Welcome to the forum   
Welcome Guest! To enable all features please Login or Register.

Notification

Icon
Error

Share
Options
View
Go to last post in this topic Go to first unread post in this topic
Offline BobG100  
#1 Posted : 31 May 2020 00:20:33(UTC)
BobG100


Joined: 04/12/2009(UTC)
Posts: 22
Location: Buffalo, NY
I'm using SCARM software for planning an HO Trix C-track layout which would include a wye configuration to turn entire trains. Repeated attempts with the currently available Trix trackage utilized by that software's database have left me utterly frustrated and convinced that such an arrangement is impossible. The attached file depicts the closest I've come to achieving my objective [there is a gap measuring "only" about 0.4 inch (10 mm) between roughly aligned sections #62115 and #62224].

If this is indeed the best possible arrangement would it be feasible for me to consider bending/forcing those two track sections together?attempted wye configuration.jpg
BobG100
Offline clapcott  
#2 Posted : 31 May 2020 08:56:58(UTC)
clapcott

New Zealand   
Joined: 12/12/2005(UTC)
Posts: 2,325
Location: Wellington, New_Zealand
I do not use SCARM but your image appears to show an ignorance of the 62206 (5.7 degree) make-up piece that is used to bring the 24.3 into a modular 30 degrees.

the most basic Wye would be ...
UserPostedImage
Peter
thanks 2 users liked this useful post by clapcott
Offline BobG100  
#3 Posted : 31 May 2020 23:23:08(UTC)
BobG100


Joined: 04/12/2009(UTC)
Posts: 22
Location: Buffalo, NY
Thank you so much attempted wye configuration 2.jpgregarding use of a #62206 curved section, which I utilized in my latest attempt to create a wye having just straight track along the top side. However, I still can't find the proper section that will close a gap between a #62064 section and a #62611 turnout [see attached file]. What's your suggestion?

BobG100
Offline kimballthurlow  
#4 Posted : 01 June 2020 06:52:34(UTC)
kimballthurlow

Australia   
Joined: 18/03/2007(UTC)
Posts: 5,840
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Hi Bob,
UserPostedImage

UserPostedImage

UserPostedImage

These are Märklin C track plans.
If you substitute the first numerals of the part number with a 62, you will have the Trix C track plan.

Note the abbreviations: 06 = 24206, 071 = 24071, 077 = 24077 (or Trix 62206 etc).

Kimball
HO Scale - Märklin (ep III and VI, C Track, digital) - 2 rail (USA and Australia) - 3 rail (English Hornby Dublo) - a few old O gauge.
thanks 2 users liked this useful post by kimballthurlow
Offline BobG100  
#5 Posted : 01 June 2020 07:57:16(UTC)
BobG100


Joined: 04/12/2009(UTC)
Posts: 22
Location: Buffalo, NY
Originally Posted by: kimballthurlow Go to Quoted Post
Hi Bob,
UserPostedImage

UserPostedImage

UserPostedImage

These are Märklin C track plans.
If you substitute the first numerals of the part number with a 62, you will have the Trix C track plan.

Note the abbreviations: 06 = 24206, 071 = 24071, 077 = 24077 (or Trix 62206 etc).

Kimball


Thanks! The configuration depicted in your second image- -all straight track across the top with two slightly curved legs below- -will work out fine in my planned layout.

I'm baffled; look at the first image you provided. The track section in the left leg located between the #24071 straight and the #24611 turnout appears to be 064 [this number is partially overwritten by 24130 in the right leg of the wye]. That's the abbreviation for #24064, the Marklin equivalent which has the same length as the Trix #62064 section in my last SCARM drawing. Every other track item is identical...yet the left leg of my wye won't close! That said, I spotted something rather "curious" in your first image: The #24064 section located in the top leg of the wye is actually shorter than its assumed counterpart in the left leg. Could the person who drew this image have inadvertently mislabeled the latter piece of track? If that is indeed correct, then this configuration cannot be put together as shown.

