Is there an ideal length for straight sections in yard ladders to avoid S curves? I'm using Peco small radius code 100 turnouts and want to avoid the throw from hitting the adjoining track and make the routing through the turnouts smoother.
Llenroc fanIs there an ideal length for straight sections in yard ladders to avoid S curves?
I do not know if there is ideal.
Whenever I build something new I set up a test section and physically try it out. I have a "test train" that I run with an 86 foot high cube, two other freight cars, and a 4-8-2 locomotive. If that will work, I know I am OK for layout operations.
The Peco code 100 S curves would probably be no problem for many modelers, but if you are backing up large equipment, it could become an issue.
Testing will let you know for sure.
-Kevin
Living the dream.
You can clip a piece off the Peco throws but I prefer to leave as much of my Peco's in-tact as possible, considering the cost and potential for re-use.
What I do instead is trim the ties of the adjoining (much cheaper) flex track so things can fit.
The above are Peco large code 100 but the principle is the same if arranged in a similar manner using smaller Peco's.
As for S curves, there is an ideal (or rather a minimum) according to John Armstrong in his Track Planning for Realistic Operation book, which I highly recommend.
For your consideration: "The wild coupler angles we observed when passing from curved to straight track are doubly accentuated in passing from one curve to another bending in the opposite direction. The resulting binding or sidewise pull is probably the largest single cause of derailments in well-built, but poorly designed track plans. S curves insidiously creep in on you unless you specifically watch out for them. ... Fig 5-7 points out some of the less obvious places S curves can occur."
Of particular importance, "If there is a section of straight track between reverse curves which is at least as long as the wheelbase of the longest car passing through them, the effect is no worse than that of two separate curves, and the S-curve problem disappears completely.
So much of the issue has to do with the longest rolling stock expected to be used.
I chose to use the largest of Peco code 100 in my staging yard to minimize any negative operational effects on long cars such as passenger cars or TOFC flat cars.
Using small Peco turnouts would increase the severity of S-curves such as the first track coming off a ladder, where S curve effects are much like a cross-over.
Rio Grande. The Action Road - Focus 1977-1983
I have had to trim some other brands of turnouts because they have more track for the turnout number, especially after the frog. With Peco, they are pretty short for their number, and so far I haven't found it necessary to trim any ties or rail off of them. No throw rods were trimmed on mine because I trimmed ties of adjacent track instead. If you go with track centers less than 2 inches, you may need to do more trimming.
From what I have seen, Peco large correspond most closely to a American #7 turnouts. Notice in the photo, the tip of the frog is about halfway between a Shinohara #6 and Shinohara #8, placing it as a #7.
Peco medium are probably closer to a #5. Peco code 100 streamline turnouts are not manufactured to American numbering system and they do not number them as Atlas, ME and Walthers may.
ME ladder turnouts may be one option, assuming you can find them since many have complained they are sold out at most vendors.
How can you get an S-curve from a yard ladder?
There is no ideal length of track. Just do what you can to fit in cars. My stub-ended yard ladder tracks can accomodate plenty of cars. No S-curve there.
"If your first yard turnout from the mainline creates a yard at the correct angle to the mainline then no S curve need be created. "
I don't quite understand what you mean by this. (That may be due to just having finished a 5+ mile run though.) Can you explain further or provide a sketch?
I'm dealing with a "compression problem" as I had a seperate 1000 sq ft building in my old house and now I'm restricted to half of a two car garage for trains and workshop and exercise area. :( As a result, I'm tying to squeeze the yard in a small space.
Thanks for the suggestions.
Hopefully this photo will illustrate:
The red line that goes into the ladder and through the first turnout forms an S-curve. The turnouts in this photo are Peco large radius (approx #7) so the S-curve is relatively gentle. If you make the same ladder using Peco small radius code 100 instead, the S-curve will be much more pronounced and long cars, such as passenger cars may derail. Best test the longest cars before you get too far along with the ladder.
riogrande5761 I have had to trim some other brands of turnouts because they have more track for the turnout number, especially after the frog. With Peco, they are pretty short for their number, and so far I haven't found it necessary to trim any ties or rail off of them. No throw rods were trimmed on mine because I trimmed ties of adjacent track instead. If you go with track centers less than 2 inches, you may need to do more trimming. From what I have seen, Peco large correspond most closely to a American #7 turnouts. Notice in the photo, the tip of the frog is about halfway between a Shinohara #6 and Shinohara #8, placing it as a #7. Peco medium are probably closer to a #5. Peco code 100 streamline turnouts are not manufactured to American numbering system and they do not number them as Atlas, ME and Walthers may. ME ladder turnouts may be one option, assuming you can find them since many have complained they are sold out at most vendors.
