Lastspikemike riogrande5761 Lastspikemike I set up a ME Code 70 #5 yard ladder and my Walthers heavyweight rolls freely through the S bend at the first turnout pair. Next is the push test with two cars coupled. I'd think a single car wouldn't be much of a problem. But mulitple long passenger cars, that's a better test. Absolutely, and pushed by a locomotive. I am progressively testing in the process of layout design. We built one layout already with a 24" minimum radius that somehow in a few places got reduced to a 22" minimum. This time around I'm not doing that. If 24" curves don't work I'll design to 26" and so on. Now I know what I want to run I can design accordingly.
riogrande5761 Lastspikemike I set up a ME Code 70 #5 yard ladder and my Walthers heavyweight rolls freely through the S bend at the first turnout pair. Next is the push test with two cars coupled. I'd think a single car wouldn't be much of a problem. But mulitple long passenger cars, that's a better test.
Lastspikemike I set up a ME Code 70 #5 yard ladder and my Walthers heavyweight rolls freely through the S bend at the first turnout pair. Next is the push test with two cars coupled.
I set up a ME Code 70 #5 yard ladder and my Walthers heavyweight rolls freely through the S bend at the first turnout pair. Next is the push test with two cars coupled.
I'd think a single car wouldn't be much of a problem. But mulitple long passenger cars, that's a better test.
Absolutely, and pushed by a locomotive. I am progressively testing in the process of layout design.
We built one layout already with a 24" minimum radius that somehow in a few places got reduced to a 22" minimum. This time around I'm not doing that.
If 24" curves don't work I'll design to 26" and so on.
Now I know what I want to run I can design accordingly.
I don't know how much space you have, but I would never even consider running full length passenger cars on anything less that 36" radius. I know lots of people get by with 28" or 30", but I would not find that acceptable for me.
24" radius, no way I would do that.
Full length passenger cars look silly to me squeaking around such curves with extended couplers and gaps between the diaphragms. Seems to defeat the purpose of having an accurate scale model in the first place if you are going to run them around curves that make them look like toys.
Not to mention operational reliability.............
Sheldon
Rio Grande. The Action Road - Focus 1977-1983
Lastspikemike Well, if you search all the forums for Peco Code 100 frog angle it will lead you to this thread right away..... I refrain from commenting on whether that would be useful or not.
Well, if you search all the forums for Peco Code 100 frog angle it will lead you to this thread right away.....
I refrain from commenting on whether that would be useful or not.
Nice to know the search function is working again.........
Lastspikemike I'm not sure this is posted anywhere else on this forum but it is important to note that all Peco Code 100 turnouts use a 12 degree frog angle so numbered frogs are not applicable to Peco Code 100. That corresponds to about a 4.5 frog. The substitution radius is accommodated in the point, closure and diverging rails.
I'm not sure this is posted anywhere else on this forum but it is important to note that all Peco Code 100 turnouts use a 12 degree frog angle so numbered frogs are not applicable to Peco Code 100. That corresponds to about a 4.5 frog.
The substitution radius is accommodated in the point, closure and diverging rails.
Over the years it has been posted many times, but finding that info is another story.
My Bachmann Spectrum USRA Heavy 4-8-2's will not reliably go through an Atlas Custom Line #4, which is really a straight frog #4.5 by actual frog angle.
Never tried them through a #5 from anybody.
My only turnouts smaller than Custom Line #6's are in industrial areas were only small switchers go, surely not in a main yard were mainline power has to arrive and depart.
I don't own any big modern diesels, but I would see them as a problem with #4's and #5's as well.
My roster is 50% steam, most of it medium sized, 2-8-2's, 2-8-0's, 4-8-2's and few 4-8-4's and small driver 2-10-2's. Even my big steam is pretty wheel base friendly, 2-8-8-0's, 2-6-6-2's, 2-6-6-4's.
But turnouts less than #6 are not visually or functionally desirable even for my conservative roster (no UP big boys, or 2-12-4's, etc).
