R1/R3 geometry puzzling me

[RH Prague]

I am sure this is a well known problem.

I have three tracks in parallel. the crossover between tracks 1 and 2 are R1, whereas between tracks 2 and 3 they are R3. Result: embarassingly wonky appearance of the three supposedly straight tracks.

There is a solution I am sure. I just cannot work out what it is. Can anybody put me out of misery? Thanks!

 

[LTfan]

LGB track centres are 161mm using R1 points and 182mm using R3 points.
If you could insert a 41mm straight 10040 between the curves of the R1 points you'll get 181mm track centres.

According to my RailModeller software.

Cheers

David

 

[stockers]

Try this link - its LGBs own diagrame.

http://mediencms.maerklin.de/media.php/de/produkte/sondereditionen/lgb-tracksystem-160_large.jpg

 

[adverse camber]

I think that you may not have realised that while R1 and R2 are designed to run adjacent to each other woth the correct gap between sections the same does not apply to R2 and R3. If you look at the track diagram in the link above shows that there is a bit of flextrack needed to run between the two if you want the tracks all at the correct spacing.

I am not sure there is an non flexible track solution, and even then you may have a problem with crossovers as the only angled crossover is based on the R1 curve geometry with the exception of the double slip which is R3 and the 3 way point which is R2.

There again I may have got the wrong end of the stick

AC

 

[korm kormsen]

if i understood right, the problem is to get the straights to run paralell.

the R1 turnout has an 30° angle. The R3 has an 22.5° angle.
LGB made short pieces of curves of 7.5° angle.

 

[Gizzy]

I am sure this is a well known problem.

I have three tracks in parallel. the crossover between tracks 1 and 2 are R1, whereas between tracks 2 and 3 they are R3. Result: embarassingly wonky appearance of the three supposedly straight tracks.

There is a solution I am sure. I just cannot work out what it is. Can anybody put me out of misery? Thanks!

I think we may need a track plan or a photo....

 

[RH Prague]

I think we may need a track plan or a photo....

I was afraid someone might say that


So, in the foto, the R3 crossover is in the foreground and the R1 further back. That two left hand tracks are extensions this year, but are basically sidings and I couldn't afford R3's for them. There is another R1 crossover on the two left hand tracks further back, around the point from where the foto is taken.


So LTFan's suggestion makes sense to me, while Korm's suggestion jogs my memory. But why in the case of Korm's suggestion would the little insert be curved rather than straight?


Thanks, as always, for your help

 

[Gizzy]

But why in the case of Korm's suggestion would the little insert be curved rather than straight?

This is because the arc of an R1 point is 30 degrees and the arc of an R3 is 22.5 degrees. The curved section of track Korm refers to adds the 7.5 degrees required, so that it has the same arc angle of 30 degrees as an R1 point.

The arc angle also is why you have 12 curves in an R1 or R2 circle (12 x 30 = 360) and 16 curves in a R3 circle (16 x 22.5 = 360)....

 

[Gizzy]

I was afraid someone might say that )

I can confirm from your photo, that if you want the same track spacing for your tracks that have R1 points, as per the track with the R3 crossover, then you need to add a LGB 10040 42mm track sction to get the same track centre spacing of 185 mm....

 

[RH Prague]

Great, well that shouldnt be too much of a problem.

Thanks Gizzy and everyone.

 

[Bredebahn]

A hacksaw and an old short straight might be cheaper.......

 

[RH Prague]

I can confirm from your photo, that if you want the same track spacing for your tracks that have R1 points, as per the track with the R3 crossover, then you need to add a LGB 10040 42mm track sction to get the same track centre spacing of 185 mm....

I was afraid someone might say that )

I can confirm from your photo, that if you want the same track spacing for your tracks that have R1 points, as per the track with the R3 crossover, then you need to add a LGB 10040 42mm track sction to get the same track centre spacing of 185 mm....

Unfortunately I've realised that I won't be able to do this. It may not be apparent from the photo, but the tracks are on a wall more than a metre high, and if i widen to 180 plus, the left hand track in the foto will be quivering on the edge.
I guess I've got two options. One would be to change the R3s to R1s. The other would be to make the left hand track into two sidings, so there would be one R1 + curve into a siding, rather than an R1 crossover. Would post a diagram but cant seem to shrink Rail Modeller to a suitable size. The latter option I have the track for, the former would involve getting new R1s, and wasting the R3s, although its always good to have them around for the future.


Would welcome any comments.

 

[French Chuffed]

I can confirm from your photo, that if you want the same track spacing for your tracks that have R1 points, as per the track with the R3 crossover, then you need to add a LGB 10040 42mm track sction to get the same track centre spacing of 185 mm....

I was afraid someone might say that )

I can confirm from your photo, that if you want the same track spacing for your tracks that have R1 points, as per the track with the R3 crossover, then you need to add a LGB 10040 42mm track sction to get the same track centre spacing of 185 mm....

Unfortunately I've realised that I won't be able to do this. It may not be apparent from the photo, but the tracks are on a wall more than a metre high, and if i widen to 180 plus, the left hand track in the foto will be quivering on the edge.
I guess I've got two options. One would be to change the R3s to R1s. The other would be to make the left hand track into two sidings, so there would be one R1 + curve into a siding, rather than an R1 crossover. Would post a diagram but cant seem to shrink Rail Modeller to a suitable size. The latter option I have the track for, the former would involve getting new R1s, and wasting the R3s, although its always good to have them around for the future.


Would welcome any comments.

I may be stating the obvious but to retain your 180 track spacing couldn?t you widen the track bed with some timber planking, it looks like you have the space. And incorporate a small retaining fence as well. Could be a win win .

 

[Wobbleboxer]

Or move the right hand track over a bit. You only need 10mm total don't you?

 

[Neil Robinson]

If I understand correctly you would like an LGB R3, (PIKO R5) crossover with R1 track centers.
I imagine this may be achieved by cutting an equal small section from the curved portion of the two points.
If I were to do this I'd place the two points on top of the parallel straight sections set at the required centers. I'd then cut through both curved sections halfway along the overlap.

 

[Bredebahn]

Like I said earlier, a hacksaw would come in handy! That's the way it would be managed on the prototype and that's the way I would manage it.

 

[RH Prague]

Thanks to for all for taking the time with these suggestions. I'll post a pic later with a long shot which will show why moving everything to the right would be a bit of a hassle. I think Neil's suggestion looks an elegant solution, although I may put the hacksaw in the hands of the brother in law, who has golden Czech hands, and services real - life pointwork for a living

 

[RH Prague]

So here are a couple of photos showing the whole thing. Its my first effort, so please make allowances. A simple dumb bell. If I would move everything to the right, that includes the station area and various sidings. And I dont really have the space as I would be encroaching into the 'garden zone'. So at the moment Neil's solution looks much simpler. But as always i'd be pleased to read any views.