Compound Ladder

[cowman]

I have seen plans for #6 compound ladders, but never for other #'d turnouts.  Has anyone done one with Atlas #4's?  I presume it can be done, though may have to use flex track between the turnouts.  Any experience, comments or thoughts appreciated. 

Thank you,

Richard

[Medina1128]

Unless you're only running 4 axle diesels and short cars, you'd end up with "S" curves that will cause you grief if you try to run longer cars or steam locomotives.

[Paulus Jas]

hi

a compound yard is a space saver; it can be done with #4 switches as well. The lower numbered switches will limit the use of longer cars and engines; 50 feet cars and 4-axel diesels or small steamers will not have problems.

Paul

[odave]

Here's a ladder comparison I drew up some time ago, and I think I used Atlas #4s (darned old CRS syndrome!)

I have no experience actually running on ladder that uses #4s, but I would assume longer equiplment will have problems as noted above.

[cowman]

Thank you for the responses.

I am modeling the transition era, so no really long cars or big locos.  However, unless space is really a major issue, will try #6's to reduce frustration.  If I do concider #4's I won't totally secure them until I have done more than a few test runs.

Thanks again,

Richard

[Hamltnblue]

I just built one with 3 tracks on the side and found that the PECO 3 way switch worked great and takes up very little space.

[cowman]

Have a couple of those.  Was thinking of using them elsewhere, but will see where they work best.  Still in early planning stages so have plenty of time for trial and error.

Thanks,

Richard

[BATMAN]

What about #5s.

Brent

[hon30critter]

Richard

Thanks for asking your question. It gave me pause to go back and look at my yard ladders. I had designed them with Peco small radius turnouts and at the time I was concerned about the inherent 'S' curves when I set it up. So, after reading your post, I went back and changed the small turnouts to medium and discovered that I lost very little space in the process. I had to space the yard tracks about 1/4" further apart to do this but that was easily accomodated. I am modeling the late 50's so I can avoid anything longer than 50'.  I feel much more confident in my future yard operations thanks to you and the responses you garnered.

Dave

[cowman]

Dave,

That's the great thing about these forums, you can learn by seeing other folks questions and the answers they get.  Sometimes you don't even know that there was such a question, but there's the question and answer to something you are coming to soon in your layout building.

Hope you will be happy with your new configuration.

Have fun,

Richard

[richhotrain]

odave

Here's a ladder comparison I drew up some time ago, and I think I used Atlas #4s (darned old CRS syndrome!)

I have no experience actually running on ladder that uses #4s, but I would assume longer equiplment will have problems as noted above.

My current storage yard looks just like the diagram on the right only with #6 turnouts.  I would like to change it to reflect the diagram on the left but with 5 tracks coming off the mainline instead of the 4 tracks shown in the diagram.  Where on the track diagram would I install one additional turnout to accomplish this 5-track arrangement?

Thanks.

Rich

[dehusman]

You could probably build a straight #4 ladder in the same space as a #6 compund ladder.

[richhotrain]

dehusman

You could probably build a straight #4 ladder in the same space as a #6 compund ladder.

Two reasons for me not to do that.  One, I already have the #6 turnouts.  Two, from past experience, the #4 turnouts are too tight on the divergent route, and I will never use #4's again.

 

[odave]

I don't have access to 3rdPlanIt right now, but the turnout for the 5th yard track would go roughly here:

[HHPATH56]

Each of the seven tracks of the stub ended compound ladder on the left has access to every other track via double slip switches and lengthy enough track to stre eight freight cars. The overhead loop of the main line is connected to the compound ladder with two curved lengthy drill tracks, so that the switcher never has to tie up the mainline. Bob Hahn

[tschwarz]

cowman

Thank you for the responses.

I am modeling the transition era, so no really long cars or big locos.  However, unless space is really a major issue, will try #6's to reduce frustration.  If I do concider #4's I won't totally secure them until I have done more than a few test runs.

Thanks again,

Richard

If your doing the transition era I would HIGHLY suggest you use the #6 turnouts unless you are not going to run anything larger than a Consolidation.  I think even a Mikado would have trouble through the S-curves that you would have when using the #4 switches.  I have never tried the #4 compound ladder and it is just an opinion but I wouldn't use anything that tight. 

I am running #8's on anything that I can that will see my large locomotives or using the straight part of a #6 turnout when possible for those areas.

Tom

 

[tschwarz]

cowman

Thank you for the responses.

I am modeling the transition era, so no really long cars or big locos.  However, unless space is really a major issue, will try #6's to reduce frustration.  If I do concider #4's I won't totally secure them until I have done more than a few test runs.

