 Joined: 11/02/2021(UTC) Posts: 15 Location: Stockholm
|
Interested in the wide radius turnouts from Märklin C-track but can't wrap my head around the geometry. Choices in distance between tracks seems to be 79 mm or 2x 64.3 mm looking at this picture: https://ajckids.com/prod...s/marklin-24712#images-4So how am I supposed to fit this into a layout which has the standard 77.5 mm distance if I want to do dual tracks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Joined: 04/02/2011(UTC) Posts: 3,563 Location: Paris, France
|
Hi Patrick Originally Posted by: Patrik  So how am I supposed to fit this into a layout which has the standard 77.5 mm distance if I want to do dual tracks. A warm welcome to this great forum. First a visit to a post in this forum about all the C-Track trick is advisable: --> https://www.marklin-users.net/fo...s--uses--and-innovationsTo answer your question: The best is to use the opportunity of a finising curve to insert those "sleek" points. Remember that the C Track is not as rigid as you think as it can very easily be cut, miwed straights-curves. All you need is a Proxxon or equivalent (Dremel like hand drill). The track piece you make interfaces with the rest of C-Track by keeping the extremities. Best of luck Jean |
|
 3 users liked this useful post by JohnjeanB
|
|
|
|
 Joined: 21/05/2004(UTC) Posts: 1,768 Location: Brisbane, Queensland
|
That picture for 79mm spacing shows 2x 24071 spacers with the wide radius turnouts, but you only need 1x 24071 spacer in between. Also as mentioned if you're prepared to cut the roadbed, you don't need any spacers. |
modelling era IIIa (1951-1955) Germany |
1 user liked this useful post by applor
|
|
|
|
Joined: 26/05/2021(UTC) Posts: 198 Location: Australia, East Maitland, NSW
|
I have wondered about this odd track choice myself. Marklin seems to have gone for a "one size fits nothing in particular" approach in some areas. You could try some of the ideas below - either way you will end up cutting some track pieces - even if it is just the ballast. There's enough give in C track that it doesn't have to be perfect. 
|
1 user liked this useful post by revmox
|
|
|
|
Joined: 11/02/2021(UTC) Posts: 15 Location: Stockholm
|
Originally Posted by: applor That picture for 79mm spacing shows 2x 24071 spacers with the wide radius turnouts, but you only need 1x 24071 spacer in between. Also as mentioned if you're prepared to cut the roadbed, you don't need any spacers. Ok, so does that give 77,5mm space? I haven't pulled the trigger and purchased any wide turnout as of yet so can't play around with it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 11/02/2021(UTC) Posts: 15 Location: Stockholm
|
Originally Posted by: revmox I have wondered about this odd track choice myself. Marklin seems to have gone for a "one size fits nothing in particular" approach in some areas.
Yes seems strange, but ok. After reading the c-track thread I realise that I might need a dremel.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 18/03/2007(UTC) Posts: 6,764 Location: Brisbane, Australia
|
Hello Patrik, I don't know if this will help but you can progress from 77.5mm to 64.6mm between parallel tracks through a 90° curve. I used this quite a few times in my layout design. (See bottom left of page photo attached). The outer track starts with a 24064 piece straight. The inner track starts from the same start perpendicular with a 24077 straight. Page 41 of the booklet supplied with starter sets explains this.  Kimball Edited by user 07 September 2022 11:11:59(UTC)
| Reason: Not specified |
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: 16/11/2011(UTC) Posts: 5,845 Location: Hybrid Home
|
Originally Posted by: revmox I have wondered about this odd track choice myself. Marklin seems to have gone for a "one size fits nothing in particular" approach in some areas. You could try some of the ideas below - either way you will end up cutting some track pieces - even if it is just the ballast. There's enough give in C track that it doesn't have to be perfect. Hi, please heed this detail contained in the snapshot provided by Kimball:  |
|
1 user liked this useful post by Alsterstreek
|
|
|
|
 Joined: 20/08/2020(UTC) Posts: 64
|
Thanks for your contribution, Kimball, and excuse me if I have allowed myself the freedom to merge your image with another one, from Märklin too, in order to show the radii and distances between circles. Two remarks: - The track marked as 03 should be 242006, since you can read an angle of 5,7º - The distance differs slightly, 64,6 and 64,3mm, surely negligible. Regards Paco 
|
2 users liked this useful post by PacoM
|
|
|
|
Joined: 26/05/2021(UTC) Posts: 198 Location: Australia, East Maitland, NSW
|
Originally Posted by: Alsterstreek Originally Posted by: revmox I have wondered about this odd track choice myself. Marklin seems to have gone for a "one size fits nothing in particular" approach in some areas. You could try some of the ideas below - either way you will end up cutting some track pieces - even if it is just the ballast. There's enough give in C track that it doesn't have to be perfect. Hi, please heed this detail contained in the snapshot provided by Kimball: Yes, I should have spelled that out better. As well as cutting the correct length crossover pieces you also need to chamfer the roadbed in the same way as the recommended 24071 (which has removable sides). 
|
2 users liked this useful post by revmox
|
|
|
|
Joined: 20/08/2020(UTC) Posts: 64
|
Posted by revmox Yet another possibility (without length cutting) 
|
2 users liked this useful post by PacoM
|
|
|
|
Joined: 21/05/2004(UTC) Posts: 1,768 Location: Brisbane, Queensland
|
You should use R3 and R4 (or R4 and R5) wide radius curves in association with wide radius turnouts for the same spacing.
I think Marklin expect if you're tight for space using R1/R2 curves then you'd be using the standard turnouts with the same spacing.
If not then as explained you can adjust your R1/R2 curves with the right track pieces to achieves 64mm instead of 77mm.
That is also where track planning software makes things infinitely easier. |
modelling era IIIa (1951-1955) Germany |
2 users liked this useful post by applor
|
|
|
|
Joined: 16/02/2004(UTC)
Posts: 15,443
Location: DE-NW
|
Small radii use a track spacing of 77 mm to prevent collisions between passing trains. For larger radii, a track spacing of 64 mm is enough.
Some tricks or some bending is necessary to use slim turnouts with a 77 mm track spacing. |
Regards Tom --- "In all of the gauges, we particularly emphasize a high level of quality, the best possible fidelity to the prototype, and absolute precision. You will see that in all of our products." (from Märklin New Items Brochure 2015, page 1) ROFLBTCUTS  |
1 user liked this useful post by H0
|
|
|
|
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.
