hornblowerWouldn't maintaining the track spacing on the runaround track also affect the yard length?
Yes, as you have to add a spacer between the top turnouts in the runaround. But we are only talking about an inch or two. In the same vein, increasing ladder spacing also makes the yard longer, but the difference in negligible. The design was just something I was exploring (it's loosely based on a John Armstrong design).
One thing I discovered is that any good yard is going to be long, which is why Armstrong suggested trading width for length, as well as selective compression and multiple use tracks.
Co-owner of the proposed CT River Valley RR (HO scale) http://home.comcast.net/~docinct/CTRiverValleyRR/
In Doc's post, the diagrams show a track running parallel to the ladder track. Is this a common setup? Is that the runaround track, or is the runaround the one straight in line the throat (parallel to the storage tracks)? Somehow, I have managed to never notice this design. It's use is obvious, and I just ran to the layout room to see if I can incorporate this feature on my mostly tracked layout. Indeed I can and certainly will.
My 10x20 layout mixes #4s and #6s. As everyone seems to agree, at switching speeds, #4s work fine in their place.
Thanks for posting those diagrams! It solved a problem. Dan
Nice visual aid Doc. One question though as it appears that the track spacing on the runaround track is not consistent with the yard track spacing. Wouldn't maintaining the track spacing on the runaround track also affect the yard length?
Hornblower
An example comparing Atlas and Peco turnouts using 9 inches of straight track for potential S-curves.
Using No. 4 turnouts results in a wider ladder track spacing of 4 inches vs. 3.5 (approx). Tightening the spacing to 2.5 inches would add about 3 inches to the Peco and Atlas 6 ladder track lengths.
Steve,
Chuck,(Tomikawatt) ,Made a good point,use #6's for a round around track and all the other's #4's,,,,heck you don't even need a road bed,for it to look good..Have Fun..
Cheers,
Frank
My whole layout almost is #4's, no problem up to 50' but 40' looks so much better, use 18" radius too!
If you can find an Atlas Layout book, in the back it gives you diagrams of track work with he lengths of track needed to get various track spacing. Among them are diagrams of ladders with #4 and #6. They will give you a visual idea of the differences you are thinking of.
Good luck,
Richard
And, if not mentioned above, you can shorten somewhat the #5s and/or #6s that you use by 1-2" (not removing any jumpered rail), which can add up when they are in series to make the storage legs longer for each turnout ahead of it. Easy to do. I agree to look at where might selectively add the 5s and/or 6s, then do what you prefer considering the tradeoffs.
Paul
Modeling HO with a transition era UP bent
Having tried variations on yard designs with Atlas No. 4 (4.5 actual) and Atlas No. 6, the impact is basically a longer yard by about a foot in a yard 10 feet long. The No. 6 yard is only about 10% wider. The cost is that ladder tracks are about a foot shorter than the equivalent Atlas No. 4.
Peco turnouts result in about the same difference, but the No. 5 is a No. 5. Also the Peco No. 6 is almost 3 inches shorter than the Atlas No. 6, which allows for shortening up the yard if you use a lot of them.
John Armstrong suggested that trading width for length is a good compromise (thus No. 4/5 instead of No. 6 turnouts) as length is usually a precious commodity.
Alan
I suggest a compromise.
Lay your main runaround with #6 turnouts. Go with #4 for sidings that don't make S curves.
If you simply replaced every #4 with a #6, the specialwork length would increase by 50%. However, there would be no change in the width of the track plan.
My own preference, considering my roster and prototype, is to use #5 turnouts. Since I hand-lay my specialwork I simply bend flex to the desired configuration and lay the permanent track to that. Frog numbers are whatever they happen to come out.
Chuck (Modeling Central Japan in September, 1964)
A key phrase in drafting this reply is the term "switching layout". Most all current 4-axle diesels and freight cars will operate fine on #4 turnouts, and since it is a switching layout, one is not concerned about operating at speed through those turnouts. Changing to #6s will make a big reduction in the functional length of any run-around tracks.
Unless you are modeling a switching layout based upon an auto assembly plant - where those 86' high-cube boxcars would be bringing in auto parts - or something similar, then #4's should be fine. In that you have a bit of extra space, you might want to use one or two #6s just to be able to experience the difference and have those for future use. Enjoy.
Bill
Thanks.....good idea. You just solved my problem on my N scale.......powered equip just dies at slow speeds on the frogs.....
Daff,
Since your dealing with a switching layout and are using,4-axle equipment,you will be fine with #4's...And to be on the save side,,,power your frogs,,so there will not be stalling at slow speeds...Some will say that it isn't necessary,,,,But why find out later,do it now while you are just beginning...Just My Thought..
Have Fun..
I was thinking that yes the 6's would increase the length of everything but at the same time narrow the width of the layout to some degree since the 6 is not as sharp a turn as the 4's. Plus I will only be dealing with 4 axle switching engines and 40' rolling stock. And of course switching layouts are not built for speed!
The only reason I ask is because everyone tells me to go with #6 however since Im dealing with low speeds and smaller 4 axle equipment woudnt you think I would be ok using the 4's?
Connecticut Valley Railroad A Branch of the New York, New Haven, and Hartford
"If you think you can do a thing or think you can't do a thing, you're right." -- Henry Ford
It will get MUCH longer, the turnouts are longer plus it takes more length to get the same center to center distance between parallel tracks. It does not have to get wider at all, depending on the track plan. Depending on how many turnouts there are along the length, it might fit in the extra foot or you might need to go longer.
--Randy
Modeling the Reading Railroad in the 1950's
Visit my web site at www.readingeastpenn.com for construction updates, DCC Info, and more.
I am considering an 11 x 18" switching layout that calls for #4 turnouts. What does it do to the layout if I replace all of the #4's with #6"s. The original layout calls for 10' x 18" but I have room to lengthen it to around 11" and a width to around 20".
My thinking tells me it gets tighter and longer with the #6's.
Thanks
Steve