BobG100
Offline kimballthurlow  
#6 Posted : 01 June 2020 09:45:25(UTC)
kimballthurlow

Australia   
Joined: 18/03/2007(UTC)
Posts: 5,840
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Originally Posted by: BobG100 Go to Quoted Post
.... something rather "curious" in your first image: The #24064 section located in the top leg of the wye is actually shorter than its assumed counterpart in the left leg. Could the person who drew this image have inadvertently mislabeled the latter piece of track? If that is indeed correct, then this configuration cannot be put together as shown.


Hi Bob,

At least you have something to work on.
Is the "longer"piece an 094, not 064? I am sure that is the problem.
I have never actually tried installing the first two images. I did the last one OK.

If you discover what is mis-printed I would appreciate knowing about it.
I assume these track plans were made from a computer application, hence I can not understand how the label would be wrong.

regards
kImball
HO Scale - Märklin (ep III and VI, C Track, digital) - 2 rail (USA and Australia) - 3 rail (English Hornby Dublo) - a few old O gauge.
Offline BobG100  
#7 Posted : 02 June 2020 22:17:58(UTC)
BobG100


Joined: 04/12/2009(UTC)
Posts: 22
Location: Buffalo, NY
Kimball,

Per your suggestion I replaced the 064 straight section in the top leg of the wye with its 094 counterpart; this substitution did not solve the problem. Numerous other trial & error changes also failed to eliminate gaps, overlaps, and/or misaligned track sections. A seemingly unlikely alteration, along with several judicious straight section changes, finally provided a perfectly "closed" SCARM drawing of the desired Trix/Marklin C-track wye configuration. The key substitution turned out to be replacement of the 62206 curve in its right leg with a 62107 curve.

I would like to share my finding with a larger number of Forum readers [other than those who may have followed this discussion] by submitting a brand new post but prefer holding off doing so until you have reviewed my results and give me your concurrence.

Bob


correct wye configuration.jpg
BobG100
Offline kimballthurlow  
#8 Posted : 03 June 2020 00:44:51(UTC)
kimballthurlow

Australia   
Joined: 18/03/2007(UTC)
Posts: 5,840
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Originally Posted by: BobG100 Go to Quoted Post
Kimball,
.... provided a perfectly "closed" SCARM drawing of the desired Trix/Marklin C-track wye configuration. The key substitution turned out to be replacement of the 62206 curve in its right leg with a 62107 curve.

I would like to share my finding with a larger number of Forum readers [other than those who may have followed this discussion] by submitting a brand new post but prefer holding off doing so until you have reviewed my results and give me your concurrence.

Bob


Hi Bob,
That is a terrific result!!

I have no means to test it, but I am sure Scarm would have it correct.
Now regarding a special post is a good idea.
I suggest you also post the result in this thread which concentrates on C track ideas.
It will be a very valuable contribution.
The C track topic

I never did use any software when designing/building my layout because I simply mucked around with the track pieces until it worked as I wanted.
That is the amazing thing about C track - I believe it to be so well designed. I was able to build a working layout without the effort required with flexible track.

Kimball
HO Scale - Märklin (ep III and VI, C Track, digital) - 2 rail (USA and Australia) - 3 rail (English Hornby Dublo) - a few old O gauge.
Offline clapcott  
#9 Posted : 03 June 2020 08:55:24(UTC)
clapcott

New Zealand   
Joined: 12/12/2005(UTC)
Posts: 2,325
Location: Wellington, New_Zealand
Originally Posted by: BobG100 Go to Quoted Post
The key substitution turned out to be replacement of the 62206 curve in its right leg with a 62107 curve.

Each to there own however, personally, I would consider this option as unacceptable.

Setting a tolerance (gap) of a mm or two is fine when spread across a the straight section, but there is no excuse for getting the angles wrong. When dealing with R1 radius curves this is only exacerbates the kink, and issues will show up eventually.

Just because some software says its OK does not mean it is good , or even correct, in reality.







Peter
Offline BobG100  
#10 Posted : 03 June 2020 22:58:50(UTC)
BobG100


Joined: 04/12/2009(UTC)
Posts: 22
Location: Buffalo, NY
Originally Posted by: clapcott Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: BobG100 Go to Quoted Post
The key substitution turned out to be replacement of the 62206 curve in its right leg with a 62107 curve.

Each to there own however, personally, I would consider this option as unacceptable.

Setting a tolerance (gap) of a mm or two is fine when spread across a the straight section, but there is no excuse for getting the angles wrong. When dealing with R1 radius curves this is only exacerbates the kink, and issues will show up eventually.

Just because some software says its OK does not mean it is good , or even correct, in reality.









Because I am currently "just" planning a layout, I do not have all of the trackage identified in the subject SCARM drawing. Addressing your concern: Why not ask Trix/Marklin C-track modelers who already own all of the sections identified in the proposed SCARM drawing to assemble them as shown and run a consist back and forth over the entire wye [or at least the problematic part you cited]? Such an experiment would quickly validate- -or invalidate- -that computer program's output.

BobG100
Offline BobG100  
#11 Posted : 03 June 2020 23:05:47(UTC)
BobG100


Joined: 04/12/2009(UTC)
Posts: 22
Location: Buffalo, NY
Originally Posted by: kimballthurlow Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: BobG100 Go to Quoted Post
Kimball,
.... provided a perfectly "closed" SCARM drawing of the desired Trix/Marklin C-track wye configuration. The key substitution turned out to be replacement of the 62206 curve in its right leg with a 62107 curve.

I would like to share my finding with a larger number of Forum readers [other than those who may have followed this discussion] by submitting a brand new post but prefer holding off doing so until you have reviewed my results and give me your concurrence.

Bob


Hi Bob,
That is a terrific result!!

I have no means to test it, but I am sure Scarm would have it correct.
Now regarding a special post is a good idea.
I suggest you also post the result in this thread which concentrates on C track ideas.
It will be a very valuable contribution.
The C track topic

I never did use any software when designing/building my layout because I simply mucked around with the track pieces until it worked as I wanted.
That is the amazing thing about C track - I believe it to be so well designed. I was able to build a working layout without the effort required with flexible track.

Kimball


Peter Clapcott raised a good point [see my reply to his post]. It would be prudent for somebody to actually assemble all the pieces identified by SCARM and simply...check it out before announcing a "new" C-track wye configuration plan.

BobG100
thanks 1 user liked this useful post by BobG100
Offline kimballthurlow  
#12 Posted : 04 June 2020 03:52:30(UTC)
kimballthurlow

Australia   
Joined: 18/03/2007(UTC)
Posts: 5,840
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Hi Bob,
Originally Posted by: BobG100 Go to Quoted Post
..

Peter Clapcott raised a good point [see my reply to his post]. It would be prudent for somebody to actually assemble all the pieces identified by SCARM and simply...check it out before announcing a "new" C-track wye configuration plan.



Hi Bob,
I should be able to assemble that Wye, but likely tomorrow because I am involved with a few things at work today.

Staying with 62206 would be correct, but maybe the straights need adjusting.

Kimball
HO Scale - Märklin (ep III and VI, C Track, digital) - 2 rail (USA and Australia) - 3 rail (English Hornby Dublo) - a few old O gauge.
Offline kimballthurlow  
#13 Posted : 04 June 2020 12:18:06(UTC)
kimballthurlow

Australia   
Joined: 18/03/2007(UTC)
Posts: 5,840
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Hi Bob,
The Wye works fine in practice if you do the following:
1. Replace the lower left leg 071 with a 077.
2. Replace the upper right leg 107 with a 206.

The upper tangent (straight) remains the same.
The central angles of each arc must add up to 90 degrees.

regards
Kimball
HO Scale - Märklin (ep III and VI, C Track, digital) - 2 rail (USA and Australia) - 3 rail (English Hornby Dublo) - a few old O gauge.
thanks 3 users liked this useful post by kimballthurlow
Offline BobG100  
#14 Posted : 07 June 2020 21:27:54(UTC)
BobG100


Joined: 04/12/2009(UTC)
Posts: 22
Location: Buffalo, NY
Originally Posted by: kimballthurlow Go to Quoted Post
Hi Bob,
The Wye works fine in practice if you do the following:
1. Replace the lower left leg 071 with a 077.
2. Replace the upper right leg 107 with a 206.

