Standard Gauge Track Planning Questions...

We had the old version of Vinylbed on our Standard Gauge museum layout. It definitely made a difference in noise transmission - when we rebuilt the layout without roadbed, there was a noticeable increase in the noise level. I have no experience with the current version of Flexxbed.

I have the 072 standard gage left and right ross switch's that have tinplate size rail, with gargraves standard track on the rest of the layout I cut the homasote out the same size as the switch and took it out and shimed under the switch so It was level, I really like the ross standard they work good, the  072 switche's is 14 1/4" long & 6" wide if you put them together for a cross over they would be 9" wide, they work on DC you need a Bridge Rectifier I used a ECG Component ECG5312 , I told (ross) them at York last spring they should put one with each switch I don't know if they did it or not .

Guy  

going by a purely mathematical solution, a #4 switch spreads at an angle who's tangent = 1/4 (~14°).  the mainline length of the crossover should be 4 times the center to center track spacing using #4 switches.

David,

It is my understanding that the Ross #4 Standard Gauge switch was designed to work specifically with SGMA's mainline spacing. which is based on 7.5" centers.   For example, when two #4 switches are located in SGMA's 72 and 87 mainlines they will plug directly together creating a smooth crossover.

I suggest you consider using a PIKO switch control box unit which is specifically designed to operate the LGB G scale switch motors, which Ross installed on their Standard Gauge switches.  The PIKO controller will accept either AC or DC input power and convert it into the specific electrical power output needed to operate LGB switch motors.  Several switches can be operated by one PIKO switch control box.  There are several PIKO switch control box units currently for sale on ebay G scale.

Bob

You will have to shim the Gargraves track to match the profile of the Ross switches.

The rail pins are different and Gargraves makes a transition pin. Just buy the O-gauge pin it is the same.

David,

I can answer #1 without math or assume the moons positioning.... the overall length of the pair is 44". The individual switch length (of the straight section) is 22.5" so it is not quite twice as long. They do observe the 7.5" center spacing.

I actually have a pair that I am using to plan my new layout, so I was able to put them on the floor and measure them.

Hope this helps.

ARNO

Many thanks to everyone who responded!!!

ARNO, that's exactly what I was looking to know.  I used RR-Track to plan the layout and have the mainlines on 7.5" spacing.   But since there's no RCS standard gauge library, I couldn't put the switches in the actual plan.  But it's nice to know how much real estate I'll need for the cross-over pair(s) when it comes time to lay the trackwork.  Unfortunately, Ross didn't have any #4's at York.  But they did have an O72 standard gauge switch on display with which I was VERY impressed.

Jim C, thanks for the heads-up regarding the rail height profiles for the Gargraves vs. Ross switches.  I expect I'll run into a similar issue with the 90-degree crossing if I go with the MTH/LCT crossing.  I was just surprised Gargraves didn't offer anything in the way of such a basic crossing.  Oh well.  I guess that comes with Standard Gauge being a small niche within an already admitted toy train niche market.

As for the LGB switch motors, I guess I'll need to do a little research on some specs for operating them.  Although the switches would be located in an area that's well within reach of manual operation, I'd like to ideally have them controlled via the DCS controller.  So I may need to "customize" a circuit incorporating the AIU.  Has anyone done this?  I'm not yet familiar with the PIKO controller that Bob (navy.seal) mentioned earlier in the thread.

Thanks again, everyone!!!

David

4 x 7.5" = 30" which is probably close to the linear mainline distance if you were to draw a 14° angle (#4 switch) between mainline centers.

4x table = rocket science?

...easier on the knees, too.

I have 8 of the Ross 72 switches on my layout, and love them.  Spatially, in terms of track layout, they are exact drop-ins for the MTH tinplate switches, except that the motors are much smaller and also can be flipped from one side of the switch to the other.  I ended up using the 72's in my yard, they took up much less space than the #4's, which are huge.  For several reasons, I used some short track pieces between the 72's to make wider spacing between the sidings; without these, your spacing could be very close.  I know the #4's were designed for yards, but I don't see how they would be an improvement, they take up way too much space; they are 22-1/2" long, the 72's are only 14".

Thanks for posting that info, hojack.  Those 72's look great in your yard.  I'm envisioning #4's for a mainline cross-over, so the length won't be a big issue... and I'll be able to maintain a nice 7.5" parallel track spacing.

