ZiderHead Posted August 25, 2014 Share Posted August 25, 2014 Wye not just do this? Nominal outer 60", inner 58", no warnings with min radius set to 36". The wye is 72" so min radius point on mainline is where I marked it, about 40" the way I adjusted it. You could reduce this further by adjusting the wye (cut some web, straighten rails slightly) if you could be bothered. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cromptonnut Posted August 25, 2014 Author Share Posted August 25, 2014 That's an interesting solution but the inner radius (on the crossover) of the Peco streamline curved point is still 30. It does however get past the issue by getting rid of the second curved point of the 30" on the mainline. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satan's Goldfish Posted August 25, 2014 Share Posted August 25, 2014 There's a minories thread somewhere in layout planning, when I get 2 minutes to rub together I'll drop the designs on there- there's at least 3 based around that design currently blocking my head. I hadn't intended on doing anything modular with minories but it might be useful with my goods shed approach, but getting quite O/T there. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satan's Goldfish Posted August 25, 2014 Share Posted August 25, 2014 What about using a rh and lh large or medium radius turnouts to create the curved crossing? Yes there may be a short straight section but the radius should be fine. Could even do a little bending if using large turnouts. Aren't Tillig turnouts designed to be a little flexible? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZiderHead Posted August 25, 2014 Share Posted August 25, 2014 That's an interesting solution but the inner radius (on the crossover) of the Peco streamline curved point is still 30. It does however get past the issue by getting rid of the second curved point of the 30" on the mainline. It solves the mainline restriction, but as you say still requires a speed restriction for the crossover. But is that a problem? Arent crossovers for running around controlled by shunting signals and speed restricted anyway? It very much depends on the context - why is the crossover there? If the diverging route is for running around, access to sidings or platform you wont be running at mainline speeds so the 24" min radius and speed restrictions apply. If its part of a mainline junction then you'll have to built at least some it as straight sections. Theres only so much you can do given the very limited selection of RTR pway ... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cromptonnut Posted August 25, 2014 Author Share Posted August 25, 2014 A very interesting point ziderhead... perhaps it's not "changing the standard" that is required but perhaps a modification to the wording concerning the 24" minimum (to match short points) to include crossovers, runrounds and suchlike which by their very nature would be "less than line speed". Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy Reichert Posted August 25, 2014 Share Posted August 25, 2014 A very interesting point ziderhead... perhaps it's not "changing the standard" that is required but perhaps a modification to the wording concerning the 24" minimum (to match short points) to include crossovers, runrounds and suchlike which by their very nature would be "less than line speed". I very much doubt the running speed is an issue with main line crossovers that are below the minimum radius. It's much more likely to be possible derailments due to overswing of couplers and corridor connections on long vehicles. Anywhere on the plan that such a train has to terminate, and then return by running over a crossover to get back on the correct side of double track, it's going to be not merely well below minimum radius, but running a worst-case tight reverse curve as well. Andy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Bigbee Line Posted August 25, 2014 Share Posted August 25, 2014 I find the debate regarding curved points quite interesting. Whilst they are much maligned in some parts, the Peco points allow an easy introduction into layout building. One thing to remember is that the crossing angle is standard on most Peco turnouts, allowing much mixing and matching. Regarding their curved points, I find then useful for creating some nicely flowing non-straight formations (a curved point and a large Y make a nice curved crossover) I have recently used several on some curved boards, the boards have an inner radius of 36" and an outer radius of 45.8" See thread http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/89068-north-cornwall-modular-baseboards/page-1 thanks to Tim Horn for the boards. The only guide to alignment was a central track that has been laser etched on the centre line of the boards, measurements being taken from that. It was surprising that the two trackes are 50mm or 2" apart, depending how you squint at the ruler. I'm looking to use a ruling curve of 42" radius and alter the curvature of the Peco points to suit, cutting the webs between the sleepers and tweeking the curves slightly. I have a large point to tweak as well. Has anyone else re-curved their Peco points? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Bigbee Line Posted August 25, 2014 Share Posted August 25, 2014 Wye not just do this? crossover.png Nominal outer 60", inner 58", no warnings with min radius set to 36". The wye is 72" so min radius point on mainline is where I marked it, about 40" the way I adjusted it. You could reduce this further by adjusting the wye (cut some web, straighten rails slightly) if you could be bothered. Just seen this post - great minds think alike (maybe) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Joseph_Pestell Posted August 25, 2014 RMweb Gold Share Posted August 25, 2014 See the Grantham Streamliner (A4s not track) thread. He's even done it with slips. I think it must be about 30 years ago that I first experimented with bending Peco turnouts. No problems getting the straight turnouts to bend to about 12' radius outer. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satan's Goldfish Posted August 26, 2014 Share Posted August 26, 2014 I think it was a Minories inspired layout where I saw a double slip used instead of the two middle points to save space, that gave me that idea in the first place I think a Minories type terminus would work quite well in a modular form, especially if you had a couple of modules of "track in cutting, urban scene on top" beyond the traditional end of the layout where the fiddle yard begins. last breech of topic: here's the plans http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/60091-00-minories-track-plan-wanted/?p=1565267 normal service is resumed. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sub39h Posted September 1, 2014 Share Posted September 1, 2014 I haven't built a layout with any meaningful amount of Streamline track yet, but in my plans if I wanted a cross over on a curve I used a single curved point with the inner curve attached to the straight leg of an appropriate large radius curve, similar to the use of the Y point above. If the decision was mine, the use of curved turn outs in this manner should be an acceptable exception to the 36" rule. The way I see it is that the whole point of a modular system is to include as many people as possible, and not everyone has the time, equipment or skill to make reliable hand built turn outs. The use of the Peco curved turn out on main lines seems like a reasonable compromise to make, but I would still keep the minimum radius of curves at 36" on the mainline otherwise. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cromptonnut Posted September 1, 2014 Author Share Posted September 1, 2014 What do Tillig points look like alongside Peco track anyway? Anyone have experience of mixing? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sub39h Posted September 1, 2014 Share Posted September 1, 2014 Tillig curved points are even more sharply curved than Peco's. Shinohara's #8 are 32"/36" I think but even that is not enough. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cromptonnut Posted September 1, 2014 Author Share Posted September 1, 2014 Even more reason then to allow Peco curved points as they are really the only option apart from building your own which, as discussed many times, is not an option to a lot of people. Only the boss can make that decision though. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satan's Goldfish Posted November 27, 2014 Share Posted November 27, 2014 Capture.JPG Even worse! The curved part of a slip is a nominal 24" radius. Fine for sidings but no go on a mainline crossover. The outer main line is about 46-47" but you obviously still have the 30" on the inner part. Before we had to think minimum radiuses as far as a modular standard goes, how many of us used curved points and slips in our station track plans without giving either a second thought? Well there is a prototype for everything! 7th Photo down: http://www.abandonedstations.org.uk/Holborn_Viaduct_station.html Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenton Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 Late to the discussion and not quite understanding if the issue has been clearly resolved.. 2p worth I have generally had bad experiences with Peco curved points and would not trust anything but a box to negotiate them with any speed or reliability. Kit steam locos in particular seem to fall off them (perhaps that has something to do with build quality). So my first instinct would be to ban them (or more correctly to banish them to sidings). Though perhaps an even better solution would be to apply running restrictions to each module? The last thing I would like to see is the "standards" being applied so rigidly that it puts off potential module builders. I think there is a massive risk of that and all it becomes is a set of law imposted by some exclusive group. I still think this whole idea is flexible and the standards under evolution. I don't see every board as a "main line" and so other modules might fit in to the grand scheme. It is an ideal to have nothing less than 36" radius and each module should be presented with its vital statistics. If it doesn't meet the ideal Standards then there is scope to declare module is separate classes (not for fast main line use - due to some Peco curved point). Personally I see it as a possible incentive to hand build. Although I have no plans to use a curved point - the "standards" would not prevent me building a module - what would stop me would be being unable to run my own stock on the module ... I'd set it up in a corner somewhere as a restricted running branch line and invite others to try their 0-4-0 (etc) stock on the line. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cromptonnut Posted January 8, 2015 Author Share Posted January 8, 2015 Most out-the-box models should cope fine with the curved streamline points (note, not setrack - I hate those!) but certainly your thoughts of 'mainline' or 'branch' modules does have mileage. Personally all of my modules are being built so that they fit together as a complete standalone layout, including a 12ft fiddle yard "module". There is of course no reason why, with the use of a suitable junction, all of my modules can't form their own branch line off of a main double track route (many of my boards are single track by choice) and the fiddle yard either not used, or used elsewhere within a modular arrangement at the end of another "branch line". Of course, small points are allowed in sidings so equally a curved point should be allowed on a station board if the outer curve is the mainline and the tighter inner curve is into a bay platform or freight yard. In this early stage I feel that perhaps it would be unnecessarily restrictive to have two 'sub-standards' (for the want of a better term) and it is of course only a technicality about curved points anyway as double slips are equally "not allowed" under the 36" rule. I would agree 118% that the last thing we need is an exclusive small group of "The Modular Railway Club" or similarly named individuals dictating what is and isn't allowed to the rest of us, and apart from the bare minimum of 'diktats' such as frame depth, end of board track positioning and electrical standards it really should be "anything goes". Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy Reichert Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 SNIP I would agree 118% that the last thing we need is an exclusive small group of "The Modular Railway Club" or similarly named individuals dictating what is and isn't allowed to the rest of us, and apart from the bare minimum of 'diktats' such as frame depth, end of board track positioning and electrical standards it really should be "anything goes". While I'm not personally affected by whatever you come up with, it's worth pointing out that just saying "anything goes" doesn't necessarily eliminate restrictions, but may instead place the opposite kinds of restrictions on many modellers' items which require a reasonable minimum radius, don't like reverse curves, have tight platform clearances, etc. While you may to want to expand the inclusion of track and vehicle items that are of the "trains set" variety, you may at the same time end up inadvertently creating your own set of technical "diktats" that, for example, could mean that ONLY "train set" items will actually work over the majority of the modular set-up. Andy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold PaulRhB Posted January 8, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted January 8, 2015 Just put a 15mph speed restricion on the crossing like the real thing. Posts on the board and a sticker with a warning on the sides. Additionally affix a collecting tin to the side and anyone speed trapped over 15mph (scale) donates to your charity of choice Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cromptonnut Posted January 8, 2015 Author Share Posted January 8, 2015 While I'm not personally affected by whatever you come up with, it's worth pointing out that just saying "anything goes" doesn't necessarily eliminate restrictions, but may instead place the opposite kinds of restrictions on many modellers' items which require a reasonable minimum radius, don't like reverse curves, have tight platform clearances, etc. While you may to want to expand the inclusion of track and vehicle items that are of the "trains set" variety, you may at the same time end up inadvertently creating your own set of technical "diktats" that, for example, could mean that ONLY "train set" items will actually work over the majority of the modular set-up. "Anything goes" was perhaps the wrong phrase to use - but if any stock provided - however rigid or however many wheels it may have - will not go round the 36" radius then it cannot be run anywhere on the modular layout. If it can run 36" but not 24" then there are certain places it will not be able to run, such as into a goods yard or other location where "siding" standards of the Peco small points are used. It shouldn't matter if something won't go round 24" curves because in theory that shouldn't be anywhere near the layout in any case. I think the key thing is to eliminate "setrack" geometry but most of the Streamline track (with the possible exception of the small Y) should be useable. As has been said many times before, on the real railway there are restrictions on weight and other factors so there is no reason why the model version shouldn't also have them where appropriate (rather than just for the sake of it, ie "I used small points on the mainline because I had them in my stock box and didn't want to buy new ones even though there's plenty of space".) Ultimately, if people deviate too far from a 'commonly accepted standard' they will find their modules don't work efficiently as part of a modular setup and they'll have to either rework it to make them function properly, or not bring it along to a modular meet, as clearly some sort of 'directory' of who has what modules available is bound to be developed in due course. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenton Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 While you may to want to expand the inclusion of track and vehicle items that are of the "trains set" variety, you may at the same time end up inadvertently creating your own set of technical "diktats" that, for example, could mean that ONLY "train set" items will actually work over the majority of the modular set-up. While I do think you make a very valid point in that sentence - I am still brought back to why should it matter? This is early days. If at some point in the future we end up with some strange but working standard that only "vehicle items are of the "trains-set" variety" (what ever you might mean by that - I suspect we would differ in the definition) then so be it. The key word there is "working" - so a group of modellers with their "train-sets" operating a collection of railway modules. Isn't that what we are attempting to achieve? I do not expect everyone to like or fit in with the eventual compromise (some never will whatever the outcome) but at this early stage I'd rather as many join in as possible then later decide they can compromise with help or just "see the way" - even if we do all end up running