Okay, here I am with yet another question for those much more knowledgeable about model railroading. I want to connect two parallel tracks in a yard with #5 turnouts. With the diverging legs butted end to end, that produces about a 2.75" centerline on the tracks. Is it acceptable or common practice to cut back the diverging leg to produce a tighter centerline? It appears that if I cut 1 3/16ths inch from each turnout, the end result will net me a 2.250" centerline.
Is 2.25" too close in a yard? Should I leave 2.5" between track centerlines?
I [bow] to your patience and knowledge!
ericboone, thanks for keeping me honest! It is HO scale, and I’m using Walthers/Shinohara code 83 turnouts.
Is it acceptable to cut back the diverging leg? Yes.
Is 2.25 " too close? No
Should I leave 2.5"? Actually, 2 inches is good. You could go as low as 1 13/16" but you may have difficulty getting fingers between cars if necessary.
A #5 crossover on 2.25" centers in HO should handle transition era freight stock and short locos without problems. Longer-framed equipment (modern 6-axle diesels, big passenger steam, full-length passenger cars and modern freight cars with body-mounted couplers) will NOT be happy with the S-curve characteristics.
I personally use #5 crossovers and specialwork, but all of my rolling stock is short.
Okay, I understand the perils of the masty “S” turn…but when I lay the turnouts together in the adjusted position to give me a 2.25" centerline, the distance from frog to frog is right at 8 inches long…that’s about 60 scale feet. Wouldn’t that be enough of a straight to avoid the “S” problem?
In cases like this, I revert to the master. If you check out J. Armstrong’s track planning book, he discusses the matter. In fact, he gives three scenarios, best to worst:
Best: Full car-length straight section between the turnouts. Ideal, but obviously unrealistic for a crossover
Compromise: Shortest possible distance between them. As you say above, it’s actually better to minimize the S distance if you’re going to have one
Worst: “in between”… the worst case is to have a partial-car-length straight mid-S-curve.
So while having no “S” at all is best, you’re pursuing the best path for the reality of crossover between parallel tracks. You’ll have an S, but by keeping the length of the S to a minimum, you’re better off. It’s somewhat counter-intuitive, because you’d think if a full-length straight was best, then ‘as much straight as possible’ would be the best fallback. It’s actually not.
FWIW, I have several crossovers on ~2.25" centers using #6 turnouts, and have no problem running long locos and full-length passenger cars through them. With my #6 turnouts, joining the diverging tracks “as is” gives me the right distance without snipping, though I do have to trim some ties that would otherwise interfere.
if it’s 2" of dead space between the “left” rail of one track and the “right” rail of the other - thats WAY more than enough space. you can get away with the same dimensions as HO track (2 - 2.5" between track centerlines)… the 0-5-0 switcher (your hand) doesn’t get smaller between scales… although i don’t doubt you could cut the distance between centerlines to about 1.75" or so, as N scale is roughly half the size of HO…
heres a picture of what I mean
(centerline measure)
the ------ line is the rail, and the ===== line is the centerline (ignore the *)
=========
---------|--------
*******
2.5" between centerlines
=========
(left/right measure)
the ----- line is the left side of one rail, and the _____ is the right side of the other (ignore the *)
******|
******|2.5" dead space between rails
******| |
I also have #5 turnouts in my yard, and using 2" centers with crossover.
NMRA RP-12.3 has turnout dimensions and also the straight distance from frog to frog in a crossover. They show for 2" spacing, using #5 turnouts, the straight portion of crossover track from frog to frog is only 3.625". NMRA says to add 5/8" to each 1/8" increment in track spacing. For 2" spacing and #6 turnouts, the straight portion of crossover track from frog to frog is 4.25".
So yes you will have to trim most diverging legs of commercial turnouts in creating crossovers. So much so, in my case, I trimmed Walthers turnouts to the point it cut off one of the connecting jumper wires under the turnout. My first time cutting turnouts and did not realize what I had done until it was cut. Furthermore, cutting turnout legs is tricky business. If you have the DCC compatable version, when trimming the leg isolated from the frog with a plastic joiner, you may dislodge that portion from the turnout all together. I switched from xuron cutter to cutting with dremel. That resulted in melting some ties.
In addition, it appears you have to trim out the switch rod throw legs to clear 2" spacing. Especially in yard areas where the throw legs are oriented on the opposite side you want them on. Anyone else have this problem, what do you do, trim out those legs if you use tortoise switches. I cannot see how you can flip it around without cutting the ties.
Thanks for clarifying the issue rather than just saying it wouldn’t work…in a thread that seemed to get hijacked with n scale questions.
So, to make sure I comprehend correctly, I measured the distance up the leg from the point. To end up with a 2" centerline, I would need to cut each turnout diverging leg at 1 13/16ths" from the point so the total distance from frog to frog is 3.625". Now, if I want to keep my yard tracks at 2.25" centerline, I would need to add 5/8" to the 1 13/16ths on each turnout, shifting the centerline back out to 2.25". I looked at the bottom of the turnout and noticed if I cut the turnout to create the 2" centerline, I would end up cutting the connecting jumper wire. Not wanting to get into such serious problems with my first layout, I think I’ll keep the yard a little more spacious between tracks and have an easier time with my large 0-5-0 switcher in the yard tracks.