marklin-users.net community | Forum
»
General topics
»
H0-scale
»
The C track topic - ideas, uses, and innovations.
 Joined: 30/08/2016(UTC) Posts: 636 Location: Brussels
|
Originally Posted by: Minok 
The Märklin that puts the legal hammer on anyone using their photos in German forums due to their copyright status, even when the photos actually help advertise/identify their products (no fair use in Germany).. will certainly go all Lego on anyones ass that attempts to make a 'compatible' track piece solong as their patents are in effect.
What about this third party C to flex transition piece then? https://www.weichen-walt...ex.php?cPath=29_72_48_74Jabez |
I heard that lonesome whistle blow. Hank Williams |
 1 user liked this useful post by Jabez
|
|
|
|
 Joined: 15/10/2006(UTC) Posts: 2,319 Location: Washington, Pacific Northwest
|
I suspect since those are constructed using Märklin c track there isn’t a claim they can make. I don’t think you can claim inconvenient if someone uses your part to build something greater, just if they create your part directly. |
|
1 user liked this useful post by Minok
|
|
|
|
Joined: 19/01/2005(UTC) Posts: 83 Location: United States
|
Originally Posted by: Minok What do the very topmost and the bottom most paths give you? Seems they are redundant. Yes you are right Minok, I don't need those - thank you for catching that. |
Steen Jorgensen
|
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 19/01/2005(UTC) Posts: 83 Location: United States
|
Originally Posted by: Alsterstreek Hi Steen: Originally Posted by: fynrfin I drew this up and it seems to work with all but two turnouts permanently shown. What do you mean by "permanently shown" please? Sorry I meant permanently "thrown" not shown Originally Posted by: fynrfin However, since the gurus on this site all use a figure 8 and not just one circle, I must be doing something wrong. Sorry, I do not understand. What is wrong about having a circle instead of a figure 8? Nothing, I just could not figure out if I needed a figure 8 or could make do with a circle. I guess I can |
Steen Jorgensen
|
1 user liked this useful post by fynrfin
|
|
|
|
 Joined: 16/11/2011(UTC) Posts: 5,845 Location: Hybrid Home
|
More from my parallel C track universe.  |
|
3 users liked this useful post by Alsterstreek
|
|
|
|
Joined: 16/11/2011(UTC) Posts: 5,845 Location: Hybrid Home
|
1x 24172 1x 24077 1x 24912 3x 24071 1x 2471x 2x 24649 3x 2461x  |
|
4 users liked this useful post by Alsterstreek
|
|
|
|
Joined: 16/11/2011(UTC) Posts: 5,845 Location: Hybrid Home
|
Why? Because I can.  |
|
8 users liked this useful post by Alsterstreek
|
|
|
|
 Joined: 18/03/2007(UTC) Posts: 6,764 Location: Brisbane, Australia
|
Originally Posted by: Alsterstreek Why? Because I can. The Norfolk and Western railway (and probably Pennsylvania too) had many double track routes that occasionally widened to three tracks to allow faster trains to overtake slower trains. Though in most cases it was simply both tracks merged into (and out of) the third middle track. Kimball |
HO Scale - Märklin (ep II-III and VI, C Track, digital) - 2 rail HO (Queensland Australia, UK, USA) - 3 rail OO (English Hornby Dublo) - old clockwork O gauge - Live Steam 90mm (3.1/2 inch) gauge. |
2 users liked this useful post by kimballthurlow
|
|
|
|
Joined: 15/11/2009(UTC) Posts: 300 Location: Silver Spring, Maryland USA
|
Originally Posted by: kimballthurlow
The Norfolk and Western railway (and probably Pennsylvania too) had many double track routes that occasionally widened to three tracks to allow faster trains to overtake slower trains.