BTW, what are you using to control the Ross/LGB switch machines?  I'm hoping to control them via DCS eventually.

David

I don't control my switches thru DCS, I actually like the toggles on a control panel better even though I run the trains DCS thru a TIU.  There's no accounting for taste, huh?  

They do wire diferently from the MTH tinplate switches.  But the toggles that come with the Ross 72's even fit in my control panel, so it was easy.  I power them off a dedicated DC power pack; so the Ross switches have AC power with DCS on the rails, and separate DC power to the switch machine.  Seemed odd at first, but no reason why not.  

I like to wire up old tinplate block signals of different descriptions to act as switch indicators, and the AC/DC thing with these switches had me confused at first, but it turns out not to be an issue: the Ross 72's have built-in terminals just for that purpose.

I was skeptical about the non-tinplate, semi-hirail concept of the Ross switch at first, but I'm the first to say I was wrong, he hit it perfectly with the 72.  It is very well designed, easy to install, drop in replacement for the MTH which means you can retrofit without tearing up track, performs flawlessly every time, trains roll over them smooth as silk, seamless power continuity, ability to relocate switch motor solves space problems, easy to hook up auxiliary lights... top marks right across the board.  

The DC thing was a hickup for a few minutes, but I'm sure he did that to get the power and reliablility of the G scale machine.  If I was just using one or two, AC with a little bridge rectifier just before the switch motor would have done the trick, (and this might be the solution for DCS?) but I decided for my purposes it was worth getting a separate DC power source.

Just my opinion of course, others may have different experience or thoughts.

I looked at Gargraves website and there STG track is expensive compared to USA track. Another thing is the preformed curves will have different track spacing than the 7.5 centers of the Ross switches. Add the previous mentioned different profile height.

USA track has 42,57,72 and 87 curves that will give you perfect 7.5 spacing.

To see High rail looking STG tubular track look at Tom Snyders layout which is ballasted and scenic. 

Do not hold your breath with RR-track upgrading there files in STG. They were given the specs for USA track years ago and have done nothing.

Ross does need to make a 45 and 22.5 crossovers to pretty much have a complete system for STG.

I was REALLY impressed with the 72 switch I saw on display at York, and your comments seem to confirm my first impression.

In my case, since I'm leaning toward the Gargraves track and a hi-rail "look", I think the Ross switches will blend in very nicely -- understanding that I may need to shim the Gargraves track to work with the Ross rail profile/height.

David

Thanks, Jim C.

I'm still evaluating Gargraves vs. tubular like Tom Snyder did.  And Gargraves is in the lead since I'm looking for curve radii broader than 87".  I guess it's just a bit of left-over thinking from my O-Gauge world scale orientation!!!  

I'm not too concerned about "fixed-radii" concentric circles for the 7.5" track spacing, since my track plan isn't based on that.  Where I'm planning the cross-overs, the mainlines are on 7.5" spacing, so we're good there.

Now, I'm off to look at Tom Snyder's layout again.  Love the inspiration in this stage of planning! 

David

Before Ross came out with their Standard Gauge switches, I had Gargraves Standard Gauge switches in these locations on the layout.  They were okay, but - speaking of hirail - the rails on the Gargraves switches were not high enough to accomodate the flanges on Standard Gauge trains.  The flanges rode along the ties, bump bump bump, and would stay between the rails if you didn't go too fast.   Seemed kinda odd, but there it was.  I don't know how Gargraves track is made, if it is made like the switches you may want to be sure there isn't an issue with the rail height for wheel flanges.

I definitely don't plan on using Gargraves switches, but you raise a good point about Gargraves track in general that's certainly worth investigating.  On a recent TM Video -- I think it was Tinplate Trains in Action Part 4 -- one of the featured layouts exclusively uses Standard Gauge Gargraves Flex track.  The layout was HUGE, and the owner had an equally huge collection of locomotives and rolling stock -- original and recent MTH Lionel Corporation Tinplate.  Everything seemed to run pretty smoothly with no evidence of flanges having trouble.  But thanks for the tip... will explore things further.

David

Hojack is right to point this out. A few years ago we converted our Standard Gauge museum layout from Gargraves to tubular track. The track that came off had deep grooves worn in the ties. The biggest problem comes from certain older locomotives with extra-deep flanges, but you never know - ironically, there are no standards for Standard Gauge except the gauge itself.