That was a point I brought up in another subject thread I started on curved turnouts before I discovered this one today,…how do these ‘exacting’ trackplan softwares deal with nuances of curved turnouts,…(perhaps they are not so exact in some cases?).
I’ll have to have a look back thru these discussions at a later date. Appears to be a really educated discussion of the subject, but a little above my pay grade at this time (above my understanding).
Best they can do is match whatever the manufacturer says the specifications are. If the manufacturers misstate their dimensions, well… but they generally aren’t off by a huge amount, which means if you don’t try to squeeze in ever last fraction of inch, the plan will still fit as drawn in the CAD program.
–Randy
I’ve found (as well as others) that these ‘mis-stated curve radii’ by the manufacturers are sometimes CONSIDERABLE different than real life.
And as GregC has mentioned somewhere on one of these discussions of curved turnouts, the placement of these turnouts is MORE CRICTIAL than the placement of ordinary turnouts due to their double curves whose connections with other tracks can be thrown off considerable from drawing phase/computer design verses actual model layout real life (I think I said that somewhat correctly?,…I could not find his quote).
Yes, I am trying to cram a lot of trackage into my freight yard/ladder design, but don’t real railroads attempt to do the same?
The thing the CAD can do is make sure the tracks extending off any of the turnout legs matches the radius, instead of possibly being kinked or not exactly matchng because the sectional track piece is 18" radius and the turnout is 18.4" radius.
Frankly, if I couldn;t get accurate dimensions of certain brands of track peices, I wouldn’t use them, and go for an alternative method, such as a pinwheel ladder made with Atlas #4, which are really a 4.5 frog, ok for switchers and smaller cars. If I had to make my yard that compact, I’d forget all ideas of long cars.
–Randy