BRAKIE wrote:Don,Maybe that 2-8-0 had wheels out of gauge? I had a PFM Santa Fe 2-8-0 that ran though #4 switches(the old fiber tie type-remember those?)... Why do I think that? Simply because of the coupler setup on these cars is similar to the centerbeam coupler setup..
LARRY: What I think:
Those old "Fibre" ties came on brass switch KITS and had to be gauged. I substituted them for my prefabricated 'Customline's to cut down derailments (they did).
(2) PFM brass was crafted for a different market than Athearn and Varney plastic of that day.
(3) THEN as now, 'lower-end' products are made with an 'eye' for the 'CHEAP TRAIN' buyer. (and) skip on unnecessary details). We didn't have GENESIS with close coupling, 85' plastic passenger cars,- or even what Athearns RTR has bcome.
We didn't pay for it, either. A current Athearn SD-45-2 is $100 on Ebay. It has a better drive and detail than my old SD-45 blue box. MIine, (but maybe not yours).
cuyama: I just laid a pair of #5s and #4s as Crossovers, They both HAVE 'S's. I don't think John Armstrong ever said "There is no 'S' curve in a #4 crossover".
ALL NMRA 'numbered turnouts are curved up to the frog and straight beyond. Notice the NMRA diagam, and in-paricular #26:
Putting two #4s back-to-back has about 4" of straight between frogs. This is fine for a 40' car and maybe OK for a 50' car whose trucks are about that same distance apart . The trucks don't see the 'S' but longer cars do, and you should too.
Cudaken: Ther is NOTHING wrong with a good #4. The only problem is people trying running too long of cars and engines through them.
venckman wrote: I agree, as a new person to the hobby, it seems as though things are very rigid in the way that the "experts" model. I hear over and over again about prototypes and how "that's not prototypical" or "you shouldn't use this code rail because that's not prototypical", etc. I thought the point of this hobby was to have fun and create a miniature world of your own. If that looks like reality, great. If it doesn't and it makes you happy, great too! I feel like there is this group of expert modelers who go around critiqueing everyone's layout because it doesn't meet some lofty standard. Who cares, it's a hobby!!!!! :) - Mike
I agree, as a new person to the hobby, it seems as though things are very rigid in the way that the "experts" model. I hear over and over again about prototypes and how "that's not prototypical" or "you shouldn't use this code rail because that's not prototypical", etc. I thought the point of this hobby was to have fun and create a miniature world of your own. If that looks like reality, great. If it doesn't and it makes you happy, great too! I feel like there is this group of expert modelers who go around critiqueing everyone's layout because it doesn't meet some lofty standard. Who cares, it's a hobby!!!!! :) - Mike
RIGID? (Perhaps your 'INTERPETATION' is flawed - but that's OK if it's how you think.
"FUN" (how much "fun" are 'DERAILMENTS? - or don't you have any?
NOTICE THESE ARE QUESTIONS(??).
PEOPLE on forums sometimes ask Questions - to get answers, and cure problems. SOME just voice Opinions. (Guess who).
I guess the Question you haven't raised is HOW TO HAVE FUN?
- or was that a Question?
Your highlighted 'quote' is above.
I agree, as a new person to the hobby, it seems as though things are very rigid in the way that the "experts" model. I hear over and over again about prototypes and how "that's not prototypical" or "you shouldn't use this code rail because that's not prototypical", etc. I thought the point of this hobby was to have fun and create a miniature world of your own. If that looks like reality, great. If it doesn't and it makes you happy, great too! I feel like there is this group of expert modelers who go around critiqueing everyone's layout because it doesn't meet some lofty standard. Who cares, it's a hobby!!!!! :)
Mike
Dan said:Proper" car/loco weight - weight might've had role in allowing the trains to perform as they did in the video.
-------------------
Dan,I humbly disagree..I haven't follow RP20.1 for years and my cars perform flawlessly..
I will add this again..The very basics of modeling has been buried in the shuffle of "expert" advice over the years.
What we are seeing in that video is Bachmann cars and locomotives running smoothly..Sadly we(and that includes me) have lost something along the way..Model Railroading isn't a exact science yet,we(again that includes me) some times try to prove that it is..
What happen to our basic knowledge? Have we advance that far that we complicate the simple and overstate the obvious?
I wish I knew.
Larry
Conductor.
Summerset Ry.
"Stay Alert, Don't get hurt Safety First!"
Byron,The thing in designing a industrial switching layout is to allow for long wheel base cars if you are modeling contemporary times.We must allow for the different links of modern cars..On one layout I had a lumber yard that received 72 foot centerbeams as well as 50 foot boxcars of roofing.I found a #4 crossover is no problem as long as it doesn't end or start on a curve.I made that mistake once and due to the longer wheel base of most modern cars vs. old 40 and 50 footers like I been using I had to rethink my idea.
