[Too-Many-Hobbies]

What? This makes no sense! my brain hurts help!

well im designing the yard for my train set and i ran into a problem, with the #4 turnouts all together like that in the middle, there like 2 and a half inches between the tracks on each of the spurs that are suppose to be close together, i went downstairs and assembled my real track and they actually had like 1 inch between each other???? why are they so far apart, im using #4 turnouts on this plan and downstairs i used the snap switches, but there like the same arnt they?? an if they arnt how do i make my yard tracks closer together? im using atlas code 83

And if the turnouts arnt right how does that affect the bottom pics X crossing? is there away to get around it? or am i fine on that?

 

[Reckers]

TMH,

Are you using Anyrail to plan your setup? If you are, let me suggest you look at the top toolbar and select "Settings". It should be to the right of center, if you're on the version I am.
Now, on the far left, choose "Measurement System" and select either English Fractional or English Decimal. Move slightly to the right and enter your area in inches for width and Depth, then again to the right and check the "Grid" box. This should present your layout in 1" x 1" grid, so you can see the actual distances between tracks, etc. Once you've done that, go back and look at your layout. It should not change any of your track, but it should give you a better picture of how close things are together.

I run only S scale, so I can't advise you on your scale and it's track components. I'll leave that to those who are wiser than I am. Best of luck on it, though, and keep posting till you get it right---people here love to help.

 

[tjcruiser]

This is a naive comment ... I know essentially nothing about Anyrail, however ...

Isn't there also a setting that you can choose that dictates how the track is shown, i.e.:

Centerline of track, only
Track as rail-to-rail width, only
Track as full width with ties
Track as full width with ties, roadbed

Maybe I'm wrong ... but you might peek to see if you can show the full track width inclusive of ties and/or roadbed.

TJ

 

[tankist]

it doen't look like the turnouts you put on your drawing are #4. diverging curve looks to agressive. are you sure those are not snaps you put in there?

 

[Reckers]

This is a naive comment ... I know essentially nothing about Anyrail, however ...

Isn't there also a setting that you can choose that dictates how the track is shown, i.e.:

Centerline of track, only
Track as rail-to-rail width, only
Track as full width with ties
Track as full width with ties, roadbed

Maybe I'm wrong ... but you might peek to see if you can show the full track width inclusive of ties and/or roadbed.

TJ

TJ,

You are correct---it has multiple display settings.

 

[Too-Many-Hobbies]

it doen't look like the turnouts you put on your drawing are #4. diverging curve looks to agressive. are you sure those are not snaps you put in there?

Im 100% sure, there called 9" #4 turnouts; do you think the program is what’s messing it up? Im using 1 foot grid, but I know for sure that there is an unrealistic amount of space between the tracks.

 

[tankist]

i think bulk of the isssue located in " im using #4 turnouts on this plan and downstairs i used the snap switches, but there like the same arnt they??" they area absolutely not the same. the difference between the two should be quite apparent.

do you think the program is what’s messing it up?

to answer question as put - no. while there is no completely bullet proof software made to this today, when something goes wrong chances are its caused by the user. when user double and tripple checks everything and sure its the software fault, 99.9% chance it is still the user's fault. seen plenty of it during my glorious days as tech call-ceneter and then on-site tech support person.

but in this case coupe thoughts:.
remember, connections made in anyrail are perfect. in reality we are flexible to cheat here and there, rolling stock will usually tolerate minor deviations.
but in any case. can you attach the actual drawing file (diverging curve of turnouts on schematics still looks way to drastic to be #4 to me). i will look at it when home.


besides the point: 2.5 inch between track is not that much. you will need to grab cars without disturbing cars neighboring tracks. and then we talking about snap switches. to put it lightly the level of quality and precision is laughable. here is my first encounter with this:
http://www.modeltrainforum.com/showthread.php?t=1798
i see no reason why to use them

 

[Too-Many-Hobbies]

besides the point: 2.5 inch between track is not that much. you will need to grab cars without disturbing cars neighboring tracks. and then we talking about snap switches. to put it lightly the level of quality and precision is laughable. here is my first encounter with this:
http://www.modeltrainforum.com/showthread.php?t=1798
i see no reason why to use them

Alright fair enough, but the track downstairs are code 100 and I will not be using it for my real layout. The snap switches are ugly and huge. What is an alternative to electric switching then? Anyways how far should the tracks be away from each other then? With one inch I find I can have just enough room to stick my finger between the trains. When they are side by side. Is that to close?

 

[tankist]

what do you mean when you say " electric switching"?

tracks should be exactly as far a part as you planning them to be, IMO, far enough to rerail a car without knocking nearby stuff off.

 

[Too-Many-Hobbies]

what do you mean when you say " electric switching"?

tracks should be exactly as far a part as you planning them to be, IMO, far enough to rerail a car without knocking nearby stuff off.

I mean a switch that i can press a button to change tracks, not have to walk up to it and use my finger.

and how goes finding why the #4 seem to bend out to far?

 

[tankist]

see attached screen. grid is 6 inch.

as i said, the problem is not in the software. notice how difference between atlas #4 turnout and snap-switch excuse of turnout immidiatley apparent. you did use wrong turnout. which is understandable really, they are easily confused between when selecting from the pallet

I mean a switch that i can press a button to change tracks, not have to walk up to it and use my finger.
:

in that case the proper term would be - remotley operated turnout. when you say "electrical switch" i wasn't sure if you referring to power routing feature (PECO), electrical connection to a frog (insulated frog, powered and switched frog)

 

[tankist]

alternative way for remote operated turnouts in case you all set to stay with atlas products is their machine that mounts underneath the track - ATL65 or ATL66

with that i don't like this solution. it is way longer then it could have been. i have 4 of these i can sell if you interested





in either case, i'm no longer using atlas products and very happy about that. although had i been starting my layout over today, i would be using fast track switch DIY kits instead of PECO. cheaper if quantity is sufficient and looks much better.

 

[tjcruiser]

Anton,

I've been following this tread with passing interest ... layout detail is beyond mine, but always fun to learn ...

Good detective work there with the Anyrail examples. I hope it helps TooMany out.

TJ

 

[Too-Many-Hobbies]

alternative way for remote operated turnouts in case you all set to stay with atlas products is their machine that mounts underneath the track - ATL65 or ATL66

Is that the same thing as this?

and thanks TJ this is really helping!

 

[tankist]

Completley different product. With that im sure that with enough creativity it is possible to use the usual (not under table) machines and hide them underneath as well. macgyver style