Hello, I'm new here and I've joined the forums to possibly get some assistance in designing a garden railway that I'm just starting to get ideas for. Actual construction won't be starting for atleast a year due to various reasons but I'm well into the planning stages and there are a few points I'm not sure about.
The first I would like to address is DCC (Digital Command Control). Having run HO for quite a while and having run Digitrax's DCC system for my equipment for over 10 years now, I'm trying to figure out how viable it would be to use it on a large scale layout and what equipment I might need to run a large scale layout compared to a club-sized HO layout. If possible I would like to use Digitrax again so I can continue to use the same throttle I have from running HO (The throttles are compatible with all forms of DCC made by Digitrax).
Next is the exact scale I'm thinking of running. At this time I'm thinking of primarily running 1:20.3, modeling three different railroads, namely Denver & Rio Grande Western, Big Trees & Pacific (modeling the original logging railroad if I can find enough information) and, the now local to me, Nevada County Narrow Gauge RailRoad.
Another issue I'm having is figuring out what types of grades may or may not be too steep for a railroad that is not cog assisted. For the logging area I intend to have somewhat steep grades with switchbacks while the main line has shallower but still moderate grades. I have not had the opportunity to gauge the percentage of the slopes, partially due to a lack of knowledge and/or equipment necessary to do so.
Welcome to the forum! 1:20.3 is produced mainly by bachmann so you might want to start there. As for DCC, I need to here what other people say as much as you do. For grades, I think 2% would be a good number to stop at, but here on this forum people have conquered much higher grades. Hop you enjoy your time here! - Peter
Modeling the Bellefonte Central Railroad
Fan of the PRR
Garden Railway Enthusiast
Check out my Youtube Channel:
http://www.youtube.com/user/PennsyModeler
Welcome to the forum.
I'm battery powered RC so I'm not one to address your DCC questions.
I do run a logging operation. Grade was an issue I addressed with a 16 ft dia 2 1/4 turn helix to raise a total of 18". (1.5' rise over 112' of run equals about a 1.4% grade.) I did consider switchbacks but I didn't have the space. You need a lot of area for your minimum radius turns to keep the grade down to where you can run more than one or two log cars. (The steeper the grade the less load you can run.) 2% is a good max rule-of-thumb number to use for design purposes. Rough measurement of grade can be done with a string level and a tape measure. All you're looking for is rise over run - 2 feet of rise per 100 feet of run is 2%. Most here will tell you that the larger the radius turns the better. Another rule-of-thumb is 5 foot min and 8 foot is better. Of course you can go smaller however some loco's don't traverse tight corners very well and you end up with derailment problems. A switchback is an "S" curve which requires a transition between directions adding to the width. You will need at least a 32 foot x 17 foot area to climb 1 foot with a switchback at 2%.
Let us know what you have for area and we'll help as best we can with our "been-there-done-that" experience to draw on. The bottom line though is that it's your railroad so build what you want and have fun!
Rex
On another forum I've been checking with, I've been told you could have grades of up to 4%. Most of the locos I'm looking at have a minimum radius of 48 inches or 1.2 M. I may start with bachman for early plastic stuff but I have my eye on quite a few of the Accucraft brass/steel models after I've gotten into it a bit more than just planning.
A switch back in the purist sense is not an S curve but a set of zig zagging parallel tracks negotiated by switches, looking like |/|/|/| necessitating a large amount of backwards and forwards movement of the equipment while climbing or descending the hill they are on. This portion of the layout would not be on the main line but would be strictly in the logging area with the idea that only a single engine would be allowed in that section of track at any given time.For the number of log cars, I was thinking of making it to have a total of 3 strings of cars in the area each between 3 and 5 cars long. The two types of engines I'm thinking of using for the logging portion are both geared locomotives, one being a three-truck shay and the other being a two truck heisler.
The main line locos I intend on using mainly NCNGRR and D&RW engines with the latter road being largely of K-28 and K-36 models with the former having smaller locos.
