Atlas Code 55 deliveries

[John]

They didn't want to do it, so I did it 'cause makin' just the closure points is a helluva lot easier than makin' the whole turnout.  Seems like I did the ME turnout trick and used a partial rail joiner for the hinges, soldered onto the closure rails' heels, then inserting the closure points' heels into the rail joiner, then soldering the tips of the points to the PCB throwbar. 

I've done the same thing with a curved turnout, and another #7 .. dremel out the hinge ties, then just put rail joiners in, and make some new rails ..   I've also used a dremel to grind down oversize closure rails on the curved turnouts ..    you shouldn't have to - Atlas factory QC leaves a lot to be desired with the, especially with the cost of these things now..

[MichaelWinicki]

Y'know...making closure points isn't that big a deal.  I had a couple of club members (Utah N-Railers) break their Atlas #7's closure points (as pictured) and it was a pretty easy proposition to just make new ones, and install 'em while the rest of the turnout was in place, using PCB headblocks and throwbar.

They didn't want to do it, so I did it 'cause makin' just the closure points is a helluva lot easier than makin' the whole turnout.  Seems like I did the ME turnout trick and used a partial rail joiner for the hinges, soldered onto the closure rails' heels, then inserting the closure points' heels into the rail joiner, then soldering the tips of the points to the PCB throwbar. 

Worked pretty well and saved several turnouts.

Thanks for the tip Bob!

I'll store that for future reference in case I need to replace the points on any of mine.

[Ed Kapuscinski]

I've done the same thing with a curved turnout, and another #7 .. dremel out the hinge ties, then just put rail joiners in, and make some new rails ..   I've also used a dremel to grind down oversize closure rails on the curved turnouts ..    you shouldn't have to - Atlas factory QC leaves a lot to be desired with the, especially with the cost of these things now..

That's actually a great point. Back when you could get them for $7-$8, it wasn't so bad, but I bet that when the new shipment arrives they'll be approaching $20.

[mmagliaro]

Agree that the gauge on No.7's is a continuing issue.  I seem to have gotten more in-gauge than out, but I've still had to fix about 50% of them in exactly the same area Max points out in his photos.  I don't bend the points; instead, I use a very fine tapered grinding wheel in a dremel or a diamond file to take just a bit of the metal off at the narrow point, either from the stock rail or the points or both - you can see from Max's photos exactly where the problem lies.

I'm also frankly unhappy about the plating issue.  I didn't know about the plating, and I clean my track agressively before each operating session with 1000-grit sandpaper.  Over time, this has worn off the plating on some of the frogs/points.  It hasn't affected operation any, but you can see the slightly "copperish" color underneath.  I had no idea about this until reading about it on this and other forums.

The truth is that building your own turnouts, as Bob Gilmore does, would be preferable.  In my case, I just didn't want to take the time to learn that skill and then take the time to deploy it over the 70+ turnouts I needed for my layout.  In retrospect, that was probably a mistake.  Live and learn.

I'll probably end up doing one more layout at some point in my life, and if I do, I'll either make my own turnouts or hire someone to make them for me (custom turnouts made with Fast Tracks jigs are available out there if you look; they are expensive in comparison to Atlas' offerings, but the operational quality is likely far better and then you get points and frogs made from real nickel-silver rail).  It's ultimately just a matter of investment of either time to make them or money.  I'm at the age where time has become more important to me .

As for Peco - I used Peco in each of my first two layouts, Code 80 on my first and Code 55 on my second.  I still prefer the spring-over-point design that permits you to use the turnout without an external linkage of any kind.  I find this particularly useful in switching areas, where you can "flick the points" to do your switching instead of fumbling with an out-of-scale ground throw or a switch or lever on the fascia.  But I finally switched to Atlas because of the appearance issue.   If Peco would do a US-prototype rail in N scale (like they do in HO), I'd buy it in a heartbeat.  I don't understand why they don't, particularly since they have the widest array of switches and specialty trackwork of any manufacturer (tooling costs, I guess).  I think they'd compete favorably with Atlas, even though they are a bit more expensive, IF they'd fix the appearance issue.  (It would also be cool, I think, if Peco made a code 40 track by doing the same thing they do with their code 55: bury the track further in the ties; such a track profile would be very useful in N scale, and the way Peco does it would make the resulting track still very robust, as well as compatible with existing lo-profile wheelsets.  One can dream . . . )

John C.

