A question for anyone who has a Kato Class 800/Azuma in their collection and who has some sections of track that are approximately R3 11.75"/298mm radius - I'd really like to know how much clearance you need on the outside of that, if you had a second Class 800 coming the other way?
Kato track has 33mm clearance between track centrelines, and I assume that works perfectly. But I do wonder just how close do the trains actually get on 282/315mm track?
Thanks in advance, for any insights!
Ross.
It just so happens I have an 800 set recently arrived (second hand but only used twice so mint and half the price of brand new :) ) and some unused Peco curves in my spares box...
Here's Peco R3 (298mm) and R4 (333mm) giving Setrack 35mm track spacing. There's about 8 - 9mm clearance
(https://www.ngaugeforum.co.uk/SMFN/gallery/135/5885-240823001014.jpeg) (https://www.ngaugeforum.co.uk/SMFN/index.php?action=gallery;sa=view&id=135027)
If I keep R3 but reduce the spacing to Streamline 26mm on the outside, I think it's too close for comfort :no:
(https://www.ngaugeforum.co.uk/SMFN/gallery/135/5885-240823001136.jpeg) (https://www.ngaugeforum.co.uk/SMFN/index.php?action=gallery;sa=view&id=135028)
I thought I had some Unitrack 282mm curves but it seems not - everything I can find is 315mm. Given it's only 2mm difference in spacing compared to Peco Setrack I'd expect the clearance to be around 7 - 8mm.
This is all very well but aren't you considering running Shinkansen too? Some of those have very pronounced "duck bills" so I'd suggest you stick to Setrack spacing for curves of this sort of radius.
That is absolutely brilliant info, and the pictures REALLY help.
Thank you so much!
Ross.
Alas I can't test now (lack of board to run a double oval on for one) but before my bout of insanity where I sold up the collection I could easily run an 800 and a Revolution Pendolino on Kato 315/282 ovals with no clearance issues.
Have to agree with Nick - whilst the 800s are long I'd have thought something like a Series 700 Shinkansen will be at least as much of a problem.
According to Wiki, the Class 800 coaches are 26m long and the 700 Series Shinkansen's are 25m, so I think the Azuma is still the more difficult of tests right now.
Mind you, I personally think that the newer Shinkansen's with the "duckbill" / "shoe" look, are really ugly, so I don't want any of them.
The 500 Series remains one of the prettiest and fastest looking trains of all time. The original 0 Series Bullet Train is iconic, and maybe the 100 Series is too, so I'm planning to have at least one of each of those.
The 800 Series, E7/W7 have all thankfully abandoned the awful duckbill look. Unfortunately, to me, they all just look rather blah compared to the 500.
But the 300 Series, all of the different 700 variants and the E1 thru E5 are all thoroughly fugly.
But, the bottom line is that for my hidden sections where I'm running R3 and R4 track, everything should work without real problems. I'm planning to use nothing less than 16" radius for my inside tracks on my scenic sections, and by extrapolating from the images above, I'm totally confident I can easily use 1.25" (31.75mm) spacing in my scenic areas and maybe I could go down to as little as 1.00" (25.4mm) - but I'll probably have to get my own Azuma to test each section specifically.
Ross.
@RBTKraisee remember it's not just the coach length that is the major factor though this is significant with regard to the overhang on the inside of the curve. It's also the amount of overhang on the outside of the curve at the ends (that's where the "duckbill" shinkansen would concern me). It depends on the how far the bogies are set in from the ends.
I agree I don't like the look of some of the extreme streamlining on the shinkansen.
Found this video of a 700 and 923 passing on Kato double track (33mm spacing I presume)
Yes, that was my point - the overhang on the 700 (one of the 'duckbill' models) will be at least as much of a problem. If you plan on anything like an APT-E they have huge overhangs too.
Given you have aspirations toward good looking track, having 32mm spacing will totally undermine that IMO. Bear in mind Peco streamline is 26mm, and prototypical is more like 22mm.
Oh yes, APT-E is a total nightmare in terms of overhang. It was a pretty bizarre design to begin with! Thankfully, I'm not really interested in it, so I don't need to plan things around that particular headache. APT-P is certainly on my list, but it doesn't have the same problem :)
As for track spacing, you're right. I want good looking track, but there's no point in doing anything that's going to cause collisions. For straight and nearly-straight sections (say 36" radius and higher), then near-prototypical track spacing should be viable. For hidden sections the R3/R4 spacing will work, as demonstrated above. That leaves the concern focussed to scenic sections with what I consider to be more "medium" radius sections.
I guess that to be 100% confident doing my layout designs, I need to wait until I can get an Azuma/800 myself and test lots of different configurations. With enough data-points I can make a spreadsheet and spit out an equation that can be used in any of my design situations.
Ross.
Remember when I said that you risk turning modelling into a desktop exercise...? Yeah. That.
Why is creating a spreadsheet using the Azuma going to give you 100% confidence? Purely because it's the longest vehicle? What if it's not the one that causes the most problems? Are you going to create a spreadsheet of the bogie overhangs on all 96 of your trains? What about width, relevant for platforms, as well as overhang, particularly if they're curved.