The upper tangent (straight) remains the same.
The central angles of each arc must add up to 90 degrees.

regards
Kimball


Very interesting, Kimball...because when I implemented your changes, the resultant SCARM-generated drawing shows both a gap and a misalignment between the curved 206 section and the 611 turnout [see attached image].

The reliability of- -i.e., how close to reality- -any computer simulation output is a direct reflection of its inputs [GIGO- -garbage in, garbage out]. One cannot deny that the "real-life" configuration you assembled works. Therefore SCARM's computational and/or drawing algorithm must contain a "glitch" that enables it to indicate perfect track loop closure for my proposed Trix/Marklin wye configuration.

Did you try laying out my proposed track configuration; if you did, how well did the tracks close and line up throughout the entire loop?

BobSCARM version of experimental wye assemblage .jpg










BobG100
Offline kimballthurlow  
#15 Posted : 07 June 2020 23:38:14(UTC)
kimballthurlow

Australia   
Joined: 18/03/2007(UTC)
Posts: 5,840
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Hi Bob,

Yes I did try the original proposal.
It definitely mis aligned to the point where it was just not going to work.

As Clapcott has pointed out, misalignment causes running problems and I am very aware of this when building C track.
The final build of this Wye was perfectly aligned and I would have been happy to install it on my layout.

By the way, the Wye is extremely compact which does not appear from the scaling of the SCARM diagram.
I am sorry that I did not take overall measurements.
I reiterate that I never used any track planning software.
This is for 2 reasons.
1. I like to separate work from hobbys. Computers represent work (to me).
2. My layout building goes back 62 years when layout building required the try it method.

In regards to software such as SCARM, I am wondering if they use the correct arc-centre angle as defined by Märklin.
Here are two examples.
The generally identified angle for the 611/612 turnout is 24°. The real angle is 24.3°.
The generally identified angle for the 206 curve track is 6°. The real angle is 5.7°.

(Another assembly variation on my setup was the placement of the two 206 together at the top in the left-hand leg.
I did not mention it previously because I would assume it creates the same geometry as placing it either end of the 130.)

regards
Kimball

Edited by user 08 June 2020 08:54:40(UTC)  | Reason: an assembly variation in brackets

HO Scale - Märklin (ep III and VI, C Track, digital) - 2 rail (USA and Australia) - 3 rail (English Hornby Dublo) - a few old O gauge.
thanks 1 user liked this useful post by kimballthurlow
Offline BobG100  
#16 Posted : 08 June 2020 21:58:28(UTC)
BobG100


Joined: 04/12/2009(UTC)
Posts: 22
Location: Buffalo, NY
Originally Posted by: kimballthurlow Go to Quoted Post
Hi Bob,

Yes I did try the original proposal.
It definitely mis aligned to the point where it was just not going to work.

As Clapcott has pointed out, misalignment causes running problems and I am very aware of this when building C track.
The final build of this Wye was perfectly aligned and I would have been happy to install it on my layout.

By the way, the Wye is extremely compact which does not appear from the scaling of the SCARM diagram.
I am sorry that I did not take overall measurements.
I reiterate that I never used any track planning software.
This is for 2 reasons.
1. I like to separate work from hobbys. Computers represent work (to me).
2. My layout building goes back 62 years when layout building required the try it method.

In regards to software such as SCARM, I am wondering if they use the correct arc-centre angle as defined by Märklin.
Here are two examples.
The generally identified angle for the 611/612 turnout is 24°. The real angle is 24.3°.
The generally identified angle for the 206 curve track is 6°. The real angle is 5.7°.

(Another assembly variation on my setup was the placement of the two 206 together at the top in the left-hand leg.
I did not mention it previously because I would assume it creates the same geometry as placing it either end of the 130.)

regards
Kimball


Kimball,

Just for the heck of it, I placed the two left-leg 206 curves together in my SCARM-generated configuration per your assembly variation noted above. I agree, this change should not alter the leg [and other configuration] geometry. Oh but it sure did: As shown in the attached image, a gap/misalignment is now present between the top-leg 904 straight and the 611 turnout. This result provides- -at least to me- -incontrovertible proof that a SCARM algorithm and/or input parameter(s) is/are incorrect; indeed, you very well could be right about the criticality of how precisely the track angle is specified.

