who says an SD can't go through a #4 turnout?

[cwclark]

I've read a lot of articles on here about six axle drive diesel locomotives not being able to go through a #4 turnout...well to quell this myth, I tried it, and they went through the turnout wonderfully and without derailment...i believe the secret is to have about 2 " of straight track attached to the diverging track and they will work fine...(I did it at a very slow speed) but then again, i've never seen real trains go onto a diverging track at 60+ MPH anyway...Chuck[:D]

[CFournier]

Chuck,
Where do you put the 2" straight track???
Chris.

[BNSFNUT]

I run 6 axle locos through Atlas #4 turnouts all the time. Atlas #4 are really about #4 1/2 .
I found that haveing straight track ahead of the points at least the length of the longest wheel base of the trucks on any locomotive makes for reliable operation.
I have a 2 sets of cross overs that I run trains through at about 30 scale MPH and have no problems.

[cwclark]

QUOTE: Originally posted by CFournier

Chuck,
Where do you put the 2" straight track???
Chris.

what i have are two atlas #4's that form a crossover... I have a 2" section of straight track between the diverging routes (or the curved section of tracks of the turnouts) ...the SD units glide smoothly through the turnout without derailing....Chuck

[tstage]

Chuck,

Glad to hear it's feasible but...how good does it look in doing it? I run 22' radii curves on my layout and a 50' boxcar pushes the limit of what looks "right" when it rounds those curves.

Tom

[cwclark]

QUOTE: Originally posted by tstage

Chuck,

Glad to hear it's feasible but...how good does it look in doing it? I run 22' radii curves on my layout and a 50' boxcar pushes the limit of what looks "right" when it rounds those curves.

Tom

It looks very good...the turnouts are not in a curve...what i have is a double run around configuration...what i did with the #4's is install them to connect a double main line together..there are two right hand turnouts that connect the double main at one end and two left hand turnouts that connect the double main at the other end ...I use it because I have industrial sidings on both sides of the double main track...that way I can 1. cross over the double main and get the local switcher onto a siding before the main line train passes again..or 2...vice versa to the other side of the double main line and 3. line up either main line train to go into the yard from either double main track....any time there is a turnout in a curve i'll always use a curved turnout...they are more expensive than atlas #4's or #6's but they look really good... my layout will incorperate 3 curved turnouts... my mainline track is 36" radius so the 36" to 34" shinohara curved turnouts work the best for me in a curve / turnout configuration...I don't nor will ever use a #4 or a #6 in a track curve I use them only if they are positioned on straight track...chuck[:D]

[Anonymous]

Tom,

If we only strived for what looks right vs. what is functional, I think a great many of us would not be able to run trains. With limited space, and the desire to operate all types of locos on our layouts, looks some times have to be sacrificed. I have a great many areas on my layout that don't look prototypical, but they don't really bother me that much. Statements like yours tend to make you look like a train snob. Ease up a bit.

[Anonymous]

If you have ever observed the prototype going through a crossover, it doesn't look right! At one point a car or loco is literally running sideways. I can see where as modelers we have problems after seeing the prototype in action. At the factory i worked at, we were out by the CSX mainline in Brownsville, Tn when a hotshot intermodal came by. The local was held up on our spur. When the hotshot crossed the turnout to our factory the cars swayed enough that it had the guys on the local worried. They call MOW who sent out an alignment machine that leveled the spur and retamped the ballast under the rails. The weight of cars being switched over the turnout to the spur track which was a lower elevation had twisted the turnout's diverging route.

[willy6]

I'm the one the posted about #4 turnouts months ago using a 6 axle locomotive.The problem I have is the when the loco enters the turnout at the "frog" end it will tend to jump or derail,however when it enters the turnout at the "switch" end,it is good.Also I have been using Athearn locomotives, I have not tried the P2K yet.That might make a difference too.

[cwclark]

QUOTE: Originally posted by willy6

I'm the one the posted about #4 turnouts months ago using a 6 axle locomotive.The problem I have is the when the loco enters the turnout at the "frog" end it will tend to jump or derail,however when it enters the turnout at the "switch" end,it is good.Also I have been using Athearn locomotives, I have not tried the P2K yet.That might make a difference too.

