Good layout with tight curves??

[Chompers]

Vsmith,

Bought one in kit form, just wating to build it.

The Bridge location was moved about 3 different times. so yeah even 14 year olds move there layouts after theve beem built.

[kimbrit]

Ray,
Go do what you want, if its wrong you'll have to start over, is there anyone here who hasn't done that? If it looks right to you then it is, tight curves? sweeping curves?, they'll be your curves put in by your hard graft and I know you'll be a little bit pleased when it's done. A few years down the line and you think it's a load of crock then you'll rip it up and do something else. If there was a 'T' shirt for disatrous first attempts then 90% of us would have one, but we all learned a lot.
Go do it!
Kim

[ttrigg]

Ray;

QUOTE: Originally posted by Ray Dunakin

Originally posted by ttrigg

QUOTE:
As Curmudgeon so eloquently put it, going outside your retaining walls (on the downhill side) will give you a reason for bridgework. Cruise through the postings and you will find pictures where others have done it and it looks GOOD! The wider curves will allow longer engines and trains.

I plan to do that with the loops on the upper levels of track, which will overlap the lower levels. But I can't go outside the retaining wall on the bottom level. In front of the retaining wall there is only a very narrow strip of ground which I'm using as a walkway for access and for operating the railroad. Beyond that is an iron fence. So the only way I can go to widen the curves at that level is into the hill.

As someone else pointed out, the only place I'll be using such tight curves is on the ends, and then just on the first level. Much of the curves there will be hidden in tunnels and behind rock hills, so I'm not too concerned about how they'll look. I just want to be sure that I can run smalli***rains with a fair degree of reliability.

Now that I understand your limitations on the lower level, here a couple of possible thoughts.

1. On the central part of the lower level fill it with "stub end" industrial areas. From the stub end sidings (or yard) have a single line start the climb along the very front edge, the first part on "fill" then transition to a timber bridge which could make the curve up to the "second level" where it forms a "Y" junction to your "Dog Bone Loop". Keeping the ends of the dog bone on the second and higher levels will allow bridgework to allow larger curves.

2. You might consider making that first retaining wall taller, thereby giving the ability to reach farther back into the hill side on the first level.

[vsmith]

Chompers nice layout.

PS if you get a Ruby it will live on your lower loop, they HATE grades

[Chompers]

Ok My Railway has Not only 5 foot diamiter curves, but a NASTY 6% grade. My Lgb Mogul, Bachman Spectrum Mogul (soon to be Bachman Shay) can climb it no problem. Not sure how the Ruby wll like the 6% grade [;)]

That 6% grade conects my upper and lower loops. the upper loop has 3-4% grades and the lower loop has a 0-.5% grade.

http://im1.shutterfly.com/procserv/47b5cc08b3127cce96680af443d400000016102AbN2jZk2cMd

Upper loop

http://im1.shutterfly.com/procserv/47b5cc08b3127cce9668feae43f400000016102AbN2jZk2cMd

http://im1.shutterfly.com/procserv/47b5cc08b3127cce96681ad3c2cb00000016102AbN2jZk2cMd
Lower Loop

[Phil Hemingway]

Ray,
I have a similar situation to yourself and will be starting the building next year. My railway will go on a steep bank. My limitations are how high do i want to build the retaining walls. I have fixed this at 2foot 6inch. Based on my bank gradient this will give me 7foot diameter curves. I wont be having any inclines as i want to run live steam manually. my prototype, UK 2 axle steamers (1:19) and US shortline freight cars (1:20:3) because that's what i like! Colonial style. Couplings will be link and pin. I estimate it will take me around 2/3 years to get somewhere near to reasonable but what the heck, life aint no race... Plenty of time to build my Ozark kits & save up for my accucraft and roundhouse locos.
my thoughts, dont rush in and then choose your preferences carefully.
good luck...

[Marty Cozad]

Yes,
Build a RR with tight curves and smaller locos. Keeps the cost down. then after a few years when your TOTALLY hooked and want some changes in your life.
Sale your property and buy one with a large back yard and build a large RR with large curves. Then you can sale your other stuff to another beginner and help them out.[:p]

Most people move every 10 years or so any way. keeps us carpenters employed.[^]

[Curmudgeon]

True, but he has limited himself.
However, once we got Paul Harvey involved, we see there is one area he IS, in fact, stuck with.
While tearing out may be an option for some, I know several who when it didn't work, tore it out and quit.

One guy tried, however, with a mix of about every track imaginable, including Bachmann, outdoors, near Seattle, on the ground (grass), with no boards, and moles got him.

THREE DIFFERENT HOUSES until he gave up and move to Canada.

There are options, and we aren't dealing with Jerry here, of trestle, cut, tunnel, cut, and continue.

