Freight Yard Ladder Turnouts

[railandsail]

I'm still working on the possibilities with my freight yard ladder configuration. I'm using Code 100 track.

 

There was a time at the beginning that I was considering whether it might be possible to utilize the Peco 'Set Track' turnouts due to their short length. I have REJECTED that idea as the curved diverging tracks are too sharp of a radius.

Next came the use of the Peco 'streamline' turnouts,  .... 'small radius size'. One of the major appealing factors about these turnouts is the 'effective radius' of curved portion of these turnouts,...24" inches. My thoughts were that any of my trains that could negotiate a 24" radius curve track, could negotiate these turnouts.
( and yes I understand there could be some instances where long cars coupled to short ones MIGHT experience some problems here).

My next thought was what if i were to do some trimming of these turnouts so to make them fit even closer together? That experiment was less than satisfying when i laid out a string of 4 trimmed turnouts (templates), and compared them a string of untrimmed turnouts. The total length of the ladder was only approx 1.5" difference,....not worth the effort to do all that cutting/trimming.

 

Thoughts then turned to whether I could utilize the even broader radius of the 'medium size' Pecos. I laid out a string of these alongside the small radius ones. You can see there is quite a difference, so they were unacceptable to me.

 

[railandsail]

I was doing some research on utilizing some Peco 'small radius' turnouts in my freight yard ladder design. I found this very interesting conversation, with lots of good and intelligent contributions. I've highlited some of the quotes that caught my eye, and concerned themselves with those Peco turnouts I'm interested in.

 
http://cs.trains.com/mrr/f/11/t/262912.aspx

This is the question that opened the discussion

What is the difference between a #4 turnout and a #5 turnout?

You can find extensive detail in the NMRA turnout dimensions Recommended Practices area and other related pages:

http://www.nmra.org/rp-122-turnout-dimensions

In practical terms, a #4 is pretty sharp.  Some locos and long rolling stock (like 80' cars) may not take it.  A #5 is much more forgiving.  I used #5s in my yards, #6 for mainline takeoffs and one #8 for a smoother mainline split.

...from a profession layout designer
This is true for PECO N Scale and for PECO HO Code 75 and Code 100, but the newer PECO HO Code 83 is accurately defined by frog number. PECO N scale Code 55 uses a #6 frog for all the turnouts, but the curved diverging leg has different radii for Small Medium, and Large, for example. PECO HO Code 75 and 100 typically have a #4½ frog, again with different diverging radii past the frog. So they are “exact”, but the curved diverging leg is the determining factor.

The second (and more important) is that the lower the frog number, the sharper the effective curve through the turnout. That means that longer cars and engines will be less likely to derail running through a #5 than through a #4.

For this reason, it's a good idea to match the turnout frog to the minimum radius elsewhere on the layout. To take an extreme, there's no point in using #8 turnouts with 18" radius curves in HO -- the curves will restrict the equipment that can be run.

As a general rule of thumb for HO, the tightest point through various frogs is:
"True" #4 is roughly equivalent to 14"-15" radius
Atlas "#4" (actually #4½) roughly equivalent to 18"-19" radius
#5 roughly equivalent to 24"-25" radius

These calculations are from a series of datasheets published by the National Model Railroad Association. An out-of-date link was given above, the newer version of the website is a downloadable zip archive of .pdf files found at this link:

I'm okay with designating their turnouts using the small-, medium-, and large- scheme, but that just doesn't sound very railroady, so I'm calling my medium- and large-radius turnouts #6 and #8 respectively. Mainly because that's what they appear to be as trains pass through them.

I'm nit-picky about a lot of things but the slightly non-prototypical appearance of my PECO trackage and turnouts is not one of them. That stuff is well-made and very reliable

My contention is that Peco uses #6 frogs for all their turnouts. And as cuyama and others have pointed out, what happens downstream on the diverging route varies from manufacturer to manufacturer.

 

...photographs of N gage code 55 Electrofrog turnouts.  I measured the frog sizes:

small--#5.7
medium--#5.65
large--#6.6

So then I would call them #6S, #6L, #7

after hand laying turnouts, i looked at Variations in turnout dimensions.   The frog number describes the angle at the frog, not a distance.

the following diagram illustrates how NMRA turnout dimensions appear inconsistent depending on frog number.   The red closure rail is drawn with the proper prototype radius (see Catskill below) indicating where the frog should be located.   Most seem short (see bottom plots).

The Catskill Archive describes how prototype turnout dimensions are calculated (show below).

The radius (leftmost number) between the points and frogs can vary leading to various length (middle number) turnouts that are all the same frog number.  Blue section of closure rail is curved and red section is straight.

The key dimensions describe the distance between the points and frog.  That distance, the length of the diverging rails and those preceding the points may vary between manufactures and all be the same frog number.

 

To distill the original question to its essential essence:
I handlay all of my specialwork, so I'm certain that my #4 turnouts (on my end-of-the-coal-hauler module, built in 1980) and my #5 turnouts (in the hidden staging yards at Nonomura, built within the last decade) are built to the proper dimensions.

That said, one of my long-wheelbase 2-Co+Co-2 EF18 or EF58 class juice jacks can slither through a #5. Trying to force it through the curved route of a #4 will put it on the ground, every time.

Why? Those motors require an honest 24 inch (610mm) radius to operate. The closure rail of a #4 turnout has a radius too tight for the long rigid wheelbase.  The axle under the center of the carbody gets pinched over the rails on whichever truck hits the tight spot first.

 

 

[gregc]

have you considered Microengineering's #5 turnouts. Crusader Rail Services has an illustration

[rrinker]

 Also consider other ladder configurations, instead of just linking the straight sides fo the turnouts and settign them at an angle. There are some other ways to combine the turnouts to make a ladder that uses less space - of course there are tradeoffs with other things, but you need to decide which you want more.

 #5 turnouts are a reasonable compromise for a yard - Atlas #4's are actually #4 1/2 and are also a good option - your bigger mainline locos won't traverse the yard tracks, so the tighter equivalent radius isn't really an issue.

 

                            --Randy

 

[Doughless]

As Randy implied, if you link some straight portions to diverging routes you can get more ladder tracks into a shorter linear space, instead of just stringing them trunk to tail, so to speak.

[hon30critter]

Brian:

I made your link clickable:

http://cs.trains.com/mrr/f/11/t/262912.aspx

Did you get my email? Basically I suggested the same thing that Randy did.

Dave

[hon30critter]

Brian,

Here is a yard ladder with the turnout arrangement that Randy, doughless and I suggested:

This one has six yard tracks but you can reduce it easily by just taking out the last turnout in the ladder. I had to guess at what the radius of your fascia is so you will have to play with the positioning a bit.

Dave

[railandsail]

hon30critter

Brian:

I made your link clickable:

http://cs.trains.com/mrr/f/11/t/262912.aspx

Did you get my email? Basically I suggested the same thing that Randy did.

Dave

 

Yes Dave I did get your email, and I was going to respond to it after I finished playing with my latest configuration. I'll post my latest thoughts with a number of photos shortly.

For some reason I have problems with properly making 'links' on this forum? The software is confusing, or it works the opposite of other sites I am use to?? I hi-lite the link wording, then hit the link icon, and it does NOT make the link???

One other strange item,...I got no notice that replies had been made to this subject thread that I started?? It was only when I checked 'my discussions' this evening that I saw there had been several replies made.

Thanks for that drawing. I thought that was what you were suggesting.

One thing I was trying to avoid was adding additional yard tracks that were limited by an 18" entrance curve of those 2 dbl-curved Peco turnouts I am proposing for the head of that ladder. I would rather add more tracks that had 24" entrance curves. 

