Curved or Straight Turnouts - Help

[harriermate]

Hi Guys,

 

Im newly back into the hobby and have a started the design for a new steam age layout.  I intend using Peco code 100 track for the most part and already have hoarded away much of what I need. But 2 questions are bugging me for which I need advice:

First: Are curved turnouts as reliable in operation? (Peco ST 244 and 245 in mind) on a flat board or am I better off trying to find space for straight turnouts? As always space is limited!!

Second: All my current turnouts are Peco electrofrog.  I notice that the ST244 and 245 curved items are insulfrog.  Can I use both insulfrog and electrofrog on the same layout without needing a degree in electrical engineering????

 

Many thanks in anticipation of some 'expert' advice.

 

 

[BR60103]

Welcome to RMweb.

 

You can mix Electrofrog and insulfrog on a layout. AFAIK they have the same dimensions as well.  The required wiring is a bit different but that should become methodical. Insulfrog can tolerate fewer plastic joiners and you can't wire the frog. There can be contact problems for small, slow locomotives.

I don't have problems with the curved points.

[Harlequin]

ST244 and 245 are Settrack parts. Electrofrog Streamline code100 curved points are SL-E86 and 87.

 

[harriermate]

Thanks guys.

I would love to use streamline turnouts throughout... but radius of SL-E 86/87 is much too large.  Hence the idea of Setrack ST 244/245.

[Philou]

Welcome to the RMweb collective.

 

Probably the only thing to be aware using set-track and other insulated points, is that some short-wheelbased locos may be prone to stall at low speed passing over the frog. Non-set track and electrofrogs points have much going for them in that respect - IF you can find a way to accommodate them. I understand that space can be a problem.

 

Cheers,

 

Philip

 

PS: You haven't said if you're going DC or DCC. If the latter, then a 'stay-alive' can help in stall situations.

 

Take care out there everyone.

Edited March 28, 2020 by Philou

[Harlequin]

If you post your plan in the Layout and Track design forum the collected brains of RMWeb might be able to suggest ways to ease the radii - unless you're on an 8*4 board.

 

P.S. If you do, be prepared to receive suggestions about every other aspect of your plan, though!  Not in a bad way - it's just that people have lots of ideas about these things.

 

[harriermate]

Thanks.  I will post the layout as the design matures.  With regard to analogue v digital, I spent 15 years in Germany (till 1998) and bought quite a few Fleischmann and Roco locomotives and rolling stock.... all of which are still brand ne in the boxes and never run.  I also drooled over the beautiful Faller building kits.  So, thinking I might never go back, I bought up almost every conceivable kit I might need, ranging from Stations to coaling stages and linear and circular engine sheds.  Oh and I also bought the Fleischmann electrically driven turntable..... never been out of the box.

 

So with the current situation, I finally opened the packing cases from the loft.  It was just like Christmas. I had forgotten how much Id bought, most of which priced in DM!!!!!!!! Im sure I won't use all of it.  I don't think the 8 x 4 board would take the weight but I'll start by making an inventory of what I have!  Wheeeeeee!

[harriermate]

Sorry Philou,

 

I never answered reference DC or DCC!  The locomotives are all brand new in their boxes but are very much from the time before DCC (late 90s).  Im sure they could be converted but I doubt its a case of just plugging in a chip.  So rather than dismantling and tampering with each, I'll probably stick with old fashioned DC.

 

[PMP]

There’s no reason for  curved points to be less reliable than straight points, allowing for care taken during track laying. The 80-90’s European HO locomotives and rolling stock should be fine working through that track work. Yes, you can mix electrofrog and insulfrog point work without major challenges. Curved points are under-utilised in the hobby, they are particularly useful for extending run round loops, and can give a far less linear appearance to a design. 
If the layout is going to be two levels with an adjoining gradient between them a 2 or 3% grade usually works ok. From the age of your stock I suspect the locomotives may be traction tyre fitted which will help. 8x4 isn’t a bad size, there are plenty of plans within the Model Railroader (US mag) design bureau that might provide some good ideas too. AnyRail is also a good design tool if using ready to lay track, it has templates to correct radii and scale for several manufacturers, and that’s an easy way to see if your design actually works and fits your space.

[PMP]

Here’s a link to an Iain Rice design, the sort of thing available from MRR

https://mrr.trains.com/-/media/Files/PDF/Marketing/Trackplans4x8.pdf

 

 

[harriermate]

Thank you

 

Heres the design so far...  

Base layer... (cyan track).  Yellow track is the incline.

Base Layer.pdf

 

Upper layer... (green track).  Yellow track is incline.

Upper Layer.pdf

[ejstubbs]

Worth bearing in mind that the Setrack curved points are nominally second radius, but some users report that short sections can be tighter than that (this may also depend on the age of the points).

 

Some ready-to-run stock doesn't like anything tighter than second radius, even for a short stretch.  A very few items of RTR stock won't even go round second radius, although the manufacturers usually include a "bodge" option to allow their use on severely space-constrained layouts.  Examples in my stable are my Airfix LMS 12-wheeled restaurant car, which has to have a different underframe with rather unsightly cut-outs fitted to allow the six-wheel bogies to pivot far enough to get round anything under third radius, and my 2007-vintage Hornby streamlined Princess Coronation which has to have a different front bogie with undersized wheels fitted in order to avoid them fouling the cylinders on tight curves (I'm actually not sure what the minimum radius is that the "scale" wheeled bogie can manage).

 

You may also read horror stories of how unreliable the Setrack curved points are generally.  I have to say that I never had a moment's problems with the one I had on my old roundy-roundy layout.  I even tested it with laps of a number of different locos ranging in size from a Hornby Black 5 to a Bachmann 1F;  even with the controller turned all the way up I couldn't make any of them trip and fall no matter which route or direction they were going in.  But maybe I was just lucky.

[harriermate]

Incline only goes to half height (3.5cm) at left edge... hence why its not over the lower track. rising track (not including the 45cm head shunt half way up) has total length of 190cm.  My maths says that's an incline of 2.1 degrees (circa 3.6%).

 

[Harlequin]

21 minutes ago, harriermate said:

Thank you

 

Heres the design so far...  

Base layer... (cyan track).  Yellow track is the incline.

Base Layer.pdf 550.33 kB · 8 downloads

 

Upper layer... (green track).  Yellow track is incline.

Upper Layer.pdf 500.28 kB · 4 downloads

I don’t think the gradients will work because you need to allow some distance to transition from level to gradient and back. The yellow turnout on the left must be level and so the transition to grade has to be included within the ~1m long sections.

That will make the gradient itself very steep.

[The Johnster]

I use code 100 Peco Streamline insulfrog turnouts on my dc layout and have found them sturdily built and reliable.  I have not found the need to wire them as some people recommend; part of the philosophy behind the layout is to keep wiring to a minimum, and rely on the blades making electrical contact with the stock rail.  I operate them manually (philosophy again) with the Finger Of God.  I have no 0-4-0s, however, and my 6-coupled mechanisms cope well with the dead frogs; it is important however to lay the turnouts smoothly to the adjoining piece and as level as possible.  I do not claim 100% reliable running, but I do have something in the high 90s!  I have a Hornby curved lefthander in the fiddle yard throat which does give occasional problems but I have no reason to think a Peco would not perform better.

 

BUT... (there's always a but), I would feel remiss in my duty to recommend caution in regard to two aspects of your set-up.  Firstly, as has been stated, you may find some locos stalling at slow speeds on the dead frog of the curved setrack turnouts, especially those with short wheelbases or diesels/dmus with pick up on one bogie and return on t'other.  The dead frog can easily mean that you are reliant on one pickup for smooth slow running, and you are asking a lot of it as you want it to keep the motor turning at exactly the time when the voltage is lowest and the motor has least momentum.  All pickups, wheels, and the rail surfaces must be kept scrupulously clean, and now you can see why I specified smooth adjoinment of track pieces and the best possible level; uncompensated rigid RTR chassis can easily lift a wheel off track which is not flatly laid, breaking electrical contact.

