Large Scale Central

How to turn R1 track into straight track

Track and Trestles
#1

How to turn R1 track into straight track - Quick and easy

Hi all

Well, I’ve bought my two year old grandsons two Thomas sets (Thomas and Percy). I thought about extending their temporary layout using some additional pieces of Bachmann tinplate track but was stunned by its cost – 6 dollar for 1’ piece of track, 32 dollar per switch; and it can’t even be use outside.

So I looked around for better alternatives and found, a little too late, Aristo aluminum track. Trainworld was selling boxes of 12 R1 pieces of track (one full 4’ circle) for 19.99, or 1.67 dollar per 1’ piece of track. Unfortunately, no straight pieces were available. I nevertheless ordered three boxes of R1 track, plus 2 large radius switches and 4 small radius switches (this ones in brass, since they were not available in aluminum. Aluminum is not a problem for me because I’m a 100% battery man).

I then snooped around for compatible aluminum track in the internet. A big hope was Polk’s GeneratioNext, but unfortunately they do not sell internationally, and none of the shops that sell their line (RLD Hobbies) have aluminum track available.

Well, having received my order from Trainworld some time ago, I decided to investigate it. Toying around with a CAD program, I found that the inside rail of an R1 piece of track has a length very similar to the length of the standard straight (302 vs. 300 mm). So, it will be possible to easily make a standard length of straight track by using two inside rails from two R1 pieces of track – keeping this length is important to easily make parallel tracks using small radius switches – remember this will be a portable layout.

The outside rail is longer than the inside one. The distance between rails centerlines being about 47 mm, the outside rail will be longer by pi x 47 x 2 / 12 = 24.6 mm. This is more or less the standard distance between sleepers (11 sleepers per 300 mm = 27 mm distance). So, it will be possible to use two outside rails from two R1 pieces of track to make a longer piece of straight track with 12 sleepers instead of the standard 11.

The experiments I’ve made have shown that conversion is indeed possible and, more important, it’s easy and quick. I can transform a 12 piece box in less than two hours. I’ve ordered a further four R1 boxes from Trainworld.

In the next photos I show how I make the transformation.

Photo 1 – Necessary equipment – Screwdrivers to remove screws from the railjoiners and to loosen the rails from the sleeper base, plier to cut the sleeper base web, rail bender to straighten the rails. I’ve used a Sunset Valley code 250 rail bender that I’ve used on my code 250 main layout. I don’t know why but it fits perfectly the Aristo code 332 rail.


Photo 2 – The two pieces of track disassembled. Make sure you store the screw safely: they are very small.


Photo 3 – Using the wire cutter from the plier, cut all the elements of the outside web of both sleeper bases. Each element must be cut twice, in order to remove about 2 mm of web. This ensures consistent sleeper spacing.


Photo 4 – Final result on both sleeper bases.


Photo 5 – Straightening the rails using the rail bender.


Photo 6 – Perfect fit of the 332 rail on the 250 bender.


Photo 7 – The two straight pieces of straight track, one standard length and the other a little longer. Note the spare sleeper that will be used on the longer track.


Photo 8 – The final result, and comparison with a short radius turnout. Sleeper spacing is similar in all cases.

Hope this can be useful to someone who may want to get rid of his R1 track.

Jose Morais

Headmaster of the Lapa Furada RR

#2

WOW, that’s cool.

Thanks

#3

Yup, that’s how its done. Good job.

#4

I have straightened out curves of brass track with the Train li bender. It’s harder with stainless track.

#5

Dear Jose,

Wow. This is one of the best “How To” threads I’ve ever seen.

The instructions and photo labels are clear and concise, and the photos are great.

Your English seems so natural to my American ears [eyes?]

that I would guess you grew up in the U.S.

If you are not an instruction manual writer, you should be.

Sincerely,

Joe Satnik

Edit: Line spacing

#6

With a dual rail bender you just need to make sure the tie strip has gaps and no screws. (Lgb curves do not have screws). Then bend it, but one side will be longer than the other, so just turn the 2nd piece around and then the pair will be even, Inside rail always is shorter then the outer rail.

On stainless, the double length rail clamp makes straightening easier with the dual bender.

#7

Actually, try leaving one screw in each rail. That will help keep the rails from walking out of the tie strips completely.

I also was able to use split jaw clamps and a Train-Li bender to make the curves or straights smooth all the way to the ends of the rails.

I’d try alternating the pieces curving left and right and add joiners and I’ll bet you could do this in seconds without removing any rails.

Greg

#8

Looks like a lot of work to end up with a lot of rail joints.

Does someone still sell C332 rail in flex lengths? Buy those, use the ties from the R1 curves. Straighten the rail and use it as piles of jointed rail left over when they upgraded the line to welded rail. Quite a few piles at intervals along the line.

#9

Well a few things, just my feeble opinion here.

By staggering the joints, by alternating the long and short rails, he would have larger gaps where there were no ties, or gaps more often.

I thought the point of this was to save money by making do with inexpensive track. To buy new longer rails would kinda negate that idea.

Or maybe I missed something (again).

