Jump to content
 

Curved Setrack Points - a variation on the question


Recommended Posts

  • RMweb Premium

Forgive me for returning to a topic that’s been discussed elsewhere, but I couldn’t find an answer to a particular, specific question in the earlier threads.  My question concerns use of Setrack curved points in OO Gauge in the following situation:

 

I’m designing a small OO Gauge Steam era branchline layout using Code 100 Peco / Hornby track (Setrack and Streamline).  It is expected to use R-T-R rolling stock, including coach-first Auto trains and locomotives with leading pony wheels.  I can fit the desired track layout to the available space using minimum 3rd radius (505mm) curves and Medium or Large Streamline points.  All good so far.

Operationally however, the layout could be greatly improved through the addition of an extra passing loop at one point, but train length means this can only be achieved by creating an entry point on the inside of a curve, changing this 3rd radius curve:

 

9DF78D4A-E198-4574-88A6-0068C24E665D.jpeg.11531615e15b637839085f40e2f0d6e2.jpeg

 

To this:

 

AB3216CB-5073-4644-9DDE-FA8ADB56EF2B.jpeg.f571c437f2f128da09f168bc251f765d.jpeg

 

Although Setrack point geometry is designed for this - so a crossover from 3rd to 2nd radius curves can be achieved - the points use a mixture of very short straight sections and 2nd radius curves to make it fit.  The sudden change in actual radius, from 3rd to 2nd, is one of the reasons often given for problems with derailments at these points.*. My specific question is therefore this:

 

If I remodel the curve so the curved sections either side of the point are also 2nd radius, will I lessen the risk of problems?  There will be no sudden change in radius.  Or am I still asking for trouble?  (There is still the very short straight piece at the toe end of the point, not a continuous curve).  Note: The revised drawing does show this remodelling.

 

Operationally, trains approaching the point in the facing direction (from the bottom right) will be expected to take the outer curve to remain on the left, with the inner curve of the point being approached from the top of the drawing as a trailing point.  Will that help?

 

Just wondered before I commit myself.

 

My other alternatives are:

a) Dispense with the loop altogether - keeps all track at 3rd radius, no risk of derailments (and more room for scenery in a small layout).

 

b) Have a single ended layover siding instead of a loop - entry from the other end of the proposed loop.  This can be from a large radius point.  It’s not quite as flexible operationally, and would be to the right of the running line (in the usual direction of travel, approaching the point as a trailing running line point), rather than the left, so I don’t know if it would be correct prototypically, but there would be enough room for a catch point to be fitted if it was classed as a siding instead of a second running line.

 

Any advice?  Thanks, Keith.

__________________________________________

 

* Uneven track laying and variable back-to-backs on some R-T-R Rolling Stock can be other reasons, which aren’t the fault of the track.  The long frogs inherent in the design can also be problematic.

 

(Credit to Anyrail for the diagrams).

 

Edited by Keith Addenbrooke
Reinstating photos
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

To add a bit more explanation to alternative option b) layover refuge siding, the entrance would look like this:

 

6B559F55-35C1-4845-9FF1-D63A1484C3CF.jpeg.1160384875aaa60f8731bb0a850bbd4f.jpeg
 

The catch point on the lower line (lay-by siding) doesn’t show very clearly but it is there.  My only concern is that I’d expect a siding like this to be on the other side of the running line, the upper line here - or is that just because it’s where we see them on double track lines? Unfortunately the edge of the world precludes this option. 40” is my design train length (small tender loco plus 3 x 57’ coaches or equivalent goods train).

 

once again, credit to Anyrail for the diagram.

 

Edited by Keith Addenbrooke
Replace “layover siding” with GWR term “refuge siding”
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Whilst I’m aware I’m not really answering the specifics of your dilemma, it may be helpful to share my experiences of using settrack curved points. 
I returned to the hobby after a 50 (!) year gap, and commenced with a layout initially using settrack but gravitating to a mix with Streamline. I planned to use a number of settrack curved points. My experience showed this:

1. when laid well, on flat baseboard, I have had no trouble with them. They are in a curve, splitting into 2nd and 3rd radius to form a double-ended loop.

