without such a spring?

In summary, then, it's been a "riveting" experience learning from you!  I truly appreciate all your help and suggestions. I'll let you know what I end up doing.


----------



## fcwilt (Sep 27, 2013)

Hi,

I use Tortoise as well - I removed the springs.

Frederick


----------



## traction fan (Oct 5, 2014)

*Some less-than-riveting answers*



Empire Builder 76 said:


> Traction Fan,
> 
> Well now, that clarifies things a bit.  Quite a bit. Different scale, different code, _real_ old - and used at that at $5 a clip.
> 
> ...


[ Glad to help. Looking forward to further bulletins.] 

Traction Fan:smilie_daumenpos:


----------



## Empire Builder 76 (Feb 11, 2016)

Traction Fan,

This calls for another visit to the hobby shop and a closeup inspection of the Walthers turnouts. Rail joiners or ...?

[The old ones did have rail joiners between point and closure rails. From the photo, it looks like the current crop do also.]


----------



## Empire Builder 76 (Feb 11, 2016)

traction fan said:


> Empire Builder 76;
> 
> 2) Despite any design changes, I have enough confidence in Peco's long-standing excellent quality to still recommend them. If you are still concerned about rivets, etc. in the new design, then Walthers/Shinohara would be my next recommendation.
> 
> Traction Fan:smilie_daumenpos:


Traction Fan,

Responding, in part, to this earlier message of yours with a finding and a followup question:

1) An eyeball inspection of the Walthers turnouts at my local hobby shop confirmed that the point and closure rails are indeed connected by a rail joiner. 

2) And given that Walthers only offers its version of insulfrog and not electrofrog turnouts (from all I've seen, that is) and Peco offers both insulfrog and electrofrog, is there any real advantage for me to use one style over the other? That is, which one will be potentially less problematic - electrically and mechanically - and more suitable to my layout? 

Again, I have small (4' x 6') layout; 4-axle locos plus a 2-8-2; Tortoise switch machines; and operate on DC. Other related factors that may influence the insulfrog vs. electrofrog decision?


----------



## DonR (Oct 18, 2012)

Peco Insulfrog turnouts have plastic unpowered
frogs.

I see that you are saying you have 4 axle diesels.
If there are only the 4 wheels picking up power from
the track you MAY have pausing or stops on the Insulfrog
turnouts. The wheel ON the frog would lose contact,
the other wheel on that side SHOULD be in contact
but that all depends on the quirks of the loco design.
If this is your situation you would be better using the
Electrofrogs. These do require that both frog rails of
each turnout use an insulated joiner to avoid short
circuits.

Now diesels with two 4 axle power pickup trucks should have no
difficulty at all running smoothly through Peco Insulfrogs.
I have all Insulfrogs and all my locos have two 4 axle
trucks. I never have so much as a light blink going
thru the turnouts. Insulfrogs are power routing, the
divert loses power when points set to straight. Most of
us use a drop from the frog rails to the bus to avoid
losing power. No insulated joiners required.

The steamer should have no problem with Insulfrogs.

Don


----------



## Empire Builder 76 (Feb 11, 2016)

DonR said:


> Peco Insulfrog turnouts have plastic unpowered
> frogs.
> 
> I see that you are saying you have 4 axle diesels.
> ...


Don,

Many thanks for the clarification and confirmation of what I had suspected!  Use of electrofrog, then, would require no additional wiring of the turnouts, correct? I ask because I believe I had seen this mentioned somewhere on this or another forum.


----------



## DonR (Oct 18, 2012)

Peco Electrofrogs out of the box do not require additional wiring.
Some do make modifications for their own specific
track plans but for the typical installation you need
only install insulated joiners in BOTH frog rails.
This is to avoid short circuiting since the frog and 
connecting rails change
phase (polarity) when the points are thrown.

Don


----------



## traction fan (Oct 5, 2014)

*Walthers/Shinohara turnouts*



Empire Builder 76 said:


> Traction Fan,
> 
> Responding, in part, to this earlier message of yours with a finding and a followup question:
> 
> ...


