Ok....what would the mininum diameter curves be for example:
40' Box car(body mount couplers)
50' Box car(same)
18" Passenger Car(same)
GP's/F units (same)
SD40(same)
I just would like to know if I can go lower than 072(060)with my new track plan. Only have a space 12'x 17' around the wall layout to work with. Just need to know if I would be wasting time and money converting all to Kadee's. al

I would say 054 for freight cars with body mounts.

I run 21" passenger cars with body mounts around 072's with a couple of catches. As long as they are all 21" cars they'll negotiate it with no problem going forward provided the entrance and exit have an easement. Backing up can be done but you are prone to derailments. The other problem is if you factor in some shorter baggage cars. The longer cars tend to push them off the rails. Adding a short piece of brass stock to allow the coupler to pivot on the lead longer car seems to solve the issue.

As far as engines. I've only converted one. I removed the stock electrocoupler and replaced it with some brass stock to mount the Kadee. Easy to do and should work on any engine including diesels. It will pivot with the truck and will still move side to side in the coupler box. So you shouldn't be losing anything radius wise. Can't comment on fixed body mounts. Didn't want to drill holes and experiment with my steamers so I went this route.

Below is a pic of the truck and coupler mount from a Mohawk.



Doubleheading with Kadee's. Engines track well even closely coupled.

As mentioned above, the problem comes when you have cars of significantly dissimilar length going through a sharp curve without an easement. The shorter car will get yanked/pushed off center because of differences in car overhang.

Generally, multiply the wheelbase of the car (bolster to bolster length) by 3 and that's the bare minimum the car will negotiate with cars of similar length coupled to it. A factor of 4 is ideal. A typical passenger car at 21 inches long has an actual wheelbase of about 16 inches. They like 48" radius, but do better on 64" radius (O-96 and O-128, respectively.) With easements, they can handle sharper radius curves. A longer easement is better.

All of that said, a lot comes down to trial and error as some cars have offset pivots in the trucks to handle sharper curves and that affects how they'll do with body-mounted couplers.

BTW, Dave_C, nice mounting job on that coupler.

Looks like I will be OK to go as low as 060(Fastrak). I am going to have 072 as a minimum on the Mainline, however,I guess an 072 crossover between tracks might be a "No No" due to the reverse S curve.

I would suggest using Ross or Atlas numbered frog switches for your crossover, for example, the Ross 11 degree. There will be much less S-curve effect. Kadees body mounted on 60 ft cars are no problem with these.

My experience has been pretty close to what Dave and Matt describe. I have managed to pull 50 footers around O-42 curves, but for backing moves, 40 foot cars are the longest that I can push through these curves.

As far as engines with swinging pilots - no problem on O-42.

For fixed pilots, engines will act the same as freight cars of comparable length.

Just follow that rule of at least 1 car length of straight track in the middle of S-curves. And, again, check out those numbered switches for crossovers.

Jim

Jim,

Are there issues with the Ross #4 yard crossing switches, when
used at low speed in a yard, of course?

I designed all my crossovers with Ross standard (11 deg) and #6
curved.

Mike

Mike,
I haven't had any experience with the #4's (#200, 204), but they should be good in a yard. Any numbered switches, #4 and up, are preferable to O-72 curved frog switches in operation. The O-72, etc. have their place when planning a switch in the middle of a continuous curve, for example, but trains just look and operate better on the numbered switches.

A crossover with #6's is excellent. I wish I had the room for these, but settled for the 11 degree (#100, 101) with smooth results.

Jim

This is my design as of now. Any thoughts on possible problems?

mikeporterinmd wrote:

quote:

This is my design as of now. Any thoughts on possible problems?

Plan looks very nice. Some potential concerns.


Track on left hand side of drawing:

The only area that I can see that I would be concerned with is the "foundation shelf, mountain covered".

How far is the track from the wall? Depending on the type of equipment you are running, you may get interference with the wall, such as with articulated steam. For safety sake, I'd stay at least 4" away from the wall from the track center. If that area is open, and you are sitting on a cement crawl space, and that is the edge, then never mind.

O84 curve to 5.5 degree Wye switch.

You have an "S" curve there that may give you fits with longer equipment, such as 89 foot flats or 80 plus foot passenger cars if you are going body mount on the couplers. If truck mounted, probably not an issue.

Out of next switch into Ross four way switch

Same concern with "S" curve.

I'd love to see your entire track plan, and would be interested in what era you are modeling.

regards,
Jerry Zeman

quote:

Originally posted by gnnpnut:
mikeporterinmd wrote:

quote:

This is my design as of now. Any thoughts on possible problems?

Plan looks very nice. Some potential concerns.

Thanks, and that's what I want to hear now, not find out later :-)

quote:

Track on left hand side of drawing:

The only area that I can see that I would be concerned with is the "foundation shelf, mountain covered".

How far is the track from the wall? Depending on the type of equipment you are running, you may get interference with the wall, such as with articulated steam. For safety sake, I'd stay at least 4" away from the wall from the track center. If that area is open, and you are sitting on a cement crawl space, and that is the edge, then never mind.

That is there to remind me to either make the layout higher than the ledge
or don't use the space. It is about 6" wide or so. So, as drawn, assuming
the track is higher than the ledge, there is 6" or so there. I might
increase this space after I decide how steep a cliff face to make.

quote:

O84 curve to 5.5 degree Wye switch.

You have an "S" curve there that may give you fits with longer equipment, such as 89 foot flats or 80 plus foot passenger cars if you are going body mount on the couplers. If truck mounted, probably not an issue.

Out of next switch into Ross four way switch

Same concern with "S" curve.

I think I fixed this. I had to go to a #4 into the yard. I have the
four way down stairs, I'll take some long cars and some track and
verify that these lengths work. After removing the Y, the extra
piece of track didn't see to be worth it. It was only 8' or so - not
long enough to hold much of train, and it would have been expensive
to add, so I deleted it for now. I prefer body mount couplers.

quote:

I'd love to see your entire track plan, and would be interested in what era you are modeling.

regards,
Jerry Zeman

Well, that's it for now. I still need to leave much of room open as
I have a young daughter and my wife wants to keep the exercise
equipment in there. I keep thinking about a second layer, but this is
also my first layout. I'm not sure how complex I want to get. Given
the amount of custom curves this has, it should keep me busy for a while.
Perhaps I wasn't clear, but this is an around-the-room layout. There
is no way to make the box bigger without spending major money.

As for the area: I live in Elkton MD. The Port Deposit area fascinates
me and the run up the Susquehanna. I've followed the track via Google Earth,
and there are some neat tunnels far up river where the cliffs come too
close to the river, so they tunneled. We also have a boat, so I'll
probably make a river with model boats along the "west" wall.

There's a door at the bridge, which I forgot to show in the pic. So,
I'll keep the left side of the N wall pretty uncluttered. The North West
corner will probably be marsh. Lots of cool marshes along the river.
Horse land on the North East side? My daughter (and I) love horses, and
I promised a horse area. Per acre, Maryland has more horses than any other
state, I believe. East side will be some sort of passenger terminal/town.
The purpose of some of the switches on the South side is for an engine
run around.

I like switching, so I designed the yard. Perhaps more yard switches.
I don't know a lot about designing yards. The loop also has a reverted
loop capability, so trains can be turned around both directions, albiet
with a lot of backing. But, that's fine with me.

The yard will have an access area in the south east corner so I can
get to the track. Perhaps some industry. There is an area in
Perryville, which adjoins Port Deposit that has some switching, but
the area is blurred in Google Earth. Need to check it out.

Era? 70s-80s, mostly, which is when I grew up around trains. But, Port
Deposit hasn't changed in 50 years, so I can just swap out any cars on
streets and be into the 50s in a flash and run some steam. There is
lots of elevated track in the town, along with some small tunnels
under the track and all sorts of neat stuff. The town also floods alot.
Who knows what I'll build.

Also, for the bridge - I'll probably try something like the bridges that
cross the Susquehanna. Amtrak runs over them, and I just bought
an Amtrak Dash-8 and a few cars.

Thanks,

Mike

Nice stuff Mike,

Can you tell me what the grid scale is? looks like one square = 2 feet ? am I right?

quote:

I like switching, so I designed the yard. Perhaps more yard switches.
I don't know a lot about designing yards. The loop also has a reverted
loop capability, so trains can be turned around both directions, albiet
with a lot of backing. But, that's fine with me.

I like switching too, but something that is obvious to me is, there are no sidings for industry, commercial or passenger off the main line.

Just to you know, I run with body mounted kadees, my layout is 20 x 7 wide at one end and x 11 wide at the other. I put in crossover switches as you have (at the bottom of the grid) But I really did not need them for operation of trains - I needed a way to get my 072 min. rad. engines into the yard due to using 072/054 curved switches to lead into my yard. I am sorry that I did that now - any 054 is really a problem when it comes to fluid and solid operations. I would suggest eliminating any and all 054 curves.

Two great ways to study yards:
1. get a copy of Trains Magazine - find an older issue that has a yard special article - I think about 3 years ago - I have it somewhere... had a good yard drawing.

2. Use Google Earth and have a look at your favorite yard! If you go to Newark, NJ - just north of the airport runways you'll find a river - zoom in to the 'S' in the river - just to the north you'll find a reversing loop and yard - have a look - plan yours, like theirs.

My best to you!

quote:

Originally posted by dave5000:
Nice stuff Mike,

Can you tell me what the grid scale is? looks like one square = 2 feet ? am I right?

[QUOTE] ...
I like switching too, but something that is obvious to me is, there are no sidings for industry, commercial or passenger off the main line.
....

Yes, I used a 2' grid. It made the plan easier to read. I didn't
use detailed layout because it draws strange lines all over the
place - something to do with the easement curves. Also, I think it
is easier to spot flaws in the flow of the track when it is drawn as
a line.

Sssh...I plan to sneak sidings in later. But seriously, my daughter
owns the upper area, and I'm not sure exactly what the rest of the area will
be used for. I had a plan that had such things, and got lots of flack
for it! But, she will grow up and space will become available.

I envisioned o72/o54 switch in the plan to be used only by switchers
as a faster way to get around the yard and past some trains parked
on tracks.

One of the crossovers was envisioned as a run-around for engines at the
passenger terminal. The other allows a longer train to be reversed.

I've made a few changes - I changed the #8 curves to #6 because the curves
feeding them weren't big enough, and I added back in the extra trackage
on the top of the loop. But, I am much more mindful of the more
subtle S turns I was accidently creating. Thanks!

At 12/14x24, it is not a huge layout, particularly since I can't use
the middle area yet. But, I'm hoping it will be fun to run and that
I can create some nice scenes.

Side note: All my Kadee uncoupling magnets came today. 308, 809 and
810. I'll write about what I find works in the Kadee uncoupling thread.

And tommorow, an older PS/1 Amtrak Dash-8 comes. Hope to convert to
PS/2.0.

Mike

Yeah, OK I am all for adding in the sidings as you go... simple ones - they don't take up much space. But they sure add a lot of interesting operation to the layout. One switch and three or four feet of track is all you need to spot a few cars.

as for the 054, I understand what you want to do with it, but be aware that many of the longer cars will have issues going though that switch if they have body mounted couplers. And get this... the Atlas 4427's have brake detail parts just behind the trucks. When I go through 054 with them, they rub and some of those detail parts fall off! I truly am bummed that I used 054. I just wanted to stress that in a friendly manner, because at this phase you can still make changes.

I do hope you will be able to use all the space you want to! Good luck with that!

I designed my layout so that every part of the track is easily reachable without leaning or stretching too far over the layout. Hope you can easily reach your yard!

I did some playing around with the three rail magnets, 809's I think? But got sidetracked by a club project.

oh well - someday I'll get back on that! lol...
I look forward to more planning updates!
cheers

Well, before I added the 072/054, that line of track just ended. So,
if it doesn't work, I'll just not use it, or build some kind "broken
track" scenery over it, whatever. It is not central to the design.
Other than the #4 entry, the rest of the yard is #5, and hopefully S
free.

On edit: I was able to get this turned into a #6 curved: no more o54!

I've been thinking a lot about physical yard access. There will
certainly be an access at the bottom most portion of the yard for the
operator to access the track. I shifted the main 4-way a degree or
two last night which makes the area bigger, plus it shifts the
other switches a little closer to the front. It is certainly something
I am planning for.

After playing with the 308 (?) 808 and 809 magnets, I'm convinced
permanent magnets are not the way to go. Accidental uncoupling is
the likely result.

The 810, an electro-magnet, looks interesting. It can't be used in
three rail as designed, but I'm hoping to be able to cut Gargraves
ties and slide in the unit. The end result I'll be looking for
is two thin, dark pieces of metal showing between the ties and
thats all. I'll have to slide the ties down, cut the bottom of
the middle rail out, slide the ties back, make my cuts, mount the
magnet and then glue in the center pieces of tie. Since the middle
rail will need to be cut on the bottom so the magnet can be placed
high enough, the middle portion of the ties can't attach to the
middle rail.

Fortunately, I have extensive woodworking experience and have
some really nice, fine Japanese saws, chisels, etc. Looking
forward to messing with it.

Mike

This message has been edited. Last edited by: mikeporterinmd,

Hi Mike,

On the lower right side of your drawing, you have 2 crossovers, with #5 switches. I suggest that you move them close to the curve on the right side of the drawing. The switches can be swapped for left hand switches can be swaped for right hand switches, so that the curved part of the switch, can be part of the existing curve. This eliminates the S curve completely.

I have experimented with 0-72 curves and K-line 21 inch passenger cars with body mount Kadees. Even with one of the passenger cars coupled to a short tender, there were no problems. I have not experimented with 89' flats, because I have none, to experiment with.

Thanks Lisa Marie, I see what you mean. Particularly the bottom
cross over set is an S.

I'm preparing a new drawing, will be up soon.

Mike

Your track plan is fine but if you intend to operate the yard I would re-work it so that you had a longer throat lead into the yard. If you intend to operate with some realism using two people..one running the main line and the other strictly yard operations then this area needs a re-work.

Can you enlarge your trains surface by taking some of the kids area. Maybe you just want a storage area and are not interested in operation, well that's OK too.

That size of layout would also look good with an engine facility . Take your time with a track plan and get it right the first time..Good Luck...

quote:

Originally posted by Stan Windrim:
Can you enlarge your trains surface by taking some of the kids area. Maybe you just want a storage area and are not interested in operation, well that's OK too.

I mentioned this to my daughter, got a glare, and she told me I was cruel :-)
"And that means NO".

I'll keep playing with it. A friend that runs HO has lots of experience
with track design. We're going to work on it...

Next iteration:




Thanks,

Mike

This message has been edited. Last edited by: mikeporterinmd,