I'm working on modifying the West Deerfield Industrial Park track plan featured in the February 2017 issue of Model Railroader. My plan is to only build the "top" portion of the layout and extend the length to 10 feet. The article states that the track geometry is designed "around no. 5 turnouts and a 24" minimum curve".
Following Lance Mindheim's recommendation in his book "How to Build a Switching Layout", I was planning on using Atlas code 83 track and #6 turnouts and flex track.
The track plan has a 30-degree crossing, connected to facing left and right turnouts. Since I'm planning on using #6 turnouts are there any potential pitfalls I should expect? I have been haveing a hard time getting the track to connect using the software AnyRail 6 and the Atlas Track Planning Software.
Thanks in advance,
Kent
The degree of the crossing is affected by the angle of the turnouts on either side of it. If you're using #6 turnouts instead of #5, the tracks coming off of them will cross at a shallower angle. Atlas also offers 19° and 25° crossings in code 83; one of those should work.
--Steven Otte, Model Railroader senior associate editorsotte@kalmbach.com
Thank you.
K_FrazierMy plan is to only build the "top" portion of the layout and extend the length to 10 feet.
Part of the challenge, then, will be that the layout as published is designed to have the long lead on the right side of the "L" for switching. The layout is also designed assuming a staging yard to the left, which is unfortunately not shown in the published track plan -- and makes it a bit misleading.
Lopping off parts of a track plan may not leave a well-functioning layout from an operations standpoint (if that is a priority for you) -- it may end up being more of a puzzle -- which some find frustrating.
A plan designed for your actual space might offer more long-term enjoyment, as it could include interchange tracks/staging, adequate switching leads, etc. in your available space
K_FrazierFollowing Lance Mindheim's recommendation in his book "How to Build a Switching Layout", I was planning on using Atlas code 83 track and #6 turnouts and flex track.
Note that Lance prefers to use MicroEngineering turnouts (at least I believe that he did when the book was written), and they offered only a #6 at the time. In the meantime, PECO Code 83 #5s have arrived and work quite well. In addition, MicroEngineering has announced #5s. These save space versus #6s, and the short tightest curve through the frog is about equivalent to 23¼" radius. So they work pretty well with 24" radius curves (turnouts used in crossovers should be a larger frog number).
But if you want to use #6s, it's probably do-able.
K_Frazier I have been haveing a hard time getting the track to connect using the software AnyRail 6 and the Atlas Track Planning Software.
As soon as you change manufacturer and/or the frog number of turnouts, it changes the geometry of the layout and things will not fit in the same way.
Good luck with your layout.
Byron
Layout Design GalleryLayout Design Special Interest Group
By the way, in terms of incorporating crossings in a plan, here are the steps I use in 3rd PlanIt that allow me to adapt a variety of crossing angles to a various turnouts in a similar situation as found in that published plan. The angles need not be an exact match, but one needs to watch for accidental insertion of s-curves. The steps are probably similar in other CAD programs.
[And speaking of s-curves, that looks like a potentially troublesome one right near Resource Renewal LLC that could be easily avoided by flipping the turnout. (And it would make the runaround longer as well.)]
I appreciate the replies. I was thinking of using my extended space for staging or small yard. I may not have a firm grasp on what "staging" actually is. I guess I should do some more research on that.
The published plan shows a 30 degree crossing. That seems to be an error to me. Should be 22.8 degrees, I think, or perhaps 25 degees mightwork for Atlas. If the OP uses #6 then the crossing will be 19 degrees.
Bill
bagalThe published plan shows a 30 degree crossing. That seems to be an error to me. Should be 22.8 degrees, I think, or perhaps 25 degees mightwork for Atlas. If the OP uses #6 then the crossing will be 19 degrees.
With a few degrees of additional curve just past the turnout, a 30° crossing works fine, as would others.
It's often easy to match a crossing with turnouts that aren't quite the same degree of divergence. It just takes a bit of curve at the diverging ends of the turnouts to align everything (as I showed in the post above yours). If the angle difference is too great, or distances too short, then this method won't work, of course.
Here's something similar to the published plan using #5 turnouts, 24" R curves, and a 30° crossing.
Yes, appreciate that. FWIW the published plan appears to have been drawn at around 22 degrees rather than 30 degrees assuming my old school protractor is still accurate.
BTW, I try to avoid Atlas crossings whenever possbile since its not uncommon for my dcc/dound switcher (short wheelbase) locomotives to stall over the frogs at slow speeds.
Especially as the degree gets tighter and the frogs get a bit longer, like in a 19 degree crossing.
Just something to think about and plan for.
I haven't had any stalling problems on the Walthers/Shinohara 30 degree crossings, but that would require the number 5 turnouts. Its a switching layout, so sharp turnout frogs are not a big deal.
- Douglas
DoughlessI haven't had any stalling problems on the Walthers/Shinohara 30 degree crossings, but that would require the number 5 turnouts.
Works fine with #6s and 30° Walthers crossing also, just requires a minor adjustment and slightly longer curves: