Contents
Started 05Apr2026. Updated 08Apr2026. Note in work, switch finished. This note is in group Models
This is sharp and short wye switch #2
See sharp and short wye switch #1 described in My sharp curve wye switch... Observe the very important chapter Read this first in that note – it’s about when such a short and strongly curved switch is not usable!
This new switch is basically built with the same recipe, and much of the detail is therefore not repeated here. It expands MSRS v.5.1 with another side track. See here:
MSRS v.6.0
My Shelf’s Railway Strip (MSRS) is an extension of the previously described 224:[MSRS v.5.1].
Fig.1 – MSRS v.6.0 (click for PDF)
The v.6.0 main purpose is to be able to have three locos (perhaps with a car or two) swap their track positions, between Li (Left inner), Lo (Left outer), Ri (Right inner) and Ro (Right outer). Ri with the extension is the longest; it helps lot. There would be two basic scenarios: with and without the rightmost part inside the wardrobe. Therefore I needed to build a short and max curved wye switch #2.
Fig.3 – MSRS v.6.0 overview. With Märklin Crocodile 55681 SBB Ce 6/8 III and Fine Model E71. Switch #2 in front
Discoveries since wye switch #1
Not ideally curved track?
I have discovered that the curvature of 3/4 length of Märklin 59035 rail is a little more straight than the ideal circle arc! (See Wikipedia Circle). The middle of the inner rail it is about 2 mm «too straight», being some 2 mm closer to the center. (Meaningless wording since an arc would have zero «straightness», but that was the only way I was able to describe it.) I have scanned a rail and compared with a perfect curve sector made by the correct radii in my text editor (Pages) for the same rail.
I wonder why Märklin has done this – or how this might be. I have compared with a rail that still remains in a track, with sleepers, with the same observation (Second look, the two rails I have cut are not equal. One is almost correct. May the observed straightness be within tolerance?). If I connect eight of the full 59035, I get half a circle, and it looks like it easily might be persuaded to become a full correct curve of diameter C-C (center-center) of 2 * 1020 mm = 2 040 mm. (I don’t have 16 of them, for a full circle).
I will not bow the rails. (Maybe I will, since one is better than the other). Meaning that Fig.2, which show the ideal situation, may not map the real situation. I had to choose between correct mapping with faulty tracks or two «faulties». Because, my first switch already may had suffered as a consequence of following the landscape, so to say.
Ideal wye switch diverge more
I discovered that the first wye switch I made is a little narrower than it should have been, by 4.0 – 3.25 cm = 0,75 cm. I will now make it correct, meaning that the two will differ some. It would be ok for my track, but it would make a loco and a car even more vulnerable to hook ing onto each other’s buffers. See Too narrow for some loco-wagon combinations (below).
Sleeper void
Fig.4 – Ends. Last double sleeper moved up
My switch’s end piece is built more like Märklin’s 59092 (R=1394 mm, 15° ends several different pieces) and not like the ends of the obsoleted 5976 (left turnout R=1020 mm, 22.5°) or 5965 (left turnout R=600 mm, 30°). See Some switches out there (below). See figure, where the three rightmost are cropped pictures from the Märklin pages.
I don’t know what a prototype for my switch would look like, since there is no R=1.02 * 32 = 32.64 m switch out there. When will it go from sleepers that cross the whole structure (double width) to individual sleepers for each branch? There is a huge difference in when Märklin has placed the last with double width. Naturally, in the most curved it’s even before the frog heart!
What should I do with the open space in mine? The «sleeper void»? Could I just add a sleeper that crosses the inner rails? Would it be too toyish? But then, I guess that an axle with much force from might even break the rail on my switch? Guess what. I’ll just build it like the first, since it in my opinion looks nice. Whether I’ll fill the void, stay tuned 1. Update: I’ll look at the spread of the sleepers, and see whether it may be pushed a little upwards. Stay tuned 2. Update: See the new Fig.4. I decided to move the last with double width up. This made the distance between the sleepers 11.1 mm instead of 10.5 mm. The straight track from Märklin has about 14 mm, but then the curved ones varies wildly. Fig.2 is updated. (Another reason for this solution is that I don’t want the sleepers to connect at an angle like in the rightmost figure. Ok for one piece plastic, but since I want the sleepers to mechanically be a skeleton, gluing them together is not something I would even consider.)
Flangeway filler v2
See Flangeway filler v1 (224:[flangeway_filler_v1]). I’ll go for the NEM 110 [2] 1.6 mm (‘H’) value for my second switch. The Märklin rail that I use is 5.2 mm high. This means that I need to fill up 5.2 – 1.6 = 3.6 mm from the flangeway’s bottom. Update: in the final end the ‘H’ value became 1.8 mm, which also goes for a smooth ride.
The switch’s basic drawing
Fig.2 – The basic drawing of the wye switch (click for portrait mode PDF – obs, it is format A3)
If you, like me, don’t have an A3 printer, here is the A4 PDF with the same.
The text which I have removed from Fig.2 is:
| All measures in cm
Outer curve rail marked with red dot (inner in switch)
16 sleepers, width 0.85, height 0.4 + «spacer» 0.1 The arcs are mathematically correct. Pull the rails carefully out of the 59035 sleepers. Any rail may differ from the mathematically correct curvature (by up to 2 mm?). If needed bend or straighten to correct curvature carefully with your hands.
Pictures will always outrule this drawing! |
Switching
The animated view
This is my first ever animated gif:
Fig.5 – Two views, animated