Yards and Turnout # question

[PistolPete]

I am getting ready to order some track and turnouts for my new HO layout. I am using code 83 track. My question is what works better for limited space for a yard? Snap turnouts, #4 or #6. I plan on using Atlas. The yard will be double ended and around a curve. I appreciate any feedback from others who have been through this before.
Thank You [:)][:)][:)]

[Sperandeo]

Hello Pete,

A lot depends on the type of equipment you want to run. No. 6 turnouts will allow you to handle the longest cars in your yard, and to more easily switch long cuts of cars. No. 4 turnouts are more compact, but can introduce problems with longer cars, especially when the turnouts form S curves. You might want to consider using Walthers code 83 no. 5 turnouts, a nice compromise between gentle curvature and compactness, or to lay no. 6 turnouts on a no. 5 (or sharper) angle to save space. This approach is discussed in my article in the December "Model Railroader," "10 tips for freight yard design and operation."

Good luck,

Andy

[cwclark]

I use #4's in my yard..remember that #6 turnouts are 1foot long and take a lot of space...I kind'a have a rule of thumb ..#4's in yards and #6's for mainline track...I have also incorperated #6's and #4's together in some parts of my yard and it works well...the longer rolling stock can go thru a #4 turnout, but it must be done very, very ,slowely..which is prototypical ..i've never seen trains switch cars around thru a yard running over 10 mph anyway .... Chuck[:D]

[mcouvillion]

What are you planning on switching - 40' boxcars or 80' TOFC flats? If your era is before the very long cars, go with the #4s. If you plan on using rolling stock greater than 60', go with the #6s. Andy's article is a huge help in getting the maximum length out of each track in the yard.

Mark C.

[Anonymous]

If you can get your hands on a copy of Atlas book #11 (Layouts for Every Space), it has a few pages on doing things with #4's vs #6's ----- ladders, compound ladders, all sorts of things that would be helpful in building a yard ---- with the actual physical dimensions of each. And in each case it shows how to get the exact track spacing you want.

Wasn't there an article in a recent MR about *curved* yards and the possible space savings?

Jim

[cacole]

Personally, I would never use Snap turnouts. A better choice is the regular Atlas turnout with a gentler divergent track. If your yard is going to be in an area where you can reach all of the turnouts to throw them by hand, Peco turnouts might be an even better choice, since they do not need a ground throw or motor.

[nobullchitbids]

FYI: For those who do not know, the Atlas snap switch in a way is unprototypical in that it has a curve all the way through the switch. This makes it effectively a #4.5 turnout, not a #4; slightly longer equipment can be run through this device.

That said, my personal preference is not to use turnouts less than a #6, which has an effective radius of about 42 inches HO. I realize that many modelers out there do not have the space for such luxury, so perhaps the answer is to "read between the lines" of the original inquiry and suggest use instead of curved turnouts, perhaps in some kind of compound ladder.

Modelers do have to be aware that locating a yard on a curve can produce major clearance and coupling headaches, which particularly are accentuated by using equipment of differing lengths. Think about this carefully before installing curved yards.

Finally, the original inquiry already indicated an interest in scale railroading at some level by expressing a desire to use code 83 rail. Code 83 rail (HO) is on the order of 131-pound rail (prototype) -- good for steam-to-diesel main line. Yards and spurs commonly used lighter rail -- 110-pound or less. Perhaps modelers might want to consider going to code 75, code 70, or code 60 rail in these areas? Commercial code 75 turnouts (Peco) and code 70 turnouts (Shinohara) are available, along with BK Enterprise kits, and some code 55 turnouts are available in HO. Code 60 is used mostly for N-scale, but no law says they have a monopoly on the stuff, if anyone has the gumption to lay their own . Hey Andy! How about looking up an old MR article for us, "Jack Work Builds Better Turnouts," written sometime in 1963 as I recall. A great step-by-stepper for those who dare to do it themselves for less.

[Anonymous]

If realism is any priority at all, you may wi***o go for the extra "buck" and purchase Japanese turnouts (Shinohara, etc.). "N" gauge ground throws are closer to scale and will make "tight" closure. For further realism, switch machines should be mounted under the table. I only mention this Pete because my first layout was a hurried affair and later, I wished I had taken more time and paid more attention to detail. As it turned out, I eventually had to replace the "snap" turnouts and surface mounted switch machines to acheive anything appearing better than a "tinplate" toy HO pike. Whatever your choice, I wish you the best of luck .

[johncolley]

If, as stated above, you are seeking realism, then go with #10's for mainline crossovers and passenger tracks. Use #8's for yard leads and ladder tracks. Save the #6's for service (i.e.: sand, fuel oil, etc.) and industrial tracks with possibly a #4 on an industrial site. A small engine service facility might use a #4 because it is used only by a switcher and a sand gon or hopper or tank car at slow speeds 3-5 mph.