I have never liked the Atlas Super Switch you have shown above because of the excess length of the diverging route.
Using the Atlas Custom Line (which you do not show) eliminates this problem and makes yard ladders with 2" track centers with no cutting or piecing, and also butt together to make crossovers with no cutting.
The other electrical and mechanical aspects of the Super Switch and the Custom Line switch are the same. The tie arrangement on the Super Switch is more proto correct, that is the primary reason it was created.
I was never crazy about the Shinohara products for the same reason.
Sheldon
I recall some modelers who are sticklers for prototypical looking track prefer the Super Switch. I think Rob Spangler commented to that effect.
It's true that the Custom Line are easier to use in yards for yard ladders - no trimming needed. In this yard I used a combination of both Super Switches and Custom Line because I already had some Super Switches but the ones I added later are Custom line.
You can see which are which because the Super Switch drawbare sticks out long on both dies, but is very short on one side on the Custom Line. I minimized the amount of trimming necessary.
There are also some Walthers #8 turnouts in this yard (on the right) - I did have to trim them a bit to form a crossover that fit the centerlines. There is a Shinohara code 70 as well.
Lastspikemike Superswitches are higher quality build than Custom Line also. This is quite noticeable when running a locomotive over the diverging route. Custom line are more like the current versions of snap switches, but perhaps only because the 22" radius #6 snap switches are better built than previously. Custom line throw bars and tie spacing facilitate use of Atlas surface mount switch motors. Those don't fit the Superswitches. I just bought a few ME Code 70 ladder system turnouts. I'm building a switching yard to try them out. I'm also building two sections of Code 83 main line using Walthers new flex track that is supposed to be just Shinohara made by a new manufacturer. All is to form part of a shelf layout incorporating some form of folded dogbone and two reversing loops....
Superswitches are higher quality build than Custom Line also. This is quite noticeable when running a locomotive over the diverging route.
Custom line are more like the current versions of snap switches, but perhaps only because the 22" radius #6 snap switches are better built than previously.
Custom line throw bars and tie spacing facilitate use of Atlas surface mount switch motors. Those don't fit the Superswitches.
I just bought a few ME Code 70 ladder system turnouts. I'm building a switching yard to try them out. I'm also building two sections of Code 83 main line using Walthers new flex track that is supposed to be just Shinohara made by a new manufacturer. All is to form part of a shelf layout incorporating some form of folded dogbone and two reversing loops....
We have been down this road, there is no #6 "snap switch", and the last time I held a Super Switch and a #6 Custom Line switch in my hand, the rail components were identical.
The 22" radius "Snap Switch" is not a #6 by any measure, it is a curved frog toy trainset switch that replaces a section of 22" radius snap track.
A #6 Custom Line is a straight frog, prototype style #6 with the same geometry as the Super Switch, with a different tie layout and a short diverging route for making crossovers and yard ladders.
Yes, the Super Switch lacks the tie clips for the switch machine and has a double ended throwbar.
And again, I don't have samples of each product from every production run in the last 25 years, so I'm not going to debate build quality from product to product or production run to production run.
But the 120 Custom Line turnouts I have work fine, and have for decades. Just like they have for many of my friends.
ATLANTIC CENTRAL...there is no #6 "snap switch", and the last time I held a Super Switch and a #6 Custom Line switch in my hand, the rail components were identical... A #6 Custom Line is a straight frog, prototype style #6 with the same geometry as the Super Switch, with a different tie layout and a short diverging route for making crossovers and yard ladders.
That's true.
JC Turnouts 2 by wp8thsub, on Flickr
JC Turnouts 2
These are Atlas #6 Super Track turnouts, showing the arrangement of ties beyond the frog. I acquired most of these second hand, and some were already modified from use on a friend's layout and lacked the full complement of ties.
