I'm looking for leads and specs on HO code 100 curved turnouts greater than #6s. So far, the only one I've found any reference to is Shinohara's #8 on pg 295 of Walthers 2005 book (and also on ebay). Based on the outer leg radius Walthers lists for their code 83 turnouts, a #7 would be closest to matching my 27" minimum radius. Does such a beast exist somewhere in code 100 form?
On the Shinohara #8s...I was under the impression that Walthers code 83 turnouts were actually Shinohara units...but according to the 2005 book there is a difference between the overall length of the Walthers code 83 and Shinohara code 100 #8s...19" vs 16-11/16". I've noticed in other threads that Walthers published specs for their curved turnouts are a bit...ummm...dubious. Is this discrepancy another example of that? Does anyone have any radius specs for the Shinohara that may be closer to reality than just using the Walthers code 83 figures?
Does anyone know of any operational bug-a-boos (other than the added space it will take up) that will likely crop up due to having a more than an inch or so lager radius section (the turn out) in the middle of a smaller radius curve?
Reality...an interesting concept with no successful applications, that should always be accompanied by a "Do not try this at home" warning.
Hundreds of years from now, it will not matter what my bank account was, the sort of house I lived in, or the kind of car I drove...But the world may be different because I did something so bafflingly crazy that my ruins become a tourist attraction.
"Oooh...ahhhh...that's how this all starts...but then there's running...and screaming..."
I've got 3 of the Peco 18/22 radius turnouts. They are no problem at all, and work very reliably. The minor changes in radius have caused no problems, but I do use flex-track on either side. I'm using Peco switch machines with them.
Peco does make a larger-radius model, but I'm not sure what the radii are for that one.
It takes an iron man to play with a toy iron horse.
Don't know about any Code 100 Shinohara turnouts as I was only able to get 7.5 curved in Code 83 last summer. However, to address your last question, you should seriously consider expanding your curves to fit the curvature of the #8's if you find and install them. It won't be so much a huge issue with train movement problems as it will be in the obvious hitch they'll do when they encounter the change of radius at medium to high speeds. If you are at yard speed, no problem. So, it will be the aesthetics that will tend to bug you over time, and which knowledgeable onlookers will detect early. Closer scrutiny of your track lines will show the hitch where the joins are, and that will look decidely bad in the early morning light. You are in the driver's seat on this one.
Would you consider mating Code 83 7.5's to the Code 100 rails on the curves as I did. It is a bit more work to fiddle with the transition joiners, but they might be the anwer for you. In my case, I had to do some surgery to expand the radius of curvature of both routes on the 7.5's so that they would fit my larger curves. I am happy to report that it worked quite well.
Expanding the radius of the surrounding curves is not really an option...no room, and the introduction of the #8s would already result in loss of scenery space that was already so cramped as to not look right. My little squared donut that I'm trying to layout to fit, does not have much wiggle room.
I've thought of using the transition joiners you mentioned, but having not seen this transition in person, my first thought is that it would not look good at all. Right? Wrong? Actually, the transition to code 83 would allow me to use the nice looking code 83 bridge track near by...it may end up being the better compromise.
I know Walthers has a section of transition track, but that would introduce 6" that I really do not have to spare. It would be nice if those transition tracks were flex and not rigid...but I've seen nothing that indicates that they are not rigid.
I have a few Roco 22/18 curved turnouts in my tubs-o-goodies, but they are going to be religated to other than main line use. 27" radius minimum on the main where the turnut in question will reside, is the best space vs looks-OK compromise I've been able to work out that will allow me to run my IHC heavyweights.
I believe the Peco large radius turnouts are something like 60/30...way beyond what I could use.
