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.
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.
- Douglas
ATLANTIC CENTRALI try to avoid handling equipment
I made a decision to include a carfloat on the new layout, and it will be "fiddled" in between play sessions.
I think I will also install an interchange track to be fiddled as well.
I overbuilt the Fleet Of Nonsense in the past four years by about 40 freight cars, and I still have more to build.
-Kevin
Living the dream.
One more random thought, as it applies to ME, For my modeling style.
I try to avoid handling equipment other than steady it from the top when manually uncoupling.
I'm not an "active fiddle yard" kind of guy, I don't store much excess rolling stock off the layout.
That's why the new layout is designed to store 1,000 freight cars and 150 passenger cars.
Picking them up randomly in a freight yard or staging yard is just not an issue for me.
The whole layout is designed around 2" track centers.
Sheldon
IDRick I'm going to just go to a 2-1/2 inch track spacing throughout my HO switching layout.
I like 2 1/2 inch spacing. I can get my fingers in there.
That is something the prototype does not take into consideration.
IDRick While I like your standard of 36" or greater curves, l just can't fit them into my switching shelf layout..
I cannot fit them in either.
Doughlessnot 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.
LastspikemikeYou were supposed to look this up.
Gee Ed, the hall monitor called you out for not doing your homework!
MSMGentleman, As I’ve been following this thread, I realized that my track plan was not only inaccurate, but that I jumped the gun in posting it, my bad. I apologize not only for not participating in this thread (don’t have the knowledge) and by for not mentationing that I intend to run large articulated locomotives. I did some trial and error as suggested with the equipment I have and incorporated a lot of the suggestions that were made. With that being said, I made the following adjustments: · Main line radius minimum 42” · Yard radius minimum 36” except for car shop where I’m using 28” - 32” curved turnouts · Main line track spacing is 2 ½ · Yard and arrival / depart tangent spacing is now 2 ¼ · West end of the yard, arrival / departure tracks are now spaced 2 ½ with easements · Inner arrival / departure track was extended about 30” from end curve to turnout · Yard ladders and other select turnouts were rearranged to accommodate “Caboose” ground throws Last concern I have is do I need to space my yard turns (Freight Yard - 5 Tracks) at 2 1/2 or would 2 1/4 work considering 40' - 65' freight car lengths? If anyone happens to notice anything else that might be a concern, I’d appreciate a comment or so… Thanks MSM
I did some trial and error as suggested with the equipment I have and incorporated a lot of the suggestions that were made. With that being said, I made the following adjustments:
· Main line radius minimum 42”
· Yard radius minimum 36” except for car shop where I’m using 28” - 32” curved turnouts
· Main line track spacing is 2 ½
· Yard and arrival / depart tangent spacing is now 2 ¼
· West end of the yard, arrival / departure tracks are now spaced 2 ½ with easements
· Inner arrival / departure track was extended about 30” from end curve to turnout
· Yard ladders and other select turnouts were rearranged to accommodate “Caboose” ground throws
Last concern I have is do I need to space my yard turns (Freight Yard - 5 Tracks) at 2 1/2 or would 2 1/4 work considering 40' - 65' freight car lengths?
Thanks
Mark P.
Website: http://www.thecbandqinwyoming.comVideos: https://www.youtube.com/user/mabrunton
IDRick ATLANTIC CENTRAL Third, I have used 2' track centers for tangent track since I was introduced to this hobby. As explained earlier it is the defacto industry standard for bridges, crossovers, etc. I have used 2" track centers on curves, maybe sometimes stretching them out to 2-1/8", ever since I started using 36" radius as my minimum. I have tested this with locos as big as the Bachmann EM-1 passing 80' Bachmann and Branchline passenger cars with no issues and room to spare. So for appearance, space and better track civil engineering (yes, I engineer the track location before I install it), I will stay with 2" (or cheat them up just that 1/8") track centers. The NMRA recommended 2-15/32" is just ugly and unnecessary at 36" radius and above. Sheldon Sheldon, what spacing would you recommend for two parallel tracks (HO) with a minimum radius of 24 inches? While I like your standard of 36" or greater curves, l just can't fit them into my switching shelf layout... 4 axle diesels, 60 foot cars, 18" shelves
ATLANTIC CENTRAL Third, I have used 2' track centers for tangent track since I was introduced to this hobby. As explained earlier it is the defacto industry standard for bridges, crossovers, etc. I have used 2" track centers on curves, maybe sometimes stretching them out to 2-1/8", ever since I started using 36" radius as my minimum. I have tested this with locos as big as the Bachmann EM-1 passing 80' Bachmann and Branchline passenger cars with no issues and room to spare. So for appearance, space and better track civil engineering (yes, I engineer the track location before I install it), I will stay with 2" (or cheat them up just that 1/8") track centers. The NMRA recommended 2-15/32" is just ugly and unnecessary at 36" radius and above. Sheldon
Third, I have used 2' track centers for tangent track since I was introduced to this hobby. As explained earlier it is the defacto industry standard for bridges, crossovers, etc.
