# First Layout Plan ... feedback? [4.5 x 12 OO]



## aaron_roch (Mar 31, 2021)

Hi all,
Stumbled across this forum and the community here seems unusually nice, and you are also patient with beginners. Both really great attributes for a forum!  

*Background*: _I got a bunch of old Hornby-Dublo OO trains & scratchbuilt structures from my great uncle when I was a kid. New home, finally a dry basement, my 11-year old kid wants to pull out the trains. Cool! I'm on board (haha). I'm mainly interested in learning to "operate" them with a friend, my kid Josie's main interest is in creating fun scenes. I'm the better planner, they are the better artist, so this should work well. I know that realistically I'll be doing 80% of the work on this layout and I'm fine with that._

The *space* we are willing to set aside for trains long-term is 12 ft. x 5 ft in one corner of the room.
*My criteria*: operational interest. (I don't even quite understand what that means yet, still reading...). Scenes of steam trains rolling through english countryside.
*Josie's criteria*: Must have continuous running. A waterfall, a farm, a town and a train museum. 

I tried a 'dogbone' twice but in the limited space I just can't get it to work. Layout would be on casters so it can be eventually rolled into the corner as shown once work on the "back half" is done. I started with 5ft deep, but was concerned about even my ability to reach into the middle to do scenery, so I 'squished' it to four feet.

If you're still reading, hopefully you'll take a look at the current "track plan" and offer constructive feedback.

Thank you in advance!
-Aaron


----------



## Fire21 (Mar 9, 2014)

Going from my experience, 4 feet wide is too wide to comfortably and safely reach across. You WILL have derailments along that back stretch of track, and reaching across to access it could cause you to lose balance and smash things. Same thing goes for when you're trying to build scenery back there. A layout over 3 feet wide should have access on both sides. Good luck.  

Well, I just read ALL of your post, and I see you are aware of having the layout on casters...smart thinking. I'm not experienced enough to comment on your track plan. It's your railroad...do what YOU want. That's the main rule for model railroads.


----------



## mesenteria (Oct 29, 2015)

It's a very nice basic plan. The artist won't let you have a round pond....unless it's a settling pond (as in....sewage). 

Seriously, though, I can only see one major impediment, and that is to 'reach'. If a table (backboard) is walk-aroundable, no problem. But against a corner, you'll have a very difficult, and probably dangerous, reach to correct any kind of fault, whether with rolling stock or scenery fallen askew.

One other druther of mine would be to move the yard into the centre and build around it for the scenery. You'd like something a bit longer than what you show, probably 50% longer. The criterion for this is what you show to be your longest train.


----------



## J.Albert1949 (Feb 3, 2018)

The yard tracks aren't going to be long enough that way.
Shorten the station platform and move the yard switch "to the left" and increase the track lengths.


----------



## MichaelE (Mar 7, 2018)

I would use that extra 9" to increase your curve radius and put the yard in the center starting at the left (or right) coming off of the curve. Eliminate that trackage on the inside at the left and use a feeder off of the yard to get into the industrial area. Angle the yard from lower left to upper right and use the space to the lower right for your industry.

OO is larger than HO and with a tight radius it's going to look very toy-like coming around those 21" curves.


----------



## CTValleyRR (Jul 26, 2014)

I agree with the couple of suggestions so far. I think everyone missed the part about the layout being on casters, so it could come out from the wall if needed (or in it's normal "in use" state. 30" is a good rule of thumb for maximum reach, so 5' is workable for most people. Make sure the casters lock, though... you don't want the layout rolling when it's being operated.

I would definitely widen the benchwork to 5' broaden your curves to 24", and move everything to the center. A dogbone would work well -- it would have the advantage of disguising the oval a bit. Just come around a little more than 180 degrees in the end loops and make the track in the middle closer together. Granted, you might have trouble making this work if you're limiting yourself to on-hand track pieces only, but it would be visually more appealing.

Compare your "longest train" to your passing sidings, spurs, and yard tracks. Equipment on the passing siding has to clear anything on the main, and it looks like you're dangerously close to the limits there. Yard tracks and industry spurs need to be long enough to hold at least a few cars, and a loco if it will be used as a switchback. Generally speaking, longer is better for this kind of thing.

