New guy, HO, 15' x18' layout, midwest 1920's, all steam, still laying track. I set my guidelines for 24" minimum radius and #6 turnouts and I have stuck to my guns so far. However, now that I am looking at the space requirements for a nice freight yard I am begining to waiver. #6's sure seem to require a lot of space and I find myself thinking maybe I should ease up and use #4's to build my yard while keeping #6's as a requirement for everything coming off the mainline. My largest loco to date is a 2-8-2. This may end up being the largest I ever go with. I have considered the possibility of a 2-10-0 but it really isn't very likely. I really like the smaller steam. I also have 0-6-0, 4-4-0 and 4-6-0. So, in giving your advice (which is always very welcome and very much appreciated) consider the 2-8-2 as the longest engine to contend with.
Am I likely to have any trouble with negotiating #4's with my 2-8-2 hauling four 60' passenger cars? Or maybe eight 40' freight cars? These are what I see as my largest trains.
Thanks for all your help
wdcrvr
wdcrv
Hey
I am not an expert but I do run my SD7 and heavy weight six axel coaches through my #4 turn outs in my yard. In my opinion they work just fine, just make sure they are laid right, the frog is not higher than the rails and run reasonably slow. I also have a 2-6-6-2 that does't mind going through the yard.
Good luck.
Lee
Probably not, but always test first, don't just tke a manufacturer;s word for it that the loco can negotiate a given curve. The sharpest point in an Atlas #4, which is really a #4.5, is 20" radius, in a genuine #4 it's under 18". However, in a 20's era freight yard, the only tracks you road locos will probably run on would be the A/D tracks. If there's more than 1, use #6's on and off the main for that. The actual class tracks will only be trraversed by freight cars, almost all of which would be 40' or less, and by switchers with 0-4- 0 and 0-6-0 wheel arrangements. They should have no problem with a #4.
--Randy
Modeling the Reading Railroad in the 1950's
Visit my web site at www.readingeastpenn.com for construction updates, DCC Info, and more.
wdcrvr New guy, HO, 15' x18' layout, midwest 1920's, all steam, still laying track. I set my guidelines for 24" minimum radius and #6 turnouts and I have stuck to my guns so far. However, now that I am looking at the space requirements for a nice freight yard I am begining to waiver. #6's sure seem to require a lot of space and I find myself thinking maybe I should ease up and use #4's to build my yard while keeping #6's as a requirement for everything coming off the mainline. My largest loco to date is a 2-8-2. This may end up being the largest I ever go with. I have considered the possibility of a 2-10-0 but it really isn't very likely. I really like the smaller steam. I also have 0-6-0, 4-4-0 and 4-6-0. So, in giving your advice (which is always very welcome and very much appreciated) consider the 2-8-2 as the longest engine to contend with. Am I likely to have any trouble with negotiating #4's with my 2-8-2 hauling four 60' passenger cars? Or maybe eight 40' freight cars? These are what I see as my largest trains. Thanks for all your help wdcrvr
wdcrvr,
You've got a whole lot of questions and issues raised in that post.
First of all, and I am certain that many will disagree with this, if I were you I would stick with #6 turnouts. While 60' passenger cars and 40' freight cars can handle the tight radius of a #4 turnout, steam engines are not fond of #4 turnouts. Some steamers can handle the tight radius, but if you have the space for #6 turnouts exclusively, stick with the #6. Besides, in a yard configuration, #4 turnouts don't give you that much more storage space for cars.
Second, for what it's worth, a 2-8-2 is not really a yard engine, rather, it is a road engine hauling long freights. So, while a 2-8-2 may enter the yard on the switching lead track or the arrival-departure track, that's about as far as it will go. So, in that sense, it you rely on small switcher engines to do the yard work, you may get away with #4 turnouts on the ladder.
Third, while this has nothing to do with the size of your turnouts, per se, you talk about a "freight yard" but then also mention passenger cars. Passenger cars typically ahve their own storage yard and are not likely to enter a freight yard since a freight yard is typically used for classification purposes.
Rich
Alton Junction
I suggest you get a copy of Track Planning for Realistic Operation by John Armstrong. The book will show you how to get a shorter yard by using complex and compound ladders.
Not sure what brand of track you're using, but a true #4 may give you problems. Atlas #4 is really #4.5 and other makers may or may not fudge their #4. OTH you could use #5 turnouts for the yard - not as big as #6's, but should be big enough for your needs.
Enjoy
Paul.
I would handle it in the following way:
Use #6's for the AD tracks and any route a road loco would take to and from the mainline to, and from, any loco service facilities that are going to service and store those road locomotives. Everything else in the freight yard can be #4's because smaller yard switches should be working there, and not the larger road locomotives.