My largest diesels are SD9's, not much of an issue.
As a contemporary modeler, I've acquired some SD40-2s to use as roadswitchers. Its a very long locomotive by my standards. Since road switchers also might use a yard ladder from time to time, I'm making my ladder out of #8 Peco turnouts. That makes for a long ladder. Fortunately, its not much of a yard. Three tracks.
I think #6 frogs are very suitable for just about anything on our layouts. Its just that long locos diverge using the compact Peco #6's a little more abruptly than the smoother and longer Atlas #6's. But I've got the space for the 8's so I'll use them.
- Douglas
LastspikemikeOf interest to the secondary discussion about frog numbered v snap switches I noticed today that ME ladder yard sets of #5 turnouts use curved diverging routes for each of the four different styles of turnout but then they fit straight #5 frogs to all of them. The straight diverging route #5a normal sized turnout uses the exact same frog.
I assume ME designed the ladder system to be compatible with the other turnout.
The ladder system is specifically designed to be a yard ladder, which is different than Atlas or Peco where the different turnouts have different purposes and we try to build a ladder from them. Its really hard to mix in Snap Switches with Custom Line switches or think of them as any way being substitutable. Something to keep in mind when planning a layout.
I don't think there is an issue with building a ladder out of curved diverging route turnouts. It's how the first turnout of the "main" is handled. If that one is curved and immediately heads into a snap switch in the opposite direction, that S curve can be a big problem. If there is a sufficient straight track in between, then no problem. And if the switcher locos are short enough, no problem.
In terms of appearance, those snap switches are pretty sharp, and I would want only 0-4-0, 0-6-0's or diesel switchers to use a yard made with that sharp of turnouts, but that's a matter of personal taste. I'm thinking like a wharf scene or something really compact is where I would use them, not open in countryside.
Lastspikemike Doughless While the yard ladder would be compressed relative to the ladder made with Custom Line frog numbered switches, the snap switch's curved diverging route would make the S curve shown in RioGrande's post more severe. As they would if they were used to make a crossover. The OP is already committed to using curved diverging route small radius Peco turnouts. The truism about layouts is achieving the largest minimum radius you can, whenever you can. Using numbered frog turnouts makes this harder to achieve precisely because the frog angles are straight. My intent is to redirect this thread back to answering the original question. There is no value to recommending changing to numbered frog turnouts. If you did try this in the same space you would make the S curve problem worse than if you used snapswitch geometry. It is useful to consider using numbered frog or larger radius turnouts instead of inserting a straight connector of any length. The Peco turnout being used is already larger radius than the largest radius snapswitch. The question is can the S curve be moderated by inserting a straight section between the mainline turnout and the first opposite hand yard turnout in the ladder. Using a numbered frog turnout or a larger radius Peco medium turnout for the mainline, and if there's room for that first ladder turnout also, may produce a better easing of the S curve than simply inserting a straight between the tighter radius Peco small radius turnouts. That was the direction I was trying to take this discussion.
Doughless While the yard ladder would be compressed relative to the ladder made with Custom Line frog numbered switches, the snap switch's curved diverging route would make the S curve shown in RioGrande's post more severe. As they would if they were used to make a crossover.
While the yard ladder would be compressed relative to the ladder made with Custom Line frog numbered switches, the snap switch's curved diverging route would make the S curve shown in RioGrande's post more severe.
As they would if they were used to make a crossover.
The OP is already committed to using curved diverging route small radius Peco turnouts. The truism about layouts is achieving the largest minimum radius you can, whenever you can.
Using numbered frog turnouts makes this harder to achieve precisely because the frog angles are straight.
My intent is to redirect this thread back to answering the original question. There is no value to recommending changing to numbered frog turnouts. If you did try this in the same space you would make the S curve problem worse than if you used snapswitch geometry. It is useful to consider using numbered frog or larger radius turnouts instead of inserting a straight connector of any length.
