@willcgage/module-schematic 0.53.0 → 0.55.0

package/dist/index.d.cts

@@ -1039,22 +1039,25 @@ declare const RAIL_GAUGE_INCHES = 0.354;
  * frog, i.e. a turnout's LEAD if lead were proportional to frog number. From an
  * Atlas code 55 #7 measuring 3⅜″ (Steve Branton, #173) ⇒ 3.375 / 7.
  *
- * It is NOT proportional. Measured lead ÷ N: **#7 = 0.482, #10 = 0.419.** The
- * rule predicted 4.82″ for the #10; it measures 4³⁄₁₆″ — **13% over**. Atlas
- * compress the lead on long turnouts, just as they compress overall length.
+ * It is NOT proportional. Measured lead ÷ N: **#5 = 0.600, #7 = 0.482,
+ * #10 = 0.494.** This rule reads ~20% SHORT at N=5 (2.41″ vs a measured 3.00″).
  *
  * Prefer {@link leadInchesForSize}, which returns a real part's measurement when
  * one exists and only falls back here for sizes nothing in the library covers.
- * A fallback at N ≥ 10 will read LONG.
+ * ⚠️ The remaining fallback user is the #2.5 wye at 1.21″; since per-frog is
+ * HIGHEST at the low end (0.600 at N=5), that is very likely SHORT. It is a
+ * placeholder, not a value.
  *
- * BETTER MODEL (hypothesis, not yet enough data): a roughly CONSTANT SWITCH
- * ANGLE α — the angle the point rails leave the stock rail at — which is real
- * prototype practice, points being planed to a standard angle. Inverting
- * {@link turnoutClosure} gives `lead = 2g / (1/N + α)`, and the two measured
- * leads agree to 3%: #7 ⇒ α = 0.0669, #10 ⇒ α = 0.0691. If it holds, lead is
- * whatever falls out of a fixed point angle meeting the frog, not a multiple
- * of N. DISCRIMINATING TEST: at α ≈ 0.068 the #5's lead is **2.64″**, where
- * this constant says 2.41″ — measure a physical 2050 to settle it.
+ * A constant-switch-angle model was also proposed here and is likewise REFUTED:
+ * inverting {@link turnoutClosure} gives α = 0.036 (#5), 0.067 (#7), 0.043
+ * (#10). Kept as a warning — it was floated when the #7 and #10 agreed to 3%,
+ * on a #10 figure that later turned out to be measured to the wrong landmark.
+ * TWO AGREEING PARTS ARE NOT A LAW, and neither is a coincidence you haven't
+ * checked the provenance of.
+ *
+ * The pattern that currently fits is on {@link ATLAS_CODE55_N}: the moulding
+ * runs past the frog far enough to gain a constant 0.25″ of separation. Note it
+ * predicts the FROG POSITION, not the lead — this constant has no successor.
  */
 declare const TURNOUT_LEAD_INCHES_PER_FROG = 0.482;
 /** Where a dimension came from. `derived` = we computed it from another part or
@@ -1103,6 +1106,13 @@ interface TrackPart {
      * inside its moulding; the rest of that end is plain approach track. Needed to
      * fit a part into a space, and by any renderer drawing the real outline. */
     pointsOffset?: PartDimension;
+    /** End of the tie strip → the APEX OF THE FROG V, measured from the same end
+     * as {@link pointsOffset}. ⚠️ The apex, NOT the end of the frog casting — on a
+     * shallow #10 those are ¾″ apart, which is how this library recorded a wrong
+     * #10 lead through two releases. `lead` is the difference of the two, so
+     * prefer these when both are known: they're what someone can actually put a
+     * rule against. */
+    frogOffset?: PartDimension;
     /** End-to-end length of the part. */
     overallLength?: PartDimension;
     /** Diverging route radius (straight turnouts). */
@@ -1123,26 +1133,46 @@ declare const CODE55_RAIL_HEIGHT_INCHES = 0.055;
  * (3⅜″ points→frog, #173) and Will Gage's #5/#7/#10 overall lengths plus the
  * #10's lead and points offset. The #5's lead and the wye's are still derived.
  *
- * NEITHER DIMENSION IS PROPORTIONAL TO FROG NUMBER. Both rules that assumed so
- * have now been tested and failed:
- * - **Lead does NOT scale with N.** Measured lead ÷ N: #7 = 0.482, #10 = 0.419.
