Subscriber & Member Login

Login, or register today to interact in our online community, comment on articles, receive our newsletter, manage your account online and more!

Interesting plan, Tupper Lake & Faust Junction

21823 views
210 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    February, 2009
  • 1,462 posts
Posted by railandsail on Friday, October 19, 2018 9:18 AM

Doughless,

That was suppose to mean what exact shape I would be cutting the shelf plywood to in order to accompodate the 'final' trackplan.

  • Member since
    February, 2009
  • 1,462 posts
Posted by railandsail on Friday, October 19, 2018 9:31 AM

Yard Area Tracks & Turnouts

It has been pointed out on another forum that the number of yard tracks, and some of the turnouts I sketched into that 'area' are not doable. Let me say in my defense first off that I very quickly sketched those in WITHOUT giving due consideration to scale realities,...just wanted to impart the general idea.


The angle that your feed track for the yard is at seems way to great (my peco turnouts are 12 degrees). There also does not appear to be enough room for turnouts to obtain the amount of yard tracks you presently have (my shortest peco turnout is approx 7 1/2" and has a radius of 24"). Cheers, Mark



 

 

I will have to take a whole new fresh look at this yard area

I don't know that much about them yet, but I ran across this term 'compound yard ladder'., and this posting on another forum,...

 

 

from another older discussion on this forum....

I bought Andy Sperandeo's Kalmbach book on Yard design a few years ago and thought it might be wise to brush up on the basic concepts before I made any other blunders.  During this process I discovered my saving grace was right under my nose: the compound yard ladder!  It's a bit difficult to explain, but for the uninitiated it's a yard ladder in which extra turnouts are placed below the tracks that make up the basic ladder allowing for more tracks in a given length of yard ladder.  This design gives you more space to place usable yard track and takes up less space with turnouts for a given number of yard tracks.

 The image at left was taken at approximately the same location as the picture above from 6 months ago.  The increased yard capacity is amazing.  In my old yard using a straight ladder I had about 135" of track in the yard.  With the new design (including that track not yet installed on the 3rd and 4th track) I will have approximately 250" of yard track; that's an 85% increase in capacity just by changing the yard ladder.

The moral of the story, if you're tight on space it's worth considering a compound ladder for your yard design.  While you may not see the same increase in capacity I did (I shifted around the turnouts a bit along the top of the image to allow for a pinwheel entrance to the yard which helped me add capacity) it will definitely help with space constraints.

 

 

 

 

 

Would it make any sense for me to consider such a thing for my yard area??

  • Member since
    December, 2008
  • From: In the heart of Georgia
  • 3,052 posts
Posted by Doughless on Friday, October 19, 2018 1:02 PM

OK.  I was hoping you weren't going to make big changes to the plan at this point. 

I'm thinking the benchwork is pretty maxed out as it is so I assume you are talking about possibly carving out benchwork and increasing aisle space rather than making it wider for bigger scenes.

- Douglas

  • Member since
    February, 2009
  • 1,462 posts
Posted by railandsail on Monday, October 22, 2018 7:31 AM

Douglas, You got a chuckle out of me this morning when I read your latest reply. Yes I think you are correct, I've maxed out the scenic area.

I was basically looking at the entrance width which I believe I sketched in at somewhat less than 36", when in reality I want to make a full 36". And I was looking at the shapes of the ends of the 2 aisle (lower level) as to how they might be cut to accommodate the track plan up there. Also those same areas on the upper deck, as well as the 2 corners of the upper deck to either side of the entrance.

Since I am NOT building my benchwork in the 'traditional wood fashion', but rather plywood cantilevered off metal beams, I would like to cut those plywood shelves the correct shape first time around,...and not have to add or subtract from them.

I would like to have my track plan finalized before I cut the shelves.

 

PS: There is something else that is entering the equation. I believe I am going to be able to build some of those shelves/decks in a 'removable fashion',...posting to come.

  • Member since
    February, 2009
  • 1,462 posts
Posted by railandsail on Tuesday, October 23, 2018 10:11 AM

Is there something going on with gmail or the internet?

