I was messing with my track yesterday trying to get an idea on space requirements, and found something that puzzles me..... You have a mainline, with 2 switches (one directly after the other) that go off in the same direction.... #6's in my case.... I want 2 tracks to come off these switches and curve to 90 degrees to the mainline direction. I found that if you match the curve from the turnout, the track seperation on these 2 is pretty huge. Even if you run the first track fairly straight so it closes up on the second, there is some considerable distance covered before the track seperation is acceptable. I'm building a docks / teamtracks / industry area with multiple double track spurs and want these 2 tracks to a) be as close together as possible, b) attain at least 60 degrees of turn as soon as possible, and c) do it all in no space at all! How do others achieve the right seperation in minimum track space in these situations? Would going to #4's (or tighter) be a better option? This is, obviously, an extremely low speed area, and I only use 40' cars.....
One option is to used curved turnouts. Another option is to put the turnouts further back from where you want the curve to start and parallel the track to the curve. David
You can also cut the switches back, make them shorter. Doing this you can start the curve sooner. Try it with an old switch before you cut your good ones. Mike
When you turn 90 degrees, the distance between tracks becomes the distance between the frogs of the two switches, which of course is considerable greater. This being the case, using tighter switches (#4 or Peco Setrack) will alleviate your problem. An alternative approach could be to put the second switch on the spur, not the main line. This will work well if the second switch is curved.
No curves David...The turnouts are positioned midway down a 17' straight stretch. Mike, do you mean cut them back on the straight through section of the turnout to minimise the inherent offset in the turned sections? ie, rather than the striahg tsection being 8" long, trim it back to 7" (if I can cut that much off) so the seperation between the two branches is an inch less. Seems like a grand plan! Let me check em out!
What you really need is a 3-way turnout with both the diverging tracks on the same side (I'm sure there is a name for them but I can't remember just now ). I'm sure I've seen commercial ones in years past, but otherwise you'd be into handbuilding (by yourself or one of the aces on this board).
Thats correct about cutting the switches. I am not sure what brand of switch you are using. But one thing I do is use a small drop of CC glue to reinforce the ties. This is very prototypical in yards. Railroads have often laid switch frogs almost on top of each other to conserve space. Like I said by doing this you reduce the radius length on the switch. Decreasing the angle of track leaving the switch. Since I use #8 switches on my layout including the yard I have often had to cut back switches to fit. Mike
William, yep, that would work, but at the cost of width...certainly worth considering though. A 3 way switch could be interesting... It would certainly be a sexy looking piece of track, if nothing else. Anyone know where I could get one, commercially? Great Mike.... I'll check into that. I'm using Atlas #6's, btw.
