Well, yeah Mike.
You already said that you had to scrap the most excellent 1 1/2" spaced yard when "we" moved.
Ed
mikeGTWNot if you have a wide vision caboose...
Thanks for the illustrative photo.
Maximum width for railroad cars in normal interchange is 10' - 8" (taken from various Plate diagrams in use).
10' - 8" = 128"
128" / 87.1 = 1.470"
1.5" - 1.470" = .030" (approximately 1/32")
A caboose is not in normal interchange service.
trainnut1250 I do think that all the hand wringing and mis-information about track spacing is a bit over the top, but that is just me.
Yes, the OP got $1,000,000.00 worth of nonsense in response to a simple two bit question.
-Kevin
Living the dream.
To the OP:
While I am not a big fan of the overall design due to the reasons Dave H pointed out in the other thread, I do think that all the hand wringing and mis-information about track spacing is a bit over the top, but that is just me.
Testing: The spacing on the curves will likely be fine at 2” given how broad they are, but as others have stated, testing is key. I don’t like creating areas on the layout where certain cars and equipment can’t operate – especially in a yard - so I would test with the longest equipment with the most overhang. As others have stated if you are going to run big articulated steam or long passenger cars, thoroughly check clearances with this rolling stock in all directions.
Regarding fixed wheel base articulated steam: I have found that most of the modern plastic articulated steam has double swiveling driver sets (notable exception is the IM Cab Forward). Brass is another story – most of my brass articulateds use the same design as the prototype (fixed rear driver set) – increasing the radius necessary and the overhang….If you plan to run big brass, consider a little extra wiggle room in the curve spacing.
Regarding straight track spacing: Anything closer than 2” makes the yard look like a “parking lot of track” to my eye. Everyone has different aesthetics when it comes to how things look, but I ended up removing track from my yard to keep the rustic feel I was looking for. My thought processes in designing my yard are here:
http://thewilloughbyline.com/willoughby%20text/Willoughby%20Yard%20design.doc.pdf
Any design this complex will have to be laid out and thoroughly tested/vetted before it is made permanent. Don’t be afraid to make some changes as you go…
My two cents,
Guy
see stuff at: the Willoughby Line Site
Track fiddlerIf you're lucky as me without derailing them that is!
I don't have a problem with freight cars derailing in yards.
I think this is highly unlikely since operation is so slow in these areas.
I do need to develop proficiency with the skewer.
Doughless The issue is that as you build multiple yard tracks on a curve, the radius of each ensuing track (as you move inward) gets tighter. So the spacing that works for one pair of tracks won't work for the next adjacent track.
The issue is that as you build multiple yard tracks on a curve, the radius of each ensuing track (as you move inward) gets tighter. So the spacing that works for one pair of tracks won't work for the next adjacent track.
Rich
Alton Junction
My yard will only be four tracks, and I believe the curve on the tightest track will be about 72 inches. It is just for looks.
The reason I want such a broad curve is more a concern for coupler alignment when operating than side clearance. The tracks will be spaced at 2.5"
So my new layout will have not one, but two curves in the 25' long six/seven track freight yard. But the smallest radius will be 36", making the largest one 48". 2" centers will be fine......
Sheldon
Lastspikemike Looking at an old Atlas track catalogue they do indeed start and end the broader curves about a 1/4 straight past the end of the tangent of the inner radius track, and add that same 1/4 track at the apex of the outer curve. Using 18" inner and 22" outer radius. But only for HO. For N track plans they run the two curves exactly in parallel, constant spacing. Looking at Armstrong's book he acknowledges that prototype track spacing scales down to 1 3/4". (13'). He suggests 2 1/8" is enough for 30" radius and progressively wider for tighter curves. He suggests 2" for tangent tracks claiming that it makes our overscale rails look more real. He assumes Code 100 rail I believe. The prototype 13' doesn't work on our model curves because our model curves aren't to proper scale. We should use the minimum spacing we can get away with because it will always look too wide anyway. He remarks that yard tracks should be wider spaced to allow for fingers. I say don't plan on using your fingers. I suggest all this is not necessary and that 2" works for most layouts on mainlines and for curved yard tracks. Then 1 3/4" (or so) works for tangent yard tracks. You could use 1 1/2" for tangent yard tracks without cars hitting each other. But why would you. Woodland Scenics trackbed is 1 3/4" wide and that provides a useful minimum spacing.
