RCS #4 vs. 072 Switch

#6 switches will take up a lot of real estate.  I've had great luck with the #4s.  Steve B. says there are no parts less than an O72 curve, and for me they're a lot smoother than the curve-replacement (O72, etc.) switches.

As 49Lionel stated, you should be comparing the O-72 to a #4.  Yards look and operate much better with #4s, and you can get track spacing as close as 3" center-to-center and no sharp S turn.

Good grief, sorry for my error, I meant to say #4 switch v. 072. Post has been corrected.

Thank you gentlemen

Railrunnin posted:

Is anyone using a RCS #4 Switch vs. and 072 for your yard?

If neither, what switches do you use for a stub-end yard to maximize space as well as appearance? Not sure if this will be a ladder or start with a RCS 4 Way.

Thanks for your input.

Paul

Maximizing space - you can't have both width and length maximized - I assume that you are asking "what is the most that I can fit into this space"

The reg 11 and #4 will get more tracks into a narrow width and will result in shorter spurs in a fixed length The ladder gets flattened.

The curved switches result in less tracks in the width and longer spurs in a fixed length. The ladder is steeper.

 The 3 and 4 way are for a different type of yard or to setup a yard throat.

Great example Carl

Carl - most excellent input. Thanks for the reply and diagram.

Paul

Thanks, gents. The timing was good. I am immersed in designing a yard with RCS switches and GG track dealing with this exact problem.

The owner wants all of it in 30" wide by 192" with 3 mains. I am using reg 11. 4 switches on the ladder. Scale boxcars will clear side to side. I am about an 1 1/2" short on the width.

The 3rd mainline is the rub.

These take time to fit and have most of the elements of a prototypical yard that does all. Sometimes they just won't fit and choices have to made on what to exclude.

HI Carl

If you have time, would love to see some pictures of what you are doing with the yard project referenced. I am in very preliminary stages of design and am soaking up ideas and suggestions.

Thanks again Carl.

Paul

Paul and Carl,

After checking the RCS website technical page, I would like to suggest using the RCS #4 because it allows you to chop off a little at the heel of the switch (near the points).  This will narrow the space between yard tracks some, but might solve the 1.5 inch "too much" issue on the 30 inch width.  The RCS #11 will also permit this "chopping" operation, but by not nearly the same amount.

Carl, I know this suggestion can't be easily tested in software plan development, but I've seen it mentioned as a suggestion to solve this kind of problem in model railroad magazines.  HO switches get chopped like this all the time.

Chuck

Chuck,

That's a good tip.

The length problem really results from the angle of the divergence. How it pushes each spur forward down the ladder.

I usually have enough space to adjust the yard throat or lead track for the through length.

 I like to work with different angles for the spur spacing of the ladder.

Cutting the small amount off at the start could tighten the ladder spacing if someone is working with switches in inventory and can't change the angle. That's where I think it would really help.

Thank you.