A Custom Line #6 can be dropped onto any of these and shows identical geometry, so the two are interchangeable from the standpoint of using them in a layout design.
Rob Spangler
Do you not understand the difference between a straight frog and a curved frog?
It makes a big difference.
And the 22" radius snap switch is much sharper than any #6.
I know a lot of my stuff will not make thru a 22" radius snap switch, but is more than comfortable thru a #6 with a straight frog.
Where do you get these ideas? The differences in the geometry of turnouts is well published and does make a difference.
The Atlas Custom Line and Super Switch are the longest, smoothest #6 on the market in terms of their geometry.
Turnout numbers are an expression of the frog angle in units of length vs change.
A #6 means that 6 units from the frog point, the rails are 1 unit apart, or about 9.32 degrees.
Both rails are straight thru the frog area.
The substitution radius is about 40" or more, way more than the 22" radius snap switch.
It all does matter...
S curves along with radius that is alowed is dependent on what you want to run. People are always worring about these things and easements on layouts where they don't realy mater. So if you are running big stuff it can mater alot, short stuff like mine, rairly.
Of course Randy; what you say is obvious to most experienced layout builders but the caution is raised in John Armstrongs book for the inexperienced. Naturally the book is to educate novices about all the aspects and nuances of layout building. I keep it around to reference mininums and standards from time to time as I don't remember everythong.
The subject of S-curves cautions is rightly raised in this forum because often novices join and are learning things. For those who already know these things, it's naturally redundant but echo's still seem to occur.
As for these #6 snap switches/turnouts, could you post photo's of these, perhaps in the packaging?
Atlas does not call it a #6, they call it a 22" radius snap switch, items 0544 thru 0547.
I'm not so good at posting links using this tablet....
It is likely barely #4.
LastspikemikePut another way, nobody cares,or perhaps nobody should care, about this type of technical difference given that a snapswitch is no more protypical than the 18" radius curve it is intended to replace.
You will find that a lot of people care very deeply about the technical aspects of model railroad turnouts.
Using terms like "nobody cares" only stirs up a bunch of heated discussion from the "nobodys" that really do care.
riogrande5761As for these #6 snap switches/turnouts, could you post photo's of these, perhaps in the packaging?
There is no such thing as a "#6 Snap Switch" from Atlas. I think Spike is just trying to pull Sheldon's chain for some reason.
We are currently dealing with another self-appointed-expert-on-everything that loves to argue.
SeeYou190 Lastspikemike Put another way, nobody cares,or perhaps nobody should care, about this type of technical difference given that a snapswitch is no more protypical than the 18" radius curve it is intended to replace. You will find that a lot of people care very deeply about the technical aspects of model railroad turnouts. Using terms like "nobody cares" only stirs up a bunch of heated discussion from the "nobodys" that really do care. riogrande5761 As for these #6 snap switches/turnouts, could you post photo's of these, perhaps in the packaging? There is no such thing as a "#6 Snap Switch" from Atlas. I think Spike is just trying to pull Sheldon's chain for some reason. We are currently dealing with another self-appointed-expert-on-everything that loves to argue. -Kevin
Lastspikemike Put another way, nobody cares,or perhaps nobody should care, about this type of technical difference given that a snapswitch is no more protypical than the 18" radius curve it is intended to replace.
riogrande5761 As for these #6 snap switches/turnouts, could you post photo's of these, perhaps in the packaging?
Maybe our argumentitive friend here is on the spectrum, as they say, judging by the kind of responses we are reading.
The fictitious $6 snap switch seems to be one example that has stirred up unnecessary discussion.
When designing or building a layout, if you install this switch
In place of this switch:
Or this switch:
Your layout will be messed up.
The snap switch is designed to fit into a 22 inch radius curve. I had two in my previous layout because I needed two reverse loops at each end of my point to point operating layout in order to run trains like a toy trainset roundy-round when the mood struck.
It does not really have a frog number, per se, because that is irrelevant. Its purchased for the radius of the curved rails of the diverging route, not for the frog #. Those curved diverging rails would make a horrible crossover compared to the standard diverging route geometry.
