playmofire
Registered
On another model railway forum I read that with a diamond crossing the mainline is always the shorter rail. Is this correct?
Diamond crossings
- Thread starter playmofire
- Start date
Gizzy
A gentleman, a scholar, and a railway modeller....
If this is for a LGB 30 deg diamond crossing, then this is correct. However, the crossing is 'handed', from memory for a right hand point. You have to juggle around with short pieces of track for left hand, or do as I did and cut the longer road to match the shorter one.
This was before PIKO brought out their own version, which doesn't have this issue AFAIK....
This was before PIKO brought out their own version, which doesn't have this issue AFAIK....
playmofire
Registered
I have both an LGB and a Piko so I shall do a comparison. Thanks for the confirmation.
Gizzy
A gentleman, a scholar, and a railway modeller....
Please post your conclusions here so we can see....
playmofire
Registered
Will do.
idlemarvel
Neither idle nor a marvel
The PIKO one is symmetrical. Two 320 mm straights that cross at 30 degrees. Cleverly the geometry matches a 30 degree R1 (600 mm radius) curve.
LGB 30 deg.
playmofire
Registered
Now for 2,000 words. LGB top, Piko below.
playmofire
Registered
Some measurements for the LGB track, main (shorter) line + 30cm, crossing line = 34.5cm.
justme igor
Registered
The timbering is a bit unnatural in my opinion.
Even if they would make use of casted frogs, the nose of the frog is not where it is supposed to be.(in prototypical)
The timbering is also out of place, usually with that angle in crossings they place a sleeper under the nose of the frog, between two timbers.
The next pictures are from a more smaler angle crossing
Still need to buy gravel.
I dont think it is relevant to whatever the main or the crossing line is.
All the guard, safety and wing rails are the same length.
My 1.5 cent, with best regards Igor
Even if they would make use of casted frogs, the nose of the frog is not where it is supposed to be.(in prototypical)
The timbering is also out of place, usually with that angle in crossings they place a sleeper under the nose of the frog, between two timbers.
The next pictures are from a more smaler angle crossing
Still need to buy gravel.
I dont think it is relevant to whatever the main or the crossing line is.
All the guard, safety and wing rails are the same length.
My 1.5 cent, with best regards Igor
Greg Elmassian
Guest
Right on Igor!
Although your flangeways look way out of G1MRA spec (too wide). I understand this might be a compromise for that monster steamer you were building.
By the way, we miss your updates, what is the current top priority project (trains of course ha ha!)
Greg
Although your flangeways look way out of G1MRA spec (too wide). I understand this might be a compromise for that monster steamer you were building.
By the way, we miss your updates, what is the current top priority project (trains of course ha ha!)
Greg
justme igor
Registered
Yes this is the outer line for the monster.
The motor less frame pulled and pushed by a smaller loco did not reveal any problems.
Aldo I need a minimum weight of 3.5-4 kilogram.
First i want to finish my house, i am almost done, total rebuild of a monumental house with all the new demands(energie neutral ect)
The first two updates will be a section of Amsterdam cs 1932 with 6 turnouts and a double slip plus a diamond, remote controlled.
And the self driving frame of the AA20.
With best regards Igor
JimmyB
Now retired - trains and fishing
I have to ask why we look at G1MRA standard for G Scale, if I were modelling in OO9, the I would be using 4mm standard not N Gauge standard, again modelling in O16.5 I would be using O Gauge standard, and not OO/HO, so for G Gauge which is G3 narrow gauge why are we not looking to G3 standard.
playmofire
Registered
Bit of thread drift starting here.
JimmyB
Now retired - trains and fishing
Not really the gauge and standard to which you build your crossing is just as important as the crossing itself.
Probably for robustness
Greg Elmassian
Guest
The issue of what standard to use is another debate.
In the US, the NMRA struggled mightily because they wanted to include the grossly toy-like standards of "G" scale, so as not to irritate the big manufacturers. A deep look into the target measurements and the strange tolerances will reveal this, for people who are willing to spend the time to understand.
All other scales are more accurate, the G scale stuff is all over the map. But if you dig down, the last overhaul of the NMRA standard closely parallels the G1MRA standard. (somehow reason finally prevailed at some reason at the NMRA)
When I first started, everything derailed, could not run long trains, could not back up a train. Gauging wheelsets, throwing away toy junk, correcting turnouts made an overwhelming difference, and was well worth it.
But many people don't want to (or need to) go to the effort, short trains, low speeds, relax the need for good standards.
Greg
In the US, the NMRA struggled mightily because they wanted to include the grossly toy-like standards of "G" scale, so as not to irritate the big manufacturers. A deep look into the target measurements and the strange tolerances will reveal this, for people who are willing to spend the time to understand.
All other scales are more accurate, the G scale stuff is all over the map. But if you dig down, the last overhaul of the NMRA standard closely parallels the G1MRA standard. (somehow reason finally prevailed at some reason at the NMRA)
When I first started, everything derailed, could not run long trains, could not back up a train. Gauging wheelsets, throwing away toy junk, correcting turnouts made an overwhelming difference, and was well worth it.
But many people don't want to (or need to) go to the effort, short trains, low speeds, relax the need for good standards.
Greg
Unfortunately that statement could be said for most things these days