As the original poster I apologize for stirring up such a controversy. I only wanted some advice re: recommended practices and got far more information than I needed or can use.
Thanks for the replies though.
Llenroc fan As the original poster I apologize for stirring up such a controversy. I only wanted some advice re: recommended practices and got far more information than I needed or can use. Thanks for the replies though.
No need to apologize. Your questions aren't to blame. Unfortunately there are vagaries to some forum topics.
SeeYou190I am just getting very worn-down from someone who seems to have an endless need to agitate the discussions. Sorry Douglas. I am going to tap-out of this discussion thread. -Kevin
Sorry Douglas. I am going to tap-out of this discussion thread. -Kevin
I think you have the right idea. I found this interesting and may relate:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/experimentations/201908/what-makes-internet-trolls-tick
Rio Grande. The Action Road - Focus 1977-1983
Lastspikemike Doughless While the yard ladder would be compressed relative to the ladder made with Custom Line frog numbered switches, the snap switch's curved diverging route would make the S curve shown in RioGrande's post more severe. As they would if they were used to make a crossover. The OP is already committed to using curved diverging route small radius Peco turnouts. The truism about layouts is achieving the largest minimum radius you can, whenever you can. Using numbered frog turnouts makes this harder to achieve precisely because the frog angles are straight. My intent is to redirect this thread back to answering the original question. There is no value to recommending changing to numbered frog turnouts. If you did try this in the same space you would make the S curve problem worse than if you used snapswitch geometry. It is useful to consider using numbered frog or larger radius turnouts instead of inserting a straight connector of any length. The Peco turnout being used is already larger radius than the largest radius snapswitch. The question is can the S curve be moderated by inserting a straight section between the mainline turnout and the first opposite hand yard turnout in the ladder. Using a numbered frog turnout or a larger radius Peco medium turnout for the mainline, and if there's room for that first ladder turnout also, may produce a better easing of the S curve than simply inserting a straight between the tighter radius Peco small radius turnouts. That was the direction I was trying to take this discussion.
Doughless While the yard ladder would be compressed relative to the ladder made with Custom Line frog numbered switches, the snap switch's curved diverging route would make the S curve shown in RioGrande's post more severe. As they would if they were used to make a crossover.
While the yard ladder would be compressed relative to the ladder made with Custom Line frog numbered switches, the snap switch's curved diverging route would make the S curve shown in RioGrande's post more severe.
As they would if they were used to make a crossover.
The OP is already committed to using curved diverging route small radius Peco turnouts. The truism about layouts is achieving the largest minimum radius you can, whenever you can.
Using numbered frog turnouts makes this harder to achieve precisely because the frog angles are straight.
My intent is to redirect this thread back to answering the original question. There is no value to recommending changing to numbered frog turnouts. If you did try this in the same space you would make the S curve problem worse than if you used snapswitch geometry. It is useful to consider using numbered frog or larger radius turnouts instead of inserting a straight connector of any length.
The Peco turnout being used is already larger radius than the largest radius snapswitch.
The question is can the S curve be moderated by inserting a straight section between the mainline turnout and the first opposite hand yard turnout in the ladder. Using a numbered frog turnout or a larger radius Peco medium turnout for the mainline, and if there's room for that first ladder turnout also, may produce a better easing of the S curve than simply inserting a straight between the tighter radius Peco small radius turnouts.
That was the direction I was trying to take this discussion.
No big deal here Mike. I don't get offended on forums since I think most folks try to be educational.
I wasn't adhering to the topic of solving the OP's issue per se. I was commenting on the notion that implied there was a good comparison between Atlas Snap Switches and Atlas frog numbered switches when they are not really comparable.
Sure, a person can compare anything to anything if they want, but I think there is confusion when comparing the radius of Snap Switches to turnouts with frog numbers because I think that when building yard ladders, passing sidings, and crossovers, the geometry of the turnout is just as important as the sharpness of the diverging angle.
That was my only point, and I think the point some others were making.
- Douglas
LastspikemikeOf interest to the secondary discussion about frog numbered v snap switches I noticed today that ME ladder yard sets of #5 turnouts use curved diverging routes for each of the four different styles of turnout but then they fit straight #5 frogs to all of them. The straight diverging route #5a normal sized turnout uses the exact same frog.
I assume ME designed the ladder system to be compatible with the other turnout.
The ladder system is specifically designed to be a yard ladder, which is different than Atlas or Peco where the different turnouts have different purposes and we try to build a ladder from them. Its really hard to mix in Snap Switches with Custom Line switches or think of them as any way being substitutable. Something to keep in mind when planning a layout.
I don't think there is an issue with building a ladder out of curved diverging route turnouts. It's how the first turnout of the "main" is handled. If that one is curved and immediately heads into a snap switch in the opposite direction, that S curve can be a big problem. If there is a sufficient straight track in between, then no problem. And if the switcher locos are short enough, no problem.