+1 on using a diamond cutting disc, file, etc.   I actually use a diamond drum in a Dremel to remove meterial from the insides
of the point rails at the narrow spots.   I have never tried to bend the point rails to correct this problem, and I don't see how
that would help.   By the time you bend it enough to widen the gauge out to where it needs to be, the general
curvature and shape of the point rails would really be whacked.

Oh, and did anyone mention the throwbar which is so sloppily attached to the point rails that it often lets them
float upwards until the tips of the point rails actually stick up above the main rails.  This will cause the train to
jump up over the bump as it enters the switch (if it can stay on the track at all).   I often have to shim, file,
and/or press the point rails firmly down on the throwbar and then heat-seal the plastic nubs over with a soldering
iron on the underside.   The throwbar is just too thin and flexible, and the point rail attachements are way too cheesy.

Complaining?  Heck no.  I bring these things up because I keep hoping that Atlas will get these problems corrected.
In many ways, these are really nice turnouts.  They are so close. 

[Kisatchie]

+1 on using a diamond cutting disc, file, etc.   I actually use a diamond drum in a Dremel to remove meterial from the insides
of the point rails at the narrow spots.   I have never tried to bend the point rails to correct this problem, and I don't see how
that would help.   By the time you bend it enough to widen the gauge out to where it needs to be, the general
curvature and shape of the point rails would really be whacked.

Oh, and did anyone mention the throwbar which is so sloppily attached to the point rails that it often lets them
float upwards until the tips of the point rails actually stick up above the main rails.  This will cause the train to
jump up over the bump as it enters the switch (if it can stay on the track at all).   I often have to shim, file,
and/or press the point rails firmly down on the throwbar and then heat-seal the plastic nubs over with a soldering
iron on the underside.   The throwbar is just too thin and flexible, and the point rail attachements are way too cheesy.

Complaining?  Heck no.  I bring these things up because I keep hoping that Atlas will get these problems corrected.
In many ways, these are really nice turnouts.  They are so close.

After reading the above, I've decided to go with Micro Engineering turnouts. And maybe make my own turnouts for special situations.


Hmm... Did Kiz say Micro
Engineering termites...?

[MichaelWinicki]

After reading the above, I've decided to go with Micro Engineering turnouts. And maybe make my own turnouts for special situations.

Vincent, ME turnouts have some of their own issues...

I would consider getting a couple of each and trying them out.  The results you get could be much different than what others are reporting.

For instance I have dozens of Atlas Code 55 #7's on my layout.

And you know how many where I've had to adjust the points to avoid derailments with my 80+ loco's and 600 cars?

0.

I may be taking a leap here but I think the narrowness issue may affect certain steam loco's more than it does diesels for whatever reason.  I don't run steam, even though a 2-8-8-2 has been run on my layout without incident.  And it doesn't seem to affect freight or passenger cars for whatever reason.

I did have a couple turnouts where the points did come up too far above the rest of the rail which caused a lurch.  A small, thin piece of styrene wedged between the throwbar and the bottom of the rail was a fast and effective fix.   

[jdcolombo]

Vincent, ME turnouts have some of their own issues...

I would consider getting a couple of each and trying them out.  The results you get could be much different than what others are reporting.

For instance I have dozens of Atlas Code 55 #7's on my layout.

And you know how many where I've had to adjust the points to avoid derailments with my 80+ loco's and 600 cars?

0.

I may be taking a leap here but I think the narrowness issue may affect certain steam loco's more than it does diesels for whatever reason.  I don't run steam, even though a 2-8-8-2 has been run on my layout without incident.  And it doesn't seem to affect freight or passenger cars for whatever reason.

I did have a couple turnouts where the points did come up too far above the rest of the rail which caused a lurch.  A small, thin piece of styrene wedged between the throwbar and the bottom of the rail was a fast and effective fix.

I would agree that ALL manufactured turnouts have some issues.  As Max points out, the issues with Atlas hasn't kept him from using them and haven't kept me from installing 77 of them on my layout, which operates beautifully with a bunch of 2-8-4 Berks as the main power, with an occasional visit from a UP Big Boy, N&W Y3 (2-8-8-2), Clinchfield Challenger, and Kato SP GS-4 that somehow end up lost in northern Ohio on the NKP in 1957 .

If you want absolute perfection, the only way to get there is build your own or hire someone to build them for you.  Even as much as I loved Peco's turnout design, they were also flawed: the guardrails were spaced too wide for NMRA gauge, which means that if your wheelsets were perfectly gauged, there was a 50-50 chance they would pick the point of the frog and derail.  The solution?  Glue an .010 strip of styrene to each of the plastic guardrails to narrow the gauge between the guardrail and stock rail.  I did this on every single Peco turnout I owned (over 120 of them).  Worked perfectly, but still an issue that had to be fixed.

The simple fact is that to get manufactured turnouts at a price point that is affordable for most folks, there are tolerance issues that never will be completely resolved.  So buy, fix what needs fixed, and be happy.  Or roll your own.

John C.

[DKS]

The simple fact is that to get manufactured turnouts at a price point that is affordable for most folks, there are tolerance issues that never will be completely resolved.

This is the absolute truth. Many moons ago, I consulted with Micro Engineering on the design of their #6 switch, and so I know first-hand the issues they faced. One reason we haven't seen more of them from ME is because of the costs they incurred developing their first one.

[Kisatchie]

Vincent, ME turnouts have some of their own issues...

Hmm... Kiz is designing
a layout without ANY
turnouts...

[basementcalling]

The simple fact is that to get manufactured turnouts at a price point that is affordable for most folks, there are tolerance issues that never will be completely resolved.  So buy, fix what needs fixed, and be happy.  Or roll your own.

Tossing the yellow flag on this one. I 'll admit I don't have DKS's depth of knowledge with the manufacturing issues, but if you think for a second about tolerances I say this is urban myth stuff. The tolerances on a set of gears in a Kato drive train, the scale fidelity in new rolling stock, the precision of many of the new metal bodied T/COFC cars from BMLA and others? Nah, tolerances on turnouts cannot be affordably met. Not possible? Just not done yet.

If I'm wrong, please politely tell me why turnouts are different?

I've not had bad experiences with Atlas yet, but have heard the stories from people who have. Could be assembly error in the plant in China. Can't imagine putting those things together all day long is much fun, even for a small salary.

What I have seen though is that people tend to blame track for derailments and other issues immediately and overlook wheels and car standards. I built an NTRAK module with 3 Atlas C80 crossings in the mains and several guys who derailed there blamed my complicated module design. Finally the guy who bitched the most said one thing too many, and I flipped his engine upside down, put an NMRA standards gauge on his wheel sets and showed him how out of gauge they were.

We had an equation. BT + BW = DR      BT + GW = FP   BW + GT = FP   GW + GT = NP

BT = Bad Track     BW = Bad Wheels   DR = derail    GW = Good Wheels   GT = Good Track and NP = No Problems

It's not always the track.

[chicken45]

We had an equation. BT + BW = DR      BT + GW = FP   BW + GT = FP   GW + GT = NP

BT = Bad Track     BW = Bad Wheels   DR = derail    GW = Good Wheels   GT = Good Track and NP = No Problems

It's not always the track.

What does FP mean? Few Problems?

[robert3985]

This is the absolute truth. Many moons ago, I consulted with Micro Engineering on the design of their #6 switch, and so I know first-hand the issues they faced. One reason we haven't seen more of them from ME is because of the costs they incurred developing their first one.

Now that they've learned what some of the problems will be (learned from designing their first and only turnout), it would seem logical that ME ought to be at the point in their business to produce a second turnout...after all, it's been about 25 years or so (1/4 of a century) since the introduction of their #6.

After reading the above, I've decided to go with Micro Engineering turnouts. And maybe make my own turnouts for special situations.

Vincent, that's a good idea...'specially the part about learning to build your own turnouts when #6's won't fit.

IMO, I think that availability is the main problem with Atlas 55 turnouts (and track).  As I offered in a previous post, replacing the closure points isn't that big a deal (if you discover you need to do that).  However, the plated frog has always been an eyesore for me, but looks a lot better when the turnout is painted, ballasted and weathered...as long as you don't Bright-Boy the plating off.

I've installed a lot of ME #6 turnouts when assisting other club members to construct their modules, and the main problem with them has been some ME turnouts constantly drop their closure point rails at the heel (they come out of the modified rail joiners regularly).  The easy way for our club member to make sure this didn't happen was to install the actuating rod that comes up through the throwbar so that it presses back (towards the frog) and keeps the closure point rails in the hinges.  That always fixed that problem.

