opinion about switch type to use

After using all the others I can safely say Ross Period.

Sample:

The person who dies with the best toys is dead.

Tom Tee posted:

After using all the others I can safely say Ross Period.

Sample:

The person who dies with the best toys is dead.

Thanks, I meant the style of switch, not the make (I am leaning towards Ross myself), rather straight versus curved diverging path (ie 072 vs #6, etc).

If the diverging track will run parallel to the main (such as a passing siding, or in a yard) then you definitely want to use the numbered switch. The diverging leg on these is straight, which helps you avoid creating an S-curve. An exception might be where the two tracks are going to be several inches apart: a curved turnout will get you back into parallel sooner, and there may be room to add a straight section after the turnout, before curving back in the other direction.

(I always preach about avoiding S-curves. Even though you can almost always get away with them in 3-rail, they look awful!)

The curved switches are good when the path of the diverging route will describe an arc, because the diverging leg of the switch is curved all the way through. If you used a numbered switch here, the train would briefly straighten out, between the frog and the next track section. If you can get away with using a switch with a radius larger than the arc of the diverging route, you will get a bit of an easement effect--that is, the train will enter the arc more gradually.

IIRC the internal curve in a #4 is about O-72, so if your minimum mainline curve is O-72, using a larger number on your mainline switches will yield a more graceful look when traversing them. For Ross and Gargraves, the "regular" switch is a #5.

I use both types on my layout, which has over 300 on it. It really depends on what you are trying to do. It should be a function of the track alignment. I prefer the straight style, but the curved ones have their place too.

This ladder is made up of straight style switches. They do take up a little more room due to the low angle.

The ladder in the foreground is made up of chopped 072's, making it very tight.

Out on the mainline, I try to stick to the straight numbered switches, including a few #8's.

Stay with Straight Switches!  U will have less derailments!  I had 52 Atlas Switches on my last Layout! All controlled by CAB2 operation thru ASC’s !! In over 15 Years, only had 2 Failures!  People speak pretty highly of the Ross as well!

Fredstrains

Thanks for the responses for far, this is what I was looking for. @nickaix, I can understand about the S curve effect, if I do a crossover between parallel tracks I likely will use a double crossover switch built for that, but if I do it myself that makes sense. Elliot, I appreciate the visual representation, it really helps me see the differences and will make it easier for me down the road to decide where to use which type. Though my layout will be relatively modest, I was already thinking that the straight switches will work better on my mainline (or what passes for one!), which will have relatively few, then perhaps use the curved ones in the more compressed areas like industry and dock area. @Fredstrains, thanks, that helps a lot too, while I am leaning towards Ross, having options never hurts. 

Numbered switches.

IMO, I’d try to stay with #6 turnouts anywhere #8 turnouts were too long for your space.

But if there are constraints where curves switches are required, you have to do what you have to do.

  The less angle the better. A curve will transition slower to get to a given angle equal to a numbered switch.   I.e. smoother.   

Someone will have to explain the physics for me to see what I'm missing, I'm pretty sure I'm right here.  The numbered switches just have less angle than an the average untrimmed sectional curve. With curved untrimmed, we exceed the #° and then correct it again. Trimming to the angle solves that.

The geometry of numbered turnouts is more convoluted as a whole as well imo.

I won't argue numbered ones look better, and my own use of numbered is limeted to two layouts outside of design programs... a dozen tops, and not much switching done.... no derailments on either really.

The better switches are better designs imo, not better because of straight or curved.

I have a general preference for the numbered turnouts, including the Ross 11-degree  (#5) as they allow for closer spaced crossovers and because of their length you don't get reverse-curve operational problems at speed. The other problem I have with curve-replacement turnouts is that the curve extends an imaginary curved line through the frog which can lead to derailments when backing trains through them, especially for people like me suffering from an identity crisis and using scale-wheeled equipment. The Ross #6 and #8 curved turnouts have straight frogs, by the way.

From what I've seen "out in the wild" it looks like the railroads start curves a little after the frog when branching off into industrial areas. So for your purposes, you could cut down a numbered turnout to enter a branch or industrial area.

As Elliot said above, it really depends on your needs and what can fit without being forced. Ross turnouts work very reliably and are easy to connect to Atlas track products. Hope this helps.

Guys, don't forget to take into account the size of the layout in question at 9 x14. Where #6 and #8 are suggested, a #4 may be a better choice because they take up less space, but will still get the job done.

Don't be afraid to chop (modify) a brand new switch to make it fit. There is usually excess, maybe 2 to 4 ties worth on the point end, and within one tie of the frog, both legs, on the other end, that can be removed without changing the functioning. That's what I did to those 072's in the one ladder. I left the stock rail on the curved side long enough to be spiked to the tie that was up against the frog of the previous switch. This was done to avoid a very short rail segment that would have been difficult to support. The center and straight stock rail were cut shorter because they didn't really matter.

If you're doing a crossover, it may be necessary to shorten the diverging legs to get the proper track centers. I  use 4" centers on my layout, which is plenty for straightaways. Curves, you may want to go wider if you plan to run large pieces. I ended up with a couple places on my layout where long pieces can't pass each other. It's not that big of a deal, just something for the operators to watch out for.

This is why I'm not a big fan of track planning software, because I'm always modifying stuff on the fly. Just because a switch is delivered to you a certain way, doesn't mean it's set in stone. Don't draw your track plan according to the manufacturer's specs. Draw it the way you want it, and make the track conform.

 I must say, I'm not a big fan of the single piece double crossover. I would rather see two single crossovers back to back or not adjacent at all, maybe on opposite sides of the layout even. It's really a question of space.

A numbered turnout is simply the ratio of divergence from the existing track direction. That is, a #8 turnout has the diverging track move 1 foot in 8 feet down the existing track. At least that is how I understand it.

TM Terry posted:

A numbered turnout is simply the ratio of divergence from the existing track direction. That is, a #8 turnout has the diverging track move 1 foot in 8 feet down the existing track. At least that is how I understand it.

That is the correct definition. You can substitute any unit of measurement. For model railroads, inches are more practical than feet. That ratio determines the frog angle, if you're into trig. I like drawing better than calculating.

BIGKID:

I agree with the others - to avoid an S-Curve especially on switching from one mainline to another go with the high speed turnouts (# turnouts). To give you an idea of the distances involved see the picture below. With a #8 crossover you need 4 feet. The length required for 2 O72 turnouts vs 2 #4 turnouts is almost the same but you eliminate a lot of the S-curve. Finally if you are switching from one mainline to another the #4 double crossover is a space saver.

If you are entering or leaving a spur the O72 or other radius turnouts are fine since you entering at reduced speed.

For yard work the Ross 4 way yard switch is a space saver over #4 and O54 turnouts. Using a 3-way is basically the same as using #4's except you get to straight track sooner and the #4's keep a straighter and tighter yard spur then O54 curved turnouts

Joe

I just want to say thanks to all who responded to this thread, a lot of really valuable advice and especially to those who showed visually the difference, it really has given me a lot to think about, which is what I wanted, it shows how valuable this forum is. 

Contrary to a previous comment, if you are going with Ross, I do not see any increased risk of derailment by using a curved switch. I have used many Ross curved switches and they are just as reliable as the # ones.

Again, it comes down to what you are trying to accomplish. In the situation below, I did not have enough room to put a ladder of all straight switches before the turn and putting them after the turn would have shortened the sidings more than I wanted. So I used one curved switch and got what I wanted.

John

As you get closer to construction, keep asking for help if you need it.

I just thought I'd share a little more of my experience with you. Mainly because it's a rather unusual approach to layout design and switch selection.

With over 300 switches on my layout, I have examples of almost every type Ross offers. I started off with nearly 100 salvaged from my previous layout at Mall of America, 27 years ago.

Every time I saw switches for sale at a decent price, I bought them, not really caring about their exact style, because I didn't have a precise plan, but rather a general idea of the design. I just had stacks of the various types, and would pull from inventory as I built. I bought them in almost any condition too, because repairing and cleaning them didn't scare me. It was almost like, the rougher the better, because the price was better, and price matters when you're doing volume, like I was.

As I got up around 250 on the layout, and the stacks shrunk, I started to be a little more specific about my purchases. I bought a Ross 4 way, just because I figured I could use it somewhere. It ended up getting partnered with a couple more switches to make a 6 track ladder for my hump yard.    

In one eBay listing, I found a pair of 3 ways for a great price. I don't think anyone noticed that the auction was for two. It would have been a good price for one. At the time, I really only needed one, but I just set it aside, knowing that I could work it in, which I did.

Remember, any switch can be modified to fit your needs. You have a couple 072's and want to do a crossover? No problem, just shorten the curved legs to reduce the track centers and take out the "S" curve factor. Cut enough off, and they almost look like #4's. I used to do that with 022's all the time. Now those are sharp curves!

Have fun, this is one of my favorite parts of the hobby, but unfortunately I'm done with this aspect of my layout.

I've been following this posting to pick up as much as possible about switches and sidings to use in my own layout. The result has left me mostly with a bad case of "size envy". You folks have some serious layouts!

Anyway, I have a small bedroom size office to work with, a conventional inside loop and a larger outside loop for my O Scale TMCC. Obviously...never the two should meet...but thats OK. I have two consists (passenger & freight) for my TMCC steamer and another two for my post war steamer. I'm trying to arrange sidings to park the "idle" set of cars for each loop.

My question is this...Is there something inherently wrong with "driving" through switches "backwards"? The loco's on my "main lines" go through the mainline switch and then back into the siding to drop off the consist, then get back on the main line and back into the other siding to hook up the other cars. (I only have 4 switches) If I were to drop off cars in a "drive through" configuration, it would take twice as many switches. Am I missing something?)

While I have learned that the switches must be wired as non-derailing to accomplish this... I'm always driving through the switches the "wrong" direction...or is there no such thing as going "the wrong way" through a switch?

Lion L

Lion L 226E posted:

My question is this...Is there something inherently wrong with "driving" through switches "backwards"?

 

......or is there no such thing as going "the wrong way" through a switch?

 

Lion L

Not at all.....real railroads do it all the time.   Whatever it takes to get the job completed. 

-Greg

There is a lot available. Ross, Gargraves, Atlas, Lionel etc.  New and old.   Do your homework.  A good understanding of Auto-non-derail is important.   Also logical power routing, required through longer switches, is important.    One of my favorite switch combinations.   Fort Pitt Highrailer module, Ross 204 Three way switch.  

#6 or #8 Switches are long.  The Ross website has templates for most of their switches.  

Thanks for the tip Mike!

Ross has an almost infinite variety of switches, you can normally find what you need in their inventory.

A numbered switch is a straight diverge switch.  The number indicates the angle of diverge.  Example:  A number #8 switch  (1" of diverge, for every 8" of switch).  I could be wrong and often.     #2 or #4 switches are more aggressive, steep angle. 

Go with Ross. I switched to Atlas when I moved about 14 years ago. Had many problems with dead spots after installed and ballasted, not fun. Atlas switches I find less durable. Ross has great service too. My bad for making the change. I've regretted it ever since.

Go with Ross.  Atlas had to make too many design considerations in order to make their track system work.  Although a Ross footprint is slightly larger than Atlas, they are 20-25% cheaper and more reliable.  Also use numbered switches whenever possible.