Looking for a C Track geometry solution for this simple “problem” Share  Email this topic  LinkBack Topic URL  Retweet this Topic  Share Topic on Google+  Like this Topic  Share on Facebook  Digg this Topic  Reddit this Topic  Share on Tumblr Options  Watch this topic  Print this topic View » Normal Threaded

Previous Topic Next Topic

egonzinc		#1 Posted : 19 January 2026 20:16:19(UTC) Retweet
Joined: 04/07/2013(UTC) Posts: 51		Before I start fooling around with the pieces, I’m tapping this forums brain power to see if this simple task has a ( hopefully) simple solution. I include an image. Want to do an exit with radius 5 and maintain a radius 4 parallel on the inside, as much as possible. Thanks in advance for any help.
User Profile View All Posts by User View Thanks

	Wish to join the discussion?! Login to your marklin-users.net community | Forum accountor Register a new forum account. Or Connect via Facebook

rbw993		#2 Posted : 19 January 2026 21:44:28(UTC) Retweet
Joined: 19/08/2008(UTC) Posts: 1,100		What turnout are you planning to use?
		Modeling Immensee, mile/km 0 on the Gottard. SBB Era V.
User Profile View All Posts by User View Thanks

JohnjeanB		#3 Posted : 19 January 2026 23:08:45(UTC) Retweet
Joined: 04/02/2011(UTC) Posts: 3,732 Location: Paris, France		Hi Eduardo I would think something like this Please replace the 2205 reference by 24430 one What do you think? Jean
		My layout videos latest vid marshalling yard My Layout
2 users liked this useful post by JohnjeanB		marklinist5999, bgemski
User Profile View All Posts by User View Thanks

egonzinc		#4 Posted : 20 January 2026 00:00:37(UTC) Retweet
Joined: 04/07/2013(UTC) Posts: 51		As soon as I posted, I started to play around with pieces or track and thought it would be impossible! The end to the right is not 90 degrees from the beginning, but it will give some variety to the plan! THANKS SO MUCH! I rather use these turnouts, but I was wondering if there is a solution using the other turnouts, so it ends up at 90 degrees? In another spot, similar situation, ending in 90 degrees would be preferable. Conceivably use R3 and R4 radii instead of R4 and R5. Again thanks so much for these designs
1 user liked this useful post by egonzinc		marklinist5999
User Profile View All Posts by User View Thanks

egonzinc		#5 Posted : 20 January 2026 00:27:01(UTC) Retweet
Joined: 04/07/2013(UTC) Posts: 51		This is the other problem spot. The outer loop is R5 with some small straights added to go outside the pure R5 curve. Need a “ get away” from the R5 loop.
1 user liked this useful post by egonzinc		marklinist5999
User Profile View All Posts by User View Thanks

mike c		#6 Posted : 20 January 2026 01:21:34(UTC) Retweet
Joined: 28/11/2007(UTC) Posts: 8,369 Location: Montreal, QC		You could try creating the outer curve using 24912, but at 1.1146m radius, it is quite a bit wider than R5. Regards Mike C
1 user liked this useful post by mike c		marklinist5999
User Profile View All Posts by User View Thanks

Ross		#7 Posted : 20 January 2026 02:36:39(UTC) Retweet
Joined: 25/09/2006(UTC) Posts: 971 Location: Sydney, NSW		Hi Eduardo, Another option for you to consider. Originally Posted by: egonzinc Before I start fooling around with the pieces, I’m tapping this forums brain power to see if this simple task has a ( hopefully) simple solution. I include an image. Want to do an exit with radius 5 and maintain a radius 4 parallel on the inside, as much as possible.
		Ross
		WWW
2 users liked this useful post by Ross		marklinist5999, egonzinc
User Profile View All Posts by User View Thanks

Copenhagen		#8 Posted : 20 January 2026 09:31:30(UTC) Retweet
Joined: 23/04/2019(UTC) Posts: 559 Location: Copenhagen, Denmark		About the second hand drawn sketch: is it the plan to have six curves inside each other (or five inside the outer track) on the layout?
User Profile View All Posts by User View Thanks

egonzinc		#9 Posted : 20 January 2026 15:31:07(UTC) Retweet
Joined: 04/07/2013(UTC) Posts: 51		Not eventually. But the idea is to have one side with the loops and then have parallel tracks go to the right in annarea which will have minimalistic tracks. I like to see the trains run. So I will use this “congested side” to set up trains and send them on a long run. Or to keep bysy in lical trafic. Odd I know, but that is what I envision to do!
User Profile View All Posts by User View Thanks

egonzinc		#10 Posted : 20 January 2026 15:38:53(UTC) Retweet
Joined: 04/07/2013(UTC) Posts: 51		Thanks Ross for your design. I really lijed tge “Jean Option”. Very clean and although it does not end at 90 degrees, it is clise enough to be manageable for that leg of the “fly away to the right”. Now I need a solution for the other leg of the “fly to the right”. I might use the same “Jean” solution, rotated 90 degrees clockwise… but maybe Hean or someone else can come up with another combination. Thanks again to all!
1 user liked this useful post by egonzinc		Ross
User Profile View All Posts by User View Thanks

mbarreto		#11 Posted : 20 January 2026 15:58:47(UTC) Retweet
Joined: 18/02/2008(UTC) Posts: 1,354		For the 90 degrees of R5+ you can have 24064 - 3x 24530 - 24064. It will work kind of R6.
		Best regards, Miguel Mostly Märklin H0.
2 users liked this useful post by mbarreto		marklinist5999, egonzinc
User Profile View All Posts by User View Thanks

kiwiAlan		#12 Posted : 21 January 2026 00:39:04(UTC) Retweet
Joined: 23/07/2014(UTC) Posts: 8,737 Location: ENGLAND, Didcot		Originally Posted by: egonzinc Thanks Ross for your design. I really lijed tge “Jean Option”. Very clean and although it does not end at 90 degrees, it is clise enough to be manageable for that leg of the “fly away to the right”. Now I need a solution for the other leg of the “fly to the right”. I might use the same “Jean” solution, rotated 90 degrees clockwise… but maybe Hean or someone else can come up with another combination. Thanks again to all! Also note that one of the track pieces Jean has used is a K-Track piece instead of a C-Track piece. You would need to identify the correct C-Track piece to replace it.
User Profile View All Posts by User View Thanks

egonzinc		#13 Posted : 21 January 2026 01:59:36(UTC) Retweet
Joined: 04/07/2013(UTC) Posts: 51		Yes, noticed that. He did mention to insert a 24430. Have to get the pieces set up and see how it looks,
User Profile View All Posts by User View Thanks

egonzinc		#14 Posted : 21 January 2026 02:01:39(UTC) Retweet
Joined: 04/07/2013(UTC) Posts: 51		Originally Posted by: mbarreto For the 90 degrees of R5+ you can have 24064 - 3x 24530 - 24064. It will work kind of R6. Thanks for the suggestion. I have something similar now on that 5+ and it looks fine.
User Profile View All Posts by User View Thanks

PacoM		#15 Posted : 20 February 2026 14:40:42(UTC) Retweet
Joined: 20/08/2020(UTC) Posts: 79		Originally Posted by: egonzinc As soon as I posted, I started to play around with pieces or track and thought it would be impossible! The end to the right is not 90 degrees from the beginning, but it will give some variety to the plan! THANKS SO MUCH! I rather use these turnouts, but I was wondering if there is a solution using the other turnouts, so it ends up at 90 degrees? In another spot, similar situation, ending in 90 degrees would be preferable. Conceivably use R3 and R4 radii instead of R4 and R5. Again thanks so much for these designs Hello, I have seen your thread a bit late, but I think it is worth pointing out that there is a perfect solution al 90º. I have shown beneath the simple design with R-3 an R-4, so that you can compare both sizes. Regards
2 users liked this useful post by PacoM		marklinist5999, Alsterstreek
User Profile View All Posts by User View Thanks

PacoM		#16 Posted : 20 February 2026 18:27:39(UTC) Retweet
Joined: 20/08/2020(UTC) Posts: 79		Or, if you do not like roadbed cutting beside the 24712, and prefer to use the orthodox 24071 standard pieces instead, this is the solution:
5 users liked this useful post by PacoM		LeoArietis, Alsterstreek, marklinist5999, Ross, kimballthurlow
User Profile View All Posts by User View Thanks

PacoM		#17 Posted : 20 February 2026 20:18:04(UTC) Retweet
Joined: 20/08/2020(UTC) Posts: 79		As to the branch to the right, these schemes may give ideas
3 users liked this useful post by PacoM		Alsterstreek, marklinist5999, LeoArietis
User Profile View All Posts by User View Thanks

PacoM		#18 Posted : 20 February 2026 21:11:03(UTC) Retweet
Joined: 20/08/2020(UTC) Posts: 79		Always keeping the standard output separation between tracks
3 users liked this useful post by PacoM		marklinist5999, Alsterstreek, LeoArietis
User Profile View All Posts by User View Thanks

Ross		#19 Posted : 21 February 2026 01:59:54(UTC) Retweet
Joined: 25/09/2006(UTC) Posts: 971 Location: Sydney, NSW		Hi Francisco/ALL, This is a variation trying to maintain standard spacing. The example on the left is Francisco's design then the next two examples try and maintain standard spacing, I like the third example because the curves look reasonable. The tolerances for track joins is set at 1mm. Oh how I miss flex track.
		Ross
		WWW
3 users liked this useful post by Ross		PacoM, xxup, marklinist5999
User Profile View All Posts by User View Thanks

PacoM		#20 Posted : 21 February 2026 11:40:24(UTC) Retweet
Joined: 20/08/2020(UTC) Posts: 79		I am sorry, Ross, but I have to say that my design keeps the standard spacing. The explanation is that you have made a mistake while copying it on the left of your image, because you have ìnserted a 24330 instead of the 24430 curve I have used. Edited by user 21 February 2026 20:12:30(UTC)  | Reason: Vocabulary
1 user liked this useful post by PacoM		marklinist5999
User Profile View All Posts by User View Thanks

Ross		#21 Posted : 21 February 2026 22:34:20(UTC) Retweet
Joined: 25/09/2006(UTC) Posts: 971 Location: Sydney, NSW		Hi Francisco/All, Thank you for pointing out my mistake in redrawing your design. The corrected design is on the left (yellow), my error is next (red), the next two remain the same. I don't have any c-track for practical testing and I'm sure small measurement discrepancies can be adjusted to make the design work. The real test is to be able to run trains without colliding in the curves with coach overhang. Using track design software allows variations in design as we can all see from the examples provided. Using a tolerance of 1mm, I strive to have no track disconnects even though in practical terms the design can be physically adjusted. I'm always on a learning curve. Originally Posted by: PacoM I am sorry, Ross, but I have to say that my design keeps the standard spacing. The explanation is that you have made a mistake while copying it on the left of your image, because you have ìnserted a 24330 instead of the 24430 curve I have used.
		Ross
		WWW
4 users liked this useful post by Ross		xxup, marklinist5999, PacoM, kimballthurlow
User Profile View All Posts by User View Thanks

PacoM		#22 Posted : 22 February 2026 19:34:43(UTC) Retweet
Joined: 20/08/2020(UTC) Posts: 79		Hello, Ross. You are right, there is a small mismatch in separation between centres and a gap too (3 to 4 mm each). But in practice, with such a number of curved pieces involved, I am sure that both ends will meet without problem, as I have experienced other times. In this case, the outer branch has to be forced up and to the left, and the inner one down and to the right, so that the differences wil be shared and compensated. Regards
3 users liked this useful post by PacoM		marklinist5999, Ross, kimballthurlow
User Profile View All Posts by User View Thanks

