Easements on staging tracks...Necessary?

Model Railroader General Discussion (Model Railroader)
1

Hi Guys

I’m starting to do some planning and was wondering if you think it is necesarry to have easements on the curves of my staging tracks. This will be in HO and my min. radius is 24", larger if it will fit. I model SP in the late '80’s so there will be some big SD’s going around these curves.

Thanks

2

Not really necessary if it’s truly staging and not really in the “visible” portion of the layout. 24" should be adequate for most all 6-axle models out there nowadays. However, if you have the space to do it, might as well go ahead and put the easements in.

3

If you are referring to superelevation or in laymans terms banking I would say no. On model railroads they are there for apperance only and since staging tracks are usually hidden why bother.

4

Thanks for responding Dan

My question arises because I am using 3rdPlanIt to layout my staging tracks and I’m not sure if I should “connect with easements” or “connect direct”. Which leads to another question. What’s better…24" Radius with easements or 26" radius direct? This will be on track that is completely hidden. Probably doesn’t really matter.

Does it?

5

Easements and superelevation are completely different. You are correct that superelevation is not needed for staging, and is almost always only for appearance on our models.

Easements, on the other hand, might be a very good thing in staging. I would be very tempted to use them, even at the expense of a little bit of radius. A tighter curve with an easement should allow for more reliable operation than a fixed curve in the same space. So my opinion would be to use easements, with the curve that will fit in the space.

6

You are right easements are in highway design spiral curves that lead into and out of curves on high speed roads. If you use flex track doesn’t it automatically create an easement when you bend it?

7

It isn’t necessary to have easements anywhere, but think about why one uses an easement. It helps the train travel into the curve and reduces the outswing of the coupler. So the shorter the curves and the larger the equipment the more important easements are to trouble free operation.

If this is hidden track then I think it is more important to have easements there.

8

I’ll cast a ‘yes’ vote to put in easements, because they’ll lead to much smoother operation.

Have you ever read John Armstrong’s book, Track Planning For Realistic Operation? [If not, I strongly recommend it.] He devotes a few pages to the subject of curves and easements, with several diagrams. I wish I’d read it before I built my layout, oh well better late than never I guess…

9

I agree that easments, although not necessary, will allow more trouble free operation especially on equipment that may be borderline on the 24" radius.

10

Yes…well I have the book. I’ll go back and read the pages about easements.

And good point TZ. My staging will be fairly inaccesable, might as well plan to make it as trouble free as possible.

11

I read that and employed it on my last layout including staging. It reduces the coefficient of lurch!

12

Me too

Great book. Now, just what IS the coefficient of Lurch?

[?]

13

My staging yards are configured for back-in parking around 90 to 180 degrees of curvature. I built them with easements, mainly to avoid coupler swing problems when a long car is coupled directly to a short one - easily arranged with my prototype’s rolling stock.

Easements aren’t just cosmetic. They take away a lot of coupler offset problems entering and leaving curves. In hidden track, or track not under immediate scrutiny, avoiding ‘yanked sideways off the track’ derailments is priceless.

Chuck (modeling Central Japan in September, 1964)

14

Only if you want smooth, trouble free and derailment free operation in a limited access area! If you go directly from a tangent to a radius the lurch is much worse, especially with longer cars and cars of different lengths. Believe me it is definitely worth the added effort. Also increase the track center distance on the curves. jc5729 John Colley, Port Townsend, WA

15

I agree that easements will help make for smoother operation, especially on curves of less than 30 inch radius and with either no. 4 or no. 6 turnouts. I especially use them in my hidden staging which has all no. 6 turnouts because i want the smoothest operation possible in places that are hard to get at. Why is this a problem? Make a template, trace the track center line and lay the track.

16

Again, not technically necessary, but if you have the space to do it, I’d go ahead and do it because of the increased operational reliability other people have mentioned.

I don’t know if it’s in the John Armstrong book or somewhere else, but there is a demonstration that easements with a short radius curve are still better than a larger radius curve with no easements. The example I saw used 18" radius as the minimum curve - it actually “operated” better than a 22" radius curve with no easements.

So if you had to choose between a 24" radius w/ easements, and a 26" without - go with the 24" with easements.

17

OooOOoh! I totally misunderstood John Armstrong when he was talking about lurch in his book. Now I understand!

18

Thanks to all who responded.

I think I can safely say now that easements in any situation are a good idea. After drawing a bit more I can fit a 28" radius with the other track radii growing ala the ripple effect. I spaced the tracks 2-1/4" apart, but I think I will go back and space them 2-1/2". With 5 tracks, that only grows another 1-1/4", so it ought to fit.

Thanks again everyone.

19

If your minimum radius on your staging tracks is 24 inches the answer is probably no. Bear in mind that the main purpose of an easement is to mitigate the Coefficient of Lurch - the abrupt jerking of a car from a tangent onto a curved track.

Having said that let me add this: if you were to utilize an easement you might just be able to reduce your minimum radius to 22 or 21 inches.