SpaceMouse wrote: IRONROOSTER wrote: Fast Tracks uses NMRA standards. This means an HO #4 has a closure rail radius of 15" and a switch radius of 43". The critical dimension is the closure rail which affects your locomotives, especially steam. So if your engines will go around a 15" curve, they should handle the Fast Tracks #4. Some manufacturers, such as Atlas, cheat on this and make it a 4 1/2. BTW Fast Tracks now offers a 4 1/2. This bumps the 15" to 20".EnjoyPaul If the Atlas #4 is really a #4.5, what manufacturer makes a true #4 so I can have an accurate track plan? Is the Atlas Snap #4 a true #4?
IRONROOSTER wrote: Fast Tracks uses NMRA standards. This means an HO #4 has a closure rail radius of 15" and a switch radius of 43". The critical dimension is the closure rail which affects your locomotives, especially steam. So if your engines will go around a 15" curve, they should handle the Fast Tracks #4. Some manufacturers, such as Atlas, cheat on this and make it a 4 1/2. BTW Fast Tracks now offers a 4 1/2. This bumps the 15" to 20".EnjoyPaul
Fast Tracks uses NMRA standards. This means an HO #4 has a closure rail radius of 15" and a switch radius of 43". The critical dimension is the closure rail which affects your locomotives, especially steam. So if your engines will go around a 15" curve, they should handle the Fast Tracks #4. Some manufacturers, such as Atlas, cheat on this and make it a 4 1/2.
BTW Fast Tracks now offers a 4 1/2. This bumps the 15" to 20".
Enjoy
Paul
If the Atlas #4 is really a #4.5, what manufacturer makes a true #4 so I can have an accurate track plan? Is the Atlas Snap #4 a true #4?
The Atlas snap switch is made with the diverging leg at 18" radius. When you add the short piece of 18 curve track that comes with it, it is a drop in replacement for an Atlas 18" curve section. There really is no frog number (nor have I ever seen Atlas use one) for this. I don't know who is making a true #4 RTR switch if anyone. Currently, only Bachmann has NMRA Conformance Warrants, but only for their EZ track #5 wye, left, and right; and #6 crossover.
You might try manufacturers' web sites and see if they provide any specs on their turnouts.
Good luck
Midland Pacific and John Armstrong have it right. The point rails are the only part that cirves in an NMRA turnout. Just by extending the turnouts length some manuctacturers can sneak under the Numbered # NMRA banner. - After all, it's a 'Toy' industry and cheaper sells, right?
3 different makers claiming the same NMRA number can offer 3 different lengths of point rail, therefor there is a different degree of 'curve' in their points. As long as the proportion of 'turn' to 'straight' falls under NMRA guidlines, they can claim the 'Number'.
That's why ones 2-10-2 derails on one make of #6 and not another. It's the curveture.
For what it's worth I remember the 'Tillig' - large turnout was figured at 36" radius(expensive). Wouldn't surprise me if the other European switchmakers followed suit.
If you're into early steam, most will tale a #4. 'If if doesn't fit, try another switch'.
I think XTrack has an NMRA #4 (as well as other NMRA numbers) which should be a good match for the Fast Tracks templates. Maybe someone has made a library add on - I have FastTracks libraries for 3rdPlanIt.
Too bad I am not in position to start building, or I'd have a #6 FastTracks jig and I say we could swap - if you had your #4 made for Micro Engineering rail.
I was actually able to drive my T-1 4-8-4 through my yard witch is all Custom-Line #4 (which as noted are really #4.5). Slowly. A GG-1 handles the yard just fine, as do some large 6-axle diesels. That was only a test though, I never expected the larger locos to operate in the yard at all, that was for switchers and GP-7's and the like. #5 is a good compromise for your size equiment. For more modern longer equipment 6's and 8's are preferred.
--Randy
Modeling the Reading Railroad in the 1950's
Visit my web site at www.readingeastpenn.com for construction updates, DCC Info, and more.
Chip,
The Atlas Snap-Switch, Bachmann EZ Track, etc...are all 'constant' radius turnouts(18" radius). Prototype turnouts use a frog that can be flopped for either RH or LH when building the turnout. You will note that there is a curve from the points to the frog, then the track is basically straight after that. The Snap-Switch just keeps on curving. I used real #4's on an old layout in the mid 60's with 20" radius curves and ran basic F's and GP's with no problem.
The Peco line of turnouts are sort of strange as some of them have the same basic angle of divirging(12 degrees), but longer leads if they are medium or long turnouts! The Peco small radius turnout is very sharp, though the Peco info says it is a nominal 24" radiius with a 12 degree frog - go figure!
The Atlas Customline #4 is really a #4.5 turnout, very nice for spurs and small yards. My layout uses them in my 4 track yard and I have no problem with my 4 and 6 axle 50's era engines and cars. I do not think I would want to run large modern 6 axle stuff and 60' freight cara through that yard though. All of my cross-overs and sidings use #6 turnouts, and I have 22" radius curves on the line. Then again, I run 60' passenger cars. My BLI USRA 2-8-2's have no problem running around the layout or through the yard.