I just received in my 'railroad gmail acct'  a notice about a posting I made to this discussion about a week ago?...why so late and not up to date??

I do know that gmail just recently changed a bunch of things with their 'look' ??

  • Member since
    February, 2009
  • 1,462 posts
Posted by railandsail on Saturday, October 27, 2018 9:32 AM

Freight Yard Ladder

I am struggling with a similar situation with my desire to but a small freight yard scene on the bottom deck of my new plan. Here is a quick sketch I did, and it has already been pointed out that I will likely NOT be able to fit that many spurs in there.

How many spurs is not that important to me, but of course I would like to maximize it.

I have seen the recommendations about a 2" spacing between tracks in a freight yard, but how does one acceive this? Do I assume it is done via the shortest length turnouts? I have Peco small radius streamline ones. Or would I consider the even shorter 'set track' Pecos?

And of course it seems very dependent of the angle that feeder track crosses the head of the ladder.

I'm totally a novice at this ladder system design, so I need help. I would like to utilize the Peco turnouts I have in possession, rather than buy new ones. But I'm not opposed to buying new ones. Basically I am using code 100 everywhere.

PS: If i needed to slant the diagonal ladder feed track even more to attain a tight spacing on the yard tracks, maybe I could move that diesel repair building (NOT the fueling/sanding facility) to an spot up above the ladder and into that blank spot behind the coaling tower??

  • Member since
    February, 2009
  • 1,462 posts
Posted by railandsail on Tuesday, October 30, 2018 6:49 PM

Rough Idea, Freight Yard Ladder

Combo of paper templates and actual turnouts laid out on carpet. The edge of the rug is to represent the shed wall on that side of the room were the track close to wall is the track that feeds the helix down to staging. The next 2 tracks out are the mainline going into the helix structure the looping back out. So that's the 3 tracks on that side.

 

The ladder is a combo of the paper templates of Peco 'small radius' turnouts trimmed to fit as tight as possible together. These 4 turnouts would feed 4 flex tracks that would have straight and curves of no less than 22" to end up spaced 2"- 2.25" center to center spacing.

The very top of the ladder is a double-curved Peco 'set track' turnout that is connected to a 22" radius curve that enters the center peninsula area. It runs down the edge of the aisle towards the steel mill, and likely could have a couple of short spurs off of it.

 

 

 

That loop of track going over into the center peninsula are is made up of 22" radius curves, and the approx distance between the centerlines of the 2 most inner tracks of that loop is 40" (looping around the end of that 30' aisle on that side of the layout.

The height of that 'ladder' (from the top of the loop to the end of that turnout it connects to on the mainline) is approx 48". Those 2 overall area dimensions are pretty close to what I had original sketched out for that area.

Most of the 'switcher locos' and freight cars should be able to negotiate the minimum 22" curves??

Need to do some tweaking, but this looks promising??

  • Member since
    December, 2001
  • From: Northern CA Bay Area
  • 4,027 posts
Posted by cuyama on Tuesday, October 30, 2018 7:54 PM

railandsail
The very top of the ladder is a double-curved Peco 'set track' turnout

That would be about a #2.5 frog, with radii of about 19 7/8" and
17 1/4". Seems like a poor choice at a critical spot, since it is much sharper than what you are using elsewhere and thus will limit what can run through the yard.

  • Member since
    February, 2009
  • 1,462 posts
Posted by railandsail on Tuesday, October 30, 2018 8:16 PM

cuyama

 

 
railandsail
The very top of the ladder is a double-curved Peco 'set track' turnout

 

That would be about a #2.5 frog, with radii of about 19 7/8" and
17 1/4". Seems like a poor choice at a critical spot, since it is much sharper than what you are using elsewhere and thus will limit what can run through the yard.

 

Yes I was (am) nervous about the dbl-curved turnout. I laid a 22" curved piece of track over one of those legs, and it seemed to fit that larger curve. And the smaller curve seemed to be very close to and 18" radius. My thoughts were that this might be possible for smaller switchers with few cars?

