# Change in switch and curve designation (Proposal-looking for feedback)



## Axel Tillmann (Jan 10, 2008)

The increasing number of diverting Rx descriptions for switches and sectional curved track prompts me to want to change this. For one I myself got caught in the confusion that after naming the first two switches R3, R2 to stay within the LGB nomenclature, but finding out that with the introduction of their R5 LGB left a few possible radiuses behind (when thinking of 1' increments in radius) which prompted me to name the bigger swtich R7 (7' radius) and I have been telling myself all this time, why didn't we name the R3 actually R3 (4' radius) and the R2 R3 3' radius which makes the R1 actually an R2 (2' radius). 

Before I actually implement the change I would like to see feedback. Our R7 would remain the same, but the R3 would become an R4 and the R2 an R3..

This is the time for reform. Piko introdcued its own nomenclature and called their LGB R3 compatible and R5. Others specify frog # and to be frank - other than experience a frog # is meaing less to me. What frog number translates to which ultimate radius. Unless you do the Math and memorize the table it is not intuitive. (Of course I know how the frog is calculated, but that still doesn't translate into a radius easily, yes and I am fully aware that some switches don't divert in a radius after the frog, but the new R designation could be used still as a good approximation)


----------



## rdamurphy (Jan 3, 2008)

IMAO: 

Switches that are of prototypical configuration be listed as Frog number, for instance, AMS and Aristocraft #6 switches. 

Switches that have a constant radius through the diverging route, such as the Aristo and LGB switches, should use that radius: A switch with a 4' radius should be an R4. A switch with a 7' radius should be an R7. I'm not quite sure why LS went with "diameter" rather than "radius" in curved track, but it is what it is. If using diameter, the track should be a D14, right? 

Having "coded" or "meaningless" designations doesn't really do anybody any good. Why in the world would we call a piece of track with a 4' diameter "R3"? 

As far as radius - or diameter - of switches with prototypical arrangent, it's also meaningless if you're approximating the radius. Simply for the fact that you can't just take out a piece of, for example, R9 curve, and plop in an R9 switch. Using the frog number make more sense as it should tell people this, or at least quash expectations. 

Honestly? Why not use the same system that's been in place for N, OO, HO, S, O, O-27 etc, for the past half century or so? 

I can understand why you wouldn't want a 10' diameter curve piece to be 60" radius, but OTOH, why not? At least call it a 5' radius... 

Thanks, Robert


----------



## Dan Pierce (Jan 2, 2008)

But, the switches are made in Europe and are really metric. So where do these numbers come from??? 

LGB R1 curves are really 1200mm diameter, 600mm radius, equating to US measurements of just under 4 feet and 2 feet. Original part numbers were 1200 and 1205 for right and left. Add 10 and you got EPL versions, and in later years, add a fifth digit at the end.


----------



## jake3404 (Dec 3, 2010)

I have to be honest, I'm with Robert on this. I've been in HO for a long time and was well used to the switches being desingated by their frog number. Since I have now dabbled into large scale, the various classifications of switches by different manufacturers is very confusing. Listing the Radii on the diverging route is useless to me unless it was a curved switch. I prefer frog number. I understand what a #6 switch is or the difference between it and a #4 switch. 

But to your question, I understand your trying to stay consistant with LGB, since many modelers use their stuff. I think renaming your switches to reflect the radii will clear up some confusion.


----------



## Axel Tillmann (Jan 10, 2008)

Posted By rdamurphy on 04 Mar 2011 05:18 AM 
IMAO: 

Switches that are of prototypical configuration be listed as Frog number, for instance, AMS and Aristocraft #6 switches. 

Switches that have a constant radius through the diverging route, such as the Aristo and LGB switches, should use that radius: A switch with a 4' radius should be an R4. A switch with a 7' radius should be an R7. I'm not quite sure why LS went with "diameter" rather than "radius" in curved track, but it is what it is. If using diameter, the track should be a D14, right? 

Having "coded" or "meaningless" designations doesn't really do anybody any good. Why in the world would we call a piece of track with a 4' diameter "R3"? 

As far as radius - or diameter - of switches with prototypical arrangent, it's also meaningless if you're approximating the radius. Simply for the fact that you can't just take out a piece of, for example, R9 curve, and plop in an R9 switch. Using the frog number make more sense as it should tell people this, or at least quash expectations. 

Honestly? Why not use the same system that's been in place for N, OO, HO, S, O, O-27 etc, for the past half century or so? 

I can understand why you wouldn't want a 10' diameter curve piece to be 60" radius, but OTOH, why not? At least call it a 5' radius... 

Thanks, Robert Actually to make things more interesting all switches have frogs that can follow the identical scheme for frog#s. And most switches have a radius up to the frog, because they have to have a smooth transitioning from main the the diversion. The real only difference is if the curve continues after the frog or not. But in a lot of cases the small piece of diversion after the frog is negliable in comparission to the curve up to the frog.

Thanks for the great input so far from everyone which confirms what I was feeling. As far as European 300mm and 1' differences, small enought I think to be ignored, so thqat we don't complicate the issue any further. I would like to call a 4' radius switch an R4 and as far as TL45 the manufacturer is concerened it is 4x their unit of increment of 300mm, becuase their track is designed in 300mm increments. So at the end everybody could be happy. Maybe I even introduce an F designator for the frogs as well.


----------



## BodsRailRoad (Jul 26, 2008)

Axel I say the simpler the better.

The only reason I care what the radius of a switch or turnout is, other than looks/flow of the track, is so that I know which of my engines can go through them and not derail.

When you buy a large engine one of the first things you look for is what the minimum diameter curve it will run on is. There is no point in buying a Big Boy if you only have 4 foot diameter curves.

The same goes for switches if I can look at it's name and know right off what the radius/diameter of the turnout is, and I know what the smallest curve diameter I can use for my equipment is, I will know exactly which switches will and won't work for my layout.

This change is much needed and welcomed imo.

Ron


----------



## s-4 (Jan 2, 2008)

Hi Axel, 
I think I would label them by diameter in feet, since most of the US curved sectional code 332 marketed this way. 
If you're using 8ft diameter curves, you might want an 8ft diameter turnout to go with them. 

Perhaps you might also be able to include an approximate frog number to really explain it.


----------



## kormsen (Oct 27, 2009)

as the naming sytem in largescale is babilonic, i think a denomination that follows the same pattern as in the other scales would make sense. 

but you should be prepared to be a preacher in the desert for a couple of years. 
given, that most of your customers are used to diameters, it might be a good idea, if you would advertise your switches as: 
R2 - for 4' diameter 
R4 - for 8' diameter 
etc. 
(or even Radius2, 5' diameter etc.)


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Yeah, but R1 is closer to 4' diameter 

R2 is 61.26 inches in diameter 
R3 is 94.33 inches in diameter 
R4 never officially existed


----------



## kormsen (Oct 27, 2009)

Greg, please read again, wha Axel wrote. 
as i did understand, he does NOT follow the LGB classifications. 
he only uses the letter-number combinations. 
and yes, his R2 (LGB R1) should be a "R2.5" if we were beancounters.


----------



## Dr Rivet (Jan 5, 2008)

Axel 

As long as you are going to establish a "NEW" naming convention, I recommend [as stated in various posts above]: 

For switches with a constant radius through the frog ==> Rnnn, where n is the radius to the nearest inch 
For switches with a straight frog at the crossing point ==> #m, where n is the frog # 

I suggest the use of inches as the unit of measure because it will usually be larger than 24 and frog numbers are usually 10 or less. This means even when talking "Apples and Oranges" the numeric values will be different enough that no one should confuse a #4 and an R4, because your R4 would be called R48. 

As has been pointed out, a switch built to North American standards with the straight frog will NOT fit into a curve of the same radius as the diverging closure rail on the switch. This has confounded people moving from the "Snap Track" world to flex track and "frog numbered" switches in many scales from N and HO to the large scales. 

Just a thought... I am suggesting a large break in tradition that allows you much more flexibility in the future. 

V/r


----------



## John J (Dec 29, 2007)

I would like the Diamater in Feet system.

R 4= 4 ft diamater
R 5 = 5 ft diamater

R 10 is a 10 ft diamater.

All my curves on my RR are in feet.

That would make it eaiser at a glance to select the switch I need.

Or Put on the box what the switch is in FT along with the R numbers.

JJ


----------



## rdamurphy (Jan 3, 2008)

LGB Curves had "left" and "right" versions? 

The main difference between curved and prototypical switches is that the prototype ones don't curve through the frog. What happens after the frog is immaterial. I think most people realize now that having a constant curve through the diverging leg, through the frog, makes them prone to derailments, because you're in effect causing the wheel flange to be turned by the frog - which has a big gap in it. A prototype switch has straight points, then a wider radius curve through the diverging rail, then straight through the frog, and then it can curve or whatever after the frog. Prototype crossovers are perfect straight from one frog to the next, , something I did when I had an HO railroad. I would take the Atlas #6 switches I used for crossovers, cut the tie strips on the diverging side, and straight the rail, so it was straightedge straight from one frog to the other. 