I'd like to document the new, track-tested wye configuration you helped determine in a new Forum post and credit you for your effort. Are you OK with that? I'd also be willing to notify the SCARM development team of these findings so they could modify their software to prevent the type of "false-positive" track loop closure we uncovered [there also may be others not yet found].

Bob'correct' wye configuration gone wrong.jpg


BobG100
Offline kimballthurlow  
#17 Posted : 09 June 2020 02:42:04(UTC)
kimballthurlow

Australia   
Joined: 18/03/2007(UTC)
Posts: 5,840
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Originally Posted by: BobG100 Go to Quoted Post
....

I'd like to document the new, track-tested wye configuration you helped determine in a new Forum post and credit you for your effort. Are you OK with that? I'd also be willing to notify the SCARM development team of these findings so they could modify their software to prevent the type of "false-positive" track loop closure we uncovered [there also may be others not yet found].

Bob'correct' wye configuration gone wrong.jpg




Hi Bob,
That is all fine with me, it adds to the knowledge base.

But just noticed your latest diagram retains the old errors. Make sure to change upper right 107 to 206.
And change lower left 071 to 077.

Regards placement of the 206 peices, I figured either end of the 130 position is sort of more symmetrical and in a way a slight transition.

regards
Kimball
HO Scale - Märklin (ep III and VI, C Track, digital) - 2 rail (USA and Australia) - 3 rail (English Hornby Dublo) - a few old O gauge.
Offline BobG100  
#18 Posted : 14 June 2020 21:53:18(UTC)
BobG100


Joined: 04/12/2009(UTC)
Posts: 22
Location: Buffalo, NY
Originally Posted by: kimballthurlow Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: BobG100 Go to Quoted Post
....

I'd like to document the new, track-tested wye configuration you helped determine in a new Forum post and credit you for your effort. Are you OK with that? I'd also be willing to notify the SCARM development team of these findings so they could modify their software to prevent the type of "false-positive" track loop closure we uncovered [there also may be others not yet found].

Bob'correct' wye configuration gone wrong.jpg




Hi Bob,
That is all fine with me, it adds to the knowledge base.

But just noticed your latest diagram retains the old errors. Make sure to change upper right 107 to 206.
And change lower left 071 to 077.

Regards placement of the 206 peices, I figured either end of the 130 position is sort of more symmetrical and in a way a slight transition.

regards
Kimball


Thanks for catching the above-noted two errors, Kimball. Please verify that the drawing shown below is the configuration you assembled. Unless I can make my own drawing [using Word or some other software], I'll post this SCARM version with a caveat to ignore the encircled track mismatch.

correct wye configuration [6.14.20].jpg

BobG100
Offline kimballthurlow  
#19 Posted : 15 June 2020 01:16:30(UTC)
kimballthurlow

Australia   
Joined: 18/03/2007(UTC)
Posts: 5,840
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Hi Bob,

Yes your last SCARM drawing is how I assembled the Wye.
Have a good evening.

regards
Kimball
HO Scale - Märklin (ep III and VI, C Track, digital) - 2 rail (USA and Australia) - 3 rail (English Hornby Dublo) - a few old O gauge.
Offline BobG100  
#20 Posted : 20 June 2020 08:48:30(UTC)
BobG100


Joined: 04/12/2009(UTC)
Posts: 22
Location: Buffalo, NY
Originally Posted by: kimballthurlow Go to Quoted Post
Hi Bob,

Yes your last SCARM drawing is how I assembled the Wye.
Have a good evening.

regards
Kimball


Thank you for your valuable assistance, Kimball!

Bob

BobG100
Users browsing this topic
OceanSpiders 2.0
Similar Topics
TRIX c-track switches (H0-scale)
by jselter 11/05/2008 15:19:46(UTC)
How many uses the Trix C-track. (General MRR)
by sjlauritsen 10/05/2008 00:59:04(UTC)
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.

| Powered by YAF.NET | YAF.NET © 2003-2020, Yet Another Forum.NET
This page was generated in 0.612 seconds.