Here's the rub..#4 custom line crossovers will work flawlessly unless at the beginning or ending of a "industrial grade curve"-read 15-18" curve.I suspect if one is using 0-6-0Ts and 36 foot cars that may not be a problem..
Timely posting for me. My new bench needs #4's for the hidden stanging that will be under the coal mine. I just bought some #4's yesterday. Cars will be 40' 50' box cars and some 70' covred hoppers.
I tried #8's and there would have been no room to park rolling stock.
Thanks for all the answer's before I asked them guys!
Cuda Ken
I hate Rust
John Armstrong wrote about using two opposite-handed turnouts to build a space-saving angled crossover. Lower turnout numbers may be used (here a #4 instead of a #6) because there is no s-curve. This does often mean that the "mainline" must take the diverging path, which is not often the case on the prototype, but it is a good space-saving option where the track is curving anyway.
Of course, in an industrial switching situation there is often no "mainline" per se. I've found these angled crossovers work well, even when shoving cars. Shoving a string of mixed-length cars through a tight crossover is where problems will emerge that one does not see in pulling trains through.
ByronModel RR Blog
Layout Design GalleryLayout Design Special Interest Group
BRAKIE wrote:Simply put the very basics still work without the need to follow expert track laying rules..Why is this? Our equipment is most forgiving..
Simply put the very basics still work without the need to follow expert track laying rules..Why is this? Our equipment is most forgiving..
I would argue the "forgivingness" of models on two points:
However, I will agree that for the most part, locomotives are a lot more agile than they "should" be (otherwise we'd never get them around our curves), and there's probably a whole lot of other engineering things that are purposely changed between our models and the real things to make them work as well as they do at their minimum radii.
And with the explination of what actually creates a problematic S-curve somewhere above, I now see the point you were trying to make earlier.
-Dan
Builder of Bowser steam! Railimages Site
Mark said:The point is, track standards are a function of the equipment to be operated.
Actually our equipment is more forgiving then most modelers realize.Thanks to the many "experts" the basics has been all but forgotten..Think back to your first train set..What did you know? Very little I suspect.
Let's watch a very basic loop layout.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=C1yiUYKVLYA&mode=related&search=
I think just about every "expert track rule" has been broken to include a rail joint suspended in mid air and yet the (gasp!) Bachmann trains run rather smoothly with what appears to be X2F couplers on snap track!
How can this young lad be having so much fun?
markpierce wrote: 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
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
Don't get me wrong: #4s have their place. My current bedroom-sized layout plan has 6 #4s, all at the terminous of the branchline. The terminous is L-shaped, about 10x15' and 30" wide, and includes 15 turnouts. The minimum radius is 30". All double-ended sidings (house, corral, run-around/assembly) use #6s as well as the turntable lead. Spurs to the feed mill and petroleum distributer use #4s. Private-railroad trackage, serving a mineral processing plant, uses #4s. The interchange between the branchline and private railroad includes a #8 curved turnout and a #4 wye (equivalent to a #8).
I don't anticipate any difficulties. Branchline power will consist of 2-6-0s, 2-8-0s, or four-axle diesel switchers. Power on the industrial line will be even smaller: 44-ton-and-less diesel switchers or a geared steam locomotive (Climax). Virtually all freight cars will be between 36-40 feet in length, but passenger cars will be up to 72'.
The branchline connects to a mainline employing #6s and 8s. No. 8s are used for any cross-overs. Hey, we'll have eight-axled articulated locomotives, five-axle steam locomotives, six-axle diesel locomotives, and "full-scale, foot-long" passenger cars operating there (and only viewed from inside the curve)!
The point is, track standards are a function of the equipment to be operated.
(Brakie) said:"Mark,There is NO "S" curves using a custom line #4 switch"
Don said:"YES THERE IS. You just don't see it! "
There are 3-4 inches of straight in the middle - if you want to measure it. ONLY the closure rails are curved - and if F. Wright is correct (he generally is) the curveture is closer to a 15" radius... and I wondered WHY I was getting derailments on my old brass PFM 2-8-0.
I might add 'some' turnout manufacturers using metal 'cast' frogs, might be using the same casting in their turnouts - regardless of of the turnout's designation (no names). Caveat Emptor or of no importance? What say you, Fred Wright?
We seem to be having difficulty, some of us, with the notion of an S-curve. There are several offered definitions, and there must be one from the NMRA. Practically, you have an S-curve when the coupler configuration and the length of the longest car being forced to negotiate a cross-over cannot handle the lateral forces imparted to the trucks and the coupler because of the disparity between those forces at each end of that longest car.
As Brakie has said, you can minimize S-curves with any turnout....yes, any turnout, provided you are willing to space the parallel tracks in a way that you had not planned. If you are willing to have ladder tracks as much as 3.5" apart at centres, then you can use longer and less divergent turnouts.
There is always a trade-off.