Try it sometime, you'll be absolutely amazed at how eliminating that slight S curve makes a huge difference in operation and appearance. You can do reverse movements through a crossover without derailments! 

I was absolutely amazed when I started looking into running large scale trains that they actually made the toy-like switches that are curved to replace curved sections. I guess it makes sense with LGB since they're intended to be toys. 

Thanks, Robert


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Korm, my point was that you need to specify the EXACT diameter, not 2 for 2.5 feet. 

Beancounters? The problems most of us have is fitting the largest curves into the available space. Without accurate dimensions, this cannot be done. 

When you see someone agonizing over choosing between an Aristo WR (10 foot diameter, #4 frog), a Train-Li R7 (dunno the diameter but 5-5.5 frog) and an Aristo #6 (closure rails approx 14' dia, #6 frog), is is NOT because he is a beancounter, but he is designing his layout to get the largest curves, smoothest switches in the available space. 

Going to a system where the numbers are approximate is worthless. 

Greg


----------



## Axel Tillmann (Jan 10, 2008)

Posted By Dr Rivet on 05 Mar 2011 07:23 AM 
Axel 

As long as you are going to establish a "NEW" naming convention, I recommend [as stated in various posts above]: 

For switches with a constant radius through the frog ==> Rnnn, where n is the radius to the nearest inch 
For switches with a straight frog at the crossing point ==> #m, where n is the frog # 

I suggest the use of inches as the unit of measure because it will usually be larger than 24 and frog numbers are usually 10 or less. This means even when talking "Apples and Oranges" the numeric values will be different enough that no one should confuse a #4 and an R4, because your R4 would be called R48. 

As has been pointed out, a switch built to North American standards with the straight frog will NOT fit into a curve of the same radius as the diverging closure rail on the switch. This has confounded people moving from the "Snap Track" world to flex track and "frog numbered" switches in many scales from N and HO to the large scales. 

Just a thought... I am suggesting a large break in tradition that allows you much more flexibility in the future. 

V/r Jim

I just went to look at two samples I had from LGB and my straight edge seems to tell me that the frogs themselves are perfectly shaped triangles, but of course the frogs are small and I could be off by a hair (although I should have at least seen it on the R1 0 since it has the strongest curve). I definitely know that all Proline switches use straight metal frogs (machining would be a nightmare otherwise anyhow).

So I have to admit that I don't know of any switches with a curved frog. Now, we have a question of semantics, because I define a frog as that little triangular piece where the two rail from a sharp point. traditionally on LGB, Piko, Aristo (with the exception of #6), USA Trains (with the exception of #6) these areas are out of plastic, while ProLine switches use metal frogs for all their switches.

So if I am correct then we need to present in one nomenclature both numbers in form of
RxFy


----------



## jake3404 (Dec 3, 2010)

Axel I commend you in trying to solve this problem. It is definately a challenge to try to satify everyone. I think your on the right track "so to speak".


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

I've really never seen a curved frog, but because the diverging rail is curved, the closure rails are curved, and, most importantly, the rails "after" the frog are curved (on the diverging side), this is what I'm calling a switch that has a "curved" diverging route. A good example is any LGB switch. 

My point: if everything else on the diverging route is a constant curve, the short distance of "Straight" in the frog itself makes no difference. 

Regards, Greg


----------



## Martino2579 (Jun 4, 2008)

Axel, I too support your proposals to change to something more sensible, and to move away from the LGB toy train designations. Feet works for me. Go for it! 

Martin


----------



## Jim Agnew (Jan 2, 2008)

Axel, I too support your proposals to change to something more sensible, and to move away from the LGB toy train designations. Feet works for me. Go for it! 

Martin 

I'll second that motion.


----------



## rdamurphy (Jan 3, 2008)

Sorry that I wasn't as clear as I should have been, my bad! 

The rail, opposite the frog, is a constant curved radius. As you observed, the frog is straight. That means that it is impossible for the track to maintain the proper gauge through the frog, and in addition, it also means that guardrails cannot be as effective. 

In reality, even the outside (stock) rails on curved turnouts should be straight for the short distance they parallel the frogs. 

For templates showing the correct way switches should be built: 

http://www.handlaidtrack.com/ 

Look towards the bottom for "Printable Switch Templates." 


Thanks, Robert


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Actually, with the very sloppy flangeway widths on both the stock rails and the wing rails, this is why a "straight frog" can work with a "constant curvature diverging route switch". 

Yes, in real life it could not be done. 

All the templates are of "normal" turnouts with a constant diverging angle past the frog point. 

But, the need for switches that have the diverging route exactly match a curved piece of track will not go away real soon. Witness the success of the Aristo WR switch, and of course the legacy of LGB. 

Greg


----------



## rdamurphy (Jan 3, 2008)

Greg, one of the reasons most people buy the WR switches is because you can buy two for the price of one #6. I looked at them, and quite frankly, after reading the "fix" on your website, I realized I really didn't want to try to run K's and AMS cars on them, way too many problems. So, I bit the bullet, and looked at the Accucraft, Aristocraft, and Train-Li turnouts. I didn't know about the Switchmaster ones at the time. I settled on the Accucraft one simply because the geometry is correct, the ties match my AMS Flextrack, (note: FLEX track...), and I have a local source of them. 

Yeah, it's gonna cost twice as much, BUT, I'm happy with the appearance. 

Just as an aside, Atlas has made HO and N scale switches that "fit" in with 18" radius and 9 1/4" radius curves, respectively, and did them as #4 1/2's. 

To me honest, I like the TrainLine45 switches, but they were a bit more expensive, and not as readily available. Plus the ties are wrong. 

Thanks, Robert


----------



## CliffyJ (Apr 29, 2009)

Hi Axel, 

You're brave to take on this subject, and I applaud you for doing so. As you and I have emailed and spoken on the phone a few times, in regards to helping me with understanding the dimensions to work out my track plan, you know (as do others here) my interests in product geometry here. 

What a great discussion! Tyhank you for starting it; and I agree with so much that has been said. 

But permit me to put forward one more personal perspective. In my case, as a product designer, and worried newbie to garden railroading who simply MUST get his geometry correct, in a tight layout involving extensive concrete roadbed to be poured in about 2 months, and who is completely sold on TL-45 switches and Train-Li products & services. Axel, you've helped me a lot, in getting to the stage that I am at. Everybody else, you're the ones with experience, so I doubt that I'll add anything much; but here goes. 

1. What we have here is a situation where the nomenclature has imbedded dimensional information. 

2. Let's keep in mind that Axel isn't offering to sove the geometric and part number issues of anything other than what his company is responsible for. 

3. LGB employed a shortcut for this imbedded dimensional information, assigning semi-arbitrary integers to (what they felt at the time to be) "standard" radii. This system broke down, as product lines developed and radii became less standard than expected. They made a valiant attempt; but as things stand, one needs a decoder ring to decipher LGB track stuff. Even so, the radius represented by, say, "R3", remain the same; the radius is therefore implicit in the product nomenclature. 

4. TL-45 continues to manufacture their switches per the LGB "standard," but such remains confusing in nomenclature. Perhaps with UK / EU users, this is less of an issue. But as the distributor of those products in the US, Axel is holding the bag on interpretation for US consumers. 

5. The product basis for TL-45 switches is metric: E.g., "R7" refers to a radius of 2100mm, "R3" to 1200mm, etc. This dimensional basis should not be lostin any nomenclature. Converting to feet or inches inherently results in fractional numbers that are either a) hard to remember b) non-intuitive c) erroneous (if rounded off), d) gauranteed to give you (Axel) more phone calls or e) all the above. I'm not fond of metric; but Axel, don't let metric-averse opinions persuade you into compounding the problem. It is what it is; and everyone has a calculator. 

6. The "R" stands for RADIUS, not diameter. This is true, no matter if you're German or American or whatever. It doesn't matter what AristoCraft did with their "WR" switches. Most people don't plan their layouts in a series of circles. And even if they did, D (or the wide version of the Greek letter _theta_) would designate diameter. But NEVER the letter 'R'. 

7. Since your switch geometries are based on LGB, and therefore have (as you and Greg have pointed out) minimal or no tangent at the frog, divergent angle has nothing to do with this discussion at all. Let's say, for example, that your "R7" switch had 1.5 inches of straight section at the frog; but since the manufacturing process would have bent the diverging rails *to result in the equivalent of a replaceable section of R2100mm curve*, who really cares about that tiny little bit of straight section? Sheesh, I've been criticised for worring about whether a switch is geometrically off by _inches_, but this form of concern would consitute worrying over an INTERNAL geometry off by _sixteenths of inches_, a geometry that had zero impact on connective track! 

8. TL-45 / LGB switches should never therefore be identified by frog number, only radius. 

9. Axel, if you had switch design and manufacture completely under your control, for a U.S. audience, I would have made very differing points. But since you cannot, with all your influence, change the dies and presses and procedures and assembly instructions and whatever for your supplier, clearly you need to remain compliant with TL-45.