Kimball
Hello, My understanding is that all Pensy mainlines were three track. So it is quite reasonable to expect one and two track branch lines merging into three. BTW, I've been driving a lot over the last year in eastern and central PA (work). I've stumbled across quite a few old PA RR lines that support this premise. |
Rob
Mackenrode Wende Bahn |
3 users liked this useful post by rrf
|
|
|
|
Joined: 03/06/2013(UTC) Posts: 431 Location: Melbourne, VIC, Australia
|
Apols if this has been covered before - I'm replying to a recent post and thought the content belongs here.... For transition from 64.3 mm track distance to 77.5 mm a common solution is:  But this can be achieved much more elegantly with the same number of pieces like this:  Here I show R3/R4, but you can substitute R4/R5 curves and it works the same. Alternatively, if you have more space and are willing to use a little flex in the C-track, then this is even more elegant:  - Herman |
- Herman |
9 users liked this useful post by hvc
|
|
|
|
Joined: 03/06/2013(UTC) Posts: 431 Location: Melbourne, VIC, Australia
|
and of course the solution doesn't have to be a 90 degree corner...  |
- Herman |
6 users liked this useful post by hvc
|
|
|
|
Joined: 03/06/2013(UTC) Posts: 431 Location: Melbourne, VIC, Australia
|
or even more simply...  and just one more, but with S-curve elimination...  - Herman |
- Herman |
5 users liked this useful post by hvc
|
|
|
|
Joined: 16/11/2011(UTC) Posts: 5,845 Location: Hybrid Home
|
 Outer course: 24671+24107+24912+24912+24107+24672 Inner course: 24671+24107+24207+24130+24649+24130+24115+24672 |
|
7 users liked this useful post by Alsterstreek
|
|
|
|
Joined: 16/11/2011(UTC) Posts: 5,845 Location: Hybrid Home
|
Extended.  |
|
7 users liked this useful post by Alsterstreek
|
|
|
|
 Joined: 03/10/2010(UTC) Posts: 1,295 Location: Cape Town, South Africa
|
Hello AK, Just for some entertainment during lockdown : How many trains can you run on this without an accident ?   Regards  John
|
6 users liked this useful post by Johnvr
|
|
|
|
 Joined: 23/07/2014(UTC) Posts: 8,478 Location: ENGLAND, Didcot
|
|
1 user liked this useful post by kiwiAlan
|
|
|
|
Joined: 23/10/2013(UTC) Posts: 27
|
Has Marklin got this wrong? Page 248 of the 2015/2016 Catalogue Suggests the  I hope the photo attached. I’m experimenting with C Track and built this. The outer rails (24188s) are not flush with the 24172s. While I’m sure it must be me I can’t work out how. Thanks
|
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 18/03/2007(UTC) Posts: 6,764 Location: Brisbane, Australia
|
Originally Posted by: Johnvr Hello AK, Just for some entertainment during lockdown : How many trains can you run on this without an accident ? .. Regards John Hi John, Nice test. I think you could run 3 trains perfectly without ever meeting, because there are 3 contiguous but independent circuits in there. Each is capable of running a train either clockwise or anti-clockwise. Kimball |
HO Scale - Märklin (ep II-III and VI, C Track, digital) - 2 rail HO (Queensland Australia, UK, USA) - 3 rail OO (English Hornby Dublo) - old clockwork O gauge - Live Steam 90mm (3.1/2 inch) gauge. |
3 users liked this useful post by kimballthurlow
|
|
|
|
Joined: 01/06/2016(UTC)
Posts: 2,465
|
Originally Posted by: jrbburg Has Marklin got this wrong?
Page 248 of the 2015/2016 Catalogue Suggests the
I hope the photo attached.
I’m experimenting with C Track and built this. The outer rails (24188s) are not flush with the 24172s. While I’m sure it must be me I can’t work out how.
Thanks Some documents about Maerklin's C-track system and its geometry. Hopefully you find out why it does not work for you.
|
1 user liked this useful post by TEEWolf
|
|
|
|
Joined: 19/08/2008(UTC) Posts: 1,051
|
One mistake that I have made is mixing the 24130 and 24224's. They are about the same length but not interchangeable. Good reason not to use R1.
Roger |
Modeling Immensee, mile/km 0 on the Gottard. SBB Era V.
|
1 user liked this useful post by rbw993
|
|
|
|
Joined: 03/10/2010(UTC) Posts: 1,295 Location: Cape Town, South Africa
|
Originally Posted by: jrbburg Has Marklin got this wrong?
The outer rails (24188s) are not flush with the 24172s. While I’m sure it must be me I can’t work out how.
Thanks Hello Marklin have got it correct, and, yes, the outer rails will be flush with each other if done correctly. Regards John
|
1 user liked this useful post by Johnvr
|
|
|
|
Joined: 03/06/2013(UTC) Posts: 431 Location: Melbourne, VIC, Australia
|
Originally Posted by: Johnvr Originally Posted by: jrbburg Has Marklin got this wrong?