I have not made a firm decision in regards to the amount of structures. If this remains purely narrow gauge I will be leaving it dark territory (aka no signaling), I'm thinking of having atleast two water towers, one in the main yard and another at a station at the opposite ends of the line. There will also be two passing sidings where I entend on putting up in-ground watering facilities. For fuel, everything other than the Rio Grande coal burners will be either oil burners or diesel (in the case of any non-steam locos). I do not think there will be room for a roundhouse and turn table however I may be able to negotiate putting in straight multi-stall sheeds that make use of a transfer table.
Currently once the layout is finished I'm thinking, in total, I would have a maximum of 10 engines on the layout with a somewhat strong emphasis on double heading on the main line due to some of the grades.
For DCC, there are a number of products tailored specifically to large scale. Look at Massoth, Lenz, Zimo, and QSI. There are others, but those tend to be the most common. Some come with sound as part of the decoder, some need a separate sound board. As it is DCC, the decoders should work just fine with your Digitrax controllers. You will need a booster to provide more power than what you're used to with HO. A single locomotive can pull upwards of 2 - 3 amps under load.
As for grades, less is always better. You can go up to around 4% without putting a ton of strain on the system, but--like the prototype--your trains will be much shorter than what they would be on the flat. If you're running 5 or 6 car trains, then there's not much worry at 4%, but if you can go flatter, it's easier on the locomotives. If you're running longer trains, then you'll definitely want to keep things to around 2%.
If you're modeling the railroads you mention in 1:20.3, then you're in pretty good shape in terms of equipment. Accucraft's brass models cover much of the D&RGW's "common" roster (the Ks and the C's), and Bachmann's 4-4-0 and 2-6-0 will work well for much of the NCNG's roster. I'm not sure about the logging line, but both Bachmann and Accucraft have made Shays, Heislers, and Climaxes, so you should be able to find something close.
Later,
K
I use Digitrax DCC with my garden railroad and haven't run into any problems for the past 5 or 6 years that I've been running it that way. For sound decoders I have one QSI, and nothing else at this point. The QSI is in an Aristo Mallet. I just got it about two days ago and love it. It works just fine with the DCS200 set on the G/O scale setting. My other decoders are all Digitrax DG583. But I'm sure many of the others would work well also. I can't help with the 20.3:1 scale since I'm almost totally 29:1
Bob
kstrong: the largest(longest) trains I could imagine on the layout once it's up and the entire main line is complete would be a 14 car train with 3 engines (two front, one mid-train), If the model geared locos operate at all like the full sized counterparts they should be able to drag about 10-15 loaded log cars, both pushing and pulling, up a 5 to 6% grade at a scale speed of about 5-10 MPH.
Bob: I am curious how one sets up a Digitrax system in an outdoor environment, modeling the stuff in HO entailed a great deal of under-bench work beneath the running surface of the tracks, which, in an outdoor environment I imagine would make maintenance on the DCC equipment very difficult if not impossible. One thing I've considered doing is putting up telegraph style poles and running the wires that would normally be under the tracks next to them in some kind of insulated form. They would look larger than normal but the boosters I could imagine being contained within junction boxes and the like.
Another thing I should mention is that we do get snow here (the highest being between 6 inches to a foot). One of the things I'm thinking about modeling to deal with it is a rotary snow plow like some I've seen with a few added things to help keep it operating properly, a blade heater to keep the cutting surface from freezing being an example.