Yes I did miss something. He said;

“I then snooped around for compatible aluminum track in the internet. A big hope was Polk’s GeneratioNext, but unfortunately they do not sell internationally, and none of the shops that sell their line (RLD Hobbies) have aluminum track available.”

My bad.

#10

Nah, you didn’t miss anything. It’s me who just isn’t that frugal. If I would be I probably wouldn’t go for Llagas C215 NickelSilver track, eh!

#11

Hans, I am frugal, ok, cheep, most of the time. But since the quality of the track makes or breaks a railroad, I went with Stainless. I spent the money up front to prevent issues later.

#12

Thanks for all your comments on my initial post.

I think it’s now adequate to follow up on the practical application of my “unbending” method. I’ve received my final order from Trainworld – superb service by the way – and was a proud owner of 7 packs of 12 R1 curved track and one packet – the last they had – of 5 ft radius curved track.

I promptly proceeded to transform 38 of the curved R1 tracks into 36 straight ones – 18 short (302 mm) and 18 long (326 mm). The two missing ones were sacrificed to supply the extra sleeper needed for each longer straight. I managed that in a sunny Saturday afternoon and, being light simple work, I did it outside. In photo 1 I show the result of my labors.

Photo 1 - All the track available for the portable layout

During the last year I have prepared part of the top of the large limestone outcrop that forms the center of my garden (the sunset side of which can be seen in figure 1) to receive my permanent layout. I’ve prepared access paths that divide the area into three separate rock gardens – the main one, at the far end of photo 2, about 20’x50’, the lower one, on the right in photo 2, about 25’x20’ and the upper one, on the left of photo 2, smaller, at about 20’x7’. The main line will depart from the main garden, climb up to the upper garden (120’ at a maximum grade of 2.5%), and then descend to the lower garden a further 120’. Although intended to be operated as an end to end layout, a link between the lower and main gardens is possible by means of a tunnel that can be seen in photo 2, and which allows for continuing running when laziness takes over.

At the crossing point of the access paths, a viewing area about 9’x19’ is prepared so that visitors can comfortably see the whole layout.

Photo 2 - The viewing area viewed from west to east. Main rock garden in front, lower garden to the right and upper garden to the left

Photo 3 - The viewing area viewed from east to west.

Since the permanent layout works are still under way (irrigation and lighting systems and final terraforming are still to be finished) and the kids don’t wait to grow I envisage to prepare temporary layouts for them to play around with their Thomas & Friends trains – of course grandpa will use their layouts to play his trains when they are not around.

As a first experiment, I will install the layout in the viewing area. After several experiments with a CAD program I will try the layout indicated in figure 4. I’ve tried as much as possible to use de 1500mm radius curves (I’ve found that Aristo, perhaps for LGB compatibility, uses metric dimensions for its track) as easement to the R1 curves, and avoided S curves as much as possible. The layout includes a large loop with two passing sidings so that the kids can learn the basics of single line operation.

A short straight will have to be cut in half to fit the layout. The closure error, indicated in the red circle is only a few centimeters and can easily be overcome.


Figure 4 - The portable layout configuration

In the following weeks I will try to show you the results of my experiment…

José Morais

Headmaster of the Lapa Furada RR

#13

I see a problem, you straightened all your track and now your track plan is all curves! :wink:

Seriously, please keep the pictures and progress coming!

Greg

#14

That’s some impressive stone work! Are you a mason by trade?

Great pix - Thanks.

#15

Hi all

To conclude this topic, I think it is appropriate to show the end results attained in the real world.

Reading Greg’s post it really dawned on me that trying to fit as much track as possible in the available area was maybe not the wisest thing to do – all curves and no go… So, using the CAD program, I tried alternatives with less track and a more open look. I came to two alternatives which are shown in figures 1 and 2. In the end I think that alternative 2 is a reasonable compromise between the more crowded and the simpler alternatives.

Figure 1 – The simpler alternative

Figure 2 – The compromise alternative, finally chosen

Yesterday (which, by the way, was Children’s Day around here), I layed out the track on the viewing platform – a 30 minute affair. No screws were uses to link the different track pieces. The platform surface, although paved with natural rough cut stone – which, incidentally was not built by me, but by a local mason – proved reasonably flat to serve as a direct base to the track.

I then tried out the Thomas trains (all battery powered and with Revo receivers with sound – I wonder if/when new sound files will be available from Crest for download, as all the locomotives sound the same - I think that will be noted even by kids). I am pleased to report that no derailments were observed.

In the following photos, the layout is documented – a layout totally built with curves…

I’ve tried also “serious” locomotives – a 2-4-2 Lyn and a Bachmann Porter – with 1:22.5 rolling stock, and they also ran fine.

In the end, I think the only thing that’s left for trying is electrical continuity – it may be useful to have electricity on the rails to light the passenger cars. I will try it next time and report the results here.

José Morais

Headmaster of the Lapa Furada RR

#16

Interesting. The only potential problem I see is in you two S curves. Following Lynn Wescott’s Rule of S Curves, there must be a tangent of at least the length of your longest piece of rolling stock to prevent derailments.

#17

José Morais said:

My toughts… "above "the section with Green engine should be longer. Looks like you have room to streeeeeeeech it out!
Just me.

#18

A suggestion, make your passing siding longer, you can do it by locating the switch (to the right of your gray gondola) on the other side of those straights, i.e. to the right in the picture.

This gives you a longer passing siding and does not affect any other part of the layout.

Greg

#19

Thank you all for your comments.

Concerning the length of the upper passing siding, you are correct, it is much too short, but, as you pointed out, it is easy to lengthen it by two or three straights. In figure 1, I indicate the change that I will implement next time. I will increase each side of the siding by 2 straights, at the same time removing the hidden S curve in the lower branch (R1 to R1), at the cost of including an easier S curve in the other side of the lower branch (R1 to R5).

Figure 1 - Increasing the upper passing loop

This can bring us to the interesting S curve problem, which was also referred to in your comments. We all know that reverse curves are best being avoided, by introducing a straight piece of track between tracks of opposite curvature. But we also know that curves should have transitions, be as large as possible, and so on. Sometimes it just is not possible for lack of space.

Not all S curves are equal and not all rolling stock behave equally in S curves. In figure 2, the behavior of a given piece of rolling stock in a given curved track is indicated. The first piece of rolling stock has body mounted couplers, while de second one has truck mounted couplers. As it can be seen, the lateral deviation of the coupler extremity (which I will call “swipe” for lack of knowledge of a better term) is much larger in the case of the body mount couplers, being much less in the case of truck mounted couplers – this is of course not a surprise, since truck mounted couplers are the norm in the case of sharply curve model railway layouts.

Figure 2 - Swipe with body mounted and truck mounted couplers

In the case of Thomas & Friends trains, truck mounted couplers are not possible, since the rolling stock does not have trucks – only fixed axle wheels. So the couplers must be particularly flexible.

The “swipe” of body mounted couplers is given by Swpbm = (2a**b + b² ') / 2R were a is half the distance between axles or trucks pivot points, b is the distance between the axles or pivot points and the tip of the coupler and R is the radius of the curve, measured to the track center line. In the case of truck mounted couplers, the swipe is given by Swptrk = b² / 2R.

By observing the above expressions we can see two things:

  1. for a given car the swipe varies inversely with the radius of the curve: for example, with half the radius the swipe doubles. For straight track, radius is infinite and Swp is of course zero.
  2. the swipe increases with the length of the car in body mounted couplers, but is independent on the length of the car in the case of truck mounted couplers.

It can also be noted that the overhang of a given stock piece (i.e. the distance between the car axis at midpoint and the track center line) depends on the distance between axles or trucks pivot points, and is given by Ovrhg = a² / 2R. Then, for a given total length of the car L = 2×(a + b), and for body mounted couplers, the sum of swipe and overhang is constant and given by Swp + Ovrh = (a+b)² / 2R = L²/8R = constant. If we push the wheels to the extremities, b reduces, and so does the swipe, but a increases and so does the overhang. There’s no easy way out!

Now, concerning the question that brought us here, the reverse curves. In the case of inverse curvature curves touching one another without an intervening straight track, the swipes of adjacent cars have opposite directions and so they add to one another. In the worst case (both cars symmetrical relative to the change of curvature point) we will have a maximum relative swipe given by SwpTot = Swp1 +Swp2 = (2×a1×b1 + b1² ') / 2R1 + (2×a2×b2 + b2² ') / 2R2. If both cars and curves are equal then we will have SwpTot = (2×a×b + b² ') / R (figure 3).

Figure 3 - Relative swipe in straight-curve and reverse curve transitions

It is clear that the manufacturer designs his rolling stock to traverse with ease the transitions between straight track and the minimum radius curve recommended by him. In the case of Bachmann it sells Thomas sets with R1 curves (R=600 mm), so it is clear that its largest stock (Clarabel and Annie passenger cars) must have couplers capable of SwpTot = Swp1 +Swp2 = (2×a1×b1 + b1²’) / 2x600 + 0 (straight). Given that in this case a = 70 mm and b = 120 mm we will have Swp = (2 × 70 x 120 + 120² ') / 1200 = 26 mm.

We can then assume that the acceptable relative movement of adjacent couplers will be somewhat larger than this standard value, let’s say about 32 mm. I’ve still not tried this value.

In the next list the relative swipes of different transitions (opposite curvatures) are indicated for Clarabel and Annie type vehicles.

  1. From straight to R1=600 mm (standard) - Swptot = 26 mm
  2. From straight to R5=1500 mm - Swptot = 10 mm
  3. From R1 to R1 S curve - Swptot = 52 mm
  4. From R1 to R5 S curve - Swptot = 36 mm
  5. From R5 to R5 S curve - Swptot = 21 mm

We can see that an S curve between R1 curves is unacceptable for large rolling stock, and R1 to R5 reverse curves are also problematic. But R5 to R5 curves are OK, better than the standard straight to R1 case.

Hope to show you photos of all these cases next week.

Good railroading!

José Morais

Headmaster of the Lapa Furada RR

#20

Nice analysis Jose!

What do or did you do for a living?

Greg