Is the trend for new engines that need ever wider diameters a good idea?

cabbage

Member since
February 2005
From: Peak District UK
809 posts

Posted by cabbage on Thursday, December 28, 2006 12:07 PM

Vic, I design all my locos to take the SM32 setcurve of 2 feet 6 inches. The problem is - is that this means that I have to artificially shorten the wheelbase of my locos and correspondingly lengthern the pivot distance. The mathematics of it says that I cannot have a wheelbase longer than 9cm and a pivot distance no longer than 54cm. This precluded the use of any "real" Garratts on my former layout -but not the Golwe configuration... We have both built the Price 16 Wheeler so somewhere we will have followed the same pathway of radial calculation -either by use of an old HP51 or at least plotted it graphically!!! The club layout has a minimum radius of 6 feet, but there are occassions when even my locos get caught out in the curves and de-rail... The blessing with the locos that need larger radii is that they are easier to design from this standpoint and take most of the de-railment problems with them. The standard Luttermoller configuration (0-2+6+2-0) is a case in point. The 3 central axles and the single gear driven axle either side of them, permits it to take corners that a 0-10-0 could never do, without such things as flangless wheels and radial sideplay axles. Yes, I have working test rig for a Luttermoller -but as you know I am busy with something else at the moment! (Vistors to Stoneleigh you have been warned!!!) Mathematics shows that: for an 0-6-0 chassis to have 7cm between each axle, the central wheels must be flangeless for it to take curves smaller than 3 feet 6 inches, with 3 feet as its absolute point of de-railment. My previous layout was perhaps 10m square and the curves and articulated locomotives that prowled over it were a requirement rather than a fad!!! The new one (still buried under the rocks and stones) will be more like the veldt that I grew up with -rather than the quarry that it was... regards ralph

The Home of Articulated Ugliness

Reply

Mike Dorsch CJ&M r.r.

Member since
August 2006
255 posts

Posted by Mike Dorsch CJ&M r.r. on Thursday, December 28, 2006 6:48 PM

As long as they (the manufactures) still make entry level , under the Christmas tree trains people will still get into the hobby I think. Thats my two cents for what it's worth . I'm fortunate that I had the room for 20' diameter track in my back yard . All the stuff looks good going around those curves . I suppose I could have gone to a smaller diameter to get longer strait runs but I didn't want the look of my longer equiptment hanging out over the ties too far. For me I hope that USA will make a SD-90 mac someday . It would look real good with the Dash-9's and SD-70macs that I have now . If you don't have the room to run the big stuff there are a lot of options in locomotives and rolling stock that will work and still look decent .

Reply

kimbrit

Member since
November 2005
From: Blackpool, Lancashire, UK
448 posts

Posted by kimbrit on Friday, December 29, 2006 3:47 AM

Vic, have a look at the LGB starter set 2-4-0's, they're cheap and look great, they're a heavy chunky beast as well with good pulling power.

Cheers, Kim

Reply

vsmith

Member since
December 2001
From: Smoggy L.A.
10,743 posts

Posted by vsmith on Friday, December 29, 2006 12:28 PM

kimbrit wrote:

Vic, have a look at the LGB starter set 2-4-0's, they're cheap and look great, they're a heavy chunky beast as well with good pulling power.
Cheers, Kim

Thanks Kim, but at 30+ locos already, most aquirred since this topic was started so many moons ago, I'm looking at having to cull an old loco if I want to add a new one. I have 3 that I want to build to finish off my roster, and I want to get rid of several poor performers, or at least rebuild a couple of them.

.

This topic started off as an observation of which way the hobby was trending. It was not about what I wanted but about a significant shift I saw happening thats continued right up to today.

.

I could easily ammend this topic to add "ever more EXPENSIVE models" and it would still be appropriate. All of the most interesting models last years were whoppers pricewise, the K4 at $2K , multi GG1s at $1K to $4K!, a diecast $2K Big Boy, USAs announced diecast 0-6-0 tanker will be about $700 (didnt they learn anything from the $1.3K switcher bomb?) and I dont see it dying down anytime soon regardless of how many failed products like the multiple GG1's are offered on the market.

