Then again, I doubt that any railroad in the past 100 years has installed #4 turnouts on their mainlines in contrast to most layouts. So I've found that idea to be a goal rather than a requirement and it's better to put your efforts into eliminating things like bad S-curves.
You can use a switch from another manufacturer that might fit better than the kato switch and have a different radius to match the curve. You can also use flex track for that inner track with a non kato switch. There's nothing wrong with mixing Kato and non Kato track together. Just pop out the unijoiners and use regular Atlas or other brand of metal joiners. Use cork under the flex to match the height of the Kato Track, taper the cork to match the Kato profile and then ballast with Kato ballast and it will look just like the rest.
Hi George, Just a thought here, and not sure if THE WIFE will go for it. In this image you don't have the "S" curve, but the track go into the area (Jean Valley?). You could run the track right down the middle of the the area and let THE WIFE have both sides of both tracks as well as between. I have not idea what she wants to put in the area, but it could provide some street running. Gary
Dont ever remember saying that...hmmmm. I want some of what you smokin my friend....LOL. I went with this configuration: Sweet talked THE Wife (CFO) and got the OK. ** Still not really happy taking out that feeder before the dbl xover....but...it is what it is ;-)
Still have the ugly 'bump' on the left side where the passenger siding comes off the main. Told THE Wife she could deal with that or back her passeneger train in from the other end...LOL. She was agreeable with everyhing the way it is. It's scarey I tell ya. She MUST be planning something...right ? Should I being sleeping with one eye open at night? Make sure I do the cooking and not her? Make sure she dont sneek up behind me? ROFLMAO!!
I'm probably a little late to the party, but FWIW, this is what I'd do. For the interchange track, instead of using a reverse curve right at the switch, I'd run it off straight for a little bit, then curve it towards the bridge. I'd also run it at an angle under the bridge for added interest. It would mean rearranging some of the buildings, but they didn't look as though they were established anyway. Around the corner, at the other "lump," I'd change the angle of the outer mainline. This not only adds interest, but reduces the S-turn effect of the track leading off the main and rounding the bend.
No offense meant toward anyone personally. It certainly isn't my place to tell you what to do or not do. My first reaction is Yuck, Yuck and Yuck again. Now pardon me for saying so but that looks like a newbie model railroader at work. Go ahead and use the diverging side on both switches and see how much cleaner it looks. Then note how much more efficient it is. The problem with the Kato switches is they turn out to far on the diverging side and make it tough to use in the chosen alignment. I've used the diverging side as the main in a number of places on my layout. It's the only arrangement that will work in the tight spaces I have. The upside to Kato switches it won't matter to the switch which way you run your trains or where the main line goes. Trains go through them just as smooth as (A babies behind?). No problems with derailments either way you route a train. Anyway, George, It may be the pain medication for a recent tooth extraction...talking. However! What you responded to was something I shared about my family of Rails and some terminology they used. You responded by saying that some of us don't care what they said or did on the 1X1 foot scale. Loose interpretation brings us to todays exchange of gun fire. Grin! No biggee because I don't really give a $#!+ what you do or don't do on your layout. Put those switches in any which way you want. "It's your railroad and you make the rules, #1 is to have fun," Jim157
Looking at the photos of the layout my thoughts are that if there was already a rather sharp curve (and most of the curves on our layouts would require a walking pace speed restriction on the prototype anyway) starting immediately after the turnout the prototype wouldn't bother with all the real estate aquisition required to straighten the main line through the turnout. You could also say that the straight route was originally the main line which is why it goes straight ahead. We have several junctions in Brisbane where the branch line came first and what is now the main line goes through the curved leg of the turnout with a 15 MPH speed restriction because either geographically or because of the surrounding area being builton over the years there is no way to straighten out the main line.
Interesting David. Since I havent glued anything down yet...I'll rearange it all and see how it looks...thnxs
Another interesting thought. Would never had thought this little area could get so many different ideas
Have you tried it with the diverging mains? Sometimes the overall esthetic is more important than slavish obsession with what is prototypical. If it was a choice between what fits & looks good and being prototypical, I'd go with what fits and looks good.
Thought about that...but...I cant see it working for both inbound and outbound trains on the interchange.
hi gentlemen, since I am not aware of the complete trackplan, I assumed the interchange is just a spur; not leading to a staging area or to an other part of your layout. Strictly speaking you will then not have in and out going trains. You only have to be able to back a couple of cars into the interchange(-spur). When this spur has to be switched by trains going both east and west you will need an additional crossover and a runaround nearby. IMHO I would go a long way to keep the dubble track appearance, with the spur diverging from the mains from below, like Greatdrivermiles suggested. Main 2 can then remain in its original position. (Of course i might be overlooking something and is the interchange really leading to another part of your layout) Smile Paul
On the old P&WV they did just that. It is located now on the W&LE at Longview, PA [now called Bethel Park] The turnout is located on a slight curve to the right while the diverging line goes up a grade to an interchange with the West Mifflin branch and formerly, the Montour RR. The manline curves to the right and goes under the Montour RR, Or, at least it used to do so. The Montour RR is no more and much of its right of way is now a bike traile.
Sorry Glenn....almost missed your question...again. Yes...I tried it with using the devergings as the mains. It worked fine...even at track speed. It looked ok to me...but that is what made me ask the question if it was done that way on the 1:1. I am nowhwere near a 'prototypical' kinda guy. But some things...I just gotta question to see if its anywhere near the real thing ;-) I'm understanding that in the 1:1...unless you have a #20+ turnout...your not going thru at track speed. Kato makes a #6 and I run my trains slow enough (scale 50 mph) that they glide thru any of my #6's with flinching. I also run 2 trains and just let em go. I like just watching em. So in reply...yes the deverging on kato#6's works for mains. And from replies here it seems ike the 1:1 did it too to some extent . ;-)
George, right back at you good friend. Look or not, heeheehee. Ok getting serious. Most of my friend seldom if ever agree with me. That's what makes it so dammed interesting otherwise our discussions would be anything but lively...as in boring . About the switches and track alignment. George, you wrote: "But that is what made me ask the question if it was done that way on the 1:1?". Yes, they do, I wrote somewhere here. I don't have time to do the research right now. On one of the eastern train boards there is a picture of a N&S long, high speed switch being put in on a straight section of the CSX main. The N&S uses the diverging switch to leave the CSX main. Same is true of a B&O, C&O operation somewhere in Ohio. I think in the Southwest portion of the state IFMSMC. On your layout: There is only one way that works here, looks clean and gives you the look of a professionally engineered railroad. By not doing what is prototypically correct. Gosh! Grin! There's nothing wrong with a diverging switch on the main. This is model railroading after all and we don't always have to copy the real deal. We don't have room to do that....and....most layouts don't use prototypically correct curves in the first place. Again, and unless I missed saying this, "We don't have room". You'll like the results and won't suffer any operational problems. I love to discuss and cuss. Got to be careful here as we don't want to mess with any virgin ears or minds. So we say "Mucking" "Bucking" instead of F... "Fricking" and you can shorten that to "Ricking" now that's a real bad word... well you know. hboy: LOL Last I heard the NMRA Ninja's, have moved to Europe to stir things up. LMAO
Hey Paul... You are correct. The interchange track is just there (ends under the bridge against that back window). It gives the illusion of a track that gives the whole layout a purpose...things go somewhere ;-) In my 'off layout' world...that interchange goes about 69 miles south to connect to the BNSF line somewhere along I-40 in Arizona ;-)
