You said it...

for me, cheaper purchase price. I have installed 30 turnouts already and that's just in the first two towns. Thats three hundred bucks saved. The turnouts are high quality, DCC friendly and using the finger flick method changes the route. The only down side of the ME tour outs is you are limited to a number 6. They are making addition turnouts for yard latters and also a new right and left pre made crossover. My choice is ME.       John

ME for Me

I use ME exclusively on my Layout. It is more prototypically accurate than Peco and with the addition of Tam Valley Frog Juicers they work absolutely great. Another reason I prefer them is a good amount of my rolling stock has narrower Code 88 wheels. These more prototypically looking wheels tend to pick the frogs of other brands.

Tim G.

ME too!

Although Peco turnouts are cheaper for me (being in the UK!), I also have ME turnouts in the yards, and prefer them, both from looks and convenience, i.e.: less work needed to get them up and running.

hmmm...

I may have to look at Micro Engineering for my next layout.

The Peco code 83 are based on

The Peco code 83 are based on north American track design while the code 100 or British type track.

That said, $10 less per turnout is major when building a layout so while I was considering Peco, ME sounds like the best choice.

don't forget the cost fo the flextrack

I see Peco Code 83 flex in packs of 25 online for around $120 to $128 including shipping.
This is around $5 per piece including shipping.

I see ME packs of for around $36 plus shipping.
This is $6 per piece plus shipping.

This is a significant cost to consider too.

prices for turnouts

Yankee Dabbler has outstanding prices on Peco track.

Their Code83 #6 turnouts are listed at $25 to $26.
http://www.yankeedabbler.com/.sc/ms/sch/ee?search=peco+code+83&go.x=0&go.y=0

cheaper, availability...

Are you

talking strictly HO track here.  I am contemplating a switch to N scale that I will talk about in another post.  Just curious if these comments hold there as well.

@Bill...

I use atlas code 83 flex track with the ME turnouts, they play well together. I bought the atlas 25 pack on eBay for $4.70 per stick and shipping was included. One other thing I like about the ME turnouts is the extra details that come with each turnout. A non-functioning ground throw, extra ties for head blocks which can be mounted on either side of the throw bar and a detailing kit for the closer rails. Also the over center spring can be easily removed if you want to use a manual or electric switch machine.         John

 "I am contemplating a switch

I think the differences are greater in N scale. If you start a new thread you'll probably get more helpful input for N scale....DaveB 

My Take

I've used a number of ME code 83 turnouts, along with some code 70.  The current DCC-friendly versions are pretty good.  They require minimal tuneup to operate smoothly.  I've avoided Peco partly due to cost, and also because of tie thickness.  Most of my layout uses ME or Shinohara flex track, which have ties significantly thinner than Peco.  I don't have to address vertical misalignment at rail joints if I use track with readily compatible ties.

I don't recommend mixing track brands

I don't recommend mixing track brands - when you look at the very different end profiles of code 83 track from various vendors, you can see why (this is from my Run like a Dream: Trackwork book):

Atlas code 83 track actually has the same railhead width and rail base width as their code 100 track - you can see why they thought this was a good idea - but it makes code 83 track that doesn't play well at all with any other vendor's turnouts. From this you can also see there's tie thickness differences.

You can get things to stay properly aligned on the inside railhead when mixing vendors by shiming things and carefully soldering the rail joints. If you prefer to leave rail joints unsoldered every so often to alleviate expansion / contraction like I do, then its far easier to stick with one vendor's track for everything.

In my case, I use ME track and while I handlay my turnouts (poor man's jig method), I use ME rail when I do. If you're using ME flextrack, then ME turnouts are your best choice. If you're using Atlas flex track, then stick with Atlas turnouts - or if you handlay turnouts, then canibalize rail from Atlas flex track so it matches. 

You will have fewer headaches and things are more reliable if you do stick with a single vendor for your trackwork and match rail source for any handlaid track components.

Thoughts

nothing here I guess

I like ME especially their

I like ME especially their code 55 HO scale track, but I never had luck with their turnouts in regards to avoiding wheel drop. I use RE turnouts where turnouts are visible on my layout and Peco code 83 turnouts in staging areas and hidden areas.

I also like the look of ME track in regards to the small spikes.

Some examples of my experiments with ME track.

ME vs Peco

Good discussion! I've got HO turnouts by ME, Peco (Streamline Electrofrog), Shinohara (older, non-Walthers), and a Fast Tracks turnout made at an NMRA "Modeling with the Masters" clinic. I've been comparing these side-by-side to settle on what I want to use on my layout.