10. My recommendation: stay with "R", toss the arbitrary LGB integer, use centimeters as the designation, and have done with it: 
R3: becomes R120 (L or R) 
R7: becomes R210 (L or R) 
Etc. 

That would tell it all. And by my calculations, you would have had .72 fewer phone calls from me!









However, *you really need to publish the other critcal dimenions*, such as degrees through with the arc travels (or arcs, if a curved switch), and length of straight section. 

Sorry for being preachy everyone... had a couple of beers, and got on a roll...

===Cliffy


----------



## rdamurphy (Jan 3, 2008)

I dunno, I think the problem with centemeters - or millimeters, is that most Americans don't know the difference between them and a centipede or millipede. So, you're kind of stuck with "feets." 

Personally, I would NEVER depend on theoretical track geometry to lay down something as permanent as concrete, I would be laying the track on the ground - carefully - and drawing lines around it, setting forms, and then laying the track in the forms - carefully - and then pouring concrete, and laying track on the almost dry concrete - carefully - and making sure it was right every step of the way. 

BTW, that is kind of funny, Aristo Wide Radius switches are 10 foot Diameter! I guess it makes sense... 

Thanks, Robert


----------



## CliffyJ (Apr 29, 2009)

Posted By rdamurphy on 05 Mar 2011 01:36 PM 
I dunno, I think the problem with centemeters - or millimeters, is that most Americans don't know the difference between them and a centipede or millipede. So, you're kind of stuck with "feets." 

Personally, I would NEVER depend on theoretical track geometry to lay down something as permanent as concrete, I would be laying the track on the ground - carefully - and drawing lines around it, setting forms, and then laying the track in the forms - carefully - and then pouring concrete, and laying track on the almost dry concrete - carefully - and making sure it was right every step of the way. 

BTW, that is kind of funny, Aristo Wide Radius switches are 10 foot Diameter! I guess it makes sense... 

Thanks, Robert Hi Robert, thanks for the response. I'm probably gonna really get spanked here, but it's nice that the first one was so gentle.









Sometimes, we buy European products, and sometimes, they buy ours. When dimensions come into play, you've only got to know one number: 25.4, which means millimeters to inches. I recommended CM to Axel, to save the extra '0', and maybe I shouldn't have. Regardless, rounding off to the inch, or expecially foot, creates the problems I described. I could live with it either way; but what if the vendor mistyped the Imperial equivalent? You'd never know. But if he said that the switch was an R210 (or R2100), you'd know precisely that it was a radius of 82.68", and NOT be misled into thinking that it had a radius of 84" (implied by "7" meaning feet).

As to the concrete, yes, it's scary; but I've got to start someewhere, and that somewhere for me is accurate surveying, based on an accurate plan. My layout is, like I said, very tight, and I have needed to dimensionally understand what products I'm working with. Yes, I'll be doing the same things you've described; but I at least want to begin with the minimal amount of error in the plan.

Do you have link to pics of your layout?

Best regards,
Cliffy


----------



## SteveC (Jan 2, 2008)

Regardless of what the final choice of method to designate the various switches, the one thing that I believe would help beginner and seasoned pro alike. Would be to place inside each switch package a measured drawing printed on a 8.5 x 11"/A4 sheet of paper, or maybe printing directly on the reverse of the packaging itself. Additionally, make sure the self same information is readily available on-line (i.e. PDF format) and in any catalog or advertising material. The same should be carried through for all the other track shapes too. To me, it's not so much the particular chosen method of designation that's important, but the availability of the accurate information that that designation represents.

As for the system of measurement used, I'd vote for using the same one used to manufacture the item (i.e. metric), as a consideration for the U.S. market then maybe following or directly below, in parenthesis a generic nominal measurement e.g. (5 ft. nominal US) be listed.


----------



## CliffyJ (Apr 29, 2009)

Posted By SteveC on 05 Mar 2011 01:58 PM 
Regardless of what the final choice of method to designate the various switches, the one thing that I believe would help beginner and seasoned pro alike. Would be to place inside each switch package a measured drawing printed on a 8.5 x 11"/A4 sheet of paper, or maybe printing directly on the reverse of the packaging itself. Additionally, make sure the self same information is readily available on-line and in any catalog or advertising material.


Hallelujah!!! 

Dang it Steve, you used .09 the words that I did to make the same point... either I'm a moron, or you owe be a beer, still deciding which...


----------



## kormsen (Oct 27, 2009)

Posted By Greg Elmassian on 05 Mar 2011 07:40 AM 
Korm, my point was that you need to specify the EXACT diameter, not 2 for 2.5 feet. 

Beancounters? The problems most of us have is fitting the largest curves into the available space. Without accurate dimensions, this cannot be done. 

When you see someone agonizing over choosing between an Aristo WR (10 foot diameter, #4 frog), a Train-Li R7 (dunno the diameter but 5-5.5 frog) and an Aristo #6 (closure rails approx 14' dia, #6 frog), is is NOT because he is a beancounter, but he is designing his layout to get the largest curves, smoothest switches in the available space. 

Going to a system where the numbers are approximate is worthless. 

Greg "the exact diameter". there is the problem.
fitting the largest possible curves into a given space has nothing to do with it. (when doing that, most folk wil do what i do: eyball the space and bend the rail. just maintaining 45mm space between railheads)

"When you see someone agonizing over choosing between ..." ... then you can be sure, that it is to be thanked to the people of your country. the last big country in the world being stuck with a medival measuring system.
if fabricants start writing measurements in fractions, many (most?) customers are not able to comprehend and compare.
it is easy to compare $ 1.75 to $ 1.60 - but it is not so easy to compare $ 1 3/4 with $ 1 3/5 - if you get, what i try to express.

for quick recognition (and that is crucial in selling things) it must be either metric or an approximation.

"Going to a system where the numbers are approximate is worthless." staying stuck with a measuring system, that does not give itself easily to exact measurements is the problem.

being realistic, we can assume, that the US will not adapt to the metric system during our lifetimes.

so Axel's idea seems good enough (to me at least)


----------



## CliffyJ (Apr 29, 2009)

Greg makes great points. 

I'm one of dudes Greg is describing. 

In a limted space, in pre-planning, all one has are published numbers. 

Whether those numbers are in Imperial units or Metric is almost a non-issue: everyone has a calculator, or a computer (with a teensy Calulator app), or a phone (with the same app), or all three. All one has to know is the conversion: 1 inch to 24.5mm (or 2.45cm). 

But to Greg's point, rounding off EVEN metric values to represent, by implication, EVEN English ones, is a non-starter. For example, after surveying things and after all the other error factors swing into play, I want my tangent point to be within, say, the width of my hand (hopefully better), but not the length of my arm. I can correct the former via rail bending; but the latter... well, if I run into that, I'll have a whole new thread, asking about remedies! 

To your Point Kormsen, yes, we in the US are pretty committed to the Imperial system... very ironic, because the frickin' country (the UK) that began this for us is all metric! Very frustrating. [Later editorial note: I love British people, meant no offense, etc., but if you feel a need to go at me on my 'frickin' comment, please do so].

As a mechanical designer, I've always got to be working with both those units. First, because US products (screws, steel shapes, etc.) are in Imperial. Second, because a lot of our stuff gets manufactured overseas, and / or intalled overseas, where everyone from Abu Dhabi to Singapore works with metric... 

So don't get me started, Kormsen!!! 

 

Regardless, we might come back to Axel's point; and what we're being politely invited here to opine on is how Axel should adjust his (metric / wierd-LGB) -based product offerings to the U.S. (Imperial-unit) market. I think that we can all agree that Axel was brave to bring the topic up, and that we all now have an opportunity to shape how the TL-45 products are comprehended and therefore employed in the U.S.

As for my specific opinions, I stand behind what I've said prior.

Best regards Kormsen,
===Cliffy


----------



## SteveC (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By CliffyJ on 05 Mar 2011 02:03 PM 
Hallelujah!!! 

Dang it Steve, you used .09 the words that I did to make the same point... either I'm a moron, or you owe be a beer, still deciding which...
Cliff

Hehehe, I'll stick with owing you a beer (or two).







That's what happens when two individuals are tyipng a reply at the same time.


----------



## rdamurphy (Jan 3, 2008)

Cliffy, I really wish I had pictures of my layout - but since I haven't built it yet, well, these will have to do: 

http://www.mylargescale.com/Community/Forums/tabid/56/aff/4/aft/119272/afv/topic/Default.aspx 

I'm torn, but my current plan is to build a set of modules that can be set up in an oval, 2' by 12' but that will probably change, with one Timesaver Module, one Inglenook module, both of which can be used seperately and set up seperately, and two end modules, to tie the whole thing together. A Timesaver using AMS turnouts and allowing for the using the Mudhens with AMS cars will need to be approximately 24' long. The Inglenook will be shorter, but will probably have a "Y" or a turntable for turing locos, etc. 

