#4 turnouts

[Anonymous]

Can someone explain to me the downside to using #4 turnouts, if there is any?  I read a lot of articles and they always act like you should avoid using #4's.  I'm building a layout in a not very large space, so I'd like to keep my curves and turnouts to as tight as I can have them in some cases.  Plus, I highly doubt that I'll be running trains of longer then 5 or 6 cars of 50 ft or shorter rolling stock. 

 

Thanks,

Mike 

[loathar]

You just limit yourself to 40'-50' cars and shorter 4 axle locos and smaller steam. As long as you realize the limitations, they work OK.

[SpaceMouse]

I'm using #4s on my switching layout but went with #5's on my basement layout even though I'm using small steam. I agree with what Lothar is saying though. I am limited in size though because of the 1885 era. If you do anything after about 1970 or so, you might wish you had a little more elbow room and even switching from #4 to #5 can be significant.

[cwclark]

As stated above ,# 4's work well for shorter equipment. You can also use them for 6 axle diesels if you go thru the turnout slowly.  My layout has a lot of # 4 turnouts and they don't cause any trouble just as long as I roll thru them slowly. The problem comes if you have very long equipment like a big boy or challenger locomotive or those real long 70' tankcars. the curve radius from the turnout is too sharp for the longer equipment. If you plan on running long equipment then go with the #6 or larger turnouts....chuck 

[jeffrey-wimberly]

I use #4's on my HO layout because I'm pressed for space and N scale is not an option. I use 9 #4's for 3 spurs, a  side track and 2 crossovers. I also have 3 #5's in places where #4's wouldn't work well.

[BRAKIE]

I have use Atlas c83 Custom Line #4s on my past switching layouts with no problems while using 57 foot reefers,60 foot boxcars and 72 foot centerbeams..However the Standard line #4 may give you problems because of the sharper leg..

Here a picture on my old yard that is long gone.

 

 

 

[Tilden]

My experience is similiar to Brakie's.  I have custom llne #4's in yards and such and haven't had problems with the longer cars.  Yard speeds are limited however.

Generally speaking, anything on the main is best kept as large as possible.

Tilden

[Anonymous]

I use all #6 turnouts on the mainline, and passenger leads, and coach yard tracks. I use a lot of #4s in the freight yard to save space.

[Anonymous]

Well, newbie response then, if I'm planning a five track freight yard alongside an industry, would I use 5 #4 turnouts to build the yard ladder, or would I need to use custom flextrack?  I'm trying to keep the 5 tracks to a total width of about 24 inches? 

[BRAKIE]

You can use 5 #4s as my picture shows a 3 switch ladder off the lead switch which was connect to a #4 crossover....

[Anonymous]

I use #4s except for mainline crossovers; I have no problems with long cars (even autoracks!) except for an Athearn Gen. 60 foot box; which likes to derail in some spots. I can run 6 axle units, including a C40-8, but it looks rather odd.

I woud be careful about code 83 #4s though, the rail size is smaller, which may lesson leeway. 

[rayw46]

I use #4 code 83 Atlas turnouts and have no problem with my SD60, C40-8 or rolling stock as long as Centerbeam Flats and long mill gondolas (of course they don't always look prototypical).  The only problem that I have had was when I purchased a front-runner (The two axel intermodal car).  Even though it has a fairly short wheel base, because the axels are fixed, there is not way it would go through my #4 turnouts and it barely made it around 22" radius curves.  I'm glad my LHS has a return policy.

Ray

[DigitalGriffin]

Can someone explain to me the downside to using #4 turnouts, if there is any?  I read a lot of articles and they always act like you should avoid using #4's.  Plus, I highly doubt that I'll be running trains of longer then 5 or 6 cars of 50 ft or shorter rolling stock. 

You should do okay with 40'-50' cars because the distance between the axels makes negotiating S-curves easier.  Anything longer than that and you will need to start looking at #5, #6 for yard ladders and such.

[Dave-the-Train]

The specific downside of #4 turnouts is appearance.

Technically they are a switch in which the diverging road departs from the straight road at a sharper angle ... in common parlance they are a sharper radius.  This means that you can have the benefit of more of them fitting into a given space... BUT they can look plain wrong.