The outer rails (24188s) are not flush with the 24172s. While I’m sure it must be me I can’t work out how.
Thanks Hello Marklin have got it correct, and, yes, the outer rails will be flush with each other if done correctly. Regards John Agreed - it definitely works...  |
- Herman |
2 users liked this useful post by hvc
|
|
|
|
Joined: 05/12/2008(UTC) Posts: 1,802 Location: Crozet, Virginia
|
Originally Posted by: hvc
Agreed - it definitely works...
I agree. I have two of these 2x24630 interchanges and the geometry works out perfectly. My only complaint is that some of my rolling stock do not like the 3-way turnouts but I find that taking them at a slow speed helps. Oddly my Big Boy and Challenger never have a problem, while several freight wagons with three axle trucks and a few locos locos do. |
Regards,
Jim
I have almost all Märklin and mostly HO, although I do have a small number of Z gauge trains!
So many trains and so little time. |
1 user liked this useful post by dickinsonj
|
|
|
|
Joined: 03/06/2013(UTC) Posts: 431 Location: Melbourne, VIC, Australia
|
Originally Posted by: dickinsonj Originally Posted by: hvc
Agreed - it definitely works...
I agree. I have two of these 2x24630 interchanges and the geometry works out perfectly. My only complaint is that some of my rolling stock do not like the 3-way turnouts but I find that taking them at a slow speed helps. Oddly my Big Boy and Challenger never have a problem, while several freight wagons with three axle trucks and a few locos locos do. Also, using the two 3-way turns is not very practical unless you want uneven length yard tracks - it might be more practical to just do this:  |
- Herman |
4 users liked this useful post by hvc
|
|
|
|
Joined: 03/06/2013(UTC) Posts: 431 Location: Melbourne, VIC, Australia
|
This kind of pattern gives you a space-efficient station throat from two track mainline to 5 tracks at the station, where both mainline tracks can go to any platform...  |
- Herman |
9 users liked this useful post by hvc
|
|
|
|
Joined: 03/06/2013(UTC) Posts: 431 Location: Melbourne, VIC, Australia
|
...but this can also be done without the three-way by adding a double-slip... I do really love how clever the two different length straight pieces are in C-track...  |
- Herman |
7 users liked this useful post by hvc
|
|
|
|
Joined: 03/06/2013(UTC) Posts: 431 Location: Melbourne, VIC, Australia
|
I'm curious what other people do in C-track for a station throat when using the high-speed (schlanke) turnouts. The case above is one I use a lot - a two track mainline, entering a station with 5 or 6 tracks (for me generally 4 platforms and a bypass track for freight). So how do you do this with schlanke C track in the shortest space possible? The lack of a schlanke double-slip makes these structures very long. The only space saving thing I've done before is a schlanke Hosenträger, which is well-known:  in front of my 2->5 throat that makes:  It's interesting to use a regular double slip. The one below breaks my usual rule because the two mainlne tracks can't get to every platform, but it's not a bad compromise - each mainline track can reach 4 out of 5 of the station tracks...  What do others do? Do you have any pretty, amazing or compact ways to build a schlanke station throat? Edited by user 16 May 2020 16:04:56(UTC)
| Reason: Not specified |
- Herman |
3 users liked this useful post by hvc
|
|
|
|
Joined: 16/11/2011(UTC) Posts: 5,845 Location: Hybrid Home
|
HI Herman, How about the circled "slack" areas? Do the tracks connect in reality?  |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 03/06/2013(UTC) Posts: 431 Location: Melbourne, VIC, Australia
|
Originally Posted by: Alsterstreek HI Herman, How about the circled "slack" areas? Do the tracks connect in reality? No they don’t connect - if you do exactly this you end up with a gap to fill. (Although you can get it to actually fit into if you make it bigger - by adding 077s from memory - I’ll look that up). I was more just trying to lead in to my thoughts about the station throat by using the left side of this. |