The Peco turnout being used is already larger radius than the largest radius snapswitch.
The question is can the S curve be moderated by inserting a straight section between the mainline turnout and the first opposite hand yard turnout in the ladder. Using a numbered frog turnout or a larger radius Peco medium turnout for the mainline, and if there's room for that first ladder turnout also, may produce a better easing of the S curve than simply inserting a straight between the tighter radius Peco small radius turnouts.
That was the direction I was trying to take this discussion.
No big deal here Mike. I don't get offended on forums since I think most folks try to be educational.
I wasn't adhering to the topic of solving the OP's issue per se. I was commenting on the notion that implied there was a good comparison between Atlas Snap Switches and Atlas frog numbered switches when they are not really comparable.
Sure, a person can compare anything to anything if they want, but I think there is confusion when comparing the radius of Snap Switches to turnouts with frog numbers because I think that when building yard ladders, passing sidings, and crossovers, the geometry of the turnout is just as important as the sharpness of the diverging angle.
That was my only point, and I think the point some others were making.
Llenroc fan As the original poster I apologize for stirring up such a controversy. I only wanted some advice re: recommended practices and got far more information than I needed or can use. Thanks for the replies though.
As the original poster I apologize for stirring up such a controversy. I only wanted some advice re: recommended practices and got far more information than I needed or can use.
Thanks for the replies though.
No need to apologize. Your questions aren't to blame. Unfortunately there are vagaries to some forum topics.
SeeYou190I am just getting very worn-down from someone who seems to have an endless need to agitate the discussions. Sorry Douglas. I am going to tap-out of this discussion thread. -Kevin
Sorry Douglas. I am going to tap-out of this discussion thread. -Kevin
I think you have the right idea. I found this interesting and may relate:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/experimentations/201908/what-makes-internet-trolls-tick
So why not just say that in the first place rather than dance around?
I know you think you can "steer" people like you are in a court room, but it does not seem to be working all that well here.
And, you are not the forum police, it is not your job to keep us on point. Conversations go where they go.
And, it is possible that given enough information the OP will reconsider his whole approach?
You would deny him that information on the basis of staying on topic?
SeeYou190 Doughless I wanted the opportunity to point out that generally the turnouts with frog #s have different geometries than turnouts with names. Because they are designed to have different purposes. And you, as usual, are absolutely 100% correct. I am just getting very worn-down from someone who seems to have an endless need to agitate the discussions. Sorry Douglas. I am going to tap-out of this discussion thread. -Kevin
Doughless I wanted the opportunity to point out that generally the turnouts with frog #s have different geometries than turnouts with names. Because they are designed to have different purposes.
And you, as usual, are absolutely 100% correct.
I am just getting very worn-down from someone who seems to have an endless need to agitate the discussions.
Sorry Douglas.
I am going to tap-out of this discussion thread.
-Kevin
No apologies. I usually try to slant my comments to the less experienced lurker, and quote others as a way to do that. My comments tend to be impersonal a little too much probably.
Douglas,
Thanks for posting pictures of what I could not link to easily this afternoon.
I am very device challenged using my Samsung tablet......
SeeYou190 Sheldon, Douglas: Please, you are dealing with someone that has openly anounced to the forum that he is never wrong, and he knows everything. He has also previously stated that he does not think these forums should be a place to find factual information. It does not matter how many times you point out the facts, this will just make you want to bang your head against the wall. I saved this quote from one of Spike's earlier arguments in another thread: Lastspikemike pointing out facts to the contrary doesn't prove me wrong Take the diverging route before this gets carried away. -Kevin
Sheldon, Douglas:
Please, you are dealing with someone that has openly anounced to the forum that he is never wrong, and he knows everything.
He has also previously stated that he does not think these forums should be a place to find factual information.
It does not matter how many times you point out the facts, this will just make you want to bang your head against the wall.
I saved this quote from one of Spike's earlier arguments in another thread:
Lastspikemike pointing out facts to the contrary doesn't prove me wrong
Take the diverging route before this gets carried away.
Kevin, it's OK, if I have the time, and the right mood, I will play.
If not, no response from me, no stress for me either way.
You may notice that while I sometimes post a lot, other times I am radio silent.
DoughlessI wanted the opportunity to point out that generally the turnouts with frog #s have different geometries than turnouts with names. Because they are designed to have different purposes.
Living the dream.
SeeYou190 Sheldon, Douglas: Please, you are dealing with someone that has openly anounced to the forum that he is never wrong, and he knows everything. He has also previously stated that he does not think these forums should be a place to find factual information. It does not matter how many times you point out the facts, this will just make you want to bang your head against the wall. Take the diverging route before this gets carried away. -Kevin
Its not about Mike or changing an opinion.
I wanted the opportunity to point out that generally the turnouts with frog #s have different geometries than turnouts with names. Because they are designed to have different purposes.
Not meaning that anybody can't force one to do the other if they wanted to.
Doughless ATLANTIC CENTRAL Douglas, Actually they do make both 18" radius and 22" radius code 83 snap switches. Items 0540 thru 0543 - maunal and remote 18" radius code 83 snap switches Items 0544 thru 0547 - maunal and remote 22" radius code 83 snap switches Sheldon Okay. That was not the main point of course. The point is that implying that snap switches are compared to frogged turnouts based on embedded radius is missing the mark.
ATLANTIC CENTRAL Douglas, Actually they do make both 18" radius and 22" radius code 83 snap switches. Items 0540 thru 0543 - maunal and remote 18" radius code 83 snap switches Items 0544 thru 0547 - maunal and remote 22" radius code 83 snap switches Sheldon
Actually they do make both 18" radius and 22" radius code 83 snap switches.
Items 0540 thru 0543 - maunal and remote 18" radius code 83 snap switches
Items 0544 thru 0547 - maunal and remote 22" radius code 83 snap switches
Okay. That was not the main point of course. The point is that implying that snap switches are compared to frogged turnouts based on embedded radius is missing the mark.
I know, you and I know what is going on here......
I just wanted to clear that up before Mike makes even more out of it.
Lastspikemikepointing out facts to the contrary doesn't prove me wrong
Lastspikemike Wrong snap switch(es). The 22" radius are part numbers 544 to 546. If you are using sectional track they work perfectly as they are designed to do. If you use flex track they cannot screw up your layout design or construction unless you don't want 22" radius turnouts. Peco Code 100 small radius turnouts are 24" (610mm).
Wrong snap switch(es). The 22" radius are part numbers 544 to 546. If you are using sectional track they work perfectly as they are designed to do. If you use flex track they cannot screw up your layout design or construction unless you don't want 22" radius turnouts.
Peco Code 100 small radius turnouts are 24" (610mm).
The 22" radius snap switch is code 83 and is the part# I showed above. The 18" radius snap switch is code 100, and is part number 0860, etc shown below.
The code 83 is 22". The code 100 is 18". They are Snap Switches with a radius. They don't have frog numbers. They are not really meant to compare to their frog numbered counterparts, especially in terms of embedded radius.
Also, Peco has Small, Medium, and Large turnouts in code 100 with the curved diverging routes similar to the Atlas snap switches. They are labeled by their size, not their frog numbers, because, like the Snap Switches, the curved radii is the relevant factor.
Peco's code 83 turnouts are #5, #6, and #8...frog numbers....because they have the "North American" geometry meaning the diverging route is straight...similar to the Atlas frog numbered turnouts.
The turnouts that have frog numbers have straight diverging routes and they are designed for building yard ladders, crossovers, and most spurs (although curved diverging routes could be used for tight spurs in industrial areas, which is why they are not a "train set" type of product).
The turnouts that are lebeled Small, Medium, Large..and Snap Switches...are not labeled by their frog numbers because the point of the design is to immediately start a curve with the diverging route.
When designing or building a layout, if you install this switch
In place of this switch:
Or this switch:
Your layout will be messed up.
