I have just the arrangement that you describe--cascaded curved turnouts and have been having a problem with derailments at the points when taking the diverging route. The turnouts are about 2 years old, code 83 DCC friendly.
The problem is that the points are tapered too much in the vertical direction. That is, the rail web is not tall enough to catch the wheel flange at the points, so the wheels tend to ride up over the point rail and take the straight(er) route. This is compounded by the flippin' contact springs that slide under the stock rails, which pull the points lower by their spring action.
My solution is to do 2 things: (1) take a small screwdriver and flatten (and I MEAN flatten) the contact spring. You can do this only on the diverging side if you need to. Then use wires to make the contact. This will let the point rail move up a bit. (2) take a scrap piece of styrene and mount it vertically under the track. Mount it on the side of the long tie that is next to the throw bar, on the side closest to the frog. It will take some testing to get the height correct. This will exert some upward pressure on the bottom of the point rails. When you have it sized correctly, glue it to the tie.
HTH
Rails2
JHF I would like to install two curved Shinohara turnouts, no. 7.5 with radius' 28 " and 32" in series, one right after the other or perhaps with a small distance between them. I have no experience with curved turnouts. The mainline will go through the outside, broader radius. Do I have to worry about derailments?
I would like to install two curved Shinohara turnouts, no. 7.5 with radius' 28 " and 32" in series, one right after the other or perhaps with a small distance between them. I have no experience with curved turnouts. The mainline will go through the outside, broader radius.
Do I have to worry about derailments?
No, they should work fine. My layout uses three back to back in series - no problems
Guy
see stuff at: the Willoughby Line Site
MisterBeasley but using curved turnouts almost guarantees that you'll have to deal with that sideways torque.
but using curved turnouts almost guarantees that you'll have to deal with that sideways torque.
This is the problem I had that inspired the other thread. After a heavy steamer went through it a few times, it torqued the curved T/O into a tighter curve thus causing the rails to go out of gauge. Caulking it down solved any problems. Make sure you use a track gauge on it before the caulk is dry and make sure it's all okey dokey. I have several W/S curved T/Os and they have been trouble free except that one. And the caulk took care of that one
Brent
"All of the world's problems are the result of the difference between how we think and how the world works."
I have a Walthers-Shinohara curved turnout that I put on my layout a few months back. It works fine, and I have no problems with derailments.
I've also got several Peco curved turnouts. Two of them are inside my subway tunnels, and they are almost impossible to get to. I used sectional track adjacent to them, which is much easier. The curved turnout on the surface was originally used with flex track, but I had so much trouble with keeping the rails aligned that I gave up and used short pieces of sectional track there, too. However, these were, after all, Pecos, and there is an inherent problem with mating Peco and Atlas track because of the difference in cross-section and height of the two.
Just make sure that you don't get kinks when you attach flex track to the turnout. This is true of any turnout, of course, and of flex track connections in general, but using curved turnouts almost guarantees that you'll have to deal with that sideways torque.
It takes an iron man to play with a toy iron horse.
I would like to install two curved Shinohara turnouts, no. 7.5 with radius' 28 " and 32" in series, one right after the other or perhaps with a small distance between them. I have no experience with curved turnouts. The mainline will go through the outside, broader radius. Do I have to worry about derailments?
I have a pair of the #8 curved turnouts on my layout.
In my experience, curved turnouts are more prone to derailments unless and until careful attention is paid to the placement of the curved turnouts. What I do to avoid derailments is to raise the outside stock rail a little by placing a strip of styrene plastic under the outside stock rail as a shim. Isn't that called super elevation?
The other essential step is to secure the entire turnout firmly to the surface of the layout with nails, glue or caulk. Any vertical movement of the turnout, up or down, will cause derailments.
One these steps were taken, I completely eliminated derailments, even at high speeds, even with steam engines and 6-axle diesels.
Rich
Alton Junction
dante selector: First thing for you to understand is that the radii are not as claimed in the advertising. For sure the inner route of your W/S curved #7.5 is closer to 22". It can be widened a bit, about to 24", and I can explain that in another post if you wish. I agree that the radii are not as claimed. I have checked my W/S curved turnouts by different methods (overlaid on plotted radii; also by using Ribbonrail templates) and find that the outer radii are correct but the inner radii are consistently 6" less than the outer (2" less than advertised). The #7.5 turnout radii are 32"/26" (not 32/22). Dante
selector: First thing for you to understand is that the radii are not as claimed in the advertising. For sure the inner route of your W/S curved #7.5 is closer to 22". It can be widened a bit, about to 24", and I can explain that in another post if you wish.
First thing for you to understand is that the radii are not as claimed in the advertising. For sure the inner route of your W/S curved #7.5 is closer to 22". It can be widened a bit, about to 24", and I can explain that in another post if you wish.
I agree that the radii are not as claimed. I have checked my W/S curved turnouts by different methods (overlaid on plotted radii; also by using Ribbonrail templates) and find that the outer radii are correct but the inner radii are consistently 6" less than the outer (2" less than advertised). The #7.5 turnout radii are 32"/26" (not 32/22).
Dante
I agree with those measurements that Dante stated, as covered in a previous thread:
http://cs.trains.com/TRCCS/forums/p/181405/1986172.aspx#1986172
dante ... the inner radii are consistently 6" less than the outer (2" less than advertised). The #7.5 turnout radii are 32"/26" (not 32/22). Dante
... the inner radii are consistently 6" less than the outer (2" less than advertised). The #7.5 turnout radii are 32"/26" (not 32/22).
I wonder if the ones I have are from a different run. Every measurement I have taken show the 'extended' versions that I tweaked now have an inner radius of 24".
Crandell
selector First thing for you to understand is that the radii are not as claimed in the advertising. For sure the inner route of your W/S curved #7.5 is closer to 22". It can be widened a bit, about to 24", and I can explain that in another post if you wish.
As to your second question, as long as your engines and most finicky rolling stock don't mind whichever radius you end up with, no matter what configuration or series you may use, you should not experience derailments due to the curvature. Problems associated with the guards not being in spec, or points not being sharp enough or lying tightly against their stock rails, and even tracking through the frogs...those things can sometimes snag you.