Replacing R1 points with R3

Rob

Rob

Registered
3 Nov 2009
469
28
Liverpool
www.flickr.com
Hello!

The CWLR, like many others I suspect, was unfortunately built using R1 points and curves as the ruling radius. This was because of two things, I had a full circle of R1 curves from an LGB starter set, and because they were all I could afford on my schoolboy’s pocket money!

Now, however, with an increasing amount of rolling stock and the addition of a live steam loco with chain couplings, these are becoming increasingly unsuitable, especially during shunting.

Now, in some locations there is nothing I can do as the railway is built around the existing garden, and major changes are unlikely to be approved. Luckily, these locations are where the issue isles problematic.

At Charlwood however, it’s a different story, or at least I think it is! So before I buy three R3 points and a curve, can anybody advise whether I’ll be able to simply slot them in place of the three marked points on this picture?



Now, I appreciate that the new R3 formation would be longer than the R1 version, but will the track spacing be the same? Would I be able to fit an R3 curve between the heels of No2 and 1a? And will said curve be enough, or would it need two R3 curves in the same place? I appreciate I’ll need to rejig the straights either side of the points as R3s are a lot longer, that’s not an issue.

The point that you can see the toe of on the RHS is an R3 that’s intended to replace an R1 at ‘Top End’. I’ve had a play round with it, and I think it’ll fit, but wanted to be sure before I invest!

Any advice greatly appreciated.

Thanks!

Rob
 
Rhinochugger

Rhinochugger

Retired Oik
27 Oct 2009
24,741
403
North West Norfolk
The first principal with ruling radii is to 'go large' :clap::clap:

At the risk of incurring the wrath of purists, the second principal of track laying is never be afraid to use the hacksaw. Don't be hampered by the myth of track geometry :shake::shake:
 
Rob

Rob

Registered
3 Nov 2009
469
28
Liverpool
www.flickr.com
The first principal with ruling radii is to 'go large' :clap::clap:

At the risk of incurring the wrath of purists, the second principal of track laying is never be afraid to use the hacksaw. Don't be hampered by the myth of track geometry :shake::shake:
In the first instance, I’ve definitely learnt my lesson :D

In the second, My hacksaw has been well used over the last 12 years :rock:
 
The Devonian

The Devonian

Registered
17 Nov 2009
1,949
0
South Hams
Whilst our hobby owes much to LGB and their products, one thing I always believed is that their R1 was a great disservice to garden railroaders. It seemed to me that unless you were modelling a small industrial yard, narrow gauge short stocked line or similar, it was far too tight a radius for comfortable operation of many of the models made in recent years.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rob
JimmyB

JimmyB

Phase 1 complete, roll on Phase 2
23 Feb 2018
1,575
170
65
Weston-super-Mare
I am in the process of replacing my R1 with R3, though through a slight configuration change, having overlaid my R3 points I find my track centers will be about 1-2 cm wider.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rob
maxi-model

maxi-model

UK/US/ROW steam narrow gauge railways 1:1
27 Oct 2009
4,497
132
Bucks/Oxon/Northants area
Looking at your diagram you are going to have to replace that curve between 1A and 2 otherwise you are still trying to go through an R1. You need to remember that between 1A & 1B, and the previously mentioned alignment, even with R3 radius you are still trying to go through a pretty tight reverse curve arrangement. That could still cause issues - especially as you are getting into live steam and probably 3 link chains and centre buffers between stock. There is still a risk of buffers locking when propelling certain stock when shunting. If you can manage it go for R5's rather than R3's. Just makes life a lot easier when you want to develop you railway interests make the world your lobster. Max
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rob
Gizzy

Gizzy

Railways, Aviation, Caravanning....
26 Oct 2009
32,412
112
Cambridgeshire
www.gscalecentral.net
As Jimmy has found, track centres for R1 are 165 mm.

The centres for R3 are 185 mm.