- *   {@link TURNOUT_LEAD_INCHES_PER_FROG} predicted 4.82″ for the #10 against a
- *   measured 4³⁄₁₆″ — 13% over. See that constant for the constant-switch-angle
- *   model that fits both measurements, and the test that would confirm it.
- * - ⭐ **Overall length is NOT A FUNCTION OF N AT ALL.** Measured: #5 = 6.00″,
- *   **#7 = 6.00″**, #10 = 8.00″. The #5 and #7 are the SAME LENGTH — Atlas mould
- *   them on a shared 6″ tie strip and vary only the frog angle and where the frog
- *   sits. NEVER derive a length from a frog number; look the part up.
+ * MEASURED GEOMETRY (all Will Gage's, off physical parts, frog taken at the V):
+ *
+ *     part   points   frog V    overall   lead      past frog   ÷N
+ *     #5     1¾″      4.75″     6.00″     3.0000″   1.25″       0.2500
+ *     #7     —        4³⁄₁₆″    6.00″     3.3750″*  1.8125″     0.2589
+ *     #10    ⁹⁄₁₆″    5.50″     8.00″     4.9375″   2.50″       0.2500
+ *
+ *     * the #7's lead is Steve Branton's (#173), a DIFFERENT person and possibly
+ *       a different convention. Its points offset has never been measured, so
+ *       4³⁄₁₆ − 3⅜ = ¹³⁄₁₆″ is implied, not observed. Measure a 2052 to close it.
+ *
+ * ⭐ **THE PART RUNS PAST THE FROG FAR ENOUGH TO GAIN 0.25″ OF SEPARATION.**
+ * Past-frog run ÷ N is 0.2500 / 0.2589 / 0.2500 — the #5 and #10 EXACT, the #7
+ * within ¹⁄₁₆″ of the tie end (a 4¼″ frog would make it exact too). At the frog
+ * the routes are one gauge apart; at the end of the moulding they are
+ * 0.354 + 0.25 ≈ 0.6″ apart. So Atlas size the moulding for a constant
+ * CLEARANCE, not a constant length — which is what a manufacturer would
+ * sensibly do, and why overall length looks arbitrary until you divide by N.
+ * ⚠️ It predicts the FROG POSITION from the overall length. It does NOT predict
+ * the lead — the points offset is independent and must still be measured.
+ * ⚠️ HYPOTHESIS. It is the FOURTH rule fitted to this data; the first three all
+ * died. Two exact hits and a near miss is not a law.
  *
- * This is what the frog-number definition actually says, and it's easy to forget:
- * #N fixes the DIVERGENCE RATE AT THE FROG (1 across per N along). It says
- * nothing about how much tie strip the manufacturer wraps around it. Angle is
- * geometry; length is packaging. Hence the lead — where the frog falls inside
- * that strip — is the only dimension worth chasing.
+ * NOTHING HERE IS PROPORTIONAL TO FROG NUMBER. Three rules assumed otherwise;
+ * all three were tested against a physical part and FAILED:
+ * - ❌ **Lead ∝ N.** Measured lead ÷ N: #5 = 0.600, #7 = 0.482, #10 = 0.494.
+ *   {@link TURNOUT_LEAD_INCHES_PER_FROG} reads ~20% SHORT at N=5.
+ * - ❌ **Constant switch angle.** Inverting {@link turnoutClosure} gives α =
+ *   0.036 (#5), 0.067 (#7), 0.043 (#10). Not constant.
+ * - ❌ **Overall length ∝ N.** #5 = 6.00″ and #7 = 6.00″ — same moulding, two
+ *   frog numbers.
+ * - ❌ **Frog fixed at 4.75″** (shipped in 0.54.0, retracted in 0.55.0). It
+ *   rested on the #5 and #10 both reading 4.75″, but the #10's was the END OF
+ *   THE FROG CASTING, not the V. Measured consistently the frogs are at 4.75″,
+ *   4³⁄₁₆″ and 5.5″ — all different.
  *
- * (Lengths are whole inches and the #5 diverges at exactly 1/32 of a circle, so
- * Atlas do seem to work to round numbers — but a prediction that the #7 would
- * therefore be 7.00″ was tested and FAILED. Round, but not one inch per frog.)
+ * The definition is the reason: #N fixes the DIVERGENCE RATE AT THE FROG (1
+ * across per N along) and says NOTHING about how much tie strip the manufacturer
+ * wraps around it, or where inside it the frog goes. Angle is geometry;
+ * everything else is a tooling decision. **Measure the part. Do not model it.**
  */
 declare const ATLAS_CODE55_N: TrackPart[];
 /** Every built-in part, across manufacturers. */

package/dist/index.d.ts

@@ -1039,22 +1039,25 @@ declare const RAIL_GAUGE_INCHES = 0.354;
  * frog, i.e. a turnout's LEAD if lead were proportional to frog number. From an
  * Atlas code 55 #7 measuring 3⅜″ (Steve Branton, #173) ⇒ 3.375 / 7.
  *
- * It is NOT proportional. Measured lead ÷ N: **#7 = 0.482, #10 = 0.419.** The
- * rule predicted 4.82″ for the #10; it measures 4³⁄₁₆″ — **13% over**. Atlas
- * compress the lead on long turnouts, just as they compress overall length.
+ * It is NOT proportional. Measured lead ÷ N: **#5 = 0.600, #7 = 0.482,
+ * #10 = 0.494.** This rule reads ~20% SHORT at N=5 (2.41″ vs a measured 3.00″).
  *
  * Prefer {@link leadInchesForSize}, which returns a real part's measurement when
  * one exists and only falls back here for sizes nothing in the library covers.
- * A fallback at N ≥ 10 will read LONG.
+ * ⚠️ The remaining fallback user is the #2.5 wye at 1.21″; since per-frog is
+ * HIGHEST at the low end (0.600 at N=5), that is very likely SHORT. It is a
+ * placeholder, not a value.
  *
- * BETTER MODEL (hypothesis, not yet enough data): a roughly CONSTANT SWITCH
- * ANGLE α — the angle the point rails leave the stock rail at — which is real
- * prototype practice, points being planed to a standard angle. Inverting
- * {@link turnoutClosure} gives `lead = 2g / (1/N + α)`, and the two measured
- * leads agree to 3%: #7 ⇒ α = 0.0669, #10 ⇒ α = 0.0691. If it holds, lead is
- * whatever falls out of a fixed point angle meeting the frog, not a multiple
- * of N. DISCRIMINATING TEST: at α ≈ 0.068 the #5's lead is **2.64″**, where
- * this constant says 2.41″ — measure a physical 2050 to settle it.
+ * A constant-switch-angle model was also proposed here and is likewise REFUTED:
+ * inverting {@link turnoutClosure} gives α = 0.036 (#5), 0.067 (#7), 0.043
+ * (#10). Kept as a warning — it was floated when the #7 and #10 agreed to 3%,
+ * on a #10 figure that later turned out to be measured to the wrong landmark.
+ * TWO AGREEING PARTS ARE NOT A LAW, and neither is a coincidence you haven't
+ * checked the provenance of.
+ *
+ * The pattern that currently fits is on {@link ATLAS_CODE55_N}: the moulding
+ * runs past the frog far enough to gain a constant 0.25″ of separation. Note it
+ * predicts the FROG POSITION, not the lead — this constant has no successor.
  */
 declare const TURNOUT_LEAD_INCHES_PER_FROG = 0.482;
 /** Where a dimension came from. `derived` = we computed it from another part or
@@ -1103,6 +1106,13 @@ interface TrackPart {
      * inside its moulding; the rest of that end is plain approach track. Needed to
      * fit a part into a space, and by any renderer drawing the real outline. */
     pointsOffset?: PartDimension;
+    /** End of the tie strip → the APEX OF THE FROG V, measured from the same end
+     * as {@link pointsOffset}. ⚠️ The apex, NOT the end of the frog casting — on a
+     * shallow #10 those are ¾″ apart, which is how this library recorded a wrong
+     * #10 lead through two releases. `lead` is the difference of the two, so
+     * prefer these when both are known: they're what someone can actually put a
+     * rule against. */
+    frogOffset?: PartDimension;
     /** End-to-end length of the part. */
     overallLength?: PartDimension;
     /** Diverging route radius (straight turnouts). */
@@ -1123,26 +1133,46 @@ declare const CODE55_RAIL_HEIGHT_INCHES = 0.055;
  * (3⅜″ points→frog, #173) and Will Gage's #5/#7/#10 overall lengths plus the
  * #10's lead and points offset. The #5's lead and the wye's are still derived.
