4, 5 or 6

[HaroldA]

I am getting ready to lay out yard tracks and am thinking about using #5 Shinohara turnouts. In the past I have used #6's and think they just take up too much room. What are the advantages/disadvantages of using #5's?

[MisterBeasley]

As you said, the advantage is that they take up less room.

On the minus side, they will look slightly less prototypical.  If you are running very large equipment, it may have issues, but generally prototype railroads didn't use Big Boys for switchers.

[dknelson]

John Armstrong, in one or another of his layout planning books, said that #4 turnouts had a legit role to play and should not be rejected out of hand.  His point as I recall it was that it's true that there is some equipment that just won't run through a #4 but so many layouts have tight curves which rule out that equipment anyway,  there is not much sense in accomodating the equipment you won't run just for looks.  To him the added siding or yard length was worth more than the visuals.

On the other hand Armstrong definitely did advocate planning for the equipment you DO plan to run. 

If a GP9 is going to be the largest loco, and 50' box or flat car your longest rolling stock, they will all look great on #6s but that appearance comes at a cost of space and planning opportunities.  Planning for these huge new diesels that the Class 1s run these days is a tough challenge.

There was a layout plan not long ago, can't recall if it was MR or Model Railroad Planning, where the guy said that he used #4s for his switching layout except for the final turnout to the enginehouse, where he ran out of turnouts and a friend gave him a #5 and now he wished he'd used #5s throughout.  On a switching layout you spend much more time backing through a turnout that a larger size up makes sense particularly if some cars are going to be inherently underweighted such as empty coal gons and that sort of thing.  But there you had a pure and small switching layout where the guy liked his #5s -- and his track plan would have been very different and less interesting had he gone up to #6s.

Dave Nelson

[wjstix]

John Armstrong (IIRC) also advocated that if they're available in the type of track that you're using, you should use No.5 turnouts whenever possible. I think a No.5 is equivalent to about a 26"R curve in HO, so most all equipment will go thru it, even on an S-curve. Even some larger switching diesels won't go thru an S-curve formed by No.4 turnouts.

FWIW I've heard and read many comments over the years from people who wished they had built their layout with broader radius curves and/ or higher number turnouts, either because their layout had operational limitations or just didn't look very realistic. I don't know that anyone's ever complained that their curves and turnouts were too broad.

[tstage]

Harold,

I have the proverbial 4 x 8' layout with 40' & 50' rolling stock and R18/22" curves and find the #5 turnouts a nice compromise - especially when space is tight.

FWIW, I've been using the Fast Track #5s that I bought off of eBay.  They are same price as (if not cheaper than) Shinohara turnouts and look a lot more prototypical.

The one downside is that they come with "live" frogs so you need a ground throw or turnout switch that changes polarity.  Because they both look good and operate so smoothly, that's a small inconvenience for me.

Tom

[selector]

TA462

dknelson:

John Armstrong, in one or another of his layout planning books, said that #4 turnouts had a legit role to play and should not be rejected out of hand. Dave Nelson

 

A lot of people quote Mr Armstrongs ideas on this forum.  The problem is they are outdated and in todays world a lot don't really apply anymore.  That is unless your building a layout designed for his era.   In todays world with todays equipment and to make a bullet proof layout you need to use a number 6.  Will a 4 or 5 work?  Probably most of the time they would but they will cause you problems down the road.   The biggest derailing issue we model railroaders have is cars and locomotives derailing in turnouts.   Eliminate the issue and use a 6 as a minimum when ever possible.   

Bless his soul, but I tend to agree somewhat.  Our rolling stock isn't quite the same as it was in John's day, and we have some offerings in steam that are not recommended for curves less than 24" (BLI 2-10-4's for example), and of course brass is as brass was in respect to curves.

Perhaps what John intended is that a person with strict limitations would want to use #4's as a matter of course, except that one limitation would be what he could get through those sharp turnouts.  I'm sure his logic was always to consider all prime factors, rolling stock length, truck engineering, couplers, and the ability of steamers or long diesels to stay coupled and/or railed through both sharp curves and sharp turnouts.

There are trade-offs, too.  Sure a #4 is way shorter, but the angle back to parallel must be that much sharper if you are using them in a ladder.  Meaning, it takes more length and curvature to get the diverging rail past the turnout's diverging route to get back to the nice geometry we expect.  If you can trim and shorten the diverging route on the turnout and begin the curvature back to parallel without causing a compromising S-turn, you could really gain an advantage by using #4's, but I would try every possible combination of route and rolling stock through it in mock-up first.

Crandell

[IRONROOSTER]

TA462

 

dknelson:

 

John Armstrong, in one or another of his layout planning books, said that #4 turnouts had a legit role to play and should not be rejected out of hand. Dave Nelson

 

 

A lot of people quote Mr Armstrongs ideas on this forum.  The problem is they are outdated and in todays world a lot don't really apply anymore.  That is unless your building a layout designed for his era.   In todays world with todays equipment and to make a bullet proof layout you need to use a number 6.  Will a 4 or 5 work?  Probably most of the time they would but they will cause you problems down the road.   The biggest derailing issue we model railroaders have is cars and locomotives derailing in turnouts.   Eliminate the issue and use a 6 as a minimum when ever possible.   