I have used 2" track centers on curves, maybe sometimes stretching them out to 2-1/8", ever since I started using 36" radius as my minimum.
I have tested this with locos as big as the Bachmann EM-1 passing 80' Bachmann and Branchline passenger cars with no issues and room to spare.
So for appearance, space and better track civil engineering (yes, I engineer the track location before I install it), I will stay with 2" (or cheat them up just that 1/8") track centers. The NMRA recommended 2-15/32" is just ugly and unnecessary at 36" radius and above.
As mentioned, testing is good. But 24" radius will likely require at least 2-3/8", possibly more. And that assumes the equipment choices you mentioned.
[quote user="richhotrain"]
Well, here is my reply to the OP, verbatim, and it was the first reply to this thread.
It was a serious reply based upon my own experience.
After I posted that reply to the OP, my subsequent replies were in support of Crandell's and Ed's similar responses - - - test the trackwork to see if it creates clearance problems or not.
Rich
richhotrain I don't have an absolute answer for you, but I can make some suggestions. A minimum radius of 36" is great, especially on mainlines, but not really necessary for yards. What is more important on curves is the spacing between tracks, and 2" on center on curves is tight even though you are limiting your rolling stock to 40' and 50' freight cars. Spacing of 2 1/2" on center on curves is far better, at least in my experience. Years ago, I got some good advice from my LHS guys about spacing of tracks on curves. They recommended that I buy a pair of 85' boxcars and test them on actual track to be sure. I wouldn't blindly rely on the advice of others unless they can say with certainty that 2" on center spacing for 36" radius tracks will work based upon their actual experience. If this were my layout, I would use 2 1/2" spacing on curves and, since it is the yard, I would step down the radius on curved tracks to something like 32" radius. In fact, that is exactly what I did on my old layout where I installed a yard on a curve on my layout. Hope this helps. Rich
I don't have an absolute answer for you, but I can make some suggestions.
A minimum radius of 36" is great, especially on mainlines, but not really necessary for yards. What is more important on curves is the spacing between tracks, and 2" on center on curves is tight even though you are limiting your rolling stock to 40' and 50' freight cars. Spacing of 2 1/2" on center on curves is far better, at least in my experience.
Years ago, I got some good advice from my LHS guys about spacing of tracks on curves. They recommended that I buy a pair of 85' boxcars and test them on actual track to be sure. I wouldn't blindly rely on the advice of others unless they can say with certainty that 2" on center spacing for 36" radius tracks will work based upon their actual experience.
If this were my layout, I would use 2 1/2" spacing on curves and, since it is the yard, I would step down the radius on curved tracks to something like 32" radius. In fact, that is exactly what I did on my old layout where I installed a yard on a curve on my layout.
Hope this helps.
And, the NMRA standards are obviously smart guidelines from which to alter, if you want, based upon how you are going to run your layout. If you are going to run it generically, that's fine, then calculating precision beyond the guidelines seems like a waste of time.
However, if you ask questions like...do I need to run 85 foot long cars an every yard track, or a big boy on every track? If not, you can then cut down the spacing between tracks to something like my pics posted above...since it appears that CSX/NS will not be running 89 foot flat cars along side the coal hoppers.
Does spacing need to be the same for every track? Obviously, the radius will be descending as you move inwards along a curved yard.
So many variables, so few constants.
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.
Just to share related info in both threads........
I'm not going to argue, dispute, suggest or disagree with anything or anybody here.
I'm just going to make three simple statements.
First, as orginally suggested by several/many so far, simple testing is always a good idea.
Second, the NMRA has always been very "generous", and thereby conservative in its recomendations for curved track centers. Yet they have always "danced around" the tangent track center issue with scale feet rather than a real life dimension.
Their 14 scale foot recommendation is 1.931"..........
Third, I have used 2" track centers for tangent track since I was introduced to this hobby. As explained earlier it is the defacto industry standard for bridges, crossovers, etc.
7j43k Doughless Anybody care to guess what this track spacing would scale down to in terms of inches on center? Or the yard that has access down the middle? I'm not guessing. I'm using that mathematics thing, again: I can't tell the track spacing on the other two, but the one above is about 12' -6", or 1 3/4" in HO. I guess they're not followers of Inch-and-a-half Mike. The curves are clearly hugely wider than what we use, and I doubt there'd be a need to go smaller in HO. If you're advocating such a spacing in HO, it does make sense if you don't feel the need to reach in and pick up or rerail a car. I'll mention that, in the real world, I worked on a project that had a 3" clearance between train and (large) obstruction. Ed
Doughless Anybody care to guess what this track spacing would scale down to in terms of inches on center? Or the yard that has access down the middle?