However, it is more like the custom line version of the #4 frog switch:
- Douglas
Lastspikemike Wrong snap switch(es). The 22" radius are part numbers 544 to 546. If you are using sectional track they work perfectly as they are designed to do. If you use flex track they cannot screw up your layout design or construction unless you don't want 22" radius turnouts. Peco Code 100 small radius turnouts are 24" (610mm).
Wrong snap switch(es). The 22" radius are part numbers 544 to 546. If you are using sectional track they work perfectly as they are designed to do. If you use flex track they cannot screw up your layout design or construction unless you don't want 22" radius turnouts.
Peco Code 100 small radius turnouts are 24" (610mm).
The 22" radius snap switch is code 83 and is the part# I showed above. The 18" radius snap switch is code 100, and is part number 0860, etc shown below.
The code 83 is 22". The code 100 is 18". They are Snap Switches with a radius. They don't have frog numbers. They are not really meant to compare to their frog numbered counterparts, especially in terms of embedded radius.
Also, Peco has Small, Medium, and Large turnouts in code 100 with the curved diverging routes similar to the Atlas snap switches. They are labeled by their size, not their frog numbers, because, like the Snap Switches, the curved radii is the relevant factor.
Peco's code 83 turnouts are #5, #6, and #8...frog numbers....because they have the "North American" geometry meaning the diverging route is straight...similar to the Atlas frog numbered turnouts.
The turnouts that have frog numbers have straight diverging routes and they are designed for building yard ladders, crossovers, and most spurs (although curved diverging routes could be used for tight spurs in industrial areas, which is why they are not a "train set" type of product).
The turnouts that are lebeled Small, Medium, Large..and Snap Switches...are not labeled by their frog numbers because the point of the design is to immediately start a curve with the diverging route.
While the yard ladder would be compressed relative to the ladder made with Custom Line frog numbered switches, the snap switch's curved diverging route would make the S curve shown in RioGrande's post more severe.
As they would if they were used to make a crossover.
Douglas,
Actually they do make both 18" radius and 22" radius code 83 snap switches.
Items 0540 thru 0543 - maunal and remote 18" radius code 83 snap switches
Items 0544 thru 0547 - maunal and remote 22" radius code 83 snap switches
Sheldon, Douglas:
Please, you are dealing with someone that has openly anounced to the forum that he is never wrong, and he knows everything.
He has also previously stated that he does not think these forums should be a place to find factual information.
It does not matter how many times you point out the facts, this will just make you want to bang your head against the wall.
I saved this quote from one of Spike's earlier arguments in another thread:
Lastspikemikepointing out facts to the contrary doesn't prove me wrong
Take the diverging route before this gets carried away.
ATLANTIC CENTRAL Douglas, Actually they do make both 18" radius and 22" radius code 83 snap switches. Items 0540 thru 0543 - maunal and remote 18" radius code 83 snap switches Items 0544 thru 0547 - maunal and remote 22" radius code 83 snap switches Sheldon
Okay. That was not the main point of course. The point is that implying that snap switches are compared to frogged turnouts based on embedded radius is missing the mark.
Doughless ATLANTIC CENTRAL Douglas, Actually they do make both 18" radius and 22" radius code 83 snap switches. Items 0540 thru 0543 - maunal and remote 18" radius code 83 snap switches Items 0544 thru 0547 - maunal and remote 22" radius code 83 snap switches Sheldon Okay. That was not the main point of course. The point is that implying that snap switches are compared to frogged turnouts based on embedded radius is missing the mark.
I know, you and I know what is going on here......
I just wanted to clear that up before Mike makes even more out of it.
SeeYou190 Sheldon, Douglas: Please, you are dealing with someone that has openly anounced to the forum that he is never wrong, and he knows everything. He has also previously stated that he does not think these forums should be a place to find factual information. It does not matter how many times you point out the facts, this will just make you want to bang your head against the wall. Take the diverging route before this gets carried away. -Kevin
Its not about Mike or changing an opinion.
I wanted the opportunity to point out that generally the turnouts with frog #s have different geometries than turnouts with names. Because they are designed to have different purposes.
Not meaning that anybody can't force one to do the other if they wanted to.
DoughlessI wanted the opportunity to point out that generally the turnouts with frog #s have different geometries than turnouts with names. Because they are designed to have different purposes.
And you, as usual, are absolutely 100% correct.