 

The other aspect is the traction tyres.  I have an axe to grind here, and those familiar with my rantings on this forum will testify that I consider them Satan's Snot.  The 80s and 90s norm was for locos to use 'pancake' motors and spur gear reduction; the pancakes were feeble and friction from the spur gears didn't help, so traction tyres were common to enable locos to haul reasonable loads.  Thankfully, those days are gone, but given when you acquired your fleet, not forgotten...  Traction tyres prevent electrical pickup through any wheel they are fitted to, increase rolling resistance making slow controlled running more difficult, but worst of all, will spread crud and rubber/nylon/whatever they're made of all over the layout.  Remember what I said about scrupulous cleanliness!  

 

But you are probably stuck with them, in order to get your locos up the gradient.  It's not all bad news; there's only a loco depot up there and the most you have to haul up the hill is a loco coal wagon or diesel tanker, so you may be able to get away with it without the tyres.  On an 8x4 board trains can't be so heavy as to need them on the flat, and if your track is carefully laid running without them should not prove an issue.  But a combination of long dead frogs and traction tyres is not, IMHO, a good one.

 

Please do not allow my pessimism to destroy your plans, but it might be wise to modify them if you can.  

[harriermate]

Thanks Phil. Have duplicated in track planning thread and will continue it there.  I have kept the yellow head shunt level and then only used 90 cm of each of the 100cm lengths for grade which is where the 3.6% gradient comes from. (circa 2.2 deg)

 

 

[The Johnster]

15 minutes ago, Harlequin said:

I don’t think the gradients will work because you need to allow some distance to transition from level to gradient and back. The yellow turnout on the left must be level and so the transition to grade has to be included within the ~1m long sections.

That will make the gradient itself very steep.

Harlequin has just made a very good point here.  As the turnouts need to be laid flat or in an inclined plane for reliable running with rigid RTR chassis, you need to incorporate vertical plane transition curves at the top and bottom of your incline, which will eat into the length available and result in a very steep pitch half way up.  If the yellow turnout on the left is not level but laid in the inclined plane of the gradient, this will mean that the vertical transition curve for whichever leg of the zig zag is in the other plane will be twice as long, so no space can be saved that way.

[PMP]

5 hours ago, The Johnster said:

Please do not allow my pessimism to destroy your plans, but it might be wise to modify them if you can.  

 

 

Why on earth would he need to modify Roco and Fleischmann products?

 

Funnily enough they worked back in the 80's and 90's perfectly well, and almost certainly will work as well as contemporary models now, because of their quality of design and manufacturing standards. Back in 1980 a Fleischmann CL50/51 would cost around £70 or in todays money approximately £300. We're not referring to £6.50 Lima 94xx's, go figure.

 

It would perhaps help if people actually read what the poster writes....

 

 

[The Johnster]

Because (perhaps it would help if you read what I wrote) I think that the combination of long dead frogs and traction tyres is asking for trouble with slow running, and the curved Peco Setrack turnouts the OP is specifying have exceptionally long dead frogs.  The Roco and Fleischmann locos probably worked admirably well despite the traction tyres on Roco or Fleischmann track in the 80s and 90s, but he wants to run them in the 2020s on Peco Setrack, a different beast.  I feel he will benefit from losing the traction tyres which will spread crud all over his layout.  The resulting better running from the cleaner track, wheels, and pickups can then be further improved by fitting extra pickups to the previously dead traction tyre wheels.  A different plan, involving perhaps an easier gradient outside the circuits of the lower level running lines, might help with the lack of traction tyres.  

 

My comment was the result of actually reading and looking at the OP's proposal, and responding to his request for advice.  I don't claim myself to be an expert, at least not to any extent more than being involved in the hobby for over half a century might make me (which isn't much; I'm still learning the basics), but I've made some mistakes he can learn from, and perhaps so can you.

 

Go figure.

[PMP]

On 29/03/2020 at 23:31, The Johnster said:

The Roco and Fleischmann locos probably worked admirably well despite the traction tyres on Roco or Fleischmann track in the 80s and 90s, but he wants to run them in the 2020s on Peco Setrack, a different beast.  I feel he will benefit from losing the traction tyres which will spread crud all over his layout.  The resulting better running from the cleaner track, wheels, and pickups can then be further improved by fitting extra pickups to the previously dead traction tyre wheels.  A different plan, involving perhaps an easier gradient outside the circuits of the lower level running lines, might help with the lack of traction tyres.  

