Track spacing

 Hi All-

First post here... I've seen a lot of posts related to track spacing for HO... 2" on straights and 2-3/8" or 2-1/2" around curved sections.  My question is, when going from a straight to curved section, what's the best way to transition the track spacing difference?

 

Thanks.

LKandO's picture

Discovered the Same Question

While designing my layout with XTrack I discovered the same question. My solution was to create the tangents and curve of one line and then use the parallel track function to create an outboard curve 2-3/8" c-t-c. The same parallel track function was used to create the outboard tangents 2" c-t-c. Finally the connect tracks function (with easement) was used to connect the tangents and their respective curves.

This resulted in some odd looking configurations in areas where the curve was short in length. My solution for the odd looking areas was to use 2-3/8" c-t-c spacing on the tangents.

Alan

All the details: www.LKOrailroad.com        Just the highlights: MRH blog

When I was a kid... no wait, I still do that. HO, 28x32, double deck, 1969, RailPro

So the transition is in the straight section?

 Just trying to get a mental picture... Sounds like the transition occurs over the last few inches of the straight section?

Thanks.

LKandO's picture

Yes and No

The transition is primarily in the tangent but extends slightly into the curve. It all depends on the easement setting in XTrack and where you stop and release the mouse during the connect action. It takes a little practice to get it to do what you want it to do.

Alan

All the details: www.LKOrailroad.com        Just the highlights: MRH blog

When I was a kid... no wait, I still do that. HO, 28x32, double deck, 1969, RailPro

Do you have a screenshot or picture?

 Maybe it's been a long week at work, but I can't get my head wrapped around this one.  Do you have a picture of your track or screenshot from the program?

 

Thanks.

LKandO's picture

Example

Alan

All the details: www.LKOrailroad.com        Just the highlights: MRH blog

When I was a kid... no wait, I still do that. HO, 28x32, double deck, 1969, RailPro

Thank you

That helps. 

Eric H.'s picture

NMRA specs and such

A solid resource for track centers can be found on line at the NMRA site. A number of Standards and Recommended Practices are important to consider as you plan a layout. Here are a few.

S-7: Clearances - A key standard addressing distances between tangent track centers and clearances with lineside obstructions.

S-8: Track Centers - A standard for distances for clearance for various curved track, and noted for several modeling scales.

RP-11: Curvature and Rolling Stock - This RP addresses minimum radius curves for rolling stock of various lengths, and over several modeling scales.

These are the building blocks for modelers to create layouts for equipment to operate without coming into contact with locos or rolling stock on adjacent tracks, or with lineside structures or scenery. This data is the starting point for modelers to consider as they develop their layouts.

Now, as many turn to prototype modeling, following the data of the specific prototype during the era you model becomes another layer of information that can be used in your railroad modeling. As an example, I model a prototype that was originally built as a narrow gauge in an urban area, and my focus is 1926. I have chosen to follow prototype clearances where I can. Tangent track centers for double track and passing sidings are on 13 foot centers. Curved track is a little different as my minimum mainline radius is 24 inches. Concurrent curved track centers are more generous, but easements into tangents at each end of the curves bring the track back to the 13 foot center-to-center distance. Tangent track centers for industiral sidings adjacent to mainline tracks are on 16 foot centers. These track center distances were found in a 1921 Maintenance of Way Cyclopedia, which is also online through Google Books.

Additionally, vertical clearances are tighter than the NMRA standards, especially as my efforts are focused on the standards of 1926. Obviously, with this focus on prototype standards of 1926, I will not be able to operate 1990's style double-stacks. Over time, railroads have increased the distance between running tracks in many areas and also increased vertical clearances to operate larger equipment. When deciding to follow a prototype more closely, you will make decisions based upon what was used on the prototype you are modelling.

Our hobby is all about choices. The NMRA details on track centers, curvature and clearances offers great data to help anyone plan a new layout. If you are more focussed on a specific time and place, using prototype data is another layer of information to consider as you plan and build.

Eric

 

Eric Hansmann
Contributing Editor, Model Railroad Hobbyist

Follow along with my railroad modeling:
http://designbuildop.hansmanns.org/

Standards don't apply to brass locos!

If anyone is running brass locos on a layout, you need to check them on a test track before you design your layout.  A few years ago a friend of a bunch of us in the modular club asked to run his brass challenger on the modular set up at a shopping center.  Our module standards provide for track spacing to match NMRA standards, and our minimum radius is 36 inches.  Brass locomotives are built exactly like the prototype including having a single articulation just like the prototype rather than two independent sets of drivers pivoting in the center of each driver set.  The result was that we had to run the challenger on the inside main to keep from having it hit on scenery or structures on the outside main, and we could not use the outside main because the pilot hung over the outside of the outside main  on the curves.  That brass challenger would have required 4-5 inches of track spacing to be able to operate and use both tracks in the double track main!  It would also need to have all scenery details to be no closer than 4-5 inches from the outside of the outside main if it was to run there.  If we had a 72 inch minimum radius rather than only 36 inches, it might have worked fine!


>> Posts index


Journals/Blogs

Recent Blog posts: