Large Scale Central

Turnout construct standard vs wye vs 3 way

Track and Trestles
#1

OK So my head is starting to spin and there are several threads I am involved in that I am trying to put all the information together on. Turn out configuration verses yard layout and maximizing space is the order of the day.

Here is the basic yard configuration I am playing with:

This basic idea is thanks to Sean helping me realize the most for my space. Now in my other conversations I think I am perfectly comfortable with #4 standard turnouts for this yard and that is what is represented in the drawing. It gives me 9 tangent tracks in my given space with roughly 4" center to center on the tracks. I tried using a #2 wye as the first split in this configuration and all I could get was 8 tangent tracks using #4 turnouts. It did yield wider track separation though. I then decided to try a last ditch effort and simulated a 3 way turnout as the first split by using a #4 regular turnout for one half of the yard and then mirrored it and overlayed the now flipped switch on the original lining up the straight tracks effectively creating a 3 way. Not a staggered style but a true 3 way with a single set of point rails. This yielded a more uniform configuration than above by making the top four tracks look like the bottom four tracks which lengthened them. All in all this gave the longest legs and 9 tracks with 4" separation center to center. I could extend the separation of the tracks some by adding small section of straights between turnouts if that were and issue.

I am liking putting s 3 way in place. So if I were to make a three way am I to assume that in its construction it would be basically a right and left standard turnout superimposed on one another? Would the point rails be the same as a standard #4 and would use two #4 frogs? or is there something I am missing?

Does anyone have a template for a #4 3 way turnout? For that matter does anyone have a template for a regular standard #4 turnout? How about a #6? and while we are on the subject what about a #2 Wye so that I can build my wye section? I am planning to use llagas #4 and #6 frogs. For the wye I would have to make my own frog.

#2

Devon,

Recommend that you take a look at my post from a couple of years back about building turnouts. link to post

I remember someone asked me where to get templates for building various turnouts in Fn3 (1:20.3) scale. I referred them to “Fast Track” templates which are free and downloadable. Unfortunately, they don’t come in Fn3 scale, but they do come in many others. I recommend downloading the On3 templates and simply enlarging them 236%. link to templates

Bob

#3

Thanks Bob.

I have just messed around long enough with any rail to figure some things out that probably should have been obvious but weren’t. Because a #4 diverges faster than a #6 that means track separation increases as does the length of each arm of the yard. I also don’t know where I figured nine tracks. Using all #4 turnouts with the first one being a 3 way I got 11 tracks to fit on my area with 5" center to center separation. Doing it with #6s I got 11 tracks but only 4" of separation and much shorter arms the further out oyu went. The whole thing was narrower and probably could allow for another leg but it would be a very short and worthless leg.

The trade off is of course the tight curve the #4 creates but I think it is negotiable from what others have said and if I do use my longer coaches that I will build someday I can relegate them to outer arms so as to not have that nasty S that the two adjoining turnouts form.

Another consideration is not needing an 11 track yard. I might opt for some separation instead especially where the covered shed will be.

#4

You need one of these to save space and get more usable track:

#5

Why do I believe that you are not kidding Greg? (http://largescalecentral.com/externals/tinymce/plugins/emoticons/img/smiley-yell.gif)Actually I see where your going with it. Instead of a 3 way your suggesting a 9 way maybe? The thing is this makes sense to me and would also alleviate the sharp turn out issue and be a hell of a lot easier to build in a manual version than a three way and 6 #4 turnouts. Would a 9 way version be possible? How long would this thing need to be to hit the end tracks reasonably? I am thinking over all the distance would be much sorter than whay i have configured making each arm much longer as your suggesting. So OK how do you make one of these?

looking at it I realized it is just a crazy stub switch.

#6

Devon, Train Li sells them, or at least they did. I am not sure what code they were though.

#7

code 332…

What I am saying Devon, is a flexible stub switch like this is something you could build. or you could gang a few together.

Since these are for storage, manual control would seem fine (mine is actually remote control, but it was pretty expensive).

I think you could copy the design easily, though.

Greg

#8

Greg Elmassian said:

code 332…

What I am saying Devon, is a flexible stub switch like this is something you could build. or you could gang a few together.

Since these are for storage, manual control would seem fine (mine is actually remote control, but it was pretty expensive).

I think you could copy the design easily, though.

Greg

I think I could as well. I will consider it for sure. Makes great sense. Maybe not a full 9 way but like you said a gang of them.

#9

At what angle are the tracks diverging at.

#10

Number 4 switches will work well, except that your longer coaches and such will not like the “S” curve going from your yard lead to either of the two tracks just adjacent to it. (On your diagram at the top, if your lead is track 5, your coaches will not like going on tracks 4 or 6.)

I’d use a #6 3-way as the first switch leading into the yard. Following that, I’d do a pair of #3 wye switches on the outer legs of the 3-way switch. (Essentially, this is a #6 3-way without the center track). That gives you a longer “S” curve leading into the first adjacent tracks so you can get your longer cars through without worry. Off of the outside leg of the two wye switches, you can string some #4 switches for however many outer tracks you have room for. You’ll have to put a short curve between the wye switch and the first #4 so that the tracks diverge parallel, but that’s no biggie. That will give you the most tracks with the least amount of space while still allowing you to easily switch all tracks regardless of the length of the equipment.