Looking at an old Atlas track catalogue they do indeed start and end the broader curves about a 1/4 straight past the end of the tangent of the inner radius track, and add that same 1/4 track at the apex of the outer curve. Using 18" inner and 22" outer radius. But only for HO. For N track plans they run the two curves exactly in parallel, constant spacing.
Looking at Armstrong's book he acknowledges that prototype track spacing scales down to 1 3/4". (13'). He suggests 2 1/8" is enough for 30" radius and progressively wider for tighter curves. He suggests 2" for tangent tracks claiming that it makes our overscale rails look more real. He assumes Code 100 rail I believe. The prototype 13' doesn't work on our model curves because our model curves aren't to proper scale. We should use the minimum spacing we can get away with because it will always look too wide anyway.
He remarks that yard tracks should be wider spaced to allow for fingers. I say don't plan on using your fingers.
I suggest all this is not necessary and that 2" works for most layouts on mainlines and for curved yard tracks. Then 1 3/4" (or so) works for tangent yard tracks.
You could use 1 1/2" for tangent yard tracks without cars hitting each other. But why would you. Woodland Scenics trackbed is 1 3/4" wide and that provides a useful minimum spacing.
The issue is that as you build multiple yard tracks on a curve, the radius of each ensuing track (as you move inward) gets tighter. So the spacing that works for one pair of tracks won't work for the next adjacent track. (Remember the overhang discussion)
It seems that you have to continually increase the spacing as the radius gets tighter, eating up valuable benchwork. (My rough guess was a 1/8th inch increase in spacing for each track as you progress.)
This is a problem the prototype doesnt have generally because of their broad curves. So our curved yards might look wonky compared to pics of the real thing.
OP could forbid certain length equipment from traversing the inner most tracks, thereby keeping the other tracks closer together to better replicate the pics I posted above.
Or do what I would do, use a 42 inch minimum radius everywhere and don't bother with any of this.
BTW, I'll be blunt. 1.5" spacing looks stupid.
- Douglas
I know Ed,
I think it's kind of like the spock thing
If you keep your two fingers on the top of the cars, uncoupling them with the barbecue skerew. You might be okay separating them with N as I do.
If you're lucky as me without derailing them that is!
TF
Thanks, TF.
The place changed for the better, so I came back.
I do think it is interesting to consider whether or not one needs "finger room". And how much.
IF you can keep your trains on the track (and I know it CAN be done), and IF you don't need the track to add or remove rolling stock, I can see having narrow track spacing--something I hadn't given much thought to until this topic. My WAG on spacing here would be 1 3/4". You could pick up one more track after doing 7. Or is it 8?
On t'other hand. If you can't and/or do (see above), then wider spacing is necessary. Measuring my finger with my trusty plastic pink ruler, I get about 5/8". So I guess, in this case, I'd be interested in a bit over 2", say 2 1/4".
All that's leaving out the curves, of course. And the brass articulateds--those lovely creatures!!!
Good call Ed
A bit more of a chance to see things realistically.
My experience of spacing in yards or anything else you need a little spacing of your fingers to get through while you're fumbling around with your fingers to separate trains.
Realistically HO provides more of that. N sale provides a bit more of a challenge!
I would like to say it's good to see you here again Ed.
I was sad when you went away for a while
Doughless Because the topic isn't really about precision. That's the topic after hijack. The topic was answered by suggesting live iterations should be how spacing is determined. Whether or not OP even bothers to measure the precise distance beyond the eyeball distance the hands on iterations provided is rather inconsequential to the goal. But I suppose measurements could provide a supporting role, so he doesn't have to perform an iteration for each track.....provided of course that the radius doesn't change as he moves inward...DOH! Maybe he could just add about an 1/8 of an inch to each center line as he moves inward, determined by your pink plastic ruler of course, and call it problem solved.