With you small steam, I would think you can use true #4 turnouts as long as you do not use them for cross-overs - That may be tight.....
Jim
Modeling BNSF and Milwaukee Road in SW Wisconsin
Chip
Building the Rock Ridge Railroad with the slowest construction crew west of the Pecos.
That's a good point - there's a great table in John Armstrong's "Track Planning for Realistic Operation" that lists the radii of the various closure rails for different switch numbers - you might want to look at that to see what sort of radii you want.
Can't help you on the scenery, though. You want more clearance, you have to do what the real railroads did: dig it out.
http://mprailway.blogspot.com
"The first transition era - wood to steel!"
LOL! My E7 makes the turns okay, but it takes out most of the structures and half of the scenery.
Well, it just depends - there were Decapods in service in the 1880s, after all. Once you pass the turn of the century, motive power gets pretty big, pretty fast, and that's only fifteen years away. It is a limitation, and to me, it's nice to be able to accomodate a range of equipment - my 24" curves are pretty much the limit for my big articulateds, and I'm planning on making this layout a terminal for The Big One, which will let me broaden curves and keep the Mallets away from what will be industrial trackage.
But as I said, I think the broader curves look much nicer. And they make it easier to back a train, which is important, too. Bottom line: there's just more that you can do with bigger curves, and a slight gain has significant payback. Even in your era, there were seventy-foot passenger cars, and those run much, much better on the bigger radius curves. And if you decide to dieselize, even just for the day, you'll have trouble with six-axle units on tight curves.
MidlandPacific wrote: I think with #4s you'll quickly find there's an upper limit to the motive power you can run - you can pretty much eliminate all but the smallest articulateds, 2-10-2s, and larger four-coupled engines; soem will derail, others will short. I use #6s, saving #4s for a few applications on industrial trackage, and I have been pleased with the results. Brass articulateds go through it without a short, and the broader curves in the yard make it easier to back long trains through switches without derailments. Even smaller power like a 4-4-0 looks a lot better with broader curves.
I think with #4s you'll quickly find there's an upper limit to the motive power you can run - you can pretty much eliminate all but the smallest articulateds, 2-10-2s, and larger four-coupled engines; soem will derail, others will short. I use #6s, saving #4s for a few applications on industrial trackage, and I have been pleased with the results. Brass articulateds go through it without a short, and the broader curves in the yard make it easier to back long trains through switches without derailments. Even smaller power like a 4-4-0 looks a lot better with broader curves.
As you know, I am modeling the old west. I don't see myself purchasing a bunch of newer models like those made in the 1920's.
My son has a 2-8-0 Spectrum and I have a 4-6-0 MDC from a kit, and a 4-4-0 IHC 20's style engines. However, they are painted in Hogwart's colors and only run on club open house dates. The two engines I might run are my geared locos--a Shay and a Heisler, but I am not worried about them.
Is planning for running out of time period that important? I don't think it is, but I have changed my mind on several occasions bowing to more experience.
jalajoie wrote: First Peco code 83 are not labelled Short Medium or Large Radius, they are following the North American Standard, that is frog #. I think only #6 and #8 are available at the present time.Jack W.
First Peco code 83 are not labelled Short Medium or Large Radius, they are following the North American Standard, that is frog #. I think only #6 and #8 are available at the present time.
Jack W.
Thanks. I'm not worried about availability because I plan on making my turnouts. I was using the Peco small turnouts object when designing my layout with XtrkCAD. I just didn't know which size it was.
BTW: I'm using all #4 EZ track turnouts now, and so far, I've not seen a problem related to the turnout number. All engines make it through okay, even at speed. However, I spent a lot of time working these turnouts.
It seems that
Small radius = #5
Medium Radius = #6
Large Radius =#8
Now with code 100 this is a different matter, all their switches use a 12 degrees frog angle, close to a #4 and a curve beyond the frog. This geometry permits the turnouts to be part of a perfect circle ala train set practice.
If #5 is available from Peco this is what I would use for yard ladder, #6 and #8 on the main. I think #4 to be too sharp.
Texas Zepher wrote: What number turnout is the Peco small turnout anyway? Code 100 or code 83?
What number turnout is the Peco small turnout anyway?
Code 83
SpaceMouse wrote: But after a conversation I just had, I wondering if #5s would have been substantially better. Moreso than a switch from #5 to #6 or even #6 to #8. This person was the second person to mention this.
So here's the deal.
I figured that my small steam locos--the old-time 4-4-0's and 2-6-0's could handle #4 turnouts and 18" minimum turns.
But after a conversation I just had, I wondering if #5s would have been substantially better. Moreso than a switch from #5 to #6 or even #6 to #8. This person was the second person to mention this.
I'm also getting the feeling that since I designed my layout using Peco small HO turnouts as my standard minimum, that these turnouts might not be #4's but a little larger.
Anyway, I got a super deal on a #4 template from Fast Tracks--I'm wondering if I should eat it and get the #5 template. I haven't even used the #4 template yet.