Atlas track plan issue?
- Thread starter jasonelki
- Start date
jasonelki
Milwaukee Roader
ugh, that curved piece of track came with my Bachman set, it is where the power pack connects. If I overlay an Atlas 18" radius piece over the top, it is essentially the same piece. So, just to try and keep the distracting non Atlas pieces off the layout, I just inserted an Atlas 18" in the left photo of my most recent post. Results are the same.
Does anyone have any ideas regarding the snap switch diverging angle, look at the right photo in my last post?
Jim at Atlas said they have not changed the diverging angle of these switches. But, since I have a manual snap switch which is about 15 yrs old, the diverging angles are not the same when I overlay old switch vs. new.
Does anyone have any ideas regarding the snap switch diverging angle, look at the right photo in my last post?
Jim at Atlas said they have not changed the diverging angle of these switches. But, since I have a manual snap switch which is about 15 yrs old, the diverging angles are not the same when I overlay old switch vs. new.
Put It All Together
Jason,
If you are shooting for a 100% correct geometrical layout you are not going to get it. That inner curve is a bit tighter then the 18" radius. I would say it's closer to 17". Like I said earlier you have to use the play that is in the track to make it work. When I first started working on it I had the same impression. The inner curve looked like it was going to run into the outer curve.
It might sound trivial or down right stupid on my part but also keep in mind that there are two types of 1/3 tracks. One is straight and one is curved. I did grab the wrong piece on occasion and had to back out.
I would suggest to fit it dry without fastening the track.
Why did you have to cut up the flex into so many pieces?
Hdk
Jason,
If you are shooting for a 100% correct geometrical layout you are not going to get it. That inner curve is a bit tighter then the 18" radius. I would say it's closer to 17". Like I said earlier you have to use the play that is in the track to make it work. When I first started working on it I had the same impression. The inner curve looked like it was going to run into the outer curve.
It might sound trivial or down right stupid on my part but also keep in mind that there are two types of 1/3 tracks. One is straight and one is curved. I did grab the wrong piece on occasion and had to back out.
I would suggest to fit it dry without fastening the track.
Why did you have to cut up the flex into so many pieces?
Hdk
jasonelki
Milwaukee Roader
Hadek, how much play did you have between pieces? 2 or 3 mm's one way or the other? I wouldn't imagine everything would fit tight and snug, but it would have to be closer than what I originally had. The inner and outer loop overlay each other on the left. Your not going to fix that with a little lag here and there. Play in the track, especially on corners, sounds like a lot of derailments.
Isn't the 1/3 straight the same as a 3" piece?
I had to cut so many pieces of flex to offset the switch angles. Every switch required at least one piece of customized flex to correct the angle. On your photo your switches keep the outer and inner loops essentially parallel. If you look at the photos in my second post on page 2 you'll see what I mean, mine are not parallel, or even close.
Just for giggles, try to overlay an 18" rad. curve over your switch(including the 1/3" curve that comes with it) how do they line up? I'll add the photo of my 18" term. joiner over the new remote switch for comparison.
Still thinking, unless someone shows me otherwise, that the switch angles are not the same. Bottom line here is my old manual snap has a different diverging angle than my new remote switch, but the guy from Atlas says they are the same. I think I'm going to end up shipping him the pieces as I am way past frustrated with the whole thing.
Isn't the 1/3 straight the same as a 3" piece?
I had to cut so many pieces of flex to offset the switch angles. Every switch required at least one piece of customized flex to correct the angle. On your photo your switches keep the outer and inner loops essentially parallel. If you look at the photos in my second post on page 2 you'll see what I mean, mine are not parallel, or even close.
Just for giggles, try to overlay an 18" rad. curve over your switch(including the 1/3" curve that comes with it) how do they line up? I'll add the photo of my 18" term. joiner over the new remote switch for comparison.
Still thinking, unless someone shows me otherwise, that the switch angles are not the same. Bottom line here is my old manual snap has a different diverging angle than my new remote switch, but the guy from Atlas says they are the same. I think I'm going to end up shipping him the pieces as I am way past frustrated with the whole thing.
An idea
I would like to suggest that you assemble just the inner loop. Don't do a single piece of the outer loop. Once you have it start with that troubling end.
Don't use a single piece that is not Atlas - if possible. I tried the inner loop on RTS it comes together without a problem.
Please snap a picture once you have it assembled and post it here.
What do you think?
Hdk
I would like to suggest that you assemble just the inner loop. Don't do a single piece of the outer loop. Once you have it start with that troubling end.
Don't use a single piece that is not Atlas - if possible. I tried the inner loop on RTS it comes together without a problem.
Please snap a picture once you have it assembled and post it here.
What do you think?
Hdk
jasonelki
Milwaukee Roader
Here is a better idea, maybe...
Hadek, try this for me when you get a chance.
Just for giggles, try to overlay an 18" rad. curve over your switch(including the 1/3" curve that comes with it) how do they line up? I'll add the photo of my 18" term. joiner over the new remote switch for comparison.