Because the topic isn't really about precision. That's the topic after hijack. The topic was answered by suggesting live iterations should be how spacing is determined. Whether or not OP even bothers to measure the precise distance beyond the eyeball distance the hands on iterations provided is rather inconsequential to the goal.
But I suppose measurements could provide a supporting role, so he doesn't have to perform an iteration for each track.....provided of course that the radius doesn't change as he moves inward...DOH!
Maybe he could just add about an 1/8 of an inch to each center line as he moves inward, determined by your pink plastic ruler of course, and call it problem solved.
You are starting to splutter. I suggest you take some time to calm down.
7j43k Doughless Sorry, having implicit understanding of that math thing, I know that an answer is not mathematically precise once the inputs start with the word "about". Since the math thing only really finds a precise answer when all of the inputs are constant knowns, the only math that matters here is when you plug your guess into the formula that scales your guess down to an HO relevant guess. Which is what I asked for. Thanks. BTW, I guessed the same 1.75 inches. And I guessed it replicating the pics by using two pieces of track, two hopper cars, and not even a micrometer (thats a hobby tool?) but the little pink ruler my daughter used in 4th grade. I certainly wasn't going after precision. Oddly, mathematical tools work on both precise and imprecise dimensions. I know the typical width of a freight car is 1 1/2" (about) in HO. So I simply scaled the width of the car and the width of the open space between the cars, set up a proportion, and solved for x (x being the HO distance between the cars). Adding 1 1/2 and 1/4, I got my answer. As I said, I wasn't guessing. And neither did you, if you built a sufficiently accurate model to measure. Ed
Doughless Sorry, having implicit understanding of that math thing, I know that an answer is not mathematically precise once the inputs start with the word "about". Since the math thing only really finds a precise answer when all of the inputs are constant knowns, the only math that matters here is when you plug your guess into the formula that scales your guess down to an HO relevant guess. Which is what I asked for. Thanks. BTW, I guessed the same 1.75 inches. And I guessed it replicating the pics by using two pieces of track, two hopper cars, and not even a micrometer (thats a hobby tool?) but the little pink ruler my daughter used in 4th grade.
Sorry, having implicit understanding of that math thing, I know that an answer is not mathematically precise once the inputs start with the word "about".
Since the math thing only really finds a precise answer when all of the inputs are constant knowns, the only math that matters here is when you plug your guess into the formula that scales your guess down to an HO relevant guess.
Which is what I asked for. Thanks. BTW, I guessed the same 1.75 inches.
And I guessed it replicating the pics by using two pieces of track, two hopper cars, and not even a micrometer (thats a hobby tool?) but the little pink ruler my daughter used in 4th grade.
I certainly wasn't going after precision. Oddly, mathematical tools work on both precise and imprecise dimensions.
I know the typical width of a freight car is 1 1/2" (about) in HO. So I simply scaled the width of the car and the width of the open space between the cars, set up a proportion, and solved for x (x being the HO distance between the cars). Adding 1 1/2 and 1/4, I got my answer.
As I said, I wasn't guessing. And neither did you, if you built a sufficiently accurate model to measure.
I guessed.
I only set up the model because I don't naturally know what 2 inch center spacing looks like between rail cars. That's measuring, not math.
When I did, and had it as a memory point of reference, I got the the 1.75 inch spacing 2 seconds after looking at the picture by guessing.
Not sure why wasting my time using math would have been better or more precise as it hardly ever is worth the time in this capacity.
Not even knowing the width of a real rail car, (what is it 10.6 or 11.6) or the width of a model (whats that scale down formula again), even minimally hindered my arrival at the correct answer.
Water Level RouteAs for Atlas track plans showing tight curves paired up, I've not looked at an Atlas book in many moons, but I seem to recall seeing this before. However, I also recall seeing that the center points of the curves were not the same. The outer track didn't start curving until after the inner had started so they did not have a 2" spacing in the curve. If their tangent centerlines were greater than 2" already, it would make this a necessity to still allow their sectional track to work in the plan.