If there is a problem on the first curve, reverse the railroad, put the first curve at the other end.

Not seeing any plans, hard to tell exactly, but go ahead, tell him to do it and rip it out if he's not happy.

Running Stainz does work, and as you say, lots have done it.

See a lot of it in GR.

Ah, well,.

[kstrong]

Ah, Dave--you read too much into my respone. The question was a simple one--"Is it possible to have a decent layout [with tight curves]" to which the answer is "yes." There are inherent limitations in terms of larger, longer equipment--as others have aluded to, and Ray will undoubtedly be taking those limitations into consideration. But the point is that you don't need large curves to have a great railroad. Sure, the golden rule is "bigger is better," but there are many cases where 6' diameter is as big as it gets. You merely work within those limitation and chose your equipment based upon them. The Big Red Box is very much a saving grace in these circumstances; as much as we chide them for sacrificing scale fidelity to maintain their desired engineering standards.

QUOTE: Let's say someone brings over a bigger engine to run.
You're limited right away.

No different a scenario than if someone brings a track-powered loco over to yours or my railroad. We opted to cut the wires from our rails--we live with the inherent limitations that choice casts upon us. The choice to go with tight curves is no different.

QUOTE:
Let's say YOU decide to buy a bigger engine.
Then to run it you get to tear out what you built and start over.

Same arguement holds true. You and I have to install an additional $200 worth of electronics into each locomotive we bring home from the hobby shop before it can run on our rails. That limits my locomotive purchases. If we want to avoid this, then we rethink, and attach wires to the rails.

Also remember--tearing out and rebuilding is not a bad thing. As we continue in our hobby, our tastes inevitably change and refine. Tearing a section out of a railroad gives the builder a chance to renovate the line to suit his/her changing tastes. That's part of what keeps the hobby fresh.

Later,

K

[John Busby]

Hi Ray
It is possable to build a railway with sharp curves and get reliable running as well.
Garden railway planning rule one however states use the largest radius curve you can fit in.
If you do have to go to the lower end of curve radius's then go with a narrow gauge theme that way you have smaller locomotives and rolling stock the does not look well YUK!!! on the tight curves.
To some degree well quite a lot realy the garden should determine where cuttings tunnels bridges have to go in.
that way the railway blends into the garden better.
You will not be able to avoid Civil Engineering works but make it blend in as much as possable.
regards John

[Ray Dunakin]

Originally posted by ttrigg

QUOTE:
As Curmudgeon so eloquently put it, going outside your retaining walls (on the downhill side) will give you a reason for bridgework. Cruise through the postings and you will find pictures where others have done it and it looks GOOD! The wider curves will allow longer engines and trains.

I plan to do that with the loops on the upper levels of track, which will overlap the lower levels. But I can't go outside the retaining wall on the bottom level. In front of the retaining wall there is only a very narrow strip of ground which I'm using as a walkway for access and for operating the railroad. Beyond that is an iron fence. So the only way I can go to widen the curves at that level is into the hill.

As someone else pointed out, the only place I'll be using such tight curves is on the ends, and then just on the first level. Much of the curves there will be hidden in tunnels and behind rock hills, so I'm not too concerned about how they'll look. I just want to be sure that I can run smalli***rains with a fair degree of reliability.

[vsmith]

As one who's layout is all R1s I have to agree with TOC, if you chose to do it, you have to also chose to stick with the smaller stuff. I knew building mine that given the limited space allocation of both the interior and outside layouts that I would never run a AC Mallet on it. Thats fine with me, I prefer small industrial stuff in the first place so it works out good for me. You just have to decide WHAT you want your layout to be...industrial mining or logging line with little critters and varmits pulling coll little 2 axle cars? or bigger lokies like B'mann's Connie hauling 1/20.3 cars or even Class 1 standard gauge trains like USAs F3's.

DONT do R1s (or R2's) when you want to run a DASH-9 or a Connie eventually.

Do this: CHOOSE WHAT ENGINES AND CARS YOU REALLY REALLY WANT TO RUN FIRST- before you build your layout, and let THAT decision be the ruling guideline when planning your layout. You'll be far happier in the long run if you plan for what you want to run even if you have to move a little more dirt.

Good Luck!

[Curmudgeon]

As much as I hate to disagree with Master Strong (wait a minute..........no, on second thought maybe I ENJOY it!), I stand behind the original statement:

"Once you have done that you have permanently limited yourself to that curvature."

Think outside the Red Box for a bit.
It won't hurt you to experiment.

Let's say someone brings over a bigger engine to run.
You're limited right away.

Let's say YOU decide to buy a bigger engine.
Then to run it you get to tear out what you built and start over.