  *
- * NEITHER DIMENSION IS PROPORTIONAL TO FROG NUMBER. Both rules that assumed so
- * have now been tested and failed:
- * - **Lead does NOT scale with N.** Measured lead ÷ N: #7 = 0.482, #10 = 0.419.
- *   {@link TURNOUT_LEAD_INCHES_PER_FROG} predicted 4.82″ for the #10 against a
- *   measured 4³⁄₁₆″ — 13% over. See that constant for the constant-switch-angle
- *   model that fits both measurements, and the test that would confirm it.
- * - ⭐ **Overall length is NOT A FUNCTION OF N AT ALL.** Measured: #5 = 6.00″,
- *   **#7 = 6.00″**, #10 = 8.00″. The #5 and #7 are the SAME LENGTH — Atlas mould
- *   them on a shared 6″ tie strip and vary only the frog angle and where the frog
- *   sits. NEVER derive a length from a frog number; look the part up.
+ * MEASURED GEOMETRY (all Will Gage's, off physical parts, frog taken at the V):
+ *
+ *     part   points   frog V    overall   lead      past frog   ÷N
+ *     #5     1¾″      4.75″     6.00″     3.0000″   1.25″       0.2500
+ *     #7     —        4³⁄₁₆″    6.00″     3.3750″*  1.8125″     0.2589
+ *     #10    ⁹⁄₁₆″    5.50″     8.00″     4.9375″   2.50″       0.2500
+ *
+ *     * the #7's lead is Steve Branton's (#173), a DIFFERENT person and possibly
+ *       a different convention. Its points offset has never been measured, so
+ *       4³⁄₁₆ − 3⅜ = ¹³⁄₁₆″ is implied, not observed. Measure a 2052 to close it.
+ *
+ * ⭐ **THE PART RUNS PAST THE FROG FAR ENOUGH TO GAIN 0.25″ OF SEPARATION.**
+ * Past-frog run ÷ N is 0.2500 / 0.2589 / 0.2500 — the #5 and #10 EXACT, the #7
+ * within ¹⁄₁₆″ of the tie end (a 4¼″ frog would make it exact too). At the frog
+ * the routes are one gauge apart; at the end of the moulding they are
+ * 0.354 + 0.25 ≈ 0.6″ apart. So Atlas size the moulding for a constant
+ * CLEARANCE, not a constant length — which is what a manufacturer would
+ * sensibly do, and why overall length looks arbitrary until you divide by N.
+ * ⚠️ It predicts the FROG POSITION from the overall length. It does NOT predict
+ * the lead — the points offset is independent and must still be measured.
+ * ⚠️ HYPOTHESIS. It is the FOURTH rule fitted to this data; the first three all
+ * died. Two exact hits and a near miss is not a law.
  *
- * This is what the frog-number definition actually says, and it's easy to forget:
- * #N fixes the DIVERGENCE RATE AT THE FROG (1 across per N along). It says
- * nothing about how much tie strip the manufacturer wraps around it. Angle is
- * geometry; length is packaging. Hence the lead — where the frog falls inside
- * that strip — is the only dimension worth chasing.
+ * NOTHING HERE IS PROPORTIONAL TO FROG NUMBER. Three rules assumed otherwise;
+ * all three were tested against a physical part and FAILED:
+ * - ❌ **Lead ∝ N.** Measured lead ÷ N: #5 = 0.600, #7 = 0.482, #10 = 0.494.
+ *   {@link TURNOUT_LEAD_INCHES_PER_FROG} reads ~20% SHORT at N=5.
+ * - ❌ **Constant switch angle.** Inverting {@link turnoutClosure} gives α =
+ *   0.036 (#5), 0.067 (#7), 0.043 (#10). Not constant.
+ * - ❌ **Overall length ∝ N.** #5 = 6.00″ and #7 = 6.00″ — same moulding, two
+ *   frog numbers.
+ * - ❌ **Frog fixed at 4.75″** (shipped in 0.54.0, retracted in 0.55.0). It
+ *   rested on the #5 and #10 both reading 4.75″, but the #10's was the END OF
+ *   THE FROG CASTING, not the V. Measured consistently the frogs are at 4.75″,
+ *   4³⁄₁₆″ and 5.5″ — all different.
