Shawn,
Now that I understand more clearly what I am after and have learned so much I will likely use rail for the frog. All but the tip. Randy brought up a good point in that since I am using aluminum rail and due to the rails profile it would not last as well as brass or nickel. So one can make a tip that is durable and or replaceable seems prudent. Or using brass rail for my switches. As for copying a switch well I can copy plans as well as I can copy a pattern. Either way works.
I really don’t think that one needs to worry about wearing down the point of the rail if it’s made from aluminum. I’d think you would have to run 24/7 to even start to see some wear. If you going to be using something else for the point of the frog, why not just bite the bullet and buy premade frogs from Llagas? Llagas makes #3, #4, #6, #8, #10 frogs.
The only reason I went with scratchbuilding my own frog is because I know my prototype had #9 & #11 turnouts and I wanted those two sizes. It was something that I wasn’t willing to give up.
I find myself asking, what is Devon’s givens and druthers? Is it prototype track, or merely the representation of prototype track? If it’s the second, buying premade frogs & points is an easy way to start building your own turnouts. Then as you gain more experience building turnouts, you can then learn how to file your own points and frog.
If you look at how I built my spit rail frog (following as closely as possible the NP drawings), you can see that the point of the frog has most of the web of the rail still.
Pete Thornton said:
The problem is that 5’ radius, 10’ diameter curves are too tight for fine scale railroads. I built mine with a minimum 10’ radius (20’ diameter) and used #6 and larger switches.
The concept of using a #6 in your 10’ diamtere curve and tightening the curve to match the switch makes very little sense. Your trains will know and it won’t look good (imho).
Yeah i was thinking the same thing Pete. There needs to be a compromise. Since the wife won’t compromise and give me bigger space (http://largescalecentral.com/externals/tinymce/plugins/emoticons/img/smiley-yell.gif)then my compromises are such: Use smaller switches and deal with trains not liking the switches, use bigger switches and monkey with the tack and try to smooth it out as best as I can and deal with some tight spots, or redesign the layout and eliminate the situation. I don’t want to get into layout specific problems in this thread as this really is about switch theory and design. But I will say I have monkeyed with the design to eliminate these problems. I think having already tight radius corners will only be a compounded problem by adding tight switches.
Craig,
That’s a good reality check. When it comes to track work and switches my given is that it works as well as possible in my given space. Fidelity to prototype is not really much of a druther even. So your point of buying the frog from Llagas makes perfect sense and gets me building switches without needing to go over the top. Baby steps. Since Llagas makes a track that has the feel of narrow gauge allows me to have at least that and if I build a switch that matches that feel by keeping the same tie size and spacing then think all will be well.
I have also decided to greatly simplify the track plan but that will being the other thread.
To all of you who have been very patient in working with me on this I appreciate it. One character flaw trait that I have is an obsessive desire to understand everything down to the most minute detail and sometimes I forget my purpose and focus. It is a fight between gaining enough knowledge to accomplish a task and an obsessive desire to learn.
So thanks for the patience and help. I can finally say I think I understand the basics of switches now. Lots more to learn I know but it is not as confusing as it was.
Devon: I have to add a few comments from a practical standpoint.
I try to avoid having switches on the mainline that are on the diverging leg, but it happens.
I do have a number of turnouts with “curved” diverging routes, i.e. Aristo WR switches, and they are 5’ radius.
I can run a 50 car train for hours through them, see my youtube channel for a 45 car train chasing it’s tail going through these switches.
The bottom line, is all of this stuff CAN be made to work, but it will take more effort than more gentle, prototype switches.
I say draw your track plan, use the largest radii you can fit, and make your switches work, it CAN be done.
Greg
Well Guys since I started this Thread off by asking a kinda dumb question as I see it now, I wanted to show you what came out of all your comments about the transistion from one parallel track to another. Since I am running some 1:20.3 locomotives that need a Min 4ft radius to run, I decided to build the transistion using #5 turnouts which kinda equate to using (2) 22.5 Degree turnouts. I printed out the #5 turnout drawings and taped them togther to form the transistion and the cut all the cose 332 Aluminum rail on Saturday. I had already cut the 1/4" sintra and glues the hand cut ceder ties to it based on the ties placement on the turnout drawings.
I started laying the Rail on Staurday and spent a couple hours on Sunday ad then installed the Guard Rails tonight to finish it off. The throw bars are Fibreglas PCB boards with coper on one side. I drilled 1/16" holes in the web of the closure rails and then used 1/4" long Brass tacks to go through the closer rails and then through the PCB throw bar and then the tacks were soldered to the copper cladding. This firmly attaches the throw bar to the rails.
As you can see from the photos, it came out pretty good. I have another one of these to build with the transistion in the opposite direction. The ties are cut from a ceder fence board and are cut to 1/4 x 3/8 x 3 3/4" The ties are glued down with the 3/8" side to the sintra. This allows the 1/2" spikes to go through the ties and into the sintra which helps hold them in place.
This whole assembly will then be screwed down to the elevated deck of my Yard area. More on how I built the elevated yard at a later date. All of the track on the yard is done the same as this Transistion section, with the ties glued to 1/4" Sintra.
This transistion section is 44 1/2" long x 10 1/4" wide.