More track in the curves can do one of two things.
It can lengthen your run, allowing you to gain more altitude each successive tangent, or, you can compensate the grade and shallow the curves up to allow you to pull the same stuff you pull on the straights.

I never draw out an exact plan before I build.
I get a rough idea of where I want to be, and start building.

When we started down the 4% along the fenceline, we could not SEE the terminus.
Trees, metal sheds, main shop building, just couldn't see it.
Had to raise the level two feet at the end to compensate, but I kept it at 4%.

Just play with it.
It is not an exact science.

TOC

[ttrigg]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Curmudgeon


If it was my venture, I'd cut into the hillside for part of the curve, and curved trestle the other part to open up the radius as big as possible.

TOC

As Curmudgeon so eloquently put it, going outside your retaining walls (on the downhill side) will give you a reason for bridgework. Cruise through the postings and you will find pictures where others have done it and it looks GOOD! The wider curves will allow longer engines and trains.

[SandyR]

I have a small garden railroad with sharp curves, the sharpest being a half-circle of starter set curve (2' radius). That I disguised with some strategic plantings, and the other curves are landscaped so it looks as if they had to be that sharp (LGB R2 and R3). I run a variety of 0-4-0T's and shorty cars, since that is what I happen to like. And the short stuff and my little railroad just match up so well...they were made for each other.
BTW, Kevin, I think it was the Buddley Bumblebahn. Bahn is the German for railroad. I worked out the trackplan for it once, and the curves are, indeed, 2' radius...I'd love to see some pictures of how it looks today (hint, hint)...
SandyR

[devils]

who says big engines are out? Shays, Climaxes, and Heislers were built for sharp curves and the Bachmann ones cope with 4 ft diameter no problem and pull a decent train as well. The bachmann 44 ton diesel is good too.
Design it as an industrial line and keep with 0-4-0's and geared steam locos and have fun!

[kstrong]

The short anser is "yes." There are lots of great layouts with very tight curves. There have been quite a few featured over the years. The Budley Bumblebaum (?) comes to mind as one of my particular favorites. I think it had 2' radius curves.

As for the equipment you can run, LGB makes everything to run on a 4' diameter curve, so you'll have no trouble finding a fair variety of locos to run around such tight curves. (And it's a far wider array than just 0-4-0s, too.) As others have alluded, some of the larger locos may look silly going around really tight curves, but from what you describe, the tight curves will only be on the ends, so they're very easy to mask with tunnels and vegation. If you can find the back issue of GR that has an article on Tom Speer's Hard Rock & Dynamite Railroad, you'll find his situation is very similar to yours. I think his curves are 4' radius, but his track plan is almost exactly as you describe. When you look at his railroad, you really don't even see the curves at either end.

Later,

K

[Anonymous]

You're not necessarily restricted to smaller locos - for example, LGB's Swiss locos and cars will handle a 5ft diameter curve (they won't look pretty, but they'll do it). Any steamer bigger than an 0-4-0 is out though, and some 0-4-0 designs may cause trouble depending on the wheelbase. Logging or quarrying/mining would be suitable operations for curves that tight. Hope this is of use!

[Curmudgeon]

Once you have done that you have permanently limited yourself to that curvature.

If you're happy with only running small engines, short cars and short trains, no problem.

If it was my venture, I'd cut into the hillside for part of the curve, and curved trestle the other part to open up the radius as big as possible.
You can temp in the trestle work with 2X4 and 2X6 screwed together with drywall screws, replace with proper trestling as you become satisfied with the layout of the trackage.

TOC

[Ray Dunakin]

Is it possible to have a decent layout with curves in the 5' to 6.5' diameter range? The only space I have is a fairly steep slope. I also want a continous loop, so I can sit back and watch trains run. I've figured out that I can put in a stretched, folded "dogbone" that zigzags up the side of the hill. It starts at the lower right corner of the hill, works its way across to the left end while climbing a 3-4% grade, then turns around and goes back to the right, then one more turn to end up in the upper left corner.

To do this, I'm putting in a low retaining wall at the bottom of the hill, backfilling, and then cutting into the hill. This creates a wide enough area for the hairpin turns, with part of the track hidden in short tunnels. But I can't get any wider than 6.5' diameter without cutting too far into the hill and putting too much of the track in tunnels.

I'm not planning on running any huge engines, just some small locos (steam and diesel). It's a shortline mountain railroad, so it doesn't need anything big. But I'm starting to get a bit worried because all the layouts I've read about so far in GR have curves with 8' diameter or more. Even the two "small space" railroads featured in the current issue have 4' and 5' minimum radius curves.

Am I crazy to think I can operate reliably on tight curves? So far, the only loco I have is a Buddy L 2-6-2 that manages on 4' diameter track well enough that I think 5' and 6.5' would be fine for it.