Atlas Code 55 Turnouts...

[strummer]

If I may play the "devil's advocate" for a moment:

 I get it that some may not want to plunk down $15 bucks for a turnout which you then have to "correct", but what about that $50-$100 engine? If indeed almost all locos are "tight" (and they seem to be) isn't having to correct the wheel gauge kind of the same thing as having to fix that turnout? 

I get the sense that most of us like to "tinker", so I guess it just comes with the territory...(?)

In any case, this has (so far) been a most useful and informative thread. Thank you...

Mark in Oregon

[BCR 570]

I did have two turnouts where the points rose a little too high which was fixed quickly using a shim holding the throw-bar down.

May I ask you to expand on exactly how you do this?  Several of my recently-installed turnouts have point rails which go higher when thrown.


Thank you,

Tim

[MichaelWinicki]

May I ask you to expand on exactly how you do this?  Several of my recently-installed turnouts have point rails which go higher when thrown.


Thank you,

Tim

Here you go Tim!

Hopefully Bob doesn't mind me messin with his image...



I just slip a shim or two in place– which is held down by the two ties on each side of the throw-bar.

[ednadolski]

Why they chose to manufacture them using their odd proportions is something I may never know

I'd figure it's just so that they fit neatly into the sectional track plans.

Ed

[John]

I'd figure it's just so that they fit neatly into the sectional track plans.

Ed

Cody confirmed that here a long time ago . they all had to fit into the geometry of the sectional pieces ..

[robert3985]

I'd figure it's just so that they fit neatly into the sectional track plans.

Ed

Ed, seems like I remember that now.  Seems like there should have been a better solution than making hybrid turnouts, then mislabeling them.

Ah well....

Cheerio!
Bob Gilmore

[robert3985]

Here you go Tim!

Hopefully Bob doesn't mind me messin with his image...

Nope...not at all. 

Cheerio!
Bob Gilmore

[mmagliaro]

If I may play the "devil's advocate" for a moment:

 I get it that some may not want to plunk down $15 bucks for a turnout which you then have to "correct", but what about that $50-$100 engine? If indeed almost all locos are "tight" (and they seem to be) isn't having to correct the wheel gauge kind of the same thing as having to fix that turnout? 

I get the sense that most of us like to "tinker", so I guess it just comes with the territory...(?)

In any case, this has (so far) been a most useful and informative thread. Thank you...

Mark in Oregon

No argument from me there.  In fact, it has always been annoying, puzzling, and patience-trying to me that among all the other aspects of our hobby that keep improving, the basic goal of having all the rails and wheels be the correct distance apart remains elusive.

[Sokramiketes]

So what would be a good, manufacturable solution to attach point rails to a throwbar?  Assume you could buy a premade turnout, either a hybrid Atlas/continuous point-closure rail turnout like Mark shows, or even just a skeleton turnout with continuous point rails.  But you want the point rail to pivot on the throwbar, both to reduce the amount of pressure on the throw rod, and also to eliminate the need to resolder a tight joint every so often, as that's a nightmare for manufacturer support (even if it is a quick fix with a soldering iron).

[Lemosteam]

Forgive me for not searching, @Mark W , is there a full thread on this process?  Best idea i'v see so far.

And i have one question.  Is there a reason the third PCB tie is there (nearest the throwbar)?  Wouldn't the new rails deflect easier over the longer span, or were you worried that the rail may tip a little under load?

[Mark W]

So what would be a good, manufacturable solution to attach point rails to a throwbar?

This is the key question.  It's easy to overlook the common conundrum: Cheap - Reliable - Fast; Pick two.

Truth is, the Atlas turnouts are a cheap, fast solution that do work very reliable out of the box.  Yes, they have some shortfalls, but we've already shown there are simple improvements that can be made to make them better.  I'm sure there are ways they could be made perfect out of the box, but then we'd be complaining about the $50 price tag for a single turnout.  As is, I think Atlas found a very good equilibrium between cost and reliability for a mass produced turnout. 

I understand the frustration in re-gauging wheels too, but I categorize that the same instruments. When you spend $80,000 on a Steinway, it still has to be tuned, regularly.
That's not to say I give manufacturers a free pass in this category; so long as the product is designed to work it's best with properly gauged wheels I can accept having to tune minor gauge issues.   