Empire Builder 76;

As far as I know, Shinohara, (The company that makes Walthers turnouts for them.) does not make a turnout with an all-metal frog, like the Peco Electrofrog. Bear in mind, the one Shinohara I have, and the club ones I once worked with are all N-scale, and old. They may well be different from current HO-scale production, though I doubt it. They do come fairly close to an all-metal frog not physically, but operationally. The Shinohara frog, has a plastic floor, but the metal rails that surround this plastic part, are so close together that only the most electrical-pickup-deprived locomotives would be in danger of stalling on it.

You say you have "four axle locomotives" that's four axles, not four wheels, right? If your locos have eight wheels on their four axles, and if all eight of those wheels pick up power from the rails, then you don't need an all-metal frog (like Electrofrog) turnout. As DonR has pointed out, Electrofrog, Insulfrog (Or Walthers/Shinohara) will work fine with all wheel pickup locos.

As for overall quality, It's a tie. Walthers, or either type of Peco, are all excellent quality, so you can't really go wrong. My personal choice, (if I were buying, instead of making) would be the Peco Electrofrog. However, I am a devout pessimist, and true believer in Murphy's law. I would wire that metal frog to a micro-switch (Tortoise has one built in) and let that electrical switch control the polarity of the frog.
Don's method of just putting insulated rail joiners on both frog rails, works, and has the advantage of being a little simpler, but it relies on rail joiners, (or whatever current Pecos have in place of rail joiners) to carry electric power, flawlessly, forever. That's something I wouldn't do, because I've seen rail joiners fail to conduct electricity.
Wires, and electrical switches, are specifically designed to carry electricity. Rails, and rail joiners, are not. In fairness, the rails themselves do carry current quite well, as long as they're clean. Rail joiners also do so for a while, usually. But "For a while", and "usually" aren't good enough for me. I like things to be as reliable as I can possibly make them. Having spent much of my life troubleshooting, and repairing, things that were not designed for reliability, I try not to do the same thing as those accursed designers whose creations I had to fix for them. But then, that's just me. 
Really, with Walthers, Peco insulfrog, and Peco Electrofrog, to choose from, there simply isn't a bad turnout anywhere in that distinguished bunch. Pick whatever one you want, They are all good.

regards;

Traction Fan:smilie_daumenpos:


----------



## Empire Builder 76 (Feb 11, 2016)

DonR said:


> Peco Electrofrogs out of the box do not require additional wiring.
> Some do make modifications for their own specific
> track plans but for the typical installation you need
> only install insulated joiners in BOTH frog rails.
> ...


Don, 

I appreciate the clarification. And less work! 

Another question: Why doesn't Walthers make its own version of electrofrog turnouts? I've only seen insulated ones on its site and elsewhere.


----------



## flyerrich (Feb 17, 2014)

Hi guys, I started this thread back in Feb. Little did I know that there would be so much discussion. This is what makes this forum so helpful. All the opinion's is what makes it go.

An update on my original posting. IAs I said I got all my turnouts changed over to the Peco insulfrog turnouts. I ran all my locos, steam (except one) and diesel through all the turnouts forward and back with "NO" problems what so ever. I forgot about the Mantua 2-6-6-2 that I had purchased but not tried because I was changing the turnouts. Well I got it out and put it on the track after programming it. 
In one area on the layout when exiting the turnout into a straight run of track the front 2 wheels would come off the track in 9 out of 10 passes. I checked the track for high and low areas everything, could not come up with a reason for the problem.
I tried pushing the loco by hand through the area and some times it would derail and other times not. Then I narrowed it down to the joint at the end of the turnout and the start of the straight section. 
Then I remembered so many comments you guys made about using the "Track Gage" to check out problem areas. Sure enough the track at the joint was too narrow by the gage. I must have squeezed it when I was putting the joiners on (?). I took the straight section out and replaced it and checked it with the gage now it looked good. 
No more problems!!
Again the forum helped me solve the problem. THANKS!!


