|
|
Post by atw on Feb 11, 2017 11:07:04 GMT -5
I am about to lay a 180 degrees level double track curve with Rokuhan's 245mm and 270mm radius track and was wondering if anybody has any experience using their super elevated track pieces?
The amount of cant (super elevation) is indicated by Rokuhan as being 5.5 degrees, and depending on which of their promotional pictures you look at appears to be quite okay or frightfully steep, so it's kind of hard to judge.
I will not be running Japanese bullet trains, but rather the antithesis of high speed rail operations, coal drags of 20+ bethgon hoppers with two six-axle AZL locos up front, so I plan to run these rather s-l-o-w-l-y.
I guess the bottom line of my question is - is the cosmetic visual appearance of Rokuhan's superelevated track offset by operational risks such as trains falling off the track? I might also want to run the odd double stack train, so the center of gravity of the train creeps up even higher.
Any practical experience anybody?
cheerZ
Adrian
|
|
|
|
Post by markm on Feb 11, 2017 12:17:17 GMT -5
Adrian,
I added a Rokuhan 270mm oval to my test bench a while back with the superelevated 180° curve at one end. Since then I've run the AZL SD70 variants, E units, Mikado, RDC and MTL F units in various combinations of autoracks, heavyweights and MTL 40-60ft freight. In general I've had no operational issues. The MTL F units have a slight cant on flat track and look a bit precarious on the superlevation but run fine. The Mikado pulling 10 heavyweight cars has a bit of a problem with the leading wheels riding up on the ties at any speed.
From a layout standpoint, obviously you don't want flat track to the inside of the superelevated track at the 25mm spacing. At the flat to canted transition you want to leave the flat section floating for about 55mm or so. To me the cant isn't obvious unless you have something perpendicular nearby.
I like the look of using a flat R+25mm section as an easement into the curve, but since you're already using the 270mm curve...
Hope this helps,
Mark
|
|
|
|
Post by modelwarships on Feb 11, 2017 23:32:21 GMT -5
I installed some at the bottom of my loops. Visually I can't tell the difference as my layout is in a coffee table and it is pretty much a bird eye view only. In my case the super elevation didn't work as well as planned. I have a bridge between two 90 degree segments and it is at a matching angle, no room for a transition from flat to super elevated. I think Rokuhan should have made transitions from flat to elevated for all of their curves.
|
|
|
|
Post by dawdawes on Feb 12, 2017 2:28:57 GMT -5
There is a Japanese layout here in the UK that runs longish freight trains on his lower loop,using canted track and he has no problems. I had thought about the 245 for my new Z but have gone with flat for the look
|
|
|
|
Post by dazed on Feb 13, 2017 14:12:28 GMT -5
I have tested the SuperEl track with a variety of equipment with good results, to the point that I have used it readily in the layout I'm building now. I seriously doubt you would notice the difference performance-wise, but the look is really nice....having the trains "lean into" the curve makes a big improvement visually, IMHO.
No pics at the moment but as soon as I get things put back together (I'm wiring feeders now) I'll try to come back to this thread.
|
|
|
|
Post by atw on Feb 13, 2017 15:34:49 GMT -5
Thanks everybody for the interesting and encouraging input - I went ahead and ordered a semi-circle each of 270mm and 245mm radius superelevated curves and plan to do some testing with my specific train formations, but I'm pretty confident from hearing about your experiences and thoughts that I'll go ahead and use them on the layout. I'll also experiment a bit with easements on straight track leading into the curves - I'll let you know how things go, though that might take a few weeks... it's a slow train a-comin'  cheerZ Adrian |
|
|
|
Post by dazed on Feb 14, 2017 15:24:56 GMT -5
Regarding easements, I think the curvature easements are better cosmetically and probably operationally and I try to do them as much as possible. But often times with sectional track you have to "play the hand that is dealt" so to speak.
My layout is very small, so I had some things dictated by track geometries but for the most part I didn't worry about easements of any kind. The trackage where I used the SuperEl was on dead flat areas, so I would be concerned with that if there were vertical changes involved. But in my case, there is enough flex in the Rokuhan track that easements sort of create themselves with regards to coming out of the superelevations. Just make sure you're not putting undue stress on the track joint...I try to really stabilize the transition piece on the far end away from the superelevation so that whatever flex occurs doesn't carry into the joint.
Having said all that...the good news is, it's pretty easy to test everything before committing.
P.S.> I added a footer with my real name...sorry 'bout that.
|
|
|
|
Post by atw on Feb 24, 2017 16:20:12 GMT -5
Thanks again to everybody who shared their experience and advice on this. I went ahead and ordered some super-elevated 270mm and 245mm radius curves and was finally able to do some test running today with some bethgons and an SD70ACe + SD70M up front and well I can simply confirm that it was smooth sailing all the way. I have yet to run trains on track which is actually fixed down (Rokuhan curved track does has a pronounced tendency to "curl upwards" on the inside when placed down loose, and the super-elevated curves are no exception) but I don't expect to see any problems. Transition into the curves is pretty much "automatic", the adjoining piece of regular straight track just needs some shimming to support it as it comes down to level. The visual impact really hits home when you look at the curve at "eye level", i.e. as you would be doing trackside - the way those locos and hoppers lean into the curve looks just like the real thing. cheerZ Adrian |
|