ExP_Razor
First let me welcome you to "our happy little forum". There are several threads on the forum about grades and curves. As I’ve said many times before, "flatter is better and wider is better". We get maximum efficiency of our equipment when the grade is 0.0% and the curves are 20 ft. dia. or better, just like the real stuff. We all know that "rules of thumb" are meant to be broken as the need arises. Some of the equipment we have available will not tolerate curves smaller than 8~10 ft. Some (like LGB) will do well with 4-ft. dia.’s but they look very awkward in doing so. As the grade increases the performance of our equipment degrades. In real life (as in our miniature world) sometimes the need arises to violate these rules and we must live with the limitations we have imposed upon ourselves. In my case the vast majority of my "empire" has a grade of 0.0% to 0.5%, however, I had the need to build a branch line to the top of my waterfall and it has a grade exceeding 17.5%. This steep grade limits the type of equipment that can travel the route. One of our fellow members (vsmith) has built (is building) a portable (pizza) layout where he has limited himself to very short equipment, I may be mistaken but I believe his "top layer" is a diameter of around 22~24 inches(?). You talk about double heading with another engine "inside" the consist. This makes me think you are very aware of grade limitations and are taking a very responsible attack to solve your needs. I would think that you should do well on steeper grades. Watch out for the curves.
Being an "Analog Dinosaur" I have no words of wisdom about remote control. I still enjoy doing it the way I did 40 plus years ago. The only "remote control" anywhere near my empire is the doorbell the "boss" uses to summon me inside the house.
Tom Trigg
Thank you, and to be perfectly honest, the mid-train helper is something I'm taking out of SP's book, over donner pass they frequently used mid-train helpers (and prefered it to helpers located at the back of the trains) to help the consists over the pass, this in fact was done quite frequently with cab forwards and the smaller engines, having one at the front, one in the middle and a smaller engine at the point.
Most of the curves I'm wanting to use probably have a minimum of 8 feet in diameter on the main as measured from the center of the ties with a norm of 10 to 15 feet. On the logging branch and in the yard I may go smaller but I am making the 1.2M/48inch radius a minimum standard for the layout knowing the type of equipment I want to run. Unfortunately I do not know what that would translate to in regards to what the minimum diameter would be. I am also thinking about using a great deal of flex track depending on how well it tends to do for outdoor layouts.
Also in regards to the grades, as I said earlier, I would like to know how feasable it would be to have a maximum of 6% in the logging area, using strictly geared locos such as the shay and heisler as with both prototypes, they are geared for torque, not speed and can take much steeper grades than conventional locomotives with the main limitation being wheel slip.
ExP_Razor I would like to know how feasable it would be to have a maximum of 6% in the logging area, using strictly geared locos such as the shay and heisler as with both prototypes, they are geared for torque, not speed and can take much steeper grades than conventional locomotives with the main limitation being wheel slip.
I would like to know how feasable it would be to have a maximum of 6% in the logging area, using strictly geared locos such as the shay and heisler as with both prototypes, they are geared for torque, not speed and can take much steeper grades than conventional locomotives with the main limitation being wheel slip.
I vote to go for it! You have branchline speeds over mainline speed, gearing for torque as opposed to mainline speed. So long as you follow prototype by hauling shorter consists (or empties) up the grade you should do well. You may want to ask one of the other guys about the possibly adding a bit of ballast (weight) to the engines to aid in traction. In your case with all your "plans" I would say 6% is not that big of a deal. I might be conserned if you were talking about grades above 10%~14%.
Re: the logging branch, the one thing to remember in the model world is that "all" our locos are geared locos, be they models of Shays or Big Boys. As such, there is no real expectation that a Shay would perform better on a grade than a diesel or 0-4-0 or any other loco. The performance would be based primarily on the specific gear ratio of the locomotive and the weight of the loco. It is entirely possible to have a rod loco actually geared lower than a Shay, depending on how the drive train is manufactured.
A maximum 6% grade in the logging area is certainly feasible, but your train length will be very short. My dad's railroad has a long stretch of 5%, with a small section that goes up to around 8% for around 15' or so. Anything over 5 cars and the loco starts slipping, regardless of what prototype it's modeled after. It's definitely helper district.
As for the DCC install, it's really no different for outdoors as it is for indoors. You'll need boosters to handle the amperage of the trains, but that's it. Wiring is no different, in fact it's arguably easier since you don't "need" to run feeder wires along the track. Get yourself some good rail clamps for each of your track joints, and your power will flow smoothly from one section to the next from one feeder. You can run a bus if you'd like, but if you've got sound track joints, there's no tangible benefit from doing so.