Fre(e)mo in the end. OO really is different, we have put up with 16.5 misrepresenting 4mm and are not going to change that sometime soon. I guess being British we like to do things our own way. [Definitions of a train-set welcome - I have several 08/09, are they "train-set", many dozen 4 wheel wagons even 4 wheel coaches, are they train-set? I genuinely do not understand how the term can be applied to vehicles?] If we are talking gauge, then some would argue that all OO is "train-set" without exception (even a 36" curve is non-prototypical even if the gauge itself is ignored and many can't even do that) That is why I don't even think of 36" as a "standard" and am unlikely ever to. It is more of an "ideal" a nice to have and something if achieved will make the module fit in almost anywhere. Build a module with less than that ideal and you might keep finding yourself at the end of some branch line with less fellow modulers driving their stock to you. But it might have the best detailing and you still generate a big crowd wanting to admire your modelling and discover how you built it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy Reichert Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 While I do think you make a very valid point in that sentence - I am still brought back to why should it matter? SNIP What you "name" and define the modular standard, so that people know what it is, matters. People who want to participate will want to know ahead of time if the trains they bring will run, either "everywhere" or maybe "somewhere", before they crate up their own modules and trains, book hotels and drive perhaps 200 miles. If it's a universal standard for any trains, and is, then that's OK. If it called "all inclusive", but isn't then you have a problem. If it's called a "train set standard", or a "P4 Standard" or and "EM standard", then it may attract less people, but no-one who does come will be disappointed (or disenfranchised). As to what is the difference between a "train set" model and an incompatible but otherwise HO or 00 gauge model, then the general rule is that it operates on sectional track and 18" radius, including reverse curves. I don't know if there is a an equivalent clean definition for out of the box "quality RTR", such as 24" min radius, but even that would have problems with close coupling, working gangways and reverse curves. For example, that's what the not all in agreement discussion on this topic about 36" min radius is all about. Andy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cromptonnut Posted January 9, 2015 Author Share Posted January 9, 2015 Most "out of the box" stock that you can buy from Bachmann, Hornby, Heljan, Dapol, etc is designed to go round radius 2 setrack curves which I think is 17 1/4" radius so even the 24" short points are "generous" in that respect and the standard 36" to match medium radius points even more so. Of course, the things you mention like close couplings, working gangways etc are all optional. It's really quite simple. The standard defines main line as 36" radius and medium points. If you have any stock that will not go round that (even if you have to build a short plank to test it) then don't bring it to a modular meet. You have to accept the standard as 'the lowest common denominator' and if you need 6ft curves for your working gangway fitted stock, it does not meet the standard required for operation on a modular layout. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenton Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 Andy I'm not quite sure the point you are making. We are talking about BritishOO Modules. So I guess by pure definition alone we are talking about OO gauge. Unsurprisingly that seems to include OO gauge track made by the principle supplier of OO track (Peco). I have never proposed set-track but what the hell if someone builds one I am happy to include them on the clear understanding that they are likely to be on the extreme end of a branch if at all. I am quite happy to send my Class 09 shunter down the for a "play" in the full knowledge that it will negotiate the set-track's worst. Equally so I have a 4-6-2 which will struggle to clear a 36" curve - it was built that way and it would probably fall off a 48" curve. It is going nowhere near set-track and as it cannot clear 36" it is not going anywhere near a BritishOO Module. It is as far out of spec in the opposite direction. It might as well be called "train-set". I still think the whole point is being missed - ATM this whole exercise is about inclusion which is something I do not expect the Fre(e)mo folk to understand. Maybe once they did, and then spent years honing their standards to what a select group see as perfection. That select group is quite possibly very large as they include international groups who have signed up to those standards in HO. But HO is a very different beast from OO. International we are not (that's not Xenophobic) simply put we use OO and are probably alone in doing so. Consequently we are starting anew. The whole concept is relatvely new. The first and only objective need to be to grow in numbers ... what have we now half-a-dozen? that's nowhere near enough. 20-50 (preferably more) individual modules and some experience gained of the teething troubles may be then we can have the luxury of refining standards to the point of turning folk away. Not that I would ever want that. I'd rather be convinced practically and by clear demonstration of reason on why any standard should be included that might exclude. My view is that most things can be adapted and made to work. Any module I build will be tested so that most of my out of the box stock can negotiate it. I trust Peco and Bachmann/Hornby/Hejan to conform. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.