Anybody care to guess what this track spacing would scale down to in terms of inches on center?
Or the yard that has access down the middle?
I'm not guessing. I'm using that mathematics thing, again:
I can't tell the track spacing on the other two, but the one above is about 12' -6", or 1 3/4" in HO. I guess they're not followers of Inch-and-a-half Mike.
The curves are clearly hugely wider than what we use, and I doubt there'd be a need to go smaller in HO.
If you're advocating such a spacing in HO, it does make sense if you don't feel the need to reach in and pick up or rerail a car.
I'll mention that, in the real world, I worked on a project that had a 3" clearance between train and (large) obstruction.
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.
IDRick Okay, will mock it up when have some benchwork up... Thanks.
Okay, will mock it up when have some benchwork up... Thanks.
Since I am in the planning phase, I'm going to just go to a 2-1/2 inch track spacing throughout my HO switching layout. My four axle diesels and 60 ft cars should not have any problems "interacting" with cars/locos on adjacent straight or curved track. Much easier to plan with software using a common spacing and will fit easily on the planned benchwork. Yard will only have five tracks and in the switching area, max of two through tracks plus sidings.
DoughlessDo all the tracks in a yard even have the same center spacing?
I can tell you by actual physical measurement, the SEMINOLE GULF yard in Fort Myers, Florida has 4 tracks, and none of the track spacing is equal.
However, every track is perfetly straight. I like the curved yards much better. Mine will be built on a very broad arc.
The curves are clearly hugely wider than what we use, and I doubt there'd be a need to increase track centers if it were reproduced in HO.
If I had the room, and I were building a staging yard, I would want 2 1/2" to 3", for easy finger clearance. Most people, probably including me, would likely shrink that number for more tracks. Remember, staging can include adding and removing cars.
DoughlessAnybody care to guess what this track spacing would scale down to in terms of inches on center?
While traveling I remember seeing many signs that said something like No Room For Man In Between Train Cars in yards and industrial areas.
It looks like some of those places should have those signs.
Anybody care to guess what this track spacing would scale down to in terms of inches on center? Keeping in mind that its likely designed for a fairly uniform type of car. (Hoping the watermark printing satisfies copyright requirements).
Or this?
Hard to tell....
Do all the tracks in a yard even have the same center spacing?
7j43kI suggested building a test setup
I always suggest building a test piece first. This is always time well spent.
My mathematical responses are completely serious.
Mathematics can be quite useful in our field. For example, if you have a room 12 feet wide and you want layout 4 feet wide on each side, I can tell you the aisle width without having to lay out and measure a real room. Or even measuring off of a scale drawing.
My calculations were a slight step above that operation.
I suggested building a test setup because of the "trust but verify" concept. Plus, with our models, there can be an amazing amount of slop in mechanical dimensions, especially in trackwork.
Also, the layout builder might find that, although the clearances are what I predicted; in real life, those clearances are still too small for his tastes (sorta how they must do airplane seating).
richhotrain Well, here is my reply to the OP, verbatim, and it was the first reply to this thread. It was a serious reply based upon my own experience. After I posted that reply to the OP, my subsequent replies were in support of Crandell's and Ed's similar responses - - - test the trackwork to see if it creates clearance problems or not. Rich richhotrain I don't have an absolute answer for you, but I can make some suggestions. A minimum radius of 36" is great, especially on mainlines, but not really necessary for yards. What is more important on curves is the spacing between tracks, and 2" on center on curves is tight even though you are limiting your rolling stock to 40' and 50' freight cars. Spacing of 2 1/2" on center on curves is far better, at least in my experience. Years ago, I got some good advice from my LHS guys about spacing of tracks on curves. They recommended that I buy a pair of 85' boxcars and test them on actual track to be sure. I wouldn't blindly rely on the advice of others unless they can say with certainty that 2" on center spacing for 36" radius tracks will work based upon their actual experience. If this were my layout, I would use 2 1/2" spacing on curves and, since it is the yard, I would step down the radius on curved tracks to something like 32" radius. In fact, that is exactly what I did on my old layout where I installed a yard on a curve on my layout. Hope this helps. Rich
I know. That's what I was saying. I thought your post was a serious answer. Yes, there were a few more scattered in but a lot of it reads like that five page long thread about what SHOULD happen when you torque different screws into different grades of plywood based upon the different properties designed into the steel and plywood.
That was a thread that made fun of itself for being overserious about a simple question. At least that's the way I read it.
Maybe I'm different and have simply gotten lucky. Common sense has always worked for me. But common sense tells me that I should not use common sense to build an airplane.
