I'm trying to install a turnout on a curve on my layout and I'm running into problems. Mainly with one particular 4-8-4 loco. Every other loco I have will run the turnout just fine, but the 4-8-4 won't do it without derailing. It tends to derail either with the front pilot or with the drive wheels at the frog when running through it leading to the frog -then- points direction.
The curve in question is a 22" radii.
This is a code 100 atlas turnout #4 (I think it's a #4.)
I've checked the turnout with a NMRA standards gauge and it checks out. Loco in question also is fine.
What am I doing wrong? Where should I look/go from here?
Thanks
Modeling the N&W freelanced at the height of their steam era in HO.
Daniel G.
Judging by the photos, you have a really nasty kink at the rail joint between the diverging route and the next piece of track. When a locomotive heads toward the frog from the diverging route, it could easily be riding up on the rails at the joint, then dropping off through the frog. Realign the track and get a smooth transition coming out of the frog. There is also a kink at the point end of the turnout, but not as severe, so less likely to cause derailments, but still could be more reliable in the long run if smoothed out.
Rob Spangler
It appears that you have a kink in the radius of the curve at both ends of the turnout. The diverging leg doesn't match the existing curve radius and your big steamer is the perfect track testing tool...they are notorious for finding bad track work. You might need to remove and re-lay the diverging leg and ease the radius back to your original line further down the curve.
Don Z.
Research; it's not just for geeks.
I agree with the other two posters here. By trying to lay a straight turnout in the middle of a curve, you've introduced a couple of major kinks in your trackwork. Fortunately for you, it appears that only one of your locos is objecting to this kink.
If it's just the pilot truck that derails, that issue might be solved by adding a small weight to the top of the truck.
A better answer, however, is to fix the track.
Both Walthers and Peco make curved turnouts, in which both the through and diverging routes are on a curve. By finding one where the through route radius matches or closely approximates your track curve, that should eliminate the problem.
Good luck.
Connecticut Valley Railroad A Branch of the New York, New Haven, and Hartford
"If you think you can do a thing or think you can't do a thing, you're right." -- Henry Ford
CTValleyRR I agree with the other two posters here. By trying to lay a straight turnout in the middle of a curve, you've introduced a couple of major kinks in your trackwork. Fortunately for you, it appears that only one of your locos is objecting to this kink. If it's just the pilot truck that derails, that issue might be solved by adding a small weight to the top of the truck. A better answer, however, is to fix the track. Both Walthers and Peco make curved turnouts, in which both the through and diverging routes are on a curve. By finding one where the through route radius matches or closely approximates your track curve, that should eliminate the problem. Good luck.
Upon further review of your photos, it does look like maybe your through route is intended to be straight. This will most likely involve a redesign so that your divergent route leaves at an appropriate angle. For a 4-8-4, I wouldn't go any tighter than a #6 turnout.
Add a short straight section -- at least half the length of the locomotive that's giving you trouble; equal length if you can fit it in -- between your curve and the beginning of your turnout. Then make sure that your through leg of your turnout is in dead straight alignment with your straight track. If you need to fudge a little, fudge by using flextrack for the straight segment and giving it a gentler curve than the one leading into it (called an easement). Don't ever fudge by kinking the track (defined as an abrupt change of direction where two track pieces join).
As our other friends have already pointed out to you, your photo shows you where the problems lie. You have two: the obvious kink is not ideal, but not a show stopper. Not even for the 4-8-4. However, in your first photo, I can see a change in radius back where the points rails join the closure rails. And that's on an already viciously sharp #4 (which is probably a true #4.5 if it is an Atlas turnout that is NOT a snap switch). I think your turnout may be part of the problem, and maybe even most of it. In your second photo, I can see that both points rails are straight. As your points are lined in that photo, would you agree that the gauge looks to be squeezed halfway up the closed point?
But, when you compound the unwanted radius change in the turnout with what comes just inches after it, at the kink where you join the tracks to the turnout, the exasperated steamer throws up its hands, exhales loudly, and says, "Look, Bub, are we going to work with each other or against each other? Make up your mind!"
The other posters are correct, you've introduced kinks and/or extra-tight curves that will prevent engines from operating smoothly. A number of folks mentioned this potential problem in your earlier thread:http://cs.trains.com/TRCCS/forums/t/200456.aspx
One of the suggestions mentioned there (such as a curved turnout along with slightly relaying the curve, etc.) will be necessary to make for smooth operation.
Good luck
Layout Design GalleryLayout Design Special Interest Group
Thanks for the replies.
I've torn out the poor track and installed some new flex stuff (isn't it great?) and my loco likes it a LOT better. No derailments or unecessary roughness while transversing the turnout.
I'll keep you posted on how my layout progresses.
Thanks again.
Ok here is an update.
I'm working on trying to put in a wye on the layout now and one particular curve doesn't want to cooperate. I can't seem to figure it out how to make it back to the wye.
Here are some photos of the area. The roadbed is not permanent. I realize it's entirely too sharp and will not work in any situation. It's only for a general reference.
Pencil is pointing where I would like to put a turnout, if one exists.
I tried putting a wye here, but it didn't look right.
Is this something that I can persue; will it work? If so, is there a turnout I need for the curve so I can continue the curve and divert to the wye?
Hi!
I didn't read the other posts, so my views are "just mine".............
As the turnout sits there is an obvious kink. I suspect that is just how you left it after taking the track apart, and not how it is when the track is together. So assuming that..........
- A 22 inch radius for a 4-8-4 is awfully tight. If you have other 4 or 8 drivered locos going thru there OK, I would be surprised.
- A good practice would be to have a tangent (straight) section of track before you get to the turnout points. Having the turnout tangent section sitting smack dab in the middle of a curve is not a good thing.
I would bet the ranch that by adjusting for the above, the problem will disappear.
ENJOY !
Mobilman44
Living in southeast Texas, formerly modeling the "postwar" Santa Fe and Illinois Central
dale8chevyssIs this something that I can persue; will it work? If so, is there a turnout I need for the curve so I can continue the curve and divert to the wye?
Hard to tell how tight the curves will get, but a curved turnout is probably your best alternative to try. You'll probably still need to relay some track.
A wye is likely not your best choice because of the s-curves that it will create in this spot.
Dale --
This is one place where a quality layout software program would serve you well, because it very much looks like you're trying to shoehorn in more track than your space allows.
I agree with Byron that your best bet for the area with the pencil is a curved turnout. Using one of the proper radius will allow you to get your outside curve around to where that new turnout is (upper left corner of the bottom photo), with perhaps some minor realignment there.
That V shaped arrangement in the middle ain't gonna happen, no way, no how. without some incredibly sharp curves, and your rolling stock, which is already proven to dislike sharp corners, is going to object (by derailing).
About the only way this is going to work for you, and maybe not well at that, would be to put a curved turnout where that new black curved segment is so that the diverging leg connects back to your new turnout (upper left of bottom photo). On the through leg, put in about 6" of straight track, then gently curve back towards the wye. Even so, you'll be running either a fairly sharp curve to avoid the far side of your benchwork. Replace the wye with a straight turnout and move it back a couple of feet.
Not really what you're looking for, but then again, I'm not sure what that center leg of track is buying you. The arrangements I suggest would allow trains coming from the peninsula (the bottom of the center photo) to go in either direction on your preexisting loop.