 

I used to sell both Peco and Hornby set track, pretty much daily, starting in 1981. We used to sell this track to UK/US/European modellers. The overseas modellers would often buy their stock and loco’s at Victors or Beatties, and come to us at MRM for things like track. Could you tell us specifically what has changed from the 1980’ set track point to the current,  as apart from the spring mechanism for the Peco points, I’m not aware of any. The tooling might have been refreshed of course, but the geometry and Code 100 Rail is the same.

You mention that these tyres should be removed. How then do you counter the wheel groove gripping the the rail head, particularly when it come to points and crossings with diverging routes? You mention your experience with these matters, which Roco or Fleischmann did you do this to? It seems very odd for such a poor system according to you, that they still use it successfully in contemporary models https://www.roco.cc/en/product/243052-0-0-0-0-0-0-002-0/products.html

 

As an experiment I took a Lima 31 from old stock, placed it on code 75 track without traction tyres. Unsurprising it’s bogies run very roughly l. Going through pointwork derailing more times than not, this is what it looks like sitting on the rail. Not sure that’s an improvement, in my work, it isn’t.

 

 

 

[The Johnster]

It has been my experience for over 40 years that the grooved wheels left behind after you have removed the traction tyres that spread muck all over your layout run perfectly well so long as the track is well laid, fixed down properly, level at the turnouts, and smoothly joined to the next piece.  The only problem you will have with the groove gripping the outside edge of the rail will be at a section of rail which is raised above the normal level, a summit, when the vertical curve of the rail will foul on the outer flange.  Even here you'll probably get away with it on straight track.

 

Obviously, it is better to replace the wheel if you can, but this is a problem with some Lima tyred wheels which have the final drive gear cog moulded on the wheel.  In this case, or if you are not comfortable replacing wheels on axles, replace the tyre with Bullfrog Snot.  Fleischmann/Roco seem to have done a reasonably good job with their traction tyres, and their locos ran smoothly, slowly, and pulled well, but my view is that those used on UK outline models by Airfix, Hornby, and particularly Lima were pretty awful, a response to the lack of power with the pancake motors popular in those days.  These were feeble as well as consuming space inside the loco body that would have been better used for ballast, and to get a tolerable performance out of them they needed to run fast, and be geared down by trains of spur gears driving wheels with traction tyres. My view is that this was fundamentally poor engineering; the motors were bulky, had little weight to add to the traction of the loco, and the gear train was prone to misalignment and splitting of the plastic gears.  It is significant that AFAIK nobody is producing RTR models for the UK market with this sort of mechanism any more; we have 'reverted' to drive via worm and cog reduction and drive from the can motor, basically an enclosed version of the old open frame type, with the shaft laid along the axis of the loco, not across it.  

 

Modern mechs of this sort are very good, and we are achieving performances akin to some of the better European products of 40 or 50 years ago, at much lower price points.  There was, in the late 70s, much store given to steam outline locos with daylight visible beneath the boiler, a big improvement visually on the plastic or die cast boiler skirts that had preceded this.  If you wanted to keep the cab clear for detail, this meant mounting the pancake motor in the firebox, reducing it's size and effectiveness.  Apart from the drive train issues I've already mentioned, this meant driving the rear wheelset, further lessening the chance of getting any decent ballast above the coupled wheels.  Lima blocked the cab of their J50 and 94xx, and tender drives, something else I don't like but done better by Fleischmann/Roco, used frequently, sometimes with ludicrous piles of plastic coal to hide the mechs (Airfix Dean Goods).  

 

The performance of these models was not good.  They were overgeared and ran at insane top speeds, and to get them to run slowly under control was difficult.  I'll grant that they were usually pretty free running, but smooth starts or stops were impossible and one of the main illusion destroyers for me is a train jerking into motion or stopping as if it's hit a solid wall.  Traction tyres made this worse because as well as spreading crud and interfering with pick up, already compromised by the low speed and voltage which denied the loco any momentum to overrun dead spots, they increase rolling resistance and preclude smooth slow running or smooth stops and starts, especially starts, unless the layout and the loco were clinically clean at all times.  Limas were especially bad because the alloy used on wheels could pick up sufficient dirt to seriously compromise performance within a few yards.