PacoM		#23 Posted : 23 February 2026 13:40:58(UTC) Retweet
Joined: 20/08/2020(UTC) Posts: 79		As you said, Ross, always learning. Turning back to Jean's original idea, I have found a perfect solution, in parallelism, adjustment, transition curves and exactly 90º. Measures: 1.544 x 1.422 mm (just the curve, 800 x 850, radii at 45º 830 and 770 mm approx.). I love C track! And, of course, the opportunity to develop and exchange ideas in this forum.
4 users liked this useful post by PacoM		marklinist5999, kimballthurlow, xxup, Ross
User Profile View All Posts by User View Thanks

Ross		#24 Posted : 24 February 2026 03:58:38(UTC) Retweet
Joined: 25/09/2006(UTC) Posts: 971 Location: Sydney, NSW		Hi Francisco/All, Well done on your perfect solution. My last variation on the left with Francisco's perfect solution (green) shows to get the perfect large radius curves you need more room. The number of combinations to suit a certain size layout is a design challenge.
		Ross
		WWW
3 users liked this useful post by Ross		marklinist5999, Munich 1860, kimballthurlow
User Profile View All Posts by User View Thanks

PacoM		#25 Posted : 24 February 2026 14:13:27(UTC) Retweet
Joined: 20/08/2020(UTC) Posts: 79		Please, Ross, could you write down the number of each piece in the inner curve? I find it very difficult to read because of that sort of dot in the middle: 094?, 24x30, 094?, 24x30, 071? and 24x30?
1 user liked this useful post by PacoM		kimballthurlow
User Profile View All Posts by User View Thanks

Ross		#26 Posted : 24 February 2026 21:55:27(UTC) Retweet
Joined: 25/09/2006(UTC) Posts: 971 Location: Sydney, NSW		Hi Francisco/All, Track symbol anchors have been hidden, I'm still finding my way using the software. Also you could zoom in using ctrl + Originally Posted by: PacoM Please, Ross, could you write down the number of each piece in the inner curve? I find it very difficult to read because of that sort of dot in the middle: 094?, 24x30, 094?, 24x30, 071? and 24x30?
		Ross
		WWW
3 users liked this useful post by Ross		marklinist5999, PacoM, kimballthurlow
User Profile View All Posts by User View Thanks

PacoM		#27 Posted : 25 February 2026 00:27:44(UTC) Retweet
Joined: 20/08/2020(UTC) Posts: 79		Many thanks, Ross. Everything clear and matching perfectly now. Here is a view of both designs together, for a quick comparison, yours in blue.
5 users liked this useful post by PacoM		marklinist5999, Ross, Alsterstreek, Munich 1860, kimballthurlow
User Profile View All Posts by User View Thanks

PacoM		#28 Posted : 25 February 2026 17:15:46(UTC) Retweet
Joined: 20/08/2020(UTC) Posts: 79		Saving a bit of space. Once replaced a 24188 by a 24071 in the upper arm, we save 117,5 mm (188,3 - 70,8)
3 users liked this useful post by PacoM		marklinist5999, Ross, kimballthurlow
User Profile View All Posts by User View Thanks

Ross		#29 Posted : 26 February 2026 01:48:03(UTC) Retweet
Joined: 25/09/2006(UTC) Posts: 971 Location: Sydney, NSW		Hi Francisco/All, I thought I would try Francisco's suggestion and found the following. To be able to insert the 094 track I had to change the track tolerance to 2mm see red tracks as the gap of 92.3mm was too small. All The other track pieces used a tolerance of 1mm By inserting 077 I could resolve the track sections see green remaining with a track tolerance of 1mm. Depending on track design software tolerances, different solutions can be found. The test is when you use real track for the configuration you designed. Originally Posted by: PacoM Saving a bit of space. Once replaced a 24188 by a 24071 in the upper arm, we save 117,5 mm (188,3 - 70,8)
		Ross
		WWW
3 users liked this useful post by Ross		PacoM, marklinist5999, kimballthurlow
User Profile View All Posts by User View Thanks

Users browsing this topic

Guest (2)