"Operational Interest", basically speaking, means running trains more or less like the real thing -- stops, starts, switching moves, etc, rather than just watching a train chase its tail in a circle all day. You can get deadly serious with this stuff, even using dispatcher logs and waybills like real trains do. Or you can just have fun pulling into sidings, stopping at stations, swapping out cars and loads without any real method to the madness. It all works. I personally have a simple system that works kind of like a board game. We put a passenger train in slow "orbit" around the layout. It has absolute priority over all other trains. Each operator then picks a card from a deck telling him which loco to use (a crew assignment), and a second card from a second deck telling him which cars to pick up and deliver to which locations. All of these "secondary" move have to be accomplished (including clearing the major and realigning turnouts, if necessary), without interfering with the passenger train. Anyone who has to hit the "emergency stop" button to avoid a collision owes the other operators a beverage, and anyone who actually has a collision does dishes for the next 3 nights. It's simple, easy to manage, and lots of fun.

Give some thought to how you will operate turnouts. You can build a control panel to operate them all remotely, throw them all by hand, or have them operated from a controller at the edge of the layout, close to the turnout. Or any combination. Since you will have multiple operators, choose a method that doesn't have all of you fighting for access to one panel (unless one operator will be a "dispatcher" who does little else).


----------



## mesenteria (Oct 29, 2015)

I didn't see that it's on casters, but my observation still stands if the layout is going to be left in the corner, as your text suggests. While some contend that a 30" reach is within the limits of most operators, my experience and reading of other comments tells me what it isn't a good rule of thumb. For one thing, if the layout's surface is above navel height, you'll find it difficult to keep your elbows, chest, and/or belly away from items between you and whatever you're attempting to reach. So, height is a factor in addition to the distance into the layout one must reach. My understanding is that between 24 and 26 inches is about what most can manage without having to drag a foot stool over to get added height. But this is all moot if one has to reach into a cornered layout surface with depths approaching 48 and beyond....which this will entail.


----------



## traction fan (Oct 5, 2014)

aaron_roch said:


> Hi all,
> Stumbled across this forum and the community here seems unusually nice, and you are also patient with beginners. Both really great attributes for a forum!
> 
> *Background*: _I got a bunch of old Hornby-Dublo OO trains & scratchbuilt structures from my great uncle when I was a kid. New home, finally a dry basement, my 11-year old kid wants to pull out the trains. Cool! I'm on board (haha). I'm mainly interested in learning to "operate" them with a friend, my kid Josie's main interest is in creating fun scenes. I'm the better planner, they are the better artist, so this should work well. I know that realistically I'll be doing 80% of the work on this layout and I'm fine with that._
> ...


Arron;

Your plan will work as is, but there are many improvements I would suggest. You, and your son, get to decide whether or not to consider them "improvements!" 😄 Many of my suggestions may not be things that you want, and they may sound critical of your own ideas. Just bear in mind, any criticism I may make is intended as constructive criticism, and you did ask.

I don't know the actual scale of your diagram, but it looks like your back track is too close to the edge of the table. It looks like a train could easily fall off the edge, which usually results in serious damage. There are two things you can do to prevent that. One is to move that back track in considerably, perhaps by continuing the two 21" curves in a bit further then inserting a bit of straight track and connecting those two straight sections with a curve. Flex track is great for this sort of thing.
Or you could build some sort of safety wall along the edge to stop the train from falling off. When you roll the table out any train back there may well fall off, simply from the motion of the table.

You also have your oval's long, straight, sides dead parallel to the edges of the table. Nothing terribly wrong about that, but it does make your railroad look a lot like a thousand other beginner's layouts. You might consider rotating the oval a little bit counter-clockwise. This breaks up the monotony a little and provides some more interestingly shaped spaces for scenery or structures. This trick will only work if you increase the table's width to 4'-6" or 5' as you originally planned.

One big scenic improvement would be to build a double-sided backdrop down the center of your oval. This breaks up the layout into two separate scenes. I think since you have stations on both sides, the scenes would be two separate towns. But, without a backdrop, range of hills, or other "view block ", both scenes are visible at once, and thus, become one bigger scene, a single town with two separate railroad stations.
The lack of such a view block also makes it all-too-obvious that the train is simply chasing its own tail round-and -round in circles.

The casters with toe brakes are a good idea, but there is another way to get to both sides of your layout, without moving it out of the corner. This idea comes straight from John Armstrong's excellent book, "Track Planning for Realistic Operation." Armstrong suggested cutting both corners at off one end of a 4' x 8' piece of plywood at 45 degree angles. Doing this leaves that altered end of the table as a 90 degree point sticking out at 45 degrees to either of the long sides of the table.
He set this 90 degree point into the corner of the room, right up against the two walls that formed the corner. The two cut off pieces were added to the other end of the 4 x 8 , converting that end to a point, and thereby keeping the same overall table area as he started with. The table jutted our at 45 degrees to the corner of the room, and left enough space along either side to reach in as needed, without moving the table at all. One thing I would add would be to round off that outside projecting corner, for safety. Nobody want to run into a sharp point. If you have the room, the same idea would work wit your 12' x 4' table, or even with a 12' x 5' table.

In the real world a stream or river big enough to form a waterfall would not run into a small pond. Some large lakes do have this sort of influx of water, but even those often have an outlet for the water at the other end. Since railroad tracks don't go directly under waterfalls except at Disneyland, I'm guessing you are going to build some sort of hill with a railroad tunnel under it, and water falling off one side. That's still a little unrealistic, but better than going directly under the waterfall. Streams, rivers, and roads are often problems on model railroads because we simply don't have room for them. Probably the best looking approach is to hide the source of the stream at one end, and have it continue "beyond the modeled area. " (off the edge of the table)

Beware of 'S' curves. I don't know what brand of turnouts you plan on using. On the diagram, they look like they might be Atlas "Snap Switch" turnouts. If they are, be aware of two points.
One, they are not very good turnouts in general.
Two, they have a unique geometry, with one straight route, and one curved route. All other model turnouts, and even Atlas's own "Custom Line" turnouts, have two straight routes and no curved route. The existence of that (sharply) curved route creates some very sharp reverse curves in crossovers and anywhere else that a train is forced from a right-hand curve directly into a left-hand curve, with no straight track in between.

The files below are some I wrote for new modelers. Look through them for ideas, if you wish.

Good Luck & Have Fun with whatever you decide to build;

Traction Fan 🙂


----------



## aaron_roch (Mar 31, 2021)

Wow, so much feedback! Thank you all!

Agree with everyone that reach is a problem. My dim memory from my youth is that trains mostly derail on switches and at entry to curves, all of those are within 2’ of an edge. The locking casters are to deal with the hopefully rare exception.

I have concerns about going the full 5 feet b/c my own testing shows that even for building the scenery 30 inches would be right at the outside limit of my reach. However, I could go 4.5 feet and get to 24 inch curves...

CTValley, your description of how you guys use your railway was awesome! I’d love to see more detail about that: have you done a post about it?

traction fan, thank you for your most detailed reply, I need to spend some time with your feedback before I can comment... thank you for giving me so much to work with! I will say I had planned on a backboard, and Peco turnouts... medium (30 in rad) on the mainline, small (24”) on the yard & sidings.


----------



## aaron_roch (Mar 31, 2021)

Ok, so more thoughts.

Thank you again for everyone who has chimed in so far. I think the "longest train" length just got shortened by a car. The layout is just too small to run 4 long passenger cars. That's okay- we're in theory modeling a branch line through Cheddar, England (the 'Strawberry line'), so probably 2 cars is realistic, 3 would be a holiday train. (I don't know what Great Uncle Collie modeled, and I only dimly remember his layout from when I was 8, but he was from England and one of his switch tower buildings had "Cheddar" on the side, which we looked up, and ... well you can see where this went.)

Overall I know I'm facing the same problem as so many hopeful modelers with limited space: bottom line, putting the long edge of a table layout against a wall is a problem. I'm going to move forward with it for the same reasons others do: Ultimately, this is something for my kid and I to do together, they won't tolerate a point-to-point layout, and none of us want to give up any more space in the basement to trains. I would not carve out the time for it if the layout was just for me.

The Yard:
Putting the yard in the middle makes sense but would require ditching at least 2 of Josie's wish-list items, and I'm not going to do that. So we will live with a too-short yard. Would curving one of the yard tracks around in parallel to the main curve be a horrible idea? I don't really have any good concept of how well trains can tolerate being pushed around a 24" curve. I know, I know... test it with OUR rolling stock. But general rule-of-thumb?


Traction fan,
Thank you in particular for your feedback. I have read some of your other posts in this forum section with interest.

Distance from layout edge. I planned for 3 inches. At the rear of the layout, this would be buffered by a scenic backdrop- I've become convinced by this thread that I should put up a small wall until we get the backdrop- thank you.

Long straight section at back- I figured this would be boring, have been toying with the idea of putting in gentle curves and/or some low hills in front to break up the scene.

Layout diagonally into the corner: I'm familiar with the suggestion and have never understood the virtue of it: my limitation isn't buying plywood, it is space, and if I had enough space to do that, I'd have enough space to run a 24" aisle between the wall and the layout.

Stream: yeah, it just isn't going to be realistic- no room. Our current thinking is to have the waterfall in the top right corner, coming from "offstage", waterfall just a few inches in from the edge of the layout and running into a stream. The track would go over the stream via a low bridge.

S curves: This is a real concern for me. The turnouts will be Peco, which have a geometry similar to Atlas snap switches although with larger radius curves and of course they are much higher quality than the snap switches. (a dozen 50-year old snap switches just went into the garbage can.) The mainline switches will be their "medium" size, which have a 30 inch radius on the diverging line. I've seen many folks put two Peco turnouts back-to-back like this so I've simply been crossing my fingers that it works, especially with the medium size.

Thank you again, lots to think about.

-Aaron


----------



## CTValleyRR (Jul 26, 2014)

aaron_roch said:


> Putting the yard in the middle makes sense but would require ditching at least 2 of Josie's wish-list items, and I'm not going to do that. So we will live with a too-short yard. Would curving one of the yard tracks around in parallel to the main curve be a horrible idea? I don't really have any good concept of how well trains can tolerate being pushed around a 24" curve. I know, I know... test it with OUR rolling stock. But general rule-of-thumb?
> 
> S curves: This is a real concern for me. The turnouts will be Peco, which have a geometry similar to Atlas snap switches although with larger radius curves and of course they are much higher quality than the snap switches. (a dozen 50-year old snap switches just went into the garbage can.) The mainline switches will be their "medium" size, which have a 30 inch radius on the diverging line. I've seen many folks put two Peco turnouts back-to-back like this so I've simply been crossing my fingers that it works, especially with the medium size.


So, while mesenteria 's comment on thumb rules is well founded, at 6'1" height and a layout height of 48", I have no trouble with 30" reach. And as you observe it should be infrequent.

I'll give you another thumb rule for car length and curve radius:
Absolute minimum: 2.5x car length
3x car length to minimize overhang INSIDE the curve
4x car length to minimize overhang OUTSIDE the curve (corners of the car). This applies to realistically close coupling of passenger cars as well
5x car length to minimize operational issues (coupling on curves) and for best appearance.
As always, actual tests with actual equipment is a better guide.

For the Pecos, I don't consider myself an expert on all things Peco, but to the best of my knowledge, Peco does not make turnouts with a curved diverging route similar to Snap Switches (which are junk, and you have sent yours to the proper location!). Two back to back Pecos should work fine without any S curves involved, but you may need an additional short section of straight track between the abutting legs to get acceptable horizontal separation between your parallel tracks.


----------



## traction fan (Oct 5, 2014)

aaron_roch said:


> Wow, so much feedback! Thank you all!
> 
> Agree with everyone that reach is a problem. My dim memory from my youth is that trains mostly derail on switches and at entry to curves, all of those are within 2’ of an edge. The locking casters are to deal with the hopefully rare exception.
> 
> ...


aaron;

The prototype uses gentler turnouts with higher frog numbers on the main line and sharper, lower frog number turnouts in some yards and on some sidings. However, I believe the use of turnouts on a model railroad should be different. The frog numbers on real turnouts are up in the twenties, or higher. They are very much gentler than any model turnout. They "cheat" by having lots more room for their railroad than we can ever have for our model ones. The prototype's turnouts are also rated for certain speeds. The trains on a main line are going a good deal faster than a switcher & a few cars will in a yard. There are speed limits on a railroad, just like streets & highways. The speed limit in a yard is very low.

