Atlas Code 55 Turnouts...

[C855B]

I dunno Mike, that's a heck of a lot of work for the number of the turnouts you're going to have "convert"...

Actually... there is a good chance it fixes a problem I'm already having to repair or otherwise account for in installation, the plastic throwbar wanting to bend under pressure from the center-pin servo link. This also contributes to points vertical misalignment. When I fix it, it stays fixed, but of course it adds to the total installation debug time. I have a test in front of me here that is very encouraging, especially in the way the solid point rails lay flat on the ties versus flopping around with the cast-in pin hinge. What I've done so far is not time-consuming. It does make for a more attractive geometry, and if the end result improves as much as I believe it will, I'm there.

[MichaelWinicki]

Actually... there is a good chance it fixes a problem I'm already having to repair or otherwise account for in installation, the plastic throwbar wanting to bend under pressure from the center-pin servo link. This also contributes to points vertical misalignment. When I fix it, it stays fixed, but of course it adds to the total installation debug time. I have a test in front of me here that is very encouraging, especially in the way the solid point rails lay flat on the ties versus flopping around with the cast-in pin hinge. What I've done so far is not time-consuming. It does make for a more attractive geometry, and if the end result improves as much as I believe it will, I'm there.

That servo must be putting a lot of pressure on the throw-bar.

[C855B]

Not really. The problem, if you will, is the link is a small bit of bent music wire press-fit into a hole in the center of the throwbar. It's slightly tricky to get that seated during assembly, not pushing "up" on the throwbar while not pushing down so hard it unsnaps the tabs holding the points. Since assembly requires waiting for CA to cure before putting additional pressure on this area of the linkage, I frequently forget to verify if it's seated correctly. We're talking ~0.01" here, so it's not going to jump out at me until I see that one of the points is proud of the stock rail once the servo is calibrated. A non-flexible throwbar fixes that completely.

In so many words if the retrofit point system works as I am seeing so far, I may have a net gain in the whole process.

[OldEastRR]

But jeez, about Atlas switches ...other than for you guys who routinely put power throw motors on your turnouts and isolate and wire each frog separately ... how many others just want to just put in a switch and have it work decently w/o a lot of afterwork and additional equipment? I know I sure as hell do. Now the suggestion to rip out the Atlas stock throw rails and make up new ones? Come on, I want to run trains, not be foreman of a track gang.
I'm not a big fan of switches like these, but I'm not dumping on them. They are the right switches for some guys, just like Pecos are for others and ME for someone elses'. Even old cRapido switches (for DKS). I've used all of those and more (also the old junky Atlas) and that was the only way for me to decide which was best. I caution people who hear a certain brand is best, before you go ahead and order them as all the switches you'll need for your layout-to-be, buy one or two of each brand and performance test them to your way of railroading. This is really one area where "Your mileage may vary" applies.

[jdcolombo]

But jeez, about Atlas switches ...other than for you guys who routinely put power throw motors on your turnouts and isolate and wire each frog separately ... how many others just want to just put in a switch and have it work decently w/o a lot of afterwork and additional equipment? I know I sure as hell do. Now the suggestion to rip out the Atlas stock throw rails and make up new ones? Come on, I want to run trains, not be foreman of a track gang.
I'm not a big fan of switches like these, but I'm not dumping on them. They are the right switches for some guys, just like Pecos are for others and ME for someone elses'. Even old cRapido switches (for DKS). I've used all of those and more (also the old junky Atlas) and that was the only way for me to decide which was best. I caution people who hear a certain brand is best, before you go ahead and order them as all the switches you'll need for your layout-to-be, buy one or two of each brand and performance test them to your way of railroading. This is really one area where "Your mileage may vary" applies.

Well, it all depends on what you're after.  My highest priority when building my layout was absolutely trouble-free, no-derailment operation.  I wanted the local guys who routinely operate on top-end HO layouts to say "Hey, I didn't realize N-scale could operate just as well as HO."  And I got there - that's the comment I hear all the time when a new formerly HO-only operator comes to my layout.