If you are going to have a passenger terminal or passenger car yard, maybe you want to use #6's there also.
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.
hi
most reactions are about the use of the word yard. Is it for (freight car) classification, or for parking coaches as well? To many "newbies" call every cluster of track a yard.
I would be reluctant to use low numbered switches in a classification yard; so much pushing is done with sometimes rather long cuts. But with #6 switches at an other angle or in a compound ladder surprising results can be achieved.
Paul
It also depends on the manufacturer. You might find that a number 6 PECO switch will be quite a bit shorter than the atlas. They cost more but you could limit their use to the yard area. They're also nice because they are spring loaded which comes in handy in yards.
Springfield PA
I have #8s and #10s on and off of the mains. #6s where my engines need to make their way to the service facilities. I use #5s for the ladder as it seemed to just be the difference in determining whether or not I could move anything I choose into the ladder or not. Of course miracles often happen when the speed is slow enough.
Brent
"All of the world's problems are the result of the difference between how we think and how the world works."
You can cut the #6s down or as another poster suggested, use Peco. I've run my 4-8-4 through #4s, slowly. 60' cars shouldn't be a problem. I do have problems with 89' when coming off the main into the first track--too much like a sharp S turn. I plan on replacing with Peco 6s.
hi,
a #6 is a #6, the angle of the peco and atlas switch is the very same. Just trim the atlas switch.
Somethings not mentioned, yet.
1) If the larger equipment will only be traversing the straight leg of the turnout, it doesn't matter how sharp the curved leg is as long as the curved leg is broad enough for the equipment that will be using it.
2) Generally the "main line" should follow the straight leg of the turnout.
I tried to sell my two cents worth, but no one would give me a plug nickel for it.
I don't have a leg to stand on.
Hi!
I model the '50s, and use #8, #6, and #4 turnouts based upon "what makes sense" (to me). The #8s are for mainline crossovers or access routes, and the #6s are for what I call "sub-mains".
Industrial sidings and FREIGHT yard tracks are mostly #4s. I used number 4s mainly for space saving, but they work out quite well as only switchers or 40-50 ft. freight cars will used them.
My challenge was the loco terminals. As I have 6 truck diesels and 4-8-4 and 2-10-2 steamers, I had to use #6 turnouts. However, for the RIP track, caboose track, and ash/coal tower service tracks I used #4s - again because they save space and only smaller freight cars will use them.
Your 60' passenger cars will use #6s with no problem, and will use #4s if they are properly placed. But, they sure look awkward on those #4s, so I would attempt to use #6s where any passenger cars roam.
You are blessed with a pretty large space for a layout, and I would consider using that 24 inch minimum radius only as a last resort, and then for industrial sidings.
Good Luck!
ENJOY !
Mobilman44
Living in southeast Texas, formerly modeling the "postwar" Santa Fe and Illinois Central
Hi
Don't know what you want to do with your yard. You might consider what I ended up doing. The yard ladder including the spagetti to get into it is just at 5 feet. Switches are #6, curved switches are fastracks #6 50/30. In the pix, top two tracks are the main, 2nd two are A/D and I have 5 yard classification/storage tracks. If you just consider the yard ladder, it is about 4 feet and about the length of the 'compound ladder' in a previous post (above). If you have CAD software, play around with your design a bit and see what you can see.
ctclibby
Todd Hackett
Libby, Montana 59923
I take only pictures then leave footprints on railroad property that I know is not mine, although I treat it as such...
Paulus Jas hi, a #6 is a #6, the angle of the peco and atlas switch is the very same. Just trim the atlas switch. Paul
That may be true but the Peco's are shorter still. Sometimes the rail springs off of the ties on a trimmed Atlas.
i gave a to short answer......
the points of a peco switch are just over half an inch shorter, which means the radius will be a bit smaller as well. The straight part behind the frog is 2 inches longer on the atlas turnout; trimming might be needed.
For a ladder it makes hardly any difference at all, only the first switch is working for you. In other situations like a crossover you you profit twice. When you have a double crossover (left and right) the difference in length is relevant.
Here's a link to the peco site's turnout plans. There are 1:1 scale so you can print them out and put the print on the layout to see if they will work for you.
http://www.peco-uk.com/page.asp?id=pointplans
For what it's worth, I will repeat a comment I made in an earlier thread about #4s:
"I have a Walthers/Shinohara #4 (DCC friendly with dead frog) on my test tracks being used to confirm criteria for the layout about to be built. My 6-axle Proto 2000 E-8 and PA-1 and BLI heavy 2-8-2 take the turnout with ease, whether traveling fast or slow.