R3 points are also longer than R1, so you'll need more space Rob....
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rob
idlemarvel

idlemarvel

Registered
13 Jul 2015
1,621
92
Ascot
Don't know if this helps. I have drawn the track layouts using Xtrakcad, top shows R1 points and curves, bottom R3 points and curves. Straights are 600mm. Squares are 10cm.

117713_1d3f86bdd98d61522ee3ca8f2b83657d.png
 
Rob

Rob

Registered
3 Nov 2009
469
28
Liverpool
www.flickr.com
Looking at your diagram you are going to have to replace that curve between 1A and 2 otherwise you are still trying to go through an R1. You need to remember that between 1A & 1B, and the previously mentioned alignment, even with R3 radius you are still trying to go through a pretty tight reverse curve arrangement. That could still cause issues - especially as you are getting into live steam and probably 3 link chains and centre buffers between stock. There is still a risk of buffers locking when propelling certain stock when shunting. If you can manage it go for R5's rather than R3's. Just makes life a lot easier when you want to develop you railway interests make the world your lobster. Max
Re. The curved piece, Yeah I’d realised that.

Unfortunately in the space that I have, R5s would be too much. I really don’t want it to look too crammed in.

As Jimmy has found, track centres for R1 are 165 mm.

The centres for R3 are 185 mm.

R3 points are also longer than R1, so you'll need more space Rob....
Don't know if this helps. I have drawn the track layouts using Xtrakcad, top shows R1 points and curves, bottom R3 points and curves. Straights are 600mm. Squares are 10cm.

View attachment 249301
Thanks Guys, doesn’t look like I’ll be able to fit it in. I’d factored in the extra length, but had assumed the track centres were the same. Back to the drawing board!
 
Greg Elmassian

Greg Elmassian

Registered
8 Mar 2014
2,733
136
San Diego
www.elmassian.com
Why not shorten the diverging legs of the 2 R3 switches to allow maintaining the same track spacing? Should work fine. They are just longer, and actually shortening the legs should actually help reduce the "S" curve, since the legs are curved all the way along (as opposed to most prototype switches)

Greg
 
korm kormsen

korm kormsen

Registered
24 Oct 2009
2,440
21
your yard is in for major surgery.
while standard R1 components are 30cm long, R3 parts are about 40cm long.
and R1 curves and turnouts are 30°, but the R3s are 22.5°
 
Gavin Sowry

Gavin Sowry

Garden Railroader and Raconteur
27 Oct 2009
6,030
113
65
Hutt Valley, NZ
Why not shorten the diverging legs of the 2 R3 switches to allow maintaining the same track spacing? Should work fine. They are just longer, and actually shortening the legs should actually help reduce the "S" curve, since the legs are curved all the way along (as opposed to most prototype switches)

Greg
Greg is on to it, as usual. What I'd do is put a straight piece of track on the straight roads of the turnouts, then lay them out at the R1 spacings, allowing the curve roads to overlap (one sitting on top of the other). Measure the amount of overlap, then cut half of that overlap from each of the curved roads. Don't just shorten one, because you will end up with a kinked track. Adding the straights (temporarily) is to get the tracks paralell when setting out.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rob
dunnyrail

dunnyrail

DOGS, Garden Railways, Steam Trains, Jive Dancing,
25 Oct 2009
14,688
287
71
St.Neots Cambridgeshire UK
As Greg said about cutting the points. It is certainly possible to reduce the gap between Tracks using R3 Points. I ha e done it to extreme in my Fiddle Yard to fit in 5 Roads where only 4 will work with standard geometry.

Thus Point 1b and 1a would need a little cutting off each of the points to maintain the gap as existing. Point 2 could also be cut the same and as point 1a will be moved to the right a little you should have more space to fit in either a flex curved at an easier Rad than R1 or even a cut R3 curve to match the point may work. The remaining in-numbered point should be a didle after the other 3.

Enjoy your larger curves. R5 though nice would mean a drastic simplification of what you likely have at massive cost.
 
korm kormsen

korm kormsen

Registered
24 Oct 2009
2,440
21
if you are willing to cut points, there would be a cheaper solution.
if you replace the diverging part of a R1 point by a straight - just from the frog on outwards - you get a point of more or less 26°.
 
