Narrow gauge straights and cross track

[Hod Carrier]

I love a bit of pedantry and am not above indulging in it myself. 

I wasn't aware of the square option, though I'm not sure whether it would make a noticeable difference to traction whichever shape you choose. If the power output was higher I could be persuaded that one might grip the wheel better and resist slipping on the wheel itself. Happy to be proved wrong though.

[jrathfon]

Man! I step away for two weeks and my prayers have been answered!

My first wish for a narrow gauge system was the 4-wide track adapter to use lose rails and make a complete narrow gauge system!

I have a working and motorized narrow gauge train, ala Tweetsie, that I have been messing with. My biggest issues were a) lack of straights (problem solved!) and b) too tight turn radius.

My two big requests for a complete narrow gauge system would be:

1. Wider turns!

2. Dual gauge turn out (as I posted on JaceK's thread: Dual gauge turnout: turnout with a rail guide on the standard gauge track instead of a moving frog as pictured). This could be a passive piece of track (with rail guides/frogs) that would enable integration of a dual gauge layout.

I'm looking forward to buying some 4W straight adapters, wider narrow gauge turns, and turnouts!

[Lowa]

@coaster, @Hod Carrier,

I took the elastic bands because they are have square cross-section.  The hydraulic o-rings all seemed to have a circular cross-section and somehow I felt that the lower contact surface would give a lower grip.  I also didn't really find ones that had the right dimension, they all seemed rather thick.  I would indeed be interesting to somehow compare the grip of the 'bands' and  the 'rings' in an objective way.

[coaster]

I think the square rings should be better for traction, but I'm not sure how well the elastic bands will hold up.  They're meant to provide spring tension, not a continuous rubbing contact.  Even the stock LEGO ones crap out after so many hours.

[Lowa]

22 minutes ago, coaster said:

I think the square rings should be better for traction, but I'm not sure how well the elastic bands will hold up.  They're meant to provide spring tension, not a continuous rubbing contact.  Even the stock LEGO ones crap out after so many hours.

I didn't immediately expect durability to be an issue...  The question is why do they break ?  Eventually every 'tire' will wear down and break.  Aging of the material might be an issue too.

But elastic bands are indeed not made for friction but to provide tension; you certainly have a good point there.  The o-rings might also be made of materials that age better.  I'll continue my search for a suitable o-ring and keep you posted...

[Lowa]

On 12/16/2016 at 4:45 PM, jrathfon said:

Man! I step away for two weeks and my prayers have been answered!

My first wish for a narrow gauge system was the 4-wide track adapter to use lose rails and make a complete narrow gauge system!

I have a working and motorized narrow gauge train, ala Tweetsie, that I have been messing with. My biggest issues were a) lack of straights (problem solved!) and b) too tight turn radius.

My two big requests for a complete narrow gauge system would be:

1. Wider turns!

2. Dual gauge turn out (as I posted on JaceK's thread: Dual gauge turnout: turnout with a rail guide on the standard gauge track instead of a moving frog as pictured). This could be a passive piece of track (with rail guides/frogs) that would enable integration of a dual gauge layout.

I'm looking forward to buying some 4W straight adapters, wider narrow gauge turns, and turnouts!

Yes, turnouts are on the to-do list.

Wider narrow gauge turns are not a be a big deal to make and the dual gauge seems like in interesting concept.  But somehow, in the end, it all need to fit and make sense.  I think we should work out a concept before I start designing any particular track.  For example,

• think about what the best radius (or multiple) would be, especially if we start mixing narrow gauge and standard gauge
• In how many segments are we going to split the wider range curves
• for every radius we should have matching switches/turnouts and the track that splits off should connect to the rest of the layout might use another radius.
• etc.

I really think we first need to work out an 'extended track concept' and make sure everything will line up before making anything.  Is anyone aware if something like this has been done before for narrow gauge ?

[coaster]

1 hour ago, Lowa said:

I didn't immediately expect durability to be an issue...  The question is why do they break ?  Eventually every 'tire' will wear down and break.  Aging of the material might be an issue too.

But elastic bands are indeed not made for friction but to provide tension; you certainly have a good point there.  The o-rings might also be made of materials that age better.  I'll continue my search for a suitable o-ring and keep you posted...

Age is certainly a factor, but natural latex just simply will wear faster than a Buna-N or EPDM ring. 