Or perhaps that particular leg would only be used for short steel related cars.

I would like to find something a little larger without having to resort to building a custom turnout. Got any ideas?

  • Member since
    December, 2001
  • From: Northern CA Bay Area
  • 4,027 posts
Posted by cuyama on Tuesday, October 30, 2018 8:26 PM

railandsail
Yes I was (am) nervous about the dbl-curved turnout. I laid a 22" curved piece of track over one of those legs, and it seemed to fit that larger curve. And the smaller curve seemed to be very close to and 18" radius.

Well, you can believe your (overly hopeful, I fear) eyes, or the PECO specs. And note that the frog is very sharp. Especially troublesome when shoving cars – which happens a lot in a yard.

railandsail
Got any ideas?

Starting from scratch, re-draw your plan to scale using reasonable specifications. As has been suggested from the beginning.

Other than that, I've got nothing.

 

  • Member since
    February, 2009
  • 1,462 posts
Posted by railandsail on Wednesday, October 31, 2018 12:00 PM

I like this analysis much more than starting all over again.

 

*********************************
Hi Ken, Brian and all,

In https://model-railroad-hobbyist.com/sites/model-railroad-hobbyist.com/files/users/Prof_Klyzlrfiles/On30Loco_n_Car_Radius_pics.pdf as defined from Page 1, the "Practical Operating Radius" most of the HO Switcher donor mechanisms are listed at 18" minimum radius for "out of the box" unmodified locomotives. So I have no doubt that these locomotive mechanisms can handle 22" easily without problems. Any of the HO donor mechanisms that are listed as 15" for "Absolute Minimum Reported Radius" without an * for attached notes should easily be able to handle the Set-Track radius of 17 1/4".

The ones marked with an an Absolute Minimum Reported Radius of 15 AND * need approaching with more caution, but they should be able to handle 17 1/4" radius without binding or coupler overhang problems. The operative word here is "SHOULD" rather than "COULD". 

The results in the above link have been verified and are known to be correct as printed in the pdf file. 

The real danger is for stuff that isn't in the above pdf file that was specifically written as guidance for HO conversions to On30. For example:

  • long HO freight wagons like 90' autoracks, or,
  • 85' passenger cars

where long wagon lengths can move the couplings a long way off centre as the wagon traverses tight curves. Steam locomotives with long fixed wheelbases and/or big overhangs at front or back of the locomotive unit could also hit problems on 17 1/4" radius. (And yes I know you have some BIG steamers Brian, remember those curve clearance trials??)

Now if none of these types of big or long overhang rolling stock have to go over that 17 1/4" radius then you are unlikely to have a problem (You did say that this track was planned as a shortcut for small switchers ONLY)  Just like the real world, your model tracks now have a limitation when not everything can use it. But that's not a problem if every model you have doesn't have to use those tracks. Add a sign "DIESEL SWITCHERS ONLY TO PASS BEYOND HERE". at each end of the sub 22" radius curvature. wink  yesyes  

Regards,

John Garaty
***************************************

  • Member since
    December, 2001
  • From: Northern CA Bay Area
  • 4,027 posts
Posted by cuyama on Wednesday, October 31, 2018 12:21 PM

Suit yourself and good luck. This won't be the only place that you will face problems in building a relatively complex track plan that is not drawn to scale.

  • Member since
    December, 2001
  • From: Northern CA Bay Area
  • 4,027 posts
Posted by cuyama on Wednesday, October 31, 2018 12:57 PM

And a couple of last cautions before I retire from this thread. Note that the list you are placing confidence in is for the switcher mechanism only, not an HO switcher as-built shoving a string of cars. The performance for various combinations of models will differ. Best to mock it up and test.

Also, if you don’t have an Arrival/Departure track elsewhere (which would be an odd arrangement in itself), road engines and all freight cars will still need to negotiate the 19 7/8" curve  ̶w̶h̶i̶l̶e̶ ̶s̶h̶o̶v̶i̶n̶g̶ – effectively making that the minimum radius for freight traffic on your layout, not 22”.