Later,

K

#11

If I read your first post correctly you stated the center to center track spacing of 4". That won’t work in large scale, your cars will hit each other on adjacent tracks ! 5" spacing will give you less than 1" clearance between normal cars, 6" is what I use as a minimum .

#12

LGB - R1 geometry uses 160mm (nearly 6.4")

that leaves less than 1" between 1:22.5 roling stock.

#13

Well to address the spacing issue, That all got fixed. I was in error on my measurements first off. #6s with no straight section between them was only allowing the 4" separation. I had decided to go with #4s and mistakenly did not refigure the spacing. #4s one right after another yielded 5" spacing. I was able to add a small piece of straight track between them and that gave me 6" separation and still allow me the 9 tracks in my given space. So with the latest configuration I have the separation I need. Now I did measure my 1:20.3 box car that i built which is larger than any I have and it is only four inches wide. My locos are only 4 inches wide. Nothing I currently have is more than 4"wide. So that leaves 2" between cars. Since these are not passing sidings and just a storage yard I could get away with a 5" wide car and still have an inch between.

Unless I am missing something I am thinking that should work.

#14

Korm Kormsen said:

LGB - R1 geometry uses 160mm (nearly 6.4")

that leaves less than 1" between 1:22.5 roling stock.

How wide is this rolling stock? they are over 5.4" wide?

#15

my widest 4-wheeler is 130mm wide. (5.12")

#16

Devon, have you set standards for clearance on your layout yet?

Will you run any 1:20.3 locos or all smaller than that?

I’d make sure I could put anything I wanted on those tracks.

Then I would use a minimum prototype spacing at 1:20.3, which I thought was 13 feet, and that is 7.68"…

But that will not leave enough room to get your fingers in, i.e. if the adjacent tracks are full, you won’t be able to get a car out.

Greg

#17

Devon, plan on at least 6" on center just to be safe in your storage yard. I think 7" would be better, but if you’re not going to be reaching between the cars, you can get away with 6". Four inches in 1:20 is only 81", which is 6’ 9" wide. That’s very narrow for 3’ gauge equipment, even the c. 1870s stuff. Passenger cars will be at least 8’ wide, maybe 8’ 6", unless they’re the early variety with 2-abreast seating on one side of the aisle and single seats on the other side (which you would have to scratchbuild since no one makes models of them.) Locomotives will easily push 8’, even the older locos like the mogul we’re working on. (I’d have to look at the drawings to see what its width is, but with 48" drivers, it wasn’t small.)

You may not plan on running wider equipment on your railroad, but (a) things change, and (b) some visitor to your line will invariably have a piece of equipment that will test your clearances. Having grown up on a railroad built to the smaller 1:22 equipment, I can tell you it’s much easier to plan for the larger equipment in the beginning than it is to re-do all the clearances on your railroad after the fact.

Later,

K

#18

devon, got some thousand words for you.

(i must confess, that i “cheated”. i pushed the cars as much together, as sideways-play of the wheelsets allows)

#19

Korm,

I do appreciate the pictures that does put it into perspective. I can see now that 5 wouldn’t work at all. 5.4 is still tight. As a storage yard though I think 6" will work. Without getting rid of a track I can’t make it wider.

I do understand the concern and appreciate the help and advice. I did push track separation on the layout out to 8". I still have it 6" from the house but that should OK because the house won’t lean back. So even a 6" wide car would have 3" of clearance.

#20

Greg Elmassian said:

Devon, have you set standards for clearance on your layout yet?

Greg,

I have somewhat. It is still fluid as I learn things just like I am learning in this conversation. I have taken into consideration everything everyone is suggesting in all off these threads and trying to apply it to what I have and what I want to accomplish. The first realization I have is that I can’t do it all in the space I have and still have a layout I want. The space is a limiting factor.

My theme is a 1:20.3 small narrow gauge line. It will be locomotives on the smaller side of the F scale and most cars will be under 50’. I will have two longer coaches. I will also be running 1:29 standard freight equipment behind the GP-9 (don’t call it a 7 (http://largescalecentral.com/externals/tinymce/plugins/emoticons/img/smiley-wink.gif)). With all this in mind here are my standards.

8’ diameter curves minimum with most being 10’. #6 mainline turnouts and #4 turnouts in the yard. Minimum 8" C to C separation between tracks on the mainline and 6" C to C in yards or industry sidings. Minimum 6" separation from hard surfaces. Max 2% grade on the mainline. 0% grade in the yard and wye. 12" minimum top of rail to top of rail separation for grade separated crossings (I increased that from10"). I want 10" top of rail to minimum overhead clearance.

I realize I wont be able to run “anything” I might ever want. There will be limitations and I accept them. I won’t likely be running a big boy or pulling auto racks. But if I can run my moguls or smaller and run the Geep pulling 40-50 foot F rolling stock or 1:29 normal freight cars then I will be happy. That will give me plenty to work with.

Given this information is there anything glaring that I have wrong or am missing?