Choosing Track & Switches Brands in these new days


BigGRacing said:
Found it this morning as well, I am happy with my Peco turnouts, but still wish companies made track sections with radius that work with each other, but I have stated that before.
Click to expand...
That's the manufacturer's simply trying to keep their market share, if the turnouts etc. worked with every other type/make of track, will would all mix 'n match, and would only buy the best track parts from each manufacturer.

I have one Peco 3 way turnout, (no one else makes them that I know of), had to do a little modification as the rail ties and turnout radius are different from my Hornby track.

At some point I'll rip out my layout and start again, probably using Peco100 or 83, but as I'm running both OO and HO scale on a small layout, the Hornby track suffices for now.
 
beiland said:
Would they be here at USA importer of Euro items

https://www.reynaulds.com/catalog/dept_1385.aspx
Click to expand...
As Walthers is a US company, as far as I know they import items that are made in Europe under their name, I can find the track and turnouts but only on US sites, not on any European ones, unless Walthers are selling in Europe under different branding, I know Walthers track was made in Japan, and then moved it's supplier, I heard it's now made in China, but don't quote me.
 
I like my Peco turnouts, rarely a derailment. I have Three Walthers turnouts on the layout and those have needed a lot of tweaking. Finally got them right. I have Atlas turnouts in my staging yard left over from my old Central Midland railroad. All code 83.
 
beiland said:
So no one found these discussions interesting??
Click to expand...
I think you can take it that the absence of comment means either the readers, whomever deigned to look and to read the thread over there, are not particularly convinced or compelled by what was said by the various respondents, or they pretty much agree and have nothing much to add, or they disagree and don't wish to add fuel to the discussion, or they have seen it all before and have reached their own conclusions and don't wish to explain their own processes for a decision. Still, thanks for bothering to post it in case it did generate some discussion here.

Personally, there's nothing wrong with providing links to germane discussions on other fora. It's just that it doesn't follow necessarily that anyone here will want to jump in with their own thoughts on the matter. In fact, I often jump in over there since that it where the meat of the topic is.
 
My current layout uses HO Code 100 throughout, simply because that is what I started with years ago, and have utilize some of my original track and turnouts, including some brass flex and sectional in the yards! Mostly I have used Atlas turnouts, both Snap and CustomLine, as well as Peco and Shinohara, just depending on what I had on hand. Peco Code 100 is really OO and in a very few places, the gap between the stock rails and the guard rails is a bit too wide (fixed with plastic shims). Peco is handy because of the snap-over features...where I can reach them manually. Where remote is desired, I had to use some older switch machines with the snap springs removed. The Atlas turnouts are handy where the sub-layout framing prohibits under-the-surface switch machines. Were I to start from scratch nowadays, I would probably start with Cope 83, maybe using the new Walthers turnouts. One thing that is interesting, is some older Atlas double-slip turnouts I had, that worked great in a particular application. Unlike most double-slips, the Atlas align the points such that you cannot derail going through from the opposite direction. The routing will either be a crossing or a curved route. The switch machine is integral with the turnout. Too bad they aren't made anymore, nor in Code 100 and 83.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.



Back
Top