I'm thinking they can be used outdoors, transported as pieces or in their entirety, or set up in the garage during the long cold winter months. 

I'd like to make them so that the Inglenook modules can be connected directly to the Timesaver modules. or used with the end curve modules. 

I'll leave it at that, I don't want to hijack the thread. I wouldn't mind doing the layout on the ground in the backyard, BUT, I'm a bit too old to be crawling around on my hands and knees lifting cut levers. And switching is my thing. 

Robert


----------



## CliffyJ (Apr 29, 2009)

Posted By SteveC on 05 Mar 2011 02:33 PM 
Posted By CliffyJ on 05 Mar 2011 02:03 PM 
Hallelujah!!! 

Dang it Steve, you used .09 the words that I did to make the same point... either I'm a moron, or you owe be a beer, still deciding which...
Cliff

Hehehe, I'll stick with owing you a beer (or two).







That's what happens when two individuals are tyipng a reply at the same time.

OK, I'll go easy on you, two Milwaukee's Best. But the postage will be a killer... I'd owe you probably at least a sixer of Bass Ale... and then the shipping and handling back to you... 

Where would it end?

But thanks for the reply Steve, at least I know I'm not a moron.









===Cliffy


----------



## CliffyJ (Apr 29, 2009)

Posted By rdamurphy on 05 Mar 2011 02:43 PM 
Cliffy, I really wish I had pictures of my layout - but since I haven't built it yet, well, these will have to do: 

http://www.mylargescale.com/Community/Forums/tabid/56/aff/4/aft/119272/afv/topic/Default.aspx 

I'm torn, but my current plan is to build a set of modules that can be set up in an oval, 2' by 12' but that will probably change, with one Timesaver Module, one Inglenook module, both of which can be used seperately and set up seperately, and two end modules, to tie the whole thing together. A Timesaver using AMS turnouts and allowing for the using the Mudhens with AMS cars will need to be approximately 24' long. The Inglenook will be shorter, but will probably have a "Y" or a turntable for turing locos, etc. 

I'm thinking they can be used outdoors, transported as pieces or in their entirety, or set up in the garage during the long cold winter months. 

I'd like to make them so that the Inglenook modules can be connected directly to the Timesaver modules. or used with the end curve modules. 

I'll leave it at that, I don't want to hijack the thread. I wouldn't mind doing the layout on the ground in the backyard, BUT, I'm a bit too old to be crawling around on my hands and knees lifting cut levers. And switching is my thing. 

Robert 

Hi again Robert, 

Those are great pics!! They tend to tell me how inordinate an amount of time I'm spending on my hobby, vs. my kids.... 

Uh... well, I'm working on that.

OK, phew, well, as to your modules, it's so cool seeing that wonderful switching / operational emphasis here. That's something that's easy to lose focus on, in our hobby. I congratulate you, and hope you push your ideas to the max! 

As to workability, yes, by all means, make your modules work "in the dry". But if you wish to make them interchangeable with an outdoor evironment, I would encourage you to make your bench legs out of plastic material, and your outdoor "footprints" for those legs of concrete. Lots of other things....

Honestly, I've never heard of the issues you raise, i.e., a modular layout workable inside or out.... that's a whole new thread, if not a new forum section. Fascinating in implication, on many fronts. 

As a product designer, my focus has always been the identification of a need that hasn't been voiced. Unless I'm totally off base, your situation / need is very intriguing if not unigue.

Stay engaged Dude, and don't be bashful to start stuff. On whatever level necessary.

My two cents,

===Cliffy


----------



## rdamurphy (Jan 3, 2008)

Thanks, Cliffy, and Steve, and Greg, there's so much to discuss, and I think people can be polite and adamant at the same time. Leave out the name-calling and the sarcasm, and people can have a lot of fun in a knock down drag out argument! LOL! And then move on to the next one. 

I think I might just do a little more research and groundwork, as it were, and start a new thread, I may get some more insights... 

Thanks! Robert


----------



## Axel Tillmann (Jan 10, 2008)

Posted By rdamurphy on 05 Mar 2011 01:36 PM 
.......BTW, that is kind of funny, Aristo Wide Radius switches are 10 foot Diameter! I guess it makes sense... 

Thanks, Robert ....... Actually "Wide Radius" is called "X-Wide" (as in extra wide)







and on top of that it fits right smack on-top of an R4 (~4' - soon to be formerly known as R3) switch which makes you wonder how one measures 5'? And to add to the confusion the #6 is presented as a frog number.

*@Robert* 

The frogs have at best a length of 2" (R7 and R10) switches and that represents the outer curve. When we talk about radius we refer to the center line of the track, so the outer rail has by roughly 1" a wider radius. But for all practical purposes the frog is a tangent to the radius whose curve diverts about what from the tangent on 7 foot radius 1/64" or so, well within the tolerances of our rolling stock, whose wheel-wheel distances various but 4 times or more of that. I do not believe that derailments are caused by that. Granted derailments are cause by 2' radius switches unless they are laid in perfect condition, but even then it hardly takes any American rolling stock. Derailments are caused by non level switches (even that large ones) and by badly designed rolling stock. Somebody told me the other day he got the new generation of trucks for his cars and they now run perfect while in the past they derailed quite often. 
I spend time on engines and cars to adjust to NMRA standards the wheel to wheel distance, but even with that I have some cars that are so poorly designed they derail backwards through the switches becasue the single axle cars refuse to easily go straight again, and hence they constantly try to ride up on the rail. Granted I could weigh them down, but I am looking to redesign the trucks.



*@kromsen*

Boy oh boy you are speaking my mind. I think having grown up metric this has been the hardest thing to adapt too. I find myself constantly converting. I can read a cm tape measure to .2 mm precise without a caliper, I get lot below 1/8 or at least 1/16 of of inch. And then the inch caliper drives me nuts -.... which of the lines is now the closest (mine has a 1/128 and funny enough a 1/1000 of an inch only that I still don't know how many 1/1000s it take to make 1/64







)

And then all the other stuff, wires are not even in direct inches but in gauge which 1/gauge in inches (and of course none are in the typical 1/8, 3/64, 7/128.... but 8, 10 ,12, 14, 16 gauge).

Screws are in what? 0000, 00, 0, #1, # 2, ...... (compared to M2, M3, M4.... equals mm)

*@Cliff*

Since we are here in the US and as pointed out the metric system is not going to arrive any time soon, I think I will end up with the closest designation in feet and the metric numbers in parenthesis? I actually think the difference for your layout work is below the width of you hand in any case:

*New designation Differential Delta*
R2 .37" or 3/8"
R3 .56" or 9/16"
R4 .74" or 3/4"
R7 1.13" or 1" 1/8"
R10 1.89" or 1" 7/8"

So always below one hand maximum 3 fingers, but since the R7 and R10 switches only represent 12.5 degrees of a full circle the mathematical "error" and its resulting diversion is for R7 only .1" and for R10 only .15". Since switches are seldom part of a half or full circle, I don't see the "harm" done. 
As far as curves go I never liked constant radius, and you will not find in my layout a single piece of sectional track, nor do you find a consistent radius for more than 2'. I build it to fit my landscape and bend the curves in place. As I like to say I didn't create mother nature to fit my layout, but I fit my layout to mother nature. Come to think of it, just like the big railroad. I would love to know if they ever measured a radius around the curve or if they just build the dams as the landscape required - just making sure they never got too narrow to avoid derailments.


----------



## CliffyJ (Apr 29, 2009)

Posted By Axel Tillmann on 05 Mar 2011 04:16 PM *@Cliff*

Since we are here in the US and as pointed out the metric system is not going to arrive any time soon, I think I will end up with the closest designation in feet and the metric numbers in parenthesis? I actually think the difference for your layout work is below the width of you hand in any case:

*New designation Differential Delta*
R2 .37" or 3/8"
R3 .56" or 9/16"
R4 .74" or 3/4"
R7 1.13" or 1" 1/8"
R10 1.89" or 1" 7/8"

So always below one hand maximum 3 fingers, but since the R7 and R10 switches only represent 12.5 degrees of a full circle the mathematical "error" and its resulting diversion is for R7 only .1" and for R10 only .15". Since switches are seldom part of a half or full circle, I don't see the "harm" done. 

Just trying to throw you a bone, Sir. Obviously, you can do as you wish with your product nomenclature. 

===Cliffy


----------



## rdamurphy (Jan 3, 2008)

In building railroads, keeping in mind that the Transcontinental line was one of the last ones laid out in the 1860's and by the 1920's the railroad infrastructure was mostly "complete," the railroad basically kept to two rules: 

1. What is the least grade. 
2. What is the cheapest. 

On the plains, often a straight line was the shortest distance between two points. In Colorado, there were two towns 6 miles apart as the crow flies, but 400 miles apart by rail. Most railroad curves are "constant" but are also equipped with easements, superelevation, and adjustments. 