----------



## Empire Builder 76 (Feb 11, 2016)

Traction Fan,

Yepper! Mine are four-axle, eight-wheel FA and F7 diesels.

Does it matter to which Tortoise terminal (other than, obviously, #1 or #8) I should wire that Peco metal frog? Is AWG 22-28 good enough or is something a bit more robust (AWG 20) called for?

Insulated/plastic rail joiners don't carry electricity, so there goes that theory!  But, since four of my turnouts service a double reverse loop, plastic rail joiners are already in place on both diverging rails of those four turnouts. To follow Don's advice then, should a third plastic rail joiner be placed on the "inside" or "north" rail of those turnouts' mainline tracks? Or, does it matter to which rail it's attached?

To, in part, mitigate the problem of "Murphy" at some distant date cutting off the flow of electricity, I've soldered a number of rail joiners to the rails at various places around the layout.

The proverbial coin, then, is in the air! Peco or Walthers? :appl:


----------



## Empire Builder 76 (Feb 11, 2016)

DonR said:


> Peco Insulfrog turnouts have plastic unpowered
> frogs.
> 
> I see that you are saying you have 4 axle diesels.
> ...


Don,

Would you please clarify exactly what you mean by "frog rails"? The four diverging and mainline rails immediately _after _the frog (e.g, heading _into_ the diverging route)? Or the two rails (the "outside" diverging and the "inside" mainline) that actually make physical contact with the frog?


----------



## traction fan (Oct 5, 2014)

*Answers to some*



Empire Builder 76 said:


> Traction Fan,
> 
> Yepper! Mine are four-axle, eight-wheel FA and F7 diesels.
> 
> ...


 [As I said last time, whichever you want. I like metal, switched frogs. That doesn't mean that you, or anyone else, has to use them. Actually on the old club layout, we ran a wire to the Walthers/Shinohara turnouts that we used many of. The "almost all metal" frogs of those Shinohara turnouts were wired to micro-switches on our switch machines, and they worked just fine. That being the case, you should be able to get excellent performance from either Walthers, or Peco. That's one for you to decide, as it's simply a matter of personal preference.] 

regards;

Traction Fan:smilie_daumenpos:


----------



## Empire Builder 76 (Feb 11, 2016)

Traction Fan of Sunny San Diego,

When I posted the rhetorical staement about plastic rail joiners not conducing electricity, it was in reference to this paragraph of yours from a day or so ago:

"Don's method of just putting insulated rail joiners on both frog rails, works, and has the advantage of being a little simpler, but it relies on rail joiners, (or whatever current Pecos have in place of rail joiners) to carry electric power, flawlessly, forever. That's something I wouldn't do, because I've seen rail joiners fail to conduct electricity."

I know you weren't actually saying that plastic conducts juice, but Don's advice to put plastic joiners on the frog rails was the context here. 

My layout's been up and running for four years now, complete with soldered flex track prior to laying, intermittent soldering elsewhere and feeder wires soldered to the bus at strategic places. The ebb and flow of electrons has been quite reliable and, thus, Murphy's presence negligible - until those Atlas turnouts began misbehaving, that is.  Until then, Sir Issac had been quite happy! 

Thanks for the clarification on "frog rails." No confusion at all about wiring the frog rails, etc.


----------



## traction fan (Oct 5, 2014)

*Different rail joiners*



Empire Builder 76 said:


> Traction Fan of Sunny San Diego,
> 
> When I posted the rhetorical staement about plastic rail joiners not conducing electricity, it was in reference to this paragraph of yours from a day or so ago:
> 
> ...


Congratulations on having a working layout. :appl:

Traction Fan:smilie_daumenpos:


----------



## NightWing43 (Mar 7, 2018)

I have a quick question about Peco turnouts. I have a couple of Atlas turnouts that I want to replace with Peco. I use a 2" foam base so a Tortoise switch motor isn't in my plans. Peco does offer a powered turnout with a side mounted switch motor similar to Atlas. Does anyone have experience with those? Can I use the existing Atlas wiring and push button control?


