I am using Fast Tracks to lay my track. I am using code 83 for the mainline and code 70 for the rail yard and sidings. I use #8 turnouts for mainline crossovers. My question is this, how far apart should the two track centers be? 2 inches seems to be too close together.
Craig,
That depends on what you are modeling.
2" in HO (87.1:1) would be 14.52’ wide in 1:1. In general, a 40’ boxcar had an external width of ~9’. If you had two of them side-by-side at 2" center-to-center (CTC) spacings, that would give you 5’ between boxcars. (Putting your arms out to either side of you should give you a good sense of what 5-6’ looks like) It might be even cozier depending on whether it’s a passenger car, or a more modern freight car.
A 2" CTC spacing is about as narrow as you want to go. And, if your yard has any curves to it, you’ll want to increase that CTC spacing so that cars don’t side-swipe one another in passing.
Tom
Craig,
Here’s a string from this forum from 2010 on this subject (there are plenty of others, as well). Sorry, it’s not a direct link so you may have to paste in into your browser:
http://cs.trains.com/mrr/f/11/t/172721.aspx
2" represents 14’6" in prototype operation. In 1960 the minimum separation on mainlines was increased to 15 feet. Yards and curves are another matter. For yards you need to consider the inevitable requirement to get your fingers between cars for rerailing and “sky crane” operations; 2" won’t cut it. And the tighter the curve - and longer the car or engine - the more space you will need.
Lots of suggestions are sure to follow. And questions. The most common of the latter will be about the 4 issues that you haven’t mentioned; 1) your minimum curve radii, 2) the era you’re modelling, 3) the length of your motive power and cars, and 4) questions on yards, service areas and perhaps industries.
John
Here’s the clickable version:
Tstage -
How’d you do that?
John
Because you are going with Fast Tracks turnouts I suggest you use their center to center double crossover specs which is 2”.
When I designed my layout I wanted a double crossover on my mainline so I went with the spacing of the crossover which was 2” center to center. I widened the main line radius to 2¼” and I haven’t encountered any problems in 30 years. Early on I used 85’ passenger cars without any problems but because my layout is small (14’ x 10’) I switched to Athearn 72’ cars.
Again early on I had a UP Big Boy and it ran perfect also. Currently I have over 20 articulated steam, 18 diesels, PA-1s and E-7 that have no problems with the 2” straight mainline or 2¼” curved mainline.
Standard store bought tunnel portals are for 2¼” spacing of which I have 8 on my layout, two portals are on curved sections of dual track and again I have never had any problems even with my Cab Forwards that have a lot of front end over hang.
Mel
On straight track, 2" looks good. On curves, even with fairly large radius curves (and if you are using #8 turnouts I assume you are using fairly large radius curves as well), long cars need more clearance. Lay out some track and test this with the rolling stock you plan to run before making anything permanent - you’ll thank me later. And in yards, as mentioned, you can’t get your fingers in with only 2" center to center.
–Randy
I have a commercial W/S Code 83 double crossover, now on its second layout. It’s centers are 2". Unless you positively cannot help but to put it with curves leading up to it, it should have close to a 50’ boxcar length of tangent tracks on either end of it. If so, then the 2" centers are just fine. You will not likely have two trains crossing it tangentially at the same time with one derailed. When that does happen, you just deal with it. So, I would suggest staying with the 2" on center.
All of us learn, though, that along curves, all bets are off. You will need at least 2.5" for broad curves (near about 33" radius), and more for curves with radii on down to our practical useful limit of 18" for main line travel. Outwards of 34" radius you should be good down to 2.5", and upwards of 45" you will most likely be safe with 2" once again.
Place ‘url’ in brackets before link and ‘/url’ in brackets after the link, but without the single quote marks.
So, http://cs.trains.com/mrr/f/11/t/172721.aspx, becomes
http://cs.trains.com/mrr/f/11/t/172721.aspx.
Rich
John,
Just add bracketed URLs to either end of the URL you want to link to.
Here are two examples for demonstration purposes. Example #1 shows the proper formatting using angled brackets:
Example #2 is in the exact same format; only the angle brackets (<) have been replaced by regular (i.e. [ ) brackets…
If you want a clickable title that takes you to the same link, Greg’s link above will show you both ways.
Tom
I’d suggest following NMRA’s Recommended Practice 7. RP-7.1 covers straight track spacing and clearances, and RP-7.2 covers track spacing and clearances on curves.
https://www.nmra.org/sites/default/files/standards/sandrp/pdf/rp-7.1_tangent_track_centers_and_clearance_diagrams_july_2017.pdf
https://www.nmra.org/sites/default/files/standards/sandrp/pdf/rp-7.2_curved_track_centers_july_2017.pdf
Alternatively, you could follow the standard plans of whichever railroad you’re modelling.
Thanks, Rich and Tom, on the clickable links issue above. Sorry for the delay - was travelling the last two days.
John