Replacing R1 points with R3

The point in this picture has been modified, the Track Centres are now 14.5mm compared to the LGB norm of 19mm for R3. The principle of lobbing off some of the Rail to get a closer separation between 2 Tracks is clearly possible. I have a couple of sets that have been cut to maintain 13.5mm Centres. This is certainly getting a bit tight but that is not what Rob is looking for. He just wants a match to R1 Centres.
300FC737-71E2-4E98-B061-5A8B1CA5ADF2.jpeg
 
And Rob, in my opinion, is on the right track (pun intended) on using "more gentle" switches. I elminated almost all Aristo-craft "wide radius" switches (#4 frog) in favor of their #6 switch, what a difference, that picture above was not joke, especially with it happened with a consist of locos.

Shortening the diverging track has the added benefit of reducing the "S" curve somewhat, but it's so little rail, the major benefit is the "gentler" frog. Also, just looks closer to prototype, i.e. nicer.

I believe Train-Li actually gave an option with their switches, by including a short curved piece for the diverging route, with the piece in place, it more followed the LGB design, without the piece, more followed prototype practice and allowed crossovers with tighter track to track spacing. In the US, Train-Li appears to sell Trainline 45 stuff, which I think is well known in Europe.

Regards, Greg
 
Greg Elmassian said:
And Rob, in my opinion, is on the right track (pun intended) on using "more gentle" switches. I elminated almost all Aristo-craft "wide radius" switches (#4 frog) in favor of their #6 switch, what a difference, that picture above was not joke, especially with it happened with a consist of locos.

Shortening the diverging track has the added benefit of reducing the "S" curve somewhat, but it's so little rail, the major benefit is the "gentler" frog. Also, just looks closer to prototype, i.e. nicer.

I believe Train-Li actually gave an option with their switches, by including a short curved piece for the diverging route, with the piece in place, it more followed the LGB design, without the piece, more followed prototype practice and allowed crossovers with tighter track to track spacing. In the US, Train-Li appears to sell Trainline 45 stuff, which I think is well known in Europe.

Regards, Greg
Click to expand...
Yep, easy does it when it comes to points.

I actually have a pet hate with the LGB R3, and that is the short check rail on the curve - even some LGB locos hit the frog as a result - they don't de-rail, just jerk sideways in a most unappealing manner :tmi:

There is a modification that can be carried out - but why haven't they changed it?
 
I've got a picture here, I think your "check rail" is what we call "guard rails". They both, on the through and the diverging routes, seem to "overlap" with the frog to a sufficient degree?

I know the flangeway width is way out of spec considering NMRA and G1MRA specs, but I don't see it as "short"

LL16040.png


I've spend a long time studying model switches and issues, and made significant leaps when I re-gauged all my rolling stock, and then narrowed the flangeway widths so that hitting the frog with the flange or riding up was completely eliminated.

Took me a while to understand why manufacturers use the tolerances they use. Also I'm not a fan of "flange bearing" frogs, but it works for LGB as long as everything is LGB.

It's a whole long, involved process to convert the off the shelf stuff to G1MRA / NMRA standards (and I do not mean the "Toy Train" part of the NMRA standards).

Greg
 
Greg Elmassian said:
I've got a picture here, I think your "check rail" is what we call "guard rails". They both, on the through and the diverging routes, seem to "overlap" with the frog to a sufficient degree?

I know the flangeway width is way out of spec considering NMRA and G1MRA specs, but I don't see it as "short"

LL16040.png




Greg
Click to expand...


It's a long time since I got rid of my R3s, and looking at the picture, it may be that it's the wing of the check rail / guard rail that's too short - I probably got it wrong and it maybe the wheels smack that rather than the frog. If the check rail / guard rail is going to do any good, it has to guide the back of the flange, and the wings on the leading edges are shorter than on the trailing edges for some barking mad reason - given that facing point movement is the area of risk.

All I know is that I didn't like the jolt, so I got rid as soon as I could.

Interestingly, I've found that Aristo's 10 footers provide a smoother ride for locos and stock - I had to use a couple of them as I didn't have room for #6s at both ends of the loops
 
Yeah, the angle of the "lead in" for the guard rails is a tough one. if everything is gauged very accurately to tight tolerances, it can be gradual and short, since it does not need to "capture" a wide variation of "the back of the wheel".

