First HO Layout Critique

[sailormatlac]

I like this discussion about turnouts! I had anticipated using only Atlas #4s at first. Each brand has their ups and downs of course, but I kept coming back to the Atlas ones mostly due to cost. But I would like to minimize my "re-works" and so I will check out the #5 sizes at the train show this weekend.

Do all of the medium Peco turnouts use code 100 rail?

Matt, what do you mean about the styrene rod on the throwbar of the Pecos? Can you expand on that?

Reinhard, I would have to say that appearance is not going to bother me much at this point. But I can't even make up my mind about lunch, let alone a glued down track plan Thank you for the warning!

Green, I have never had problems operating or running at speed with #4s either. That was a part of why I was planning to use them. Maybe it comes down to the equipment, how the turnout was laid, and the use?

Just like you, I didn't care about the look of track a few years ago. In all honesty, most equipment will run through a #4 and 18" radius... My large 2-10-2 didn't had any problem at all, passenger equipment too... but it doesn't look good and, worst, as stated previously, they make switching moves more tricky and are derailment prone when doing backward switching moves. Saving 5$ for a turnout makes no sense to me if it's not up to the job in the long term. Better invest in good track work and shop them wisely than regret, like Reinhard, a month later. I know, I learned the same hard way and I've got boxes full of Atlas Snap Switch #4 I'd like to get rid of at any cost. It's mainly the chief reason why I'm rebuilding Hedley-Junction Yard from scratch. You know what, going from Snap-Switch #4 to PECO #6 didn't shortened significantly the yard. In fact, it made transitions smoother, thus easier to operate at low speed. And at least, PECO 83 turnouts aren't deformed like Atlas Code 83 which are always bent in some mysterious way... what a worthless brittle piece of junk it is. Their Code 83 #4 are especially awful.

For other code 83 component like crossings and flextrack, I use other brands as suited. I wasn't too much impressed by PECO flextracks which looks good, is quite strong, but is hard to lay in curves without kinks, and surprisingly also on straight parts! Maybe I'm just too dumb, but I prefer Atlas flex which is truly flexible.

IMPROVING A CODE 83 PECO TURNOUT:

About the Code 83 turnout: If you know the PECO Code 100 turnouts well, they have small bulges (or pins) on each side of the throwbar that help to operate them with your fingers. The Code 83 turnouts lack these pins making them hard and frustrating to operate (it was our main concern about them when we decided to redo the track). However, they have a hole on each side of the throwbar where code 100 have the pins. Two weeks ago, I found out I could glue small bits of styrene rod into these holes to replicate the pins of a Code 100 turnout. That way, you get the best of both worlds in term of look and operability. Wish I had pictures of that. Hope I'm clear enough! Looks better than a huge operating switchstand.

@Brakie: I don't know yet which rod diameter is needed. I didn't visit the layotu since 2 weeks and don't have a turnout at home. I only remember I inserted a track nail in it and it fitted when I tested my idea.

BTW, as Brakie said, there's a HUGE difference between Atlas Snap-Switch and Custom Line... On our previous club layout, we found out it was better to go custom line... but too late! Snap Switch is quite curved, made to be a part of a 18" radius curve. Custom Line is a true turnout and works far better and look better too.

The only problem with PECO code 75 is the oversized ties. It looks like they put tiny rails on code 100 trainset quality snap track. I was really disappointed when I ordered some for a project.

Matt