Actually, the problem is that they either didn't read his book Track Planning for Realistic Operation very carefully, or have misremembered what they read.

The #4's are Atlas #4's which are really #4 1/2. (BTW FastTracks offers jigs for #4 1/2 turnouts)  The 5 vs 6 was for layouts with conventional (24") curves or less for single-turnout.

I highly suggest for those interested, that they reread Armstrong's book, particularly the chapter "Operating reliability through standards".  It's chapter 5 in my book, but later editions the chapter number may be different.

Enjoy

Paul

[tomikawaTT]

TA462

dknelson:

John Armstrong, in one or another of his layout planning books, said that #4 turnouts had a legit role to play and should not be rejected out of hand. Dave Nelson

 

A lot of people quote Mr Armstrongs ideas on this forum.  The problem is they are outdated and in todays world a lot don't really apply anymore.  That is unless your building a layout designed for his era.   In todays world with todays equipment and to make a bullet proof layout you need to use a number 6.  Will a 4 or 5 work?  Probably most of the time they would but they will cause you problems down the road.   The biggest derailing issue we model railroaders have is cars and locomotives derailing in turnouts.   Eliminate the issue and use a 6 as a minimum when ever possible.

Note that John Armstrong didn't say that everyone should use #4 frogs!  (Or #5 frogs either.)  He DID say that using wide-radius turnout closure rail curves on a layout with tight radius mainline curves was wasteful of space.

If you want to eliminate having your cars and locomotives, "Derail in turnouts," build properly-gauged, smooth turnouts and tweak them until they are as close to perfect as your skills allow.  A properly-laid #5 is preferable to a commercially fabricated #10 if the manufacturer has played fast and loose with rail geometry.  I have laid turnouts to curve-easement geometry and to exact number (yes, usually #5!) depending on location and requirements.  My equipment is happy with 24 inch radius curves, so why should I lay a yard throat with 43 inch radius turnouts?

Note that I don't run Schnaebel cars, 12-axle flats, 89-foot humonguboxes or a 4-14-4.  If you do, then by all means lay turnouts with appropriate geometry.  I rather doubt that anything as tight as #6 would cut it.

FWIW, my friendly local prototype (UP - LA&SL) laid rail in an industrial area with #7 turnouts.  A slightly older area on the other side of the main has #8 turnouts.

Chuck (Modeling Central Japan in September, 1964)

[riogrande5761]

IRONROOSTER

 

 

Actually, the problem is that they either didn't read his book Track Planning for Realistic Operation very carefully, or have misremembered what they read.

The #4's are Atlas #4's which are really #4 1/2. (BTW FastTracks offers jigs for #4 1/2 turnouts)  The 5 vs 6 was for layouts with conventional (24") curves or less for single-turnout.

I highly suggest for those interested, that they reread Armstrong's book, particularly the chapter "Operating reliability through standards".  It's chapter 5 in my book, but later editions the chapter number may be different.

Enjoy, Paul

Bingo about Atlas #4 turnouts.  I read John Armstrongs book so many times I nearly wore it out.

Anyhow, when I was a teenager I remember trying to run an Athearn blue box SD45 through a #4 turn out and found that 6 axle loco's don't always like them much.  It was then that I vowed that I would never again use #4 turnouts on any main yard or mainline track where longer rolling stock might run.  So far I have not regretted that vow, and I also recommend the same to anyone who asks.  I built my first sizable layout using minimum #6 turnouts and it worked great.  Do #4 turnouts save space?  Sure, but not that much and the disadvantages are bigger IMO.  Go with #6, you won't regret it.

[BRAKIE]

There are trade-offs, too.  Sure a #4 is way shorter, but the angle back to parallel must be that much sharper if you are using them in a ladder.  Meaning, it takes more length and curvature to get the diverging rail past the turnout's diverging route to get back to the nice geometry we expect.  If you can trim and shorten the diverging route on the turnout and begin the curvature back to parallel without causing a compromising S-turn, you could really gain an advantage by using #4's, but I would try every possible combination of route and rolling stock through it in mock-up first.

Crandell

-------------------------

Crandell,Don't bet the farm or you will lose it..

Here's a #4 ladder.

As far as  "S" curve those should not be a problem even with long wheel base cars at slow switching speeds.

[skagitrailbird]

I have been using Walther's/Shinohara code 83 #5's in a couple of staging yards with no problems whatsoever.  Admittedly, I use only four axle diesel locomotives and my biggest steamer is a Mikado.  However, I do have two passenger trains with 86' cars which run through the #5's without difficulty.

Good luck!