I am just getting very worn-down from someone who seems to have an endless need to agitate the discussions.
Sorry Douglas.
I am going to tap-out of this discussion thread.
SeeYou190 Sheldon, Douglas: Please, you are dealing with someone that has openly anounced to the forum that he is never wrong, and he knows everything. He has also previously stated that he does not think these forums should be a place to find factual information. It does not matter how many times you point out the facts, this will just make you want to bang your head against the wall. I saved this quote from one of Spike's earlier arguments in another thread: Lastspikemike pointing out facts to the contrary doesn't prove me wrong Take the diverging route before this gets carried away. -Kevin
Lastspikemike pointing out facts to the contrary doesn't prove me wrong
Kevin, it's OK, if I have the time, and the right mood, I will play.
If not, no response from me, no stress for me either way.
You may notice that while I sometimes post a lot, other times I am radio silent.
Thanks for posting pictures of what I could not link to easily this afternoon.
I am very device challenged using my Samsung tablet......
SeeYou190 Doughless I wanted the opportunity to point out that generally the turnouts with frog #s have different geometries than turnouts with names. Because they are designed to have different purposes. And you, as usual, are absolutely 100% correct. I am just getting very worn-down from someone who seems to have an endless need to agitate the discussions. Sorry Douglas. I am going to tap-out of this discussion thread. -Kevin
Doughless I wanted the opportunity to point out that generally the turnouts with frog #s have different geometries than turnouts with names. Because they are designed to have different purposes.
No apologies. I usually try to slant my comments to the less experienced lurker, and quote others as a way to do that. My comments tend to be impersonal a little too much probably.
Lastspikemike Doughless While the yard ladder would be compressed relative to the ladder made with Custom Line frog numbered switches, the snap switch's curved diverging route would make the S curve shown in RioGrande's post more severe. As they would if they were used to make a crossover. The OP is already committed to using curved diverging route small radius Peco turnouts. The truism about layouts is achieving the largest minimum radius you can, whenever you can. Using numbered frog turnouts makes this harder to achieve precisely because the frog angles are straight. My intent is to redirect this thread back to answering the original question. There is no value to recommending changing to numbered frog turnouts. If you did try this in the same space you would make the S curve problem worse than if you used snapswitch geometry. It is useful to consider using numbered frog or larger radius turnouts instead of inserting a straight connector of any length. The Peco turnout being used is already larger radius than the largest radius snapswitch. The question is can the S curve be moderated by inserting a straight section between the mainline turnout and the first opposite hand yard turnout in the ladder. Using a numbered frog turnout or a larger radius Peco medium turnout for the mainline, and if there's room for that first ladder turnout also, may produce a better easing of the S curve than simply inserting a straight between the tighter radius Peco small radius turnouts. That was the direction I was trying to take this discussion.
Doughless While the yard ladder would be compressed relative to the ladder made with Custom Line frog numbered switches, the snap switch's curved diverging route would make the S curve shown in RioGrande's post more severe. As they would if they were used to make a crossover.
The OP is already committed to using curved diverging route small radius Peco turnouts. The truism about layouts is achieving the largest minimum radius you can, whenever you can.
Using numbered frog turnouts makes this harder to achieve precisely because the frog angles are straight.
My intent is to redirect this thread back to answering the original question. There is no value to recommending changing to numbered frog turnouts. If you did try this in the same space you would make the S curve problem worse than if you used snapswitch geometry. It is useful to consider using numbered frog or larger radius turnouts instead of inserting a straight connector of any length.
The Peco turnout being used is already larger radius than the largest radius snapswitch.
The question is can the S curve be moderated by inserting a straight section between the mainline turnout and the first opposite hand yard turnout in the ladder. Using a numbered frog turnout or a larger radius Peco medium turnout for the mainline, and if there's room for that first ladder turnout also, may produce a better easing of the S curve than simply inserting a straight between the tighter radius Peco small radius turnouts.
That was the direction I was trying to take this discussion.
So why not just say that in the first place rather than dance around?
I know you think you can "steer" people like you are in a court room, but it does not seem to be working all that well here.
And, you are not the forum police, it is not your job to keep us on point. Conversations go where they go.
And, it is possible that given enough information the OP will reconsider his whole approach?
You would deny him that information on the basis of staying on topic?