In planning stage of new yard and expansion. Hope to create as smooth access/exit as possible for big steamers and long frame diesels in their new yard (as compared to the my old yards with #4 turnouts).
Will the #6s be just as good as #8s. Do they save a little space because of shorter length? I see they will give me a little more length in the sidings because of the larger/sharper radius spur
or should I stick with #8s everywhere?
Unless you are going to be switching with your Challenger, #6's should be just fine.
Chip
Building the Rock Ridge Railroad with the slowest construction crew west of the Pecos.
#6's should be just fine. The larger the better though if you have the room.
Springfield PA
There is always a trade-off between turnout sizes and the space that you have. On my home layout, which takes up a single car garage, I decided to have short trains, 4 axle diesels, short steam, and number 4.5 turnouts. That way I could get in a few more town sites and passing tracks.To run large steam locos you need a lot of space. If you don't have it and still want to run them, you need large curves and turnouts. As for the yard, you can use number 4.5 turnouts because yards were usually switched using small 0-6-0 steam locos in small yards, and bigger 0-8-0 locos in larger yards. Where you would need the larger turnouts would be from the A/D tracks to the loco service facilities.However, if you are using your yard as a staging area for complete trains with large locomotives attached, you will need larger turnouts, like the number 8's that you mentioned.
Elmer.
The above is my opinion, from an active and experienced Model Railroader in N scale and HO since 1961.
(Modeling Freelance, Eastern US, HO scale, in 1962, with NCE DCC for locomotive control and a stand alone LocoNet for block detection and signals.) http://waynes-trains.com/ at home, and N scale at the Club.
No, they won't be "as good as #8's", but they should be good enough. I use #6's in my yard. #8's would take up too much space.
Alton Junction
If the #6 turnouts come anywhere near NMRA standard design, they will handle any rolling stock that won't be actively unhappy on 42 inch radius curves. So, unless you're planning to run that Russian 4-14-4...
Incidentally, the prototype 4-14-4 reputedly destroyed several turnouts on its one and only test run.
Chuck [Modeling Central Japan in September, 1964 - with (mostly) #5 hand-laid turnouts)
tomikawaTT If the #6 turnouts come anywhere near NMRA standard design, they will handle any rolling stock that won't be actively unhappy on 42 inch radius curves. So, unless you're planning to run that Russian 4-14-4... Incidentally, the prototype 4-14-4 reputedly destroyed several turnouts on its one and only test run. Chuck [Modeling Central Japan in September, 1964 - with (mostly) #5 hand-laid turnouts)
Chuck,
I was unaware of that. Any links that tell the story of 4-14-4 trouble maker?
Rich
My yard uses only the #6 Peco Streamline Code 83 Insulfrog turnouts. I haven't found an engine of any kind, nor a long passenger car with six axles, that isn't perfectly content with them. I even have a No 6 double-slip and a #3 curved wye. No probs.
The longer the frog angle, the less useful track beyond it for your ladders, so keep your turnouts down at #6 or even true #5's.
-Crandell
Here's a brief history:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4-14-4
Edit:
And another
http://www.dself.dsl.pipex.com/museum/locoloco/russ/russrefr.htm
Hamltnblue Here's a brief history: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4-14-4 Edit: And another http://www.dself.dsl.pipex.com/museum/locoloco/russ/russrefr.htm
That is too cool.
Does anyone make a 4-14-4 in HO scale, or any scale for that matter?
I had a few #4's in my yard and they are being replaced with #6's. Not only didn't they look all that great but a couple locos had trouble negotiating them. They will probably find a place somewhere else but right now they are being 'recalled.'
There's never time to do it right, but always time to do it over.....
That 4-14-4 sounds like an interesting scratchbuild. NWSL should have 60" or 61" drivers in HO, but the frame would really have to be custom made to include adequatelateral movement on the front and rear drivers. Maybe hinge the frame, like for that 4-12-2 model?
Thing about the Whyte chart in the first link. 0-3-0? 2 axles, 2 wheels on one axle, one wheel on the other? or might it be a cog loco with a set of drivers on one axle and a cog gear on the second axle? I do recall reading years ago about somebody trying an 0-2-0 steam loco. I imagine it was a bit of a balance problem, like on a unicycle.
Frankly, I have a collection of steam and diesel (HO) from little 4 wheel locos that could probably operate down to at least 9" radius, up to a 2-10-2 and a few articulateds up to 2-6-6-6 and 2-8-8-2, and all will operate at approximately scale speeds through 18" radius curves and snap switches, as long as I don't try immediate reverse curves on the diverging route. Although a couple of my C-C (6 wheel truck) diesels are a bit finicky. Everything I have will go through #5s with no problem. As long as I don't run at speeds scaled to Japa's Bullet trains, or the TGVs. I imagine #6s will be adequate for most locos.
I have a DVD about the Big Boy 4-8-8-4. I always have the impression when I see them taking it through switches and some yard curves that the pilot overhang on curves or switches(offset between smokebox and pilot) is more pronounced than what I appear to see on my 2-8-8-2 on Snap Switches and 18" radius curves. Optical illusion? Of course, once in high school I measured the overhang on a 40' box setting on a curved lead into a lumber yard, the used a scale rule to measure the equivalent on a model on 18" r. The model apparently had less overhang than the full size.
