Have to move the track coming from the black thuder mine to the main to this spot to get enough track to support a 16 car train. A PECO large radius turnout has aprox the same 36" radius as the main in this spot. It works out good but the main is now running through the diverging route of the turnout. Is this a bad idea or not?
In practice it would involve more wear on the points and a couple of other parts of the structure, implying more regular maintenance to avoid failure. You may have to keep the equivalent of diverging-clear as your fastest speed due to the effective lack of spiraling in the transition, and I think that would apply ‘both ways’.
I have two of the same turnouts on my layout both the same as you need to do. I’ve never had a problem with either even at higher speeds.
Mel
My Model Railroad
http://melvineperry.blogspot.com/
Bakersfield, California
I’m beginning to realize that aging is not for wimps.
If we’re thinking in prototype terms, how fast is Diverging Clear?
Jeff
I think that it is a bad idea. I have always designed my layouts such that the mainlines always use the straight through route when entering a turnout to avoid any possibility of derailments. In my experience, trains always need to slow down when entering the divergent route on a turnout to eliminate any possibility of derailments.
Rich
I faced the same problem. Rather than tear out and move large sections of track, I ran the mainline through a diverging route.
If I was starting over, I wouldn’t do it, but I have never had a problem with trains running through it.
What about curved turnouts?
Space constraints forced me to put an Atlas #6 divergent route as the main. Installed it 13 years ago, run at normal speeds and have not had one problem. Best practice is not to do it if possible, but in a pinch it should not be a problem
The two turnouts in my post above are Peco curved turnouts both with the 30” diversion in a 30” curve and absolutely no derails or problem since I installed them about 6 years ago. I can run either DC or DCC trains at full throttle through the curved diversion (mainline) or the non diversion track.
It might not be prototypical but they both work perfect. I originally used Atlas #6 turnouts with the straight track feeding the siding and the diversion was the mainline, never a problem. I swapped the Atlas with the Pecos further into the curve to gain the length of the siding. By swapping out the turnouts I gained 3’ of siding without any problems allowing for longer trains on the siding.
The siding is the upper track, the layout is 14’ wide. Moving the turnouts further into the curve didn’t change any operations other than give me more track in the siding. I have never had a derail on either the main or the diversion. To make it even better both turnouts and tracks are hidden.
It can be done and work trouble free, six years of hard running w
The Wind River Canyon peninsula on my N-scale layout is essentially one giant balloon track; so however you shake it, trains always either enter a diverging route or emerge from a diverging route. The nozzle of the balloon is a straight Peco large radius turnout, about a No 8 equivalent.
Reasonable speeds cause no problems, and neither do unreasonable speeds.
Robert
Hello All,
With permission, and forgiveness, I’m going to get a bit semantical…
“The main line, or mainline in American English, of a railway is a track that is used for through trains or is the principal artery of the system from which branch lines, yards, sidings and spurs are connected. It generally refers to a route between towns, as opposed to a route providing suburban or metro services.” Wikipedia
Yes, I just quoted Wikipedia.
I have seen mainlines making a pathway through yards that weren’t necessarily a straight run of track.
The “diverging” straight sections might be considered yard leads in your plan.
Personally I see nothing wrong with a curved main to accommodate the surrounding topography, yards and industries.
On my pike I modified a PECO curved turnout to re-route the mainline, so switching duties could be performed without interfering with mainline traffic.
Previously- -through bad track planning by management- -the trains on the main would have to negotiate an “S” section though a series of turnouts to avoid yard operations.
Good luck and as always…
Hope this helps.
Medium speed modified by characteristics of the particular ‘diversion’ or subsequent route. The figure I usually see is 30mph base. I suspect you know far more about the actual signal and speed rules that would apply to a situation such as this.
Our Diverging Clear is Proceed on the diverging route not exceeding the speed of the turnout. We have 15, 30, 40, 50 and 60 mph turnouts that are traversed on a Diverging Clear signal. The speed through the turnout is prescribed by the turnout, not the signal.
Jeff
For the prototype, how does a typical Class 1 system map get to look the way it does unless many main lines run through diverging routes?
For our models, I assume if the embedded radius is broad enough and the turnout is installed well, I don’t see a real problem.
Having said that, I think it looks kind of funny and I would always try to avoid it for that reason.
I personally avoid having mains take diverging routes when I track plan, because I’ve heard from a few railroaders that the prototype rarely does that. This is because diverging turnouts increase the risk of derailments and require a speed resriction (I think 25 or 30 mph) to operate safely.
Now this weight is not a major issue in HO scale as the rolling stock is not as heavy. Even in 7 1/2 inch scale livesteam, one of the biggest, and heaviest scales, people routinely go through diverging routes at top speed without issue.
So to the OP I’d say it is okay to route the main through a diverging turnout. You could easily run through it at track speed without issue. Still if you want some operational interest you could have crews go through the turnout at restricted speed.
It is a small 9’ x 10’ N scale layout that I will be operating by myself.
Laying cork now then will lay the main line track and test. If it doesnt work I can pull it up and try something else.
Hi corsiar,
Do what you have to do! It’s a model railroad, not the real thing. If you need to use the diverging route as the mainline there is nothing wrong with doing that. That is, of course, provided that you lay your track properly and that you run at reasonable speeds.
Curved turnouts work great for coming off the mainline in the middle of a curve. Our HO club layout has several situations where we have used Peco Code 83 curved turnouts to great advantage where the inside curve is the mainline.
I envy those modellers who can claim that all of their through routes are on the straight side of the turnouts, but that takes space. If you don’t have the space, why get your shorts in a knot because you are violating some prototypical rule. Who cares? I’ll say it again, do what you have to do.
Cheers!!
Dave
I would suggest that just because it happened sometimes on the prototype is really not sufficient justification to do it on a model railroad. Running trains through the divergent side of turnouts can be a delicate process requiring slower speeds to avoid derailments. I would leave the divergent side of turnouts to entries to yards and sidings and spurs.
Rich
I’ve tried to post a pic of the BNSF, UP, CSX, or NS system maps, but failed. They look like spider webs superimposed on top of an arterial MRI.
I would think the above pic would happen a few dozen times on each system, at least.
Maybe what we’re talking about is the tangent track leading into an industrial spur instead of another mainline?
That may be a different animal.
