Trains.com

Subscriber & Member Login

Login, or register today to interact in our online community, comment on articles, receive our newsletter, manage your account online and more!

#6 Turnouts

2325 views
8 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    July 2006
  • From: Illinois
  • 66 posts
#6 Turnouts
Posted by Mudekk on Friday, October 23, 2009 6:08 PM

I see that Atlas sells #5, #7, & #10 turnouts but NMRA recommends that I use a minimum of a #6. In my classification yard, I don't want to waste any space by using a larger turnout than necessary, so I guess i'll go w/ Peco medium turnouts (supposedly they're a #6).  Anyone have any other suggestions???   (btw, it's n scale.)

Thanks.     

  • Member since
    January 2008
  • 169 posts
Posted by Hansel on Friday, October 23, 2009 6:43 PM

I am new to N scale.  I just ordered a bunch of the Peco code 55 #6 switches and track.  I like the fact that they have the built in spring feature.

  • Member since
    February 2005
  • From: Vancouver Island, BC
  • 23,330 posts
Posted by selector on Friday, October 23, 2009 6:53 PM

Would you consider building your own with Micro Engineering supplies?

http://www.nscalesupply.com/MEE/MEE-Track.html

I would verify the configuration of the Peco "medium" turnouts.  That term is reserved for their British style of diverging route, which is all curved, and not tangent track from the frog and beyond.  In HO, they give their turnouts designed for N. American rails the proper frog #.

-Crandell

  • Member since
    December 2001
  • From: Northern CA Bay Area
  • 4,387 posts
Posted by cuyama on Friday, October 23, 2009 7:10 PM

selector

I would verify the configuration of the Peco "medium" turnouts.  That term is reserved for their British style of diverging route, which is all curved, and not tangent track from the frog and beyond. 

All PECO N scale C55 turnouts are indeed a #6 frog. The small, medium, and large designations refer to diverging legs of 12", 18", and 36" respectively.

In many yard applications, Atlas C55 #5 turnouts will work fine, as will PECO C55 mediums.

selector

In HO, they give their turnouts designed for N. American rails the proper frog #.

In HO Code 83, the PECO turnouts are designated by frog number and have a straight diverging leg.

PECO C75 and C100 turnouts in HO have curved diverging legs just like the N scale PECOs and are designated as "small", "medium", and "large". By the way, all of these use about a #4.5 frog.

  • Member since
    July 2006
  • From: Illinois
  • 66 posts
Posted by Mudekk on Sunday, October 25, 2009 12:06 PM

 Thanks, everyone, for the input.

I do want to go w/ code 55.

As for building my own switches, i don't know anything about it, but it seems to me that would be for special situations. I'm especially reluctant to take that on in a yard where there are so many.  I'm trying to design a large classification yard w/ about 14 tracks, servicing areas, and maybe a couple intermodal stubs; looking at 60+ switches.

I want to run some larger diesel six axle locos and articulated autoracks, of course yard speed is only 5-10 mph, still think those atlas #5 turnouts will be okay?

 

  • Member since
    February 2009
  • From: Enfield, CT
  • 935 posts
Posted by Doc in CT on Sunday, October 25, 2009 4:21 PM

 John Armstrong (in Track Planning for Realistic Operations) considers anything over No. 5 a "waste of valuable space" (pg. 78) with layouts using conventional curve radii (13in or 16in for N).  That would be especially true in yards where the No. 7 takes away from effective track length.

Co-owner of the proposed CT River Valley RR (HO scale) http://home.comcast.net/~docinct/CTRiverValleyRR/

  • Member since
    February 2005
  • From: Southwest US
  • 12,914 posts
Posted by tomikawaTT on Sunday, October 25, 2009 8:03 PM

Doc in CT

 John Armstrong (in Track Planning for Realistic Operations) considers anything over No. 5 a "waste of valuable space" (pg. 78) with layouts using conventional curve radii (13in or 16in for N).  That would be especially true in yards where the No. 7 takes away from effective track length.

I don't think that John Armstrong was allowing for 89 foot auto racks and humonguboxes when he wrote that.

The smallest frog number I've ever found in prototype service was a #7, on recently built industrial trackage in North Las Vegas.  The nearby switch which converted double track to single is at least #16.

OTOH, most of my 'conventional' handlaid turnouts are #5 - but my longest HOj (1:80, or twice-N scale) cars are about 10.5 inches over couplers.

Handlaying specialwork isn't particularly difficult.  Not having to stop your world until your 'have to have' turnout appears off backorder - priceless.

Chuck (Modeling Central Japan in September, 1964 - with hand-laid specialwork)

  • Member since
    December 2003
  • From: Quebec
  • 983 posts
Posted by Marc_Magnus on Thursday, October 29, 2009 4:01 AM

Hi from Belgium,

If you want to use long car and big motive power it's better to use larger frog number.because the equipment run well better on this type of turnout. Don't forget that derailment could be very frustrating when you run your train and especialy in a yard ladder. anyway, check and check again the quality of the track when making a ladder yard and of course all the other track.

I know that Atlas Nscale code 55 line offer turnout in the 5/7 and more number frog. A number 7 could be a better choice for longer equipement.

Fastrack offer jig to build turnouts of nearly any number of frog from number 4  to big number 12 in nearly all the scales. I use their system for my own track in Nscale code 55 and the running qualities are far better than all the track you can find   www.handlaidtrack.com

Here are a few pictures of my east ladder with all scratchbuild fastrack turnouts. They all are n°6 but I run only small steam loco and 40 feet boxcar. For my passenger terminal and the mainline all the frog are n°8.

Good luck.

Marc

 

 

  • Member since
    February 2002
  • From: Mpls/St.Paul
  • 13,892 posts
Posted by wjstix on Thursday, October 29, 2009 8:46 AM

I'd say the main thing is to stay away from any really tight turnouts, like no.4s. I used no. 5 turnouts a lot on my previous HO layout and had no problems with them even on long cars and engines. IIRC in HO a no.5 works out to about the equivalent of a 26"R curve, so would be about like a 13-14"R curve in N I guess...part way between "conventional" curves and "broad" curves. No. 6 curves are going to look better of course.

Stix

Subscriber & Member Login

Login, or register today to interact in our online community, comment on articles, receive our newsletter, manage your account online and more!

Users Online

There are no community member online

Search the Community

ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
Model Railroader Newsletter See all
Sign up for our FREE e-newsletter and get model railroad news in your inbox!