- Herman |
1 user liked this useful post by hvc
|
|
|
|
Joined: 16/11/2011(UTC) Posts: 5,845 Location: Hybrid Home
|
Originally Posted by: hvc What do others do? Do you have any pretty, amazing or compact ways to build a schlanke station throat? Since you went "hybrid" by introducing a not so slim double slip turnout, I enter the contest with this contribution. I took advantage of the slack C track is offering, and the arrangement is working with real C track (I have tried this before).  Six station tracks can be reached by both double-track mainline tracks. In addition, the concept is using the entrance curve, which might appeal to the average 4x8 ft baseboard model railroader. The shown segment measures 158 x 55 cm. Edited by user 17 May 2020 23:40:50(UTC)
| Reason: Not specified |
|
7 users liked this useful post by Alsterstreek
|
|
|
|
Joined: 16/11/2011(UTC) Posts: 5,845 Location: Hybrid Home
|
|
|
1 user liked this useful post by Alsterstreek
|
|
|
|
Joined: 16/11/2011(UTC) Posts: 5,845 Location: Hybrid Home
|
|
|
1 user liked this useful post by Alsterstreek
|
|
|
|
Joined: 16/11/2011(UTC) Posts: 5,845 Location: Hybrid Home
|
Originally Posted by: hvc (Although you can get it to actually fit into if you make it bigger - by adding 077s from memory - I’ll look that up). Like this, I suppose?  |
|
2 users liked this useful post by Alsterstreek
|
|
|
|
Joined: 03/06/2013(UTC) Posts: 431 Location: Melbourne, VIC, Australia
|
Originally Posted by: Alsterstreek Originally Posted by: hvc (Although you can get it to actually fit into if you make it bigger - by adding 077s from memory - I’ll look that up). Like this, I suppose? I went back and found it - and no! I previously had this for a hacksaw-free solution:  So that I could do this...  |
- Herman |
3 users liked this useful post by hvc
|
|
|
|
Joined: 03/06/2013(UTC) Posts: 431 Location: Melbourne, VIC, Australia
|
Originally Posted by: Alsterstreek Originally Posted by: hvc What do others do? Do you have any pretty, amazing or compact ways to build a schlanke station throat? Since you went "hybrid" by introducing a not so slim double slip turnout, I enter the contest with this contribution. I took advantage of the slack C track is offering, and the arrangement is working with real C track (I have tried this before). Six station tracks can be reached by both double-track mainline tracks. In addition, the concept is using the entrance curve, which might appeal to the average 4x8 ft baseboard model railroader. The shown segment measures 158 x 55 cm. Also, I want to "like" this more than once! Love it. |
- Herman |
1 user liked this useful post by hvc
|
|
|
|
Joined: 03/06/2013(UTC) Posts: 431 Location: Melbourne, VIC, Australia
|
and so another place I end up is here - still one track that each mainline can't get to, but good for those who like straight lines and symmetry :-)  |
- Herman |
2 users liked this useful post by hvc
|
|
|
|
Joined: 03/06/2013(UTC) Posts: 431 Location: Melbourne, VIC, Australia
|
and could maybe fill the gap with a run-around track - although this one doesn't fit exactly and I'll try and build it to see if it really works...  |
- Herman |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 03/06/2013(UTC) Posts: 431 Location: Melbourne, VIC, Australia
|
No others takers so far, so here's one I came up with this evening... both of the mainlines can reach any of the six platforms  |
- Herman |
8 users liked this useful post by hvc
|
|
|
|
Joined: 18/03/2007(UTC) Posts: 6,764 Location: Brisbane, Australia
|
Originally Posted by: hvc No others takers so far, so here's one I came up with this evening... both of the mainlines can reach any of the six platforms ......