One of the most hilarious things I read constantly in Model Railroading forums is "I don't need to superelevate my track, my trains go as fast as I want to and don't fly off." People seem to equate superelevation with banking roads and race tracks. The entire point of superelevating is to reduced the curvature, and create less drag on the train, saving fuel and requiring less power to pull it. Remember, trains have solid axles, so when travelling through a curve, the wheelset moves to the outside of the curve, so that the wheel doesn't "drag" or "skip." Which is why they're "tapered." If you superelevated a curve 90% (sideways), it would have 0% curvature, right? So, a 5% superelevation reduces the "sharpness" of the curve by 5%. OK, OK, Greg is gonna squawk on that one, that's not really how it works, but who wants to study the math on that? The point is if a curve is too sharp, and NOT superelevated, the flange goes up against the outside rail, and the one wheel is either dragging or skipping. You either climb the rail or break the axle. Either way, you're getting excessive friction. 

Do we have that problem? I dunno, you tell me? Do trains derail more often on sharp curves or wide ones? And when they derail, do they pull off the inside, or climb the rail to the outside? 

Better explanation here: http://www.rockcastle.org/activities/differential/differential.html 

Some of the steepest superelevations on the D&RGW are on curves with a 25 mph track speed because of the curvature. 

OK, going left field again, but it just makes me laugh when I read about trains not needing "banked curves" to stay on the track... LOL! 

So, back on topic, you're absolutely, 100% entirely correct, Axel. Track goes around the terrain, through the terrain, under the terrain, over the terrain on bridges, anything, to keep it as level as possible. Model Railroaders don't want a layout that looks like a mangled kidney bean to match their back yard, sooooo... It ends up as an oval with extreme grades or excessive curves. Don't do that! It's 200 miles by air from Denver to Durango: 500 miles by track. But never go to extremes in curves to avoid grades. It's a trade off. They both cause drag. Personally, if I were going to use sectional track, I'd use, on every curve, an R7 and R5 half- sections to lead into an R3 curve. It will cut down on derailments. And mix and match the curved track as necessary to maintain more level track. 

http://www.flickr.com/photos/locosteve/galleries/72157624598280937/ 

Take a look at the pics, note how they went a very short distance with a whole lot of track, and also, check out the superelevation on the curves. I'm not sure of the track speed, but I doubt many trains - including Amtrak - exceed 30 - 40 mph. Axel, check out the shots from the air, I'll bet you don't see any constant curves...


Thanks! Robert


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Korm, I do not believe at all that your statements speak for the majority:

""the exact diameter". there is the problem.
fitting the largest possible curves into a given space has nothing to do with it. (when doing that, most folk wil do what i d eyball the space and bend the rail. just maintaining 45mm space between railheads)

"When you see someone agonizing over choosing between ..." ... then you can be sure, that it is to be thanked to the people of your country. the last big country in the world being stuck with a medival measuring system."

1. Yes, maybe you think most people bend the rail to fit, I believe you are WAY off base here. I don't know how to amass the data without a lot of personal work on my part if you believe this now. I've been on this forum for 9 years or so, this is a theme that keeps coming up all the time. MOST people start with sectional track, and benders are expensive.

If you believe that people don't need the exact diameter after all these requests and discussions, and you believe the most people bend their rail to fit, then there's no hope of convincing you easily, and it's not worth the personal effort on my part to prove you wrong.

2. You are blaming people agonizing over different frog numbers (which is a dimension-less, system-less number neither metric or English) on the the US not using the metric system? Honestly, your statement is absurd.

Greg


----------



## Bruce Chandler (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By Axel Tillmann on 04 Mar 2011 04:57 AM 
why didn't we name the R3 actually R3 (4' radius) and the R2 R3 3' radius which makes the R1 actually an R2 (2' radius). 

Before I actually implement the change I would like to see feedback. Our R7 would remain the same, but the R3 would become an R4 and the R2 an R3..

This is the time for reform. 



I would certainly agree that it's time for reform. But, how is that reform?

If you're going to reform, make the numbers mean something. I don't care if they mean radius measured in feet, inches, meters, centimeters, furlongs, links, chains, or whatever. Think of the poor consumer. Yeah, R3...that's a 4' radius. How logical is that?


----------



## rdamurphy (Jan 3, 2008)

Actually, the frog numbers are a ratio that have nothing to do with the frog itself. It is the ratio of divergence between the curved and straight parts of the switch. So, if, for every six units, the curved portion "diverges" 1 unit, it is a #6 turnout, regardless of gauge. BTW, anybody know what the extra "frogs" on dual gauge turnouts are called? (Trivia question of the day).

Thanks, Robert


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Uhh... no... it's measured on the frog... it's typically measured from the theoretical point of frog, but you can measure it at other places on the frog. 

In a "traditional" switch, your statement is true, sort of, but the diverging rail is curved, so how do you measure the ratio along the curve? It's NOT the way it is defined and it is NOT the way it is measured. 

Greg


----------



## rdamurphy (Jan 3, 2008)

From the Railroad Dictionary: 

Turnout Number 

"The ratio of the length of the tangent track to an equal unit of space between the tangent track and a point on the branch track." 

So, if you pick a point on the turnout, and it's a #14, if you measure 14 feet down the tangent, the diverging rail will be 1 foot further away at the end of the measurement than it was at the beginning of the measurement. 

If you have an Aristocraft #6 turnout handy, try it. I just measured an AMS turnout. 

If you measure from the pivot point of the switch 6 inches down the track, the diverging rail is exactly 1" to the left of the straight rail. If I measure 9 inches down the straight rail from the point pivot, the diverging rail is exactly 1 1/2 inch to the left. 12 inches: 2 inches to the left. 18 inches: 3 inches to the left. 

Note that the length of the points have absolutely nothing to do with the number of the turnout. Also, the turnout extends from the beginning of the points to the end of the frog. The switch is the points and throwrod. You throw a switch. You don't throw a turnout. Unless you're a very large man! 

More than you ever wanted to know about turnouts: 

http://www.uprr.com/aboutup/operations/specs/attachments/amended/turnouts_std.pdf 

Thanks, Robert


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

You said "frog number" in you previous posts... I said frog number... frog number is measured on the frog. 

Not familiar with turnout number, and I believe your railroad dictionary ASSUMES a turnout that does not have a constantly curving diverging route, AFTER the frog. 

Greg


----------



## rdamurphy (Jan 3, 2008)

Yeah, frog number is kind of misleading. It probably really should be called "turnout number." But, of course, it's been used that way so long, it probably isn't going to change. Technically speaking, the frog number is determined by the cotangent of its angle. So, you're right, the railroad dictionary is actually wrong about it's definition. 

Note on the UPRR/BNSF turnout diagrams, it defines the length of the tangent section on the diverging route. 

Just for grins, check out the definition in the Civil Engineers Handbook: 

http://books.google.com/books?id=iK...AQ#v=onepage&q=Angle of number 6 frog&f=false 

It even tells you how to find the frog angle. Or if you'd like, Track Forumlae and Tables is a free eBook: 

http://books.google.com/books?op=ad...5186564082344168721&as_coll=7&id=Xk05AAAAMAAJ 

It shows the method of finding the frog number that I illustrated above. 

Honestly, Greg, it really doesn't matter (unless you're a civil engineer), but I like to measure things and see how close they are to the prototype, so I couldn't resist checking out the AMS turnout. And it's right on, everywhere it should be. Which tells me that they did a little research. 

I'm fascinated by track, isn't it just as much of a model as an Erie Triplex that we run on it? Most people plop down track, cross their fingers that the trains will stay on it, and never give it a second thought, as to easements, curvature, turnouts, crossings, superelevation, even down to joining the rails and the right size ties. Why did we "live with" oversize ties in HO scale all of those years? Seriously? I can understand the oversize rails and wheels, but what makes it even more bizarre is why we can keep N scale trains on the track with those tiny flanges and rail, yet we have Large Scale trains with oversize flanges, overwide wheels, and oversize rail! I have no doubt we could build our rail, wheel tread width, and flange depth to exact prototype specifications. 

Thanks! Robert


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

The Aristo #6 seems to be right on too. 

The ability to run exact prototypes would be tough, in any scale, as has already been proven. 

In our scale, there's precious few locomotives that have a suspension system that could make this happen. I've learned why certain locos have really deep flanges, and have been part of a group who recently designed more scale wheels for some popular locos, and also have gotten some new Aristo wheels with much smaller flanges. 

Take one of your locos and turn the flanges down to about 0.060", and try them out and come on back and give us our experiences. Try to make prototype flangeway widths on your switches and you will soon learn why things are where they are. 

Try a few of these things and you will see how difficult it is in the real outside world in G scale. 

Greg 

p.s. I'd love small flanges, scale wheel tread widths, and switches that don't have frogs surrounded by replicas of the grand canyon.


----------



## BodsRailRoad (Jul 26, 2008)

Wow have you guys gone off the deep end with this








The acronym K.I.S.S comes to mind. 