I too use only Athearn locomotives...and they went through the turnout just fine..even the GE u-boat 33c's went through and they have always been unstable since I bought them in '86...You may need to file the frog down a bit where the wheel flanges transverse the frog...# 4 frogs (especially Atlas turnouts) are higher than the rail and the majority of them need to be filed down so that the flange doesn't jump out of the frog at the high spot..I haven't filed mine yet and can hear the flange bump the frog when it goes through but happy to report that it didn't derail...Chuck

[tstage]

QUOTE: Originally posted by dgoodlander

Tom,

If we only strived for what looks right vs. what is functional, I think a great many of us would not be able to run trains. With limited space, and the desire to operate all types of locos on our layouts, looks some times have to be sacrificed. I have a great many areas on my layout that don't look prototypical, but they don't really bother me that much. Statements like yours tend to make you look like a train snob. Ease up a bit.

dgoodlander (Dave),

Forgive me. It was not my intention to come across as a "rail snob". Your point is well taken. As I reread my post, I did sorta come across as being somewhat snooty. Sorry, it was not intended to be. [:(]

I realize that we all do have to make some sacrifices when we are building our layouts. (I should know. My layout is only 4 x 8'.) I do, however, try to minimize the sacrifices as much as possible and keep my layout as realistic, as is "realistically" possible. But, I know I also am limited to running #4 turnouts - when in fact I'd rather be running #6's. (Can't change the laws of physics...)

Anyhow, balancing realism and function is, and will always be an on going challenge for all of us. And, we can't leave out enjoyment in the equation, can we? Dave, thanks for the correction. [:)]


Chuck,

I REALLY was interested in how the diesel looked going over the turnout. Thanks for letting me know. My inadvertant "snooty" comment was merely a personal observation (and preference); not a judgement on you. Chueck, my apologies are to you also, if it came across that way. I'm glad it's working for you. [:)]

Thanks also for sharing your thoughts on the curved turnouts. I've been contemplating possilbly using one on my current layout. I haven't used any of the Shinohara turnouts yet but I have used a couple of their crossings and have been VERY pleased with the results. (They run much smoother than the Atlas.) It's good to hear that the turhouts are as nice as they appear out of the box. Thanks!

Tom

[willy6]

Chuck,
As i got done reading your last post,I went into the train room and ran my finger across the frogs on the turnouts that I could reach and felt and little unevenness (is that a word?), anyway me and Mr.Dremel Tool have a project tonight. I'll see what happens. I hate having my SD-60's resricted to the mainline. Thanks for the tip.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by tstage

QUOTE: Originally posted by dgoodlander

Tom,

If we only strived for what looks right vs. what is functional, I think a great many of us would not be able to run trains. With limited space, and the desire to operate all types of locos on our layouts, looks some times have to be sacrificed. I have a great many areas on my layout that don't look prototypical, but they don't really bother me that much. Statements like yours tend to make you look like a train snob. Ease up a bit.

dgoodlander (Dave),

Forgive me. It was not my intention to come across as a "rail snob". Your point is well taken. As I reread my post, I did sorta come across as being somewhat snooty. Sorry, it was not intended to be. [:(]

I realize that we all do have to make some sacrifices when we are building our layouts. (I should know. My layout is only 4 x 8'.) I do, however, try to minimize the sacrifices as much as possible and keep my layout as realistic, as is "realistically" possible. But, I know I also am limited to running #4 turnouts - when in fact I'd rather be running #6's. (Can't change the laws of physics...)

Anyhow, balancing realism and function is, and will always be an on going challenge for all of us. And, we can't leave out enjoyment in the equation, can we? Dave, thanks for the correction. [:)]

Tom

No problem Tom. I to live with #4s and would rather have #10s! (if they even make those). We need to help out the new guys, not drive them away.
Dave

[Anonymous]

I was not going to respond, but this post peaked my curiousity. I had never heard that large locomotives will not negotiate a #4 turnout. My staging is double ended, sits on the third (bottom) level and uses solely #4 turnouts and code 100 track. I do not have any diesel locomotives, but do have several 2-6-6-2 articulated locos that have the back engine fixed to the boiler. Never, ever have I had a problem with equipment negotiating these turnouts. The larger locomotives look terrible negotiating these tighter turnouts, but they have never gone to the ground while running through them. Maybe now that I have been informed that this is a no-no, I will begin to experience difficulty operating large steam locomotives through #4 turnouts (just kidding).

Tom

[johncolley]

Would one be better off changing out the center wheels on each truck to flangless? I would think it may be a different situation depending on the particular loco's truck wheelbase.