I have a question of preferences to put before the order. What is your favorite type of turnout for use with Atlas code 80 track? I know that a lot of people prefer code 55 track, but I am not going there for now. That's the topic of another thread. I am trying to decide what turnouts to use. The club I have been going to uses a smorgasbord of turnouts. I haven't really seen a particular advantage to any of them. I am currently using DC, but I am going to switch to DCC as soon as I have a couple hundred dollars and time to install some decoders. I am concerned about how well turnouts will work with DCC. I am not terribly concerned about appearance as I will be heavily weathering and "scenicking" my track, so tie spacing and what have you won't make much of a difference, as long as the scale tie spacing isn't several feet and the ties aren't un-paintable neon green. I have considered the possibility that some turnouts may be better for yard operations and others better for just switching between, say, a mainline and a branchline. I would appreciate thoughts on this. Most turnouts will be operated by 5DCC (Five Digit Command Control), i.e., I will be switching them by hand, though I will likely have a few remote ones that I would like to operate with electrical switches but not really DCC controlled switches. Switches that look like first half of 20th century prototypes will be given preference over more modern ones if all other things be equal. The reason for this has to do with my prototype, a shortline that mostly has a hodge-podge of old BN and SP tracks. Thanks in advance for your input. Adam Thanks, Adam
I would recommend using the Atlas Custom N Line #6 turnouts. If you plan to go to DCC, you'll probably have a lot less troubles than if you use power routing turnouts like Micro Engineering. I have used Micro Engineering code 70 mixed in with some older code 80 track on an older section of my layout. The ME turnouts look nice because of the tie size and spacing, but since you are not concerned too much about this aspect - trust me - ME turnouts are a pain. The only issue with Atlas code 80 Custom Lines is that you need to use a hand throw or under table switch machine to hold the points in place. And most hobby shops stock these.
I second Tim's advice. We use Atlas Custom line #6's on the club layout with Caboose Industies sprung ground throws. Keeping it simple has worked well so far. Our benchwork is 36" wide max and allows us to reach everything. Many may not agree, but I personally enjoy the 'hands on' throwing of turnouts when running on the layout.
My choice would be Peco C 55 electrofrogs. I have pretty much settled on these because they operate extremely well and do not need a switch machine or ground throw. Plus they come in four different configurations to include a curved turnout. Just remember to gap the frog rails. I gap all rails including gaps between sections of flex track. I experience too much track expansion/contraction not to do so. Learned the hard way too.
So do I--which is why I like Peco turnouts. With their built-in spring, you don't need any sort of external point-holding mechanism, which eliminates either (a) an out-of-scale device mounted near the turnout or (b) any sort of complicated remote mechanism. The small-radius Peco turnouts are fairly useless for US-style railroading, but their medium-radius is very nearly a drop-in replacement for an Atlas "#4" turnout, and their large radius is approximately a #6.5. Their wye and double-curve turnouts are also very handy when laying out track designs in close quarters.
Feel free to check out the pictures of my layout. You will be able to see the various types of switches I used. My layout, mainline and sidings are built with Code 80 track. I choose Kato #6 Automated Switches for the main line and staging yard. As a added bonus they sport a type of electro-hot-frog. I prefer the appearance and operation of the Kato automated switches, as the solenoid is hidden beneath the track in the road bed. Those areas I can access by hand, I do use Peco Electrofrog switches with a handthrow. A feature I appreciate with peco switches is the smoothness of operation through them. I enjoy the slow operation / non-stalling action while making switch moves or bringing a train into the yard. I don't expect to have any problems with DCC once it is installed, as everything is getting blocked with block control isolating cuts made at various locations in the track. DPDT. You will find some older Atlas switches heading up a yard ladder for a dead end spur yard. You will see in my pictures the black blobbed switch machines over to the side...a ghastily sight...in my opinion. Glad it's a hidden yard. There is a question as to how well they will function. I built this stub end yard almost 12 plus years ago. They tested out ok but things can change during installation. Once, wired up we shall see what happens next. Best of luck with your choices.
Thanks to everyone Thanks to everyone for your input. I went to my favorite local hobby shop and asked them the same thing and they waffled a bit and offered to let me play with several turnouts out of the box right on the counter. I accepted, and found that I like the Peco built-in spring action best of all. I like how it keeps the points in place. I don't know why Atlas doesn't do the same thing, except that they are keeping your options open by letting you add a device or not add one as you see fit. I may still go Atlas if I decide to run any remote switches that I can't easily reach with standard five-digit command control, but I am going to try out this Peco Electrofrog code 80 and see how I like it. Adam
Peco Insulfrog. DCC-ready out of the box, nearly bulletproof for clumbsy fingers like mine. All I use!
On a previous layout (DC), I used Code 80 track and a mixture of Peco small (9") radius and medium radius turnouts and Atlas 19" radius and the longer Atlas turnouts. The Peco rail is noticeably smaller than C80, but at that time, the benefit of the Peco spring action outweighed the difference in rail profile. I liked the Peco spring action, but on my current (DCC) layout, I opted for all Atlas because they are more DCC friendly, and I had trouble pushing longer strings of cars through Peco 9" radius turnouts in my DC layout yard. I also found that after a decade or so, the plastic of many of my Pecos became brittle and the spring action became weaker so the power routing function became unreliable. This may have been a function of my numerous rebuilds/expansions/reconfigurations/etc, but my Atlas's seemed to be less prone to problems with being pulled up and repositioned every few years. I found that, with either brand, putting ballast around a turnout and locking the turnout in its spot, would often make it more vulnerable to being bent out of gauge by the inevitable shrinking that took place over a few years in my layout rooms (which were never too well climate or humidity controlled) and led to warped track instead of straight, and to too securely positioned turnouts getting pushed out of gauge more than those that were lightly ballasted and thus had a little "give" when pushed by an expanding rail or a shrinking tabletop. While the Atlas are DCC friendly, the points rest on a thin metal strip to achieve electrical contact, and it is very easy to get scenic-ing or ballasting glue or a thin wash of weathering onto the surface where the points make contact. This ruins the electrical connection and no amount of cleaning seems to restore it reliably. In an attempt to salvage some of the turnouts, I hardwired some of the points to a feeder from under the turnout, but such a solution was VERY ugly (probably more from my poor soldering skills than from the concept itself); and soldering the points to the rails of the frog necessitated using ground throws that were not spring loaded because the points were so stiff to move. Again, this may have reflected my heavy handed soldering, but could also be an error or flaw in the concept itself rather than in its implementation. Appearance-wise, the soldered points could be filed to look ok, so they matched up fine with the C80 flex track and occasional C80 sectional curves that I used near turnouts. On my current layout, I now have around 700 turnouts...all Atlas, most actuated with ground throws, except about 60 or 70 in hard to reach places that have Tortoises. I've used C80 Flex throughout the layout with many C80 sectional curves around turnouts. I'm happy with the appearance. If you are going to take lots of close up pictures of Atlas turnouts with nearby ground throws, the out-of-scale appearance of the ground throws may detract from your perfect picture...and Peco spring locks may offer a better picture. But it can be argued (until we are all blue in the face!!!) that the close up may show up the difference in Peco versus Atlas tie spacing. I'd suggest looking at examples of both with the C80 track and see which you prefer for your layout at this time... and Don't be surprised if you change your opinion down the road.
"On my current layout, I now have around 700 turnouts..." Jeepers!!! I am going to be replacing a couple of my ME turnouts with Atlas Custom Line #6s. I do like the spring in the ME that holds the points in place, but enough is enough - just had another stall at one turnout and noticed that it has warped and is no longer straight...