But one of the paths to that kind of reliability are switches that are absolutely in gauge, with sharp points and powered frogs.  The switches must operate perfectly, or the whole layout is an operational bust.  I've made various tweaks to my Atlas Code 55's to get to that point (no, I haven't replaced the point rails in them), but they STILL are not operationally as good as my hand-laid turnouts.  They get the job done, but there is absolutely no question in my mind that if I ever built another layout, I'd do it will all hand-laid turnouts connected to flex track.  And yes, each of my switches has powered frogs; each is operated by a Tortoise that has been adjusted to perfectly throw the points; each has been checked to be absolutely straight, flat, in-gauge and without the points sticking up; each has had the points filed to a knife-edge.  And the result is a zero-derailment layout (except for human error, which happens a LOT ).  I can push a 30-car train through my yard ladder without a single derail - in fact, I can push that 30-car train all the way around the layout and up and down the yard ladder without a derail.

When operation gets this trouble-free, then the rest of the hobby is a joy.  You don't spend time putting things back on the track; wondering why that particular segment of track is a problem.  Instead, you can do useful stuff - work on the scenery, paint and weather some cars/engines.  Put in sound decoders.  Whatever floats your boat.

I get that not everyone is as anal about operational characteristics as I am.  But I've never known anyone who WAS that anal to regret it.

John C.

[draskouasshat]

My issue is this. Im paying for a switch that should properly function right out of the package. Everyone here knows that i tinker with everything, especially steam engines. I would rather spend my time building models that don't exist in n-scale, not rebuild a NEW switch. This is totally unacceptable. Atlas knows the problems and they should be working to redesign how they are built from here on out.

Drasko

[strummer]

...or "What am I doing wrong here?" 

I had been using Unitrack and enjoying how well it worked, but could never get past the looks, so I took it up and replaced it with Atlas code 55. I replaced all the wheels on my rolling stock with small flanges, so now the only loco I have that doesn't like this too much is my Kato Mike. Except...

...on every turnout, if I run (any) train into the turnout, the loco wheels will lift and the loco tries to take the turnout route, instead of staying on the mainline. This happens with every engine I have, and on every turnout, both #5s and 7s.

I must be missing something here, but cannot pin down the problem. Suggestions?

Mark in Oregon

When I started this discussion, I thought the problem I was having was due to the track; as it turns out, it was really a question of bringing the wheels of my locos in more precise gauge so they are compatible with this finer track.  The only defense I have  is that I'd never had any issues while using the Unitrack, so I didn't realize my fleet of engines was not "spot on".

I have now managed to get through about half of my diesels and each of them is now capable of running through these Atlas turnouts in either direction, and any (reasonable) speed, with no adjustments made to the track. My steam locos are another matter; I know I'm not up to that task... 

In any case, it seems this thread has led to lots of interesting comments and suggestions; perhaps I should have titled it "Compatibility With Code 55", or something like that...

Mark in Oregon

[strummer]

The newer low-friction tucks are IMO not any more difficult to take apart or to put back together.

In fact, I think in some ways the newer design is easier; after you pull the side frames, there is still a "sub-frame" holding all the gears and wheel sets in place. On the older Kato design, the frames are separate pieces, so they can be a bit "floppy" to deal with.

I know you all know this already (  ), but just in case anyone out there is new to this...heck, I've been modeling for 40+ years, but this whole exercise in re-gauging locos in N scale is a new thing for me.

Now on to my first 6-axle engine... 

Mark in Oregon

[strummer]

...I prefer  to take the the trucks apart and move the wheels out equally on both sides of the axle tube (to keep the gear in its intended location)...

While working on my SD35, I found another good reason for doing that: the first truck I did went back together OK, but after I put together the second one, I was getting some serious binding. Turns out that by adjusting only one side, you run the risk of forcing the axle gear into contact with the nearest clip which holds the side frames in place. After I figured out what was happening, it was an easy fix to make some space between those gears and the clips. It runs really well (again!) but now also glides through the code 55 turnouts as intended... 

Mark in Oregon

[robert3985]

Since the relationship between engines/rolling stock and track is quite intimate, discussions of solutions for both is pertinent to this thread, although this IS TRW and thread-drift is to be expected! 

One obvious, but often overlooked duty is to make sure our motive power is properly gauged.  I hand-lay the vast majority of my turnouts to "tight" NMRA specs, so wheelsets have to be perfectly gauged for them to roll smoothly through my turnouts.  I learned this lesson several decades ago, and now, I check and correct the gauge on every piece of motive power I have before it goes on the layout.  What I find interesting is that my several Kato FEF's were the only engines I've ever purchased that didn't need a gauge adjustment.  They were all spot-on.

When a guest wants to come and run his own trains on my layout, they are often surprised that I tell them they need to check the gauge on their motive power, just assuming it's correct because it runs okay through their RTR turnouts.  Most RTR turnouts sacrifice smoothness for compatibility with out-of-gauge wheelsets, but for some of us, the sight of our trains gliding as smooth as silk through our trackwork is a big part of the reward of being a model railroader, so we roll our own turnouts, and make sure our motive power is in-gauge.

Regarding modifying Atlas turnouts:

Yes, great success.  Just get rid of those point and closure rails all together and replace them with solid rails using PCB Ties and you'll have the perfect turnout, both in looks and operation, at 1/10th the time it takes to hand-lay a full turnout from scratch...

It's pretty easy to modify Atlas and ME turnouts if you can solder and use a file, and this method will definitely make Atlas turnouts more reliable.  However, a bit more work is involved to make them "perfect...in looks" as all Atlas turnouts closure rails are much too short from a scaled-down prototype standpoint, which makes them almost a whole number smaller as far as effective departure radius is concerned.  If I remember correctly, my measurements comparing an Atlas #7 to a correctly proportioned ME #6 made the Atlas #7 really at about a #6.3 turnout as far as effective departure radius is concerned. 

I've posted these before, but they pertain to this thread, so here goes!

Photo (1) - Incorrectly proportioned Atlas #7 turnout (bottom) compared to correctly proportioned ME #6 (top):


Photo (2) - Chart of Prototype Turnouts Showing Difference in Length Between Actual #7 and #6 Turnouts:


As you can plainly see, the differences in length between properly proportioned #7's and #6's is obvious, as opposed to Atlas' C55 #7 which is much shorter than it would be if prototypically proportioned.

For me, the odd Atlas turnout proportions jump out and slap me across my face now that I know that they're not "perfect" in appearance.  However, I am sure that their #10's and #7's still function reliably with a bit of work at the bench before installing them, but truthfully, for the price, you really should expect them to work perfectly without having to make new closure points and rails...and be correctly proportioned.

I can make a C55 turnout in a little less than an hour using the Fast Tracks protocol (without the jigs & fixtures), and I doubt very much that anybody can modify an Atlas turnout with PCB ties, and new closure points and rails in 6 minutes...which is 1/10th the time it takes me to make one.  I'm gonna guess that modifying the Atlas turnout is going to take about half an hour if you're really good at it.   If you already have the skills to file the point toes without any problem and solder in the PCB replacement ties, then you're halfway to being able to make a properly proportioned, entire turnout...for just a little bit more time, and a whole lot less money.

Just sayin' 

Cheerio,
Bob Gilmore
 

[strummer]

Thank you Bob.

The Atlas closure rails are longer, but the ME #6 (which has 9 ties from end to end on its closure rails) is more correct than the Atlas #7 which has 12 ties in that same area? The guard rails on the Atlas are longer as well, and in my mind, "look" better.

I'm guessing the fact that both turnouts are (basically) the same length, although one is a "6" and one is a "7" is where the "problem" lies?

Sorry for being slow on the uptake here...please bear with me!   

Mark in Oregon

[MichaelWinicki]

For me, the odd Atlas turnout proportions jump out and slap me across my face now that I know that they're not "perfect" in appearance.  However, I am sure that their #10's and #7's still function reliably with a bit of work at the bench before installing them, but truthfully, for the price, you really should expect them to work perfectly without having to make new closure points and rails...and be correctly proportioned.

I can make a C55 turnout in a little less than an hour using the Fast Tracks protocol (without the jigs & fixtures), and I doubt very much that anybody can modify an Atlas turnout with PCB ties, and new closure points and rails in 6 minutes...which is 1/10th the time it takes me to make one.  I'm gonna guess that modifying the Atlas turnout is going to take about half an hour if you're really good at it.   If you already have the skills to file the point toes without any problem and solder in the PCB replacement ties, then you're halfway to being able to make a properly proportioned, entire turnout...for just a little bit more time, and a whole lot less money.

I agree with that Bob.  If you're going to drop $14 on a turnout and have to tear it apart, spend time and more money to make it work in your situation– Then hand laying should be a strong consideration.

[robert3985]

Thank you Bob.

The Atlas closure rails are longer, but the ME #6 (which has 9 ties from end to end on its closure rails) is more correct than the Atlas #7 which has 12 ties in that same area? The guard rails on the Atlas are longer as well, and in my mind, "look" better.

I'm guessing the fact that both turnouts are (basically) the same length, although one is a "6" and one is a "7" is where the "problem" lies?

Sorry for being slow on the uptake here...please bear with me!   

Mark in Oregon

The "problem" is that Atlas is saying its product is a #7 and it is NOT, but it is a hybrid turnout with a #7 frog, but with the effective diverging radius of a #6.3 turnout (approximately).  So, it is neither a #7, nor a #6.3.

The other "straight" Atlas turnouts (#5 and #10) have the same "problem".

However, from a functional standpoint for model trains, only the Atlas #5 runs into problems with its small diverging radius, which is the equivalent of a #4.3, and trains that would run on a correctly proportioned #5 sometimes have problems with the #4.3 equivalent Atlas #5.

As you can plainly see in the diagram below the photo of the two model turnouts, a "true"#7 is significantly longer than a #6.  A properly proportioned #7 has an effective diverging radius (in N-scale) of 27", while #6's have an effective diverging radius of 23", so if Atlas #7's are really a #6.3, you're not getting what you think you're paying for, with the effective diverging radii of both ME #6's and Atlas #7's being virtually the same.

If you don't care that the #7 or the #10 (as advertised by Atlas) turnouts are significantly shorter than equivalent turnouts with prototypical proportions, and that your trains are not going to look as good as you thought they would running through them because of the significantly smaller diverging radii as opposed to correctly proportioned turnouts, then it isn't going to be a "problem" for you from an appearance standpoint.

But, for me, and others in my N-scale model railroading group here in Utah, it is.

I am fully aware that many model railroaders are not as nit-picky about their trackwork as I am, but I am also aware that many are, and the incorrectly proportioned Atlas turnouts will turn them off.  It's a point of information that N-scale model railroaders should be aware of to make their choice of track a well-informed choice that conforms to their differing priorities.

Cheerio!
Bob Gilmore

[strummer]

Thanks for the clarification...I think I get it now. 

Mark in Oregon

[robert3985]

Thanks for the clarification...I think I get it now. 

Mark in Oregon

Lol! Okay.  Truth is, it may not be a problem for you.  But, the fact is that Atlas is marketing their three "straight" turnouts as something they're not.  Why they chose to manufacture them using their odd proportions is something I may never know, kinda like wondering why Peco chose to use their old toy-like C80 proportions on their new C55 N-scale track, or why ME only offers a #6 turnout in N-scale.

Since I roll my own turnouts, I don't worry very much about why RTR turnouts are the way they are since their decisions haven't affected me very much.

That said, if a major track manufacturer decides to manufacture a decent variety of North American prototype N-scale trackage with at least ME's quality in C55 or preferably a code that truly represents heavy rail mainline wooden-tied trackage, I'll be the first in line with my wallet to buy a shirt-load of appropriate turnouts, and flex.  THAT decision would affect me a lot! 

But, I ain't holdin' my breath.   

Cheerio!
Bob Gilmore