Moccasin Posted February 4 Share Posted February 4 I’ve been playing around with Anyrail on my old Windows laptop (which is painfully slow).Clearly, a standard crossover with the curve of two turnouts facing each other works fine in the TT120 Hornby track system, but if you combine the straight end of a turnout with the curved end, there’s about 5mm discrepancy in length. I think I’ve done a decent fix of using an extended half straight and two quarter straights to solve it (a half straight would also work of course) and assume it would be sufficient to avoid problems in practice, given that the remaining gap can be spread across 4 or 5 track joints? Am I over-thinking it again?(photo of track arrangement with 5mm grid in Anyrail used to better show the issue with intended solution above the basic arrangement - am too lazy to try to send file to my iPad/iPhone, so apologies in advance for the quality!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rallymatt Posted February 4 Share Posted February 4 In the past using fixed track pieces, I used to trim a standard length to accommodate these quirks, saves having lots of joints and using lots of short sections. It’s much less daunting than you imagine. Xuron Track cutters and code 80 rail is easy to do accurately 👍 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StuLarge Posted February 4 Share Posted February 4 I did wonder what the point of 8037 was... Particularly as the website doesn't say how long the piece is. Looks to work, but is that what it's for? This has long been geometric issue with as far as I can recall all sectional track systems. As Rallymatt says, trimming or flex track used to address the geometry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr2002 Posted February 4 Share Posted February 4 I did wonder what the point of 8037 was... Particularly as the website doesn't say how long the piece is. Eh? Yes it does - 9.2cm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moccasin Posted February 4 Author Share Posted February 4 Thanks chaps. It is a perennial problem with set track but then there’ll always be limitations. I’ve not got my head around the slips and crossovers in the Tillig system yet but it might be useful for the fiddle yard. Track cutter is probably worth thinking about.This is all hypothetical at the moment but planning and option generation are good fun. Somewhere between Travsport Tycoon and model railway building.@stu - 8037 is about 9mm longer than the half straight I think. This is the best use I’ve found for it so far. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moawkwrd Posted February 4 Share Posted February 4 Tillig's set track system is even more convoluted - at that point just save yourself the hassle and use flextrack between your chosen point arrangements. It'll be cheaper and more reliable (less droppers) in the long run. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moccasin Posted February 4 Author Share Posted February 4 Tillig's set track system is even more convoluted - at that point just save yourself the hassle and use flextrack between your chosen point arrangements. It'll be cheaper and more reliable (less droppers) in the long run. I think a track cutter is essential with their system! At this stage I’m developing the broad layout idea. If it’s feasible with Hornby TT, then it can be refined further with Tillig. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rallymatt Posted February 4 Share Posted February 4 And don’t forget the option of Tillig flexi points and crossings 😳 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fishmanoz Posted February 4 Share Posted February 4 The stated reason for the extended half straight is increase the rail centre spacing to be sufficient for a platform runaround. I’m amazed at that discrepancy too. The points are supposed to have R6 curve geometry. Does the discrepancy still apply if you take out the 2 lower points and replace with R6? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moccasin Posted February 5 Author Share Posted February 5 The stated reason for the extended half straight is increase the rail centre spacing to be sufficient for a platform runaround.Ah ok, that makes sense.I’m amazed at that discrepancy too. The points are supposed to have R6 curve geometry. Does the discrepancy still apply if you take out the 2 lower points and replace with R6?The curved side of the points is exactly the same in length as the r6 curve, so the issue would still arise if I replaced the two bottom points, but would disappear if I turned the left hand point around so the two curved ends were facing each other, or the point was facing an R6 curve. Don't have AnyRail on my work laptop (if you ask me it's rude that I'm not allowed it!) so can't show it right now.No doubt Tillig have a combination of short rail sections that solve the issue precisely! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silver Fox 17 Posted February 5 Share Posted February 5 This is why Triang TT, Triang 00, Hornby Dublo and Hornby had what they called an 1/8, (not actually an 1/8 but just called it), or short straight because point and crossing lengths would not always allow tracks to be parallel in both directions. As you can see in one drawing with points in the way you want them arranged, a short straight was used on the outside for each crossover.Obviously due to dimensions of the Hornby track being different this is just to show what happened and how it was corrected then, now, shorter/longer lengths might need to be inside or outside.Also, in those days the point curve radius matched one of the standard circle radii (usually the larger one) unlike the Hornby 120 which has its own specific radius which is not R6. The R6 curve fits as a return curve due to the point having a leading straight section. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moccasin Posted February 5 Author Share Posted February 5 Thanks @Silver Fox. Understandable in a way why they didn’t produce another piece of track. I hadn’t appreciated that the turnouts aren’t strictly 6th radius curves but your explanation makes sense and is obvious when you think about it. It’s either your explanation or pure sorcery! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silver Fox 17 Posted February 5 Share Posted February 5 I am certainly no magician lol.The point radius is 631mm and the R6 curve is 640. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr2002 Posted February 5 Share Posted February 5 I’m amazed at that discrepancy too. You get the same exact problem with Peco n-gauge Setrack, so it's not unique to either Hornby or TT track. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr2002 Posted February 5 Share Posted February 5 I hadn’t appreciated that the turnouts aren’t strictly 6th radius curves ... It upsets my OCD immensely that Hornby decided to name their point radius as 6th.Hornby track centres are 43mm. Working outward from 4th that would mean 5th is 439mm and the 'proper' 6th is 482mm. Not 631mm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Herbie Posted February 5 Share Posted February 5 Seems to be a Tillig Modell piece that plugs the gap: 83105 (G3) - 43mm.Maybe one day they'll duplicate the whole range of track pieces. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul-41ATI Posted February 7 Share Posted February 7 Hornby's track is not quite the same as Tillig - and I cannot understand why. The points are different to Tillig - at R631, by geometry, 15 degrees has a length of 163mm - so very close to the 166 length. But Hornby's seem to have a long lead to the start of the switch rails. Also, Tillig only have 1 x 15 degree crossing (and use the same geometry for their single slip and double slip), whereas Hornby has both LH and RH crossings - it's all about the position of the end of the curved rails (SK told me the R640 was to compensate for the end position of the curved rails, but a direct copy of Tillig may have proved easier on track pieces required). I guess too late to change tooling now. Also, why such wide switch to stock rail gaps ?However, I really need lots of R310 / R631 curved points - Hornby's USP is they incorporate a latching mechanism- Tillig only does this on it's plastic ballasted "toy" track. If Hornby were to produce curved points - then please copy Tillig geometry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LTSR_NSE Posted February 8 Share Posted February 8 Perhaps Hornby have to make some changes or different pieces & not simply copy every piece - to avoid infringing IP? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D9020 Nimbus Posted February 9 Share Posted February 9 The issue in the diagram is that you're connecting the curved leg of the LH T8008 point. This equivalent causes an issue in quite a few track systems. There is a special short straight which solves this problem with Peco N gauge Setrack, but it only comes in a set with a curved point… Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now