 

  • Member since
    February, 2002
  • From: Reading, PA
  • 26,019 posts
Posted by rrinker on Wednesday, October 31, 2018 4:35 PM

 Note that there are prototype instances of smaller switchers working VERY tight curves - Reading's Port Richmond facilities along the Delaware in Philadelphia come to mind. HOWEVER - the SW1's they used there were outfitted with modified couplers to give a far wider swing that a standard draft gear. So yes, the prototype did do such things - but NOT with stock locos.

                                 --Randy

 


Modeling the Reading Railroad in the 1950's

 

Visit my web site at www.readingeastpenn.com for construction updates, DCC Info, and more.

  • Member since
    February, 2009
  • 1,462 posts
Posted by railandsail on Thursday, November 01, 2018 4:40 PM

Peco SET TRACK dbl-curve turnouts

 

The SET TRACK  from Peco is more of the 'entree level' track system than the STREAMLINE systems/tracks, As such it usually includes some smaller radius, tighter curve turnouts.

In their Code100 tracks they basically offer 2 double-curve turnouts,....a set track one and a streamline one. 
1) The consensus of opinion puts the larger 'streamline' one at 30" inner radius and 60" outer radius.

2) The smaller 'set track' one is generally been quoted as 17 1/4" inner radius and 19 7/8" outer radius
Here is a little experiment I conduced this afternoon on those smaller radius set track ones,...

 

Here is a single one of those small dbl curves surrounded by a piece of 18" radius track on one side, and a 22" radius track on the other. These are going to be brought closer to the dbl-curve turnout in steps,...

 

 


That to me is a close enough fit to call that inner radius of the dbl-curve turnout an 18" curve


Now the 22" curve along the outer curve of the dbl-curve,...

 


Not quite as close of a fit, but likely in at least the 21" range,.....and I think that can work out in a 22" arc of trackwork.


A few photos of this dbl-curve laying over drawn out arcs,

 

 

 

 

Bottom line, I'm feeling pretty comfortable placing this at the head of my yard ladder. In fact I may include two of them at the head of the ladder. (It was a real surprise to me that I had even one of these turnouts, let alone 4 lefts and 2 rights !!).

And another nice thing is it I have any derailments with these turnouts they are located right next to the aisle within easy reach.

  • Member since
    December, 2008
  • From: In the heart of Georgia
  • 3,052 posts
Posted by Doughless on Thursday, November 01, 2018 7:45 PM

Mocking it up by setting track next to each other or placing on marked up paper is probably not as precise as you want for this situation.

I think the suggestions were more about actually laying some track of several feet then running all of your equipment through it to give you a better idea.  You already have the track it looks like.  In the flesh trials would give you better results than theoretical discussions and mathematical computations.

- Douglas

  • Member since
    February, 2009
  • 1,462 posts
Posted by railandsail on Friday, November 02, 2018 10:13 PM

I didn't have the time today to get all of that equipment out to perform such a test as suggested.  But I did do a little abbreviated version. I attached some 22" curves onto either end of the outer radius, and an 18" curve onto the diverging track.

I selected a few freight cars (40 & 50 footers) and ran them back and forth thru this. One even had the old sprung trucks with very small flange wheels . They ran just find.

One thing I did notice is that made a very slight jog at the point end of the turnout. That is a result of that end being slightly straight in nature compared to the other curved portions. Perhaps you can see that here,..

 

One nice detail on this Peco dbl-curve is that fact that the point rail has a radius built in.

 

I believe that most any car/loco that can traverse either 18"r or 22"r on their own, will be able to negotiate the respective route of this turnout. I don't think they will be prone to picking the points here, or having trouble with the frog.

I am also feeling good about utilizing 2 of these dbl-curves at the head of the ladder. So the first 2 diverging routes will be 18" radius entrances, and limited to cars/locos that can use them. The rest will be cars/locos that can negotiate 22" curves, which are many.

Longer cars/locos that need at least 24" radius could enter from the mainline track, up the ladder, then duck into a yard track thru the Peco 'small radius' conventional turnouts that make up the ladder, and that have a diverging route of 24" inches.

