Peco code 75 turnouts with radius > 1524 mm (SL-E188/9)

Hi all,
I am in the process of planning my first H0 layout (Danish mid-sixties theme) and has been recommended Peco code 75 for the trackwork.
My problem is that I would like some of my turnouts to have a radius well above the 1524 mm of the SL-E188/SL-E189. Ideally the turnout should have a radius of around 2200 mm (to model a Danish 1:9 turnout with 190 m radius - and I would imagine the UK prototype have used a similar size). Obviously Peco doesn't provide this but I was just wondering if there by any chance exists a solution (for example a UK manufacturer making such a product, a modification kit, assembly fixture or something similar).
I might be asking for the impossible here - but I do hope there is a way through this, so any information on this is very welcomed.
Thanks John Westi
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
John Westi wrote:

Hi John,
I think you are wishing for the impossible here! Such a large radius turnout will take an awful lot of space so most modellers compromise with much tighter turnouts. Therefore Peco will never make the turnout you want. Other than making your own turnouts or having someone else make them for you I don't think there are any options. A possibility which requires much less work would be to take Peco's curved Code 75 turnout and straighten it by cutting the webs between sleepers and reconfiguring it. I have done this before with a Code 100 curved turnout to make a larger radius curved turnout for a specific situation and it was a success. You need to leave one line of webs intact and the turnout needs to be laid on perfect roadbed as it will no longer be as rigid as originally. Around the point ends area the webs should not be cut.
Regards, Greg.P.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Sorry, Greg - not sure I follow you... I believe all curved Peco turnouts have the same V angle as their straight counterparts, so what will I gain by straigthen out a curved turnout? To me V angle and radius go hand in hand (at least within the same product line) - so what am I missing here?
Regards John Westi
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
John Westi wrote:

"Curved turnout" is ambiguous. It may refer to a turnout where both legs of the turnout are curved, or it may refer to a turnout where the diverging route curves continuously from curved points through curved frog. This was common practice in England and much of the Continent in the past, but AFAIK is not longer the case. A straight turnout has straight points, a curved closure rail, and a straight frog. This ambiguity of "curved turnout" means that if both legs are curved, but points and frog are straight, a turnout can be both straight and curved!
All straight turnouts have an effective radius, which the radius of a section of track that could replace the turnout between its clearance points (a few feet before the points, and few feet after the frog.) There is no definitive relation between frog angle and effective radius in a straight turnout: the length of the points and the radius of the closure rail together determine what frog angle fits. North American railroads use standard turnout dimensions, and the NMRA has used a selection of these to specify RPs for turnouts.
You can bend a straight turnout so that both legs are curved, and there will be no problems as long as the radius of the closure rail for the inner leg is at least equal to the minimum radius of your layout. The effective radius will still be greater than the minimum radius. I've done this several times, without a problem.
You can of course widen the radius of a straight curved turnout the same way. Just do it, and you'll see what I mean. Cut the webs underneath the rails so that the ties can slide a bit while you fiddle with the radius.
If the turnout has a curved frog, you can still fiddle with its overall curvature, but not to the same extent. But changing a curved #8 to match a curved #9 should not cause any problems whatever. You'll just have a turnout with varying radii in it, is all.
OTOH, if you build turnouts in place, you needn't bother with predetermined frog angles, etc. Just lay down ties (sleepers) to suit the diverging routes, lay the stock rails, then fit the frog rails to gauge and solder them, then fit he closure rails, and then fit the points. If you use track gauges and sight along the rails frequently, you will get a nicely flowing, good looking, and smoothly operating turnout. It's not difficult to do. And a lot less hassle than trying to match some official specs.
Keep in mind that you are creating an illusion when you build a layout, and the overall visual effect and smooth running are more important than precise adherence to a standard. Prototype dimensions can and should be followed in most cases, but you can and should diverge from them for the sake of smooth running and aesthetic effect.
HTH
--
wolf k.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Wolf K." wrote:

You can't have a continuously curved #8 (or any number) turnout because the frog is curved - it will be continuously different numbers throughout.

I fully agree with both the above paragraphs. I'm building a typical German Landerbahn through station with ladder formation at each end. If I used prototypical length turnouts I would have space for three parallel tracks, or using Pecos I can have 5 tracks :-) I'm also building a gentle "S" curve through the double track ladder and scissors crossover at one end. It's not possible with standard Peco components, but by adjusting the radii and building the centre crossing I can achieve what I want. It's not perfect but it's a trade-off between appearance and operation. I've never seen a 1920 German railway station and even if I had I would have seen it from platform level where precise turnout dimensions could not be checked.
Greg.P.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Greg Procter wrote:

Practice in Denmark is that for turnouts with curved frog the turnout angle is stated, i. e. 1:7.5, 1:12, 1:19 or 1:26.5. The frog angles are a little less but frogs are nonetheless designated after the turnout angle.
http://www.modelbaneteknik.dk/jernbane/spor/btj-bl6546.pdf shows a 1:7.5 radius 190m turnout from 1958 with curved point and frog in 45 kg/m rail.
--
Venlig hilsen/Best regards
Erik Olsen DK
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Erik Olsen DK wrote:

AFAIK US turnout numbers relate to the frog angle, which obviously is _not_ the same as the turnout angle. Going back to Peco HO (Code 100) turnouts, all three straight turnouts have the same angle between the through track and the diverging track, which by Danish practice would cause them to all be given the same designation, even though the radii differ by 300%

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Greg Procter wrote:

US number turnouts have straight frogs.