[Mark W]

Forgive me for not searching, @Mark W , is there a full thread on this process?  Best idea i'v see so far.

And i have one question.  Is there a reason the third PCB tie is there (nearest the throwbar)?  Wouldn't the new rails deflect easier over the longer span, or were you worried that the rail may tip a little under load?

This thread is close: Definitive Atlas Code 55 Turnout Guide

The rail from that tie to the frog is the closure rail, which should not move.  On the stock turnout, this is where the pivot happens.  The PBC tie there acts as an anchor for end of the closure rail (or closure portion of the solid rail) to keep them in gauge.  If you notch the rail foot to allow better movement of the points, the notch should be located between that PBC tie and the adjacent plastic tie on the side going toward the points. You'll notice there are no plastic spikes between that PBC tie and the point, where as there are plastic spikes along the closure rail portion up to the frog.

[jdcolombo]

So what would be a good, manufacturable solution to attach point rails to a throwbar?  Assume you could buy a premade turnout, either a hybrid Atlas/continuous point-closure rail turnout like Mark shows, or even just a skeleton turnout with continuous point rails.  But you want the point rail to pivot on the throwbar, both to reduce the amount of pressure on the throw rod, and also to eliminate the need to resolder a tight joint every so often, as that's a nightmare for manufacturer support (even if it is a quick fix with a soldering iron).

A small rivet on a PC-tie (not plastic)-type throwbar?  While rivets do fail, they would permit the point rail to pivot on the throwbar and should be easily incorporated in a manufacturing process.  The PC board substrate (not sure what they are made of) seems a lot more sturdy than plastic and a rivet would be less prone with this than with plastic to wear away it's attachment surface, creating too much play over time.  You'd want a throwbar to be of some dense long-wearing material.  Carbon fiber! 

But the truth is that on my hand-laid #4 turnouts, I simply soldered the points to the PC-tie throwbar.  I thought for sure that the stress on the solder joint from the points (they are very short in a #4) and the pressure of a Tortoise modified with a stiffer wire would require me to resolder these every so often, but I'm now going on 3 years and countless throws (my #4's are in a switching area and has to be thrown several times for switching moves in a typical op session) with no failure.  I used a silver-bearing solder recommended by Bob Gilmore (can't remember the name now off the top of my head, and I'm not in front of my workbench), and a tiny bit of flux to make sure the solder flowed under the entire point rail foot.  Now, it's perfectly possible that I'll have a failure tomorrow, but so far these have been as solid as a rock.  And if a #4 can withstand these stresses, then the stress gets progressively less acute as you go up in size.  Their longevity might also be related to the fact that the points are much closer to the stock rails on my hand-laid #4's than in a typical manufactured turnout, which has a much larger gap between the open point rail and the adjacent stock rail.  They simply don't have far to move (but again, this means paying very close attention to wheel gauge, since if it's off and a wheel hits the open point rail when it shouldn't, you'll have a short) and if you look at prototype switch points, you'll see there isn't a very big gap between the open point rail and the stock rail.  Most manufactured turnouts, in contrast, have very large gaps between the open point rail and the stock rail.  And perhaps closing up the gap to more-prototypical proportions would not be desirable or attainable in a manufacturing scenario.

John C.

[strummer]

This is the key question.  It's easy to overlook the common conundrum: Cheap - Reliable - Fast; Pick two.

Truth is, the Atlas turnouts are a cheap, fast solution that do work very reliable out of the box.  Yes, they have some shortfalls, but we've already shown there are simple improvements that can be made to make them better.  I'm sure there are ways they could be made perfect out of the box, but then we'd be complaining about the $50 price tag for a single turnout.  As is, I think Atlas found a very good equilibrium between cost and reliability for a mass produced turnout. 

I understand the frustration in re-gauging wheels too, but I categorize that the same instruments. When you spend $80,000 on a Steinway, it still has to be tuned, regularly.
That's not to say I give manufacturers a free pass in this category; so long as the product is designed to work it's best with properly gauged wheels I can accept having to tune minor gauge issues.

You make some very valid points; I have several fine guitars, and they do need to be tuned every now and again... 

Mark in Oregon

[strummer]

This thread is close: Definitive Atlas Code 55 Turnout Guide

Wow, that is a great thread...thanks for posting it!

Mark in Oregon