Zandoz wrote: Expanding the radius of the surrounding curves is not really an option...no room, and the introduction of the #8s would already result in loss of scenery space that was already so cramped as to not look right. My little squared donut that I'm trying to layout to fit, does not have much wiggle room.I've thought of using the transition joiners you mentioned, but having not seen this transition in person, my first thought is that it would not look good at all. Right? Wrong? Actually, the transition to code 83 would allow me to use the nice looking code 83 bridge track near by...it may end up being the better compromise.I know Walthers has a section of transition track, but that would introduce 6" that I really do not have to spare. It would be nice if those transition tracks were flex and not rigid...but I've seen nothing that indicates that they are not rigid.
Once your track is in place and ballasted and weathered, you will not be able to tell the difference between the transition joiners and the regular ones. The transition joiners have the curled tops cut down to the shank portion at the bottom, and there is a slight kink in the shank so that one half of the joiner is about 15 thou lower than the other. They are flimsy as a result, compared to the regular joiners, and not always easy to slide on to either rail end. What I have learned to do is to use a three-sided jeweller's file to do a fair bit of cleaning up the cut rail ends. You must bevel its corners, the nether side of the rail foot at the tip, and also the upper side of the foot at the tip where the joiner slides on. This ensures that the joiner will more easily slide on and not fold at the kink.
So, I would encourage you to get the 7.5 Walthers/Shinohara from any number of sources, and simply use the transition joiners to get your turnout rail ends up to match the higher Code 100 flex.
One last thing...they won't always match up so that the passing trains don't hitch a little. To get around that, simply use needle nosed pliers with the jaw slightly open. Place one tine atop the higher rail and the other below the lower rail, and rotate the pliers a bit. They should eventually match up. If necessary, slide thin cardstock shims under any ties that end up losing contact with the surface so that the joiner won't revert to a disparate state when a heavy loco traverses the joint.
basementdweller wrote:Peco offer a curved code 100 turnout, inner radius is 30" outer radius is 60". I have two of them, very nice.
I have used several of these large radius Peco curved turnouts. As it happens they fit very nicely on easement curves given the large 60" radius. This has enabled me to make use of curves as places for turnouts -- even the start of crossovers on double track, sometimes in combination with a standard Peco turnout -- that otherwise would have had to wait for the tangent track, or would have meant handlaying track.
As you all know on most layouts every inch of tangent track is precious and tends to get crowded with turnouts because we all have too many curves, so any time I can make effective use of a curve for a turnout it's great. The Pecos allow me to do that. My only criticism: some of the Pecos have a slightly tight check gauge. So far no problems have been noted as a result but in theory a car or locomotive with wheels gauged to the far edge of NMRA standards could have a problem.
Dave Nelson
My deepest sympathy to all who are trying to meld commercial curved turnouts into their pre-planned curves, and to figure out how to butt-joint products from various manufacturers.
Under construction on my layout - a crossover (one curved turnout, neither radius constant) and two partially-overlapped three way switches with both diverging routes of each turning left. Needless to say, commercial products that could be used to build this have never existed in the past, do not exist today and are very unlikely to exist in the future.
Obviously, I build from raw rail. The turnouts themselves are on wooden ties, but all intervening 'standard-length' ties are Atlas flex (which is also the source of all my rail.) As a bonus, the one tangent stock rail that's common to the crossover and both three-ways is a single, unbroken length. Other rail sections are shorter, but all but a few would have rail joints (potential kinks) if built to commercial turnout design.
Hand-building turnouts is not in a league with designing spacecraft. Even this old dog learned to do it (granted, not with a puzzle palace to start with.) Once you learn the rather elementary metal-forming and soldering techniques involved, you can free yourself forever from the tyranny of available commercial product sizes (or lack thereof.) The relative cost - about equivalent to laying out the tracks with overlapping layers of flex - is nice, too.
Just my . Feel free to disagree.
Chuck (modeling Central Japan in September, 1964 - with hand-laid specialwork)
Zandoz wrote:Does anyone know of any operational bug-a-boos (other than the added space it will take up) that will likely crop up due to having a more than an inch or so lager radius section (the turn out) in the middle of a smaller radius curve?