That's why turnout angle and turnout radius are ofte stated together.
--
Venlig hilsen/Best regards
Erik Olsen DK
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Erik Olsen DK wrote:

Very true - however the point I intended to make is that the divergent angle of a turnout can be significantly different to it's frog angle.

The only real way to obtain an accurate scale model of any given prototype turnout is to measure it/obtain original plans and build it oneself. While I use Peco Code 75 turnouts modified to the geometry I require, I recognise that the only accurate scaled dimension in representing 1920 German Landerbahn practice is the guage. However, the Peco models are the closest in appearance of any proprietry turnouts I know of and I figure that if I hand-build then there would be no possibility of my ever completing my layout :-(
Regards, Greg.P.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Hi Greg I agree that it seems that the only way to accurately model the prototype is to handbuild the turnout - and that will take valueable time away from the overall goal of completing a layout. However as I am in the planning phase - which includes the choice of trackwork - I feel this is the time to collect all information possible on that subject, so I can make an informed compromise between the different manufacturers.
My no. 1 choice is Peco code 75 for I believe the same reasons as you. At least I am not aware of any other ready-to-use H0 track products in same code or less. Reading about your modifications to the turnouts is very inspiring and I think I'll have to try this out myself (as I'm still strugling to make my theoretical understanding fit with your actual experiences)
One solution for me could then be to use SL-E188/9 for the 'smalllest' turnouts (as a DK 1:7,5 approximation) and use a modified/handbuild turnout for the larger ones (after all I expect 'only' 10-20 % of all my turnouts to be larger than SL-E188/9). After your replies I had another browse through the Peco catalogue and found some components named Individulay. I'm wondering if they can be used to build/modify code 75 turnouts even though they are intended for code 82?
Thanks to all of you for your replies so far... John Westi
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
In message

Peco do code 75 rail in their Individulay range, see item IL-3.

--
Jane
British OO, American and Australian HO, and DCC in the garden
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
John Westi wrote:

Hi John,
the planning phase is a good time to make decisions, except that you can become stuck with them ;-)
I began with hand laid turnouts and Model Engineering Code 70 track with the sleeper webs cut so that I could spread the sleepers out to the correct spacing for my prototype. (Code 100 in hidden areas to use up my old stockpiled track)
The track works well, except that if I haven't ordered enough then I'm going to be in difficulties as I have to order complete 25 length boxes for shipping USA/New Zealand. The problem with turnouts is that they are not the same beast from country to country nor railway to railway nor even era to era. On the plus side, only people who have laid real turnouts and the odd railway fanatic actually knows what a real turnout looks like. The rest of the population has only seen them from a station platform or a railway overbridge and then the view is generally very foreshortened. I can only suggest you get plans for the specific (type of) turnouts you wish to represent and then decide how precisely you wish to model them. You may well decide Peco or Model Engineering or Mehano =8^) are close enough.
I was happy enough with Peco Code 100 for twenty years - until I saw a Proto 87 layout - ouch!
As for Individulay, I'm only aware of the original fibre based sleeper strip stuff - do the (current) sleepers match what you're modelling? Do you need to create rail baseplates? (etchings) Will the spikes allow whatever wheels you're using to clear? ... Sometimes it's easier to start from scratch ... Other times the compromises are so small ...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Wolf K. wrote:

That very much depends on the normal practice of the railway or country in question.
In Denmark a straight turnout has always been a turnout with straight through road regardless of the design of the points and the frog. Initially all turnouts used straight points and straight frogs, probably becaused they were the easiest to manufacture.
In about 1907 Danish State Railways designed points where the point for the diverging road was curved. The same set of point was used for all frog angles so that the point radius and the closure radius could be different. Frogs were still straight.
In 1922 a design was made with a curved point specifically for each frog angle such that the curve through point and closure rail was continuous. Designs for turnouts with straight frogs included 1:9 radius 190m, 1:11 radius 330m and 1:14 radius 500m. Furthermore a design was made for a curved frog with radius 190m for a turnout 1:7.5 radius 190m using the same set of points as a 1:9 radius 190m turnout.
The same turnout sizes were repeated in UIC60 which is used on most lines today. Later on turnouts1:12 radius 500 m, 1:19 radius 1200m and 1:26,.5 radius 2500m with curved points and frogs have been introduced.
In Denmark, a "curved turnout" is constructed simply by using the parts for a straight turnout, bending them for the desired main road radius and adjusting the closure rail lenghts if necessary. Today where cast manganese steel frog are used, frogs are made to fit the location.
--
Venlig hilsen/Best regards
Erik Olsen DK
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Erik Olsen DK wrote:

That's precisely what I said. Sorry for not spelling out all the implications of my initial statement, that "curved turnout" is an ambiguous term. By simple logic, "straight turnout" is therefore also an ambiguous term. In the part of my post that you snipped I pointed out that a straight turnout can therefore be curved -- which also implies ambiguity of the term "straight turnout."
Nice to know that in Denmark the RR has resolved the ambiguity. Would be nice if all RRs everywhere used exactly the same terminolgy... ;-)
[snip interesting details about Danish RR practice]
--
wolf k.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Have a look at www.templot.com - in the "club", and the help pages, there is a huge amount of info about the technical side of point construction - even if you don't want to make your own the site provides difinitive info about turnout construction. Well worth a read even if only for interest (sometimes a Phd in Maths might help - Martin is obviously quite good at sums!).
Cheers Richard
--
www.beamends-lrspares.co.uk snipped-for-privacy@beamends-lrspares.co.uk
I have become... comfortably numb
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
beamendsltd wrote:
[...]

I've looked at it, and marvel at the amount of information, the precision and detail of the templates, etc etc etc.
Another good site is Fast Tracks, who offer machined jigs, laser cut tie strips, etc, to enable precise turnout construction: http://www.handlaidtrack.com/index.php .
But IMO it's overkill. You don't need any of that. Just build the turnouts in place to suit the actual location of the tracks. Last time I did that, I had it done in about 30 minutes. I use three 3-point track gauges to hold rails in place, and an NMRA gauge to adjust check gauge and flangeways. Just make sure the effective radius of the turnout is larger than your minimum design radius. Bonus: you get beautifully flowing trackwork this way.
OTOH, if you want to make show-piece, foreground quality turnouts, Templot looks like just the thing to keep you on track... ;-)
--
wolf k.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Indeed - I'm affraid I've become a bit pedantic since deciding on 0 gauge - it seems a terrible shame to spend hours building the "perfect" kit and then get the track wrong ;-)
The interesting bit of my layout can be seen at : http://home.btconnect.com/soddingham/design/index.html
It wasn't quite finished then, and I've since converted it to 0-FS from GOG-F, which is as good as it gets without going all S7
For those who have dowmloaded the (free!) Google SketchUp, the file can be found at:
http://www.templot.com/forum/view_topic.php?id27&forum_id=1
about 4 posts dowm - called Loft.skp
It's quite fun "flying" around....... the Templot track could have been imported in 3d, but I did it in 2d as my PC struggles with 3d.
Cheers Richard
--
www.beamends-lrspares.co.uk snipped-for-privacy@beamends-lrspares.co.uk
I have become... comfortably numb
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
beamendsltd wrote: [...]

Wow! In wouldn't even try to build such a complicated arrangement of turnouts and crossings! I can see where Templot would be an enormous help in laying out the sleeper locations, etc.
I trust we'll see some in-progress pictures from time to time?
[...]
--
wolf k.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Well, I've got the baseboards done now (not over interesting photo wise but I'll add one soon), and found a lunatic who can plane the point blades... just having a burst of activity on the Warship & wagons front to clear some space on the work bench (aka dining room table).......
Still struggling to find some 0-FS track guages though - anyone come accross any?
Cheers Richard
--
www.beamends-lrspares.co.uk snipped-for-privacy@beamends-lrspares.co.uk
I have become... comfortably numb
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
John Westi wrote:

Hi John, There are two overall ways to build a turnout: - constant curve throughout the branch track. - a collection of straight and curved components making up the branch track.
US turnouts generally use frogs which are straight (the casting can often can be used for either left or right handed turnouts) The points are straight and then the section between point and frog provides the entire curve.
European turnouts are often the constant curve type where the frog is cast with the diverging rail curved, along with most other diverging components.
Peco "Set-track" turnouts are the extreme form of constant curve turnouts as they are intended to match the standard track sections. Peco (Code 100) turnouts all have the same exit angle, in spite of being 2', 3' and (6') radius. The difference comes in the amount of curve and straight in the diverging track and probably the frog angle differs fractionally for each radius. Look at the 2' radius diverging track - it has an angle and curve to the points, an almost straight section to the frog and a slight curve thereafter. The 3' radius has much the same point angle, then a gentle curve to the frog. The large radius divergance is larger than the logical curve from points through the frog angle to the toe. (I'm using the Code 100 Peco comparioson as I don't yet have examples of all the Peco Code 75 turnouts)
Anyway, bottom line is that just because the turnouts all have the same exit angles doesn't mean the frog angles are equal!
Greg.P.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Polytechforum.com is a website by engineers for engineers. It is not affiliated with any of manufacturers or vendors discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.