Jeff,
My AC6000's take #4's ok in the yard but that is at pretty low speeds. My crossovers are #6's and the AC6000's, ES44AC's, SD90's and even the DD40AX can take them at full speed. Heck of a sight though.
Tilden
jbinkley60 wrote: Don Gibson wrote: Quoth the Brakie:"jbinkley60: Your #4 crossover may work for you - but a #6 would work Better!"I would have but the track spacing vs available space wouldn't allow it since the tracks were about 10" apart. So I used 4 - #4s and a crossover. All traffic through it is less than mainline speed and primarily switching traffic. Not perfect but workable.
Don Gibson wrote: Quoth the Brakie:"jbinkley60: Your #4 crossover may work for you - but a #6 would work Better!"
Quoth the Brakie:
"jbinkley60: Your #4 crossover may work for you - but a #6 would work Better!"
I would have but the track spacing vs available space wouldn't allow it since the tracks were about 10" apart. So I used 4 - #4s and a crossover. All traffic through it is less than mainline speed and primarily switching traffic. Not perfect but workable.
That has worked for me for years on every industrial switching layout I built..
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I said:Mark,There is NO "S" curves using a custom line #4 switch
.
Don said:YES THERE IS. You just don't see it! (Perception, and all that rot).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Don,We just going to have to agree to disagree on that..After all I still have good eye sight for my age.
Engineer Jeff NS Nut Visit my layout at: http://www.thebinks.com/trains/
TECHNICALLY
An 'S' curve becomes a problem when one set trucks on a car is turning left while the other set is turning right (or vice versa).
THIS is why CWClark's rule of thumb works. When the cars length is matched by the length of straight, it effectively removes the 'S' - however workable it may be in practice .
Example: a Shinohara #8 products have about 5 inches of straight, per. Two - for a CROSSOVER might produce 10" of straight (between frogs), enough for an 85' car in practice (the trucks are inboard) - about 10" apart.
Occams Razor wrote: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.
My yard with all Atlas #4s (8 of them) has been in operation for several years works great. The most important thing is laying everything accurately and fine tuning the switches, like filing the points. We routinely push strings of 20-30 cars through the ladder with rarely a mishap.
Jay
C-415 Build: https://imageshack.com/a/tShC/1
Other builds: https://imageshack.com/my/albums
"Mark, There is NO "S" curves using a custom line #4 switch.
YES THERE IS. You just don't see it! (Perception, and all that rot).
There is also one on a #10. (It just has a longer 'straight'). DRAW a pair of 'C' curves (one backwards) to form an 'S'. Now add a piece of straight between them.
If this is too difficult, take two 9"curved sections of Atlas snap track - lay them out to form an 'S'. If CONNECTED you now have the equivalent of a 'Snap' switch. Put 4" beween them and you have the equivalent of a #4. Etc.
PUT 3 feet in between them, and you still have an 'S' (but with an elongated middle).
Actually, the point rails are the only curved part in any NMRA numbered swtch, so you can save money by cutting one 9" piece in two. (I'm on Soc. Security).
CUTTING TO THE CHASE:
NUMBER 4 turnouts work BEST with shorter cars and 8 wheeled 'GP' type diesel engines. NUMBER 6's with STEAM, longer cars, and 8 wheeled 'SD' type type diesels.
NUMBER 8's are best suited for crossovers - still sharp by Prototipical standards - but since an HO mile is approximately 60 feet, SOME compromises are made for a manufacturer to sell product. 34 inches anyone? (I use #6s for mine).
THOSE bragging that their 'Big Boy's can stay on their track with 18" curves are not showing off 'modeling ability' but seem more intent on displaying their 'Amateur standing'.
jbinkley60: Your #4 crossover may work for you - but a #6 would work Better!
BRAKIE wrote: NeO6874 wrote: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.
NeO6874 wrote: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.
I thought that an S-curve was created any time that you had a left hand curve followed in relative close proximity by a right hand curve (or vice versa). So wouldn't using a left and right hand turnout to create the crossover make an S-curve?
I will admit though that the "problem" of the S-curve is more pronounced with tighter angled turnouts and crossings, as well as their proximity to one another. Turnouts that are gentler/farther away from one anotehr will do away with an S-curve for the most part, correct?
Yes, Atlas 4s will work. I used 6's in my yard but also used Walther's #6 3-ways to get some of the space back.
Tilden wrote: My experience is similiar to Brakie's. I have customlne #4's in ards 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
My experience is similiar to Brakie's. I have customlne #4's in ards 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.
I built a double crossover using custome line #4s. You ought to see my AC6000 going through it Fortunately it connects the mainline to a small switching area of the layout. No high speeds allowed...
cwclark wrote: 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
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
While that would work I prefer to use prototype track centers..This can not be accomplish using a straight section between the 2 switches.
Dave-the-Train wrote: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.
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
gilligan wrote: 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.
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