Reworked a pesky place on my layout today.

[Running Bear]

6:20 pm


I've been doing some light layout work today. The evil 'S' curve at the front of the layout is fixing to go away. As the photo below shows I've already got the deck that'll hold the new track section in place.



After I've marked off the areas where the ends of the new section will marry into the existing track I'll cut out the offending section, trim the ends, put a piece of half inch foam down on the new deck and install the new track section. Here's a photo showing the new section set in to show what I'm going to do.

Any lovers of 'S' curves speak now or forever hold your peace.




Edit: 8:45 pm


The new track section is in place. Now for the ticklish part. The areas where the rails were cut is fairly difficult to get at to cut under the rail ends. So I'm having a spot of bother getting rail joiners in there. What I'm going to do is simply this. I'll clamp the rail ends in place so they line up precisely with each other and solder a piece of iron wire across each rail joint on the outside edge of the rail. After the area is ballasted it'll hardly be noticeable. Have I done this before? Yes. How many times? Twice, and that was many years ago.

BTW, all the track on my layout is Bachmann EZ-Track.

[Joe Satnik]

Dear KCS 1,

The only thing that S curves have going for them is that they look elegant. 

However, as you have found out, they cause derailments, especially on cars with body mounted couplers.  Backing up through them is nearly impossible.   

Bye, bye, S curve.  We won't miss you.

Sincerely,

Joe Satnik   

   

[Running Bear]

I now have the rail ends soldered together and I just ran a test train made up of my pickiest loco and cars over the area and they worked flawlessly. I label this project a success.

[hindmarch]

Hi KCS1,Please read your personal messages,Bryan

[Running Bear]

Hi KCS1,Please read your personal messages,Bryan

I have no PM's. I've found it next to impossible to send here them so I'm not surprised someone else would have trouble. Send me an email.

[RAM]

There is nothing wrong with an S' curve, but it must have a straight section between the curves as long as the longest car you are going to run on it.

[Joe Satnik]

Dear RAM,

I think you've just defined (the border between) what is and is not an S curve. (It depends on rolling stock length.)

Sincerely,

Joe Satnik

[Running Bear]

I've since added a turnout for a short spur.

[Running Bear]

Yesterday I had to remove the new turnout from my layout. It was causing problems with some of the larger locomotives that I use. My curves are 18" radius (it's not possible to go larger) but the curved part of the turnout is more like 15" radius and some of the larger power didn't like it, and they're Athearn BB's. Get that! My P2K E's took it just fine but the Athearn P's wouldn't touch it.

[Joe Satnik]

Dear KCS 1,

You might have put a kink in your track with the turnout. 

The Bachmann "Remote Switches" copy the footprint of the Atlas "Snap Switches" with its 1/3 curve piece attached.

Neither are not drop in replacements for an 18"R 30 degree curve, as the curved portion is moved up the straight portion by 1.5".   (Lay a curve on top of the turnout and you will see the extra 1.5" at the points end.) 

This shift must be compensated for on the rest of the layout by adding 1.5" to the other side (of the oval, eg).  This is pretty simple with "Snap Track", as they make 1.5" straights. 

It is not possible to make an EZ-Track piece that small, though. (2" is the lower limit). 

You could remove a 9" straight from the points end and add back in a 3" and a 4.5", which will compensate. (Do nothing to the other side.)

Part of turnout is 15"R?  Hmm.   One way to see it better is to make a template of an 18"R curve's rails and lay it on the turnout.  Lay a piece of paper on top of a curve piece and make a pencil rubbing of the top of the rails.  Cut along the lines for the template.  Make a 15" template too, if possible (15"+half gauge, 15"-half gauge).

Carefully watch the problem engines wheels as it traverses the turnout.  You might find something else derailing it.  (Loose points rail, out of spec wheel gauge, out of spec track gauge, out of spec guard rail gauge, unlevel frog, points moving away from stock rail, etc.)

Hope this helps. 

Sincerely,

Joe Satnik
 

[Running Bear]

I watched the PA1's wheels very closely as it went through the turnout. The leading wheels in each truck would climb up over the rail and drop off. No matter, I took care of the problem. I resituated the turnout so the through train can go by on the straight track while the diverging track goes to the spur.

[grumpy]

KCS1
From the photo it looks like the turnout has a drop in elevation. I have found that the EZ track turnouts must be exactly flat in order to function properly all of the time. I have 10 in my layout and they are all laid out in such a way as to be flat so no derailments.
Don

[Santa Fe buff]

grumpy,
You've made an excellent point. My Walther's CN GP9m:
http://www.walthers.com/exec/productinfo/931-104
^(By the way, the second wheel of the first truck is derailed in the picture... )

As my EMD GP9m runs my layouts (Remember, I don't have one yet, I see it up on a bed or on the low shag carpet in my room.), and while setting it up on my mom and dad's room, I had a stupid decision to let the track tilt. The train made it just fine, but when the GP9m came over that E-Z track switch it just rode it like a wave and jumped like a rabbit. After evening it out on my floor, it went over like it was just a turn. (With the clattering...).

So I guess that is the elevation.

[Running Bear]

What you're seeing is an optical illusion. I sent my most derailment prone loco (a P2K E6 that hates turnouts) through the turnout forward and backward and it never once derailed.

[Terry Toenges]

KCS -
I'm guessing you sawed off the diverging leg of the turnout and added a short curve going the opposite direction.
With no straight in between, do you have problems with that?