 

Coupling these problems with the long dead frogs of setrack curved points is not conducive to good running, and the steep gradients of the OP's suggested layout will cause him further problems in my opinion, for the reasons I've outlined.  The 31 in the photo is clearly being held at an angle to show the groove covering the outside of the rail; it would not do this in normal use except at the bottom of a gradient that was not smoothly enough vertically transition curved.  We are clearly going to have to agree to differ on this, PMP, while respecting each other's views; after all, we are both fully entitled to our opinions, so in order to avoid this becoming a back-and-forth battle of the last word and incurring the wrath of AY, I will avoid responding to any further input from you on this particular matter. 

 

Stay safe!

 

 

[Butler Henderson]

The issue with the Setrack points as pointed in Model Rail a while back is that the design of them causes a momentary narrowing of the gauge consequently causing passing trains to appear to slow as the least problematic issue.

[PMP]

On ‎08‎/‎04‎/‎2020 at 14:50, The Johnster said:

 

 

Obviously, it is better to replace the wheel if you can, but this is a problem with some Lima tyred wheels which have the final drive gear cog moulded on the wheel.  In this case, or if you are not comfortable replacing wheels on axles, replace the tyre with Bullfrog Snot.  Fleischmann/Roco seem to have done a reasonably good job with their traction tyres, and their locos ran smoothly, slowly, and pulled well, but my view is that those used on UK outline models by Airfix, Hornby, and particularly Lima were pretty awful, a response to the lack of power with the pancake motors popular in those days.  

 

 

Coupling these problems with the long dead frogs of setrack curved points is not conducive to good running, and the steep gradients of the OP's suggested layout will cause him further problems in my opinion, for the reasons I've outlined.  The 31 in the photo is clearly being held at an angle to show the groove covering the outside of the rail; it would not do this in normal use except at the bottom of a gradient that was not smoothly enough vertically transition curved.  We are clearly going to have to agree to differ on this, PMP, while respecting each other's views; after all, we are both fully entitled to our opinions, so in order to avoid this becoming a back-and-forth battle of the last word and incurring the wrath of AY, I will avoid responding to any further input from you on this particular matter. 

 

Stay safe!

 

 

 Clearly you didn't bother to read the OP's original posting, and have treated us to another parrot session of Airfix/lima traction tyres. That is irrelevant as the OP doesn't have those products, the product he has are the German and Roco products that have Ringfield type motors and traction tyres that work.

 

You tell us you're trying to help the OP and that I may learn something from your 40 years experience. I specifically asked you for examples that you've worked on, you suggest changing wheels, to what I wonder? Who produces these replacement wheels? where do you get these replacement wheels from? Bullfrog snot, you don't mention it needs replacing as it has the same properties as traction tyres, it gets old it loses grip and spreads dirt on the track,  No answer re the difference regarding the completely different beast as you told us, that is the contemporary points vs the 80's set track points.

 

And then finally the lie I've highlighted in red above. Complete and utter fabrication on your part. Perhaps you could tell us, i'm interested to learn and all that, why you just made that up.

 

And the OP? well he carried on making his layout and it runs with no modifications, he runs his layout with set track curved points, traction tyres and the 80-90's HO outline equipment as I suggested he should. Is there something to be learnt from that I wonder?

[boxbrownie]

And back on topic............to the OP, if pherhaps in the future you might be moving the layout it might be beneficial if you arranged the board in two sections now and avoided points or other complex scenery over the joins.

 

Other than that the only thing I would say is it looks a little like your packing a lot into the space, sometimes less really is more.

[boxbrownie]

Oh yes, sorry forgot to mention about the curved points, I adapted the classic Bredon layout for my new venture (that hopefully will actually get finished) and that uses curved points, I was warned many times about the Hornby/PECO smaller curved points as being of a varied radius and often giving poor running and derailments, I opted in the end to use Trix-C track (due to ill health it is far easier for me to lay) and the  points with this track have been excellent with all sorts of rolling stock, no issues at all (and dare I say no wiring problems, they are live frog and both D.C./DCC ready).

 

The obvious statement is good track IS EVERYTHING on the layout, without decent track/geometry the layout will just be very frustrating in the long run.