  • Member since
    February, 2009
  • 1,462 posts
Posted by railandsail on Saturday, November 03, 2018 7:42 AM

2 Dbl-Curves on Ladder, 24"R Track into Peninsula Area

I was playing around with this idea.

Seeing as how my single dbl-curve turnout didn't bring that yard track out to the proposed edge of my shelf, I might well put in another dbl-curve, and end up with an additional yard track for storage or that might serve my steel mill, etc. So maybe 2 dbl-curves at the head of the ladder. .

If I should experience any derail problems with these Peco dble curves, turns out I have a number of other brands I collected over the years,....Atlas, Roco, Casadyo. ...And lastly they will be very close to the aisle for accessibility.

While fooling around with this idea, I wondered if I might provide for a 24" radius track to enter that peninsula area? This is what I came up with do far. The tape measure lying there is set at 30", my initial idea for shelf depth on that side of the layout. The white paper cutout represents the aisle space, also 30" wide.

The two parallel tracks on the upper left side would serve the turntable and the curved route with steam engine access, and would go under the a coaling tower along there. The addition 'outside chute' (third rail) of the coaling tower would serve the ladder straight for those smaller steam switchers.

 

 

 

  • Member since
    February, 2009
  • 1,462 posts
Posted by railandsail on Tuesday, November 06, 2018 12:18 PM

Yard Ladder Turnouts(no trimming required)

I am struggling with a similar situation with my desire to but a small freight yard scene on the bottom deck of my new plan. Here is a quick sketch I did, and it has already been pointed out that I will likely NOT be able to fit that many yard tracks in there.

How many spurs is not that important to me, but of course I would like to maximize it.

I have seen the recommendations about a 2" spacing between tracks in a freight yard, but how does one achieve this? Do I assume it is done via the shortest length turnouts? I have Peco small radius streamline ones. Or would I consider the even shorter 'set track' Pecos?

I gave consideration to this idea of utilizing the even shorter length Peco 'set track' turnouts, but rejected it due to their tight radius diverging track. The 'small radius' Peco streamlines have a diverging route of 24" radius.

I also gave considerations to 'trimming the Peco turnouts to lessen their length. The ladder is a combo of the paper templates of Peco 'small radius' turnouts trimmed to fit as tight as possible together. These 4 turnouts would feed 4 flex tracks that would have straight and curves of no less than 22" to end up spaced 2"- 2.25" center to center spacing.


I didn't really like the idea of trimming each of those Pecos, so this morning I decided to see what just how much longer that yard ladder would be it the turnouts were installed 'untrimmed' ? I got quite a surprise, the total length of the 4 turnouts along the ladder was only increased by approx 1.5 inches !

I can fit that into my plan, so no trimming necessary.

  • Member since
    June, 2007
  • From: Northern Virginia
  • 6,688 posts
Posted by riogrande5761 on Tuesday, November 06, 2018 12:54 PM

All I can say is a good scale drawing could probably avoid a good deal of analysis paralysis and faffing about.

I'm not a professional like Cuyuma but I've found a good scale drawing which takes into account basic minimums and turnout dimensions usually means you can go straight to building and things come out pretty darn close to the drawing.  Of course you can't cheat or things won't fit right.

When it came time to actually build my last layout, I had nearly all the benchwork built and track laid in about a 6-8 month period.  Granted I was working 4 ten hour days so I had a little more hobby time.  

Chop chop!

Rio Grande.  The Action Road

  • Member since
    February, 2009
  • 1,462 posts
Posted by railandsail on Tuesday, November 06, 2018 2:33 PM

So what scale is your drawing that you can depict accurate turnout details/dimensions/ divergent curves???

I can draw at 1" to the foot, and depict accurate curves in the layout, but not accurate turnout details.

  • Member since
    December, 2008
  • From: In the heart of Georgia
  • 3,052 posts
Posted by Doughless on Thursday, November 08, 2018 6:35 AM

railandsail

So what scale is your drawing that you can depict accurate turnout details/dimensions/ divergent curves???