[wojosa31]

For what it is worth, John Armstrong's book was the best training aid I had available to me when I hired on the PRR in 1967. The book helped me understand what my "mentors" were trying to teach me.

From a prototype standpoint, the PRR had a special instruction listing which class of engines was allowed on each Branch and Secondary track and each industrial siding.  Many of the industrial sidings were restricted to "Shifter" type engines, with Road Switcher and other Road power prohibited.

Looking back, it was almost funny to start out restricted  to an ALCo S2 on a particular siding, yet during Conrail days switch the same siding with an SD50. Nothing had been changed with the track except for nominal tie replacement.I suppose that availability had a lot to do with what was acceptable. But you should hear those 6 axles groan over those old Industrial switches and tight curves.

Armstrong's book equated Atlas' 4½ switch to a 22" radius curve, the # 6 switch to a 42" radius curve and equated the Atlas wye (a #3 I believe) to the #6 switch. On my own layouts, I find that almost anything I own, including Walthers current LW passenger cars will operate through an Atlas #4, or 22" radius curve. Note, this has nothing to do with appearance just that they will make it through. The Walthers and Branchline  6 wheel truck heavyweights do not like Atlas # 4 switches or 22" radius curves at all.

My current layout, which is still under construction has a minimum curve radius of 24", although most of the curvature is 26" or greater. All main line switches are #6, (Atlas, Shinohara, or Micro Engineering), but industrial sidings may use either Atlas #4 or Shinohara #4 (true #4 frogs) switches.

The theme is a 1960s PRR Secondary Track (Branch with Manual block Rules in effect) operation, in non electrified territory. Passenger trains utilize ConCor's MP54 series, and Bachmann and Eastern car Works P70s, plus Bethlehem Car works and Walthers head end cars, which will avoid the tight curves and Industrial switches. Freights are locals and mine runs utilizing primarily  first generation switchers and road switchers.

Unless one is modeling a coach yard or an intermodal facility, I do not see a problem with using either #5 or #4½ or 34 switches. Even in today's operation most cars other than intermodal or auto part service are 50' - 60' which will fit on a layout using less than #6 switches.

 

[HaroldA]

HaroldA

I am getting ready to lay out yard tracks and am thinking about using #5 Shinohara turnouts. In the past I have used #6's and think they just take up too much room. What are the advantages/disadvantages of using #5's?

The reason I asked the question was what several of you have pointed out. I do have a copy of John Armstrong's book and did read the section about turnouts. What he wrote about was the radius of substitution being very generous in #5 and #6 turnouts. However, this was written many years ago and equipment has changed - and I do run 6 axles - so I asked the question to see what you have encountered maybe using #5's. I did have a few #4's in what I am replacing and it was nearly impossible to run longer cars and diesels through them without derailing or creating a short.

[cuyama]

HaroldA

The reason I asked the question was what several of you have pointed out. I do have a copy of John Armstrong's book and did read the section about turnouts. What he wrote about was the radius of substitution being very generous in #5 and #6 turnouts.  

I believe that he said this about #6s only. What he says about #5s is that they are a good match for 24"-26" radius curves -- which is as correct today as when he wrote it. In any case, the radius of substitution is not what determines what will pass through a turnout. It's another figure in the chart, the "radius of the closure rail" (RCR). This is the equivalent radius of the tightest spot through the turnout.

If your longer equipment won't negotiate 24" curves smoothly, it may not like #5 turnouts. Since the tightest radius (RCR) through the #4s you are replacing is something like 15" - 16" ( more like 20" - 22" if they are Atlas "#4"s), it's no wonder that your longer cars and locos wouldn't run through them -- just as Armstrong indicates in his book.

There was long equipment in Armstrong's day, too (85' passenger cars, for example), and he accounts for that in the book if one studies the charts fully (which many have not) and applies them correctly.

[mononguy63]

I hate to be too much of contrarian here, but I use Atlas #4 turnouts exclusively on my layout (except for a double crossover that has #6's) and all of my locomotives like them just fine. My 4-8-2's and 2-8-4 (when it used to work), to the best of my recollection, have never derailed in a #4 1/2.

Granted, those #6's sure do look a lot nicer, but where space is at a premium, and what layout really isn't about maximizing space usage, they are much bigger space eaters than #4's.

Jim

[trainboyH16-44]

On my large N scale layout, there are a lot of different characters. There are tight industrial areas with very limited space, and there are long stretches of single track mainline. However, I made standards and kept to them:

1: 18" (34" HO) minimum mainline/passing siding radius.

2: No mainline diverging routes. (Kind of broken but kind of not because of a prototypical mainline wye)

3: All mainline passing sidings have #8 turnouts, all other mainline turnouts have #6s, and industrial areas where you will almost never find a 6 axle diesel have #5s.

 

I've found this to work great, but if I had a smaller layout I might change the 8s to 6s, and some of the 6s to 5s, simply because shorter trains and smaller locomotives would be less finicky. I don't want to use #4s unless I'm doing a REALLY small layout.