If your pieces line up and make an 18" radius curve, let me know. Mine do not, which is why I think the switches are messed up. As I've said in previous posts, if I lay the same terminal joiner over my old manual snap switch, they line up perfectly and share the same angle, the new switch, however, does not.
I hope I'm not coming off too short here, but if you could, just overlay your curved terminal joiner over your snap switch to see if its the same angle. If it is the same angle, great, then I know why my layout isn't working out(wrong diverging angle), but if it is offset, similar to mine, then something else is amiss on my end!
I know you guys are trying to help, but at some point I'd like someone to compare an Atlas 18" rad curve over the top of the snap switch to see how it lines up. Just trying to troubleshoot the problem and for me this would be the logical first step!
Thanks for your help!!
Everything I'm using is Atlas track.
Hadek, try this for me when you get a chance.
Just for giggles, try to overlay an 18" rad. curve over your switch(including the 1/3" curve that comes with it) how do they line up? I'll add the photo of my 18" term. joiner over the new remote switch for comparison.
If your pieces line up and make an 18" radius curve, let me know. Mine do not, which is why I think the switches are messed up. As I've said in previous posts, if I lay the same terminal joiner over my old manual snap switch, they line up perfectly and share the same angle, the new switch, however, does not.
I hope I'm not coming off too short here, but if you could, just overlay your curved terminal joiner over your snap switch to see if its the same angle. If it is the same angle, great, then I know why my layout isn't working out(wrong diverging angle), but if it is offset, similar to mine, then something else is amiss on my end!
I know you guys are trying to help, but at some point I'd like someone to compare an Atlas 18" rad curve over the top of the snap switch to see how it lines up.
Just trying to troubleshoot the problem and for me this would be the logical first step!Thanks for your help!!
Everything I'm using is Atlas track.
hamltnblue
Active Member
At this point it's been a month since starting construction of a basic layout and somehow got focused on proving atlas wrong. If you fixed it with some flex, move on to the next phase, ballasting or other scenery. Try not to get frustrated over little things. What Engine/s and rolling stock are you planning to run?
jasonelki
Milwaukee Roader
You've pretty much hit the nail on the head here.
Like I just posted, I do appreciate you guys trying to help out, but it seems like everyone keeps skirting around the main question I've been asking regarding the diverging angle and it not lining up with an 18" radius curve, which it should. I guess I'm still young and hardheaded
You are right, this is definately a little thing, but I'd feel more comfortable using an existing layout for my first, I guess I don't have a lot of confidence with my flex additions!
hamltnblue
Active Member
Over time you'll be confident. It's kind of rewarding knowing that you came up with a fix and that part is all yours and not a copy. As long as the trains run good over it is all that matters.
trailrider
Well-Known Member
Are your Atlas #4 turnouts "Snap Switches" or "Custom Line Mark III or Mark IV"? IIRC, the Snap Switches are 18" radius, whereas the Custom Line #4's are really not quite 18" radius, more like a #4-1/2 or #5. As was suggested, you may need to pick up a length (about 1 meter long) of Atlas Flex track, and a Xuron track cutting snips tool, and maybe some Swiss needle files to smooth the edges of the cuts. You also might want to look at some of the Peco curved turnouts or their #4's, if nothing else works. But that is probably NOT the best solution for you as beginners. Peco also offers a choice of Electro-frog or Insul(ated) frogs on their turnouts. I would recommend the Insulfrogs, as they are similar to the Atlas electrically. Peco turnouts are more expensive, and if you plan to operate with remote control switch machines, the Peco's are a bit more complicated to install correctly, rather than just hooking to the side of the turnout like the Atlas. OTOH, if you are going to operate the turnouts manually, the Peco turnouts have positive springs that hold the points in one position or the other. I would stick with Code 100 throughout your layout. Your rolling stock will operate more reliably and mixing the height of the rails can get complicated.
jasonelki
Milwaukee Roader
Wow, 2 years ago...
To follow up on this, sorry if anyone was waiting for closure Anyway, the old style snap switch that I was using had a different diverging angle than the new style that the plan was based off.
Bottom line I just used a few pieces of flex track and custom fit everything together, seems to work fine. Now I am spending a lot of time detailing all my locomotives, which I find very enjoyable!!
To follow up on this, sorry if anyone was waiting for closure
Anyway, the old style snap switch that I was using had a different diverging angle than the new style that the plan was based off. Bottom line I just used a few pieces of flex track and custom fit everything together, seems to work fine. Now I am spending a lot of time detailing all my locomotives, which I find very enjoyable!!
jasonelki
Milwaukee Roader
It worked out for the best, as things usually do!
That said the layout itself isn't much to look at these days. I was able to construct the double tracks, but the inside remains unfinished, and probably will. After reading the tons of great info on this site I want more than a 4x8. The layout, as is, simply takes up too much valuable walk around space. I may keep the current set up as a middle portion of a larger layout, but I am looking to utilize the 11' x 13' room better, probably on the order of an around the walls layout with some rolling scenery. As it stands I can satisfy my train running fix.
I have a general concept started on paper, but that is about as far as I've got, just doing a bunch of loco detailing, I think looking at the Jerome's switcher roster thread has me hooked...