In the model world, there are other factors to consider. Our turnouts, all of them, are much sharper than real ones. Our locomotives & cars are much lighter, even allowing for the difference in size. Yard tracks and sidings are where we push cars as often as we pull them. Pushing a string of model railroad cars is one of the most difficult things we ever expect our model trains to do. We often do this across a string of turnouts at the entrance of a yard. This is the most likely derailment site on any model railroad. It is worth the effort to make the train's path through the "yard ladder" (that string of turnouts) as straight, simple, and reliable as possible. To me, that includes using the highest frog number turnouts as you can fit in the yard ladder, and having trains make only one turn, in one direction, to get into each yard track.
On a practical level, all the turnouts on a model railroad should be as gentle as possible, and that often means using the same frog # turnout everywhere. One exception would be crossovers. This is another inherently difficult track arrangement . The train must negotiate a form of " 'S' curve." If those Atlas Snap Switches are used, the 'S' curve will be actual, since the two opposite direction curves feed right into each other.
With any other model turnout, the two diverging tracks will be straight, not curved. Then it becomes a mater of lining up as straight a route as possible between the two frogs, while maintaining the spacing between the two parallel tracks. One trick I use is to lay a steel straightedge (a scale ruler) tight along the side of one turnouts fog, on the diverging route side. I then bring the other turnout in along the other main track, until the diverging route side of ITs frog is aligned with the straightedge. Any space left between the two turnouts I fill with straight track. Thus, I end up with a dead straight track through the crossover route.
The photo below shows a crossover I built for my own layout. The two turnouts in the actual crossover are # 8s. They are long enough that only about half of one of the # 8s is in the photo. The other turnout, on the lower right, is a # 5. You can see the difference in length, and in the sharpness of the parting of the two routes.

You chose an excellent turnout in Peco. I suggest using their "medium" turnouts in your yard & sidings, as well as on your main line. For a crossover, If you have the room, then the Peco "large" would be ideal, but the medium will do.
I did not know the equivalent radii for Peco turnouts. If even their "small" turnout is equivalent to a 24" radius then they must be pretty gentle. I model in N-scale and scratchbuild most of my turnouts. I do have a few Peco insulfrogs, and they seem to be roughly equivalent to a 19" radius curve, which is pretty gentle for N-scale.

Where did you plan on mounting your backdrop, somewhere between the two stations?

Good Luck & Have Fun

Traction Fan 🙂


----------



## aaron_roch (Mar 31, 2021)

Thanks Traction Fan!
I’m beginning to understand why folks go with N scale. 

Yes, Peco turnouts really do have a curved diverging leg. Sounds like you have medium turnouts, 18” radius in N scale (code 80 and 55 both), 14 degree frog I just checked again and the Streamline Smalls in HO/OO code 100 are really 24”, and the Mediums are actually 36”. All have the same 12 degree frog angle.

A few weeks ago I read that the San Fran club recently decided to rip out every turnout on both their layouts and standardize on one type. So they tested something like 9 different brands, multiple sizes of each. As a result of that testing, they decided to go with Peco small turnouts everywhere. :-0

Ah, if only Great Uncle Collie had modeled in ‘N’ scale... of course he started in the late ‘50s, so that would have been a pretty rare bird back then. Yes, many of our trains and structures are well over 50 years old, most of the locos are almost 60. (!). Josie willbe the third generation running them. Heirloom train set.


----------



## traction fan (Oct 5, 2014)

aaron_roch said:


> Thanks Traction Fan!
> I’m beginning to understand why folks go with N scale.
> 
> Yes, Peco turnouts really do have a curved diverging leg. Sounds like you have medium turnouts, 18” radius in N scale (code 80 and 55 both), 14 degree frog I just checked again and the Streamline Smalls in HO/OO code 100 are really 24”, and the Mediums are actually 36”. All have the same 12 degree frog angle.
> ...


arron;

Yes N-scale does fit a lot more easily into tight spaces. 😊 

I went out to the garage to look at some of my Peco turnouts, and by golly, you are quite correct, the diverging route is curved. I have a couple of mediums, I think, and several smalls. The small one's rails line up perfectly with a section of 19" radius Atlas track. The mediums have a much wider radius. Where are you getting all your information on Peco turnouts, a website I suppose. For a long time I have been lumping Peco in with Micro Engineering and Shinohara, and just plain assuming they all had straight diverging routes. I was wrong. I had heard that Peco used the same frog in their small, medium, & large turnouts, strange. Oh well, I guess you Brits do things differently over there.😄
Peco has enjoyed a reputation for reliability, and virtually no derailments for many years. The N-track modular organization discourages putting turnouts in any of their three main lines, but if you do, they specify Peco turnouts. Thanks for the info on Peco.

Traction Fan 🙂


----------



## aaron_roch (Mar 31, 2021)

Anytime, happy to help. Peco's website has all the info, but not in one place. I found this chart of Peco turnouts helpful... it is from a club in England (weirdly, they model US & Canadian trains), I spot-checked some of the info against Peco's website and it's accurate:


http://caldernorthern.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/pecoturnoutdimensions.pdf


Some of their new Code 83 stuff is really exciting, like turnouts without hinges in the points!

I'm actually in New York, by the way, the only thing British here is our inherited trains and the British modeling magazines I've started getting.


----------



## mesenteria (Oct 29, 2015)

aaron_roch said:


> ... So we will live with a too-short yard. Would curving one of the yard tracks around in parallel to the main curve be a horrible idea? I don't really have any good concept of how well trains can tolerate being pushed around a 24" curve. I know, I know... test it with OUR rolling stock. But general rule-of-thumb?
> 
> 
> ...
> ...


If your layout is going capable of being moved, can it be moved far enough out of the corner so that a flip-up extension to the yard can be used? If you use cabinet hinges, properly placed, you could simply lift the yard 'flap' up, swing down a supporting leg or two, and have another couple of fee to play with. When play time is over and the layout must be shoved back into the corner, fold up the legs, fold down the 'flap', and do the shoving.


----------



## traction fan (Oct 5, 2014)

aaron_roch said:


> Anytime, happy to help. Peco's website has all the info, but not in one place. I found this chart of Peco turnouts helpful... it is from a club in England (weirdly, they model US & Canadian trains), I spot-checked some of the info against Peco's website and it's accurate:
> 
> 
> http://caldernorthern.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/pecoturnoutdimensions.pdf
> ...


arron;

The chart in your link says its from the "Railway modeler club of Queensland." Isn't Queensland in Australia, rather than England? Or maybe they have a Queensland in England too, like the city of Rochester in England. I grew up in Rochester, New York , and there is a Rochester, Minnesota, and a third one somewhere else in the U.S. I think.

I make my own N-scale, code 55, turnouts without hinges. If you use a reasonably powerful switch machine, the hinged points aren't needed. The Atlas twin-coil machine is so weak that it needs rivet "hinges" at both ends of the point rails just to function at all. Prototype turnouts don't have hinges either. I have heard of British modelers who model North American prototypes. I've also met some visiting Australian modelers who did the same. There are also some American modelers who prefer to model foreign prototypes. MichaelE, on this forum, has a beautiful layout based on German and Swiss railways.

Traction Fan 🙂


----------



## deedub35 (Jan 29, 2014)

traction fan said:


> On a practical level, all the turnouts on a model railroad should be as gentle as possible, and that often means using the same frog # turnout everywhere. One exception would be crossovers. This is another inherently difficult track arrangement . The train must negotiate a form of " 'S' curve." If those Atlas Snap Switches are used, the 'S' curve will be actual, since the two opposite direction curves feed right into each other.
> With any other model turnout, the two diverging tracks will be straight, not curved. Then it becomes a mater of lining up as straight a route as possible between the two frogs, while maintaining the spacing between the two parallel tracks. One trick I use is to lay a steel straightedge (a scale ruler) tight along the side of one turnouts fog, on the diverging route side. I then bring the other turnout in along the other main track, until the diverging route side of ITs frog is aligned with the straightedge. Any space left between the two turnouts I fill with straight track. Thus, I end up with a dead straight track through the crossover route.


I use the "dreaded" Atlas Snap Switches on my layout. Here is one of several crossovers on my layout created with back-to-back Snap Switches. 

From my personal opinion I don't think the s-curve is as severe as some people think. I can send my trains full bore through them and not have them derail. 

There has to be some curvature in the divergent rails for them to angle away from the through rails. Keep in mind I have spent a lot of time laying track to perfection making sure that the rail heads are perfectly level and have shimmed the guard rails. Derails at turnouts on my layout are caused by user error.

I do agree that the Atlas Snap Switches are towards the bottom in terms of build quality - there are better out there like the Peco for sure.


----------



## traction fan (Oct 5, 2014)

deedub35 said:


> I use the "dreaded" Atlas Snap Switches on my layout. Here is one of several crossovers on my layout created with back-to-back Snap Switches.
> 
> From my personal opinion I don't think the s-curve is as severe as some people think. I can send my trains full bore through them and not have them derail.
> 
> ...


 deedub35;
To each his own; both choice and opinion. You are correct that a modified Atlas Snap Switch turnout, (with the shims added to the flangeways) is actually quite reliable.
I agree that its not as well made as a Peco or Micro Engineering or Walthers / Shinohara. However, I disagree with the idea that "There has to be some curvature in the divergent rails for them to angle away from the through rails." No, there doesn't. It is perfectly possible, indeed easy, to angle two straight lines. Micro Engineering's turnouts are made this way. The strait edge on the two frogs of your crossover is great, but both the running rails, and the guard rails, can, and should, in my opinion, follow the scale ruler dead parallel to it.

I never argue with success though. If this track arrangement works well for you, that's great. 
Personally, if I were still using Atlas turnouts, I would have taken advantage of their curved route by incorporating it into the curve shown just beyond the crossover in your photo. That would avoid the double reverse curve in the present arrangement. As it stands, a train approaching from the bottom of the photo takes the crossover route and encounters in rapid sequence, the sharp right curve of the first turnout, followed immediately by the sharp left curve of the second turnout, and then another sharp right curve in the next piece of track. 
However, its your railroad, and if you're satisfied with how it works, that's all that matters. 
By the way, I don't "dread" Atlas Snap Switches. I just don't use them anymore. I even wrote a file on how to improve them which includes the same shims you have added to yours. 

Keep on having fun however you choose;

Traction Fan 🙂


----------



## mesenteria (Oct 29, 2015)

deedub35 said:


> ...
> 
> There has to be some curvature in the divergent rails for them to angle away from the through rails. Keep in mind I have spent a lot of time laying track to perfection making sure that the rail heads are perfectly level and have shimmed the guard rails. Derails at turnouts on my layout are caused by user error.


I agree, there must be some curvature, however slight, for a diverging route. How each manufacturer handles this is, of course, different. On the prototype, the points and closure rails approximate a cubic spiral until the frog, at which the diverging route is tangent until it must not be once again...usually entering another turnout or forming a curve to run parallel to the track just left. This is the typical geometry in N. America. Europe and UK are obviously different with curved routes through the frog.

In both worlds, abrupt diversions mean slow order movement on pain of expensive damage. For high speed rail, using frog numbers in excess of #25, that oh-so-important cubic spiral approximation becomes very important. Not that the points are curved noticeably, and they tend not to be for the first 15 feet or more, but they must curve eventually to get the rolling stock oriented to the frog point which is some 4.5 feet away from the through stock rail.


----------



## traction fan (Oct 5, 2014)

mesenteria said:


> I agree, there must be some curvature, however slight, for a diverging route. How each manufacturer handles this is, of course, different. On the prototype, the points and closure rails approximate a cubic spiral until the frog, at which the diverging route is tangent until it must not be once again...usually entering another turnout or forming a curve to run parallel to the track just left. This is the typical geometry in N. America. Europe and UK are obviously different with curved routes through the frog.
> 
> In both worlds, abrupt diversions mean slow order movement on pain of expensive damage. For high speed rail, using frog numbers in excess of #25, that oh-so-important cubic spiral approximation becomes very important. Not that the points are curved noticeably, and they tend not to be for the first 15 feet or more, but they must curve eventually to get the rolling stock oriented to the frog point which is some 4.5 feet away from the through stock rail.


mesenteria & deedub35;

OK, I'm going to concede a bit on this one. I went out and checked a Micro Engineering turnout with a strait edge, and yes there is a very slight curve in the center portion of the point, and closure rails, of the diverging route. I also checked my own scratchbuilt crossover and its diverging, (crossing over) route is very straight. Not terribly surprising, since it was laid out with a strait edge. However, there is some very slight curve in the point rail of the diverging route. My other scratchbuilt turnout, in the lower right of my photo, has an obvious curve in the it's diverging route. From the points right on through the exit portion. This is because I copy the geometry of (gasp, horror) the Atlas N-scale Snap Switch! The N-scale version has a broad (for N-scale) 19" radius diverging curve. Since I make them from scratch, I make a point of not including any of the other problems designed and built into the Atlas Snap Switch.
Mine are virtually all-metal, with all PC ties, and an all-metal, isolated frog. There are no hinged point rails, they just bend to select the route. Having the curved diverging route is not a problem for most of my turnouts, but I don't make it curve in crossovers, or any other location where it might create a reverse curve. Making my own also lets me fit the turnout or crossing to fit the location, a great advantage over trying to shoehorn commercial track products into an odd situation.

Traction Fan


----------



## deedub35 (Jan 29, 2014)

traction fan said:


> However, I disagree with the idea that "There has to be some curvature in the divergent rails for them to angle away from the through rails." No, there doesn't. It is perfectly possible, indeed easy, to angle two straight lines. Micro Engineering's turnouts are made this way. The strait edge on the two frogs of your crossover is great, but both the running rails, and the guard rails, can, and should, in my opinion, follow the scale ruler dead parallel to it.


I'm not going to beat a dead horse here. This will be my last post on this so you will have the final say when you reply. These are pictures of peco and ME turnouts. As stipulated, without dispute, they are of the highest quality and reliability.

The point I'm trying to make is that there is a slight curve in the stock rail as it moves from the blue line to the red line. There has to be or there would be a kink.

The closure rail (although in the open position) appears to have a very slight curve.


----------



## CTValleyRR (Jul 26, 2014)

I think we're saying the same thing about curvature. There has to be some curve in the rails to avoid an abrupt change of direction, although technically that curve occurs before the rails actually become the diverging route. The diverging route (to the right of the frog in the bottom photo, or above it in the top one) is straight in a prototypically accurate turnout. The rails curve, the diverging leg does not.


----------



## traction fan (Oct 5, 2014)

CTValleyRR said:


> I think we're saying the same thing about curvature. There has to be some curve in the rails to avoid an abrupt change of direction, although technically that curve occurs before the rails actually become the diverging route. The diverging route (to the right of the frog in the bottom photo, or above it in the top one) is straight in a prototypically accurate turnout. The rails
> 
> What CTValley said.
> 
> ...


----------



## aaron_roch (Mar 31, 2021)

MichaelE said:


> put the yard in the center starting at the left (or right) coming off of the curve. Eliminate that trackage on the inside at the left and use a feeder off of the yard to get into the industrial area. Angle the yard from lower left to upper right and use the space to the lower right for your industry.
> 
> OO is larger than HO and with a tight radius it's going to look very toy-like coming around those 21" curves.


I'm seriously reconsidering the yard in the center idea. Thank you for posting it.



mesenteria said:


> If your layout is going capable of being moved, can it be moved far enough out of the corner so that a flip-up extension to the yard can be used? If you use cabinet hinges, properly placed, you could simply lift the yard 'flap' up, swing down a supporting leg or two, and have another couple of fee to play with. When play time is over and the layout must be shoved back into the corner, fold up the legs, fold down the 'flap', and do the shoving.


This has merit. At a minimum it is a viable plan for a future extension... which gives me some peace of mind that I'm not irretrievably backing myself into a metaphorical corner by pushing my layout into a literal one.
Thank you.


----------



## aaron_roch (Mar 31, 2021)

Traction Fan,



traction fan said:


> arron;
> I grew up in Rochester, New York , and there is a Rochester, Minnesota, and a third one somewhere else in the U.S. I think.
> 
> Traction Fan 🙂


Hang on, I'M in Rochester, NY!!!


----------



## cfurnari (Aug 2, 2020)

uh oh.... and I've been to Rochester, MN...


----------



## Chops124 (Dec 23, 2015)

traction fan said:


> aaron;
> 
> The prototype uses gentler turnouts with higher frog numbers on the main line and sharper, lower frog number turnouts in some yards and on some sidings. However, I believe the use of turnouts on a model railroad should be different. The frog numbers on real turnouts are up in the twenties, or higher. They are very much gentler than any model turnout. They "cheat" by having lots more room for their railroad than we can ever have for our model ones. The prototype's turnouts are also rated for certain speeds. The trains on a main line are going a good deal faster than a switcher & a few cars will in a yard. There are speed limits on a railroad, just like streets & highways. The speed limit in a yard is very low.
> 
> ...


----------



## CTValleyRR (Jul 26, 2014)

OK, I give up. Why reopen a 4 month old discussion with nothing more than a quote of a previous post?


----------