2. Elsewhere on the layout, I had some trouble with baseboard warping (sundeala - never again) and a curved point laid there from a 3rd radius curve into a 2nd radius reverse loop, proved impossible to get trouble free running. No matter how much I tried to pad the undulations to achieve a smooth surface, it never worked satisfactorily. When it seemed ok for loco one, then loco two wouldn’t handle it. And vice versa.

3. I also have a curved point crossover which is fine.

Note these are current model points. I have read they have evolved over the years and may be better now than before. In a rebuild of this layout (mainly to overcome baseboard and other shortcomings) I will be using a small number of settrack curved points again.

Hope that may be some help.

 

Edited by ITG
  • Thanks 1
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
54 minutes ago, ITG said:

Whilst I’m aware I’m not really answering the specifics of your dilemma, it may be helpful to share my experiences of using settrack curved points. 
I returned to the hobby after a 50 (!) year gap, and commenced with a layout initially using settrack but gravitating to a mix with Streamline. I planned to use a number of settrack curved points. My experience showed this:

1. when laid well, on flat baseboard, I have had no trouble with them. They are in a curve, splitting into 2nd and 3rd radius to form a double-ended loop.

2. Elsewhere on the layout, I had some trouble with baseboard warping (sundeala - never again) and a curved point laid there from a 3rd radius curve into a 2nd radius reverse loop, proved impossible to get trouble free running. No matter how much I tried to pad the undulations to achieve a smooth surface, it never worked satisfactorily. When it seemed ok for loco one, then loco two wouldn’t handle it. And vice versa.

3. I also have a curved point crossover which is fine.

Note these are current model points. I have read they have evolved over the years and may be better now than before. In a rebuild of this layout (mainly to overcome baseboard and other shortcomings) I will be using a small number of settrack curved points again.

Hope that may be some help.

 


Thank you - that is really helpful: the baseboards I use are now 20 years old, but have spent most of that time stored vertically, unused, in various garages.  I noticed when repairing them for use that they’re not quite as flat as they were (fair enough), so your tale of mixed results is very relevant and worth taking note of.  Also good to note that they can be fine of course - we’re here to encourage layout building, not put anyone off.  Much appreciated, Keith.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Perhaps I should add that I used insulated rail joiners on the inner rails of the points (Maybe overkill on these dead frog points?), Hornby points spring clips and have multiple dropper power feeds all over layout.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

To pick up o ITG's post.

The dead frog Hornby points benefit from being live frogged with an arrow head shaped insert  soldered in in place of the plastic lump.  I make the arrow head and melt it into place with a hot soldering iron before running a bit of solder into the joins. The curved points benefit most as it has the longest frog.  Even the super 4 points benefit from this.   The Hornby have better blade contacts than the Peco but neither are up to heavy use or DCC so I use cheap Chinese micro switches in parallel with the point blade switching outside. That said reversing a train with standard OO tension lock couplers over the curved road is a bit like Russian Roulette, and some RTR just can't get round, our Hattons 14XX, and Bachmann 64XX for instance. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
15 minutes ago, DavidCBroad said:

 

To pick up o ITG's post.

The dead frog Hornby points benefit from being live frogged with an arrow head shaped insert  soldered in in place of the plastic lump.  I make the arrow head and melt it into place with a hot soldering iron before running a bit of solder into the joins. The curved points benefit most as it has the longest frog.  Even the super 4 points benefit from this.   The Hornby have better blade contacts than the Peco but neither are up to heavy use or DCC so I use cheap Chinese micro switches in parallel with the point blade switching outside. That said reversing a train with standard OO tension lock couplers over the curved road is a bit like Russian Roulette, and some RTR just can't get round, our Hattons 14XX, and Bachmann 64XX for instance. 


Thankyou - propelling an autocoach at running speed - which either a 14xx or 64xx could be expected to do of course (although I don’t personally have the specific models you list) - could become more than a bit dicey.