.

It just seams to me that some manufacturers are trying to cash in on the "collectormania" they seam convinced is out there instead of focusing on adding to the roster of desirable, affordable, engines that can operate on the smaller, and more common, diameter curves

Have fun with your trains

Reply

spikejones52002

Member since
December 2006
From: Michigan City, In.
781 posts

Posted by spikejones52002 on Thursday, January 4, 2007 9:26 AM

Nothing I hate worse that that old Lionel Look of trains going around curves, or 6 feet inbetween passenger cars, just to fit under Christmas trees.

Walgreen sells Plastic toy trains that fills your request.

Reply

vsmith

Member since
December 2001
From: Smoggy L.A.
10,743 posts

Posted by vsmith on Thursday, January 4, 2007 10:33 AM

spikejones52002 wrote:

Nothing I hate worse that that old Lionel Look of trains going around curves, or 6 feet inbetween passenger cars, just to fit under Christmas trees.
Walgreen sells Plastic toy trains that fills your request.

Do I detect a bite of vitriol here?

.

Please be so kind as to read the topic from the beginning before you make such personal attack comments and risk looking like a

.

As I have pointed out several times in previous posts here, this is a dicussion about the hobby, not what I want. I have currently 30+ locos, all of which are equipped with scale link and pin couplers and all of which run just fine on my layouts R1 curves. I run small locos, short rolling stock and am happy with what I run. How many do you own and what is your minimum radius? actually I dont really care....

.

The discussion is whether or not the current trend towards locomotives and rolling stock that requires larger radius curves is good for the hobby or if it might deter interested modelers who would love to try large scale, save not having the room for 10 foot diameter curves in their alloted area.

.

Most larger locomotives are being built to an 8 foot diameter standard as are the new larger rolling stock like heavywieght passengercars. If you have the room this is a very good thing.

.

Even in narrow gauge most new items are also being oriented towards the wider radius mode. My point at the time of writing topic this 2 years ago was that during the same time period we have recieved few new items that can be used my those of us with smaller areas to work with. To date this has been addressed in some ways.

.

LGBs 2-4-0 (though being an NKP model) does work well for the space constricted and I am trying mighty hard to resist Satan whos urging me to buy an LGB Forney! Bachmann has consisitently managed to offer something for us small spacers, namely the Indy, and the Sadie and the new Sidetanker this year. But Aristo may discontinue the centercab, and in narrow gauge only offers the same 2-4-2 that is a remnant from the REA days, and the new 2-8-0 C-16 which previously was R1 capable will likely be an 8 FOOT requirement if it uses the same driveblock from the Mike

.

The simple fact is that with each couple of years we are having to recommend a wider diameter to newbies, Before I got into the hobby R1 was the most common, then when I got into it 5 foot was the minimum with 6.5 foot being recommended, today it 6.5 foot minimum with 10 foot recommended? So where does it end? In 2 years will it be 10 foot minimum with 16 foot recommended? All because the manufacturers dont want to expend a little more effort to make thier products more accessable to the majority of modelers? I'm not advocating an R1 rule, I do understand why some models require the larger diameters and I most certainly do not want an R1 capable Big Boy.

.

I just want the manufacturers to remember those perhaps the BIGGEST market share of potential large scalers DO NOT live on farms in Kansas with a spare 1/2 acre of land, but in small suburban lots with LIMITED usable garden space to work with and to offer us decent models to run on those smaller layouts. Stop pandering to the special interests crowd who spewed & whined enough for 3 GG1's to be marketed, then didn't buy any of them, that kind of marketing is what did in LGB.

.

In the meantime, when do we as a hobby get a decent affordable Annie level 2-6-2 or even an 0-6-0T? How about a standard guage 2-8-0 thats even 6.5 foot diameter capable?

.

PS....USA ugly 20 ton loco is just plain odd looking.

Have fun with your trains

Reply

Is the trend for new engines that need ever wider diameters a good idea?

Search the Community

FREE EMAIL NEWSLETTER

FREE EMAIL NEWSLETTER