Atlas Code 80 turnouts now have powered frogs

[mu26aeh]

Not sure if this was covered previously or not, but stopped by the shop today to grab a few things and noticed new runs of code 80 Atlas turnouts now have a powered frog like the code 55 turnouts to, with the lug off to the side of the ties.  No more plastic frogs.  They also added what is labeled as a #8 turnout to the code 80 lineup, size wise compares to the #10 in the code 55 lineup.

[peteski]

Interesting.
I wonder if those frogs are similar to c55 ones where the frog is white metal casting that is copper plated, then copper is plated with what looks like nickel silver.  The plating eventually wears off (from abrasive track cleaning) exposing the pink copper color.

[robert3985]

Here's a photo from the Atlas homepage.

Photo (1) - Atlas80 #8 Turnout:



Looks like this turnout is out-of-proportion in the same way as all of the Atlas55 turnouts...that means, much too short between the point of the frog and the point rail toes, making the effective diverging radius much smaller than a properly proportioned turnout.

The frog appears to be built the same way that Atlas55 turnouts' frogs are, also with similar electrical circuitry built in, and similar mystery-metal cast plated closure point rails.

Cheerio!
Bob Gilmore

[rodsup9000]

Looks like this turnout is out-of-proportion in the same way as all of the Atlas55 turnouts...that means, much too short between the point of the frog and the point rail toes, making the effective diverging radius much smaller than a properly proportioned turnout.

Cheerio!
Bob Gilmore

You do realize why they do this, don't you. 90% of the modelers they cater to are not like us. Most have small spaces and like to run large equipment. Atlas make it a bit shorter so it's easier for those people to use them.

[robert3985]

You do realize why they do this, don't you. 90% of the modelers they cater to are not like us. Most have small spaces and like to run large equipment. Atlas make it a bit shorter so it's easier for those people to use them.

You're wrong.  They do it to make these compatible with their sectional track geometry. 

They're not catering to their beloved customers by designing their turnouts to a non-prototypical configuration, they are saving money by not necessitating the extra cost of manufacturing short adapter sectional track pieces for each of their turnouts.

Cheerio!
Bob Gilmore

[wcfn100]

Looks like this turnout is out-of-proportion in the same way as all of the Atlas55 turnouts...that means, much too short between the point of the frog and the point rail toes, making the effective diverging radius much smaller than a properly proportioned turnout.

All N scale turnouts have to make some sort of compromise between the point and the frog.

Jason

[JeffB]

Interesting.
I wonder if those frogs are similar to c55 ones where the frog is white metal casting that is copper plated, then copper is plated with what looks like nickel silver.  The plating eventually wears off (from abrasive track cleaning) exposing the pink copper color.

I'll second your "interesting" comment Peteski...  About time Atlas did something like this.  I just wish they'd made the frog from something other than that rough "pot metal" they use for the C55 turnouts. 

Other than cost, which is probably considerate, I'm at a loss as to why they just don't use solid NS castings.  Same with Micro Engineering.  I realize that NS, being a copper alloy shrinks some when cast, but you can compensate for that with the mold or original master.

Should be some of a benefit to those that want to use the Atlas C80 track components at least...  I know an HOn30 modeler that used this N scale track for an extensive HOn30 layout and metal/powered frogs would benefit his operation considerably (if he took the time to wire the frogs at least).

As far as comments on geometry...  I don't think any of the Atlas N scale or even the ME N scale turnouts have the correct geometry for the diverging route.  The diverging closure rail (point to frog) looks more like just an angled piece of rail, rather than a curved one.  Or at the least, it's a much larger radius than it should be for a given frog number.

JB

[peteski]

It is puzzling why they go through casting and double plating process instead just casting the from from a proper material.

I'm pretty sure that white metal has much lower melting temperature than nickel silver (thus probably is easier to cast) and it is probably cheaper. But then the 2 step plating also costs money, so not sure what the advantage is.

The answer could be as simple as some engineer in China just decided that this was the way to go. Maybe he has friends in a plating business.   