If the minimum curve my engine/equipment can handle is 8 feet (yes I said feet as we are in the US and that is the current and most likely future unit of liner measurement here) and the switch labeled R4 by Axel's new way of labeling (stands for a 4 foot radius which is an 8 foot diameter) I know that it will work with my equipment. It also lets me know that if I use 8 foot diameter sectional curved track it will for the most part make for a smooth consistent curve out of that switch, and likewise using a 10 foot curved track through an R5 ect. That will help the new people out greatly imo.

I for one no longer use sectional curves anymore, and I know what my minimum diameter curve I want to use is and I don't bend tighter than that, so the only thing I'm really concerned with is how my equipment will transition through the switch.

The need for exact to the millimeter measurements may be required for a Z scale 2'x2' layout, or theoretical physics, or the constructing of the multi mile long Chunnel, but on my 180'x200' G scale layout I really could care less. 

When I was planning out my layout using RR-track I made sure that every measurement was as exact as I could make it and took measurement after measurement to get it that way on paper.
Then when I actually started building it and laying track on the ground I realized what a waste of time that truly was. 

I think that as a hobby if we really want it to grow and attract the younger crowd it needs to be made less complex, and much more intuitive, we really need to put away the slide rules.

Ron


----------



## ralphbrades (Jan 3, 2008)

Oh Dear Me... 

Aren't you people really lost!!! 

Here are a couple of documents that I put together for the Society magazine. 

www.cabbagepatchrailway.co.uk/mls/pointwork.pdf 

www.cabbagepatchrailway.co.uk/mls/pointwork2.pdf 

And for your information "Ron" the information and calculations to produce the documents came from a set of "Log" and "Trig" Tables from the back of 
the Apprenticeship books from my Great Grand Father signed and dated 1896 and 1900 respectively. 

regards 

ralph


----------



## kormsen (Oct 27, 2009)

Greg, sorry, but i won't take the bait, but stay on topic. 

---------------------------------- 

Axel, 
as the whole topic is about how you could find beginner-friendly names for your products, and you most likely will have to sell mostly to "imperial" not "metric" customers, therefore you will be stuck with advertising imperial measures. (maybe adding metric descriptions for the metric minority of the world...) 

every turnout (being "curved" or not) has a degree of desviation from the straight line. - as have curves. 
the degree of that desviation and the length of curved track determine the diameter (and radius of course) 

so, giving the turnouts R=radius or D=diameter denominations seems logical. (instead of following the the LGB denominations of THEIR radius number one, two etc) 
using "R" would fall into the custom of other scales. (helping those who come from H0 or else) 
using "D" instead would fit in with the large scale manner to express ourselves in diameters. - giving the advantage of less possible confusion with LGB denominations. 

as most of the larger "diameter" turnouts are longer than the sectional tracks of the same desviation degrees, it might be a good idea to describe (and produce) the lengths of track needed, to make up for these differences.


----------



## Axel Tillmann (Jan 10, 2008)

Posted By CliffyJ on 05 Mar 2011 04:34 PM 

Just trying to throw you a bone, Sir. Obviously, you can do as you wish with your product nomenclature. 

===Cliffy

Cliff, sorry I didn't mean any offense, I just tried to show the maximim "incorrectness" and felt that we can live with it.


----------



## CliffyJ (Apr 29, 2009)

Posted By Bruce Chandler on 05 Mar 2011 05:16 PM 
If you're going to reform, make the numbers mean something. I don't care if they mean radius measured in feet, inches, meters, centimeters, furlongs, links, chains, or whatever. Think of the poor consumer. Yeah, R3...that's a 4' radius. How logical is that?

I completely agree, Bruce. Well said.


----------



## Axel Tillmann (Jan 10, 2008)

A couple of observations:

It was earlier posted that "prototypical layouts don't curve through the frog area. And someone else tried to say (unless I misunderstood him) that point rails are not curved. The reality of what I found is 
[*]All point rails are bend (which makes sense to me, because you don't yank the rolling-stock into the curve)[*] And all pictures that I found show a constant radius of the diverging rail.
[*]















[/list] 
Of course the smaller the angle the more it will look like straight. The larger the angle the lower the speed throw the switch.


Another point is the frog number #3, #5,and so on (representing as Ralph pointed out 1 in 3, 1 in 5.... and so on. But to me it is meaning less in my head, becasue all it does it expresses a ratio of the opposite to the adjacent of the triangle. What would be really meaningful is the value of q and this represents the diversion angle. In theory and real life the angle and the Radius stand in direct correlation, with the exception of the curved switches, where the angle refers to the delta between the two radii, so and R10/R7 switch must have smaller angle than an R10/R5 switch. I will have to measure the frog there.

So the angles for frog numbers are:

#2 26.57 deg 
#3 18.43 deg
#4 14.04 deg
#5 11.32 deg
#6 9.46 deg
#7 8.13 deg
#8 7.13 deg
#9 6.94 deg

I guess it is all what you grow up with, but I imagnine an angle better than I can a frog #.


----------



## Axel Tillmann (Jan 10, 2008)

Posted By CliffyJ on 06 Mar 2011 06:23 AM 
Posted By Bruce Chandler on 05 Mar 2011 05:16 PM 
If you're going to reform, make the numbers mean something. I don't care if they mean radius measured in feet, inches, meters, centimeters, furlongs, links, chains, or whatever. Think of the poor consumer. Yeah, R3...that's a 4' radius. How logical is that?

I completely agree, Bruce. Well said.





Sorry guys, that was a typo


----------



## CliffyJ (Apr 29, 2009)

Posted By Axel Tillmann on 06 Mar 2011 05:55 AM 
Posted By CliffyJ on 05 Mar 2011 04:34 PM 

Just trying to throw you a bone, Sir. Obviously, you can do as you wish with your product nomenclature. 

===Cliffy

Cliff, sorry I didn't mean any offense, I just tried to show the maximim "incorrectness" and felt that we can live with it.


Not at all! I should have inserted a couple of happy faces!!









But I'll dig in once more, and then I'll cool it. 

Case in point. As you know from another thread, I'm now looking into whether I can or should tweak my plan (just in Autocad, not in the dirt -- yet!), and insert one or two of your R7/R3 curved switches. So, OK, let's say you rename them to R6/R4, referring to closest feet. However, the actual radii (according to the Theil photo on your site) are R1925mm (75.79") / R1350mm (53.15"). Those are big differences: 3.8" and 5.2", respectively.

Now, if I had assumed that this switch (your Proline Custom version) followed the usual LGB radii rules, that would be a bigger problem, for the actual radii are 125mm smaller (outside curve) and 150mm larger (inside curve) than might be expected for R7/R3. If you had left the "R7" in the name (assuming it to follow LGB radii, like the straight switches do), and I thought it still meant 7 feet, I'd be off by 8.2 inches!

To apply the point I tried to make earlier, this switch would be simply named "R192.5/R135", because, well, that's what it is. 

And if your new production Proline R7/R3 really does follow LGB (as you said: 210cm/120cm), you'd name name it like that, because is simply a different beasty; you'd not have to decide upon a "nearest foot", nor imply that these two similar products were interchangeable (which, if you were correct in your cited radii, they are not).


All the best,
===Cliff


----------



## rdamurphy (Jan 3, 2008)

Axel, the first picture shows yard tracks with self guarding frogs (note the absence of guardrails on the stock rails), an entirely different beast. It's impossible to tell if they're straight through the frog or not. The second photo does straighten out through the frog (look at the guardrails, they're straight) and the last photo has the guardrail area obscured by the signal. Plus the distance and angle distorts the picture. Most rail photographers shoot with wide angle lenses, which reduce the depth of field. 

If you look at the plans here: http://www.uprr.com/aboutup/operations/specs/track/index.shtml 

Open Turnouts STD, and look at page 8, you'll clearly see the short tangent section built in next to the guardrail, directly adjacent to the frog. I'm not home, so I can't check my AMS turnout, but I'm almost positive that the guardrails and stock rail are straight across from the frog. 

No offense intended, Axel, since the minimum size turnout allowed on the UP, even industrial trackage, is a #9. so, we're bound to have to make some compromises. A UP track engineer would bang his head against the wall if someone submitted a request for a #6 switch, and then stamp "REQUEST DENIED" all over it. Heck, on the UP, a #15 turnout carries a 40mph speed restriction through the diverging! 

And, like I said, I like your switches and track, they're good quality, and look good. 

Thanks, Robert


----------



## BodsRailRoad (Jul 26, 2008)

Posted By ralphbrades on 06 Mar 2011 03:00 AM 
Oh Dear Me... 

Aren't you people really lost!!! 

