Which ground throw is best?

I use the high level stands for my mainline tracks and the ground throws for secondary trackage.

Peco turnouts work the best, but they have some significant visual drawbacks. Of the two products you mentioned, the "traditional" ground throw is, by far, the more robust of the two. If you are a solo operator, you should not have a problem with either one. If you operate with a group however, the high level stands are subject to take a beating and get damaged. We have a couple of guys in our group that you could put in a room with an anvil and a corncob, and they would manage to break the anvil.

I use the Caboose Industries 218S and it is for both HO and N. Smaller than the normal throws and looks better. I have some high stands and have broken off the handle, so switched to the 218S's. No they are not to scale, but neither are my fingers. Chuck Callaghan snipped-for-privacy@virginia.edu

You are better off using a turnout with a locking spring built in such as Peco. Then there is no need for using 0 scale size hand controls on a H0 layout. Also makes hand operation easier.

The problem with using Peco turnouts is that they are highly unprototypical and, while they do work well, they have many visual deficiencies. Take a photo of a Peco code 100 turnout and compare to a photo of an actual full sized railway turnout. you will see in an instant that they do not look the same. This is also true for the code

75 line. The new code 83 looks somewhat better, but only for North American modelers.

The painting of the sides of the weight is a nice idea. I do tend to prefer the Railway Engineering highlevel stands as they don't seem to be the operating mechanism for a manual turnout and they naturally provide the indication by the flag on the top of the stand as to which way the turnout is thrown to.

-- Why isn't there an Ozone Hole at the NORTH Pole?

Alas, the problem with them is that they are ~too~ prototypical, hence too delicate to avoid being damaged by ham-fisted, fumble-fingered operators. If you operate solo you're OK, but if you have "the group" over to operate, you have to build to the lowest common denominator.

unprototypical and,

Get real. Peco looks better than most of the popular RTR track on the market, Altlas for example. None of the RTR brands of track is a good representation of the prototype. Peco track is more reliable than most of its competitors.

Get real. You just pretty much echoed what I said. Why the "get real"?

Peco is probably as good as you are going to get in the RTR world, but they are still not going to look the same as well built prototypically scaled turnouts. The problem with using Peco turnouts is that they are highly unprototypical and,while they do work well, they have many visual deficiencies. Take a photo of a Peco code 100 turnout and compare to a photo of an actual full sized railway turnout. You will see in an instant that they do not look the same. This is also true for the code 75 line. The new code 83 looks somewhat better, but only for North American modelers. If you are satisfied with "good enough" then Pecos are good enough.

CH

Hi Mark,

DIY?

I'm planning on making at least some of the design that's presented in the September 2004 Model Railroader.

Cheers,

Colin

Because Peco H0 is one of the better looking brands of RTR turnout.

I totally agree. If you build your track to finescale standards, you also get superior running and still can use RTR models without modification.

The Peco code 75 track is a reasonable version of UK flat bottom track, considering the coarse track standard used. The code 75 track fasteners are overscale ( still much better than Atlas), and the sleepers should not be square to the straight on the turnouts (most UK practice). I would not use any thing sharper than the Peco large radius turnout in this range. All code

83 is over scale for most prototypes, not much better than code 100.

You don't know much about UK track do you Terry? Keith Make friends in the hobby. Visit Garratt photos for the big steam lovers.

I'd go with the sprung low-level one, if I had to. The very best ground throw ever made commercially was first made by Model Engineering Works back in the late 50's, then by Alexander Scale Models for many years. Looked good, operated totally reliably, was sprung in both directions. Unfortunately, no longer made. :-(

Do consider slow, quiet and powerful powered machines by Tortise, Switchmaster, Scale Shops, RotoMotor and others - some less than $7 in kit form!

Bruce

It seemed clear enough to me! Just misleading, you said--

UK practice is not. of course, monolithic, but since the 1920s at least very much the majority of turnouts have been built with sleepers square to the straight rail, contrary to your assertion. Just check a reasonable selection of photographs or refer to published material such as the various editions of 'British Railway Track' from the Permanent Way Institution. Keith

Make friends in the hobby. Visit Garratt photos for the big steam lovers.

Of course I would expect track in the UK to be of both sleeper variations. Different eras and companies resulted in different turnout designs, however I was obviously referring to flat bottom rail, that is what Peco track is and the most common UK sleeper placement practice for flat bottom rail is as I stated. If the UK is like my local prototype NSW, they may now be installing turnouts with sleepers square to the straight rail which would make Peco even closer to some modern prototypes if this is happening.

If you are referring to flat bottom rail only then that falls entirely into the period since the 1920s, by far the most common practice is for the timbers to be square to the straight track, NOT as you stated. Get some books and look at the pictures!

Keith

Make friends in the hobby. Visit Garratt photos for the big steam lovers.