[jrathfon]

On 12/18/2016 at 10:01 PM, Lowa said:

Yes, turnouts are on the to-do list.

Wider narrow gauge turns are not a be a big deal to make and the dual gauge seems like in interesting concept.  But somehow, in the end, it all need to fit and make sense.  I think we should work out a concept before I start designing any particular track.  For example,

• think about what the best radius (or multiple) would be, especially if we start mixing narrow gauge and standard gauge
• In how many segments are we going to split the wider range curves
• for every radius we should have matching switches/turnouts and the track that splits off should connect to the rest of the layout might use another radius.
• etc.

I really think we first need to work out an 'extended track concept' and make sure everything will line up before making anything.  Is anyone aware if something like this has been done before for narrow gauge ?

That's a good question and idea, a complete "narrow gauge concept". First, the easiest answer: I would say for switch/turnouts, pick one radius and stick with it at first. Having multiple radii switches is just overly complex. Maybe multiple radii switches would be good in the future, but one realistic working switch would be just fine!

In terms of a complete system, I'd start with the basics:

Straights: full, 1/2 (already available with an adapter and lose straights from Lego)

Curves: the current radius is two tight for even a basic 4-6-0, with "Medium" drivers, a Flange-Blind-Flange (BBB blind medium) rubs in the curve and binds. Thus, I would vote the "standard" narrow gauge curve would be an R40. I believe (haven't set it up in a bit) the Lego 4W curve sits inside a 6W standard R40 curve (so the Lego 4W is I believe R24). With R56 track out now for 6W, a happy narrow gauge curve could be an R40. This would fit with the scale of narrow gauge railways having tighter radii than standard gauge and would fit in the standard/narrow gauge overall ecosystem.

Switches: Pick a radii and stick with it. 4W R24 makes steam trucks bind (F-B-F). I'd vote R40 switch/turnouts to start.

Dual gauge turnout: This would allow for real modelling like in Zellamsee/Salzburg where a standard gauge railway meets a mountain railway. This is just one piece that would allow for a mountain railway to meet at the same train station as a standard gauge train.

Cross track/stub switches/etc: I feel these are mainly a novelty and will not be used on a large scale. Nice to have, but not the first steps in a complete system.

My 3 pennies.

 

 

[coaster]

The radius actually matters; it can't be chosen arbitrarily, which sadly, the existing narrow gauge track was.  R24 is useless for everything when it comes to switches; it should have actually been R30.  Nominal wide radius is R78 (or R150 if you want to go big).

 

Lowa, shoot me an email or pm if you want to discuss.  I have the skeletal model for the narrow gauge tracks worked out already.  No sense in either of us reinventing the wheel.

[Lowa]

21 minutes ago, coaster said:

The radius actually matters; it can't be chosen arbitrarily, which sadly, the existing narrow gauge track was.  R24 is useless for everything when it comes to switches; it should have actually been R30.  Nominal wide radius is R78 (or R150 if you want to go big).

Interesting, have you ever published anything on this on forums ?

[coaster]

2 hours ago, Lowa said:

Interesting, have you ever published anything on this on forums ?

On the narrow gauge, no.  I've only framed it out; it was something to do as a break from the standard tracks I've been working on (If you're not familiar with it, see the BrickTracks thread here).  My intention long term was to develop the narrow gauge line as well, assuming I can get the standard stuff off the ground.

EDIT: I should clarify, it depends entirely on how you want to view the track system.  You could follow the standard R40 model exactly with centerline distance between parallel tracks at 16 studs, and then your geometry is exactly the same.  However, that looks really weird with the narrow gauge tracks, as they're simply too far apart.  12 stud centers look a lot better.

Edited December 21, 2016 by coaster

[jrathfon]

20 hours ago, coaster said:

On the narrow gauge, no.  I've only framed it out; it was something to do as a break from the standard tracks I've been working on (If you're not familiar with it, see the BrickTracks thread here).  My intention long term was to develop the narrow gauge line as well, assuming I can get the standard stuff off the ground.

EDIT: I should clarify, it depends entirely on how you want to view the track system.  You could follow the standard R40 model exactly with centerline distance between parallel tracks at 16 studs, and then your geometry is exactly the same.  However, that looks really weird with the narrow gauge tracks, as they're simply too far apart.  12 stud centers look a lot better.

Coaster, what I think you are saying is that since the R40, R56, R72 paradigm is based on 40 stud center radius, and the narrow gauge track is 6 studs instead of 8 studs wide, the stock lego R24 would look odd, not having the 8 studs between track spacing that standard gauge has? If you were to inset narrow gauge inside of standard gauge and maintain the 8 stud separation, wouldn't you use R25? Which would also be odd. Even for narrow gauge to be "at scale" (another discussion in and of itself), I feel R40 would be about as small as you want to go. Currently to go larger radius in lego narrow gauge, like on the Puffing Billy, we use 12V loose curve rail and hodge podge it together.

I understand the 8 stud argument with the track interval then being 12 studs (R28, R40, R52, etc). Where are you getting R78 and R150? By nominal you mean "at scale" compared to real world examples?

I would vote for a narrow gauge "standard" that works alongside the lego standard gauge. I think there would be two types of AFOL modelers: 1) making an entire narrow gauge layout or 2) making a layout like in the alps with standard and narrow gauges being side-by-side. I think both will be as popular as most (if not all) of the "lego gauge" modelers have the standard gauge lego equipment. Thus, making a system that looks good along side standard gauge should be considered. This is why I proposed R40 as the basis of narrow gauge switches and system (inside an R56 loop), but you are correct, nesting any size narrow gauge track inside of standard gauge track will have spacing issues as R40, R56 R72 with R24, R36, R48, R60 (or whichever narrow gauge spacing we chose) will never mesh exactly.

jrathfon, king of run-on sentences.

[coaster]

32 minutes ago, jrathfon said:

Coaster, what I think you are saying is that since the R40, R56, R72 paradigm is based on 40 stud center radius, and the narrow gauge track is 6 studs instead of 8 studs wide, the stock lego R24 would look odd, not having the 8 studs between track spacing that standard gauge has? If you were to inset narrow gauge inside of standard gauge and maintain the 8 stud separation, wouldn't you use R25? Which would also be odd. Even for narrow gauge to be "at scale" (another discussion in and of itself), I feel R40 would be about as small as you want to go. Currently to go larger radius in lego narrow gauge, like on the Puffing Billy, we use 12V loose curve rail and hodge podge it together.

I understand the 8 stud argument with the track interval then being 12 studs (R28, R40, R52, etc). Where are you getting R78 and R150? By nominal you mean "at scale" compared to real world examples?

I would vote for a narrow gauge "standard" that works alongside the lego standard gauge. I think there would be two types of AFOL modelers: 1) making an entire narrow gauge layout or 2) making a layout like in the alps with standard and narrow gauges being side-by-side. I think both will be as popular as most (if not all) of the "lego gauge" modelers have the standard gauge lego equipment. Thus, making a system that looks good along side standard gauge should be considered. This is why I proposed R40 as the basis of narrow gauge switches and system (inside an R56 loop), but you are correct, nesting any size narrow gauge track inside of standard gauge track will have spacing issues as R40, R56 R72 with R24, R36, R48, R60 (or whichever narrow gauge spacing we chose) will never mesh exactly.

jrathfon, king of run-on sentences.

More or less, yes.  When you compare real world examples of narrow gauge track to how we would space out the straight sections in LEGO, the 12 stud centers look more realistic.  Compare:

      

This is probably a discussion point for the community at large.  Once we make that determination though, we have to do some math.  The 12 stud spacing fails when we look at switches.  Switches only fit the stud grid at certain intervals (I have a formula for it), and you have to have the right starting point for it to work.  The R24 isn't it; it should be R30.  Moving up then, we don't hit the next viable switch radii till R78 and R150, so those, naturally, should be wide-radius curve sizes.  However, if we want to get into dual gauge, then we obviously have to stick with the 16 stud centers.  Does this make sense?

[M_slug357]

@coaster  ((I don't get it))   :/

I honestly think that dual gauge track, while tremendously fascinating, may be too complex to actually do. Especially when it comes to curve track & switches.

Are we talking about a dual gauge system where:

1. A standard rail section has 2 additional rails in between for narrow gauge use?  ||..||
2. A standard rail section has 1 additional rail that's offset to one side, and shares a rail with narrow gauge? |.|..|

The first scenario would be easier to implement (in my mind) but requires more rails/materials. The second one requires less rails/materials but could get very complicated to implement.

[coaster]

@M_slug357 I'm just referring to the narrow gauge tracks alone.  I agree, I think dual gauge will be too complex to implement. 

The question is simply: In a strictly narrow gauge layout, if you have a double track bed, what is the center-to-center distance between those parallel tracks?  Standard gauge would be 16 studs, but I think that looks like too much and would vote for 12 studs.

[Lowa]

1 hour ago, coaster said:

Switches only fit the stud grid at certain intervals 

I don't understand what you mean with this, LEGO switches don't line with stud grids...  The centers of the connections between the curves don't line with the grid either.  Monorail curves do, that's in fact the reason why the monorail curves are not 100% circular, they have a short straight section to make sure the center of the rail lines up with the LEGO grid, which is needed to put the stanchions.  It also one of the reasons why the short curves have those zig-zag ends: the know which side is which because both sides have a slightly different shape.  I'm not aware of anything similar with the train track, as far a I know they are pure circle segments and therefore don't line up with the grid.

21 minutes ago, coaster said:

 Standard gauge would be 16 studs, but I think that looks like too much and would vote for 12 studs.

I totally agree, 12 studs looks much better than 16 studs for the narrow gauge.

[coaster]

@Lowa Sure they do.  If you put a single R40 curve on the end of the LEGO switch (going parallel), you're exactly 16 studs x 48 studs from where you started.  If you tried to make an R56 switch, however, and still be 16 studs over, you'd end up at ...crunching numbers...57.69 studs; not gonna work.  This is why the standard LEGO switch has that weird whip at the end.  If they kept it circular but still wanted to allow for sidings, it would have to terminate at ...more crunching... 36.87°.  They would have had to also make an 8.13° and a 14.37° curve (although, I think this would have been a preferable design to what they gave us, but that's a discussion for another time)

As such, while you might need some weird angle curves, it's still only physically possible to have switches exist at specific radii without also requiring weird length straights.

[Lowa]

30 minutes ago, M_slug357 said:

@coaster  ((I don't get it))   :/

I honestly think that dual gauge track, while tremendously fascinating, may be too complex to actually do. Especially when it comes to curve track & switches.

Are we talking about a dual gauge system where:

1. A standard rail section has 2 additional rails in between for narrow gauge use?  ||..||
2. A standard rail section has 1 additional rail that's offset to one side, and shares a rail with narrow gauge? |.|..|

The first scenario would be easier to implement (in my mind) but requires more rails/materials. The second one requires less rails/materials but could get very complicated to implement.

|| .. || or |.|..| is indeed an important question.  (By the way, great way to represent the 2 options !)

I guess with ||..|| it could get very complicated to make a narrow gauge switch that leaves the standard gauge track, that seems easier with the |.|..| system.  I guess |.|..| would look more realistic too.  But |.|..| might require additional parts because it's not symmetrical, from that perspective ||..|| might be the better option.  I think it's difficult to say at this point what would be the hardest to make; I guess we need to make models and see how it works to fully understand the consequences of both systems.

But maybe 'being hard' should not be our main concern at this point.  What system would you prefer:  what would look best, what would be most fun ?  Maybe that should be our starting point: what would be the dual gauge system we want ?  And then we see whether it's feasible to make it.  There usually always is a way....

 

[Lowa]

4 minutes ago, coaster said:

@Lowa Sure they do.  If you put a single R40 curve on the end of the LEGO switch (going parallel), you're exactly 16 studs x 48 studs from where you started.  If you tried to make an R56 switch, however, and still be 16 studs over, you'd end up at ...crunching numbers...57.69 studs; not gonna work.  This is why the standard LEGO switch has that weird whip at the end.  If they kept it circular but still wanted to allow for sidings, it would have to terminate at ...more crunching... 36.87°.  They would have had to also make an 8.13° and a 14.37° curve (although, I think this would have been a preferable design to what they gave us, but that's a discussion for another time)

As such, while you might need some weird angle curves, it's still only physically possible to have switches exist at specific radii without also requiring weird length straights.

Ok, from that perspective, that's indeed an issue.  That's the same with the monorail switches, LEGO also use a modified shape to make it work.  