Someone commented earlier that ME and Shinohara have significantly thinner ties than Peco. Perhaps they were looking at the older Peco code 100 track/turnouts? Peco's Streamline code 83 series (e.g., SL-E8382) have ties very close to the same thickness as Fast Tracks Quicksticks and are really only slightly thicker than ME turnout ties (barely noticable). The Peco ties are closer to scale 7" thick. Transitioning from one brand to the other could easily be handled with a business card as a shim.

Here's a table of approximate average tie thicknesses I measured with a digital caliper (disclaimer: this is not even close to Bureau of Standards protocols).

Shinohara: 0.057"

ME: 0.075"

Peco: 0.078"

Fast Tracks Quicksticks: 0.0825-0.084"

It appears that Peco and Fast Tracks ties are closer to "full profile" thickness (prototype = 7" thick or HO scale 0.081")) vs Shinohara and ME ties being thinner.

I'm really leaning towards using ME and Peco turnouts because I prefer the finger-flicking (over-center) throwbar design (simplicity, overall lower cost (no switch machine needed), and not too visually intrusive and out-of-scale). I want to have #8 turnouts on my mainline and #6s everywhere else. So, will use ME #6s but need the #8s from someone else. I wish ME would begin manufacturing #8s. I may resort to Peco #8s or one of the other alternatives above. Although they are really good quality, a couple things I don't like about Peco Streamline turnouts are:

1. The two headblock ties are noticeably wider than the others (headblocks are about a scale 14" wide vs the 9" standard tie width).

2. The point rails appear to be stamped metal rather than extruded/solid rail. 

I hope this info is helpful.

Greg K

Joe, That's a great close-up

Joe,

That's a great close-up comparison shot of the ends of the track shown.  The ME and Peco rail profile sure looks the best out of the lot.  The Atlas code 83 has a really thick railhead there - some of my Atlas I've looked at didn't look that thick so apparently it varies.  Really the think I didn't like about my Atlas code 83 is the top of the rail didn't look any thinner than the top of the Atlas code 100 - sure, the code 83 was shorter as it should be but when viewed from above, it didn't really look finer as it should have.  Oh well, you get what you pay for.

I hope to be in a house with more layout space in a few years and I'll definitely be looking at ME and Peco at that point, although I'll be saving and re-using some of my current Walthers, Shinohara and Atlas turnouts and track there as well because money doesn't grow on tree's as they say!

Cheers, Jim

That's a great close-up

You can say that again!  ME's profile is the closest to real rail. What surprised me is how unlike real rail Atlas' track is. 

What surprised me is unlike

In Joe's photo - for sure the profile looks very unlike real rail.  That said, I don't think all of Atlas code 93 looks that bad.  I've got quite a bit and I've looked at the end profile on many pieces and most of it didn't look that bad, so I'm guessing Atlas track varies a good deal.  Most of my Atlas track is laid, but I have a few pieces I'll look at when I get the chance; I don't remember them looking that horrible.

The Looks

Jim, you have to remember the 4-6 rule. When you look at art close up is not as good as watching it 6 ft away. Same thing with our layout. We need to see the over-all aspect of the scenery. The closer we get the less attractive it is. I just can't remember seeing a layout and looked at the track to find out which brand it is.

I have quite a bit of ME

I have quite a bit of ME track, but was thinking of switching to PECO because of it's availability. Now that I've read your comments I think I'll stick with ME track. I have a good local vendor who discounts everything I order 10-20%. Thanks for your experience, your comments and pictures.

Atlas code 83

I have always found that in my area of residence the Atlas product is more easily available at a very good price. Even when Atlas was having problems I could find it at a good price. I have also been able to find previous owned Atlas code 83 that I could strip for turnout material for my "Fast Tracks" jugs. Best reasons I could think of to use Atlas. Best reason for my choice and yours might be different.

Wayne

I use both.

I use both and a good suggestion is try both and decide for yourself.  I use ME flex track (at the time it was cheaper than Peco) and mainly use Peco turnouts.  One reason is Peco makes #8 turnouts which I use on crossovers on my double track mainline. 

I do like the Peco #6 better than ME since they seem a little more robust and some of my ME ones required filing down the frog some which I think has since been corrected. One installed they both operate very well.

The Peco turnouts (and flex track I guess) have thicker ties than ME but I got around this by taping the top of the Peco turnouts to a block of wood and then carefully sand down the ties to match the ME ones. Did this to at least 20 Peco turnouts and all work great with ME track. The rail profile is exactly the same for Peco and ME and the ME rail joiners work great for both,

Atlas/Peco

Someone mentioned mixing Atlas flex 83 w/Peco 83 flex/etc:

From the FWIW dept:

I have some Atlas flex, and a LOT of Peco flex and switches, and the foot of the rail is finer on the Peco. Thus, using ME rail joiners on Peco is easy-peasy. Not so using ME rail joiners on the Atlas 83 track. Can be a bit of a booger to get the ME joiner onto the Atlas.

Just an observation.

Andre