By all means use something to measure, but why create lots of datapoints in a spreadsheet and generate an algorithm? Why not just measure on some paper like Nick has and use that. With 32mm spacing you'll fit anything anyway, he's said as much as shown that very nicely. Job done! Having the lines constantly moving relative to each other will look odd I'd say, particularly if they very evidently open up for curves.
I fear you continue to set yourself for disappointment when you actually build something.
There's no point in deriving values for all the trains, I'd hope nobody would do that. But getting values for the obvious "worst offenders", that makes sense. Aside from the APT-E and Duckbill Shinkansens (that I don't want anyway) the Azuma/800 looks likely to hold the overhang title right now, so that's my current yardstick - until I can identify a bigger offender! ;)
For my way of working, I find equations to be very useful and easy to use. If I'm designing a section of my layout I might try half a dozen different radius curves to see which works best (and "best" can be a constantly moving target with multiple variables, not least of which is avoiding collisions; train<>train and train<>scenery).
I find it really easy to have a spreadsheet where I can lookup a value quickly for common things, in this case say, needed clearances for 21", 23" or 25" radius inner tracks.
If I can go one step further and quickly turn that into an equation then I can quickly derive useful results, even for unusual start values, say 21.75".
I could draw out every conceivable configuration of track distance in 1/4" increments between 13" (R4) through to 36", which is 92 increments, but that's going to take a long time and waste a lot of paper! :)
So instead I'd prefer to use the leading "worst case" coach, carefully take a dozen measurements at 2" increments (last one is just 1" different) and that should give me a pretty good curve to work with. I'd add a bit of margin on top of the measured figures, of course.
Then it's a simple matter to derive a full list of all 92 of the 1/4" increments, and also create a cell that allows me to type ANY figure, say 25.625", and it will spit out a minimum safe track spacing number.
It might even take less time to do all that, than to write this explanation! LOL :)
As for track spacing changing - yes, that's a consideration I'm looking at in my layout plans. It's clear that you can get away with small adjustments and they won't be noticeable, but until I can gather enough information, I can't tell how big the issue actually is in practice.
The info above confirms I'm going to be safe to use R3 and R4 in my hidden sections - which was a major question for me! That's thankfully answered now and I'm very grateful for that info. But what spacing will work best on my scenic sections, currently remains a separate, and open, topic. :)
Ross.
But that won't account for transition curves or anything. You don't go from a straight to a 14" curve. So you're driven by the lowest common denominator, whatever the tightest is in your scenic section is. Honestly, I'd avoid constantly wandering spacing, it'll just look like badly laid track. You're not going to have a different separation on a 21.675" curve versus a 19.82747483" curve, so it's a bit moot to be able to specify any custom value.
If you want total compatibility then why not just use 32mm everywhere? Are you having two 800s? Because what you really need, for the absolute 'worst' combination is the longest vehicle for the outside track, and whatever has the largest bogie overhang for the inner track. You'll get away with 22mm spacing if the 800 is only ever going to pass a Pannier tank!
I've a vague feeling a Pendolino is worse than an 800 for bogie centre - front distance. There will almost certainly be worst culprits than your 800 among your extensive wish list.
Quote from: njee20 on August 26, 2023, 08:31:01 AMI've a vague feeling a Pendolino is worse than an 800 for bogie centre - front distance. There will almost certainly be worst culprits than your 800 among your extensive wish list.
Hi
I have both and the Pendolino requires more clearance than the 800 for the front overhang.
Cheers
Paul
:hellosign:
Hi Ross, I have found no problems when running the 800 with the Pendolino or any other Shinkansens. I use Kato track minimum radius of 315mm & track spacing of 33mm.
stay safe regards Derek
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...
(https://www.ngaugeforum.co.uk/SMFN/gallery/93/medium_5885-210520224649.jpeg) (https://www.ngaugeforum.co.uk/SMFN/index.php?action=gallery;sa=view;id=93863)
... 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.
(https://www.ngaugeforum.co.uk/SMFN/gallery/129/medium_5885-150223153221.jpeg) (https://www.ngaugeforum.co.uk/SMFN/index.php?action=gallery;sa=view;id=129948)
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.
(https://www.ngaugeforum.co.uk/SMFN/gallery/86/medium_5885-190120192401.jpeg) (https://www.ngaugeforum.co.uk/SMFN/index.php?action=gallery;sa=view;id=79284)
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.
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:
(https://www.ngaugeforum.co.uk/SMFN/gallery/135/1147-260823131627.jpeg)
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:
(https://www.ngaugeforum.co.uk/SMFN/gallery/135/1147-260823131711.jpeg)
Here reversed, note the 800 nose is within the moulded ballast due to the taper:
(https://www.ngaugeforum.co.uk/SMFN/gallery/135/1147-260823132142-1350591151.jpeg)
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.
(https://www.ngaugeforum.co.uk/SMFN/gallery/135/1147-260823133845.png)
(https://www.ngaugeforum.co.uk/SMFN/gallery/135/1147-260823132142-135059435.jpeg)
You could obviously drive a real train through the gap at those separations though.
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.
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.
You'll be really pushing it with 23mm spacing and 14" (or even 18" curves).
Peco's 26mm spacing is a sensible target.