ModelRailroadForums.com is a free Model Railroad Discussion Forum and photo gallery. We cover all scales and sizes of model railroads. Online since 2002, it's one of the oldest and largest model railroad forums on the web. Whether you're a master model railroader or just getting started, you'll find something of interest here.
I know I know, similar track questions keep coming up on the forum. I have searched but not found an answer really suitable for what I am wanting to know.
Background: I'm restarting in HO, having finally made the switch from N scale. I had eventually gravitated to using Kato Uni-track exclusively in N scale, so I am worried I've become a bit spoiled in terms of quality.
1st Question: Turnouts/switches. I plan on using only manual turnouts with Caboose Industries ground throws. Right now I am looking at Atlas and Peco switches. I've heard bad things about both, mostly about Atlas's remote machines melting. Since I won't be using remote operated switches I'm not to concerned about that. Looking at them, I think the Peco switches look a lot better but they cost a lot more $ too, and I have still heard people complain about them as well. Any suggestions?
2nd Question: Track Code. I have planned on using Code 83 track and painting the ties and rails. I've heard people comment on how while they like code 83 they would have rather used code 100 as you tend to have much less issues with derailments. Now, these problems seam to have come from older or cheap equipment (specifically: oversize flanges). Since I starting out new all my equipment would be stuff that has been released in the past few years, which is noticeably much higher quality than stuff from 10 to 15 years ago. I also don't see replacing wheel sets as a problem. Are there other things I should consider as to why I may want to use code 100 over code 83 rail?
I know I know, similar track questions keep coming up on the forum. I have searched but not found an answer really suitable for what I am wanting to know.
Background: I'm restarting in HO, having finally made the switch from N scale. I had eventually gravitated to using Kato Uni-track exclusively in N scale, so I am worried I've become a bit spoiled in terms of quality.
1st Question: Turnouts/switches. I plan on using only manual turnouts with Caboose Industries ground throws.
I'm planning a layout with switchyard that I get to operate manually. The old fashioned Caboose spring loaded high throws are so cool...
Right now I am looking at Atlas and Peco switches. I've heard bad things about both, mostly about Atlas's remote machines melting. Since I won't be using remote operated switches I'm not to concerned about that. Looking at them, I think the Peco switches look a lot better but they cost a lot more $ too, and I have still heard people complain about them as well. Any suggestions?
I've been getting just the plain old Atlas manual "Snap Switch" (#4, I think) turnouts for about $10 each because they have the shortest frog dead spot and take up the least track space.
2nd Question: Track Code. I have planned on using Code 83 track and painting the ties and rails. I've heard people comment on how while they like code 83 they would have rather used code 100 as you tend to have much less issues with derailments. Now, these problems seam to have come from older or cheap equipment (specifically: oversize flanges). Since I starting out new all my equipment would be stuff that has been released in the past few years, which is noticeably much higher quality than stuff from 10 to 15 years ago. I also don't see replacing wheel sets as a problem. Are there other things I should consider as to why I may want to use code 100 over code 83 rail?
I faced exactly the same decision as you and went with code 83 as it seemed the most generic. Just built an old caboose kit from 1953 with large flange trucks and the little guy rolls right through the code 83 switches and crossovers just fine.
I am an opinion of one, but I find the Caboose ground throws to be about twice the size they should be in scale. So, I don't use 'em....
I just have targets and switch stands that I make plunked on the head blocks, but I use a pointed bamboo kabob skewer to flick my Peco Code 83 Insulfrog turnouts. I use their #6 turnouts in my yard and like them very much. Shop around. It's worth doing that, but still worth having Peco's in my view. About the only fault I can find in them is their blade-like point rails. I would prefer to see them looking more like real rails...but it's a small price to pay for their function and design. Zero failures so far.
Tracks - Next layout will be Code 83, but possibly Code 70. Even though I use Code 100 from Atlas, and like it, it really does look huge in images where the camera is held low with a train approaching 100 yards away in scale. Even Code 83 can look oversized if used on anything but a heavily used modern main.
Those are my thoughts. I'll use Micro Engineering probably.
I used Atlas switches and they are nice, but I was recently at a friend layout and he is using Peco. Wow what a difference.
Peco's take up way less track length and they have a very nice spring on the points bar that holds it in place without a operator. So techically you can use these without a swtich machine or ground throw.
I started out with atlas #4s. Wish i would have skipped them completley. Wasted time and effort only to switch to peco. Difference is amazing. Cost is higher but yoi u get something that works well.
