I have a spot where I need to have a turnout create a parrallel track to a straight section of track that will be on a 2 1/16 track center spacing. I already have Peco small, medium, and large turnouts and need to pick one. I would like to use the smallest that I can without creating a problem with the S Curve that is created.
This trackage will feed an EAF and the only cars likely to use it are the Rix Ingot Buggies pushed by a small switcher. Having said that I don't want to put myself into too small a box in case other cars wind up getting used there.
Will the small turnouts work or should I go with the medium or even large?
Rick
One of my portable modules has a small yard using Peco insulfrog short and even a couple of why turnouts. Very rarely does a hopper or even the 0-6-0 switcher derail. I have even put a six axle SD9 through it. Looking at the yard there should be all kinds of problems but so far so good. Make sure your couplers can swing to their extent. Believe it or not only the short hoppers have ever hit the ground. The majority of problems is me shoving too many cars into the dead end track.
Pete.
Just my preference ---
Just to add to Pete's good answer; if I know long wheelbase freight vehicles are going to be used I would use medium tunouts. Otherwise a short turnout will be fine.
David
To the world you are someone. To someone you are the world
I cannot afford the luxury of a negative thought
The longer the better. The only time to go shorter is when you have limited space and no other choice than to go shorter.
Rich
Alton Junction
richhotrain The longer the better. The only time to go shorter is when you have limited space and no other choice than to go shorter. Rich
I do have limited space. The smaller the turnout the longer the parrallel track and the more cars I can fit on it.
When in doubt, it's always a good idea to do a 'real world' test. Set up the turnouts in the s-curve, add track (even temporarily using some sectional track is fine) and run cars and engines through it and see if it works. Once you decide what to use, I would test it again on the layout before gluing down track or adding ballast just to be sure.
I have found, in gereral that the worry about S curves is way overblown, sure it can affect larger stuff but our trains are much more persise and engines run much better than when the rule was made.
I'd have to agree with rrebell. Many railroad switching yards, prototypical or models are full of S curves. I believe a lot that has to do with it is the quality of your turnouts, rolling stock and trucks. For longer cars, ...When in doubt, check it out as Stix pointed out. A test is always a good idea before making something more permanent. Takes the guesswork out of the equation
TF
rrebell I have found, in gereral that the worry about S curves is way overblown, sure it can affect larger stuff but our trains are much more persise and engines run much better than when the rule was made.
Ok, I was bored so set up a test track with some sectional track I use for track planning. I took the smallest curved peices I had, all 18" radius, and tried multiple configurations with s after s and a mixture of cars, longest being 40'. I could not get a derailment. Now maybe if I went faster but I moved my 0-5-0 engine as fast as it would go and still keep the lead car on the track.
I would say it depends quite a bit on the rolling stock in question. I am not personally familiar with the ingot cars that the OP proposes to push, but pushing any rolling stock is one of the biggest tests an S curve poses, and if the equipment is very light (and would those cars be two axle buggies such as you see at some steel mills?) with limited coupler swing, then I would agree with the suggestion to create a test track and see how things go.
I'd also say that while the general rule is that a siding is lower than the main, doing that on a layout too close to the frog can compound the challenges an S curve creates.
Perhaps the situation that OP has does not allow for it but on my layout when I was facing an S curve problem on a crossover I was able to resolve it by using one of Peco's large radius curved turnouts for one part of the crossover, and using the straight track side of a large Peco turnout for the diverging route of the other track.
Dave Nelson
I have several Atlas Custom Line #4 code 83 turnouts forming tight S curves in my yard and at yard speeds pushed or pulled 85’ cars negotiate the tight curves quite easily including my largest locomotives. Mel My Model Railroad http://melvineperry.blogspot.com/ Bakersfield, California Turned 84 in July, aging is definitely not for wimps.
dknelson I would say it depends quite a bit on the rolling stock in question. I am not personally familiar with the ingot cars that the OP proposes to push, but pushing any rolling stock is one of the biggest tests an S curve poses, and if the equipment is very light (and would those cars be two axle buggies such as you see at some steel mills?) with limited coupler swing, then I would agree with the suggestion to create a test track and see how things go.
These are the ingot buggies. They are small at 2 7/32" coupler to coupler. They are also light but I can add weight.
dknelson Perhaps the situation that OP has does not allow for it but on my layout when I was facing an S curve problem on a crossover I was able to resolve it by using one of Peco's large radius curved turnouts for one part of the crossover, and using the straight track side of a large Peco turnout for the diverging route of the other track.
I am not doing a crossover, but creating a siding that will be 2 1/16" on center from the original track. I will set up a test track to try it out.
RR_Mel I have several Atlas Custom Line #4 code 83 turnouts forming tight S curves in my yard and at yard speeds pushed or pulled 85’ cars negotiate the tight curves quite easily including my largest locomotives.
I have several Atlas Custom Line #4 code 83 turnouts forming tight S curves in my yard and at yard speeds pushed or pulled 85’ cars negotiate the tight curves quite easily including my largest locomotives.
And if I know you Mel. You layed those turnouts as close to a micro-fraction shy of perfect as possible. A very important factor as well
hbgatsfThese are the ingot buggies. They are small at 2 7/32" coupler to coupler. They are also light but I can add weight.
Nice weathering job, on both the buggies and the ingots moulds.
I wish RIX would offer bigger ones, though, with side-mounted lifting lugs. The steel mill where I worked used a wide variety of sizes, the largest being 25 tonners.
I do give them credit, though, for also offering bottom-pour moulds.
Wayne
Folks are describing what can work. I prefer to design for what I am sure will work, but then again, I am designing for others to build.
Mocking it up is a great suggestion. Shoving is much more demanding than pulling and such a short wheelbase may actually work against you, depending on how the couplers are mounted.
Without mocking it up, I’d think Mediums would work fine, but a real-life test with your specific equipment is best.
Good luck with your layout.
Byron
Layout Design GalleryLayout Design Special Interest Group
doctorwayne hbgatsf These are the ingot buggies. They are small at 2 7/32" coupler to coupler. They are also light but I can add weight. Nice weathering job, on both the buggies and the ingots moulds.
hbgatsf These are the ingot buggies. They are small at 2 7/32" coupler to coupler. They are also light but I can add weight.
I agree. It is what I hope to achieve some day. That is a picture I found to describe an ingot buggy. This is what mine look like.
It's all about coupler swing and how much distance is between the last deviation and the onset of the next one. The 'rule' is to allow sufficient room for a full frame of whatever-you're-gonna-put-through-there to track in tangent passage, or close to that, as possible. But those tiny cars, with a small suitable switcher for the job, would be good for sharp turnouts. Maybe the limiting factor would be more the weight of the cars and how well they'd track if you shoved 10 or more of them. A car resistant to rolling near the front end of a shove might make it tough for those following to say railed.
Hello All,
selectorIt's all about coupler swing and how much distance is between the last deviation and the onset of the next one.
Yes, I agree that coupler swing has an effect on the reliability of motive power and rolling stock.
Because of the extended footboards of the Bachmann HO 70-tonner I installed Kadee long shank couplers.
With the Bachmann HO 44-tonner I could use the medium shank couplers.
I also run a four (4) unit consist of GP40s and a three (3) unit consist of GP30s all with medium shank Kadees' in HO.
These consists not only run through an "S" curve made up of four (4) Atlas Snap Switches; Code 100, with the curved "extension" pieces back-to-back, they also negotiate sidings with PECO #2 turnouts; also Code 100, without problems.
Another area that can cause problems through tight "S" curves and turnouts is trucks that are too tight. This includes motive power too.
After rebuilding a GP30, in the three (3) unit consist, it began derailing. After inspection, I noticed that one of the trucks was binding. I turned the mounting screw back 1/4 of a turn and that solved the problem.
There are many standards (rules) and recommended practices (suggestions). I believe the use or non-use of "S" curves falls in the RP realm.
Hope this helps.
"Uhh...I didn’t know it was 'impossible' I just made it work...sorry"
As understand your question, you have a straight section of track into which you wish to insert a turnout to create a parallel track on a 2+ center to the first track.
Is that correct?
If so, I wouldn’t consider that little section of track leading from the turnout frog to the siding a S curve. At least not in common usage of that term. I guess it could be considered as such, but if that were true everyone with turnouts on his model railroad would have X number of S curves equal to the number of turnouts.
Generally where turnouts are discussed the issue is more related to the motive power to be used, rather than the cars, unless very long cars are being considered.
maxman ....I wouldn’t consider that little section of track leading from the turnout frog to the siding an S curve. At least not in common usage of that term....
....I wouldn’t consider that little section of track leading from the turnout frog to the siding an S curve. At least not in common usage of that term....
I agree with maxman, but you should set up a test track using different turnouts to see which works best. And, it's also been mentioned that the speed of the train as it goes through those curves will have an effect on how the cars track (or don't track).I'd also guess that those ingot buggies could benefit from some extra weight...it looks like there might be enough room under the buggies, but if not, you could add weight inside the moulds.I've pushed long-ish trains (30 cars-or-so) through curves and multiple turnouts (and on grades) without issue.
This one's only 20 cars, but with a fairly small locomotive...
...and it went through several turnouts and also up a fairly steep grade.If you do the tests with different turnouts, it should serve to ease your fears.