Thanks again, gentlemen. I am learning by leaps and bounds beyond what I needed to know for my old 5 x 15 layout.
Great tangent you have dug up too. Love how an aside in a post can get some good stories going.
John Armstrong in "Track Planning for Realistic operation" is of the opinion that #5s will work just fine in most cases; that #4-1/2s will work in situations with up to 30" radius curves. The RCR-radius of closure rail-is 22" for a 4-1/2; 26" for a #5 ; 43" for a #6. Select accordingly for your anticipated equipment and the speeds at which they will run. I confirmed those RCRs for my Walthers/Shinohara 4-1/2s and #5s but haven't worried about the #6s.
My layout is a little tight, size wise, so my yard is code 83 Walthers #4, #5 and whatever their small radius curved turnouts are. I use mostly brass 2-8-0s (Western Maryland H-8 & H-9 classes) and Spectrum 2-10-0s in the yard. My longest cars are 50' boxcars and 65' passenger cars and they all negotiate the turnouts and yard trackage with no problems. If you have bigger engines or layout space larger turnouts will always look better though.
Roger Huber
Raised on the Erie Lackawanna Mainline- Supt. of the Black River Transfer & Terminal R.R.
My main yard and engine terminal at Deer Creek are laid with Peco #5 turnouts--simply because I didn't have space for #6's, and I've had no problem with my locomotives negotiating them. And my locos (mostly brass, which simply means they have a little less 'give' in the drivers than current plastic), range from 2-8-0's to 2-8-8-4's with a fairly generous helping of 4-8-2 and 2-10-2 steamers.
Both the yard and engine terminal are 'ladder' and not 'through' yards, but I've yet to have a loco split the switch and put itself on the ground.
So if you're laying your layout with #6--I'd say you're pretty much home free.
Tom
Tom View my layout photos! http://s299.photobucket.com/albums/mm310/TWhite-014/Rio%20Grande%20Yuba%20River%20Sub One can NEVER have too many Articulateds!
Well I will respectively disagree with some who say it's ok to run articulated's across #6 turnouts. Generally speaking they like #8 and #10's much better so at least on your lead in track(s) depending on weather your going to have a stub end or a doubled ended yard you may want to consider at lease one or two larger turnouts so your train can come in off the mainline and the road engine can uncouple and the yard switcher(s) can do their work. Again it all depends on weather or not you have the room or not.
Allegheny2-6-6-6Well I will respectively disagree with some who say it's ok to run articulated's across #6 turnouts. Generally speaking they like #8 and #10's much better...
I don't understand why you would disagree. I have brass and metal and plastic articulated engines from three different manufacturers, and they will very happily negotiate Peco Streamline #6 turnouts. They even go through my hand laid #6 double-slip, a flange catcher if there ever wuz wun. Even my my massive 2-10-4 will run through that flange catcher....has every time.
Also, because our articulated models come with both engines articulated, and in some cases the engines are with 6 drivers, they would go through a #4.5 snap type, which I have demonstrated to myself on a previous layout. A #5 is gravy!! So, for you to say that an articulated is happier through a #8 or a $10, you might as well include every locomotive in that respect. None of them like curved tracks if they can help it. The question is at which point will a given engine balk and lift itself out of the rails. For the vast majority of HO engines under $600, diesel or steam, you can get them through a simple #5, and often through a #4.5. You can slam them through Peco #6 turnouts at speed.
My Y6B has a minimum radius of 18 inches and negotiates #4's with no problem. It travels #6's at a decent speed with no problems. (Knock on wood)
Just my opinion, but I'd still say do what you feel comfortable with. If you don't have the room for 38"+ r and #10 or larger switches, you don't. As far as what can be done in a small space and small radius curves, I'd refer you to the January 1965 MR, the article on The Mostest Track in the Leastest Space. Apparently the builder took a 4X8 layout that was built in the old E&H Hobby shop and shrunk it down to fit his space for him and his kids. Ended up with a 4X6. Two loops, 18" and 22" radius curves. #4 switches, except for a Flieschman double slip and an International 3 way. Partial roster mentioned in the article was a Little Joe 0-4-0T, an 0-8-0, an old-time 2-8-0, a 2-8-2, a 4-6-2, a 4-6-4, and a couple articulateds, the largest being an Akane 2-8-8-4. The article mentions running trains together powered by articulateds with no problems. Of course, the largest cars apparently are a number of 60' passenger cars. The gentleman said that at first the boiler overhang did seem funny, but after a while, it became perfectly natural.
I think Bill Rau's comment was it was one of the busiest and most intense OPERATING layouts he'd ever experienced.
No 6's will give you much longer storage/freight tracks, No 8's look a bit better.
I use No 6's succesfully with a Challenger and even doubleheaded DD40's, with standard peco points I can still change tracks ( S curve) at full speed. I use full speed for testing purposes only.