[robert3985]

All N scale turnouts have to make some sort of compromise between the point and the frog.

Jason

All N-scale turnouts have to make compromises, but not in the rail lengths, nor the overall geometry. 

Take a look at the Micro Engineering #6...which has scale tie placement, correct length between point of the frog and the closure rail toes...meaning the effective diverging radius is correct.

Photo (1) - Direct Comparison Between Micro Engineering #6 and A.R.E.A Drawing of Prototype #6


Although ME chose to model a #6 with longer closure point rails, prototypically these were built with varying closure point rail lengths.  U.P. had two main sizes, those being 16' 6" and 24'...calling them "Split Point Switches".

On my turnout builds, I follow  A.R.E.A. drawings and U.P. Common Standard drawings for turnouts, meaning the closure point rails are scale length...and I do nothing to accomplish that other than file, measure, cut, solder.

Photo (2) Scale length, Tri-Planed Closure Point Rails on one of my #6 handlaid turnouts:



The most major compromise that N-scale turnouts have to make is the flange clearances are wider than prototypical because of the NMRA Standard flange width.  Everything else, including overall frog length, guardrail length, wing rail lengths, closure point rail length, angle of the frog, closure point rail planing...everything can quite easily be the correct lengths, correct angles and correct shapes, with wider clearances for N-scale's fat flanges.

So, no...compromising on turnout geometry isn't necessary on N-scale turnouts other than flange clearances.

Cheerio!!!
Bob Gilmore

[wcfn100]

Take a look at the Micro Engineering #6...which has scale tie placement, correct length between point of the frog and the closure rail toes...meaning the effective diverging radius is correct.

The ME switch may have the correct diverging radius, but it's at the expense of some other dimension or angle.   You simply can't add 6' to the switch rails and keep the correct switch point to frog point dimension without some other geometry being off.

Looks like this turnout is out-of-proportion in the same way as all of the Atlas55 turnouts...that means, much too short between the point of the frog and the point rail toes,

Can't the same be said about the ME turnout compared to the AREA drawing or what are you calling the "toes"?

Jason

[robert3985]

The ME switch may have the correct diverging radius, but it's at the expense of some other dimension or angle.   You simply can't add 6' to the switch rails and keep the correct switch point to frog point dimension without some other geometry being off.

Why don't you tell me what angle or dimension has been compromised in the ME #6 turnout??  Take a look at my post again.  On the photo of the ME Code55 #6 turnout, see anything other than flange clearance width & closure point rail length that's different than the A.R.E.A. drawing above it??  There may be differences if I took my digital calipers out and measured my one and only ME #6, but the differences are minuscule...nothing as compared to the shortening that Atlas does with their turnouts.

Can't the same be said about the ME turnout compared to the AREA drawing or what are you calling the "toes"?

Take another look at my post.  I don't see any noticeable shortening of the length between the closure point rail TOES (the correct terminology by the way) and the point of the frog when compared to the A.R.E.A. drawing...so what are  you talking about????  No, the "same" cannot be said of the ME turnout...because the ME turnout is VERY CLOSE to being 100% correctly proportioned in nearly every aspect...unlike any of Atlas55 or Atlas80 turnouts.

Jason

Just to emphasize the fact that Atlas55 and Atlas80 turnouts are waaaay incorrectly proportioned, here's a photo of a direct comparison between an ME #6 and an Atlas55 #7 turnout...

Photo (1) - Turnout Comparo between ME Code55 #6 and Atlas55 #7  Notice they're almost the same length:


Here's an A.R.E.A. Drawing of a real #7 and a real #6...

Photo (2) - A.R.E.A. Drawing Comparing #7 and #6 turnouts. Notice how much longer a real #7 is than a real #6:


Arguing that the ME #6 has anywhere NEAR the same proportional problems that Atlas55 and Atlas80 turnouts have is ignoring the facts. 

I've presented the facts.  Now, let's see what you have that supports your opinions.

Cheerio!
Bob Gilmore