Wow - that looks like Kings Cross, London. Kimball |
HO Scale - Märklin (ep II-III and VI, C Track, digital) - 2 rail HO (Queensland Australia, UK, USA) - 3 rail OO (English Hornby Dublo) - old clockwork O gauge - Live Steam 90mm (3.1/2 inch) gauge. |
3 users liked this useful post by kimballthurlow
|
|
|
|
Joined: 04/12/2013(UTC) Posts: 2,261 Location: Hobart, Australia
|
Originally Posted by: hvc No others takers so far, so here's one I came up with this evening... both of the mainlines can reach any of the six platforms Looks somewhat familiar :  and no comments about the current unfinished utility area on the left please Alan 
|
7 users liked this useful post by PJMärklin
|
|
|
|
Joined: 03/06/2013(UTC) Posts: 431 Location: Melbourne, VIC, Australia
|
The perfect example of why I miss the schlanke double-slip in C track. This is exactly what you would do (love your layout), and if you look at my plan above the two wonky curved "arms" leading to the outermost platforms are only necessary because the schlanke double-slip don't exist. - Herman |
- Herman |
1 user liked this useful post by hvc
|
|
|
|
Joined: 09/04/2007(UTC) Posts: 150 Location: Melbourne, Victoria
|
And here's today's dumb question Just wondering whether anyone has any experience of the visual difference between the 74470 Turnout Lanterns and the newer 74471 Warm White version ? I guess the warm white LED's would be a little less bright and a bit more subdued when lit. Oops ... just noted that it seems these aren't deliverable from Marklin yet  Edited by user 28 May 2020 22:33:12(UTC)
| Reason: Additional research ... |
Regards
Pete
expat Kiwi - now living in Melbourne
SBB Era IV & V - Digital - CS1 - C Track |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 21/05/2004(UTC) Posts: 1,768 Location: Brisbane, Queensland
|
I've designed this station throat for my Dads layout loosely based on AK's design. However there is one track piece I can't reconcile though it is very close, perhaps someone with the track pieces can confirm if it works IRL?  |
modelling era IIIa (1951-1955) Germany |
2 users liked this useful post by applor
|
|
|
|
Joined: 21/05/2004(UTC) Posts: 1,768 Location: Brisbane, Queensland
|
And likewise at the other end I have one piece that isn't quite 100% but I think it should be OK:  |
modelling era IIIa (1951-1955) Germany |
2 users liked this useful post by applor
|
|
|
|
 Joined: 12/12/2005(UTC) Posts: 2,448 Location: Wellington, New_Zealand
|
Trimming track is one thin, but you are not honoring the Marklin R9 (sic) geometry    Edited by user 24 July 2020 22:18:36(UTC)
| Reason: Not specified |
Peter
|
2 users liked this useful post by clapcott
|
|
|
|
Joined: 03/06/2013(UTC) Posts: 431 Location: Melbourne, VIC, Australia
|
Originally Posted by: clapcott Trimming track is one think, but you are not honoring the R9 (sic) geometry
Indeed - there are 24071s missing at the places indicated. applor - if you do this you'll have to cut the track ballast out on the tracks at those spots. Or did you miss out the 071 tracks by accident (which is a mistake I make all the time) , in which case the plan will need some re-jigging as per clapcott above. |
- Herman |
1 user liked this useful post by hvc
|
|
|
|
Joined: 21/05/2004(UTC) Posts: 1,768 Location: Brisbane, Queensland
|
Yes I just missed a couple of 071's by accident, thanks for pointing that out. |
modelling era IIIa (1951-1955) Germany |
1 user liked this useful post by applor
|
|
|
|
Joined: 03/06/2013(UTC) Posts: 431 Location: Melbourne, VIC, Australia
|
Originally Posted by: applor I've designed this station throat for my Dads layout loosely based on AK's design. However there is one track piece I can't reconcile though it is very close, perhaps someone with the track pieces can confirm if it works IRL? On the good news front, I built enough of this to confirm that the circled red section does work in real life... Note however there is a different problem - the turnout mechanism circled in yellow fouls with the other track so that you can't attach the turnout. By removing the adjacent R3 turnout filler piece I was able to bend the 315 piece a little to get it to fit, but I can't put the filler piece back in (you see it lying next to the track in the photo). You could solve it by cutting down the turnout mechanism a little, or you need to mess with your plan a bit...  - Herman |
- Herman |
1 user liked this useful post by hvc
|
|
|
|
Joined: 03/06/2013(UTC) Posts: 431 Location: Melbourne, VIC, Australia
|
Originally Posted by: applor Also, you've used a crossing rather than a double-slip here. If you use a double slip this will give you better access across the tracks. On the other hand, if you don't care about this and are happy with a crossing, then here's a version that maintains schlanke angles and min R3 radius...  |
- Herman |
2 users liked this useful post by hvc
|
|
|
|
Joined: 21/05/2004(UTC) Posts: 1,768 Location: Brisbane, Queensland
|
Thanks Herman. Yes I intended to use crossover, don't want to use the C track double slip until they introduce a wide radius version.
I have however come up with a revised plan in any case and no joining issues on the plan and perfect track access. I can post it Monday if interested. |
modelling era IIIa (1951-1955) Germany |
|
|
|
|
|
marklin-users.net community | Forum
»
General topics
»
H0-scale
»
The C track topic - ideas, uses, and innovations.
Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.