----------



## fcwilt (Sep 27, 2013)

NightWing43 said:


> I have a quick question about Peco turnouts. I have a couple of Atlas turnouts that I want to replace with Peco. I use a 2" foam base so a Tortoise switch motor isn't in my plans.


I have 1/2" plywood over 2" foam and I use Tortoise machines without any problems.

I did have to purchase some steel wire as the parts that came with the Tortoise were not long enough.

Peco does make a dual-solenoid switch machine that sits beside the turnout - at least they used to - search for a PL11

If you cannot find them let me know - I have several new ones that I decided not to use.

Frederick


----------



## DonR (Oct 18, 2012)

Nightwing

You can use the Peco PL10 twin coil motor for your new
Peco turnouts. It easily attaches to the bottom of the
turnout. You would 'dig' an aprox 1" square hole
in your 2" foam to fit the motor. The PL10 would
use the same wiring and panel buttons as your Atlas
turnouts. 

I always strongly urge that you power
twin coil motors thru a Capacitor Discharge Unit (CDU)
which protects the turnout coils from burnout thru
accidentally holding button down too long.

But be aware the geometry and measurements of
Peco turnouts are not the same as other makes. 
They are not direct replacements. You'll have to
make adjustments to your tracks for them.

But it's all worth it...you just don't have derails from
a Peco turnout.

Don


----------



## traction fan (Oct 5, 2014)

*No, no, and no but*



NightWing43 said:


> I have a quick question about Peco turnouts. I have a couple of Atlas turnouts that I want to replace with Peco. I use a 2" foam base so a Tortoise switch motor isn't in my plans. Peco does offer a powered turnout with a side mounted switch motor similar to Atlas. Does anyone have experience with those? Can I use the existing Atlas wiring and push button control?


Nightwing;

I don't know if Peco does have a side-mounted switch machine. But they do make a very good twin-coil machine that mounts to the bottom of the turnout. DonR has already given you the details, so I wont repeat them here. I will, however, second his excellent recommendation to use a capacitive discharge unit. It will keep protect the coils in any brand machine from burning out, something they tend to do!  Don made his own CDU and he can probably give you the circuit diagram if you ask him.

The Atlas side-mounted switch machine is very weak, indeed the entire Atlas turnout is designed to have the points move with hardly any resistance, in order to accommodate their wimpy switch machine. So If you are thinking of using the Atlas machine on the Peco turnout, don't. It wont have enough power to move the Peco points reliably, if at all. Peco turnouts have a built-in spring which holds the point tight against the stock rail. Some modelers remove this spring in order to move the points slowly with a Tortoise machine. Even with the spring removed, I doubt if the Atlas machine could reliably do the job. If you leave the spring in, you won't really need any switch machine on turnouts that you can reach easily. The Peco turnout will operate quite well if you simply move the points by hand.

One reason those coil burnouts happen is the Atlas control button itself. Several members have experienced failures of these buttons where the button shorts out and stays "on" permanently, thereby destroying the switch machine. ( It melts and smokes) So no, I would not recommend keeping the Atlas button, or even the wires, since they are pretty small for the heavy instantaneous burst of current that twin-coil machines use. When you use a CDU, that current will increase a lot, so use heavier wire. (18ga or larger) 
For buttons, I would suggest doorbell type buttons rated at 1 amp or higher, the higher the better. You will need two buttons to control each turnout, one for each route, (The Atlas control actually contains two "buttons".) Many install their push buttons in a miniature track diagram on a control panel. This makes it easy to see which button to push for each route.