Alton Junction
richhotrain Not sure where Kevin fits in here. I was agreeing with Ed that the OP should test the track for clearance, and I made that same argument earlier in the thread, the very first reply in fact. I was being totally serious. I am a big believer in mathematics, but I also respect empirical evidence. When you are dealing with clearance on curves, test it. Anyhow, all's well that ends well. Rich
Not sure where Kevin fits in here. I was agreeing with Ed that the OP should test the track for clearance, and I made that same argument earlier in the thread, the very first reply in fact. I was being totally serious. I am a big believer in mathematics, but I also respect empirical evidence. When you are dealing with clearance on curves, test it.
Anyhow, all's well that ends well.
Kevin offered his advice based on experience. I thought that the advice that was based upon arguing the possible mathmatical solutions in the planning stages were less than sincere about answering the OPs question and more about something else...what I'm not sure.
If you take your advice about testing various combinations, and go through several iterations, you could lay two pieces of track, have it work for 40 years, and never ever know what the exact spacing between centers was.
The only reason you would have to measure it...at all in 40 years... is if you were going to lay another track in exactly the same yard where the exact same equipment would run...where no vehicles would be passing...where no maintenance shed would be located. Change one variable, and the spacing required changes too. And, you wouldn't even need to measure it if you simply eyeballed it and had enough space to work with to account for being 3/32nds off on a few tracks.
I guess I get frustrated when answers are given that imply its "only the engeering way or the hiway" when it comes to layout building.
P.S. It looks like you edited your last reply after I posted mine. The reference to engineers building a 747 totally baffles me. Are you confusing this thread with some other thread?
richhotrain 7j43k Douglas, It would have been good if you had used those very words the first time. They are well written and clear. Unfortunately, your earlier attempt was not. What with "mathmatics", "Einstein", "toast", it was a bit meandering. I was surprised by the sarcastic nature of that post by Douglas. It was out of character for him. Plus, he spelled clearance wrong, twice. Rich
7j43k Douglas, It would have been good if you had used those very words the first time. They are well written and clear. Unfortunately, your earlier attempt was not. What with "mathmatics", "Einstein", "toast", it was a bit meandering.
Douglas,
It would have been good if you had used those very words the first time. They are well written and clear. Unfortunately, your earlier attempt was not. What with "mathmatics", "Einstein", "toast", it was a bit meandering.
I was surprised by the sarcastic nature of that post by Douglas. It was out of character for him.
Plus, he spelled clearance wrong, twice.
I guess I thought with the exception of the only serious posts that addressed the topic correctly.....you and Kevin basically saying that "it depends" , that the bulk of the thread was unserious, semi scarcastic banter.
I thought that theoretical discussions about preplanning the precision needed to lay track similar to engineers building a 747 was actually a big joke...like the Toast thread and the five page discussion on torquing a screw into plywood years ago.
My apologies for misunderstanding if folks were being serious.
BTW, an NMRA gauge? I've been in the hobby 40 years and built three layouts (yes, successfully) and I never could figure out what I would use it for.
Still having fun, with no derailments, mysteriously uncoupling cars, or shorts occuring on Peco turnouts.
You make a good point by bringing in prototype practice, and that it might vary. I think this was discussed recently in another topic. I think the main concern here is on the layout level, however: Crashing trains and room for fingers and such.
I am glad we provide levity for you. I am sure you provide levity for some of us, and I hope that pleases you, also.
Goodness. I was refering to the context of the topic, the possibility that yards may have closer track spacing depending upon the types of equipment occupy the yard or the need for a vehicle to be able to get from one end to the other, among various other possible inputs to an equation.
I wasn't referring to the absense of standards about anything anywhere.
You guys crack me up.
Railroads have no absolute standards?
4' - 8 1/2"
And there are standards for tolerance on that dimension.
There are Plate standards. And all Plates have a maximum width of 10' - 8".
There are clearance standards, by States, in this case. Washington and Oregon come to mind. Those standards are for ALL railroads in each state. They are remarkably similar.
It's pretty hard to set up a rail system that can move a railcar to anywhere track goes in North America without some kind of standards.
Arguments over mathmatics? That's an interesting engineering/physics discussion, Einstein. And accounting for the forces created by models that have essentially no mass would be a challenging calculation.
I would assume that the input variables would determine proper spacing, such as intended equipment length and the need for finger space should you want to handle the cars.
Kinda like the lack of absolute sandards real railroads would have, since input variables like available flat real estate and clearence for vehicle/people movements might be desirable and vary from location to location.
In a nutshell, although situations vary, but no matter what the situation, clearence is clearence. Clarence.
Were you guys ever part of that "toast" thread that was on the forum many years ago, or that thread about the theoretical problems different screws might have when twisting into benchwork? I liked those too.