The probable significant factor is that the radius of closure rail (RCR) is 26" as measured by Ribbonrail templates. That is significantly better than the 15" and 22" indicated for a #4 and #4-1/2, respectively, in John Armstrong's book on track planning. The frog is definitely a measured #4, as stated by Jim above. The track and turnout are spiked into a Homasote panel.
The obvious suggestion is to test your equipment on the turnouts you expect to use."
If my E-8 negotiates my #4 (also a brass gas-electric "Doodlebug" passenger unit and Rivarossi 85' passenger cars), your 60-footers should make it. BUT: try it out with your turnout and your equipment to be sure. As I noted above, my #4 has an RCR of 26". Apparently other manufacturers have tighter radii.
Dante
wdcrvr-
There are a few other considerations. One, if you are only storing cars in a yard and can move slowly in the yard, the #4s will be just fine. Two, the same is true if you'll only have 40' or ar the most, 54' freight cars to sort. Three, the turnouts don't matter if you can run mainline engines straight through them to your engine terminal or storage. Four, a yard throat/drill track is as important as the yard itself or you'll end up sorting trains on your mainline. Five, you must have some provision for a convenient run-around (ideally in the yard) or you'll find it very hard to sort cars and make/break trains. Six, you can shorten the legs on switches (harder with roadbed track but it can still be done) to get more room in your yard, both in terms of the lengths of yard tracks and the spacing between them. Seven, using a compound arrangement will also give you more capacity in the same acreage.
Good luck with your new layout. I must say, it sounds like a prodigious effort for a first timer. Be sure to get some tracks completed early on so you can run trains while you work on the rest. Otherwise it can be hard to remain interested in the project.
-- D
if you're REALLY cramped for space, try designing the ladder/throat with wye turnouts. HOWEVER, don'y make the mistake Walthers made! they thought the number of an euivalent turnout was half the number of a turnout from straight track. NOT! the equivalent wye number is 0.7 (actually 0.7071, half the square root of 2) of a 'straight' frog. so the wye number for a #7 is a #5; for #6 it's 4.2; for #5 it's 3.5 (which i think is a size walthers makes) and so forth. -arturo
i would try it out.
The problem with a classification yard is pushing longer cuts of cars, and especially if the lenght of the cars is different. And in a busy yard a lot of pushing is done; maintaining very low speeds is difficult then. A mix of 90 and 40 feeters can be killing.
Sometimes a yard can be build with less parallel tracks, two tracks less can be quite a difference; gives you the space to use #5 or #6 switches. And using number 6 switches in a #5 angled yard or designing a compound ladder are both an elegant way out.
Using Atlas Custom Line turnouts as an example, a #6 turnout measures 12 inches on the straight through route, while a #4 turnout measures 9 inches on the straight through route. While I will concede that the sharper frog angle on a #4 results in less space taken up to build a ladder, to me it is not worth all of the frustration with derailments in a yard. If you choose to use #4 turnouts at all, limit their use to little used sidings and spurs.
How much difference can it make when you consider that the length of a #6 turnout is only 3 more inches than the #4 turnout?
dante For what it's worth, I will repeat a comment I made in an earlier thread about #4s: "I have a Walthers/Shinohara #4 (DCC friendly with dead frog) on my test tracks being used to confirm criteria for the layout about to be built. My 6-axle Proto 2000 E-8 and PA-1 and BLI heavy 2-8-2 take the turnout with ease, whether traveling fast or slow. The probable significant factor is that the radius of closure rail (RCR) is 26" as measured by Ribbonrail templates. That is significantly better than the 15" and 22" indicated for a #4 and #4-1/2, respectively, in John Armstrong's book on track planning. The frog is definitely a measured #4, as stated by Jim above. The track and turnout are spiked into a Homasote panel. The obvious suggestion is to test your equipment on the turnouts you expect to use." If my E-8 negotiates my #4 (also a brass gas-electric "Doodlebug" passenger unit and Rivarossi 85' passenger cars), your 60-footers should make it. BUT: try it out with your turnout and your equipment to be sure. As I noted above, my #4 has an RCR of 26". Apparently other manufacturers have tighter radii. Dante
hi Rich
it is a bit more, to get 2 inches of spacing you'll need 4 x 2 = 8 inches for every #4 switch in a ladder. For an #6 it's 6 x 2 = 12 inches. Four inches difference for every extra track in a yard.
But i am a less is more fan, track plans loaded with tracks are not what i like.
Both Peco and Atlas have a #6 FROG ANGLE, but the geometry of the Peco's diverging route is different (curved beyond the frog, which is unusual for prototypical Noth American track). This is what makes the Peco "shorter" than the Atlas. They are NOT the same.
-Dave