This "look" thing means that you can get away with them in a really cramped city switching environment (where they would be used in the real thing), they will be less good in a more open world and silly in wide open desert.

The wrong look shows up most if you are using long locos or cars... if you aren't doing this there will be less (or no) problem.

From an appearance point of view you can get away with longer cars more eawsily than longer locos.  Things like the huge woodchip hoppers/gondolas do get squeezed into city streets... but they are switched by 4 axle locos not the big beasties... as a rule.  (Bet soemone will prove me wrong with a pic of a Dash 8 or something )

Part of the solution is placement.  I can't think of a way to define this for you.

We generally get away with a lot of selective compression in MRR.  This can look better or worse depending on (some sort of) artistic achievement.  Again i can't think of a way to define this for you.

Maybe someone can come up with some ideas or references?

As several people have posted #4 switches can generally take long locos and cars provided the speed is slow... I would be surprised if you could go fast on a small layout.  You will find that some stock absolutely will not accept the sharper "radius".  Sometimes you can modify stock to persuade it to work... if you really must have that stock.  As mentioned long wheelbased 4 wheel stock will cause you more problems than any 8 wheel stock.

You will tend to find more issues when propelling stock than when draging it.  This can relate to how the couplers move.  In fact, with the longer 8 wheel stock, you are much more likely to get issues with the couplers not swinging wide enough (or not returning fast enough) when pushing them than you are likely to get issues with the trucks.

You have an advantage that models have largely been developed from the commercial toy train market... because of this the makers design them to go round curves that wouldn't exist in the real thing.  this will help you a lot.

With the extreme curves of #4s you would be wise to avoid reverse curves completely but (seeing as you will almost certainly have to have some) do make certain that you introduce a short straight between the curved elements... this will look better and really help your stock.

[PA&ERR]

I use #4s (two of them) on the approach to my carferry slip simply because space was at a premium there. Elsewhere on the layout I use #6.

George

[Tilden]

OK, to tell the whole truth....I also run a DD40AX through #4 turnouts.  It tolerates them....doesn't love'm but does run through them.

 Tilden

[Don Gibson]

Everyone is right on this one.

#4's became the 'ideal' switch for Yards and 'compressed' layouts back (prewar)  when most cars and equipment were 50-60 feet, and 'shortened' Passenger cars were being offered.

TODAYS modern equipment have longer cars, trains, and bigger engines to pull them. 

PROBLEM for Newbies is buying the loonger post-war equipment (which they see), and try to run it on 'simpler' 60 year old pre-war designed trackage.

WHY? Because it's cheaper and looks the same. (TOY Manufacturers RULE #1: always make what $ELL$).

UNION PACIFIC is currently replacing ESPEE mainline switches in Oregon with an #24 equivalent, to run rheir modern 80'-85' equipment - while 'modelers' struggle with #4 and #6 decisions.

Railroads RULE #1: Use what WORKS.

[markpierce]

Whatever you do, DO NOT use no. 4s at crossovers connecting two close parallel tracks or similar situations such as may happen at the beginning of a yard ladder.  These situations create nasty "S" curves which will play havoc with your operations.  The NMRA recommended practices http://www.nmra.org/standards/rp-11.html don't take this into account.  Use something bigger like 6s at these situations.  I also recommend you check out the Layout Design special interest group site at http://ldsig.org/wiki/index.php/Main_Page for helpful ideas and advice.

Mark

[markpierce]

Everyone is right on this one.

#4's became the 'ideal' switch for Yards and 'compressed' layouts back (prewar)  when most cars and equipment were 50-60 feet, and 'shortened' Passenger cars were being offered.

TODAYS modern equipment have longer cars, trains, and bigger engines to pull them. 

PROBLEM for Newbies is buying the loonger post-war equipment (which they see), and try to run it on 'simpler' 60 year old pre-war designed trackage.

WHY? Because it's cheaper and looks the same. (TOY Manufacturers RULE #1: always make what $ELL$).

UNION PACIFIC is currently replacing ESPEE mainline switches in Oregon with an #24 equivalent, to run rheir modern 80'-85' equipment - while 'modelers' struggle with #4 and #6 decisions.

Railroads RULE #1: Use what WORKS.

Yeah, the S.P.'s "standard" turnout frog for passing sidings was a no. 10 seventy-five years ago, and nos. 12 and 14 sixty years ago in CTC territory.  Poor thing.

Mark

[shawnee]

#4s...ain't no big deal.  Don't use them on the main if you can avoid, but they're fine for yards, branchline and industrial spurs.  Personally, the number 4s look fine and appropriate to me in those locations.  I use cars a little over 60' and six axle engines and they're OK on those 4s, never derail.   I think the bugaboo about No 4 turnouts is a lot of fuss about nothing, if you use them in the right spots.  And after all, you're probably not going to be running your trains like race cars. 

 

[Anonymous]

I don't run mainline trains over them, (except in staging) for those I use #6s.

Dave; how about an SDP35?

[BRAKIE]

Whatever you do, DO NOT use no. 4s at crossovers connecting two close parallel tracks or similar situations such as may happen at the beginning of a yard ladder.  These situations create nasty "S" curves which will play havoc with your operations.  The NMRA recommended practices http://www.nmra.org/standards/rp-11.html don't take this into account.  Use something bigger like 6s at these situations.  I also recommend you check out the Layout Design special interest group site at http://ldsig.org/wiki/index.php/Main_Page for helpful ideas and advice.

Mark

 

Mark,There is NO "S" curves using a custom line #4 switch..Even if there was there would still be no problems at slow switching speeds.

[NeO6874]

Brakie -- yes, there would be an S-curve if you used two #4's (or #6's, #8's, whatever) to connect two parallel tracks. Actually, from the looks of things, an S-curve gets created any time you make two tracks parallel.

[gilligan]

When I was ordering my Fast-Tracks jig i had this same delima; a #4 is what i wanted in my yards, but seemed to small for my mainline.  I ended up calling the place and the guy i talked to told me to stay away from the #4 because the diverging route radius was actually a 15" radius on their #4 turnout.  Which is awfully tight. 

I ended up getting a # 4.5 turnout which gives me a 22" radius diverging route.  This i figured gave me what i needed for my yards, yet wouldn't look as ridiculous on my main, if i chose to use it there.  I most likely will too, for the fact that i can't justify owning a second jig just yet, and i will never settle for a commercial turnout again.

[BRAKIE]

Brakie -- yes, there would be an S-curve if you used two #4's (or #6's, #8's, whatever) to connect two parallel tracks. Actually, from the looks of things, an S-curve gets created any time you make two tracks parallel.

 

Dan,We'll just have to agree to disagree on that..You see there is a short straight section built in to the Custom line #4 switch.When place in a crossover the straight section removes the "S" curve.

http://www.firsthobby.com/store1/Product.asp?ProductID=ATL561&SN=2007101610584978

 

Here is a #8 crossover at the club..No "S" curve.

 

 

 

 

[Dave-the-Train]

Some things you might like to consider...

You can use a #4 switch for one half of a crossover and a #6 for the other half... I would guess that this would work best for propelling moves with the #6 coming 2nd so that the curves get easier as the move progresses... but I've never actually tested this theory.

There may be some places you can save length but still get tracks apart quickly by using Y switches.

Where you might use two LH switches for a crossover with the S between the two you might replace them with two RH switches... then the previously straight tracks become curves BUT the crossover track is straight. 

Either Ys or reversing the hand of the the switches will create some interesting wiggles in the layout... this can be a good thing... it might even help to break up the look of the thing like I was trying to suggest before.  It can certainly get a layout away from the "all parallel to the front and back" issue.

Hope that this helps.

[fwright]

When I was ordering my Fast-Tracks jig i had this same delima; a #4 is what i wanted in my yards, but seemed to small for my mainline.  I ended up calling the place and the guy i talked to told me to stay away from the #4 because the diverging route radius was actually a 15" radius on their #4 turnout.  Which is awfully tight. 

