Based on all the replies there seems to be agreement that a Peco or Shinohara is a more prefect turnout than an Atlas, but there may be other ways to look at it. We have 39 turnouts, all Atlas, #4 and #6. Space required some tight moves and #4's were the only way in some spots. The oldest 4 are about 30 years old and are connected to old brass track on fiber ties (really old!). In three decades and a total at this point of 39 units, we have only replaced 1turnout, because it would not close correctly, and one solenoid that just failed.
We still have one spot where a Bachmann Spectrum K4s will derail in reverse as it goes through the turnout, but I did not replace that one because a Mantua 0-4-0, an MDC 0-6-0, an AHM 4-8-2, and a Bowser 2-10-0 with the very long tender, and all diesels have no problem there. At one other spot a Bachmann Spectrum FM 15-44 diesel must move very slowly throught the turnout to stay on track, but no other locos, steam or diesel have any problem. The fault may be Atlas or more likely Bach. Spectrum. But, we just do not seem to have any pervasive Atlas problem. Another consideration is cost. I don't know the total cost of Peco or Shinohara plus motor plus remote, but I suspect that the Atlas cost is lower: multiply it by 39 and the railroad budget may look better. Dave