Yes, that is correct. I do recall that several of their plans look like a electric race car track with lanes rather than a model railroad. Perfectly concentric half circles fitting inside one another with the start of the curves way back on the straights. The only way those curves could be made is with sectional track...and I don't know that all plans fit on a 4 x 8, so they could have used 24 and 22, but that's just an assumption at this point.
Still, I would say that thoseplans would work with shorter cars, but thinking they could be run with longer cars that Atlas did not make might be disappointing to the planner.
7j43k Doughless Threads wander. It seems like lately they wander down the path of precision just for the sake of it. Other people's interest in precision seems to be really bothering you. Again, if a topic is becoming of no interest to you, why not just drop it, and leave it for the people who DO have an interest? Ed
Doughless Threads wander. It seems like lately they wander down the path of precision just for the sake of it.
Threads wander. It seems like lately they wander down the path of precision just for the sake of it.
Other people's interest in precision seems to be really bothering you. Again, if a topic is becoming of no interest to you, why not just drop it, and leave it for the people who DO have an interest?
Doughless Lastspikemike 7j43k Lastspikemike Here's a thought: if 2" track centres on tight radius curves can't work why does Atlas make sectional track in 22" and 24" radii? I note the absence of 20" radius sectional curves but 15" and 18" are made. Doesn't Kato make sectional curves in 2" increments? No. Ed You were supposed to look this up. Kato HO curved sectional track is made in 2 3/8" radius increments, somewhat wider (by 3/16") than the Mark V NMRA gauge size. If it works for Kato and for Atlas.....? Mike, as you are learning in this hobby, manufacturers make products that are incomplete. The product can do some things, but fails at other things. When judged with the standard that each product should do what the other guy's does, they all fall short of being competent because they were designed to only do limited applications. The Atlas sectional track was designed, mainly, to provide train set type of 4 x 8 layouts way back in the day. Their trackplan book has many plans with 22 inch radius curves inside a 24. But those train set plans would not work if the buyer was running 85 foot passenger cars (which Atlas doesn't make BTW, AFAIK). Atlas doesn't disclose that part. Producers don't disclose in what situations their product fails. For one reason, the list would be way too long. We have to figure it out for ourselves.
Lastspikemike 7j43k Lastspikemike Here's a thought: if 2" track centres on tight radius curves can't work why does Atlas make sectional track in 22" and 24" radii? I note the absence of 20" radius sectional curves but 15" and 18" are made. Doesn't Kato make sectional curves in 2" increments? No. Ed You were supposed to look this up. Kato HO curved sectional track is made in 2 3/8" radius increments, somewhat wider (by 3/16") than the Mark V NMRA gauge size. If it works for Kato and for Atlas.....?
7j43k Lastspikemike Here's a thought: if 2" track centres on tight radius curves can't work why does Atlas make sectional track in 22" and 24" radii? I note the absence of 20" radius sectional curves but 15" and 18" are made. Doesn't Kato make sectional curves in 2" increments? No. Ed
Lastspikemike Here's a thought: if 2" track centres on tight radius curves can't work why does Atlas make sectional track in 22" and 24" radii? I note the absence of 20" radius sectional curves but 15" and 18" are made. Doesn't Kato make sectional curves in 2" increments?
Here's a thought: if 2" track centres on tight radius curves can't work why does Atlas make sectional track in 22" and 24" radii? I note the absence of 20" radius sectional curves but 15" and 18" are made.
Doesn't Kato make sectional curves in 2" increments?
No.
You were supposed to look this up.
Kato HO curved sectional track is made in 2 3/8" radius increments, somewhat wider (by 3/16") than the Mark V NMRA gauge size.
If it works for Kato and for Atlas.....?
Mike, as you are learning in this hobby, manufacturers make products that are incomplete. The product can do some things, but fails at other things. When judged with the standard that each product should do what the other guy's does, they all fall short of being competent because they were designed to only do limited applications.
The Atlas sectional track was designed, mainly, to provide train set type of 4 x 8 layouts way back in the day. Their trackplan book has many plans with 22 inch radius curves inside a 24. But those train set plans would not work if the buyer was running 85 foot passenger cars (which Atlas doesn't make BTW, AFAIK). Atlas doesn't disclose that part.