I haven't done the math but it's indeed makes sense that that will only be possible with certain radii.  I sort of consider the radii as 'fixed' and something we have to work with.  My idea was to make switches with a pure circular turnout section and then provide two additional 'adapters': a circular one that continues the turn up to the next circular segment, one that turns back to a parallel track and continues up to the next straight section.  That gives you flexibility with your switch - you can use it for both options - depending on the 'adapter' you connect to it.  It's a concept that is generally applicable to any switch, any radius.  You need more types of segments (= the adapters), yes, but I think that inevitable if you're expanding to a more complex track system.  We add a number on every track type we make so you can easily distinguish all the track sections.  You see an application of the concept below for a R40 switch, 1 switch, 2 adapters (dark gray), 3 possible uses...  I also think this is the only feasible approach to combine narrow and standard gauge.

 

 

[AussieJimbo]

Having played with narrow gauge before it's been great to see this discussion and the rapid prototyping of new solutions. I have made layouts with the LEGO narrow gauge curves and LEGO single straight rail pieces to make up the straights. It's not all that difficult using jumper plates to line up the different rail types but the new 3D parts I've seen here make it so easy.

My preferred dual gauge solution would be a 3 rail system implemented on top of standard LEGO curves, with a custom curved rail piece with spacings for the studs so you can just place them on top of the LEGO sleepers, 2 studs in from the outer curve. You need 2 variants; one for when the 3rd rail is close to the outside rail and one where it's close to the inner rail. ie.  .(.(..(.  and .).)..). 

LEGO already has us sorted with the single straight rail piece for straights/ ie.  .|.|..|.  so you'd use the same square ended rail for the curve. These two custom curve piece would be enough to get started running narrow gauge trains with better radius than the standard narrow curves.

However all this would depend on being able to produce the custom pieces with adequate clutch power. Is that achievable with the current 3D printing technology?

Switches/points of course are a challenge and would probably require a completely custom piece.

 

 

4 minutes ago, Lowa said:

You see an application of the concept below for a R40 switch, 1 switch, 2 adapters (dark gray), 3 possible uses...  I also think this is the only feasible approach to combine narrow and standard gauge.

 

Looks like a great solution.

This is where the 3 rail dual gauge gets tricky. You need two variations of the left hand switch to make the connection you've shown on the right. So four variations of the switch to cover all eventualities. Then again, maybe that's not such an issue when you are printing them one at a time anyway. 

 

 

Edited December 22, 2016 by AussieJimbo

[coaster]

3 minutes ago, Lowa said:

Ok, from that perspective, that's indeed an issue.  That's the same with the monorail switches, LEGO also use a modified shape to make it work.  

I haven't done the math but it's indeed makes sense that that will only be possible with certain radii.  I sort of consider the radii as 'fixed' and something we have to work with.  My idea was to make switches with a pure circular turnout section and then provide two additional 'adapters': a circular one that continues the turn up to the next circular segment, one that turns back to a parallel track and continues up to the next straight section.  That gives you flexibility with your switch - you can use it for both options - depending on the 'adapter' you connect to it.  It's a concept that is generally applicable to any switch, any radius.  You need more types of segments (= the adapters), yes, but I think that inevitable if you're expanding to a more complex track system.  We add a number on every track type we make so you can easily distinguish all the track sections.  You see an application of the concept below for a R40 switch, 1 switch, 2 adapters (dark gray), 3 possible uses...  I also think this is the only feasible approach to combine narrow and standard gauge.

 

 

We're more or less on the same page.  The only issue I'll point out is the crossovers are strictly impossible at the uneven size switches, since there's no way to put an adapter between them.  In other words, you couldn't make an R56 crossover work, unless you also want to make 2 different length straights to adapt on each end.  Realistically, I don't even think it'd be necessary anyway, so I wouldn't bother.

Here's my R104 solution, pretty much exactly what you posted:

 

 

As for the narrow gauge stuff though, the same principles could be applied, and in fact the special angles will still work out to be the same, just at different radii.  Dual gauge would be a different project altogether.  @AussieJimbo hits on it exactly; it should be done 3 rail, but you need two versions of everything, one with a common inside rail and one with the common outside.  It's doable, especially with 3D printing, but it's probably not viable as a molded solution.

Honestly, these projects could be done in tandem, but I think they're different enough that they should be kept separate projects.

 

[jrathfon]

Lots of posts! Hopefully that means lots of interest!

