New York Crosss Harbor RR Bu***erminal

[dknelson]

One point to consider is that sometimes you want to replicate the idea that a mainline turnout is larger than spur track or yard turnouts. If you use #6s in the yard or for spurs, that leaves, what, #8s or #10s for the main - which look great but which take lots of room. So going the route of all #4s except perhaps for one #6 to meet the main line does enable you to simulate the variety of turnout sizes that the prototype employs.

It is true that #4s are very tight, tighter than the prototype would use except in the most extreme cases, such as low speed industrial sidings (the same is true of #6 by the way, and even #8 would be a sharp turnout for the prototype). But the fact remains that if you converted #4 to its curve radius equivalent, it is still broader than the curves on most model railroad layouts. So while it is a compromise it is actually less of a compromise than one we put up with every day of the week, that being our minimum radius curves. The late John Armstrong covers this point in his book on track planning for realistic operation. He makes the point that while #6 looks better it also costs you in usable track space and that the benefits to using #4s are considerable in terms of having longer spur tracks etc. and more planning options. Linn Westcott used to make the same point: since so much of our model equipment is engineered to typically take #4s in stride with no problems, use them if you can unless appearance is the prime objective. There is equipment that needs a #6 or greater turnout -- but that equipment was unlikely to be runnong on the Bu***erminal railroad.

I read somewhere that Atlas snap switches are actually # 3 1/2 by the way. It is ironic that the plastic frogs cause the most problems for the very small locomotives that are most likely to be used on ultra sharp curves and tight turnouts.
Dave Nelson

[Fergmiester]

Though No. 4's maybe to tight and sometimes don't look prototypical they save space. This fits in with the "Modelling License " thread where sometimes we have to take liberties to make things work. Most of our engines could not operate on equivalent radius's in real life as what we expect them to do on our layouts.

I think you would find many of us use No. 4's though we don't like to but just don't have the space to use 6's or higher.

Bottom line is that it's you RR, do what works for you.

[cpcolin]

Hey everyone I was reading about the New York Crosss Harbor RR Bu***erminal in Model Railroad Planning 2003. I was wondering if anybody knows what kind of turnouts Bernard Kempinski used in his layout.? I was planning a similar layout myself in HO and I am curious if they were number 4's or number 6's. I tried using number 6's but it seems a little large for modeling a switching line. I am going to have auto racks switching either an auto plant or a staging area. Plus a few other industries like a grain elevator and a lumber yard and a couple of team tracks.
Happy modeling