I'm using Atlas code 55 N-scale so my choices are #5, #7 and #10. I had my yard laid out with #7's and realized I could still meet my capacity requirements with #10. In general, I'm a believer in bigger is better and always use the biggest that will fit.
I have been thinking that because I'm using #10's on the mainline, #10's in the yard would not provide any contrast between the yard and the mainline. I might even use code 40 track in the yard.
What would you do? If #10's fit, would you use them or use #7's to represent the different standards of construction used in yards vs mainline?
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 would go with the #7s simply because they are the right size for a yard switch. Your #10s is more of a high speed main line switch. The #5s should be used in industrial areas.
Larry
Conductor.
Summerset Ry.
"Stay Alert, Don't get hurt Safety First!"
With few exceptions, yard turnouts will be smaller frog numbers. The larger frog numbers take up more room before you can revert to parallel ladders again. They are for higher speeds, something one doesn't need, or want, in a yard.
carl425use #7's to represent the different standards of construction used in yards vs mainline?
That sounds like a good idea ...
Layout Design GalleryLayout Design Special Interest Group
Mainline turnouts tend to be number 20 or higher in the real world. 10's would be very appropriate for a yard in terms of the prototype.
In terms of modeling, IMO you'd be wasting space to use the 10's in the yard.
On my layout, all switches (except for a couple) are/will be number 6, mainline and yards. The higher mainline ballast profile and rail weight serve to contrast the yards and sidings from the mainline. Turnouts being the same size doesn't look funny at all to me.
Mark P.
Website: http://www.thecbandqinwyoming.comVideos: https://www.youtube.com/user/mabrunton
Sometimes you see 8’s especially in Hump yards
10’s for yards.
Interesting to note, Railroads east of the Mississippi and Canada use even numbers (8,10,12) and west of the Mississippi use 7,9,11). All railroads use 15’s and 20’s. 15’s are good for 35mph, and a 20 can support 45mph.
Sometimes you see 24’s (such as BNSF transcon). Amtrak uses 32.75’s for Acela
in Europe you can find 60’s and 80’s.
Thanks for the responses.
Based on the first 3 replies, I went back to Google Maps and looked at the yard I'm modeling. The yard turnouts are significantly shorter than the crossovers on the main. I think I'll go with 7's. I'll probably go even further and use 5's on the tracks at the coal loaders.
I selected Atlas #7s for my N scale stuff for one reason, it's the biggest turnout you can get for the lowest price! Atlas 7s and 5s are the same price, but everything bigger is more money. So there is one more reason to use 7s over 10s, it cost less money per turnout, and turnout money does add up when building yards!
I personally don't think you should use any #5s, especially if your modeling the modern era, as longer equipment doesn't exactly look or run good over such small turnouts.
Regards, Isaac
I model my railroad and you model yours! I model my way and you model yours!
In his excellent Kalmbach book on freight yards, which I highly recommend (out of print for reasons I cannot fathom), Andy Sperandeo observes that years ago many track planners tried to squeeze more space by using #4s or #5s for yards -- so you see published track plans with those sizes -- but that he felt #6 was a practical minimum. There are ways to use larger turnouts yet still conserve space and Sperandeo goes into those ideas in some detail. Curves after the frog, pinwheel ladders, ideas like that. Get the book.
One observation is that while on most layouts a #10 is a high speed turnout, that is still a sharp corner on the prototype.
Another observation is that while #10 for mainline crossovers and such and #7 for yards makes visual sense in separating the two situations, as a practical matter in the yard you spent more time shoving, and shoving long cuts of cars, which in turn tends to create more derailment possibilities than you typically see on a mainline. So a case can be made for reversing the visual priority and using #10s in the yard and #7s on the main - particularly if you have ignored Jim Kelly's advise and still have truck-mounted couplers instead of all body mounted.
Dave Nelson
I would NOT suggest #10's. Especially if you are actually going to switch and classify cars on the leads. A #10 switch is twice as long as a #5 switch, that means the lead is twice as long. Assume 1.5" track centers, a #10 lead is about 15 inches per track. In a 6 track yard that means to go from trk 1 to trk 6 and back to trk 1 while switching means the switch engine has to travel 180" or about 15 feet That reeeeaaaaaaalllllly slows down the switching. A friend put #8 switches in a switching lead on an HO layout, it looked great but switching took forever.
Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com
Hey Carl-
I haven't seen any mention of yard track spacing in any of the posts (yours or others'), or how you plan to lay out crossovers or ladders, or if there will be any crossovers or ladders. You got any dimensions in mind? Sketch?
I seem to recall that ME offers a particular line of shortened turnouts to help constrain ladder length and angle. I don't know the particulars or if they'd be any help in your situation, but I do know that although larger numbers look better, larger numbers make things bigger in a hurry.
Good luck.
Robert
PS EDIT Hang on, Dave provided some dimensions while I was typing.
LINK to SNSR Blog
I used No. 5 switches in my last yard in HO and they worked fine, with 62 foot LPG tankers and 72 foot centerbeams.
Disclaimer: This post may contain humor, sarcasm, and/or flatulence.
Michael Mornard
Bringing the North Woods to South Dakota!
ROBERT PETRICKI haven't seen any mention of yard track spacing in any of the posts (yours or others'), or how you plan to lay out crossovers or ladders, or if there will be any crossovers or ladders. You got any dimensions in mind? Sketch? I seem to recall that ME offers a particular line of shortened turnouts to help constrain ladder length and angle. I don't know the particulars or if they'd be any help in your situation, but I do know that although larger numbers look better, larger numbers make things bigger in a hurry.
Track centers are at 1.25" in my plan - yard and mainline. I would post the plan, but I have yet to decide on an image hosting site after getting screwed by photobucket. If you PM me an email address, I'll send it to you. Let me know if you want XtrackCAD of pdf.
In XtrackCAD, the #10's meet perfectly with 1.25" centers. In 3rdPlanit, they require 1 5/16". I'll trim if necessary.
As for the ME ladder components, they're only available in HO. I'm in N.
Bigger is not a problem. The yard is only 5 tracks and I do lose capacity when I redrew it with #10's, but the capacity is still acceptable.
dehusmanEspecially if you are actually going to switch and classify cars on the leads.
I'm modeling the minor yard in Eckman, WV. It's easy to find in google maps. I'm also in the modern era. What classification still happens in the 21st century certainly wouldn't be done at Eckman. No trains originate or terminate there. The yard is only used to support the coal traffic in and out of the mines/loaders in the region. I've included 3 of them on the layout. They are the only industries. All non-coal traffic is run through - mostly unit trains of grain, ethanol, autos or double stacks. Occasionally a mixed freight will run through.