Here are a couple of documents that I put together for the Society magazine. 

www.cabbagepatchrailway.co.uk/mls/pointwork.pdf 

www.cabbagepatchrailway.co.uk/mls/pointwork2.pdf 

And for your information "Ron" the information and calculations to produce the documents came from a set of "Log" and "Trig" Tables from the back of 
the Apprenticeship books from my Great Grand Father signed and dated 1896 and 1900 respectively. 

regards 

ralph 

To tell you the truth I could care less about all that stuff. If I was acutually "BUILDING" the switches then I would. 
BUT I'm just playing with my trains in my backyard and all I care about is will my engine be able to go through it and not derail, period.

Ron

PS oh btw you might want learn to use the insert hyperlink button at the top of the reply box, it makes your links actually work. Bet thats not in your great grandfather book


----------



## Axel Tillmann (Jan 10, 2008)

Thank for that great link. Wow No 15 turnouts and 40 mph restriction. I found one picture of a high speed switch (allowing for 200 Km/h but tested with 307 Km/h) but no measurements unfortunately:









But what I read from the article, and trying to interpret the knowledge, then of course the forces based on speed and weight play a much bigger role, than the capability of the rolling stock to make it through there.

But one thing I found as it relates to curves, at 300 Kmh the European standard for radii is 4000m and at 350 Kmh it is between 5120m and 6250m with a superelevation of 180mm.

On the topic of superelevation for our hobby, I believe and tested in my own layout we fair much better without superelevation - at all. In order to justify superelevation we need to get some serious centrifugal forces going, but the weight of our cars is too low that at our speeds we have a serious effect. Also as I painfully found out, the weight (or better the lack of it) contributes to often derailing of the cars, and last not least starting at a particular length of the car the cars starting "falling" inwards from the weight of the trailing cars be dragged around the curve. Therefore I advice always for 100% rail-to-rail level layout work.


----------



## ralphbrades (Jan 3, 2008)

Greg.... 

Quote: 

Take one of your locos and turn the flanges down to about 0.060", and try them out and come on back and give us our experiences. Try to make prototype flangeway widths on your switches and you will soon learn why things are where they are. 

Try a few of these things and you will see how difficult it is in the real outside world in G scale. 

Unquote: 

The problem is not the depth of flange -but rather *the profile of the wheel as specified by G1MRA*. If we take the example of the (1:29) scale C0-C0 loco elsewhere you will see that the scaled up flange depth of 0.060 inches (1.52 Millimetres) would be *44.196* Millimetres whereas on a Gauge '3' loco (1:22.6) scaled up from 2 Millimetres it would be *45.2* Millimetres. 2 to 2.3 Millimetres is the recommended flange depth for a Gauge '3' loco and rolling stock. If you would like to experiment with G3 profile wheels and run them on G1 track it would be interesting to note your comments compared to those in the UK who have performed the same experiment. Steel is recommended for this experiment rather than Aluminium or Cast Iron because of the machining problems on the flange. 

regards 

ralph


----------



## rdamurphy (Jan 3, 2008)

Axel, no offense, but go back a couple of pages, I posted about the superelevation. It has absolutely NOTHING to do with "centrifugal forces" nor does it have anything to do with speed. I even posted pics of low speed track with huge amounts of superelevation. Several links included also. Would I recommend superelevation in modelling? Absolutely, in HO scale, I used toothpicks buried in the ballast. For G, I've heard about using popsickle sticks, and I think that's the best method... 

Thanks, Robert


----------



## rdamurphy (Jan 3, 2008)

Oh, BTW, Alex, mentioning the UP, on the Laramie Sub, there are #20 crossovers, and they are limited to 50mph, and the only "high speed" crossover on the line is one near Rawlins, WY, it's a #24 crossover that can be traversed at trackspeed, 70MPH for freight, 90MPH for passenger... 

Can you imagine a #24 crossover in G scale? 

Thanks, Robert


----------



## ralphbrades (Jan 3, 2008)

Well Ron -there you *are* correct. 

*BUT* there *IS* no hyperlink button in a text based browser such as the one that I am using at the moment... {BSD 4.3 host on a RIM Blackberry}. And at the moment I am 200 metres below the Swiss French Border looking at a device that is built to an accuracy of a tenth pico metre. I am proud to say that I helped design some of the computer systems that help run it. I also build my track work to be level to within 3 Millimetres across 75 Metres using a bucket of coloured water and length of plastic tubing. The curves are all done with a length of string and two pegs to produce tangential curves. The straights are marked down with blue chalked string "twanged". 

If I can do it -so can you! 

regards 

Rheinhard Manfried ben Brades B.Ed B.Sc M.Sc M.I.A.A.P. Ph.D -all this means COMPUTER GEEK!


----------



## SteveC (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By ralphbrades on 06 Mar 2011 08:51 AM 
{snip...}[/i] Rheinhard Manfried ben Brades B.Ed B.Sc M.Sc M.I.A.A.P. Ph.D -all this means COMPUTER GEEK! Ralph

The text command line interface is no problem, ya' just have to remember that the support for UBB/Forum Code tags for hyperlinks & image elements no longer exist in the MLS software, and you've got to use the HTML if you want them to work.


----------



## ralphbrades (Jan 3, 2008)

Old Habits Die Hard!!! 

I am often having to adapt to differing software -but despite this everyone knows the old methods by heart. I still use *vi* with *vt100 with 7 1 none* for my terminal emulation -I can also wire a D25 as well... 
I like seeing where I am being sent to rather than trusting to luck (and typos!) this also means that I can come back later when I know that area of the net will be "quiet". 

I for one would love a return to the old methods -it saves time with my thumbs!!! 

regards 

ralph


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Ralph, would love to hear about those experiments, I think that our large scale is still in it's infancy in terms of picking a standard wheel profile. 

the 3 degree taper on the wheels seems excessive, at least for the "fine gauge" part. 

Comments? 

Greg


----------



## rdamurphy (Jan 3, 2008)

Let's be honest, the reason that N scale rail is 3 feet tall with 2 foot flanges is so people don't have to put a lot of effort into keeping the trains on the track. Same with G. Most people take trains out of the box, put it on the track, and expect it to run. Period. Hence: Sectional track and huge flanges. I'm thinking, IMAO, that you should simply be able to scale down prototype dimensions in G and simply run the trains. 

Of course, that would require the same attention to trackwork that Ralph puts into his to ensure derailment proof track. Not to mention lower speeds, and more careful train control. You wouldn't be able to plop a GS-4 on the track with a passenger train and run it at 200 smph and sit down and drink a coconut latte... 

Robert


----------



## ralphbrades (Jan 3, 2008)

Greg. 

Going on what people have reported. The problem is *not* the 3 degree coning on the tread. But more the fact that the wheel is only "faced" on one side of the flange -leaving the other side vertical. This transmits any sideways thrust only through one side wheel. Some people think this causes the flange to climb the rail more on cornering through turnouts as the flange angle is 20 degrees. Having a double faced flange at a lower angle seems to help steer the wheel more though guard rails and frogs by both pushing and pulling across the axle. 

The G3 has no radius at the edge of the flange and is an "ouch" when lifted there! 

regards 

ralph 

the G1MRA specs are here: STANDARD DIMENSIONS FOR GAUGE '1'[/b]
the Gauge '3' Society specs are here: The Gauge '3' Society - Technical Standards[/b]

(How you use the url above to produce web page from -I leave to you)


----------



## BodsRailRoad (Jul 26, 2008)

Ralph if you hit the "add reply" button, instead of using the quick reply box at the bottom (I think thats what your doing anyway), 
and click the icon 2 right from the smiley face icon, above the text box, you'll be able to link it and turn your url into a clicky,
you can even name it what ever you like in the text box. 

Ron


----------



## CliffyJ (Apr 29, 2009)

Hey Ron, 

I just wanted to thank you for confirming the Train-Li / TL-45 product line. Even though we don't see eye to eye on what Axel's switches should be named, you're the main dude that responded to my APB on who had used these products. 

So unless I'm missing something, and unless some other consumer of these products steps up to the plate, and since I've only bought 1 switch as yet, you deserve the biggest voice in what Axel originally queried on. 

However... I've got this very narrow and undulating piece of real estate to work with, and any change in switch geometry has its ripple effects. The main reason is that I got into this hobby to model the mines of upper Virginia City, and the V&T RR that supports them. I've simply GOT to push certain spurs in, and allow for the mine structures as well. But I've got to do so, with lots of fixed features in place, and comply with the rules and guiidelines I've learned here, regarding max gradients, gradient transitions, distance between reversing curves... 

Well, it's a long story. And for me, this is not at all equivalent to planning things in Z scale or N scale. Yes, I understand where you're coming from. But throw me a bone, and understand that this subject, for me, is different in nature. It means the difference between fitting in an important structure between the deck post and the septic cleanout, and whether its spur can be present at all. 

Fortunately, Axel is always around to do his best in answering the questions, geometric and otherwise -- no matter what his products are named. And fortunately, you helped me steer back toward the TL product, in light of all of our rail composition discussions. 

So I thank you Sir. Disagree with your take on nomenclature, but I respect it. Best regards, 

===Cliffy


----------



## CliffyJ (Apr 29, 2009)

Now, what I'd really like to have feedback on is how the Train-Li "weatherproof" ProDrives hold up, no matter what they're called.