Great tip about the soldered frog replacement - not sure my soldering will ever be up to it, but is something I’d never even considered - for anyone converting DC to DCC it could perhaps be a really useful idea?  Thanks, Keith.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know if this information will be any help but here goes.  My old roundy-roundy had a Peco Setrack curved point at one end of the through fiddle yard.  It was off-scene so trains traversed it both facing and trailing, both normal and reversed.  I honestly never had any problems with it, even deliberately running trains as fast as possible from time to time, just to see.  Locos included 4-4-0s, 4-6-0s and a 2-6-4T.  It even spanned a baseboard joint - but one that I had made extremely sure was as flat and level as possible.  Two caveats:

1) While I did occasionally propel trains through it in the facing direction I can't remember ever doing so at the ridiculous speeds I sometimes used when I was actively trying to make it misbehave (though the 2-6-4T almost certainly did go through in the facing direction bunker-first at high speed more than once);

2) The point was at the end of a 2nd radius curve, so didn't involve any tightening of the radius.

 

Almost all my stock is of post-2000 manufacture, with the possible exception of my Lima GUV, Hornby "LMS" clerestory coaches and Airfix LMS non-corridor coaches (TBH I don't know how old they actually are), which in any case all run on modern Bachmann or Hornby wheelsets, as does all the rest of my stock.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

To add to my earlier post, I omitted to mention wheels. When I started up about 18 months ago, I did buy a number of pre-owned rolling stock items. Some of these were early Hornby/Triang/Mainline/Airfix etc, and I did experience issues with some of these items going through various Peco points, not just settrack curved ones. So i can’t attribute such problems to the curved points specifically. All of the problem rolling stock was either sold or re-wheeled - problem solved.

The op may wish to factor in wheels as well.

Just a point of clarification - when I said in earlier post “Hornby points spring clips” what I actually meant was Hornby spring clips on Peco points. Not Hornby points themselves.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

Some helpful replies, thank you.  In summary: track can take the rap for a number of things - baseboards, tracklaying, and locomotive or rolling stock constraints or issues including wheels.  Generous track layouts can help compensate for these factors - while a tighter track formation may need more attention to the other areas as well.  This is nothing new of course, but worth reminding myself of at this stage.

 

In my case and with a design train length of 40” the idea that prompted the question looked like this in Anyrail:

 

027991BB-DE37-4389-B12F-43C5C6D36ED5.jpeg.f6df5f18316b7ff8352bc8edff2f7043.jpeg


The 2nd radius for the curved point is quite apparent in this view, especially when the original design is put up next to it:

 

1762088D-3DF1-4AEA-9C0F-158167489734.jpeg.25b9eb4a89d8570179f6b190cd5bda9a.jpeg

 

This keeps a more generous 3rd radius curve at the left and a track that can also curve further in from the baseboard edge, but at the expense of the operational benefit from a loop.  The other alternative, of a Refuge or / Layover Lay-by siding, looks like this:

 

75131194-E458-478E-B036-1836D906923F.jpeg.093eebc68a240d654ce45222981ce6ae.jpeg

 

I quite liked this, visually and operationally.  It keeps a 3rd radius curve at the left. However, I asked the question on the UK Prototype Questions Forum as to whether pure Refuge Sidings might have been seen on single lines, and while it was possible with appropriate block instruments, the examples given were for sidings with some other purpose to justify the arrangement.  I could add an industry or other reason for the siding, but this would change this section of the layout in three ways:

 

1.  Visually, with the siding on the inside of the running line, I ought to include some representation of whatever I chose, eating into the open scenic space I began with.

2.  Operationally, it would no longer be a passing place - I would gain for shunting instead, but that’s not a priority here....

3.  ...one reason being that corner of the layout space is the least accessible.

 

For me therefore, I’m proposing to stick to the original idea of an open running track: hopefully for the ‘less is more’ benefit often discussed in layout design.  As for the rest of the layout, that may be a story for another day...

 

Keith

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...