I ended up getting a # 4.5 turnout which gives me a 22" radius diverging route.  This i figured gave me what i needed for my yards, yet wouldn't look as ridiculous on my main, if i chose to use it there.  I most likely will too, for the fact that i can't justify owning a second jig just yet, and i will never settle for a commercial turnout again.

This is one of the bugaboos of commercial turnouts - the frog number designations are not particularly accurate, nor are the closure radius figures and other dimensions in the NMRA RP (http://www.nmra.org/standards/rp12_3.html) followed that closely.  For example, an NMRA-spec #4 does indeed have a closure rail radius of 15", a #5 has 26" closure rail radius, and a #6 has a 43" radius.  But the Atlas Custom Line #4 is really a #4.5 with a closure rail radius of about 22", and the Walters/Shinohara #4 has been lengthened to increase the closure rail radius from NMRA RP.  In both the Atlas and W/S case, the #4 turnout is not as sharp as the frog number would indicate.

OTOH, the Fast Track jigs consistently produce spot-on NMRA-spec turnouts.

yours in trackwork

Fred W

[IRONROOSTER]

Some things you might like to consider...

You can use a #4 switch for one half of a crossover and a #6 for the other half... I would guess that this would work best for propelling moves with the #6 coming 2nd so that the curves get easier as the move progresses... but I've never actually tested this theory.

There may be some places you can save length but still get tracks apart quickly by using Y switches.

Where you might use two LH switches for a crossover with the S between the two you might replace them with two RH switches... then the previously straight tracks become curves BUT the crossover track is straight. 

Either Ys or reversing the hand of the the switches will create some interesting wiggles in the layout... this can be a good thing... it might even help to break up the look of the thing like I was trying to suggest before.  It can certainly get a layout away from the "all parallel to the front and back" issue.

Hope that this helps.

Using a #4 and a #6 for a crossover requires an additional curve between the two.  This is due to the diverging angles not being the same.

Y's were used at the ends of some passing tracks to reduce the effect of the S curve, but did not eliminate it.

An S curve problem is caused when there are two opposing curves.  For railroads (models or prototype) it also occurs when the straight track between the curves is less than the length of the longest rolling stock.  This is because the as the car enters the second curve it's body orientation is moved in the opposite direction from the car following.  The body mounted couplers are now attempting to move away from each other laterly.  If this is severe enough you get a derailment (or the coupler breaks, comes apart, etc.). 

Using larger radius curves (and larger turnouts) reduces the effect and if the offset is within the gathering range of the couplers (i.e. their side to side play) then the train makes it through. This doesn't eliminate the s curve, just mitigates it.

Truck mounted couplers remove the coupler problem (as long the car body doesn't block the truck swing and the cars have sufficient gap to not collide).

"Track Planning for Realistic Operation" by John Armstrong has an excellent explanation along with very good drawings on this problem.

Enjoy

Paul 

 

[cwclark]

   All you guys speaking of "s" curves. There is a solution. I don't remember where i read about it, but if you put a straight section of track that is as long as your longest car between the first curve and the second curve there will be no derailment issues.

   I did this at a crossover at one of the junctions on my layout. Normally I would have used 2 #6 turnouts but the space was gapped in a way that wouldn't allow for this because of a loading platform between the two sections of track. I put in #4's with the straight section of track connecting them to form the crossover and it worked just fine. No derailments.

   I also keep a straight section of track as long as my longest car between any other places on my layout where there are "S" curves with the same results. No derailments. Now please don't go off and flame me for this because it's what i read about once upon a time and put into practice, and there were no derailment problems....chuck

 

[Occams Razor]

So from the majority of posts in this thread, it seems like Atlas #4's (4.5) would be acceptable for yard ladder?  Since the slow switching speeds should keep from derailing.  I've been wrestling with a yard for the HO layout I'm designing, because the #6's just take up so much room.  Mainline and industries are all #6's or higher, so appearence and performance should be good there, but if 4.5's in the yard ladder wouldn't be terrible that would be great. Am I incorrect in this assumption?  The larger road power of course wouldn't be using them, and I could always use #6's to lead to the roundhouse and engine service areas, as well as the A/D tracks where the bigger power would operate, the #4's would just be used exclusively for the actual ladder, to save me some length on the yard tracks.