What bad things were ever said about peco?
On the other hand, had i been starting from scratch today id probably go with hand-laid fast track - more work but best looks,quality and price
I used Atlas switches and they are nice, but I was recently at a friend layout and he is using Peco. Wow what a difference.
Peco's take up way less track length and they have a very nice spring on the points bar that holds it in place without a operator. So techically you can use these without a swtich machine or ground throw.
That concession to surrealism will be ok for me as long as my fat fingers can operate them... especially since everything else will be pretty much unprototypical anyways.
I have code 83 Atlas track, mostly flextrack. Code 83 switches, mostly 8s, 6s, and 4s. i have the clunky atlas switch machines, but I have not had any major issues, and they dont bother me. Ive replaced two, but they only melted after my son leaned on the switch activators for too long when I wasnt watching.
I installed a sprung Caboose manual throw a couple of weeks ago and love it. Works great and holds the throw rail tightly against the stock rail.
I went with Code 100 because that's what I started buying when I pulled out my old track from the 1980s and began replacing bits with nickle silver as I went. I updated all my old rolling stock with Kadee couplers and Intermountain or Proto metal wheelsets.
The main problem with Atlas Code 100 is that the ties don't match other brands' Code 100. Atlas Code 83 next to Peco or Walthers looks more uniform. Also, the variety of pieces that Atlas makes in Code 100 is less than their Code 83. Code 83 seems to be the trend for store bought track.
I use the Caboose ground throws on all my turnouts. I bought the 5 packs, because they come with 5 different attachments for various companies' throwbars. I altered my Code 100 stuff by removing some of the attachments that Atlas molds into the ties to use with their switch machines, cut the end off the throwbar, drilled a hole in it, and used the Peco attachment on the ground throw to activate the points. I glued two small strips of basswood as headblocks, and glued the ground throw to the headblocks. It is a better looking turnout, in my opinion, but still nothing like what the more detailed Code 83 stuff is.
Another consideration of using Code 100 is that if you want to create the illusion of mainline rail and branch/spur rail, you could use Code 100 for mainline and Code 83 for branches and spurs, but doing so will require some cosmetic work on the Code 100 ties. But, done right, it looks pretty good to me. (I saw this idea in a Model Railroader last year or the year before).
I am wondering, for those of you who said you had trouble with the Atlas switches and got rid of them, or would not use them again: What where the problems you had?
I am wondering, for those of you who said you had trouble with the Atlas switches and got rid of them, or would not use them again: What where the problems you had?
how about wheels catching up on point rails and the groves where point rail meets the stock rail? or catching up on hinges (mark3) or jumping a frog? even when it doesn't derail the transition through atlas switch is clumsy with a big clunk of wheel dipping in the frog.
this might be "work just fine" performance level, but i really like the "excellent every time" performance level of pecos. i like frog that wheels don't dip at (just like IRL) and the spring loaded point eliminating the need for additional manual throw unless specifically desired.
Atlas had some quality control issues in the past that led to some shoddy turnouts. They have gotten those corrected and the ones you get today, IMHO, work quite well. I have never had a turnout of any brand that didn't need bit of 'fiddling' to work 100% of the time, but the fixes were usually quite simple.
I think some of Atlas' reputation problems comes from the 'Snap Switch' series. Those are abominable, and should be banned from the hobby! Do not confuse the Snap Switches, which are cheap toys, with the #4 Custom Line turnouts. Those work pretty well, provide you don't try to run you Big Boy with 89' cars through them!
flanges catching up on stuff was fixed by grinding the protruding angles of. same goes to transition from stamped point rail to profile rail (at the hinge, marks), just rounded the rail head a bit. sharpened the points and filed stock rail withmark4's . so far so good. but what cannot be resolved is wheel-dip in the frog which can be felt even more in #6. electrically the solution is perfect - short frog, insulated, no sb , yet with option of being powered. i sure wish they made the construction more precise mechanically. and all at is - cast piece of metal, that easily could have been made precise and consistant.
if you ok with performance - more power to you. after seeing how smooth cars roll through peco (even setrack series ones), i just can't go back to wheel busting, earthshaking atlas'es.
When I started my new layout I decided to go with Pecos exclusively (I have something like 45-50 turnouts in place...), after some not too great experiences with Atlas switches on my previous one. They are a bit pricey but you can lay them and forget them. There's no greater reward than to watch a long train backing through a yard ladder in reverse, and not even blinking....Try that with A's....