I should say that the closure rails dropping out of the hinges problem always happened when we removed the over-center spring to make the turnouts ready for the throwbar control rod from the Tortoise switch machine under the subroadbed.  I always installed a stiffer, more heavy-duty control rod than that supplied with my Tortoises, mainly since the throwbars on my hand-built turnouts are not as free-moving as commercial ones are.  A thicker wire with the ends ground down to a smaller diameter solved any "throwing problems" that painting, ballasting and weathering might induce also on the ME turnouts.

Another problem that I (or any other club members) never encountered is a "hump" in the cast NS frog on ME #6's.  Since, in my experience, that never happened...I don't have any comments on it, but comments are available in various threads here.

But, the main problem with ME turnouts is that they're available in only one size...which is a big problem.  Luckily, a #6 is a good size to be stuck with.

When I compare an Atlas #7 and an ME #6 side by side, it appears to me that the ME turnout's ties are spaced more prototypically, there is more rail-furniture detailing, the frog and closure point rails are NS (so there's no plating to Bright-Boy off and you can adjust the closure point rails without breaking them) and they have the over-center spring so they're immediately operational until you get around to installing whatever you'll use to remotely align them.

I also note that the Atlas #7 isn't a lot longer than the ME #6, and it should be.  Several of my fellow former Utah N-Railers took a close look at the Atlas 55 turnouts and discovered the "effective radius" of the diverging route on the switch portion of the turnout is much shorter than if it were properly built to prototype proportions.  The Atlas 55 #10 is especially out of proportion this way, and the diverging route radius is small enough on the Atlas 55 #10 that a lot of the advantage of using a larger number turnout is negated.

One member decided to continue to use the #10, but to rebuild it by inserting a new diverging stock rail and rebuilding the turnout from the frog back to the headblocks.  His rebuilds were about 2" longer than the stock Atlas 55 #10.

As for myself, I have no problem using RTR turnouts and I've got three ME # 6's on my back track at Echo, with new PCB headblocks, throwbars and re-worked closure point hinges.  Every time I look at 'em, the frogs look way to big to me (and they are) and I'm happy they're not in the foreground. If ME made other sized turnouts (with a few improvements) I'd use them.  But, they don't, so I build 99% of mine.

I have problems with my hand-built turnouts too.  Although I don't allow a turnout I've built on the layout unless it's been tested and functions "perfectly", the one thing that's missing from all of my turnouts in the past has been spikehead and rail furniture details (rail braces, friction plates, frog bolts, point reinforcing plates, etc.). 

I jumped up and down in joy when I found Proto87 Store's frets of turnout details in N-scale, but when I actually got several of these frets in-hand, I was (firstly) amazed at how blinkin' small all of those details were, then (secondly) after I'd installed them on one of my turnouts, at how invisible they were after all that effort (took me three times as long to build a turnout with these details)...especially when sighting along the tracks, seeing the details on my Railcraft flex stop at my turnouts (even with the Proto87 Stores details glued on) then start up again after the turnout...which really bugs me.

A message to Proto87 Stores:  Make your N-scale turnout detail frets for code 55 too.  You'll sell a lot more of 'em, and I won't have to modify every blinkin' one of 'em when I apply them to my code 55 mainline turnouts!

I guess what I'm sayin' is that there is no "perfect" solution.  There are compromises no matter what we do as far as turnouts, track and just about everything else is concerned in model railroading.

Many of the ex-members of the Utah N-Railers (now abandoned) still use nothing but ME #6's and are perfectly happy with that.  Many of them are still making their own turnouts and are happy with that too...some of them have decided to invest in expensive Fast Tracks jigs and fixtures, which have greatly speeded up their hand-building process for all those #8's they want on their layouts.  Most of the hand-builders still build turnouts using paper templates (like I do) which works just fine both from a time and expense standpoint, and some of them use both ME and Atlas turnouts.  However, ALL of them continue to use ME flex because its detailing is a lot finer than Atlas' offering...and it IS available at this point.

I should say that several of them have decided to continue to use Atlas 80 or Kato Unitrack on their home layouts since ripping that up and starting over with code 55 would be time and cost prohibitive for them.  I work on those layouts, and attempt to make the best of the situation.