If the Atlas turnouts you have are HO-scale "Snap Switches" (and some "Custom line" ones too.) they have a unique geometry, since they are designed to fit in the place of an 18" radius curved track section. Most prototype turnouts, and most model turnouts, including Peco, don't have a curved route, but two straight ones. As Don said, you can't just pull up an Atlas "snap switch",plunk down a Peco turnout in the same spot, and have all the tracks line up. You will need to remove some track and fit short pieces of flex track to connect the Peco into your layout. This is well worth the effort in order to get a much more reliable turnout.

good luck;

Traction Fan:smilie_daumenpos:


----------



## Empire Builder 76 (Feb 11, 2016)

traction fan;2169785
Peco turnouts have a built-in spring which holds the point tight against the stock rail. Some modelers remove this spring in order to move the points slowly with a Tortoise machine.
Traction Fan:smilie_daumenpos:[/QUOTE said:


> Traction Fan,
> 
> How does the Peco spring affect Tortoise operations or movement, then, if left in place?


----------



## CTValleyRR (Jul 26, 2014)

You remove it. The tension of the metal wire on the switch machine holds the points in place.


----------



## Empire Builder 76 (Feb 11, 2016)

CTValleyRR said:


> You remove it. The tension of the metal wire on the switch machine holds the points in place.


Look at the question again.


----------



## fcwilt (Sep 27, 2013)

Empire Builder 76 said:


> Look at the question again.


I don't know for sure but I removed the springs on mine thinking they would negate the desirable slow motion effect of the Tortoise.

Frederick


----------



## CTValleyRR (Jul 26, 2014)

Empire Builder 76 said:


> Look at the question again.


I did, same answer. Remove the spring to use a turnout motor.


----------



## Empire Builder 76 (Feb 11, 2016)

CTValleyRR said:


> I did, same answer. Remove the spring to use a turnout motor.


Never mind.


----------



## fcwilt (Sep 27, 2013)

CTValleyRR said:


> I did, same answer. Remove the spring to use a turnout motor.


He didn't ask if he should remove it. 

He asked how the turnout would behave with a Tortoise IF the spring was left in place.

Frederick


----------



## flyerrich (Feb 17, 2014)

I would think the turnout would move slowly until it reached the tripping point of the spring and then it would "snap" into position just like if you moved it by hand.


----------



## fcwilt (Sep 27, 2013)

flyerrich said:


> I would think the turnout would move slowly until it reached the tripping point of the spring and then it would "snap" into position just like if you moved it by hand.


I don't think it would move at all until the force of the spring was overcome then it would snap over.

I never used the stock wire that came with the Tortoise as I needed to work through 1/2" of plywood and 2" of foam.

So I don't know if the stock wire is strong enough to overcome the spring.

Frederick


----------



## Magic (Jan 28, 2014)

I have two Pecos on my layout that still have the spring and am using Tortoise 
machines and they snap over as Frederick said.
I'm using .032 wire and it is very short.
I doubt that a long wire going through 1 or 2 inches of foam would work.

I installed one of the turnouts and forgot to remove the spring.
It was a difficult turnout to install and since it worked as is I left it.
It's in a tunnel and I like to hear it snap so I know it is set right.
About the same for the second one, right on an edge of an elevated track.

Magic


----------



## fcwilt (Sep 27, 2013)

Magic said:


> I have two Pecos on my layout that still have the spring and am using Tortoise
> machines and they snap over
> 
> Magic


Thanks. Now we know for sure.

Frederick


----------



## Tom17 (Jan 14, 2016)

From Circuitron Tortoise http://www.circuitron.com/index_files/AN/AN-6000-03.pdf
Read the last line.


----------



## CTValleyRR (Jul 26, 2014)

flyerrich said:


> I would think the turnout would move slowly until it reached the tripping point of the spring and then it would "snap" into position just like if you moved it by hand.


Exactly.

Which requires the slow motion switch machine to work harder than necessary, thus potentially shortening it's service life.

Hence my answer.


----------



## fcwilt (Sep 27, 2013)

CTValleyRR said:


> Hence my answer.


Which was a wise answer - just to a different question.

Frederick


----------



## Empire Builder 76 (Feb 11, 2016)

flyerrich said:


> I would think the turnout would move slowly until it reached the tripping point of the spring and then it would "snap" into position just like if you moved it by hand.


