Let's see... I'm starting my N code 55... I'm new at this and I'm trying already to stick as close to the prototype as possible... And talking to track spacing I have a question. I found that leaving fingers and magnets aside, an adequate track spacing can be 1" for the yards and 1 1/4" for the mains. No problem here. The problem is that placing the tracks on standard cork roadbeds, the spacing is well wider than the 1" or 1 1/4". For the sake of "good aesthetics", shall I stay put and use the cork roadbed "as is" or do I have to trim it (I'm trying no to think the amount of work needed for the entire layout)?:question:
Measuring 1 1/2 inches from center of one track to center of another...gives you right at what the 1:1 spacing is
Uh, no. Much of this depends on era and railroad. The area I model on the CGW, yards tracks are on 13' (1") centers and any track from the main line is 15' (1 1/8"). Jason
And it should be trimmed anyway. Even for a single track, it's probably too wide (the Midwest cork road is). Jason
Spot on Jason. I run a prototypical (for my line 1-1/8") track centers. I have to trim about 3/16" off of the thick side of midwest cork to get to that point. Then I run a surform over the cork shoulders to knock off the hard edge (you'll thank me later for that one). that will give you a nice ballast profile when you get to that point. Don't forget to cut in drainage ditches next to your cork for the best look yet.
On the prototype it could vary a lot. I've many 1"=100' blueprints from the Milwaukee Road out west. Their spacings range in the 13 to 16 foot range, for both main track to siding, and double track. I would imagine on some curves it was much more than 16 feet. Yard tracks 13 feet and less.
Quick !!! Smeone tell the real railroads they are doing it wrong !!! :teeth: 4.1.2 Track Spacing and Shifting Existing track spacing will be maintained unless otherwise required by the Railroad. Future track shifting anddirection of shifting must be verified at the preliminary stage of the feasibility study for the proposed GradeSeparation Project. Due to safety and operational needs, existing track spacing may need to be increased to meet current safety standards. The Railroad requires a minimum spacing of 20 feet between freight tracks and 25 feet between freight and commuter tracks. Unless my ruler is lieing to me...1 1/2 inches = 20 feet in N scale !! hboy:
Like I said, depends on era and road. What you posted is from 2007. It probably doesn't apply to too many people. Jason
Possibly true. The OP didnt say what era he is modeling. I was basing my original reply off modern day track ;-) MOST modelers...regardless of era...will use the 1 1/2 spacing "For the sake of "good aesthetics", however.
Again, not true. Kato Unitrack isn't even that wide. And Atlas sectional is based on 1 1/4" centers. In 35+ years, outside of N-track, I've never known anybody who preferred 1 1/2" (vs. prototypically narrower) spacing for any reason other than accessibility. Jason
I will conceed that most use the 1 1/4 spacing. Real railroads use the 20 foot spacing. Again...I was thinking what I personally would prefer...and thats the 1 1/2. If a modeler has the room...1 1/2 would be right both aesthetically and prototypically. BUT...even at 1 1/4 inch centers...midwest cork is 1/1/8 wide...which would leave you 1/8 between trackbeds. No need for ANY trimming...thnxs. <snip>I've never known anybody who preferred 1 1/2" (vs. prototypically narrower) spacing<snip> 1 1/2" ( 20 feet ) Is prototypical...narrower is NOT...depending on your era...thnxs
Curious...which railroad/era are you referring to that uses 20ft centerlines? EDIT: Nevermind, now I see you're referring to generic ultra-modern practices. Actually, you'll probably find most use 25ft when possible for new construction. However, even renovation of existing ROW won't change unless it can be done easily. (read CHEAPLY)
You forgot to give me credit for telling you that in the first place. This all works fine. You can deal with the people who model a time, place and railroad where 20' centers are prototypical, and I'll deal with the other 99%. Jason Jason
In reading the thread I see that no one asked the question about the radii of the OP"s curves. If they are very sharp he may have to adjust the rail centers. So here is the question. How sharp are your curves?
NO, I won't tell you the railroads are doing it wrong. They may be the only ones doing it right. Is the OP still participating here or is he or she sitting back laughing at the storm they've created? More details are needed about the layout before we can give a definitive answer. Two answers I usually give: Make the clearance whatever you think it should be. And the other is WGAS (but I can't say that here) as in it's nobody else's business. Better said, it's about whatever makes you happy. This is about you, the designer and what YOU really want. I know of no set formula or accepted rule that says you must have your frigging railroad done to a specific standard. Unless the NMRA Ninja's have something to say about this. Even then you set the standard for your model railroad and you establish the rules of operation. Do I make myself clear? Clear as mud, yes? Ok, I agree that was a little gruff and vague. Here's what I use for N Scale, a one and a quarter inch minimum, to a one and a half inch center of track, to center of track. Depends on the radius of the curve. I don't want my full length passenger cars scraping sides, swapping paint and plastic arms stuck out the windows...gosh.... on the curves. They don't! George, was there a contest? You're always a winner. Which reminds me if you use sectional track such as Kato Unitrack, they set the standard for you. Not much of choice. Use Flex track and you get to, you did notice I said "Get to", set your own standard. Now it should be clear as mud...col...sigh!
The evolution of current track centers is based on both employee safety, sideswipe incidents, and some rather specific derailments where just a little extra space would have made a big difference. The big 'new standard' is the placement of transit or other passenger-only track beside an existing freight track - and that is 25 feet. http://www.bnsf.com/customers/pdf/indytrkstds.pdf Now, you'll find a ton of tighter track centers than that. If you look at vintage, 4-track, PRR you'll find it as tight as 12'6", a lot of 13 foot. Same with passing sidings, yard design, etc. I've had some real issues with these standards and Class 1's, when their existing main line tracks are 13' and any new track has to be 25'. When NS got relocated up to the ex-NYC viaducts through Erie, PA to get them off of 19th St. dating to NKP days, it literally was a multi-million dollar argument. The NYC historic track centers are 12'6" and the new NS track got put in at 15', that's all that would fit through the bridges, on what had been a four-track main line. That design was back in 2001-2. Since the light-rail collision in Denver with UP, the 25' rule has been pretty much set in stone. Edit: Found it in 2007. http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/light-rail-train-hits-derailed-coal-train That's the incident that caused the 25' new standards. I 'think' it was the NTSB that made the recommendation on track separations as part of the investigation. Now it's fully embedded in track worker safety regs on any two tracks tighter than 25', you have to take the main out of service to work on the adjacent track. So nobody wants any new tracks built tighter than that, basically. If you want to check your prototype for actual practice, it's pretty darn easy. Just use the ruler on Google Earth, and snap two of the outside rails as checkpoints. The photography isn't so precise you can tell the track is out of gauge, but it's getting there. It's VERY era- and railroad- specific. I built to 1 1/8", which still looks good, and eased it out more on curves that average 13" inside and 15" outside. You really want that tight track spacing in yards and hidden storage areas even if you have to cut switches to fit.
Right on Randgust. Excellent explanation. I would agree, with regard to prototype, in that era specific has a standard used by the one to the one foot scale. Varying from one railroad to the other. Today's regulations are running on paranoia as opposed to facts. Increasing the distance between train tracks doesn't solve anything other then make it more difficult for railroads to build a new ROW. So, is the OP still tuned in here or did he or she duck and run for cover? The problem here is we really don't know what he or she was really asking for. I can only hope we covered the full gamut of everything from toy train operations to the prototype. Now, it would be up to he or she, to choose.
