Atlas Turnouts


N

NP2626

Guest
All of the turnouts; but, one on my layout are Atlas #4 or # 6 turnouts. Over time I have noticed that some will develop poor continuity to the point rails. Not easily repaired; but, repairable. A bigger fault (in my opinion) is the fact that as locomotives and rolling stock cross the frog, they fall into the depths of the frogs, between the point where the wheel leaves the rail where it forms a V and where they come back up onto the closure rails. I'm wondering if this is caused by the depth of the old flanges on the wheels, previous to the Recommended Practice RP-25 and Standard S-4.2. Wheel flanges used to be deeper than they are now and I wonder if Atlas never changed the depth of clearance for flanges in the frog? Every car and locomotive (Diesels or Steam) makes a jerk when they cross a frog! I haven't measured the difference in flange depth to frog depth and certainly can do this with my calipers.

Have any of you attempted to remedy this issue by putting a shim in the fog's flange way? If you power your frogs, I'm thinking you would want to use a material that conducts electricity to shim up the hole? Or, have we just chalked this up to another short coming of Atlas Turnouts? I find this jerkiness very noticeable when doing slow speed switching moves.

I've never even heard anyone else mention this situation! Is Atlas still manufacturing frogs where this is still an issue.

See you next Friday and have a wonderful Thanksgiving!
 
I have a ton of Atlas turnouts and will be replacing them as I get the money. I shouda bit the bullet and got ANYTHING else for turnouts. They are cheap for a reason! They suck.
 
Many Atlas frogs are a tad too high. Some modelers file them down. I add a "V" shaped shim made from .015 Evergreen styrene to remedy the situation. Easier for me than filing. I have never had a continuity problem though; but I only run four and six axle diesels with all-wheel pickup. I do have 110+ Atlas turnouts.

Willie
 
Last edited by a moderator:
They are "cheap and cheerful" but yeah, to some degree you do get what you pay for. I've been using Atlas code 100 and code 83 turnouts for years due to budgetary constraints and with a little tuning they generally get the job done. BTW, even the more expensive Shinohara or Walthers (made by Shinohara) turnouts loose continuity as the bronze contacts are not always reliable.

As for "pothole" effect, I noticed this on my code 100 #6 Atlas turnouts over 20 years ago because the gap is fairly large at the frog. I have definitely seen this discussed before on forums a number of times and more recently I have read that some put shims in to reduce the drop or minimize it. I have not done this and probably won't as my current layout probably has about 1 or 1 1/2 years left before I plan on moving and tearing it down. If I can afford it, I'll probably try to go with Peco code 83 turnouts on the next layout but they are nearly double the price.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm wondering if this is caused by the depth of the old flanges on the wheels, previous to the Recommended Practice RP-25 and Standard S-4.2. Wheel flanges used to be deeper than they are now and I wonder if Atlas never changed the depth of clearance for flanges in the frog? Every car and locomotive (Diesels or Steam) makes a jerk when they cross a frog! I haven't measured the difference in flange depth to frog depth and certainly can do this with my calipers.
Click to expand...

Unless you are using Atlas Brass Code 100 switches, this is not the case. As Willie already stated, the frogs sit a hair too high. Poor continuity, is not limited to Atlas, BTW. I have issues with Shinohara (Walthers), and Micro Engineering, and have even had issues with PECO switches in that regard.

FWIW: All commercially available switches require some care and maintenance, regardless of brand. Same goes for locomotive power trains.
 
I have nearly all Atlas Snap switches on my layout. My problem is not continuity, but shorts at the frog. I also have this same problem with the couple of Peco turnouts I have.
 
I recently bought 19 Walthers #6 turnouts to replace all the Atlas turnouts in my sorting yard. I've had it with the poor design of the Atlas turnouts, especially the pot metal frog that ya can't solder to.
 
Before I laid down any of my atlas custom line #6 turnouts .. I went through them, based on information and recommended modifications that I found on the 'net . tightening up the point rivets, adding jumper wires between stock and point rails, checking frog height, and adding shim material in frog bottom grooves as necessary ..and they have been trouble free to date, about three years or so .. no issues after doing some recommended prep work and my frogs have been left un-powered
 
KBO2

Per your "My problem is not continuity, but shorts at the frog," I had that problem too a couple of years ago with a particular diesel engine. The solution for me was to borrow my wife's clear fingernail polish. I put a little on the tops and inside sides of the metal rails in the frog area (a little "bled" over onto the plastic part of the frog top and sides; didn't hurt anything) about 1/4 inch long, let it cure for ten minutes, then did it again. Never had a problem since, and I've run the "offending diesel" over that spot at least 100 times. Hope this helps some.

DougC
 
Due to the current weather conditions and weather predictions here in Minnesota of recent, the wife and I cut short our planned activities for this week and returned home when the opportunity arose. We got the Lefsa done and visited the children and that was the most important points of the trip!

I was wondering about the quality of other turnout manufacturer's products, thanks for this information! I had figured that Atlas turnouts where probably as good as anyone else's. I have many of my turnouts with electrically powered frogs and never felt it necessary to solder to the frog, when the small brass connector was screwed to the frog and the other end soldered to the frog powering wire.

A quick study of a few of my turnouts on my railroad showed that the frogs are not standing proud of the surrounding rails adjoining them. In fact I found the frogs to be level. So filing down the frogs would seem to induce a "Falling into a Bigger Pothole" effect. Furthers study showed that the depth from the top of the frog's rails to the bottom of the center of the frog, drops down to between .046 and .050 inches. A study of flange depths on wheels showed that the flanges on the wheels I inspected where between .030 and .035 inches deep. My Varney "Docksider"; or, "Little Joe" does not display an RP-25 shape. The flanges are much more sharp than an RP-25 wheel. However, the flange depth of this locomotive is only .035 inches. So, I've blown my theory on flange depth being greater on older locomotives completely "Out of the Water". Subtracting .030 flange depth from a .050 depth of the frog, leaves a shim needing to be be .020 thick. I will make up a .020 thick flange and study if this is the right thickness.

I didn't just now determine that my locos and cars where falling into a "Pothole". This was something I've noticed since I started my layout 28 years ago! I guess I haven't been on forums enough that I have ever seen this topic come up. That is has isn't surprising, to me.

It maybe because now that I operate at scale speeds I find this discrepancy much more noticeable!
 
And here I am replacing my ME switches with Atlas Customline.
No problems with the Atlas, the ME tend to have their points come loose, and rails break free from the end spikes.
I'll use the survivors in my mill area but I have a stack of broken turnouts I'll use for scenery bits.
 
And here I am replacing my ME switches with Atlas Customline.
Click to expand...

Not for nothing, I never had any major problems with Atlas Custom Line #6, dating back to when I used code 100. The current Atlas code 83, custom line #4 tooling seems to have alignment issues, but otherwise other than loss of electrical contact, no real problems. I went whole hog into Micro Engineering, when I started working with code 70, a few years back. Code 70 looks great, but is a PIA to work with for obvious reasons. The ME switches, well so far, so good.
 
DougC said:
KBO2

Per your "My problem is not continuity, but shorts at the frog," I had that problem too a couple of years ago with a particular diesel engine. The solution for me was to borrow my wife's clear fingernail polish. I put a little on the tops and inside sides of the metal rails in the frog area (a little "bled" over onto the plastic part of the frog top and sides; didn't hurt anything) about 1/4 inch long, let it cure for ten minutes, then did it again. Never had a problem since, and I've run the "offending diesel" over that spot at least 100 times. Hope this helps some.

DougC
Click to expand...

Must be our wives use different quality nail polish. I've put many layers on many of my turn outs. Always seems to wear off. I've actually now turned to cutting them up a bit. The metal peices are just too close. Cutting the rail about where the nail polish stops seems to cure it; drastic as it may sound.

But we're hijacking the thread. Back on topic!! :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.



Back
Top