Greg Elmassian

Greg Elmassian

Registered
8 Mar 2014
2,733
136
San Diego
www.elmassian.com
Yes, Korm, you could do what you say, but you are missing the fundamental issue, the frog angles are different between the R1 and the R3, which is really the point (get it?)

You go from a #2 frog to about a #3.5 frog, much better.

That's really the goal, is to go through a "gentler" switch, and the frog number/angle is what it is all about. The fact that LGB continues to curve the rails after the frog is another story, and the reasons are clear and have been well discussed.

So cut the diverging tracks on your two R3 switches to meet with your given track spacing.

I have not investigated if you can cut the diverging legs short enough to put in a straight section of track. It's importan the curves through the switches AND the straigh would mach well enough, given the tight dimensions, I suspect this is not possible while maintaining smooth transitions of curves.

I used to have a crossover with switches with a #4 frog.... often part of the train would go and the other part not... the crossover was too tight, so I changed to switches with #6 frogs and it never happened again.

Same here, going from the #2 frog (in the R1 switch) to the #3.5 frog (in the R3 switch) should make a lot of difference.

The train was going from right to left and the rear car is actually over the crossover, the front of the first car went, the rest refused!

 
Last edited:
korm kormsen

korm kormsen

Registered
24 Oct 2009
2,440
21
Yes, Greg, i get your point about the point's frog.

yes, but....

the difference between LGB turnouts and those of some other manufacturers lies in the design.
most turnouts have a (more or less) curved section up to the frog then go on as straights. -> the frogs degree equals the turnout's degree.
the diverging part of LGB turnouts consist of a curved standard-length piece of rail.
from fishplate to fishplate
=/= 1' or 30cm of 30° curve at R1 - with the point at 25cm. leaving 1/6 of the curve behind the frog. 30° * 5/6 = 25° = the divergence of the R1 frog.
=/= 1.5' or 45cm of 22.5° curve at R3 - with the point at 35cm. leaving as well roughly 1/4 of the curve behind the frog. 22.5° * 3/4 = 16.9° = the divergence of the R3 frog.

if Rob replaces his three R1 turnouts by R3s, he looses a total of 1.5' or 45cm of track in his yard to the longer points.
if he would slaughter the R1 points, that would be a total of (estimated) 5 to 10cm, due to the different diagonales.
if he wants the gentlest curves possible. he should put mutilated R3 points.

the point of my suggestion above was to save space and money.

(i do not comment on the numbered frogs, you mentioned, because i don't know that standard)

(edited for wrong numbers)
 
Last edited:
Greg Elmassian

Greg Elmassian

Registered
8 Mar 2014
2,733
136
San Diego
www.elmassian.com
"That's really the goal, is to go through a "gentler" switch, and the frog number/angle is what it is all about. The fact that LGB continues to curve the rails after the frog is another story, and the reasons are clear and have been well discussed. "

Did my best to focus on the point and not the curved departing route.

You focused on the curved departing route and not the most important part is improving his layout by going to a gentler switch.

He did not ask to save space.

The cost will be zero other than the R3 switches he is prepared to purchase.

So he did not ask to save space and money, he wants to improve his trackwork.

Priorities and request are clear, not what your post embraces, this is why I keep coming back.

Greg
 
korm kormsen

korm kormsen

Registered
24 Oct 2009
2,440
21
to not disturb the thread, let us simply agree to disagree.
 
Greg Elmassian

Greg Elmassian

Registered
8 Mar 2014
2,733
136
San Diego
www.elmassian.com
Sounds good, I do not want to fight, but I actually strive to follow what the OP asked for.

"Now, however, with an increasing amount of rolling stock and the addition of a live steam loco with chain couplings, these (referring to R1 switches) are becoming increasingly unsuitable, especially during shunting. "

First and foremost is the reduction in frog angle. I've given my best reasoning, and direct experience. Trying to help, but Rob did indeed reach out to the forum on how to accomplish exactly this.

Best regards Korm,

Greg