I agree with basementcalling, and when I decided to make my turnouts to "tight" NMRA standards, it became necessary for me to make sure my motive power was perfectly gauged.  When certain club members started complaining, I did exactly the same thing...took the complainer's engine off the track, flipped it over and applied my NMRA clearance gauge to his wheelsets.  The next meeting included a motion for a new club operation rule that only engines that had been checked and cleared for gauge could be run on the layout.  I still do this on my own modular layout, 20 years later.

But, all of us enjoy the hobby because of, or in spite of our track choice. The lesson is that what you choose NOW will probably be what you're stuck with until you decide to build a new layout...which could be a long time.

Choose wisely.

[DKS]

...if you think for a second about tolerances I say this is urban myth stuff. The tolerances on a set of gears in a Kato drive train, the scale fidelity in new rolling stock, the precision of many of the new metal bodied T/COFC cars from BMLA and others? Nah, tolerances on turnouts cannot be affordably met. Not possible? Just not done yet.

I'd say it's definitely not an urban myth. Making precision gears and casting RTR track switches are two extraordinarily different things, like comparing apples and cucumbers. A gear is a single piece that can be tooled with great precision because it has a regular, symmetrical shape. Precision gears are so easy and cheap to make that you'll find them inside little wind-up toys. Take one apart and check out those teeth--much finer than those in an N scale loco. The rest of the parts of a typical loco are similarly easy to tool, relatively speaking, since they are all individual, stand-alone parts, the precision of which can easily be calculated.

Track, on the other hand, involves countless points along the way from start to finish that can influence accuracy, primarily because the rail and ties must be cast together, which is very different from casting gears or gearboxes. Start with extruding the rail; cutting it to length and bending it to shape; casting a separate frog and guard rails; tooling an irregular, asymmetrical mold for the ties that will hold all of these separate parts in place (nine of them, on average, not including the welded-in electrical jumpers), and still allow them to be ejected from the mold. This is probably the biggest point of potential error in the process, since some slop is required to accommodate the individual tolerance issues of each of the separate parts. Then, one must perform the injection with hopefully the least amount of warping, shrinkage, etc. Finally, you have the separate add-in parts, such as the points; in the case of Atlas, these are cast, likely because it's cheaper than machining individual pieces of rail to shape, then devising some way of connecting them to a throw rod (see the ME design for an alternative, which isn't ideal, either). These parts must fit with enough slop to allow ease of assembly and movement but be held rigidly enough to maintain proper position, which is a tricky balancing act.

Piled on top of all of the above is how strenuously the manufacturer is supervised in order to maintain minimum tolerances, which by itself can introduce all kinds of additional errors, since the Chinese are well known to cut as many corners as possible and do the absolute minimum amount of work necessary in order to achieve approval from the buyer (as opposed to manufacture the product to specification). The alternative is to crank up the level of QC, and check more than one out of every Nth switch for accuracy (where N can be quite large), then return the rejects--which will naturally add to the product cost.

So, yeah, precision switches are achievable; affordable is another question, since it's a given that the higher the precision, the higher the costs. Are you ready to shell out $30 for a guaranteed 100% NMRA-compliant switch? I was looking to manufacture Z scale track; the deeper I dug into the process, the less inclined I was to pursue the project, and eventually dropped it. Believe me, I'd much rather manufacture locomotives, as much of a different kind of headache as they are.

[Kisatchie]

When I compare an Atlas #7 and an ME #6 side by side, it appears to me that the ME turnout's... ...have the over-center spring so they're immediately operational until you get around to installing whatever you'll use to remotely align them.

You mean you can use the turnouts straight out of the package??? You can snap the turnout one way or the other??? and the train can go straight or left/right as the case may be? You don't have to rig up something to throw the turnout???


Hmm... it's not hard to
amaze Kiz...

[DKS]

You mean you can use the turnouts straight out of the package??? You can snap the turnout one way or the other??? and the train can go straight or left/right as the case may be? You don't have to rig up something to throw the turnout???

Yes, Virginia, the ME switches are just like Peco switches. You can use them right out of the box, although it's not recommended--throwing the switches by pushing on the points causes strain on the throw bar, which will fail prematurely. This applies to both Pecos and MEs.