  *
- * (Lengths are whole inches and the #5 diverges at exactly 1/32 of a circle, so
- * Atlas do seem to work to round numbers — but a prediction that the #7 would
- * therefore be 7.00″ was tested and FAILED. Round, but not one inch per frog.)
+ * The definition is the reason: #N fixes the DIVERGENCE RATE AT THE FROG (1
+ * across per N along) and says NOTHING about how much tie strip the manufacturer
+ * wraps around it, or where inside it the frog goes. Angle is geometry;
+ * everything else is a tooling decision. **Measure the part. Do not model it.**
  */
 declare const ATLAS_CODE55_N: TrackPart[];
 /** Every built-in part, across manufacturers. */

package/dist/index.js

@@ -1102,9 +1102,19 @@ var ATLAS_CODE55_N = [
     partNumbers: { left: "2050", right: "2051" },
     frogNumber: 5,
     lead: {
-      inches: 5 * TURNOUT_LEAD_INCHES_PER_FROG,
-      source: "derived",
-      note: "scaled from the measured #7 by frog number \u2014 not measured, BUT now corroborated: a photo read of Will's physical 2050 puts points\u2192frog at ~2.4\u2033, i.e. 0.48/frog against the #7's 0.482. Replace with a real measurement when someone puts a rule on it."
+      inches: 3,
+      source: "measured",
+      note: "Will Gage, physical Atlas 2050 (#5 LH): points at 1\xBE\u2033, frog at 4.75\u2033 \u21D2 3\u2033 exactly. REFUTED BOTH standing models \u2014 the per-frog rule predicted 2.41\u2033, the constant-switch-angle model 2.64\u2033; both read short. It also retired my earlier ~2.4\u2033 photo estimate, which was 20% under."
+    },
+    pointsOffset: {
+      inches: 1.75,
+      source: "measured",
+      note: "Will Gage, physical Atlas 2050 (#5 LH) \u2014 end of tie strip to point tips"
+    },
+    frogOffset: {
+      inches: 4.75,
+      source: "measured",
+      note: "Will Gage, physical Atlas 2050 (#5 LH) \u2014 tie end to the apex of the V"
     },
     overallLength: {
       inches: 6,
@@ -1131,6 +1141,11 @@ var ATLAS_CODE55_N = [
       source: "measured",
       note: "Steve Branton, physical Atlas code 55 #7, 3\u215C\u2033 points\u2192frog (#173)"
     },
+    frogOffset: {
+      inches: 4.1875,
+      source: "measured",
+      note: "Will Gage, physical Atlas 2052 (#7) \u2014 tie end to the apex of the V"
+    },
     overallLength: {
       inches: 6,
       source: "measured",
@@ -1152,15 +1167,20 @@ var ATLAS_CODE55_N = [
     partNumbers: { left: "2054", right: "2055" },
     frogNumber: 10,
     lead: {
-      inches: 4.1875,
+      inches: 4.9375,
       source: "measured",
-      note: "Will Gage, physical Atlas 2054 (#10): points at 9/16\u2033 from the end, frog at 4.75\u2033 \u21D2 4\xB3\u2044\u2081\u2086\u2033. THIS IS THE MEASUREMENT THAT REFUTED the lead-per-frog rule \u2014 it predicted 4.82\u2033, 13% over."
+      note: "Will Gage, physical Atlas 2054 (#10): 5.5\u2033 frog \u2212 9/16\u2033 points = 4\xB9\u2075\u2044\u2081\u2086\u2033. \u26A0\uFE0F CORRECTED from 4\xB3\u2044\u2081\u2086\u2033 (0.53.0\u20130.54.0), which used a 4.75\u2033 frog reading taken before we'd agreed the landmark. That earlier figure was the END OF THE FROG CASTING; a #10's V is shallow, so the apex is \xBE\u2033 back from it."
     },
     pointsOffset: {
       inches: 0.5625,
       source: "measured",
       note: "Will Gage, physical Atlas 2054 (#10) \u2014 end of tie strip to point tips"
     },
+    frogOffset: {
+      inches: 5.5,
+      source: "measured",
+      note: "Will Gage, physical Atlas 2054 (#10) \u2014 tie end to the apex of the V"
+    },
     overallLength: {
       inches: 8,
       source: "measured",