As for track, with 1:20.3, you're going to want a 4' radius/8' diameter at an absolute minimum. If you can go wider, by all means do! Mine has a 5' minimum radius/10' diameter, and my K-27 looks frighteningly ridiculous on the curves. Wider is always better.
Any of the flex tracks on the market, be they code 332 or code 250 will work very well. In fact, I'd definitely recommend it for a few reasons. First off, the rails are longer. Longer rails means fewer track joints, which means less $$ for rail clamps. Second, you're not limited to X, Y, and Z track sections and their limitations. With flex track, if you can dream it, you can build it. I've never used anything but flex track outdoors, and I started 30 years ago. Just make sure you've got a solid foundation beneath the track. Don Parker's current construction series in GR has some very good information on this.
I'm running MRC DCC on my HO layout and decided to carry it through to my G scale outside. Its working great and I'm using the wireless hand held for control with an 8 amp booster for power. I put Phoenix sound systems my Bachmann and USA engines. For decoders I'm using both Digitrax and MRC decoders. So far so good. I think you'll like DCC outside and use Digitrax or anything else that you feel comfortable with.
One of the things I will be doing that I picked up from a Pentrex video that will eliminate the need for clamps will be soldering a jumper wire around each rail joint. Another thing that I picked up from the video despite a mention here not to use it is a combination of pea gravel (what was mentioned not to be used) for the road bed and a type of granite grip and using carpender's glue, and a type of resin mixed with water to hold it all togeather. Both of these were suggested as a way to keep solid continuity and allow the rails to expand and contract a little.
Don't use pea gravel. There's a reason people tell you not to use it. Heed it. There's a lot of experience in those words. You can use bonding agents, that's okay. Just don't use pea gravel. Since the pea gravel can't interlock, you're putting all your reliance in the bonding agent to hold things solid. Not a good idea, regardless of the bonding agent. Use the sharper stone, and let its inherent ability to pack tight together be the primary bond, supplemented by the bonding agent as a reinforcement. (You can get away with using pea gravel if you're not relying on it for structural support for the track, such as using some kind of timber, metal, or composite foundation to hold the track. The loose structure of the pea gravel in that application allows for good drainage.)
Quite honestly, the jury's out on using bonding agents, too. Check out this issue's "If I had only known" section. Some people have used "bonded" ballast to great success. For others, it's been nothing but trouble. Try it, but don't expect it to be a magic bullet. Ole Ma Nature has a way of doing her own thing. Personally, I've not experimented with it, but I've not had the need. My track shifts with expansion and contraction, but stays in place rather well. My dad used a polymer sand product inside a tunnel to hold the track in place, and has had success with it. That's only 20' of track that's actually "bonded," though, and it's in the woods where it's shaded and doesn't have a ton of thermal expansion.
Soldering jumpers to the rails is the ideal, preferable to rail clamps in terms of reliability, though decidedly a bit more work, especially with the larger code 332 rail. (Hint: a high-wattage soldering gun or small torch, and wet rags to protect the ties.) Do yourself a favor and leave enough slack in the wires between the rails so you can pull the track up and out for maintenance when (and I do mean "when") you need to. It doesn't have to be much, just enough to slide the track out of the rail joiner.
In looking at currently available equipment for DCC, I'm looking at the Digitrax site and browsing the different equipment. The throttle I have is a DT400R which could potentially be upgraded to a DT402D if I decide sinking in another $50 to upgrade the throttle would be worth it for the type of operation I plan on running. For the available boosters, it sounds like I might want a combination of the DCS200 and the DB200+. For the power supply, would the PS2012's description of running up to 4, 5 amp boosters translate to being able to run 2, 8 amp boosters with a little extra? I also don't know how much track that would cover. If I had 10 locos on the layout I'd want to make sure I have sufficient power for all of them (even those that arn't in use) and make sure the circuit is well distributed throughout the entire layout. One peace of equipment that was used on the HO layout, which I'm not sure would be needed in this case, is something similar to the PM42, designed to help protect against shorts, but sense I don't plan on any reversing loops, I don't know if it would be necessary. And finally for the wireless input, I'm thinking I would probably use the UR92, if for no other reason, to allow the duplex upgrade if I decide to move to the D series throttles. Again, I don't know how many I would need given the size of the layout and also not knowing what the range would be using a single transceiver.
Edit: kstrong, here's a photo of the layout done by Dean Lowe, the guy who expressed the tips on both the soldering and the track bed. This is the result of the pea gravel, granite and resin mix. Is this somehow different from most attempts to use the stuff or is something different on this layout that makes it more viable? According to the narrator on the video covering this, the steepest grade on the layout is 3%.
I stand corrected on the concept of using switches with forward and reverse operations to go up and down a hill versus "S" curves. I've experienced the type of operation you're planning but only on a buss. Backing a buss up the grade to the edge of a cliff did get my heart pumping. For such a switchback rail operation wouldn't you need the flat tails to be at least as long as the consists you're planning on running? My skelton cars are about 12" long. I'm guessing a shay is around 18" so a 5 car consist would require 7 foot tails. That's 7 feet of non climbing track plus a switch for each flip flopped segment. How wide and high is the hill you're planning on climbing? I'm guessing it's got to be at least 30 feet wide? Are you going to automate the switchback operation with DCC? This sounds really neat to control that many switches as well as the forward and reverse movements.
4% grade with 5 car consists is certainly doable. If you were thinking of something on the order of 10+ car consists I would have some reservations. I believe all of the G size locos are geared. I've stripped enough of them on my Connie to become an expert on replacing gears. I don't believe the Shay models are actually driven by the external gearing but rather have similar internal gearing as all the rest of the models. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
I'm also interesting in your planned logging operation. I'm using steam donkeys (animated with hand cranks) in a high line type of operation. I had to plant a forest and will build a logging camp at the top this year. I also built a saw mill and log pond for the lumber end of the business from Garden-Texture plans. What are you planning and how much space will it take?
Really neat ideas! Go for it.
The hillside that would hold the section of the layout with the switchbacks is easily 300 feet wide though I doubt I will use most of it, atleast at the bottom. The idea is to have the loading sidings gradually get shorter as the hill is descended so that at the bottom, being beyond the fouling point would be just enough room for 3 to 5 cars and the engine. As the consist is built up, starting from the bottom, the turnaround sidings beyond the points of the switches get longer to accommodate the total length of the train when it's built up. If I laid it out in levels, with each level's capacity totaling 12 log cars, you would start at the bottom, pick up a string, ascend to the next level up to get another, with the entire train being built up by the time the logging tracks are level with the main line where the grades would be much flatter than on the switchbacks.
If you ever visit Roaring Camp, this section of the layout would be directly derived from the logging operations that were done there. For the locos, I have found that both the shay and heisler I intend on modeling were originally owned by West Side Lumber Co. As was mentioned earlier, with both of these engines I would be wanting alot more torque than speed in regards to power allocation. The 15 car limit I mentioned is based on the information regarding the locos being able to do exactly what I'm wanting the model counterparts to do. Both prototypes actively run on switchbacks like what I'd be putting in, run on grades 2 to 3 times steeper than most main line routes and negotiated turns that would be impossible for a rod loco of the same size. In both cases they are high torque locos with a top running speed on flat terrain of 15 to 20 MPH (with the heistler being slightly faster).
One thing I am curious about is that I noticed that accucraft's 3 truck shay has the same minimum curve radius as the K series locos when in reality, the shays and the heistlers should be able to negotiate much sharper curves. Is this due to an "artificially" increased minimum turn radius for the K series locos or are the geared locos somehow hampered when scaled down?
In regards to the size of the log cars, all of them would be shorter than the 2 truck heistler, with the largest equipment in the area being the 3 truck shay.