Ron, have you employed any yet? I think I asked you that in the fall, so, probably not... 

But, that's probably a separate thread anyway... 

===Cliffy


----------



## Axel Tillmann (Jan 10, 2008)

We shipped the first version about 2 years ago. The PCB was coated with a special electric clear lacquer and there were only tiny holes in the drive. We immediately experienced that that wasn't good enough.

We at Trainlie USA started using a method of coating initially with a rubber coating, but that was too thick for a perfect cover. THen we switched over to red inslaution varnish thaat did a great job, but made the mistake that we only coated intially from the bottom and forgot that condensate water can drip from the top. After we learned to coat the PCB all ovver, as well as seal the servo we had actually no more problems. We also learned the trick is not to keep the water out, but to get the water quickly out again after the rainfall ist over.

Prompted by our experience the manufacturer now has adapted a method of coating everything in this special liquid bath, so we don't coat these drive at all anymore. We have been shipping these coated drives no for close to one year, with 0 return for water related damage. We also taught the manufacturer a better way on how to mount the servo arm that move the lever, so knock on wood these things are highly relaible and are backed by a 2 year warranty.

As with any innovation, once the kinks are out, you receive a very good products. Also we are able to lower the price from $55 to $45 with even more functionality, such as extrenal trigger. I have not tested it, but the manufactuer claims he run the PCB and servo after his coating method under water without a problem. One day I find the time to do that as well. Howver, it has always been my recommendation not to run the trains when it is raining cats and dogs.

I think one of the most challenging customers is in the South where it is hot and has major down poors. He has some 15 give or take drives. Call him our beta tester, he just returned the other day one of the last drives (after 2 years) were had a limited hand coating. All other drives had been holding up - and in Germnay over 100 drives sold with about a 2% retunr rate - mostly from servo arms that came off due to an intial mounting mistake which I described above has been eliminated.


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Ralph, unless I missed something, the gauge 3 has a 10 degree flange taper. Interesting that they did not specify a radius on the "edge" of the flange. 

Yes, I've noticed in the G1MRA and the NMRA specs that there is no flange taper on the backside, and, to me, a gross taper on the outside. 

I may experiment more with this, the big manufacturers are seeming to try to "hold on" to the toylike flange parameters, again in my opinion. 

Regards, Greg


----------



## BodsRailRoad (Jul 26, 2008)

Posted By CliffyJ on 06 Mar 2011 04:09 PM 
Hey Ron, 

I just wanted to thank you for confirming the Train-Li / TL-45 product line. Even though we don't see eye to eye on what Axel's switches should be named, you're the main dude that responded to my APB on who had used these products. 

So unless I'm missing something, and unless some other consumer of these products steps up to the plate, and since I've only bought 1 switch as yet, you deserve the biggest voice in what Axel originally queried on. 

However... I've got this very narrow and undulating piece of real estate to work with, and any change in switch geometry has its ripple effects. The main reason is that I got into this hobby to model the mines of upper Virginia City, and the V&T RR that supports them. I've simply GOT to push certain spurs in, and allow for the mine structures as well. But I've got to do so, with lots of fixed features in place, and comply with the rules and guiidelines I've learned here, regarding max gradients, gradient transitions, distance between reversing curves... 

Well, it's a long story. And for me, this is not at all equivalent to planning things in Z scale or N scale. Yes, I understand where you're coming from. But throw me a bone, and understand that this subject, for me, is different in nature. It means the difference between fitting in an important structure between the deck post and the septic cleanout, and whether its spur can be present at all. 

Fortunately, Axel is always around to do his best in answering the questions, geometric and otherwise -- no matter what his products are named. And fortunately, you helped me steer back toward the TL product, in light of all of our rail composition discussions. 

So I thank you Sir. Disagree with your take on nomenclature, but I respect it. Best regards, 

===Cliffy 
No problem at all Cliff I can understand where your coming from, but from my experience once you actually start placing the track your exact measurements will no longer be exact. 
That is of course unless you are placing it on a perfectly flat level surface. It was this fact that led me to Axel's Npb flex track so I guess it turned out for the best after all.
I think Axels main goal for renaming his switches is to make them more intuitive for new people to use, I'm sure that he will still post the exact dimensions of the switch in the item description.

Ron


----------



## BodsRailRoad (Jul 26, 2008)

Posted By CliffyJ on 06 Mar 2011 04:25 PM 
Now, what I'd really like to have feedback on is how the Train-Li "weatherproof" ProDrives hold up, no matter what they're called.









Ron, have you employed any yet? I think I asked you that in the fall, so, probably not... 

But, that's probably a separate thread anyway... 

===Cliffy 


So far so good Cliffy, no issues of any kind. The sweet thing is that all 10 switches are set up one macro's so I can throw multiple's with a single button push

Here are a couple of links to some mods I did and some programing tips.

LED INSTALL ON PRO DRIVE DCC SWITCH 

PRO DRIVE DCC PROGAMING TIPS

Hope they help, or give you some idea's of your own.

Ron


----------



## ralphbrades (Jan 3, 2008)

Ron,


Now that I am above ground level and able to use computer devices not possible near 100 Tesla Superconducting magnets i.e. ones with hard drives. I can now use my Mac.
It has millions of colours -rather than black and white. It runs SAFARI 5.0.3 not a Java







based one with 80 characters by 25 lines with no images. 
In order to page up and page down through the threads I do not have to do U or D.
In order to post a reply I do not have to compose a separate file and do : W! and wait for the host to upload the file to the thread. 
Add to this you are wearing a safety harness, a hard hat, goggles and being dripped on by icy cold water. 
Oh Yes -don't get too close to the magnets -otherwise you might stick to them...

I think I did pretty well considering. 

regards

ralph


----------



## BodsRailRoad (Jul 26, 2008)

Was just trying to help Ralph, some people don't know the buttons functions, didn't mean to offend your techieness, and man you really ought not to be on the forums while hanging up there







.

Cliffy my switchdrives have been outside for 9 months now, no issues yet.

Ron


----------



## CliffyJ (Apr 29, 2009)

Great to hear about the ProDrives, Ron, and thanks for those links (I'll be digging into them next). 

Axel's helping me with my specs and options as we speak. E.g., whether one needs the optional microswitch in the Prodrives. I think yes, for my three return-loop switches that will control an autoreverse module. But maybe not for the others... I was thinking to go ahead and get them all so equipped, just in case; but what did you do? 

Great to know that the DCC control is working as planned -- awesome!! That's exactly the kind of thing I wish to achieve, with a macro or two, so the confirmation is much appreciated. 

Oops, I just realized I was on the wrong thread... sorry folks! But thanks anyway, Ron! 

===Cliffy


----------



## bnsfconductor (Jan 3, 2008)

Posted By Greg Elmassian on 05 Mar 2011 11:57 PM 
The Aristo #6 seems to be right on too. 

The ability to run exact prototypes would be tough, in any scale, as has already been proven. 

In our scale, there's precious few locomotives that have a suspension system that could make this happen. I've learned why certain locos have really deep flanges, and have been part of a group who recently designed more scale wheels for some popular locos, and also have gotten some new Aristo wheels with much smaller flanges. 

Take one of your locos and turn the flanges down to about 0.060", and try them out and come on back and give us our experiences. Try to make prototype flangeway widths on your switches and you will soon learn why things are where they are. 

Try a few of these things and you will see how difficult it is in the real outside world in G scale. 

Greg 

p.s. I'd love small flanges, scale wheel tread widths, and switches that don't have frogs surrounded by replicas of the grand canyon. 

What about P:87 and P:48? http://www.proto87.org/d/ Those are smaller scales that use prototypical standards. 
As a side note I'm planning on scratchbuilding a #9 turnout using former NP standard plans. It's length from the point to the frog is 72'. And that's a sharp turnout.
Craig


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Did not say impossible, said tough. 

Craig, turn your wheels down to a prototype contour and try it out. I think you will agree with me. 

Greg


----------



## Dr Rivet (Jan 5, 2008)

BNSF 

The catch is: I don't believe anyone has tried P:48 or P:87 outside. P:32 is done inside already. Cliff Barker in the UK does manufacture Fine Scale Ga 1 track and point work and it looks great. To do "fine scale" [not truly proto] track work outside at ground level we would probably have to follow Marty Cozad's lead with a concrete base that was precisely laid to eliminate variations in the rail elevation [side to side]. More problematic for folks like me who are under trees is keeping the "environmental trash" out of flangeways and movable points. Most people don't want to sign on for that level of continuous track maintenance. Another aspect is that you would either run alone on your railroad, or have to convince a lot of other folks to take up the P:nn banner. Just think; all NEW track, all new wheel sets, all new drivers on the locomotives. I see $$$$$$$$$$. 

If you are interested in pursuing this, contact Gary Raymond, the wheel guy. He is closer to this subject than most of us. 

V/r


----------

