wjstix BrianinBuffalo Unfortunately the #6 switches are power routing but I read somewhere how I can fix that. I'd guess the N ones work the same?? Usually the instructions are printed on the cardboard backing of the blister pack the turnout came in, or you can check www.katousa.com.
BrianinBuffalo Unfortunately the #6 switches are power routing but I read somewhere how I can fix that.
Unfortunately the #6 switches are power routing but I read somewhere how I can fix that.
I'd guess the N ones work the same?? Usually the instructions are printed on the cardboard backing of the blister pack the turnout came in, or you can check www.katousa.com.
Yes, exactly the same!
The HO ones have a screw in the bottom and two holes. Moving the screw from the one it's in to the other changes it to non-power routing. I'd guess the N ones work the same?? Usually the instructions are printed on the cardboard backing of the blister pack the turnout came in, or you can check www.katousa.com.
Great news!
But like Cuyama said, backing up (pushing the cars, uphill if possible), through trouble spots is a more stressing test.
Above all, have fun!
Andy
Glad it's working for you. You might try backing through the s-curves, too -- that's usually the tougher test. Have fun!
Layout Design GalleryLayout Design Special Interest Group
BrianinBuffalo you guys have me really confused. I guess Saturday if I am able to mock up the track we will see what happens. Now I am scared nothing will work
you guys have me really confused. I guess Saturday if I am able to mock up the track we will see what happens. Now I am scared nothing will work
Brian,
I don't have any long (~80') passenger cars. I do have several 6 axle diesels and 60'+ freight cars. I have not had any operational problems with straight-curve transitions down to 9.75" in Kato Unitrack. I have not tried anything less. I have had lots of 19" radius S curves (9.5" equivalent straight-curve transition) with no problems. The train does not necessarily look great going over them, but no problems operating.
The really great thing about Unitrack is that it is so easy to mock up different track arrangements and try them out with your own equipment.
Sorry aj1s, doesn't compute linearly for me based on experience and I wouldn't want you to waste any more of your time on me.
BrianinBuffalo I guess Saturday if I am able to mock up the track we will see what happens
That's a viable approach. The other would be to work on a new design that increases the likelihood of reliable operation based on best practices by eliminating as many s-curves as possible and broadening radii where you can, especially on grades. At the same time, you could work in more operating interest, if desired.
Either way, best of luck with your project, I'm sure you'll work it out.
Cuyama,
I just pulled out a spare Unitrack #6 turnout and a matching 15 degree 28" curve section and compared them by sliding the rails against each other the length of the turnout, watching for any gaps between the rails as the slid past each other. The diverting route curvature matches exactly the 28" radius all the way through, including the frog (it is cast with the correct curvature).
There are certainly lots of factors that go into whether a curve transition will cause a problem, but experimentation has taught me that this analysis is pretty good, at least for the purposes of comparing to a reference curve/tangent transition, for a given pair of cars/locos.
In other words, if a car pair can make it through the equivalent curve/tangent transition, then it will make it through the equivalent S curve transition (assuming grade, weight/number of cars pulled/pushed, speed, etc. are the same).
In the same way we generally specify the desired/actual minimum radius of curvature on a layout (perhaps separately for mainline and sidings), we should also specify the desired/actual minimum equivalent curve transition.
This analysis does not predict a minimum radius of curvature, but rather the most severe transition between curvatures that a given pair of cars can negotiate reliably.
Let me explain the analysis.
The offset forces of which you speak are present when two coupled cars/locos are on sections of track with different radii and/or direction of curvature. The forces are proportional to the amount of offset between the two cars' couplers. (Note: the angle of the forces is also related to the actual radius of curvature, regardless of the transition to/from any other radius. That component is not part of this analysis or discussion.)
When a car is on a curved track, the car's coupler is offset from the center of the track, away from the center of curvature of the track on which it sits. The distance the coupler is offset is proportional to the car length (truck-truck) and the length from the coupler to the nearest truck pivot, for body mount couplers, but only to coupler shank and truck length (NOT car length) for truck mounted couplers. The coupler offset is also inversely proportional to the radius of curvature of the track. Therefore, the car-car coupler offset is the algebraic difference between the two cars' coupler offsets, and thus is also proportional to the differences in the above variables.
So, for a given pair of cars (with same or different car length, coupler mounting, etc.), the only track-related variables for the car/car coupler offset are the difference in track radius, and the direction to the center of curvature. The analysis normalizes these differences to those of a tangent/curve transition so that different curve/curve transitions can be directly compared. Since the differences are proportional to the car/car offset, for a given pair of cars, we can also use the analysis to compare the car-car coupler offsets. Thus, for a given pair of cars, the car/car coupler offset on any curve/curve transition is the same as the offset on some equivalent curve/tangent transition with a new curvature. The analysis provides that new curvature.
As far as I can tell, this analysis does not run counter to any operational physics. If you still believe it does, please provide an explanation. We both seek a better understanding of these matters.
aj1ss for the radii of the ends of the #6 turnout
The sharpest point of the curvature of a typical straight turnout is through the frog, not at the end. The tightest curves through the KATO N scale #6 are quite a bit sharper than the 28" you cite.
I don't agree at all with the methodology of your complicated analysis, but that's fine if you believe it reflects something practical.
Your analysis runs counter to some of the actual observed physics of model rail cars moving through s-curves. Offset forces through the couplers are often a major contributor to the problem, particularly for the longest cars and tightest curves, where the angles of the offset forces become sharp and friction through the tight curves is the highest. This is exacerbated by steep grades.
dehusman BrianinBuffalo This plan is not necessarily an improvement from the previous one. It reduces flexibility (eliminates a runaround, passing siding) and adds a very expensive peice of track for minimal benefit. One problem with Unitrack is common to all sectional track, it makes a very rigid trackplan that rarely "flows' with the scenery. Most track plans look like train sets. Track centers seem to be much wider than with non-Unitrack sectional track making yards and sidings have a larger footprint.
BrianinBuffalo
One problem with Unitrack is common to all sectional track, it makes a very rigid trackplan that rarely "flows' with the scenery. Most track plans look like train sets. Track centers seem to be much wider than with non-Unitrack sectional track making yards and sidings have a larger footprint.
Compared to four turnouts, the Unitrack double crossover is rather cheap! But you are right, it does remove a passing siding.
Track centers on Unitrack sidings are wider when #6 turnouts are used. If #4 turnouts are used, the track spacings are about the same as with Atlas and other sectional track.
cuyama aj1sAn S curve between opposite 28" radius curves (#6 Unitrack turnouts) in N scale is not likely to cause any problems. Except that's not what he has. He has a 20-100 curve (9 3/4" radius) leading into an opposing #6 curve. In addition, the tightest point through the KATO #6 is sharper than 28" radius. aj1sThat's roughly the same as a transition from straight track to a 13.75" radius curve. I don't see how an s-curve with one section at 9 3/4" radius is equivalent to a tangent leading into a single curve, but OK. What he had previously could work. Or it might not, depending on the equipment, including his full-size passenger cars. I'm surprised that there is disagreement about an alternative arrangement that could be more reliable, but that's what makes horse races, I guess. Best of luck.
aj1sAn S curve between opposite 28" radius curves (#6 Unitrack turnouts) in N scale is not likely to cause any problems.
Except that's not what he has. He has a 20-100 curve (9 3/4" radius) leading into an opposing #6 curve.
In addition, the tightest point through the KATO #6 is sharper than 28" radius.
aj1sThat's roughly the same as a transition from straight track to a 13.75" radius curve.
I don't see how an s-curve with one section at 9 3/4" radius is equivalent to a tangent leading into a single curve, but OK.
What he had previously could work. Or it might not, depending on the equipment, including his full-size passenger cars.
I'm surprised that there is disagreement about an alternative arrangement that could be more reliable, but that's what makes horse races, I guess.
Best of luck.
Good catch, I did not see that one! I saw the S curves between turnouts and the siding.
I now see four S curves in the original plan: two between 28" curves/turnouts, one between a 9.75" and a 28" curve, and another between a 19" and a 28" curve.
To approximate the severity of S curves (or of any transition between different and/or opposite radius curves), take the reciprocal of the difference of the reciprocals of the radii. This yields an equivalent transition severity between a straight (tangent) track and the resulting radius.
Using this formula between two opposite 28" curves: 1/(1/28 - (-1/28)) = 1/(2/28) = 28/2 = 14. (note the second radius is negated because it is opposite in direction)
Using this formula between a straight (infinite radius) and a 14" curve: 1(1/14 - (1/infinity)) = 1/(1/14 - 0) = 14, which is the original radius. (13.75 was the closest unitrack radius to 14")
This also works between same-direction curves of different radii. For a transition between 15 and 28 (same direction): 1/(1/15 - 1/28) = 32.3" Or, it is the same as transitioning from a straight (tangent) directly into a 32" radius curve.
Back to the four S curves in the plan, the first two are 14", the third is 7.23", and the fourth is 11.3"
I would consider the third one (7.23") problematic, but the other three (depending on equipment) are most likely fine, and if not, there are other non-S-curve transitions on the layout that would cause problems before those do.
As for the radii of the ends of the #6 turnout being less than overall radius (due to the straight frog section in the middle of the overall 28" curve), the radius of the end only comes into play with equipment that is short enough for it not to be a problem in the first place. For a longer piece of equipment that might have problems, the lay of the car on the track is determined by the overall curvature, not the curvature of the ends.
No Reason as I explained before (I think) not to combine Unitrack with flex track as needed.
Joe Staten Island West
BrianinBuffaloI think I will try all the suggestions. I want it to run as seamless as my boring oval.
Note that with significant grades through tight (9 3/4" curves), your full-length passenger cars may not run as reliably as you like through the Scenic Ridge layout. If absolute smoothness of operation is your goal, a different track plan with broader curves might be a better choice.
The good news on Unitrack is that you can tweak it. The challenge is that you are trying to match the pre-defined scenery of the Scenic Ridge, which was not designed for Unitrack.
As Paul noted, the KATO extension tracks are very useful for making up gaps in straight runs. Very small mismatches of a millimeter or two can sometimes be accommodated on the benchwork with a little shifting around of the track sections.
Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com
Hi Buffalo,
this is quite normal when using snap-track the moment you try out alternative track- arrangements. Kato is selling a flexible (lengthwise) piece to fill those gaps. My son faces the same problem with his Marklin layout.
As stated before especially long cars, coaches and larger engines will derail easily when "tiny" snap track gaps are closed with force. This is the reason lots of folks are using flextrack anyway.
Smile
Paul
While probably most railroads purchased F3's for freight, on the Western Pacific the F3's were purchased initally for passenger service. They were numbered in the 800 passenger series. They ran in ABBA and were WP's first California Zephyr locomotives. The were latter split up. Late in their lives the remaing F3's were renumbered into the 900 freight series.
The model in the picture is a steam boiler equipped F3A. Only half the WP F3A's had boilers.
The first WP freight diesels were the earlier FT's also inirially in ABBA sets numbered in the 900 series. Latter the WP bought F7's (900 series) primairly for freight service. Latter they also purchased the longer, boiler equipped FP7's (800 series) primairly for passenger service to supplement the F3 fleet and used mainly on the California Zephyr.
I tried to sell my two cents worth, but no one would give me a plug nickel for it.
I don't have a leg to stand on.
An S curve between opposite 28" radius curves (#6 Unitrack turnouts) in N scale is not likely to cause any problems. That's roughly the same as a transition from straight track to a 13.75" radius curve.
That's one way. Although the Scenic Ridge layout in general is fairly limiting in terms of long-term fun, if you really want to stay with the track plan, I might try something like this to keep the passing siding.
dschroeder83F3a I think is correct. Sorry about that, getting back into this after a really long break (and dont have the package to look at). it's a western pacific engine (I know it was usually a passenger engine, kinda like the old school look of it though :)
Actually F-3s were generally a freight engine (that's what the "F" stands for), but some were used on passenger trains. The KATO N scale WP F-3s were painted in the passenger scheme, but the units were used in freight service at times before and after their passenger period.
I model in N-Scale and I use both Atlas code 80 snap track and the Kato Unitrack. About 60 to 70% of my layout is Atlas track with a majority of the main line Kato track. The adapter piece to go between the different type of track works fine for me. I use Woodland Senics foam road bed under the Atlas track. I cut the foam so it inserts into the adapter track under the Atlas track. One of the nice things about the Kato Track is when you are laying everything out it stays together quite well. It takes some force to seperate from itself and you do not need to make sure everything is still connected as much when you get to the end of the line.
Modeling a railroad hypothetically set in time.
BrianinBuffalo My Scenic Ridge Plan - with Kato track
My Scenic Ridge Plan - with Kato track
Note that you have s-curves at the ends of the siding through the turnouts.
One of those s-curves is (inexplicably) in the Scenic Ridge plan already (on the right) and you may have added the one on the left. These may cause reliability problems and would be easy to engineer out of the plan.
dschroeder83As for cars will be mostly 33' coal hoppers pulled by a MDT Plymouth, short boxcars/reefers pulled by a Nw2 switcher. And an old f3 as the mainline engine when I just want to watch it run.
If you haven't run your model before, the N scale Bachmann MDT Plymouths are usually very poor runners, so you might not be able to count on that one. Also note that the KATO N scale NW2 (a wonderful engine) is a bit "stiffer" than most N scale engines its same size, so you may have a little trouble at the smallest radii of 9 3/4" or so. Worth testing first before you do your layout design.
dschroeder83Typo.... Running a f2 for the mainline.
Are you sure? I'm not aware of an N scale EMD F-2 model -- these were extremely rare in real life. Are you thinking of the Lifelike Alco FA-2? These were likewise not necessarily the greatest runners, but varied a lot from model-to-model and it was possible to get a good one.
Byron
cuyama cacole NP2626 Is Kato Uni-track and Atlas Tru-track the same thing? They are basically the same except for the way they connect together. And the way they connect together is an important difference. The Kato Unitrack has a more-robust connection between sections than does the Atlas Tru-Track. This probably makes Unitrack more reliable over time and repeated connection/disconnection. Byron
cacole NP2626 Is Kato Uni-track and Atlas Tru-track the same thing? They are basically the same except for the way they connect together.
NP2626 Is Kato Uni-track and Atlas Tru-track the same thing?
Is Kato Uni-track and Atlas Tru-track the same thing?
And the way they connect together is an important difference. The Kato Unitrack has a more-robust connection between sections than does the Atlas Tru-Track. This probably makes Unitrack more reliable over time and repeated connection/disconnection.
... and should one of the joiners wear out, they can be replaced.
While I Have been Using Bachmann EZ Track on my current layout my new layout will have a mix of the EZ Track and Atlas Code 100 Flex Track and turnouts ( I have had a lot of triuble with Bachmann turnouts but finally figured out how to file them to get the points sharp so they work now) I have been using Anyrail to mix and match the track on paper and this past weekend I picked up the Atlas track at the greenberg show in Somerset NJ.
I believe Kato is code 83 and could be joined to standard code 83 by removing the clip from the road bed and using rail joiners
A local (Milwaukee area) N scale modeler uses Kato Uni-Track exclusively on his large and well detailed layout, and his reason is that he likes to totally change his track plan from time to time. He has announced another major change for later this year, but will keep the current layout long enough for it to be toured during the big N scale convention scheduled for Milwaukee this summer:
http://www.nationalnscaleconvention.com/
Dave Nelson