But in modelling, in order to loosen manufacturing tolerances and (a much bigger discussion) other stuff, you need a wider "capture window" so now you either use a gradual curve on the ends, but it needs to be way longer.

The alternative is a shorter but much more abrupt lead-in angle, and that can be nasty. This could be a source of a "jolt" for sure.

Perhaps I am understanding you correctly?

Greg
 
Last edited:
Greg Elmassian said:
Yeah, the angle of the "lead in" for the guard rails is a tough one. if everything is gauged very accurately to tight tolerances, it can be gradual and short, since it does not need to "capture" a wide variation of "the back of the wheel".

But in modelling, in order to loosen manufacturing tolerances and (a much bigger discussion)
Click to expand...

Many moons ago, when I was an impressionable teenager, the 4mm track standard of Scalefour (since re-named P4) was introduced. This was brought in as an ultra-fine scale track standard in 4mm:1ft modelling.

Now, as a devout bodger, I would never aspire to such rigorous standards, but the series of articles in Railway Modeler was a revelation to me, and broadened my understanding of track engineering, particularly, as you say, in points / turnouts.

Some of that info still lurks in the back of the brain ........ somewhere :mm::mm::mm:
 
re-reading the original post, i noticed, that we did not directly answer the questions there.

whether I’ll be able to simply slot them in place of the three marked points on this picture?
no - you have to give more room lengthwise.

but will the track spacing be the same?
yes - if you add longer diagonales between the turnouts. (the gentler the curve/turnout, the longer the diagonal connection for the same space between tracks)


Would I be able to fit an R3 curve between the heels of No2 and 1a?
yes - if you give more space between the turnouts.


And will said curve be enough, (?)
you might need a short piece of straight track. Look at page 42 of the LGB manual)


LGB manual: http://kormsen.info/lgb-manual.pdf


edit:
and just because i'm stubborn, i measured a R1 and a R3 frog:
R1 frog = 25°
R3 frog = 17°
 
Last edited:
R1 - 25 degrees is about a frog number of 2.3 (I said 2)
R3 - 17 degrees is about a frog number of 3.3 (I said 3.5)

So your measurements are close, not saying mine are perfect, but are compiled from multiple people who have measured over the years.

So basically an R3 switch is one full frog number "better" than an R1 switch, not to mention a number 2 frog is pretty darn tight.. why many locos will not go through them.

Many people notice the difference between a #4 (aristo wide radius), #5 (lgb r5) and a #6 like Aristo and USA trains.

Regards, Greg
 
Rob said:
Hmm. Going on the figures Gizzy gave above, I would only 1cm lopped off each point....

How hard can it be? :tmi:
Click to expand...
Er no. 1 cm less distance between the track centers is not the same thing as 1sm off the existing rail. I strongly suggest you cut them after laying them on top of the existing R1 points.
In terms of how hard, it's a geometry problem like the one Korm and Greg are worrying about. If you are worrying about the cutting - we use a cut-off disc in a Dremel-type cordless drill.
 
Fred2179G said:
Er no. 1 cm less distance between the track centers is not the same thing as 1sm off the existing rail. I strongly suggest you cut them after laying them on top of the existing R1 points.
In terms of how hard, it's a geometry problem like the one Korm and Greg are worrying about. If you are worrying about the cutting - we use a cut-off disc in a Dremel-type cordless drill.
Click to expand...

Don’t worry, I was planning on measuring it all up once I get hold of the points themselves. Measure twice etc.
 
Greg Elmassian said:
R1 - 25 degrees is about a frog number of 2.3 (I said 2)
R3 - 17 degrees is about a frog number of 3.3 (I said 3.5)

So your measurements are close, not saying mine are perfect, but are compiled from multiple people who have measured over the years.

So basically an R3 switch is one full frog number "better" than an R1 switch, not to mention a number 2 frog is pretty darn tight.. why many locos will not go through them.

Many people notice the difference between a #4 (aristo wide radius), #5 (lgb r5) and a #6 like Aristo and USA trains.

Regards, Greg
Click to expand...
I'm sure all this talk of frogs will spawn many replies
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom