Optimum turnout size?

[crrcoal]

I'm seriously considering going fast tracks for building my turnouts. The question I have is if you could only have one turnout size on the layout, what would be optimal? #5? #6? or #?
Will be using mostly coal hoppers and 6xle power. 

[Mark W]

I have one #8 point form tool and use it to build turnouts size #6-#10 with ease.

For 6 axles, I'd recommend #7 at least. 

[mightypurdue22]

I think it depends on the size of your layout.  My layout is 39" x 80" and #6s seems to work best for that space.  #8s Would be nice if you have a larger layout.  6s or 7s are good if you want to just use one jig to create a lot of turnouts.

Dave

[babbo_enzo]

Me too.
I've select two standard for my N scale pike: N.6 for straight/ crossovers/ slips turnouts and curved 16/11" R , code 55
For the straight turnouts I've buy the Double crossover jig that is useful also for crossovers single and double.
2 cents here
Cheers

[mmagliaro]

 I would go with the broadest turnout that would
let my trackplan fit into the available space, as long the turnouts are at least #6.  If I can't use at least #6, I would modify
the layout, even giving up trackage, to get up to at least a #6.

Why #6 as a minimum?  Because even my large rigid steam can go through a #6 without complaint, so I think it
is a safe minimum.

That sounds pretty obvious, but of course, you will start sacrificing siding length, aisle width, curve radius, and other
parameters to accomodate larger turnouts.  This is where it gets subjective.  Personally, I would not sacrifice any of those
things to get above a #6.
If I had to give up a siding, or even 2-3 car lengths of storage in a siding, to go from a #6 to a #7, I'd stick with the #6.

[MVW]

you will start sacrificing siding length, aisle width, curve radius, and other
parameters to accomodate larger turnouts.  This is where it gets subjective.  Personally, I would not sacrifice any of those
things to get above a #6.
If I had to give up a siding, or even 2-3 car lengths of storage in a siding, to go from a #6 to a #7, I'd stick with the #6.

Gotta agree with Max on that. I use #6s throughout, even though I was tempted to use #4s in the yard and industrial areas.

But, as he said, it's subjective. If you're building a layout for railfanning rather than operations, you may not give a hoot about lengthier sidings, etc. There's no denying those high-number turnouts are pretty.

Jim

[John]

I use #7s wherever possible .. no less than #5 ...   some of my crossovers are #10

[crrcoal]

Thanks for the info guys! Wish I had the space to go with 8's or 10's but 6's do seem like a good compromise.

[wcfn100]

If you're main consideration is the operation, handlayed turnouts will perform at least 4 "#s" as well as commercial turnouts.  In other words, the #6 you build will operate as well or better than an Atlas #10 (well maybe not the first one you build  ).

Jason

[mmagliaro]

Jason has a very good point.   The hand-made turnouts should work better than commercial.
My only difficulty with using the commercial Atlas #7's I use has been in
the poor tolerances.  Each one has to be tweaked and adjusted to really be in spec so that trains can
pass through with no trouble.  And even so, the frog tolerances could be much better, so that trains
could glide through with no wheel drop, as opposed to slight rock and roll and click, although they do work.

If I can push a 4-8-4 or a 4-4-4-4 T1 rigid frame through a commercial #6, you can surely run any 6-axle diesel through a well-made
hand-made #6 with no trouble.

[robert3985]

All the answers given so far are based on personal preference, not on the "numbers".   What do I mean?  Here's the simple answer for ya in determining the minimum sized turnouts on your layout and the logic behind the answer.  First, what is the minimum mainline radius going to be?  Let's say you have lots of room and you decide your minimum mainline radius is 24"...for looks sake, because every known engine or car will go through that radius easily, and look good doing it.  So...you flip over to the Fast Tracks homepage and look at their downloadable PDF files.  Why?  To see what the diverging track effective radius is on various turnouts of course.

Minimum turnout size for a mainline that has a minimum radius of 24" would be a #6, which has an effective diverging track radius of 23" (you're not going to notice that it's one inch less than your minimum radius).

To fully comply with your radius minimum, a Fast Tracks #7 has an effective diverging track radius of 27" (note that Atlas 55 RTR #7 turnouts have a much sharper diverging track radius), and that 27" radius will make your engines and cars look really nice as they roll through it.  Remember, your mainline minimum radius is a MINIMUM, and if you can, you should make as many curves as broad as you can and still retain operability.

On the opposite end of the spectrum, if you decide that you only have room for a 16" minimum mainline radius, then according the the Fast Tracks PDF's, you should still consider a #6, as the next size down, being a #5, has only a 14" effective diverging track radius (note that Atlas RTR #5 turnouts have a much sharper diverging track radius).

The logic here is that if you're going to roll your own turnouts, you can design your minimum mainline radius (and your minimum branchline/industrial radii) to fit the turnout you want to use for functionality.  Truth is, after you've built 3 to 5 turnouts using the Fast Tracks jigs and fixtures, you can probably build them off of paper templates, so you could make #5.5's or #6.7's if you wanted, with the appropriate diverging track radii.

Now...there's more to it than just functionality.  What size turnouts do the prototype railroads use?  We all think that they only use #12's or #22's or some other huge-o turnouts, but truth is, they use smaller turnouts on mainlines quite often.  For instance, for my Echo LDE (24" minimum mainline radius), which includes several sub-LDE's, the Valuation Map I found of it lists the size of the turnouts in the Echo Yard, the Coaling/Sanding/Water facilities and in the Park City Branchline Yard.  This was the heart of Big Boy Country, and many of the largest steam engines (and diesels) ever to run on the rails ran through here, including Challengers, 2-10-2's, 4-12-2's and such engines as DD40 Centennials and GTEL Super Turbines.  You'd naturally think the turnouts would be at least #12's, but the truth is the largest turnouts were #10's (on the east end).  The most turnouts were #9's.  The smallest turnouts were #7's in the Park City Branchline Yard leading to the turntable and powerhouse.

So, what did I do?  I had 24 feet to make this as close to the real trackplan as I could, but the length would be shorter than the prototype because my longest train was going to be only a Big Boy, 30 40' cars and a caboose (9', 7.5") long, and when laying it all out, I couldn't do it using #9 turnouts.  But, I could do it using #8's with a couple of #6's at one crossover by the Coaling Tower tracks.  I also went with #6's in the Park City Branch Yard instead of the prototypical #7's.  I also used #10's as much as I could where the prototype used them, particularly coming off the two mainlines into the center sidings and additional sidings where Big Boys and Challengers would run all the time.  Just for the hell of it, I also built four #12's where I didn't have information as to their actual size...because they'd LOOK good....pure cosmetics and I had room.

To sum it up, what I did was to satisfy my minimum mainline radius requirement, retain the "look" of the prototype since I had that information on my Valuation Map, and in some instances, use the same size turnouts that UP did in the prototype location I was modeling.

If I had wanted to buy Fast Tracks jigs and fixtures (I don't need them) I would have bought a #8 since that was by far the largest number of turnouts I used in that LDE and in others also.

One thing for sure, my needs are probably different than yours, so before I bought 300 bucks worth of jigs and fixtures, I'd make sure what turnouts I needed most of by designing my layout using a model railroading CAD program that will allow you plug in the exact turnouts you're thinking of using.

Mostly, it depends on how much room you have, and what type of motive power you want to run.  Long modern engines and trains demand broad curves to look good (18" radius of bigger), but will RUN okay on smaller radii, but I'd opt for a #6 as my minimum mainline turnout, with a #5 being the smallest industrial turnout switched by B-B road engines, and maybe #4's for industrial/urban areas being switched by small switchers like a GE 44 Tonner.

Here's a photo of a batch of code 55 #10 and #12 turnouts at the west end of my Echo Yard:


Here's the other end of Echo, including the Park City Branchline Yard and lead, with all of the code 40 turnouts being #6's and the code 55 turnouts being a mix of curved, #6's and #8's:


As you can see, both the big turnouts and the smaller turnouts look okay because of where they are and what their use was.

Anyway, hope this assists you in figuring out which turnout jigs and fixtures to purchase.

(NOTE) I agree that hand-laying your turnouts gives you a much better operating turnout than any RTR turnouts...especially Atlas 55's because they've shortened the length between the point of the frog and the toes of the closure points a lot...which means the diverging track radii on their #5's, #7's and #10's is much smaller than if they were built correctly proportioned.  I believe Atlas did this so their turnouts would be compatible with their sectional track dimensions, so you wouldn't have to cut and splice track to use them if you used their sectional track.  When you compare a Micro Engineering #6 (which is proportioned correctly) with an Atlas 55 #7, they're almost the same length.  The #6 should only be approximately 2/3rds the length of a correctly proportioned #7, not 9/10ths.  As an added bonus, you're going to find out your hand-laid turnouts also look a lot better, and as you get more into it, you can easily make them almost prototypical, within the limitations of the much larger than prototype N-scale flanges (height and width).

[crrcoal]

Thanks Bob! The fast tracks is a sizeable investment. Cannot afford multiple jigs so that is probably the main reason for a "optimal" turnout size. So mainline, spurs and yard would all be the same size turnout. Until the day, if ever, comes that I could handlay a turnout off of paper I will have to use the jig.

For track planning, no CAD here. 8-(  I'm on a mac so that means paper and pencil and just doing trial and error to see what fits. I have <gasp> unitrack so I can lay stuff out sort of to get an idea of how things may fit/look.

[Scottl]

I would actually suggest trying Proto87 parts first, since that gives you a hand in handmade turnouts and there is no upfront tool investment.  If you find you can do it (I did a #8 without much problem), then you can continue to use the parts and then make whatever turnout # you need.  I was faced with the same dilemma, and I am happy with the prospect of making them to fit my needs, rather than arbitrarily conforming to one jig.

I might add that I made my turnout without soldering, and it is very strong and looks great without all the tie groves, etc.  That would not have been possible with the FT jig, which is designed for soldering.

[babbo_enzo]

For track planning, no CAD here. ....
I'm on a mac so that means paper and pencil and just doing trial and error to see what fits.....

Well, not necessary!
Give you one of these Demo version and then .... decide. Average prices range from $35 to $40 ....

Empire Express :
http://www.haddonsoftware.com/

RailModeller : 
www.railmodeller.com

[soo]

Here is a Fast Tracks #6

Here is the skeleton before the throw bar has been installed. The throw bar is a HOn3 PC tie. Yeah, it's big, but you can drill a hole in it for a actuating wire for what ever switch machine you choose. They make the PC ties in different thicknesses as you go up in scales. I just made sure the PC tie was the same as the laser cut ties in thickness.


Here is a completed turnout using the laser cut tie assembly from FT. Yeah Yeah,, I know my rails are not long enough,, I can fix that on the next one. I need to think of a way to place some head block ties.


I find what makes it more time friendly is pre-forming and pre-working all parts. I have storage bins/locations for all parts from wing rails to stock rails and everything in between. Makes it quick for me to build a turnout.

Once you get a couple under your belt,, you will not need to use the fixture.

I built some not using the FT laser cut ties. I found this idea while searching an other forum. The original poster mentioned using flex track,, seeing that I was all out. I used sectional straight track.


I use Pliobond to secure the wooden ties. These ties are Micro Engineering Turnout tie. I am sure you could use other material if you wanted, such as styrene.


Adios, Wyatt