I can draw at 1" to the foot, and depict accurate curves in the layout, but not accurate turnout details.

 

My thought is that with the level of trackwork you are putting into tight spaces, hand drawn turnout angles may not afford the amount of precision you need.  You can come close, but if a track ends up only an inch closer to  the benchwork edge than what you drew, its a big deal.

And even paper mock ups can have errors.  Personally, I wouldn't feel totally comfortable until I began to lay the most difficult and tenuous array of track, tested it, and then work out from there.

- Douglas

  • Member since
    June, 2007
  • From: Northern Virginia
  • 6,688 posts
Posted by riogrande5761 on Thursday, November 08, 2018 9:01 AM

railandsail

So what scale is your drawing that you can depict accurate turnout details/dimensions/ divergent curves???

I can draw at 1" to the foot, and depict accurate curves in the layout, but not accurate turnout details.

The drawings have mostly been 2 feet to the inch.

I have found (based on real life experiences) you don't have to draw accurate turnout details as long as you allow for a realistic space for turnout length.  That has been my experience after building 3 good sized layouts (16x19, 14x25.7 and 10x18.4 feet). 

Two scale plans (a past layout and future) here:

http://atlasrescueforum.proboards.com/thread/3737/jims-layout-progress?page=3

I only mock up turnouts configuration during the track laying process and then lay track in an sequence (in main yard - turnouts first, then straight) so I don't paint myself into a corner. 

My point it is entirely possible to draw out a scale plan and it translate into 1:1 without mocking the entire layout up in 1:1 fashion, absolutely not necessary.

Worst case scenario is the holding tracks in the yard may be a few inches shorter than on the scale plan - no game changer.

Here is a photo of mocking up the yard turnouts on my 1:1 yard area with all the track center-lines pre-drawn in at 2 1/16th inches apart.

You can see in the bottom photo I did have a scale plan for that last 10x18' layout, but after moving I am not sure where it is.  Here is the yard mostly complete - everything fit:

Here is the staging with fairly complex curved yard throat.

The key I've found is not to necessarily do a full size paper plan - or a full sized mock-up on a floor somewhere, but to build "key" areas first and the inbetween later. Sequence is very important how you lay the track to have everything come out without taking 2 to 3 times the time necessary to get it built.

Here is the sequence I did using staging as an example:

1) draw all tangent (straight) center lines down on the homasote first (or your choice of substrait)

2) draw in the curve center lines next and make sure each lines up with it's respective tangent centerline plus the offset for the easement (approx 1/2-inch depending on radius).

3) mock up the yard throat to make sure all the turnouts will flow smoothly into the curved yard tracks which were have center-lines pre-drawn.

I suppose having a technique which allows you to safetly translate a scale plan into 1:1 without mocking everything up in 1:1, even mulitple times and ways, is a real time saver.  The main thing is that you don't cheat on the scale dawing but allow a realistic space for turnouts.

 

Rio Grande.  The Action Road

  • Member since
    December, 2008
  • From: In the heart of Georgia
  • 3,052 posts
Posted by Doughless on Thursday, November 08, 2018 10:25 AM

I was thinking more about working with a compact area of multiple turnouts, especially curved turnouts. 

IIRC, working with curved turnouts is more complicated than with straight turnouts.  Sliding, rotating, or getting the diverging angle wrong with a curved turnout has a bigger impact than a straight one and its much more difficult to correct.  I don't think mocking up an entire plan is necessary, but its a good idea to mock the compact area of curved turnout arrays to ensure the diverging angles came off correctly and are of sufficient length. 

Unlike a straight turnout with straight tangent and diverging routes that are easy to add length too if needed (from the abutting flex track), having to add an extra half inch of curve to a stock turnout means you have to bend the very end of a piece of flextrack when abutting the turnout in order to make that curve.  Also, any planned trimming of a curved turnout can cause more complicated approach problems if its not planned precisely.

Brian may be able to fill in small gaps in a curved turnout array by using scraps of sectional track of proper radius.  Gotta love sectional track.

