Does anyone know offhand whether a #6 Fast Track turnout can be “trimmed” down to 9" in length? Or, would that be pushing it too much? The reason for asking is that I have two Atlas Snap turnouts coming off my mainline and I’d like to swap them out for something larger.
From the Fast Track templates, a #5 should drop right in. However, I was wondering if there was enough “extra” material on both straight ends of a #6 turnout that it couldn’t be whittled down to 9" long overall. My concern would be that a piece of track connected to the non-point end of the turnout would not have enough railroad tie clearance away from the diverging track. (I hope that makes sense.)
I just measured one of my #8’s, and there is no way. I figured if a #8 would come close, a #6 would be fine, but the #8 is almost 2" longer.
However, you can download a #6 template and print it full-sized on paper, Tom. Just go to handlaidtrack and find the link to templates. Then, a real-time, real-sized measurement will let you know how much you can trim off without affecting the frog rails and the points.
The FastTracks site says the min length of the #6 is 7.9 inches, though that seems awfully short. I’ve built some that are 9 1/4 inches that are just fine and another 1/4 inch could be taken off easily. If I have a chance I’ll post a picture.
Here’s the pic:
It is right at 9 1/4 inches. You could easily remove one more tie at the diverging end to get to 9 inches; Much less than that is really making things tight.
Crandell, I did download both a #5 and #6 turnout template off the Fast Track site. That’s how I knew a #5 turnout would drop right in with no trimming needed. Looking at the #6 template though, I was concerned that I’d have to take too much off the non-point straight end of the turnout and run the risk of not having enough tie clearance with the diverging track to insert another piece of track to that end. I also don’t want the rail joiners too close to the points on the other end, either.
It does look like a #6 could fit in a 9" section of track. Glenn, if those numbers from Fast Track are correct, then that would give me a little over 1/2" on each end of the straight section to plug it into the other sections of track. (Not much but enough.) You’d just hate to trim down a perfectly good turnout, only to find out that it will now neither fit nor work properly for you.
As soon as I get the Fast Track administrator’s clearance, I’ll also post the question on their discussion group. Doesn’t look like there’s much traffic over there so it may be a small while before I get any sort of confirmation either way. Glenn, I’ll look forward to the pic.
I’m hoping that this will be my impetus to make some real strides with my current layout. A number of other things (e.g. roads, roadbed, ballasting, etc.) is contingent on where the converging track will have to be adjusted and how that effects the other sections of the layout.
Anyhow, thanks again, you two, for your help! I’m getting exciting about pressing on…
I don’t know about length; however a #5 is not a drop in for an Atlas Snap Switch. I have replaced three snap switches with # 4.5 and it has been a “major” chore on each one. The following picture is Fast Tracks # 4.5 laid on top of Atlas Snap switches.
I don’t know about length; however a #5 is not a drop in for an Atlas Snap Switch. I have replaced three snap switches with # 4.5 and it has been a “major” chore on each one. The following picture is Fast Tracks # 4.5 laid on top of Atlas Snap switches.
Tom, it may be in your better interests to place a #6 or #7 curved in your location, depending on what else you’d need to do/to compromise in order to get it all to work.
Also, I wouldn’t let the placement of a track joiner deter me from shortening up a turnout. I’d simply bore a tiny hole in the middle of one of the PCB ties, or even a hole outboard of the rails, and use them to keep the turnout aligned with the approaches, and forget the track joiner all together.
If I interpret your post and your picture correctly, I am quite aware that the diverging track angle will be quite different on the #5 turnout than it is on the Atlas Snap turnout. My concern is with the straight portion. From the Fast track template, its right at, maybe ever so slightly less than 9" in length. The diverging track can and will change and that’s not an issue in that spot. I can address that with a piece of flex-track.
Unfortunately, that won’t work in my particular circumstance. The straight portion of the turnout is nestled between two opposing R22" curves. I need the staight turnout to be able to keep that the same. It gives that portion of the layout some visual interest and my ball signal is right there, too.
To me - drop in means no changes to any of the track connected to a turnout. The straight portion worked fine; the diverging route was not even close (it did appear that I could modify the turnout to fit - modification did not work out). You can download templates from the Fast Tracks web site to see exactly what the completed turnouts look like.
Yep, that’s exactly what I did. Downloaded the #5 and #6 turnouts from the FT website, printed them out on 8-1/2 x 11 paper, cut them out with scissors, then layed them over the existing Snap track turnout. Quite a handy way to check things.
As mentioned previously, the straight portion of the #5 will fit just fine in the spot. The diverging track will come off of it at less of an angle, which isn’t a concern for me. I can attach that end and the other piece of track it will attach to (some distance away) with a piece of flex-track. Here’s a picture to better illustrate what I’m trying to say:
Click picture(s) to enlarge
The mainline (aqua) turnout in question is the one at the upper middle portion of the diagram. Even though the diverging track would come off the newer turnout at a flatter angle, a piece of flex track (purple) would be able to adequately fill in the gap between the new turnout and the existing Atlas turnout that allows entry into the servicing (green) tracks. However, that area will, more than likely, have to be modified somewhat to accommodate the new turnout.