I think we are all mostly in agreement on a number of points (no pun intended):

12 stud spacing for narrow gauge maintains the 8 stud visual gap between tracks. I get the idea on switches, but picking a 12 stud interval and going with it would likely be best. Would R24 (IJ current lego track), R36, R48 be the natural choice? Any interval you pick, the narrow gauge curves will not nest perfectly 8 studs away from lego standard gauge spacings because 1/2 of the 6 wide track is 3, so 12 studs center-to-center (or any spacing for a narrow gauge system) will never work with the standard gauge 16 stud center-to-center.

Yes, I was talking about dual gauge as |.|..|  This does add a chiral "handed-ness" to turnouts and switches. As was mentioned, using loose straight rail already allows straight pieces to be added to lego standard straights to make dual gauge. I was thinking simple in my mind and sticking to say (.(..( curves and dual gauge turnouts vs. going deep in and making dual gauge switches (headache). A simple dual gauge turnout with narrow gauge turning out of a standard straight could be a passive piece (no moving switch parts) done with frogs/wheel guides.

I know this all starts to get complex, but as I mentioned before I feel that there will be two types of narrow gauge layouts: 1) alongside standard lego trains and 2) stand-alone narrow gauge layouts (like puffing billy). Starting simple with the inlaid curve rail piece (.(..(, and two "inside" turnouts, would allow for an almost complete dual gauge solution (allowing narrow gauge to come into standard gauge stations).

My overarching point and vision on the start of narrow gauge, we need:

1. Straights (already covered with loose lego rail) - adapter from lego square rail ends to IJ lego narrow gauge track would be nice

2. Wider curves - R24, R36, R48? or R30, R42, R54? (R30 and R54 could mesh with R40 standard? drawing?)

3. Switch - start with one (KISS), so R30 to keep on the stud plain?

4. WOULD BE REALLY NICE BUT NOT INITIALLY NECESSARY!! Dual gauge curve piece (.(..( and simple passive inside turnout (2 handednesses).

The hardest part I think is the curve standard. Coaster brings up good points with sticking to the stud grid, but I fear R30 turns and switches will still be prohibitive when modelling steamers with F-B-F, F-B-F-B etc. drivers.

Edited December 22, 2016 by jrathfon

[jrathfon]

3 hours ago, coaster said:

@Lowa Sure they do.  If you put a single R40 curve on the end of the LEGO switch (going parallel), you're exactly 16 studs x 48 studs from where you started.  If you tried to make an R56 switch, however, and still be 16 studs over, you'd end up at ...crunching numbers...57.69 studs; not gonna work.  This is why the standard LEGO switch has that weird whip at the end.  If they kept it circular but still wanted to allow for sidings, it would have to terminate at ...more crunching... 36.87°.  They would have had to also make an 8.13° and a 14.37° curve (although, I think this would have been a preferable design to what they gave us, but that's a discussion for another time)

As such, while you might need some weird angle curves, it's still only physically possible to have switches exist at specific radii without also requiring weird length straights.

So another thought. Coaster: If say we pick R24, R36, R48 (keeping IJ lego track relevant), when making switches, instead of making "weird length straights", we didn't keep the curve radius perfectly constant. If R30 adheres to the grid, could we make R48 switches and using a "golden spiral" or logarithmic curve to "fudge" the R48 switches to conform to the grid? Or would making a 0.67 stud straight adapter (or lengthening the switch pieces equally) be easier?

[ritzcrackerman]

@Lowa

I am still following this thread - did you ever make the smallest wheels (that accept technic axle) available on your Bricklink store?  I'll purchase what you have and do some field tests - see if I can get them to work.  :)

Cheers,

James

[coaster]

On 12/22/2016 at 5:48 PM, jrathfon said:

So another thought. Coaster: If say we pick R24, R36, R48 (keeping IJ lego track relevant), when making switches, instead of making "weird length straights", we didn't keep the curve radius perfectly constant. If R30 adheres to the grid, could we make R48 switches and using a "golden spiral" or logarithmic curve to "fudge" the R48 switches to conform to the grid? Or would making a 0.67 stud straight adapter (or lengthening the switch pieces equally) be easier?

Hi @jrathfon, just realized I never answered you on this, but you have brought up an interesting point.  The crossovers have always assumed connecting the switches directly together.  If, however, we concede a straight section between them, then yes, not only is it possible to adhere to the stud grid, but you can also do it with integer length straights (you still need bizarre-o angles for the switches, but they're at least consistent).