[hon30critter]

railandsail

One thing I was trying to avoid was adding additional yard tracks that were limited by an 18" entrance curve of those 2 dbl-curved Peco turnouts I am proposing for the head of that ladder.

Hi Brian,

I thought the Code 100 Peco curved turnouts had radii of 30" and 60". Those figures were discussed in a recent thread, and those were the turnouts I used for the drawing. If anything, I thought the larger radius on the inner track might cause you problems.

Here is the thread:

http://cs.trains.com/mrr/f/11/t/187905.aspx

Dave

[hon30critter]

railandsail

For some reason I have problems with properly making 'links' on this forum? The software is confusing, or it works the opposite of other sites I am use to?

Hi again,

You have to use some additional instructions in order to post a working link to another thread. Copy the link into your post and then add the following before the link (without the spaces and apostrophies) '[ url ]' and add '[ /url ]' after the link, again without the spaces and apostrophies.

The link won't highlight until you actually post your message.

Dave

[cuyama]

hon30critter

I thought the Code 100 Peco curved turnouts had radii of 30" and 60"

The OP wants to use SetTrack parts, which are much sharper in both frog and radius, not Streamline (which are more workable). Not clarifying this leads to confusion. Cherry-picking statements out of the earlier thread (which was in reference to Streamline) doesn't help with understanding what he is proposing.

[hon30critter]

cuyama

The OP wants to use SetTrack parts, which are much sharper in both frog and radius, not Streamline

I thought he said that he had decided to not use Set Track turnouts and had switched to Streamline small turnouts. He didn't specify whether or not he was still using a Set Track curved turnout, but that would explain why the printout of the curved turnout in his picture looked like it had sharper radii than what my drawing shows.

Dave

[hon30critter]

Byron, here is what he wrote:

railandsail

There was a time at the beginning that I was considering whether it might be possible to utilize the Peco 'Set Track' turnouts due to their short length. I have REJECTED that idea as the curved diverging tracks are too sharp of a radius. Next came the use of the Peco 'streamline' turnouts,  .... 'small radius size'. One of the major appealing factors about these turnouts is the 'effective radius' of curved portion of these turnouts,...24" inches. My thoughts were that any of my trains that could negotiate a 24" radius curve track, could negotiate these turnouts.

Did I miss something? Ooops, I just realized that he did refer to an 18" radius in a later post. I thought he was making a mistake. That's why I asked the question.

Dave

[cuyama]

railandsail

One thing I was trying to avoid was adding additional yard tracks that were limited by an 18" entrance curve of those 2 dbl-curved Peco turnouts I am proposing for the head of that ladder.

As I read it, still using Settrack at the beginning of the ladder. But who knows where this will be tomorrow.

[railandsail]

Gentlemen, I'm sorry for the confusion I caused by mixing in my use of Peco streamlines and set tracks. Lets see if I can better explain what I had in mind.

When I first began to look at ladder situations my thoughts were that the yard tracks would end up being spaced closer together if the series of the ladder turnouts were of a shorter overall length dimension themseles,...and a resulting tighter radius curve.

My first inclination was to consider those Peco ST set track ones for the straight portions of the ladder. I quickly determined those were NOT appropriate as they just had too tight of a radius in their diverging track.
So Set Track turnouts would NOT be used in the straight portions of my yard ladder. (notice I have not addressed the dbl-curve turnout situation at this point).

I next looked at Peco small radius turnouts as they have essentially a 24" radius in their diverging track, ...and they are relatively short in their overall length,...at least more so that any other such 'mild turning' switch. I had read that one might even be able to make these turnouts shorter in overall length by triming them on either end such that they fit closer together. I got out the multiple paper Peco templates I had made (copy machine), and experimented with fitting them a close together as I thought possible. I then took some of those same templates and put them together in their virgin form (untrimmed) to see what difference there might be with 4 of them lined up in a row,...trimmed and untrimed.