Dan Stuettgen
Colorado & Rio Grande Southern
Very nice Dan,
And sorry for hijacking your thread. However, I learned a lot from the discussion.
Devon: No Problem, I learned a lot as well. By Hand laying my own turnouts, the look a lot better and work better than is I had used 2 22.5 Degree turnouts premade and saved a whole lot of money as well.
Dan S.
Dan, just a question. Wouldn’t the throw-bars work better if they were to the outside? Having them to the inside means that somehow you have to place a switch machine there, that does not cause a clearance problem with either track.
Just a question.
David: Since I am using manual throws that are low profile, that I am custom making it is not an issue. The reason why there are in that location is that I would have the same problem if they were on the other side due to other parallel tracks in the yard area. I am also considered using Model airplane control linkage in the form or a choak cable to operate the turnouts from the edge of the elevated deck, so I wont have to reach the tunouts them selves. Another option I have been toying with is to use Servos under the deck to operate the turnouts controlled by a small micro processor.
Dan S.
Most of the discussion on this thread has discussed straight numbered turnouts.
If we are talking about class 1 railroads from the 30s to 70s then numbered straight turnouts were the norm using cast frogs.
If on the other hand we are talking branches, narrow gauge, logging, city railroads or industrial railroads than the turnout was made to fit in the space provide using frogs bolted together,
The photo below shows an example of one at Cass. It is a continuous curve through the frog and the main line is the divergent route while the straight section goes to the shop.
Stan
Actually that is one screwed up switch, definitely not mainline quality… a kink, a straight spot and then curved later all past the frog.
I get it as an example of a branch line switch that is old and not maintained.
I don’t get it as prototype to copy or emulate. It is true you can find a prototype for everything.
In any case that switch would cause derailments with most of our models.
Greg
So what your saying Greg is that if ones prototype was less than up to snuff one should consider making it better than the prototype?(http://largescalecentral.com/externals/tinymce/plugins/emoticons/img/smiley-wink.gif)
The guy who built the prototype I model used #40 rail and did not ballast his track, he pulled over 4% grades through very sharp corners. Talk about cheap. It is a no wonder his RR lasted only ten years. I guess I could model it that way but unless I want it to only lat ten years like the real deal I might want to do a better job.
10 years in 1:20.5 scale is…
Yes Devon, try and do better then your inspiration railroad. (http://largescalecentral.com/externals/tinymce/plugins/emoticons/img/smiley-wink.gif)
No Devon, that is not what I am saying… I am saying what I said literally in my post.
Re-read it, I say what I mean, no more no less…
To summarize, that is a messed up turnout, and I would not proffer it as an example to emulate… yes, clearly it is prototype… and our equipment would not run well on it.
Someone wanted to make a point that the prototype is not always perfect… doh… no disagreement… but would I model that turnout with all the kinks, bends, and irregular curvature? No way, and why recommend it?
Greg
Aw that’s my ace in the hole when Thumbs McCaughey labors on one… “Seen worse…”
I have seen some hideous 1:1 track-work. If the trucks on my cars were fully equalized, and my cars really heavy, they might actually run on a scaled down version of some of what I have seen. But, I would rather try and do decent track-work, and then have my trains run well.
Greg Elmassian said:
Actually that is one screwed up switch, definitely not mainline quality… a kink, a straight spot and then curved later all past the frog.
I get it as an example of a branch line switch that is old and not maintained.
I don’t get it as prototype to copy or emulate. It is true you can find a prototype for everything.
In any case that switch would cause derailments with most of our models.
Greg
Greg
Not a messed up turnout at all. The folks at Cass are rather proud of there track. We have been at their railfan weeekend the past 3 days and every day there were over 30 movements over that turnout. Note that the next one up the line is curved as well with the straight being the mainline and the divergent section going to the coaling area so both of these get a lot of traffic on a daily basis. Why curved? Because is a narrow hollow the track must go up and straight turnout would not fit.
Clearly not class 1 standards but when you get into the branches and non class 1 mainlines in the east coast, curved turnouts are not unusual at all. Especially in the eastern mountain coal lines they make the turnout fit into the area, just like we tend to do on our garden railroads. For example the VM branch nearby has 33 degree curves (8.6 ft radius in large scale) which is to tight for 86 ft passenger cars but we went over them this weekend with no problems in 72 ft cars. (5% grades as well that coal drags needed to climb.)
The Cass curved turnouts are a nominal 8. The curved turnouts on our SJR&P narrow gauge railway are a nominal 5-6 with 6.6 ft radius.
The point in all this is that if you get away from the class 1 mainlines, turnouts with a smooth curve throughout are not all that unusual and are still in use.
Stan
Greg Elmassian said:
No Devon, that is not what I am saying… I am saying what I said literally in my post.
Re-read it, I say what I mean, no more no less…
To summarize, that is a messed up turnout, and I would not proffer it as an example to emulate… yes, clearly it is prototype… and our equipment would not run well on it.
Someone wanted to make a point that the prototype is not always perfect… doh… no disagreement… but would I model that turnout with all the kinks, bends, and irregular curvature? No way, and why recommend it?
Greg
Relax Greg I was kidding hence the winky eye. I knew what you meant and understand fully why you said it. Just pulling your leg.