Edit: After doing some more research, I found that the steepest section of the route I would be emulating for the logging portion is a section of 8.5% grade that was put in due to the trestles previously used in the area being burned in an arson attempt.
I did the soldered jumper wires on my previous layout. I learned a lot about soldering and burned up a few ties in the process. Note that heated ties don't hold up as well to UV as virgin ties. They get brittle and disenigrate after just two seasons here in AZ. Anyway what worked best for me was sliding the rails out of the ties, soldering the wires to the rails at my work bench with a torch, and then reassembling the track. Replacing the tie sections after soldering the jumper wires often required some dremel work to get the ties to slide back on. I then laid the track sections, twisted the wires together, and then soldered the twisted wires with an electric gun.
A couple years later we moved so I had to disassemble the track. That wasn't too bad. The electric gun enabled me to untwist most of the couplings however I did end up just cutting some of the jumper wires because of time constraints. The major gotcha was discovered when I tried reusing my previously soldered track with my new rail bender for my current layout. The rail bender did not like the solder up next to the head of the rails. I ended up removing all my jumper wires in order to reuse the track.
Overall jumpered connections did give me great electrical continuity but it was a significant amount of work that did not last through a relayout. I wish you luck with your soldering effort. I would highly recommend the use of rail clamps versus soldering jumper wires for all your switches. I ended up totally destroying one of my switches trying to solder jumper wires to it.
The only place I would ever use pea gravel is in a stream bed. It doesn't work for walkways either.
I've got jumpers across all of my track joints and it works great. It was a pain cutting all the wires, cleaning the rail and soldering on all those jumpers, but I'm glad I did it. I've had no problems with track power. I just have one set of feeders to my layout. My layout is about 30'x40' with several loops and sidings. My DCC controls are all in my back porch. I use a DT400R and a UR4R to control trains. With My DCS200 I can run three trains without any trouble. If I add a fourth I do eventually overload and shut down the system. So far that has only happened on hot days. If the weather is cool I can get away with the fourth train. All of my turn outs are manual. Eventually I will power them and keep the stationary decoders inside the back porch. I only have one UR91 and it's just laying on the floor of my back porch. The only time I have transmission trouble is when I'm laying on the ground next to a train and the throttle is on the ground with me between it and the UR91. Then if I just lift it up a little I get the transmission to go through.
Bob in Southwest Michigan (Kalamazoo)
300 feet of mountainside to work with is quite a bit of property especially if that's only part of your operation. You said the Nevada County Narrow Gauge Railroad is local to you so I assume you're in CA in the old gold rush area outside of Grass Valley?? Planning for up to 10 trains in that much space sounds like a very major project indeed. Will you be doing the work yourself or is this perhaps a club or museum project? Curious,
It's not 10 trains I will be supporting, the count is for the locos. On the main line I don't expect to have more than five trains , with a sixth being run out of the lumber area between there and the yard.
I count:
1 switcher for in the yard
2 logging locos
7 main line locos/helpers
I've not seen Dean's railroad, and can only go from what I'm guessing exists in the photos. The track itself looks like it's "cemented" in with small crusher fines, etc. to give it a more prototypical, scale ballast look. I would bet that's the part that gives the track its solid foundation; that the pea gravel is more of a sub-roadbed. It may also be bonded, but that begs the question of "why?" Unless he specifically likes the aesthetic of the pea gravel, there are easier ways of accomplishing the same thing without relying completely on a bonding agent to hold things in place.
Pea gravel is used in playgrounds specifically because it doesn't lock in place the way crusher fines do, so when kids fall, the ground gives beneath them to cushion the impact. Pea gravel in the environment in the photo of Dean's railroad would do the same thing. I wouldn't step on that track for love or money. (Not that you should make a habit of walking on track, but we all do it.) A solid foundation of crushed stone will lock together and form a hard surface that's not going to give--and will do so without bonding agents of any kind. I've got code 250 rail and once it's got its annual ballasting in the Spring, I can walk on the rails all summer long without worry. It moves with the expansion/contraction (and in Colorado, we get a lot of that), and settles back into place very nicely. The afternoon rains/evening watering help to continually solidify the roadbed.
