[CliffyJ]

I'm in the planning stages of my layout, and folks here on the forum have been hugely helpful with my questions... so here's another one.

I've been planning exclusively around Aristocraft wide-radius switches, for several reasons -- not the least of which is that their 5' radius is what I had already been planning for as a minimum radius overall.

But here's the rub. Wanting to ensure adequate space & arrangement (esp in yards), I poked around for a more detailed dimensional diagram of those switches. It was in metric; and had no radius called out. So I put it in AutoCAD, and added the Imperial dimensions:

The surprise was that the centerline radius was about 50" -- much closer to 4 feet than 5! I figured I must have something way wrong, so I wrote to AristoCraft the following:



>Hello, I am planning an extensive layout base on your WR switches (about 50 of them).


>I have always understood this product to be 5' in radius. However, in looking more closely at the geometry, it seems that something is odd.


>Please see the attached figure; it demonstrates that the dimensions produce a 50" radius — dramatically different than 60".


>Am I misunderstanding something? Maybe this is the wrong set of starting dimensions for your WR product? If so, could you provide me a


>diagram of what the actual geometry is? Please help; I've put many weeks into my layout design; and now that we


>are building retaining walls and such, a misunderstanding like this might be a very painful one on my end.


>Thanks much, and sincerely, Cliff Jennings

Now, guess what they wrote back? Only this:




>All of our track is metric, but we state it in feet causing differences. We were metric to be compatible with LGB, but Americans do not accept metric. By a sample one in advance and build around the sample.
>Aristo


Now, I've read Greg Adam's excellent article, "Tips - A-C Wide Radius Switches" http://ovgrs.editme.com/WRSwitch ; but now I'm wondering if AC mis-labels even their 5' radius sectional curves? And is otherwise sloppy in things dimensional, since we "Americans do not accept metric"?

Anyway, does anyone have a real diagram? If not, I guess I'll just buy the thing... but maybe now from LGB!

 

[CliffyJ]

Thanks for the idea Dan; their switches look great, but I'm kinda backed into a corner, in needing ~5' radius switches... no room for #6, #4's are too tight, and it seems no one makes #5's. But what am I saying? If Aristo blatently mis-labels their 50"R product as 60", I'm hosed anyway; so that opens the door to other things, if I have to re-do my arrangement anyway.

I was also counting on the lower cost of the WR's...

 

[CliffyJ]

Greg,

I looked at your article on AC WR switches, where you say:

The switches do indeed have an effective radius of 5'. It can be substituted perfectly anywhere in a 10' diameter curve, although since it's curved part is shorter than a normal piece of sectional track, a short section of curved track must be added to exactly replace one piece of sectional track.


This is in sync with what Greg Adams (you don't go by a psuedonym, do you?) wrote:

You might expect that at an angle of 18 degrees, the radius is less than 5 feet but it isn't. To verify, I superimposed one of the switches with a regular 5 foot radius, 30 degree curve. As you can see in picture 2 they align perfectly. The switch is 5 feet.
These statements make me think that the diagram I started with is not correct -- not only is it not 5', it calls out a 20 degree angle.
Or is this a different / obsolete version of the switch? I emailed Aristo for an up-to-date diagram, but I'm not holding my breath...

Thanks,
Cliff

 

[CliffyJ]

Thanks Greg; I'll check out the software you mentioned.
Still can't see how an advertised radius could be 16% off...
Regards,
Cliff
PS, Greg Adams is the author of the article I cited earlier.

 

[CliffyJ]

Absolutely right, John; but 50" when it's supposed to be 60"? That's not in the realm of "prefect tolerances": it's in the realm of either a) I've been totally barking up the wrong tree, in regards to a representative diagram or b) gross technical misrepresentation of the product. My gut says it's the former; that the diagram I thought refers to the wr's is something else. Surely it must be my ignorance! All I want to know is at least the rough dimensions of the thing.

Good news though, I just ran across the following link and embedded diagram: http://www.largescalecentral.com/LSCForums/viewtopic.php?pid=44766

I'm about to run it thru the CAD mill, and I'll post up what I find.

Thanks all,
Cliff

 

[CliffyJ]

Well, I traced the thing; and quite different dimensions!

So it looks like I DID begin with the wrong diagram. After hunting for some time, I found the link I got the initial diagram from : http://www.kcndrr.com/HowTo/Aristo%...switch.JPG

Lo and behold, I was looking at the X-Wide switch. Didn't realize the diff; my bad, sorry for all the rucus.

Anyway, this 18 degree angle matches what was said in the article I cited earlier. Still haven't found a definitive / official diagram; but 18 degrees / 20" long / 60" radius is plenty accurate for me -- even plus / minus 5%!

Thanks for all your help guys,
Cliff

 

[CliffyJ]

Wow, 2009, that's a trip down memory lane! And I still remember my deep sense of confusion and frustration over this issue.

But, the dimensional matters were solved when I went over to Train Li, ha ha!


Still have that deep sense of confusion and frustration though... Maybe it wasn't the WR's...

Cliff