Both the heistler and the 3 truck shay I entend on using, the models (and formerly the prototypes) are West Side Lumber Co. engines. The shay is actually a fairly large size (imo) for a narrow gauge of the type, however I have also seen the types of turns it can go around. The sharpest curves on the prototype route are probably under 60 ft in diameter, with a guess that they might be as sharp as 40 or even 30 in some spots (though probably not long enough to contain the entire loco at that sharp a turn).
I'm honestly not sure how that would scale down to the models, I also don't know what the 20 degree radius would translate to.
The sharpest curves on the prototype route are probably under 60 ft in diameter, with a guess that they might be as sharp as 40 or even 30 in some spots
I hate to tell you, but you're sadly misinformed on that. Google "Roaring Camp and Big Trees," click on the map, then click on aerial image. (Or use Google Earth.) You can clearly see the tracks--well when they're not under the trees. My rough estimate puts them at around 360 - 400' diameter, which puts them in the neighborhood of around 30 degrees. (Here's a link that translates curves measured in degrees to radius: http://www.trainweb.org/freemoslo/Modules/Tips-and-Techniques/degrees_of_curve_to_radius.htm )
I don't know where you're getting your numbers from, but they're simply not realistic. Yes, the Shays are capable of running through some fairly tight curves, but no railroad civil engineer would ever lay out a railroad with curves that tight. You'd never get a train around it.
Later,
K
Even in spots where the curves are very short? Some of the shortest curved sections are probably only 2 to 3 yards long as measured from the inside rail (only long enough to be supported by a couple of ties), usually with a broader curve connected at one end.
Yes. The "short" curve sections are prone to be even wider radii since they only have to turn just a little bit. Curves cause drag on a train, and that makes the locomotive work harder, use more fuel, etc. It was always in the best interests of the railroad to keep curves to a minimum, and where they were needed, to make them as gentle as the topography would allow.
For instance, if you're in a relatively flat field, and you enter headed north and need to leave headed east, you can run north for a while and make a sharp turn to the east, or you can start a gentle turn to the east as soon as you enter the field. Unless there's something in the field (like a building, pond, or something) that would keep you from making that long, gentle turn, the railroad would always opt for the gentle turn. It's easier on the equipment, and it also requires less track, since you're cutting across on an arc of a circle instead of heading up and over on two legs of a square.
I'm not suggesting they're not tight, because that was the primary advantage of narrow gauge railroading--they could fit where standard gauge lines could not. But they are definitely not remotely as tight as anything you're suggesting they may be. I think you'd be surprised at how large they really are. I rode the line a few years ago, and saw nothing that indicated curves out of character to other narrow gauge lines I've ridden in Colorado and Pennsylvania. I'd be surprised if there was anything tighter than 25 to 30 degrees. (nominally a 10' radius in 1:20.3)
You owe it to yourself to contact the Roaring Camp RR and ask them what their curves and grades are. Their chief mechanical/operations guru (I forget what his exact title is) has worked on many 3' gauge tourist operations, including the White Pass, D&RGW, and C&TS. He should be able to tell you exactly how that line stacks up against the others in terms of curves and grades.
(As an aside, the reverse loop at Antonito, which sees K-36s on a routine basis, is around 225' radius, or around 11' radius in 1:20.3.)
A question I have for anyone who does both DCC and life steamers is how well they can be made to work with each other. If I do any of it, it will be after the entire layout is complete but I am curious none the less. I do know that they run off the basis of the DCC decoder being the only thing on the loco pulling power from the tracks, with the purpose of the decoder being to control the regulator, reverser and the like. Part of the reason for asking this is the fact that accucraft no longer makes an electric K-28 but does sell butane powered live steamer versions. If the DCC issue is anything like the very limited number of live steamers I've seen in HO that also have DCC, the decoders actually control servos that operate the manual controls (which in HO is tiny).
Check to see if the locomotive's wheels are insulated. If they are, then you're in good shape. A few manufacturers offer decoders that drive servos, though I can't remember which models off the top of my head. Install one of those decoders, hook them to the servo, and you're up and running. You'll have to figure out how to get power from the rails to the electronics, but if they're in the tender, that shouldn't be too difficult to add track pick-ups to the tender trucks.
Just keep in mind that live steam locos tend to dribble oil onto the rails, some more than others. Oil attracts dirt, which--if on the rails--insulates the rails from the wheels, meaning you're not getting power to the electronics, which means you're not controlling your train with the reliability you'd otherwise have.
If the locomotive's drivers are not insulated, then you're out of luck on the DCC thing.
