Have to move the track coming from the black thuder mine to the main to this spot to get enough track to support a 16 car train. A PECO large radius turnout has aprox the same 36" radius as the main in this spot. It works out good but the main is now running through the diverging route of the turnout. Is this a bad idea or not?
In practice it would involve more wear on the points and a couple of other parts of the structure, implying more regular maintenance to avoid failure. You may have to keep the equivalent of diverging-clear as your fastest speed due to the effective lack of spiraling in the transition, and I think that would apply 'both ways'.
Overmod In practice it would involve more wear on the points and a couple of other parts of the structure, implying more regular maintenance to avoid failure. You may have to keep the equivalent of diverging-clear as your fastest speed due to the effective lack of spiraling in the transition, and I think that would apply 'both ways'.
If we're thinking in prototype terms, how fast is Diverging Clear?
Jeff
I think that it is a bad idea. I have always designed my layouts such that the mainlines always use the straight through route when entering a turnout to avoid any possibility of derailments. In my experience, trains always need to slow down when entering the divergent route on a turnout to eliminate any possibility of derailments.
Rich
Alton Junction
corsiarHave to move the track coming from the black thuder mine to the main to this spot to get enough track to support a 16 car train. A PECO large radius turnout has aprox the same 36" radius as the main in this spot. It works out good but the main is now running through the diverging route of the turnout. Is this a bad idea or not?
I faced the same problem. Rather than tear out and move large sections of track, I ran the mainline through a diverging route.
If I was starting over, I wouldn't do it, but I have never had a problem with trains running through it.
York1 John
What about curved turnouts?
Space constraints forced me to put an Atlas #6 divergent route as the main. Installed it 13 years ago, run at normal speeds and have not had one problem. Best practice is not to do it if possible, but in a pinch it should not be a problem
The Wind River Canyon peninsula on my N-scale layout is essentially one giant balloon track; so however you shake it, trains always either enter a diverging route or emerge from a diverging route. The nozzle of the balloon is a straight Peco large radius turnout, about a No 8 equivalent.
Reasonable speeds cause no problems, and neither do unreasonable speeds.
Robert
LINK to SNSR Blog
Hello All,
With permission, and forgiveness, I'm going to get a bit semantical...
"The main line, or mainline in American English, of a railway is a track that is used for through trains or is the principal artery of the system from which branch lines, yards, sidings and spurs are connected. It generally refers to a route between towns, as opposed to a route providing suburban or metro services." Wikipedia
Yes, I just quoted Wikipedia.
I have seen mainlines making a pathway through yards that weren't necessarily a straight run of track.
The "diverging" straight sections might be considered yard leads in your plan.
Personally I see nothing wrong with a curved main to accommodate the surrounding topography, yards and industries.
On my pike I modified a PECO curved turnout to re-route the mainline, so switching duties could be performed without interfering with mainline traffic.
Previously- -through bad track planning by management- -the trains on the main would have to negotiate an "S" section though a series of turnouts to avoid yard operations.
Good luck and as always...
Hope this helps.
"Uhh...I didn’t know it was 'impossible' I just made it work...sorry"
jeffhergertIf we're thinking in prototype terms, how fast is Diverging Clear?
Medium speed modified by characteristics of the particular 'diversion' or subsequent route. The figure I usually see is 30mph base. I suspect you know far more about the actual signal and speed rules that would apply to a situation such as this.
Overmod jeffhergert If we're thinking in prototype terms, how fast is Diverging Clear? Medium speed modified by characteristics of the particular 'diversion' or subsequent route. The figure I usually see is 30mph base. I suspect you know far more about the actual signal and speed rules that would apply to a situation such as this.
jeffhergert If we're thinking in prototype terms, how fast is Diverging Clear?
Our Diverging Clear is Proceed on the diverging route not exceeding the speed of the turnout. We have 15, 30, 40, 50 and 60 mph turnouts that are traversed on a Diverging Clear signal. The speed through the turnout is prescribed by the turnout, not the signal.
For the prototype, how does a typical Class 1 system map get to look the way it does unless many main lines run through diverging routes?
For our models, I assume if the embedded radius is broad enough and the turnout is installed well, I don't see a real problem.
Having said that, I think it looks kind of funny and I would always try to avoid it for that reason.
- Douglas
I personally avoid having mains take diverging routes when I track plan, because I’ve heard from a few railroaders that the prototype rarely does that. This is because diverging turnouts increase the risk of derailments and require a speed resriction (I think 25 or 30 mph) to operate safely.
Now this weight is not a major issue in HO scale as the rolling stock is not as heavy. Even in 7 1/2 inch scale livesteam, one of the biggest, and heaviest scales, people routinely go through diverging routes at top speed without issue.
So to the OP I’d say it is okay to route the main through a diverging turnout. You could easily run through it at track speed without issue. Still if you want some operational interest you could have crews go through the turnout at restricted speed.
Regards, Isaac
I model my railroad and you model yours! I model my way and you model yours!
It is a small 9' x 10' N scale layout that I will be operating by myself.
Laying cork now then will lay the main line track and test. If it doesnt work I can pull it up and try something else.