Surprise. I found that there was only 1.5" difference in total length for the series of 4 linked turnouts,...trimmed vs untrimmed. So why go thru all the cutting and trimming to only gain 1.5 inches.

I even went so far as to experiment with the next size up Pecos,...their 'medium radius'. These are longer length turouts of a nice broader radius (30 inches), but when line up in the ladder configuration they were just TOO long for my application.

(I have photos of these experiments, and have posted them on the forums somewhere)

[railandsail]

So now we come to those Double-Curve turnouts. I needed a fairly tight turning radius to go from my yard ladder over into the peninsula area. I got out all the curved turouts I had collected over the years (all of them Code100), and discovered that most of them were approximately the same size dbl radius,..18" inner radius & 22" outer radius,...surprised again !!

Since I am partial to the good quality of Pecos I looked at their two offerings (ONLY 2  in Code100):
1) streamline dbl curve at 30" inner & 60" outer

2) set track dbl curve at approx 18" inner & 22" outer

The larger of these 2 was just not usable for my situation. The smaller set track one just might work. I laid some sectional track along side these dbl curves of this Peco turnout, and determined that their tracks were of sufficient radius to handle the small switcher locos and a lot of the freight cars I would be operating over them:
1) The inner curve 18" radius would have 'Restriction Signs' on it (them, likely 2), indicating only certain size/types of locos and cars.

2) The outer curve 22" could likely handle many locos, and would match up with the other 22" curve into the peninsula area.

Peco SET TRACK dbl-curve turnouts

 

 

 

The SET TRACK  from Peco is more of the 'entree level' track system than the STREAMLINE systems/tracks, As such it usually includes some smaller radius, tighter curve turnouts.

In their Code100 tracks they basically offer 2 double-curve turnouts,....a set track one and a streamline one. 
1) The consensus of opinion puts the larger 'streamline' one at 30" inner radius and 60" outer radius.

 

2) The smaller 'set track' one is generally been quoted as 17 1/4" inner radius and 19 7/8" outer radius
Here is a little experiment I conduced this afternoon on those smaller radius set track ones,...

 

 

 

Here is a single one of those small dbl curves surrounded by a piece of 18" radius track on one side, and a 22" radius track on the other. These are going to be brought closer to the dbl-curve turnout in steps,...

 

 

 

 

 

 

That to me is a close enough fit to call that inner radius of the dbl-curve turnout an 18" curve

 

Now the 22" curve along the outer curve of the dbl-curve,...

 

 

Not quite as close of a fit, but likely in at least the 21" range,.....and I think that can work out in a 22" arc of trackwork.

 

I didn't have the time today to get all of that equipment out to perform such a test as suggested.  But I did do a little abbreviated version. I attached some 22" curves onto either end of the outer radius, and an 18" curve onto the diverging track.

I selected a few freight cars (40 & 50 footers) and ran them back and forth thru this. One even had the old sprung trucks with very small flange wheels . They ran just find.

One thing I did notice is that made a very slight jog at the point end of the turnout. That is a result of that end being slightly straight in nature compared to the other curved portions. Perhaps you can see that here,..

 

One nice detail on this Peco dbl-curve is that fact that the point rail has a radius built in.

 

I believe that most any car/loco that can traverse either 18"r or 22"r on their own, will be able to negotiate the respective route of this turnout. I don't think they will be prone to picking the points here, or having trouble with the frog.

I am also feeling good about utilizing 2 of these dbl-curves at the head of the ladder. So the first 2 diverging routes will be 18" radius entrances, and limited to cars/locos that can use them. The rest will be cars/locos that can negotiate 22" curves, which are many.

Longer cars/locos that need at least 24" radius could enter from the mainline track, up the ladder, then duck into a yard track thru the Peco 'small radius' conventional turnouts that make up the ladder, and that have a diverging route of 24" inches.