A #5 turnout coming into the mainline will look and operate better than the current Atlas Snap turnout that is there now. If I can somehow squeeze a #6 in there, even the better. Here’s what that area looks like currently:
Tom, you need a #6 curved wye turnout. I had to build one by hand once I got to a similar problem approach for my turntable and realized I was hooped. So, I overlaid two pieces of flex to get the curves and the position of the frog, and then began cutting rail. Because I had built seven or more FT turnouts by that time, I knew that I could do it while watching Two and a Half Men. [:D]
Seriously, you need an outward-curved #6 wye. It would solve that hitch you show beyond the turnout.
The angle of the diverging route will be much less than what you show (I don’t care what the software says will happen). I got caught in the same planning trap myself. Your nice highball signal is right about where the new track run will be. I even used the # 4.5 turnouts, not a #5 or larger.
You can get some idea (if you missed it the first time around) of what happened to me is on page 5, near the bottom, of the following posting. I ended up wiping out a whole community and completely laying out new track when the plan (looked good on paper, even with printed out templates) looked doable.
I don’t think that you will have enough space to connect the new turnout with the old atlas one on your service track. I do like the Fast Track turnouts though; even after this experience.
The one thing I am concerned about using a wye is creating a subtle “S” curve in the mainline at that point. The straight portion of the existing turnout serves as a transition between the opposing R22" curves. Also, if I used a wye there, I’d have to modify the mainline, too.
I’d like to avoid introducing any possible “derailment” scenarios, if I can help it. Not such a concern with my existing Mikados, switchers, and 40’ rolling stock. However, the longer BLI 4-8-2 Mohawk (that I’m looking forward to getting later this year) may consider “flinching” when it comes to that particular spot. I’m trying to avoid Murphy as long as I can. [:D]
Crandell, I love the guys playing checkers in the picture above. Is that a WS product?
Thanks for your comments. A note of clarification is needed. The track plan diagram pictured below is my existing (old) plan, not how it would look using the newer turnout.
You are correct. A #5 will have a flatter angle coming off of it
I also failed to mention that I would be moving the existing service track turnouts so that they are more inline with the angle of the 60 degree crossing, at the bottom right of the diagram. The track angle coming from the crossing and the track angle coming from the diverging track of the turnout should successfully transition into one another with a piece of flex-track, without it being too sharp.
Alan, does that clear things up a bit more for you? Or, do you still see some problems. Sorry for the confusion on my part. Thanks again for your input. [:)]
Tom, unless I haven’t understood your description earlier of where the trouble spot is on your diagram, a curved #6 is precisely the answer to your needs, and all you might have to do is soften the upper right (aqua) dipping curve to it. No S-curve anywhere.
Just to be clear, are we talking about the straight turnout uppermost on your diagram, the one near the top centre? If so, picture the current through-route as curving through the frog and ending exactly where your main makes the jog. It would be a mirror image of the diverging route below it. With both exits to the frog curved, you can’t lose.
Yes, it is a WS product…kinda cute. Sometimes RTR is good.
You have understood correctly. Let me see if we can’t picture it a little differently than I have described it above.
Below is a picture of a #6 wye turnout that I got off an eBay ad:
If I were to substitute this turnout out for the existing Atlas Snap turnout:
The diverging track going toward the center of the layout comes off the R22" mainline curve roughly the same CW rotation. No problem with that.
The opposing diverging track comes off the same R22" mainline curve in a CCW direction. There is no or only a small, straight transition between these opposing curves.
I have it crammed in head that whenever you have opposing curves on your layout, you should always have a straight section of track that is, at least, as long as your longest piece of rolling stock or locomotive. The way I see it, there isn’t a long enough section of straight transtion on the #6 wye turnout. Maybe there’s more of a straight portion on the point end of the #6 wye than I am seeing or am making of. Does that make sense?
Granted, the outside “mainline” curve of the #6 wye is flatter and would make for less of an
Okay, I think I see where you are “stuck”, Tom. I fear that you have misunderstood my description of the curved wye. A wye, such as the one you show, is simply that, a standard mirror image of typical N. American style curved points, but then a straight path through the frog and beyond. You may not have discerned from my rather inelegant and jittery (read “hasty shot for Tom”) photo that both routes on the one I show curve away from each other, like a British Peco style of old, or like your 18" EZ-Track style. Does that help? Maybe I should take an image with the camera held directly above this turnout of mine so you can see that the routes both diverge, but continue to curve beyond the frog, almost like the start of a ram’s head set of horns.
Shall I do that for you…would it be clearer? [:)]
Edit- another hasty image, sorry for the quality. You can see that both routes curve, although the bottom one somewhat less than the upper, which is the route to the turntable. So, this style will get you in line with your main with little fiddling, if any.
Okay, Crandell, it’s getting clear as mud. [(-D] Just so that I can determine if I’m on the same page with you, is this the #6 wye you are referring to?
Click picture(s) to enlarge