Hi corsiar,
Do what you have to do! It's a model railroad, not the real thing. If you need to use the diverging route as the mainline there is nothing wrong with doing that. That is, of course, provided that you lay your track properly and that you run at reasonable speeds.
Curved turnouts work great for coming off the mainline in the middle of a curve. Our HO club layout has several situations where we have used Peco Code 83 curved turnouts to great advantage where the inside curve is the mainline.
I envy those modellers who can claim that all of their through routes are on the straight side of the turnouts, but that takes space. If you don't have the space, why get your shorts in a knot because you are violating some prototypical rule. Who cares? I'll say it again, do what you have to do.
Cheers!!
Dave
I'm just a dude with a bad back having a lot of fun with model trains, and finally building a layout!
For example:
MARCP877, West, Point of Rocks, MD by Chris G, on Flickr
Good Luck, Ed
I would suggest that just because it happened sometimes on the prototype is really not sufficient justification to do it on a model railroad. Running trains through the divergent side of turnouts can be a delicate process requiring slower speeds to avoid derailments. I would leave the divergent side of turnouts to entries to yards and sidings and spurs.
gmpullman For example: MARCP877, West, Point of Rocks, MD by Chris G, on Flickr Good Luck, Ed
I've tried to post a pic of the BNSF, UP, CSX, or NS system maps, but failed. They look like spider webs superimposed on top of an arterial MRI.
I would think the above pic would happen a few dozen times on each system, at least.
Maybe what we're talking about is the tangent track leading into an industrial spur instead of another mainline?
That may be a different animal.
Very proto-typical .... provided the diverging route is through a no. 24 switch !
Mark.
¡ uʍop ǝpısdn sı ǝɹnʇɐuƃıs ʎɯ 'dlǝɥ
jeffhergertThe speed through the turnout is prescribed by the turnout, not the signal.
That is what I meant to say, but didn't say 'well enough'. The characteristics of the turnout and subsequent route would determine both the speed and the expected 'next' signal indication, with some default speed logically being provided where it might be unknown. So exactly as Jeff indicates.
On a model railroad, of course, the largest radius you have is probably more sharply curved than Jeff's 15mph turnout, and while prototypical radius doesn't need to be strictly observed there are likely some operational quirks... on the other hand, it's unlikely you'd be coupling or shoving on the main as opposed to 'back into the yard' so there may actually be an operating advantage of sorts having the diversion being a tangent up to the ladder.
I have a few of them. On the old Code 100 part of my layout, I use Peco turnouts, some double-curved and on the newer Code 83 part the only one is a WS double curve.
I have no problems with any of these but I am meticulous about reliable trackwork and will spend hours fixing them until I have zero problems.
I do think that Tortoise or Peco machines to drive these hold the points in place better than Atlas machines. That is why I chose Pecos for these situations.
It takes an iron man to play with a toy iron horse.
That depends on the turnout. The speed on diverging routes is controlled by the frog and not by the signal aspect.
An number 8 frog would be limited to 16 mph. A number 10 frog would be limited to 20 mph. A number 20 frog would be limited to 40 mpg, but anything faster than that would need to have moving frog points as well as moving switch points.
Your standard #4 turn out would be limited to 8 mph, and a #6 to 12 mph.
Those sort of mach subway speeds, mane lion or knot.
The Route of the Broadway Lion The Largest Subway Layout in North Dakota.
Here there be cats. LIONS with CAMERAS
Remember Saluda Grade? It had a top descent speed of 8 mph, and at the bottom, the 'main' route diverged away from the runaway route. If the person 'manning' the switch didn't hear three whistles from the oncoming descending locomotive, he didn't throw the switch and the train was deemed to be in distress. Due to the high speeds expected, the idea was that the through route was the safest, leading up a steep control ramp.
A few practical thoughts:
The prototype does what it must, and uses much larger curves and much larger frog numbers than our models, including moving point frogs when needed.
None of that applies to our models.
The substitution radius of a #6 or #8 turnout easily exceeds the typical radius curves most of us are using, generally allowing the turnout to act as an easement.
So why would it be a problem to run the main thru the diverging route? Just like the photos above of the Point of Rocks junction?
Every layout I have ever built has had a few such locations, never with any issues. Same has been true of a number of layouts I have designed and/or worked on for others.
My new layout will have a number of such track arrangements, mostly with #8 turnouts and curves above 36" radius.
I would forge ahead.
Sheldon
My suggestion would be to spend the extra money and get high-end turnouts. Peco and Micro Engineering would be my choice unless you want to try your hand at hand-laying one.
FYI The website for Micro Engineering has changed its address. I've included the link below.
Micro Engineering
Marlon
See pictures of the Clinton-Golden Valley RR
Medina1128 My suggestion would be to spend the extra money and get high-end turnouts. Peco and Micro Engineering would be my choice unless you want to try your hand at hand-laying one. FYI The website for Micro Engineering has changed its address. I've included the link below. Micro Engineering
And yet my Atlas Custom Line turnouts work just fine even in this application.......
In my experience, those two brands you mentioned are mainly better on a few points of appearance, or in the case of PECO, if you prefer the little throwbar spring.
After paint and ballast, not much difference to me, and I prefer the Atlas wiring scheme.
Not to mention the lower cost, and better selection compared to ME.