[cuyama]

railandsail

2) set track dbl curve at approx 18" inner & 22" outer

Those aren't the manufacturer's specs, which I noted in your earlier thread:

cuyama

That would be about a #2.5 frog, with radii of about 19 7/8" and 17 1/4". Seems like a poor choice at a critical spot, since it is much sharper than what you are using elsewhere and thus will limit what can run through the yard.

Certainly the manufacturer would not understate specifications. You may still be able to shove strings of mixed-length cars through those tight turnouts, or it may be overly hopeful thinking. In any case, personally I’d suggest being realistic with yourself about the actual dimensions of the parts.

A to-scale redesign of the full area with more reasonable turnouts would allow you to use a compound or pinwheel ladder for a likely more reliable yard with a variety of equipment. (As others have suggested.) The compromise might be reduced yard track lengths or fewer tracks, but it might be well worth it.

But now I am repeating my repetitive restatement of my earlier recapitulations, so I’ll retire.

Good luck

[MisterBeasley]

I built a 4 track staging yard with an additional branch line for a total of 5 tracks from a common yard throat.  It was built on a 90 degree curve as well.

I ended up using a #5 turnout, a curved turnout and a 3-way turnout, all Walthers--Shinohara.  My only issue is with backing passenger cars with Talgo truck over one turnout into the tightest curved track.

Curved turnouts help with getting into a tight space, and 3-way turnouts squeeze longer tracks into less space.  They may not be prototypical, but it's a selective compression technique that helps in our limited modeling spaces.

[railandsail]

cuyama

A to-scale redesign of the full area with more reasonable turnouts would allow you to use a compound or pinwheel ladder for a likely more reliable yard with a variety of equipment. (As others have suggested.) The compromise might be reduced yard track lengths or fewer tracks, but it might be well worth it.

I'm assuming that was to be a 'total redesign'?

Anyone willing to give me a quick sketch of what Cuyama is saying, then I could work up that idea??

[railandsail]

MisterBeasley

....

My only issue is with backing passenger cars with Talgo truck over one turnout into the tightest curved track.

I think I sold off all of my passenger cars equipped with those truck mounted couplers. I do remember having to really fine tune those ConCor passenger cars I had a full set of, and back them slowly, purposefully over the multiply turnouts I had on my Central Midland layout yard.

Thanks for reminding me,....maybe....ha...ha

I likely have a few freight cars with them that I have not converted.

[railandsail]

My latest experimenting with the ladder and the freight yard,...again laid out on my living room rug.

The left hand edge of the rug would be the wall of the shed. The first track inboard represents that track along that side of the shed that enters the helix structure and goes down to the staging tracks down below.

The next 2 tracks inboard of that are the mainline track and its opposing end that has looped around in a circle inside the helix and reemerged....dbl mainline.

The next 2 tracks inboard are primarily 'diesel engine servicing' tracks. That long white rectangular shape is meant to be a fueling / sanding / lube stop for diesel engines. One of those tracks will bear off and go into a repair shop down the way (not shown). That one service track close to the mainline will rejoin the mainline on its other end.

The next 4 tracks in are mostly freight yard.

The final 2 tracks in are primarily feeding the steel mill complex, but I imagine the dead end portion at the upper end could be a cabeese storage track (and that cross over track shown will be of the opposite variety, and further down the line towards the mill.

 

 

Additional photos I took so that I might dimension them and make some sort of record to help me remember the possibilities when I go to lay them out on the plywood decks. Unless I completely redesign this ladder due to someone else's superior design, my ladder will have 4 Peco smalls and 2 peco dble curves at the head as shown. All of those Pecos smalls have 24” diverging tracks. Other crossover tracks in the yard will be either Peco smalls, or could be Peco mediums.

The big white blob there is the Tichy 400T coaling tower. The tracks I have running under it are not exactly scale as I did not have enough sectional track of the correct radius to lay in there. Suffice it to say that the minimum curves for any of the 'big steam' track will be 24”. And that also goes for the large curve going over into the peninsula area.

