Skip to main content

Replies sorted oldest to newest


I make a code 125, no6 turnout.

I'd make it to the new NMRA Standards adjusted since the reduction in wheel width from .172 to .145

Insulated frog for power routing.

I'd also put the details in the package for the guys that want to add them and the guys that just don't care could leave them off. Almost like the San Juan details that Joe G used to dress up an Atlas turnout. By having the "Modeler" install them you could have a much less complicated mold for the turnout.
If recovering costs as early as possible is the primary concern then I'd do it exactly like Old Pullman does it. Except I'd answer the phone. Rail and wood ties are cheap. With jigs, switch building goes fairly fast. No detail items.

Injection molding is prohibitively expensive and would definitely require a very very large number of sales to just break even on the investment but detail can be built in. I once priced having a mold made for some switches and the quote was anywhere from $8000- $15000 a mold. If you could design and machine your own mold, you'd be ahead of the game big time in money. The actual plastic injection part is cheap. An alternative method for molds is to not use hot injection molding but rather resin casting. You can make your own molds for cheap but it takes longer to make each one.

The other option that I could think of would be to build a very accurate and highly detailed switch that would be a true scale model but the price would be very high and the only people that would probably pay for them would probably just build their own anyways.

In terms of having only 1 size switch in L/R, you wouldn't want it to be a curved switch or a Y. You also wouldn't want a very long switch. I'd say a #4 or a #6. As for which rail code, if you designed it well it wouldn't be hard to use either code 125 or 148.
Last edited by fredswain
Originally posted by Old Goat:
Any interest in an O scale turnout kit similar to those offered by Central Valley Model Works to those How Ordinary modelers?


The nice thing about their switches is that there is already tie plate detail on the tie mold. It is very easy to line the rail and and know it is in gauge. You can also curve those turnouts a bit when you build them so you aren't necessarily stuck with a straight one. I think many people are intimidated by switch building. When you have a kit that guarantees you are in gauge and doesn't require you to file your own points or build your own frog, they are actually quite quick and easy to build.
Originally posted by CBQer:
#6 matched to Atlas track AND #6 for 125.


This would be ideal, but to do it would require 4 dies (or 8, if a turnout has to be made in 2 sections) , as already pointed out, a big up front cost (all assuming "RTR" product).

IMHO, to stand a part from the already available code 148 choice for Flex / turnouts, I'd think #6's in Code 125, to match ME code 125 flex track, would be the way to go.
I think it’s up to individual interest. For example, if one considers himself a scale modeler then he may pursue that to the extent of replicating correct rail poundage for his chosen prototype and era. Then it’s a matter of knowing what’s correct for your chosen prototype and using it. If you’re generally content with having readily available track without it needing to be per prototype practice then Code 148 is probably the most prevalent in use these days. I use Code 125 as it suits my branch line operation perfectly and that's important to me. I have always felt a smaller rail size lends an illusion of realism larger rail does not...that’s strictly my own perception however.

Originally posted by Tom Tee:
What features would it have?

What features would it not have?

I would like real wood ties if scaled, more details, sturdy, possibly weathered....
I would prefer it would be RTR for command control circuits. I like to throw it manually even when it's powered, so a ground throw but powered for out of reach ones.

It should not have some huge switch machine in view. It should not have to be modified before use. I don't mind adding power drops to attached tracks. I just expect it not to create shorts out of the box! Joe
( and yes I need code 148)
Tom - I admire your industriousness. One can, apparently. buy switches or turnouts in O Scale. Even I, with no interest in switching things at all, have a curved turnout, a 3-way turnout, and a lust for a crossover - just to hear the clickety clack.

If one wants high end switches, Lou Cross has all the castings - and sells rail to match. I think you have to be really in to track as a model to go that far, but I have his castings in place on my test loop, and they are not difficult to use.

I suspect that if your goal is to make money, the place to aim is to pick up where MTH is leaving off - a good grade of 2-rail track and switches that lays as easily as their 3-rail track. The market there is, in my opinion, as good as the 3-rail scale market. They are all dying for the realism of 2-rail without the hassles - and hassles are what you get when you strive for absolute scale in O Scale trackwork.