Flyerrich,

This sounds reasonable, though the proof is in the snapping! In other words, the spring and the Tortoise wire would work cooperatively in tandem with each other, correct?


----------



## Empire Builder 76 (Feb 11, 2016)

flyerrich said:


> I would think the turnout would move slowly until it reached the tripping point of the spring and then it would "snap" into position just like if you moved it by hand.


An inadvertant dupe of #75. Text deleted.


----------



## Empire Builder 76 (Feb 11, 2016)

fcwilt said:


> He didn't ask if he should remove it.
> 
> He asked how the turnout would behave with a Tortoise IF the spring was left in place.
> 
> Frederick


That is correct. Thanks for the clarification, Frederick.


----------



## Empire Builder 76 (Feb 11, 2016)

Tom17 said:


> From Circuitron Tortoise http://www.circuitron.com/index_files/AN/AN-6000-03.pdf
> Read the last line.


Tom17,

_The_ definitive word, straight from the Tortoise's mouth! That answers a number of questions then. AN-6000-3 is now in my Tortoise library filed under "really good stuff to know."

Many thanks for sharing this.


----------



## Empire Builder 76 (Feb 11, 2016)

fcwilt said:


> Which was a wise answer - just to a different question.
> 
> Frederick


Amen.


----------



## flyerrich (Feb 17, 2014)

I agree with previous statements. Remove the spring so the tortoise doesn't have to work to overcome any obstacles, which the spring would be. Surely your tortoise would last longer


----------



## Magic (Jan 28, 2014)

I would agree about the Tortoise working harder with the spring in place.
The reason I left the spring in is that I can replace the Tortoise easier than the turnouts.
I have more money than brains.

Magic


----------



## Empire Builder 76 (Feb 11, 2016)

traction fan said:


> [As I said last time, whichever you want. I like metal, switched frogs. That doesn't mean that you, or anyone else, has to use them. Actually on the old club layout, we ran a wire to the Walthers/Shinohara turnouts that we used many of. The "almost all metal" frogs of those Shinohara turnouts were wired to micro-switches on our switch machines, and they worked just fine. That being the case, you should be able to get excellent performance from either Walthers, or Peco. That's one for you to decide, as it's simply a matter of personal preference.]
> 
> regards;
> 
> Traction Fan:smilie_daumenpos:


Traction Fan, et al -

After considering the features of both the Peco #5 and the Walthers #4 turnouts, the size of my layout and the fact that I can wire the latter's frog to power it if I wish, I've bitten the bullet and purchased Walthers #4s from Klein's to replace my deteriorating Altas turnouts.  (May they rest in peace.) I also spent nearly an hour on the phone yesterday with a tech at Klein's who answered my final questions about each make. That was the clincher. 

Interestingly, the Klein tech also told me that the store recently returned a bunch of Atlas Snap Track turnouts due to constant derailments on the in-house layout, the same issue that brought me to this forum in the first place. He confirmed that the point rails _are_ the problem and - something I could not see occurring on my layout - due to their poor quality and flexibility, they're actually pushed aside when the loco crosses the turnout, thus causing the wheels to jump, the loco to nose dive into a ditch and the engineer to die in an ugly crash! (I didn't want to repeat myself too much by just saying "derail.")  His experience is that the Atlas turnouts work well for a few years (mine lasted about four) before developing this problem, which apparently is simply eventually bound to happen (cheap Chinese-made stuff vs. quality British and Japanese makes). The Peco and Walthers point rails are of much sturdier build and that's why they don't suffer from this problem. I have a Peco at home and can actually see the difference. 

So, kudos to Klein and all who helped here! Despite its dumbed-downed and much less logical, new and _unimproved_ website, Klein just got a $250 purchase from me. :appl:


----------



## MichaelE (Mar 7, 2018)

When did the quality of the Atlas turnouts start to go down?

I used #4 and #6 turnouts on my last layout 30 years ago with nary a problem.

After reading this thread though, Im seriously considering passing on these turnouts for my current layout under construction.