 

 

 

A difference perspective on this complex.

 

 

 

 

It happens to turn out that I do NOT need the original 30” deep shelf for this yard. As you can see by the tape measure I could manage with just 29”, or maybe even 28”. That would allow for a bigger aisle.

 

Turns out that the also be made slightly wider on the other side as well due to the 22” inner circle radius and the track along the edge of the peninsula. I've depicted that here with an increase in the paper aisle width....

 

[hon30critter]

Hi Brian,

Your plan seems to be coming together. The only thing I don't understand is the way the turnouts are positioned on the two tracks closest to the aisle. To me it would make more sense to reverse the turnouts so the second track from the right can feed the right most track without a reversing move, but I may not have the right picture in my head of the way the approach to the steel mill works.

Dave

[hon30critter]

Brian,

There is a good example of various yard styles including a pinwheel yard in this thread:

http://cs.trains.com/mrr/f/11/t/216433.aspx

I'll play with the idea to see what fits. Please confirm what the radius of the track that feeds into the yard will be. I believe you said you wanted 24".

Dave

[hon30critter]

Pinwheel yard:

Dave

[hon30critter]

I spent a little more time on the drawing. I believe this is how you have the track laid out in your last two pictures. The only difference is the way the turnouts on the two far right tracks in the yard face the opposite way:

Dave

[railandsail]

hon30critter

Hi Brian,

Your plan seems to be coming together. The only thing I don't understand is the way the turnouts are positioned on the two tracks closest to the aisle. To me it would make more sense to reverse the turnouts so the second track from the right can feed the right most track without a reversing move, but I may not have the right picture in my head of the way the approach to the steel mill works.

Dave

 

You are correct Dave. I don't know why I did that in the first place,...just throwing turnouts in I guess. I did discover it shortly thereafter but did not take a new photo of alternate placement.

I also thought I would move that crossover down a fair bit and make room for a cabeese siding on that upper dead end track close to the aisle.

[railandsail]

hon30critter

Pinwheel yard:

Dave

 

WOW, that looks real encouraging. I was having trouble picturing what a pinwheel would look like.

I've got to comptemplate over Sunday morning coffee.

THANKS

[riogrande5761]

If you are using all Peco small turnouts, then those cross overs are going to spell trouble for long cars that you tested so extensively some weeks back.  IMO, I would used Peco small in any yard I was planning to run long cars through or long steam engines.

[railandsail]

I will likely try to use Peco 'mediums' rather than 'smalls' in those crossover locations,....30" diverging tracks,.....and slow speeds in yards.

I will not be running big steam 'in' the that yard. Those engines will be joined up to their consist out on the mainline,...and some minor ones in that 24" radius circle.

The 'long cars' will be limited to the 24" radius tracks, and done as singles rather than coupled to others. I think that will take care of most of them. Those cars that this yard will not handle,... will just NOT be able to utilize that freight yard.

I keep remember seeing some images such as this

Those autoracks are on the 26" curve, and it appears barely enough for them, although that flatbed has the same footprint as autoracks and it seems it could make the 24".

These 'joined' Auto Racks just made the 24" radius

...more here...
Minimum Curves for Long Freight Cars & Steam Locos https://model-railroad-hobbyist.com/node/32599?page=2

[railandsail]

.....from another forum,...

Further Justification, Peco Sm Radius (24") in Ladder

There is another factor here I didn't see in the discussion above. It was said that all Peco turnouts have a #6 frog, what wasn't said explicitly is that the Peco code 100 track is not a North American style turnout, it is more European. This means that it doesn't "kink" as much at the points as a USA turnout would. This is a good thing when trying to get trains around the tighter corners. I love the Peco code 100 small radius turnouts for this reason. I think they will serve you well in this application.

Brian

My Layout Plan

Interesting new Plan Consideration

• Reply