Turnout Selection #4 or #6?

[Hansel]

I am trying to model a 2' x 8' switching layout, 1950s year, with 40' rolling stock and a GP9 engine.  Can I accomplish this with #4 turnouts or should I go with #6 turnouts?

 Thanks, Hans

[Johnnny_reb]

For a compact industrial look I would use the #4 turnout's but for a smoother main-line use the #6's. Or even better use both, #6's on the main and #4's in your industrial areas. With 40' rolling stock and a GP9 the #4's sould not be a problem either way as long as your speeds are low.

[Anonymous]

What brand of track are you planning to use?  An Atlas #4 is actually a #4 1/2 and is a bit more forgiving and can work well for low speed switching.

For situations where you have an 'S' curve, such as crossovers, you might consider using a #5 (Walthers or Peco) to reduce the S curve issues and still use a minimum amount of space.

Good luck,
-John

[Hansel]

John,

I am planning on buying Atlas code 100 turnouts.  I will also have to buy a 15 degree and a 30 degree crossover.

Thanks, Hans

[SpaceMouse]

I am trying to model a 2' x 8' switching layout, 1950s year, with 40' rolling stock and a GP9 engine.  Can I accomplish this with #4 turnouts or should I go with #6 turnouts?

 Thanks, Hans

I think you can get away with #4's if will help your design. 

[shayfan84325]

I recommend #6 as much as possible, both for appearance and reliable operation.  On a previous layout I used #4s because they made design easier, but my current layout has all #6s and it just looks better, and derailments are very rare.

Aren't prototypes typically even more gradual than our #6s?

[loathar]

Small, slow speed switching layout using all short equipment, #4's will be fine. Just don't be looking at the Big Boy and Challenger ads after you build it!

[selector]

I'll jump on the either/or bandwagon.  It will all work fine with #4 turnouts in this type of layout.  Just a note of caution though...it could be that you will eventually want something a bit heftier.  Say you get a strong hankering to take advantage of a sweet deal on a FM Trainmaster.  That is a huge diesel, and #4 turnouts will be very hard to do and still keep cars coupled to it on either end.  So I would suggest you consider using one or two #6 turnouts that will allow a future acquisistion (what viable railroad doesn't get a new and improved engine from time to time?) to run on the main spine so-to-speak so that it can shove and extract cuts of cars in most places.  Leave the rest as #4/5 so that smaller engines can reach in further.

Just a thought.  I do know that the huge majority of us get new engines, and they are rarely smaller ones.

[modelmaker51]

I model the D&H in the 60s to early 70s. The D&H used 4 axle engines for branchline and industrial switching and both four and six axle units on the mainlines. Most of my branchlines and spurs have #4 (Atlas) & #5 (Peco) turnouts and anything connecting to the mainline are #6 or larger. If care is taken when installing them, you shouldn't have any problems running 4 axle engines through them. You should make sure all your cars are up to snuff, (weighted, Kadees & free-rolling). I run 40' & 50' cars (and an occaisional 60 footer thru the turnouts without derailments. I use Caboose Industries ground throws on all Atlas turnouts. If you're going to use remote machines to throw them, use something like a Tortoise with a positive pressure, Atlas machines don't exert enough pressure on the points for reliable operation IMHO.

[Hansel]

Thanks guys and gals,

I just found the Atlas track planning software and will try the layout both ways, #4 and #6.  I probably won't try anything bigger than a GP9 due to the fact that I am a C&O fan of the transition era in which they mostly ran GP9 and 7s along with SW7 and 9s (If I can find a switcher in C&O colors that runs really slow, I might have to buy it!)  After I place the turnouts I will see how much room I have left for the runaround and the spurs.  I plan on modeling a paper mill with spurs for tank cars, covered hoppers, coal hoppers, and boxcars.

Thanks again, Hansel