In redesigning a yard throat, I'm finding that some significant trimming of the Walthers code 83 turnouts is required to fit the space I'm working with. I'm thinking that as long as I maintain room to fit half a rail joiner between the trimmed end of the rail and the frog I should be OK. Is this correct? Is it possible to trim them too short and make them perform poorly?
I have the right to remain silent. By posting here I have given up that right and accept that anything I say can and will be used as evidence to critique me.
I trim my turnouts where necessary to make them fit or create a yard with track center spacing that I need, and have had no problems due to this. Ya gotta do what you gotta do!
Rio Grande. The Action Road - Focus 1977-1983
Sounds like you're trimming almost all of the rail off of the diverging end. If that's the case, then you have to be very careful not to artifically change the turnout/frog from say a 6 to a 2. That is you have to be careful to not have kinks in the joints nor have curves that are too tight.
Half a rail joiner does not sound like good practice to me, so I would solder the joint.
Richard
Train ModelerHalf a rail joiner does not sound like good practice to me, so I would solder the joint.
The other half would be on the adjoining rail. I just mention that as a theoretical maximum, I don't expect to have to trim that close.
carl425 Train Modeler Half a rail joiner does not sound like good practice to me, so I would solder the joint.
Train Modeler Half a rail joiner does not sound like good practice to me, so I would solder the joint.
Rob Spangler
if you look carefully at a turnout, you should see that it is relatively straight thru the frog. When I hand lay turnouts, i try keep things straight for about an 1" on either end of the frog point. Hopefully you're not cutting the diverging rails too short.
greg - Philadelphia & Reading / Reading
I have hacked up turnouts in several ways, but casting aside common sense is not one of them. The path through and beyond the frog must never be compromised to the extent that longer rolling stock, especially those with rigid wheelbases in the four-coupled and higher steamer category, cannot run through the resultant curvatures imparted by the hacking job. As problematic, though, is a potential S-curve as you attempt to force the through route back to parallel with other ladder tracks, just as an example. Truck-mounted couplers will reduce the impact of this problem somewhat, but unfortunately that type of mounting invites all sorts of other problems.
Where the ties of turnouts in a ladder impinge on one another, I do trim the ties to fit. I also trim the headblocks of the throwbars if absolutely necessary, and even the throwbars; new holes can always be drilled in those.
I have also cut the plastic webbing between the ties under W/S curved turnouts to get them to widen out another 0.5 frog number higher than their advertised rating. I had to do this to several curved #7.5 turnouts on my second layout.
I have used half-joiners extensively on my current build, and even quarter joiners. It's a wee bit of a pain and a challenge to get those quarter-joiners onto two rail ends and get them soldered to actually do what they were designed to do as an entire unit, but here is a photo of such a joint on my helix's curved tracks.
-Crandell
I was able to cut my Walthers #5 turnouts pretty tightly to do a compound ladder, so you should have no troubles.
However, I recommend you try Peco Code 83 #5s. They are considerably shorter than Walthers; they are the size of the NMRA standard #5. I discovered them afterwards, and could have laid my yard with them with no trimming of turnouts at all.
Disclaimer: This post may contain humor, sarcasm, and/or flatulence.
Michael Mornard
Bringing the North Woods to South Dakota!
selectorThe path through and beyond the frog must never be compromised to the extent that longer rolling stock, especially those with rigid wheelbases in the four-coupled and higher steamer category, cannot run through the resultant curvatures imparted by the hacking job. As problematic, though, is a potential S-curve as you attempt to force the through route back to parallel with other ladder tracks, just as an example.
I will not make any modifications that would compromise my standards for radius or S-curves.
gregc i try keep things straight for about an 1" on either end of the frog point
I might have a hard time following that advice since my main problem is the #7 curved turnout. The inner leg fits the curve in the main line at the point where I need it, but the outside leg curves way too far.
Another problem is where the ladder turnouts are #5R's. After the last R, I need a L that faces the other direction to create a switchback. Untrimmed, these turnouts would force the track center spacing on the last 2 tracks out to 2 3/4". What I want is 2 1/8". Crossovers don't work either without trimming.
I used Atlas Customline turnouts last time. They seemed to fit together better when making what I consider to be "normal" track arrangements. ...of course they had no curved turnouts.
Depending on what you run, s-curves may or may not be a problem.
When trimming a turnout I prefer to just trim the straight track but not the diverging route, because it could change the n° of the turnout and the spacing between parallel track.
You can trim the turnout just against the point and trim on the other turnout the frog on the straight track, so close the point of the following turnout are just close to the frog of the first.
The late John Allen used this method on is GD line and some pictures of his yard in Great Divide attest of the extremely trimming he has made on some turnout to win space and finaly adding some more turnout on the ladder.
Marc_MagnusThe late John Allen used this method on is GD line and some pictures of his yard in Great Divide attest of the extremely trimming he has made on some turnout to win space and finaly adding some more turnout on the ladder.
John Allen handlaid his track, so the turnouts in such locations could be scratchbuilt to fit.
Marc_Magnus When trimming a turnout I prefer to just trim the straight track but not the diverging route, because it could change the n° of the turnout and the spacing between parallel track.
Changing the spacing between parallel tracks is the primary reason for trimming. Otherwise you couldn't make a crossover without spreading the tracks too far apart - with Walthers code 83 anyway.
The frog is a relatively solid piece in the turnout -- if you're changing the number, then you've pretty well mangled the entire thing...
-Dan
Builder of Bowser steam! Railimages Site