- Douglas

  • Member since
    June, 2007
  • From: Northern Virginia
  • 6,688 posts
Posted by riogrande5761 on Thursday, November 08, 2018 11:04 AM

Doughless

I was thinking more about working with a compact area of multiple turnouts, especially curved turnouts. 

IIRC, working with curved turnouts is more complicated than with straight turnouts.  Sliding, rotating, or getting the diverging angle wrong with a curved turnout has a bigger impact than a straight one and its much more difficult to correct.  I don't think mocking up an entire plan is necessary, but its a good idea to mock the compact area of curved turnout arrays to ensure the diverging angles came off correctly and are of sufficient length. 

Unlike a straight turnout with straight tangent and diverging routes that are easy to add length too if needed (from the abutting flex track), having to add an extra half inch of curve to a stock turnout means you have to bend the very end of a piece of flextrack when abutting the turnout in order to make that curve.  Also, any planned trimming of a curved turnout can cause more complicated approach problems if its not planned precisely.

I just laid this all out "seat of the pants" style, no precise planning.  Three curved turnouts in this yard throat. 

The two curved turnouts in the upper right center are Shinohara #8 with 36" outer and nominal 32" inner (other say inner is actually 30").

There is also a Peco curved on the left side which has a 60" outer and 30" nominal inner.

The curved track were all carefully blended in to match the center-lines drawn with a trammel and flow smoothly into the section of all straight track:

If one is using sectional track, that is a horse of a different color and force limitations on the track layer.  With a trammel and flext track, it's fairly easy to design things to fit and flow naturally and gracefully.

I have found if you allow for things to fit generally, you can use control points like curve center-lines drawn in physically and straight track center-lines physically, then you can take turnouts and move them by eye to fit where they are supposed to go.

I imagine the tighter the area and sharper the curves, the hard it is to fit things.

Rio Grande.  The Action Road

  • Member since
    February, 2009
  • 1,462 posts
Posted by railandsail on Thursday, November 08, 2018 11:38 AM

Thanks guys for the hints. I'm going to have to reread them tomorrow as I have a cataract surgery this afternoon (my very first eye surgery).

Hope this will make my vision clearer,...but I don't know that it will help with my brain....Big Smile

  • Member since
    June, 2007
  • From: Northern Virginia
  • 6,688 posts
Posted by riogrande5761 on Thursday, November 08, 2018 1:05 PM

I hope the surgery goes well.  I may be in that boat some day.

Rio Grande.  The Action Road

  • Member since
    February, 2009
  • 1,462 posts
Posted by railandsail on Thursday, November 08, 2018 9:41 PM

I was mislead. I distinctly got the impression from my first appt about a week ago that the operation was going to happen TODAY.

Now I found out it was just another preliminary appt, and the operation will not occure until mid Dec. The good note is I do not need those multifocal lens implants that can be very costly, and not covered by medicare. I can get along with the traditional monofocal lens.

  • Member since
    February, 2009
  • 1,462 posts
Posted by railandsail on Tuesday, November 20, 2018 10:10 AM

Curved Turnouts are a nightmare to Plan

Curved turnouts (or as I call them 'double-curved' turnouts) are just so 'undefined' or 'misdefined' to create planning problems. I'll bet the computer track planning programs experience problems with them as well.

Oh well...

Cheers, ---------------------------------------- Patience when resources are limited

  • Member since
    June, 2007
  • From: Northern Virginia
  • 6,688 posts
Posted by riogrande5761 on Tuesday, November 20, 2018 10:41 AM

That is the challenge of trying to fit so much into such little space and using specialty turnouts.

At some point you'll either have to make what is commercially available fit, which may require you modifying the track configuration, or get the fast track system and learn how to roll your own so you can custom fit exactly to your desired track configuration.  Those seem to be the choices.

Rio Grande.  The Action Road

Subscriber & Member Login

Login, or register today to interact in our online community, comment on articles, receive our newsletter, manage your account online and more!

Search the Community

ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
Model Railroader Newsletter See all
Sign up for our FREE e-newsletter and get model railroad news in your inbox!