I am building a new layout and planning on using Atlas Code 55 with #5 switches in the yard. What is the proper track spacing in order for the #5's to line up correctly. What would the track radius be to connect the final turnout on a leg to the last yard track. I usually use a sectional piece there to insure the radius is correct. While I'm asking -- what would the spacing be for the #7 turnouts. I realize I've been off the forum for about 8 months. Starting to get the old fire back. I'm tearing the old layout down (including my beloved yard) because I realized I'm just not having any fun with it. It'll be tough to do, but I find I have little interest in even going in the layout room now. As usual, thanks in advance for any help you can provide me. Chris
Chris: An Atlas code 55 #5 ladder gives you a 1.25" track spacing. The reverse curve is the 30.609" radius sectional piece that Atlas sells. If you want a #7 ladder with the same 1.25" spacing, then use the 2" sectional pieces between switches. However, this makes the ladder very long for a big yard. The reverse curve for the #7 switches is the 71" radius sectional piece. You can always use the old trick of laying out the #7 ladder at a steeper angle and curving (gotta use flex track here) the first foot or so of the yard tracks to achieve the desired spacing. This will save a little space by allowing you to bring the switches closer together. Prototype RRs do this all the time. Hope that helps, Pete
ACTUALLY, both Atlas C55 #5 and #7 turnouts give you a 1.25" spacing. If you compare a #5 and #7 RH switch, you'll see that the angle of the diverging rail is exactly the same, the only difference is that on the #7 the angle is more gradual, coming at a longer distance. Also, take two #5 turnouts and two #7 turnouts (of the same direction) and join them at their diverging rails...you'll get the same track spacing between them.
I also have Atlas Code 55 track. If You ll precisely examine this comparison between #5 and #7 - #5 has more sharp angle for continuing tracks than #7. Also #5 turnouts allow to cut about 1/4 of their length in aim to save space. --- Vadim
Are the template files for Atlas C55 that come with XtrackCAD way off? This thread prompted me to play around and I'm not getting the same results that Pete described at all. ??
What I meant was at the end of the turnout, the distance between the centerlines of the straight track and the diverging track are exactly the same. Sorry I didn't phrase that accurately.
Maybe the confusion is coming from the fact that the #7 switches (#5s also) are designed to maintain the 1.25" parallel track spacing when used as a crossover. That is, two left or two right switches connected at the diverging legs. The geometry changes when you lay a #7 ladder for a yard. For example, right switch, then a left, then more lefts for your yard tracks. This is when you need to put the 2" pieces between all the switches if you want to maintain the 1.25" spacing between parallel tracks. #5 ladders, because of the long lead, or "leg" before the switch points, do not need any spacers. If you lay out a #7 yard ladder without the spacers, you get 7/8" parallel track spacing. All this is from actual measurements (I just double-checked!) and from laying out a large staging yard on my previous layout, not from track-planning software. Perhaps they've built-in the adjustment in the software for simplicity? I would be curious to try it in the Atlas RTS software. I would, but it is not Mac-compatible. :-( Hope that helps clarify things! Pete
Yeah, that's true, which is how/why both the #5 and #7 both maintain the same 1-1/4" centers in a crossover situation. But, as Pete pointed out, that doesn't hold true for a yard ladder setup. Jason
Any answer to my XtrackCAD question? Also, btw, I tried the same thing in RTS and it seems even worse. But I may not have the newest version.
I got a different result using #7 C55 Atlas switches, all of the same hand. My tracks are slightly short of 1-1/16 from centerline to centerline. I asked Paul Graf, president of Atlas, about this, and he confirmed the geometry of #7's, but not the spacing, because I didn't ask. I didn't ask about #5's. I laid out my main yard on a CAD program using Atlas's official divergence angles and lengths. It was spot-on. I don't have those figures handy today (this was done in 2002) but I think, if you ask Atlas, they will send you their specs. I may have trimmed the #7's a bit to achieve the 1-1/16 spacing, but I don't remember doing that. I know I wanted a 14-foot spacing between yard tracks, and 1-1/16 was slightly more. So I think the true measurement of a yard ladder using same-hand #7 switches is just a hair less than 14 scale feet, or just a hair less than 1-1/16 inches. Of course, I might have bent the switches a little bit to get my desired result! It wouldn't take much of a bend to reduce the spacing. But !-1/4 spacing for #7's seems too large from experience.
I do remember cutting off the leads of #5 switches to reduce the track-to-track distances. I don't use sectional track. In a ladder, the long leads of #5's led to at least 1.25" spacing.
If you want to see what the idea of #7 turnouts or #5 turnouts in your yard, the only problem is that it doesn't have the same geometry of Atlas's 5 turnouts. http://www.handlaidtrack.com/n-turnouts-c-11_95_117.php