In terms of appearance, those snap switches are pretty sharp, and I would want only 0-4-0, 0-6-0's or diesel switchers to use a yard made with that sharp of turnouts, but that's a matter of personal taste. I'm thinking like a wharf scene or something really compact is where I would use them, not open in countryside.
As a contemporary modeler, I've acquired some SD40-2s to use as roadswitchers. Its a very long locomotive by my standards. Since road switchers also might use a yard ladder from time to time, I'm making my ladder out of #8 Peco turnouts. That makes for a long ladder. Fortunately, its not much of a yard. Three tracks.
I think #6 frogs are very suitable for just about anything on our layouts. Its just that long locos diverge using the compact Peco #6's a little more abruptly than the smoother and longer Atlas #6's. But I've got the space for the 8's so I'll use them.
My Bachmann Spectrum USRA Heavy 4-8-2's will not reliably go through an Atlas Custom Line #4, which is really a straight frog #4.5 by actual frog angle.
Never tried them through a #5 from anybody.
My only turnouts smaller than Custom Line #6's are in industrial areas were only small switchers go, surely not in a main yard were mainline power has to arrive and depart.
I don't own any big modern diesels, but I would see them as a problem with #4's and #5's as well.
My roster is 50% steam, most of it medium sized, 2-8-2's, 2-8-0's, 4-8-2's and few 4-8-4's and small driver 2-10-2's. Even my big steam is pretty wheel base friendly, 2-8-8-0's, 2-6-6-2's, 2-6-6-4's.
But turnouts less than #6 are not visually or functionally desirable even for my conservative roster (no UP big boys, or 2-12-4's, etc).
My largest diesels are SD9's, not much of an issue.
Sheldon
Lastspikemike I'm not sure this is posted anywhere else on this forum but it is important to note that all Peco Code 100 turnouts use a 12 degree frog angle so numbered frogs are not applicable to Peco Code 100. That corresponds to about a 4.5 frog. The substitution radius is accommodated in the point, closure and diverging rails.
I'm not sure this is posted anywhere else on this forum but it is important to note that all Peco Code 100 turnouts use a 12 degree frog angle so numbered frogs are not applicable to Peco Code 100. That corresponds to about a 4.5 frog.
The substitution radius is accommodated in the point, closure and diverging rails.
Over the years it has been posted many times, but finding that info is another story.
Lastspikemike Well, if you search all the forums for Peco Code 100 frog angle it will lead you to this thread right away..... I refrain from commenting on whether that would be useful or not.
Well, if you search all the forums for Peco Code 100 frog angle it will lead you to this thread right away.....
I refrain from commenting on whether that would be useful or not.
Nice to know the search function is working again.........
Lastspikemike I set up a ME Code 70 #5 yard ladder and my Walthers heavyweight rolls freely through the S bend at the first turnout pair. Next is the push test with two cars coupled.
I set up a ME Code 70 #5 yard ladder and my Walthers heavyweight rolls freely through the S bend at the first turnout pair. Next is the push test with two cars coupled.
I'd think a single car wouldn't be much of a problem. But mulitple long passenger cars, that's a better test.
Lastspikemike riogrande5761 Lastspikemike I set up a ME Code 70 #5 yard ladder and my Walthers heavyweight rolls freely through the S bend at the first turnout pair. Next is the push test with two cars coupled. I'd think a single car wouldn't be much of a problem. But mulitple long passenger cars, that's a better test. Absolutely, and pushed by a locomotive. I am progressively testing in the process of layout design. We built one layout already with a 24" minimum radius that somehow in a few places got reduced to a 22" minimum. This time around I'm not doing that. If 24" curves don't work I'll design to 26" and so on. Now I know what I want to run I can design accordingly.
riogrande5761 Lastspikemike I set up a ME Code 70 #5 yard ladder and my Walthers heavyweight rolls freely through the S bend at the first turnout pair. Next is the push test with two cars coupled. I'd think a single car wouldn't be much of a problem. But mulitple long passenger cars, that's a better test.
Absolutely, and pushed by a locomotive. I am progressively testing in the process of layout design.
We built one layout already with a 24" minimum radius that somehow in a few places got reduced to a 22" minimum. This time around I'm not doing that.
If 24" curves don't work I'll design to 26" and so on.
Now I know what I want to run I can design accordingly.
I don't know how much space you have, but I would never even consider running full length passenger cars on anything less that 36" radius. I know lots of people get by with 28" or 30", but I would not find that acceptable for me.
24" radius, no way I would do that.
Full length passenger cars look silly to me squeaking around such curves with extended couplers and gaps between the diaphragms. Seems to defeat the purpose of having an accurate scale model in the first place if you are going to run them around curves that make them look like toys.
Not to mention operational reliability.............