I have serveral #8's code 100's and they all work flawlessly on the main line. I use them both to "turn out" and to "turn in" off of the main lines. (Mostly in) both look fine in the #8. They do take up a lot of space and can be hard to visualize however so plan and test at 100% size before glueing anything in place.
Good luck.
Karl
The mind is like a parachute. It works better when it's open. www.stremy.net
tomikawaTT wrote: Hand-building turnouts is not in a league with designing spacecraft. Even this old dog learned to do it (granted, not with a puzzle palace to start with.) Once you learn the rather elementary metal-forming and soldering techniques involved, you can free yourself forever from the tyranny of available commercial product sizes (or lack thereof.) The relative cost - about equivalent to laying out the tracks with overlapping layers of flex - is nice, too.Just my . Feel free to disagree.Chuck (modeling Central Japan in September, 1964 - with hand-laid specialwork)
I cannot, by any means, disagree having recently made a few of my own. I used Fast Tracks jigs initially for 6 #8's and a #6 double slip, but I quickly found the need to improvise and make two turnouts that were customized to fit. A track gauge is a must, and free ties are essential. The rewards of personal satisfaction, not to mention that every one of them exceeds the standard of commercial turnouts, is not to be discounted.
selector wrote: Zandoz wrote: Expanding the radius of the surrounding curves is not really an option...no room, and the introduction of the #8s would already result in loss of scenery space that was already so cramped as to not look right. My little squared donut that I'm trying to layout to fit, does not have much wiggle room.I've thought of using the transition joiners you mentioned, but having not seen this transition in person, my first thought is that it would not look good at all. Right? Wrong? Actually, the transition to code 83 would allow me to use the nice looking code 83 bridge track near by...it may end up being the better compromise.I know Walthers has a section of transition track, but that would introduce 6" that I really do not have to spare. It would be nice if those transition tracks were flex and not rigid...but I've seen nothing that indicates that they are not rigid.Once your track is in place and ballasted and weathered, you will not be able to tell the difference between the transition joiners and the regular ones. The transition joiners have the curled tops cut down to the shank portion at the bottom, and there is a slight kink in the shank so that one half of the joiner is about 15 thou lower than the other. They are flimsy as a result, compared to the regular joiners, and not always easy to slide on to either rail end. What I have learned to do is to use a three-sided jeweller's file to do a fair bit of cleaning up the cut rail ends. You must bevel its corners, the nether side of the rail foot at the tip, and also the upper side of the foot at the tip where the joiner slides on. This ensures that the joiner will more easily slide on and not fold at the kink.So, I would encourage you to get the 7.5 Walthers/Shinohara from any number of sources, and simply use the transition joiners to get your turnout rail ends up to match the higher Code 100 flex. One last thing...they won't always match up so that the passing trains don't hitch a little. To get around that, simply use needle nosed pliers with the jaw slightly open. Place one tine atop the higher rail and the other below the lower rail, and rotate the pliers a bit. They should eventually match up. If necessary, slide thin cardstock shims under any ties that end up losing contact with the surface so that the joiner won't revert to a disparate state when a heavy loco traverses the joint.
Thanks for the transition joiner info. How glaring of a difference is there between the 100 and 83 ties at a transition point?
You will only detect it if you get down to eye level with the rails. Your wheels, though, won't need to. A casual look from 24" away won't reveal the difference in height, but running a thumbnail along the transition will show you just how significant it really is. The wheels will do the same, but make a lot more noise than your thumbnail.
BTW, what some guys do is to take a needle-nosed pliers and crush one half of a regular joiner flat. Ostensibly, you can then bend in a kink of your own to get the flattened half up high enough so that when the smaller rail sits atop it, the heights match. You can glue the smaller rail end if you wish, or solder it directly to the crushed half. I have not done this because I wanted to punish myself for mixing code in the turnouts and adjoining rails. I insisted to myself that I would put on those pesky transition joiners wherever they were needed.
(It's not that bad, really, but it took some learning to get them on more easily than the first couple I tried.)