Thanks again,

Richard

If your doing the transition era I would HIGHLY suggest you use the #6 turnouts unless you are not going to run anything larger than a Consolidation.  I think even a Mikado would have trouble through the S-curves that you would have when using the #4 switches.  I have never tried the #4 compound ladder and it is just an opinion but I wouldn't use anything that tight. 

I am running #8's on anything that I can that will see my large locomotives or using the straight part of a #6 turnout when possible for those areas.

Tom

 

[richhotrain]

odave

I don't have access to 3rdPlanIt right now, but the turnout for the 5th yard track would go roughly here:

Thanks, everyone.

O'Dave, that's exactly what I was looking for.  Thank you.

It is amazing how much additional usable track space you can pick up by using a compound ladder rather than a simple ladder.

Rich

[odave]

You're welcome.  One thing to keep in mind about compound ladders is that they're not seen on the prototype very often.  One reason for this, I read, is that the brakeman would have to keep crossing the tracks to line the switches, which becomes a safety issue.  But on the model, sometimes compromises to the prototype look can buy you a lot more operations - it's a balancing game.

[Johnnny_reb]

One of NS's largest hump yards, Brosnan Yard is located just up the road from me (Macon Ga.) and has a compound ladder construction to the yard. More information can be found at the link below.

http://www.georgiarailfan.net/macon.htm

[jacon12]

Before I knew I couldn't... I did.  My yard has 3 tracks, a double ended compound I guess you'd call it.  I used Peco medium (don't they just about equal an Atlas #4?), and I have no problem with 4 and 6 axle diesels as well as steam engines up to Mikado size.  Now, my class A 2-6-6-4 (that's it in the picture behind me below)... that's another matter.  It's very rare that it will make it into the yard without derailing.  One end of the yard is arranged so that it is a pretty straight shot to back it in and then straight down the track, across the TT and onto it's track at the roundhouse.  50' cars and under have no problems with the compound ladder and I don't run anything longer.

Jarrell

[TBat55]

Brakeman safety concerns crossing tracks to throw  switch AND time delays if a train passes.

For us, a compound design may mean switch machines instead of manual throws if cars are in the way (gets worse with more trracks).  I'm using ground throws with the ladder almost parallel to the aisle for easier reaching.  Also like that an engineeer can always see the switch targets with a ladder.

[dante]

There are #4s and other #4s, apparently.  Repeating a previous observation I made in another thread:

"I have a Walthers/Shinohara #4 (DCC friendly with dead frog) on my test tracks being used to confirm criteria for the layout about to be built.  My 6-axle Proto 2000 E-8 and PA-1 and BLI heavy 2-8-2 take the turnout with ease, whether traveling fast or slow.  

The probable significant factor is that the radius of closure rail (RCR) is 26" as measured by Ribbonrail templates.  That is significantly better than the 15" and 22" indicated for a #4 and #4-1/2, respectively, in John Armstrong's book on track planning.  The frog is definitely a measured #4....

The obvious suggestion is to test your equipment on the turnouts you expect to use."

Dante

 

[Texas Zepher]

dante

There are #4s and other #4s, apparently.  Repeating a previous observation I made in another thread:

"I have a Walthers/Shinohara #4 (DCC friendly with dead frog) on my test tracks being used to confirm criteria for the layout about to be built.  My 6-axle Proto 2000 E-8 and PA-1 and BLI heavy 2-8-2 take the turnout with ease, whether traveling fast or slow.  

 

You are exactly right.  The frog angle is only part of the equation when it comes to how "tight" a turnout is.  Another factor is how "curved" the departure rail is. 

Then one must also consider the "advertised" size vs. the real size.  For example the Atlas Custom Line turnout frogs are not really #4 but closer to #4.75.  That might not seem like much but when it comes to practicallity it is a huge difference.     I have many pieces of equipment (mostly SD units) that will go through an Atlas Custom Line #4, or Peco "short"  with no problem but short on a Shinohara #4.

Likewise I've seen curved turnouts advertised with a frog #.  That is just silly to me.  While I know the math to compute such a curved frog, it is irrelevant.   The important thing with curved turnouts is the difference in the two curvatures.  The bigger the difference the sooner the tracks will be separate from one another. 

[Texas Zepher]

odave

One thing to keep in mind about compound ladders is that they're not seen on the prototype very often

Depending on the era, another reason a compound is not used is if the turnouts are controlled from the yard tower rather than on the ground.  It is much easier to design and build the mechanical control rods from the tower to a standard ladder than it is a compound ladder.