They are very convenient though, easy to hook up an auto switch machine and look OK. If they don"t work though they are no use to me.


----------



## Empire Builder 76 (Feb 11, 2016)

MichaelE said:


> When did the quality of the Atlas turnouts start to go down?
> 
> I used #4 and #6 turnouts on my last layout 30 years ago with nary a problem.
> 
> ...


Michael,

My #4 Atlas turnouts begin going south - gradually - last summer. Sometimes they'd work fine for two or three run-throughs, then begin causing derailments again. No rhyme or reason to just when that would occur or not occur. Again, the derailments happen only when the loco is entering the diverging route; the mainline run works flawlessly. 

Take a close look at the Atlas point rails to see just how thin and flimsy they are. Compare them to those of Peco or Walthers if you can. Big difference in sturdiness.

You last paragraph is why they're called "Snap Switch." They're a "snap" to connect to whatever.


----------



## MichaelE (Mar 7, 2018)

But surely they haven't always been like this? Like I said I used a lot of these turnouts in the past with all kinds of equipment and never had a derailment on a turnout.

Did Atlas redesign the turnouts in the last 30 years or did they move their manufacturing to China?

I was using Custom Line turnouts instead of the Snap Switches. Is there a difference?


----------



## Empire Builder 76 (Feb 11, 2016)

MichaelE said:


> Did Atlas redesign the turnouts in the last 30 years or did they move their manufacturing to China?
> 
> I was using Custom Line turnouts instead of the Snap Switches. Is there a difference?


Nope, same decades-old design. Yep, China long ago. Don't know. Klein and others on the forum can fill you in on that.


----------



## traction fan (Oct 5, 2014)

*Atlas turnouts*



MichaelE said:


> But surely they haven't always been like this? Like I said I used a lot of these turnouts in the past with all kinds of equipment and never had a derailment on a turnout.
> 
> Did Atlas redesign the turnouts in the last 30 years or did they move their manufacturing to China?
> 
> I was using Custom Line turnouts instead of the Snap Switches. Is there a difference?


MichelE;

I remember using Atlas HO-scale "snap switches" over 50 years ago. At the time, I was young, new to the hobby, and I didn't know anything better was available. The design then was much like the design still used today. I think the general quality has gone down a lot during the last half-century.

I don't know when the move to China happened.

As for "Snap Switches" vs "Custom Line", yes, there is a difference between most, but not all, "Custom Line" turnouts and "Snap Switches."
Most of the Custom Line turnouts are made to a different design than the Snap Switches. The Custom Line turnouts are made with two straight routes diverging from each other. The sharpness of the divergence is represented by a frog#. A #4 is sharper than a #6 which is sharper than a #8 etc. This is basically the same system used by prototype, and other brands of model, turnouts.

However some turnouts sold as "Custom Line" are clones of the "Snap Switch", with the identical geometry.* This is the type that can be substituted for an 18" radius curved piece of Atlas's sectional, "snap track." In order to do this, the snap switch and its custom clone, contain short pieces of straight track (the point rails) and rivets, and a built-in kink between the point and closure rails. All this takes place in the middle of a "curve." It's a poor design, at best, and the materials weren't especially great years ago, and have gone way down hill since. 

The pdf attached below goes into more detail about the designed-in problems of the Atlas HO-scale snap switch, and possible fixes for some of them. If your interested, look through the file.

*The first photo shows two Atlas HO-scale turnouts next to each other. The nickle/silver rail one on the left is labeled "Custom Line" on the bottom of the tie strip. The brass rail turnout on the right is labeled, "Snap Switch." The design, and general geometry, are identical. I bought these two turnouts from the used, bargain box at my local train store for the purpose of taking photos for some pdf files I was writing. The only difference,other than the metal of the rails, is that one happens to be a left-hand turnout, and the other is a right-hand one. 

If you're turnout shopping, I'd recommend Peco, or Walthers/Shinohara rather than Atlas.

Traction Fan:smilie_daumenpos:


----------