Producers don't disclose in what situations their product fails. For one reason, the list would be way too long.
We have to figure it out for ourselves.
If it was so great why would Kato go a different route in our copycat hobby?
As for Atlas track plans showing tight curves paired up, I've not looked at an Atlas book in many moons, but I seem to recall seeing this before. However, I also recall seeing that the center points of the curves were not the same. The outer track didn't start curving until after the inner had started so they did not have a 2" spacing in the curve. If their tangent centerlines were greater than 2" already, it would make this a necessity to still allow their sectional track to work in the plan.
Mike
Doughless SeeYou190 Doughless not even a micrometer (thats a hobby tool?) Yes it is. I have two in my hobby box, and eight more in the big tool box in the garage. I strongly believe in always using the best tool for the job. I don't disagree with using the best tool for the job. I'm asking what are the jobs in model railroading where you need that level of precision?
SeeYou190 Doughless not even a micrometer (thats a hobby tool?) Yes it is. I have two in my hobby box, and eight more in the big tool box in the garage. I strongly believe in always using the best tool for the job.
I don't disagree with using the best tool for the job.
I'm asking what are the jobs in model railroading where you need that level of precision?
Doug, sorry my intention was lost in the wording. I meant my response about using my professional set of precision micrometers in model building as a bit toungue-in-cheek.
In reality, for model building, all the precision I will ever need can be achieved with this 6" Mitutoyo dial caliper, and nothing more.
ATLANTIC CENTRAL Doughless SeeYou190 Doughless not even a micrometer (thats a hobby tool?) Yes it is. I have two in my hobby box, and eight more in the big tool box in the garage. I strongly believe in always using the best tool for the job. I don't disagree with using the best tool for the job. I'm asking what are the jobs in model railroading where you need that level of precision? Boring out a cylinder, I get. Laying track, or placing a trackside building, I'm lost. That's not a challenge to your methods, its just that the discussions on the forums seemingly involve an ever more level of precision that I've never considered. and I'm wondering what I've been missing or doing wrong all of these years. You are likely not doing anything wrong, but you may not be involved in some aspects of the hobby that others are. I use my micrometer a fair amount. But I kit bash locomotives, measure axle lengths for proper replacement fit, build the occasional custom turnout, etc. But I'm the same guy that layed my straight track with a 36" steel rule, then checked it with a lazer...... we use them to install kitchen cabinets, why not use them to lay track? Sheldon
Doughless SeeYou190 Doughless not even a micrometer (thats a hobby tool?) Yes it is. I have two in my hobby box, and eight more in the big tool box in the garage. I strongly believe in always using the best tool for the job. I don't disagree with using the best tool for the job. I'm asking what are the jobs in model railroading where you need that level of precision? Boring out a cylinder, I get. Laying track, or placing a trackside building, I'm lost. That's not a challenge to your methods, its just that the discussions on the forums seemingly involve an ever more level of precision that I've never considered. and I'm wondering what I've been missing or doing wrong all of these years.
Boring out a cylinder, I get. Laying track, or placing a trackside building, I'm lost.
That's not a challenge to your methods, its just that the discussions on the forums seemingly involve an ever more level of precision that I've never considered. and I'm wondering what I've been missing or doing wrong all of these years.
You are likely not doing anything wrong, but you may not be involved in some aspects of the hobby that others are. I use my micrometer a fair amount.
But I kit bash locomotives, measure axle lengths for proper replacement fit, build the occasional custom turnout, etc.
But I'm the same guy that layed my straight track with a 36" steel rule, then checked it with a lazer...... we use them to install kitchen cabinets, why not use them to lay track?
I no longer build models, which is where precision that's measured in fractions of inches comes mainly into play. The guys who ran the CAD program at Athearn that eventually popped out a styrene boxcar and installed all of its specific details did all of that precise work for me, so to speak. And before that, Irv Athearn molded his BB stuff just fine, with only a little weathering needed.
We can't build structures to scale, they'd be huge. We can't lay curves to scale, they'd eat up the room. I'm baffled by all of the conversations about fractions of inches and how it makes a difference in realism when we are challenged by so many other things we can't change.
