G Scale Model Train Forum banner
Cancel
Create thread New Forums

LGB Track centerlines

Jump to Latest
1 - 15 of 15 Posts

StanleyAmes

· Registered
Joined
·
361 Posts
Discussion starter · #1 ·
I am trying to design a small section of a layout for a friend and am stumped on the LGB track system.


If I use LGB R3 or 1600 turnouts to form a crossover between two parallel tracks, it would appear that I will need a track centerline of 187mm or 7 3/8". Is that correct?

If I use LGB R1 or 1200 turnouts to form a crossover between two parallel tracks, it would appear that I will need a track centerline of 111mm or 4 3/8". Is that correct?


How about R2 or 1500 turnouts? If I use LGB 1500 turnouts to form a crossover what track centerline would I need for the parallel tracks?


As you can see I am a little confused.

Thanks

Stan
 
Discussion starter · #3 ·
Andrew

Thanks. I have that diagram. The diagram shows 1600 and 1200 turnouts to form crossovers but does not provide the track centerlines of the track needed when you do this.

The actual data seems to be rather sparse on the actual dimensions needed.

Stan
 
#4 ·
Stan, I agree. It is a nice graphic but there are no measurements!
I changed my above post after pulling out a few new sets of points I have. I could be out a 1mm or two.
There is no LGB 1500 R2 (radius 3') turnouts but Train-Li make them but they call them R3 as they have adopted a more sensible naming convention by calling the R# by radius.
Actually one side of the LGB 3 way turnout is an R2 the other side an R1.
So an LGB R3 turnout (4' radius) is not the same radius as a Train-Li R3 turnout (3' radius).

I don't have a Train-Li R3 turnout in hand but from the image below I calculated that the track spacing could be as close as only 130mm so irreverent because you would have to have a short section between.
As you can see their curved section is not as long (so the diverging track from the frog can be made near straight) so it being less than LGB's R1 (2' radius) and LGB R3 (4' radius) makes sense.

http://www.train-li-usa.com/store/p...i-446.html

Andrew
 
#5 ·
It seems nowadays LGB does not think giving complete track geometry information is important. Older catalogs have much more detailled information.

Bellow is a link to a copy of the 1997 LGB catalog.

LGB catalog

Hope it helps

Jose Morais
Heamaster of the CF da Lapa Furada
 
#7 ·
I assume this is for an indoor layout where you have to keep the tolerances close? Since both my inside (where I'm more concerned about the clearance to the side wall or passing trains is a factor) and outside...where everything moves due to expandsion and contraction, that the exactness isn't that critical for center to center line dimensions. Besides, half the fun is putting together "test" sections to see if it works the way you could like it. I would suggest not putting switches (turnouts) too close to the end of a curved section of layout....pilot trucks from the locomotive may navigate the change in track and the frog, but trailing rolling stock (especially fixed two wheel cars) can sometimes become derailed. Just some personal experience on where I've located cross-overs in the past. I'm sure the friend will enjoy the planning details that you are providing.
 
#9 ·
There are two ways to make parallel track from LGB 12xxx switches:

- You can use a switch and then immediately a second one or 11000 curve in the opposite direction. This is roughly 150 mm, and appears intended to form a passing track; as Greg said, it would be tight.

- You can replicate the spacing of R1 + R2 parallel curves using the 52 mm short piece between the adjacent switches (or switch + curve.) This option results in spacing of 185 mm, and slightly gentler transitions. R3 back-to-back roughly match.

I like parallel track main lines, so I use the 52 mm piece to match the R1 + R2 centerline.
 
Save
Reply Quote Like Like
#11 ·
BigRedOne,

I noticed that it went down to 150mm with R1 turnouts on a curve. They do get very close.
I think in a limited space it is best to test with locomotives and rolling stock. The long stuff is going to need wider spacing on curves especially sharp ones. On straight yards you can get away with stacking it closer together to fit another road but it will get to the point where you can only just get your fingers in there. LGB is designed for 1:22.5 and their compressed models to all be around the same width and height so once you step away from their models, tolerances will be tested. The spacing should not be seen as a recommendation, more a geometry thing so it goes together.
It is all about space. In England when they opened the Liverpool and Manchester Railway in 1830 the double track spacing was only 9'8" with extra surveying work for the curves. There was a fatal accident on opening day so they widened it later. In Australia where we have plenty of space, double tracks have a minimum spacing of 11'~15'.

Andrew
 
#12 ·
There are a lot of false informations going around about LGB radii.
I am using WinRail to design my layouts.
I planned to install a simple oval in my garage using R3.
Following early LGB documentation, R3 is 1175mm radius... that's wrong.
When I installed the planned layout, I was too close to the walls :(
To verify data, I installed a circle on the ground and I used my meter.
R3 is 1198mm full stop
Recent LGB documentation gives 1195mm, that's wrong too...
Using correct definition of R3 switches in WinRail, I get 182mm between parallel tracks.
For more radii, look here :
http://www.modell-werkstatt.de/glei...szubehoer/

I use the following figures that are 100% correct :

R3 : 1198mm of the shelf
R2.9: 1016mm parallel internal to build
R4 : 1380mm parallel external to build

For industrial tracks

R1 : 600mm of the shelf
R2 : 778mm of the shelf (775 to 785mm in the documentation)
R2.5: 956mm see link above... parallel external distance 178mm
R0: 422mm see link above... parallel internal... only for very short wagons...

Using Winrail, I had to write my own library because their library follows LGB wrong data...
 
#13 ·
Manufacturing tolerances can differ by a few millimeters and R3 rail can change diameter by 10mm between the coldest and hottest days. I was under the impression that R3 was metric 1200mm radius (rounded off to 4') So that 2mm difference of R3 you measured at 1198mm 'full stop' may be only good for that specific box of track and the particular day you measured it.
Image


Andrew
 
#14 ·
Indeed! Compared to HO, fit of LGB track exhibits tolerances visible to the naked eye.

Parallel track spacing is important for clearance of trains to each other, provision for items such as catenary masts and signals, and matching multiple radii.

In the LGB range, only R1 + R2 form adjacent tracks, and therefore the parallel track spacing is equal to the difference in radius. Since I tend to use a lot of parallel track, I base spacing on matching R1 + R2. Of course, if working in flex track, the constraint of matching parallel curves goes away.

Another consideration may be desire to accommodate unknown equipment, such as if you host others on your layout.
 
Save
Reply Quote Like Like
#15 ·
You are right, I measured R3 at 1198mm... instead of 1175mm in old LGB documentation.
I did not find differences between different tracks.
R2 is 778mm... track spacing in 178mm... not easy to get with R1 switches...
Track geometry of LGB is globally a mess... try to integrate a douple slip switch, you will understand why...
Designed to be used with R3 switches... it's R1 radius... excellent for derailment :(
 
1 - 15 of 15 Posts
About this Discussion
14 Replies
7 Participants
Last post:
ramboman
G Scale Model Train Forum
posts
460K
members
32K
Since
2007
A forum community dedicated to G scale model train owners and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about collections, displays, models, styles, scales, reviews, accessories, classifieds, and more!
Full Forum Listing
Explore Our Forums
Live Steam General G Scale Discussions Beginner's Forum Model Making Track, Trestles, Bridges and Roadbed