Originally posted by CBQer:
dear flanger,

A turnout is a switch. So we don't confuse a switch (electrical) we tend to call it a turnout as one turns off the main to a different track.


Dick...why did you think I needed to know that? I was responding to a posting my someone else who asked the question and I gave them a source for a description that's all. Don't try confusing me before coffee....LOL

I started getting back on this topic in another thread so instead of polluting it I thought I'd pull this one back up.

I find it interesting that the overall sentiment seems to be for a #6 switch with code 148 rail yet on ebay the old Roco/Atlas switches that pop up always seem to sell. They were a much tighter radius and had a wider tie spacing that is prototypical yet there still seems to be a decent following for them. Why is that? Is it just because they can be had fairly cheaply or is it because there is a greater demand for tighter radius switches than it would seem? Those switches aren't even as detailed as the current ones which so many people dislike. In many ways they could be considered the O scale equivalent of the code 100 HO switches.
I believe the attraction of the #6 Atlas-Roco is that they are a true #6 switch and anything can go through a #6. The tie spacing is hideous but obviously acceptable. The #5 currently available has a smaller radius and can't handle some of the longer wheelbase locos. I am using the Atlas-Roco #6 in a hidden staging yard where looks don't matter but the radius of the switch does.

I believe that what you are calling Atlas-Roco, Atlas had nothing to do with those two piece #6 switches. I believe they were just plain Roco. IIRC Roco also had a line of cars, which had nothing to do with Atlas. Roco also made a line of track, which is larger r than Atlas 24"r.

I am probably incorrect, but I do not believe so.

What people call Atlas-Roco, were products made in Austria by Roco, under contract.

Ed Reutling
Originally posted by reutling:

I believe that what you are calling Atlas-Roco, Atlas had nothing to do with those two piece #6 switches. I believe they were just plain Roco.


IIRC Roco also had a line of cars, which had nothing to do with Atlas.

Not correct; Roco has never, regrettably, manufactured 0 ga cars other than the "Atlas" ones. [ Strictly speaking, they have manufactured 0 scale cars: the ex-Fama 0m narrow ga cars ].

Roco also made a line of track, which is larger r than Atlas 24"r.

Other than the #6's, the only non-Atlas-origin 0 ga track Roco has manufactured are 3 ft sections of flex track with the same sleeper spacing as the #6's; this is not the same tie section as the Atlas 3 ft section. Roco did catalogue the Atlas 24" radius [ as "radius 609.6 mm" ] curves and full straight sections under their own p/n's in Europe.

The larger radius track referred to may be the Rivarossi sectional curves, which were about a 32 inch radius, and used a much smaller rail section, perhaps about code 100.

Ed Reutling

I hope that clarifies things.

Best regards, SZ
Originally posted by fredswain:
I'm not sure what radius this is but it's decently tight. The box does say Atlas and made in Austria.

The radius of the turnout is 24"; if you add the 'makeup' curved section [ shown in your referenced photo ] you have the same "footprint" as the Atlas [ mfg by Roco ] 24" curved section.

Roco #6's came in orange/blue/white Roco boxes.

Best rgds, SZ

Edited to add: If you do an oogle search for 'Roco #6 turnout ' you will quickly find an 'bay listing with good photographs of both the turnouts and their [ most recent production ] box.
I understand your comment, but flex track is what we have gotten used to. Just because it's ubiquitous, doesn't mean that it can't be replaced. Plastic ties remain plastic ties - although though they can be made to look much better with significant work. What if the turnouts were available along with easy to lay track that has wooden ties and tie plates on each rail?

Trackage is one of the most important aspects of a model railroad. I also think it's one area where we settle for a great deal less than we should. I want to see track that can be put down without the tedious effort of handlaid track, but looks as good as hand laid track once it's down - maybe better. I don't think it would be cheap, but I do think it's possible. I'm curious what people on the forum think what such a track system would be worth and how much they would be for a turnout or three feet of track.

OGR Publishing, Inc., 1310 Eastside Centre Ct, Suite 6, Mountain Home, AR 72653
800-980-OGRR (6477)

Link copied to your clipboard.