You've mentioned a few areas, but most here asking questions are not going to rebuild their trucks or build a custom turnouts.
DoughlessThat's not a challenge to your methods, its just that the discussions on the forums seemingly involve an ever more level of precision that I've never considered. and I'm wondering what I've been missing or doing wrong all of these years.
If you get satisfactory results with your methods, you are not doing anything wrong.
If you see discussions that involve more precision than you care about, so what? That's what THEY want to discuss. I don't see why it would bother you if they do. Just move on to a different topic.
Doughless But those train set plans would not work if the buyer was running 85 foot passenger cars (which Atlas doesn't make BTW, AFAIK).
But those train set plans would not work if the buyer was running 85 foot passenger cars (which Atlas doesn't make BTW, AFAIK).
They sell the old Branchline cars. The sleepers are all 85'.
selector IDRick Okay, will mock it up when have some benchwork up... Thanks. At which, we all close our eyes, smile, and emit a resounding, "AAAaaaahhh...!", like Bill Shatner as the MC in the talent show in that movie when the main character looks wide-eyed and then hastily adds, "...and world peace."
IDRick Okay, will mock it up when have some benchwork up... Thanks.
Okay, will mock it up when have some benchwork up... Thanks.
At which, we all close our eyes, smile, and emit a resounding, "AAAaaaahhh...!", like Bill Shatner as the MC in the talent show in that movie when the main character looks wide-eyed and then hastily adds, "...and world peace."
? Very strange response... whatever Sometimes replies are helpful and others not so much...
SeeYou190Doughless not even a micrometer (thats a hobby tool?) Yes it is. I have two in my hobby box, and eight more in the big tool box in the garage. I strongly believe in always using the best tool for the job.
7j43k ATLANTIC CENTRAL DISCLAIMER - I don't own a UP BigBoy, brass plastic or diecast, and I have no plans to ever own one. So I think the EM-1 qualifies as a large enough test loco. DISCLAIMER ON DISCLAIMER: IF you might be running articulateds that don't swivel the "rear" engine, you do need to be careful about curve spacing where they run. I mentioned the Big Boy earlier, that has a half inch overhang on a 37" curve. And that's the theoretical (mathematics again at work, here). YOUR model might be more. But it's not just Big Boy's. There are other big articulateds that come mighty close. And, lest you think that the above comment only applies to those darn brass locos, I remind you that the Intermountain Cab Forward does not have a swivel "rear" engine. Maybe someone will make another plastic non-swivel articulated someday. Maybe. Ed
ATLANTIC CENTRAL DISCLAIMER - I don't own a UP BigBoy, brass plastic or diecast, and I have no plans to ever own one. So I think the EM-1 qualifies as a large enough test loco.
DISCLAIMER - I don't own a UP BigBoy, brass plastic or diecast, and I have no plans to ever own one. So I think the EM-1 qualifies as a large enough test loco.
DISCLAIMER ON DISCLAIMER:
IF you might be running articulateds that don't swivel the "rear" engine, you do need to be careful about curve spacing where they run.
I mentioned the Big Boy earlier, that has a half inch overhang on a 37" curve. And that's the theoretical (mathematics again at work, here). YOUR model might be more.
But it's not just Big Boy's. There are other big articulateds that come mighty close.
And, lest you think that the above comment only applies to those darn brass locos, I remind you that the Intermountain Cab Forward does not have a swivel "rear" engine.
Maybe someone will make another plastic non-swivel articulated someday. Maybe.
I understand and agree, but I like the double swivel articulated locos, as I said earlier, they make our large (but still compressed) curves look larger. 8 of my 11 articulated locos are x-6-6-x designs anyway.
And, I don't see a long list of additional articulated locos in my future, brass or plastic.
I actually limit the rigid wheelbase of steam that I purchase to 21 scale feet, so the are no 4-12-2's on my shopping list either, or even any 2-10-4's for that matter.
Largest rigid wheelbase locos I have, USRA light 2-10-2's with 57" drivers.
These standards were imposed for appearance and operational reliability at the chosen minimum radius.