Kato Class 800 Question

[ntpntpntp]

I have to agree with @njee20 - there's really no need to over-complicate things with spreadsheets and equations etc.  Armed with examples of the longest / widest / most overhanging models you intend to run, try the models on curves you plan to use and see what looks clear and safe.

Peco Setrack 35mm spacing should be fine on tighter hidden curves,  Peco 26mm spacing will be fine for straight track and gentle curves, just ease it out to Setrack spacing with transition curves.

Here's a shot of the curves on a scenic part of my layout, Peco 26mm spacing and Streamline curved points for the crossover...


... and here's how the track spacing transitions out to a wider radius for the tight curves once inside the tunnel at the bottom of that first photo on it's way round and into my storage yard.  The inside curve here is Peco R1 228mm, the outside curve is Peco R2 263mm.


This was originally built in the mid 90s. You can see from the old red paint that the alignment has changed slightly, that was fairly recent to make the outside track a smooth R2 bend without a tight spot caused by a Setrack point on the curve (now removed as it was never needed anyway, you can still see the wire-in-tube which operated it ).   

There's a similar transition at the other end of the layout, but it's hidden under a town scene so I have no clear photos just this view of the wide spacing emerging into the storage yard.



I get no collisions with any of my longest stock.  Some models won't manage the R1 curves but interestingly it's mostly Kato models such as Eurostar and ICE 4, and certain articulated container flat wagons.  The vast majority of European branded models (Fleischmann, Minitrix, Arnold, Roco etc.) are fine on 228mm as their manufacturer's track systems go down to more like 198mm radius. 

[njee20]

In a bid to be constructive, rather than just shouting you down, here's some examples, on Kato 315/282mm track, as that's what my son's got on his board. Apologies for hte quality, they're quick phone snaps in terrible light!

An 800 and a Pendolino, perhaps slightly longer bogie-nose distance on the 800 (I didn't measure), but crucially it tapers far more than the Pendolino, much longer at the back on the 800:



Here in the 'worst' combination - 800 on the outside, Pendolino on the inside, note the nose of the Pendolino falls outside the moulded ballast. Acres of clearance though FWIW:



Here reversed, note the 800 nose is within the moulded ballast due to the taper:



And just to show that it's not always that obvious - here's a 68, which is a fairly short bo-bo diesel, but it has a longer overhang than an 800.





You could obviously drive a real train through the gap at those separations though.

[RBTKraisee]

Just quick: I haven't had any chance to respond in a few days, its been incredibly crazy here. I appreciate everyone taking the time to respond and rest assured I'm not ignoring anyone, I will answer the comments as soon as I can!

Ross.

[RBTKraisee]

Finally, a few minutes to read the comments above!

Firstly, thank you, everyone, for all your pics and explanations! This is beginning to set my mind at greater ease.

I'm now happily satisfied that R3 11.75" and R4 13.0" track will be perfectly safe for all my hidden track, no matter which trains are passing each other. That was the original purpose of the thread, so I'm delighted to have answered that primary concern.

This info confirms that my existing track plan will work safely for my "fiddle cabinets" and traversers - and that's really all I'm actually planning to build in the next 12-18 months anyway, so it's perfect for now.


We did start to get into the question of the scenic sections of my layout, where I've got lots of different track arrangements, from long sweeping 4-tracks mainline with 80" radius curves (which shouldn't have any track spacing issues) down to a few 14-18" radius sections (exact sizes still TBD) on my 2-track branch line.

@ntpntpntp images of the 800's on R3<>R4 and R3<>R3+26mm Peco streamline spacing, together with @njee20 images of the 800 & Pendolino (and the 68) on the Kato 282mm <> 315mm track both suggest that I can expect to get much tighter track spacing than the 1.25"/31.75mm that I was planning - and that's a big relief too, as it will make the track work look a lot better.

Just eyeballing it, it looks like Peco Streamline 26mm spacing will probably be good enough for even my tightest 14" radius designs (though I am still trying to increase it all to at least 18").

Whether I can get it down to prototypical 23mm (6ft/72") spacing is clearly going to depend on the radius of each section.   As I want all my trains to be able to go everywhere, the next step in planning seems to necessitate going ahead and buying some of these larger test trains and figuring out just how close is too close in each particular case    Sadly, I just can't afford to do that until next year.   Which means my detailed planning on the scenic sections is just going to have to wait 'til I can.

But this thread still answered my original question, so I'm very happy indeed!

Thanks for all the help guys!

Ross.

[njee20]

You'll be really pushing it with 23mm spacing and 14" (or even 18" curves).

Peco's 26mm spacing is a sensible target.