When to use #4 turnouts ( if ever )?

[AltonFan]

Some years ago, Bob Hundman published prototype turnout templates in N Scale magazine. He's been advocating using prototype turnouts in N scale layouts. (IIRC, his templates showed #20 and #22 turnouts. If you have the space...

[dknelson]

Dan/AltonFan mentions John Armstrong. His book on track plans for realistic operation has useful ideas for turnoutsize. he makes the point that most equipment can take a #4 and that there are many space saving advantages to using #4 where you can. but visually #6 and #8 (or larger) looks more realistic.
My own experience is that if you expect to back trains up you might want to consider the larger turnout size.
Having said that my experience is with HO not N.
Dave Nelson

[Jetrock]

I use Peco Streamline and Setrack turnouts, which are, I think, approximately #3. They work fine for me because switchers and short equipment makes up my entire roster, though my GP7's operate over them just fine--tho I'm no speed demon on the throttle!

[dehusman]

I wouldn't use #4's for a hidden yard. Your chances of a car or locomotive not negoiating a #4 is much higher than with a #6. I would use #6's in hidden staging for reliability.

The only place I hse #4's is in industrial trackage where 0-6-0's or switchers will be going over them.

Dave H.

[AltonFan]

#4 turnouts are also good for industry sidings, where speed and accessibility for long equipment (e.g. big locomotives and passenger cars) is not an issue.

John Armstrong has a drawing in Track Planning for Realistic Operation illustrating the relative space usage between #4 and #6 turnouts.

One place you don't want to use #4 turnouts is for a crossover between two tracks. There the longer #6 turnout should be considered minimum.

[Anonymous]

Just to clarify...

The extra space is achieved not by having the tracks closer together, but by having the yard "ladder" steeper, so to speak. Since the diverging route diverges more quickly, you get to the "straight" track quicker, allowing a longer straight.

Does that make sense? Maybe the waters are more muddy now... I wi***his forum would let you post pictures...!

Andrew

[Anonymous]

Thanks for the input folks. This board is really nice for us newbies.
The point about the #4s allowing a tighter turn and therefore permitting
more staging area makes sense...will try it out on my test layout too see
how much area it picks up...thanks everyone for responding with your ideas and thoughts...

[Jacktal]

I don't think they will allow you to place tracks closer together since I believe all turnouts are designed to allow switching between parallel tracks,thus respecting the standard spacing.However,being much sharper angled and shorter,you will be able to install more turnouts in a given length of track.No.4 turnouts are suited for yards,where trains roll very slow,as they allow more trackwork in a given space.

[Anonymous]

#4 should be fine, and will allow more capacity for your yard, as less real estate is taken up by the diverging track. A general rule of thumb I have seen is the speed limit for turnouts is about double the number of the turnout - e.g. maximum 8 (scale) mph across a #4 turnout. That should be fine for your yard.

Andrew

[Anonymous]

I am planning a new layout in N scale. I have two large yard/staging areas.
What advantage will I get by using #4 turnouts here rather then #6s.
I know to use #6 to get off the mainline, however will a #4 in the staging area allow me to place tracks closer together.