If it's working for Dean, I can't argue with success. But there are easier ways to accomplish the same goal. My suggestion would be to try the crushed stone, and if there are areas where you have trouble with ballast eroding or pooling, then look into bonding it somehow.
Most all model locomotives can traverse far tighter curves than their full-sized counterparts. Deeper flanges, increased lateral play, and/or blind drivers (drivers without flanges) allow the models to do this. (Some prototype locos also had blind drivers--it's not just a modeling thing.) To keep things in perspective, a "tight" curve on a typical US 3' gauge railroad would scale to roughly 15' radius/30' diameter in 1:20.3.
BTW, check out the thread called "Gravel Glue" in this forum. Interesting product called "Stabilizer" that seems to work well for holding ballast in place.
Check out the Flam railway in Norway. The maximum gradient is 55%. Braking is done by generators feeding resistor grids on top of the driving cars.
ExP_Razor It's not 10 trains I will be supporting, the count is for the locos. On the main line I don't expect to have more than five trains , with a sixth being run out of the lumber area between there and the yard.I count:1 switcher for in the yard2 logging locos7 main line locos/helpers
Locomotives that are not running will not draw much current. If they have sound decoders that are turned on (making sounds) they will draw more than locos that are just sitting there on the track. Certainly a loco that is not running will not be drawing 3 amps or anything close to it. My four locos that were running, along with three others that were just sitting stationary on the track pulse the current requirements of the lighted (with incandescent not LED lights) totaled less that 8 amps. I'm sure of that because the DCS200 is known to be slightly over rated on it's output, which is supposed to be 8amps with a fan blowing on it. I didn't have a fan on it. That's why on a hot day it tripped out eventually.
By the way, I'm not saying that you don't need boosters, I'm just saying that you probably don't need as much power as you seem to think you need. Also, my understanding is that USA locomotives do require more power than most other locomotives. So, if you locomotives were all USA, you would probably need more boosters than if you were running all Aristocraft.
kstrongMost all model locomotives can traverse far tighter curves than their full-sized counterparts. Deeper flanges, increased lateral play, and/or blind drivers (drivers without flanges) allow the models to do this. (Some prototype locos also had blind drivers--it's not just a modeling thing.) To keep things in perspective, a "tight" curve on a typical US 3' gauge railroad would scale to roughly 15' radius/30' diameter in 1:20.3. Later,K
Would that mean that the 8 foot minimum both the K series and the 3 truck shay has is not prototypical for either loco? I can sort of expect for the K series models to be taking tighter curves than they should but the shay is something that was designed to take sharp turns.
Rex in PinetopCheck out the Flam railway in Norway. The maximum gradient is 55%. Braking is done by generators feeding resistor grids on top of the driving cars. Rex
We rode it in route from Oslo to Bergan two years ago. It is totally electric powered from the hydro-electric station at Kjosfossen. The Oslo Bergan train stops at Myrdal station, 866 meters, where we transferred to the Flam which drops down to the sea level station, 2 meters, I took some pictures of the train but I think better ones are available on-line. A most impressive line.
Without a doubt. The Shay--perhaps--could handle curves that tight on the prototype. The Uintah Ry. had a 60-degree curve, which translates to 5' radius in 1:20.3, and ran Shays over that. (They also ran their 2-6-6-2 articulateds over them, but they were designed specifically for those curves.) To my knowledge, that's by far the tightest curve on a common-carrier US 3' gauge railroad. Logging and industrial lines may have had curves similarly tight, but they tended to use much smaller locos.
I don't know what the tightest curve on the D&RGW was, but if it was tighter than 20 degrees, I'd be quite surprised. The EBT, who had locos with similar wheelbases to the D&RGW had a 17-degree curve that they considered very tight.
Get the Garden Railways newsletter delivered to your inbox twice a month