Can Superliners handle #6 turnouts? I am currently designing my layout for amtrak -style. Also, what are the best #6 and #8 turnouts that are a comprimise of $$ and protipicallity?
Thanks!
I presume that you’re talking HO gauge.
My 8 Superliners came from Concor and have the old “horn-hook” couplers. They have no problem negotiating the reverse curves of a cross-over, which is made of a pair of #4 Atlas turn-outs, at low speed, of course.
The train will run thru a #6 double cross-over, at medium speed.
Naturally, none of this looks prototypical – a #8 is the tightest turnout you’ll ever see on a real railroad and that’ll be for a lightly used spur.
Bottom line – when it comes to designing your layout – its all a matter of how much space do you have ?
The non-prototypical wheel flanges and relative vehicle weights enable your HO models to perform feats which are impossible for the prototype !
Not sure about the US numbering system for turnouts, but my Walthers Superliners have no trouble with Peco Medium Radius Turnouts.
The numbering system is the same as used for full sized (i.e. 561/2" gauge) track turnouts.
It is the number of units (e.g. feet) of longitudinal distance, from the point of the frog, before one unit of deviation is achieved.
I.E. if you measure from the location where the nearest two rails have deviated by 12", back to the point of the frog, that # of feet is the “turnout number”.
Peco medium-radius turnouts have a 36" radius that’s continuous through the points, closure rails, and frog, and generally they can handle any full-scale-length passenger cars. A no. 6 turnout is gentler still (43" radius through the closure rails, 56" overal “radius of substitution”) so the Superliners will work just as well if not better on a no. 6. However, when running passenger cars through no. 6 crossovers the offset between adjacent car ends looks unrealistic. Many modelers prefer no. 8 or larger crossovers where passenger cars will use them. See “Crossovers are really S curves” in “Model Railroad Planning 1995,” page 78.
Happy holidays,
Andy