The snap switch is designed to fit into a 22 inch radius curve. I had two in my previous layout because I needed two reverse loops at each end of my point to point operating layout in order to run trains like a toy trainset roundy-round when the mood struck.
It does not really have a frog number, per se, because that is irrelevant. Its purchased for the radius of the curved rails of the diverging route, not for the frog #. Those curved diverging rails would make a horrible crossover compared to the standard diverging route geometry.
However, it is more like the custom line version of the #4 frog switch:
SeeYou190 Lastspikemike Put another way, nobody cares,or perhaps nobody should care, about this type of technical difference given that a snapswitch is no more protypical than the 18" radius curve it is intended to replace. You will find that a lot of people care very deeply about the technical aspects of model railroad turnouts. Using terms like "nobody cares" only stirs up a bunch of heated discussion from the "nobodys" that really do care. riogrande5761 As for these #6 snap switches/turnouts, could you post photo's of these, perhaps in the packaging? There is no such thing as a "#6 Snap Switch" from Atlas. I think Spike is just trying to pull Sheldon's chain for some reason. We are currently dealing with another self-appointed-expert-on-everything that loves to argue. -Kevin
Lastspikemike Put another way, nobody cares,or perhaps nobody should care, about this type of technical difference given that a snapswitch is no more protypical than the 18" radius curve it is intended to replace.
You will find that a lot of people care very deeply about the technical aspects of model railroad turnouts.
Using terms like "nobody cares" only stirs up a bunch of heated discussion from the "nobodys" that really do care.
riogrande5761 As for these #6 snap switches/turnouts, could you post photo's of these, perhaps in the packaging?
There is no such thing as a "#6 Snap Switch" from Atlas. I think Spike is just trying to pull Sheldon's chain for some reason.
We are currently dealing with another self-appointed-expert-on-everything that loves to argue.
Maybe our argumentitive friend here is on the spectrum, as they say, judging by the kind of responses we are reading.
The fictitious $6 snap switch seems to be one example that has stirred up unnecessary discussion.
LastspikemikePut another way, nobody cares,or perhaps nobody should care, about this type of technical difference given that a snapswitch is no more protypical than the 18" radius curve it is intended to replace.
riogrande5761As for these #6 snap switches/turnouts, could you post photo's of these, perhaps in the packaging?
Atlas does not call it a #6, they call it a 22" radius snap switch, items 0544 thru 0547.
I'm not so good at posting links using this tablet....
It is likely barely #4.
Of course Randy; what you say is obvious to most experienced layout builders but the caution is raised in John Armstrongs book for the inexperienced. Naturally the book is to educate novices about all the aspects and nuances of layout building. I keep it around to reference mininums and standards from time to time as I don't remember everythong.
The subject of S-curves cautions is rightly raised in this forum because often novices join and are learning things. For those who already know these things, it's naturally redundant but echo's still seem to occur.
As for these #6 snap switches/turnouts, could you post photo's of these, perhaps in the packaging?
S curves along with radius that is alowed is dependent on what you want to run. People are always worring about these things and easements on layouts where they don't realy mater. So if you are running big stuff it can mater alot, short stuff like mine, rairly.
Turnout numbers are an expression of the frog angle in units of length vs change.
A #6 means that 6 units from the frog point, the rails are 1 unit apart, or about 9.32 degrees.
Both rails are straight thru the frog area.
The substitution radius is about 40" or more, way more than the 22" radius snap switch.
It all does matter...
Do you not understand the difference between a straight frog and a curved frog?
It makes a big difference.
And the 22" radius snap switch is much sharper than any #6.
I know a lot of my stuff will not make thru a 22" radius snap switch, but is more than comfortable thru a #6 with a straight frog.
Where do you get these ideas? The differences in the geometry of turnouts is well published and does make a difference.
The Atlas Custom Line and Super Switch are the longest, smoothest #6 on the market in terms of their geometry.