My personal opinion is yes, it can be done, but why go through the effort and more importantly the expense? The servo-driving decoders are not cheap, then you have to add the cost of the servos. You can get a 2.4 gHz transmitter/receiver for around $150 that includes the servos and offers proportional control and glitch-proof performance without needing to worry about track power at all. When you want to do more locos, you need only purchase a new receiver and more servos. I've heard people talk of $15 2.4 gHz receivers, and you can get micro servos for as low as $13 each.
If it comes down to it I may consider an alternate type of control method for live steamers. I do wonder if anyone still makes an electric K-28 model.
Another question I have is about the Beartrap (Ridgeway) spark arresters the K-28s, now owned by D&S, had during the 90s. Is that at all consistent with how they were while owned by the D&RGW or is it something the D&S did after taking over the Silverton line? I do know they were originally developed by the C&S but I'm not dismissing the possibility that they might've adopted the type for those engines. I personally like the way they looked while equipped with those.
Well, today we have begun phase two of the track planning (with phase one being the marking of the route), and after getting a few sections of 10ft diameter track I've found out that with the exception of a few places where I might need something slightly tighter (small adjustments to straight aways), the good majority of the layout will have a minimum of 10 feet with quite alot of it being able to take wider curves. There is still a question of slope grades but I think the good majority of the main will be at or below the 4% mark.
The largest sweeping curve on the layout, on estimate, will be close to 40-50 feet and will be done with flex track. I am trying to incorporate flex track into most of the layout though I am collecting single track peaces to judge curves with.
I've discovered the little bounus of the track made by USA trains of having the track joints physically bound together through two small hex head screws in each joint and those I talked to at the shop where I got it showed the difference between standard and narrow tie spacing, to which both LGB and USA come fairly close.
Unless there's anyone that has had trouble with the rail joints I described I will probably take advantage of the option to have them bolting the track sections together, with the main problem to that being the fitting to any flex track where it would be used.
The next step will be leveling the ground to prepare for putting in the rail bed before permanently laying the track sections we've been test fitting.
Hey there, another step in the planning, another question to be answered.
I have done more measuring and have decided I could probably fit a turntable and roundhouse into the layout and I'm wondering where I would manage to get hold of something like that or if I would need to scratch build it. With another factor being that I may have underestimated the size I would need to contain it, I'm also wondering how big the diameter should be for the outside wall of the roundhouse given the types of engines I'm planning on modeling.
On the equipment side of things, I have confirmed that the narrow gauge portion of roaring camp was never used for anything other than a tourist railroad and so I'm taking a step back and will be modeling most of the same equipment during the time the stuff was owned by West Side Lumber Co. As a result, if I do DR&W #50, it will not be representing both roads.
In regards to the roundhouse, I'm also debating how much detailing work I could put in to a structure that would be outside at all times without it becoming tedious due to being constantly exposed to the elements.
ExP_Razor I'm wondering where I would manage to get hold of something like that or if I would need to scratch build it.
I'm wondering where I would manage to get hold of something like that or if I would need to scratch build it.
You’re on your own (scratch) for the turntable. Do some serious searching here on these pages as there are several over the past couple years. For the round house, have a look over at www.coloradomodel.com , Piko also has one, or if you are very handy you could always build one with cement and stones. As far as details on your masterpiece, do as much (or as little) as you want ensuring you use materials that can withstand the elements.
Tom Trigg
I just resubscribed to Garden Railways Mag and got a free pdf on building outdoor structures.
The article looks good. The email offer was dated 5/24/10. I think it's available separate for $7.95.
I am sorry to report that due to the realization of the actual grades in my back yard, the layout I had in mind is not feasible at this time. I may look into it again in the future when we get some landscaping done but for now the large scale protect has been put on indefinite hold.
The Home of Articulated Ugliness
Great for you, I guess you run steam to ensure something that level.
For the original poster, sorry it came to this, just out of curiosity, what did the grades wind up at? 10%?
Your previous estimates of 4% were certainly do-able.
I'm just curious, not trying to add salt to the wound, I'm sure you are disappointed.
Regards, Greg
Visit my site: http://www.elmassian.com - lots of tips on locos, rolling stock and more.
Click here for Greg's web site
The flattest part of the yard (where the rail yard would've gone in) was rated at wildly ranging from 2% to 11% with it changing less than a foot from each other using an electronic level to figure it out. If I had to guess, the average for that section is above 4% with that area being the largest area that's relatively flat to start on when I wanted the yard for the layout to be 100% level.
Get the Garden Railways newsletter delivered to your inbox twice a month