Why is minimum radius dropping?

[Anonymous]

The average age on the MR forums is not reflective of the MRR community at large. The MR forums attract a younger crowd. Newbies to the hobby, myself included, don't like the "standards" because when you discover them you realize how much room they take. For example, grades is a popular question because the newbie doesn't want to, or have the room for a two percent grade so that is one of the rules they don't like. The other is radius, 30 inch radius's eat a lot of space and so the newbie will often go smaller.

How do I know that the average age is younger here? Well, some one started a thread which became quite long asking about people's ages, and the age is somewhat lower than in the MR community.

[CP5415]

In my case, I didn't want to take up too much space with curves on my 9X12 layout so I used 22" in all but two curves on my mainline. The other two are 30" & an 18".
Both of these are inside tunnels & won't be seen. This is unfortunate as I do love the look of the trains on the 30" curve.
I have a two lap oval that if I tried to use bigger than 22" I wouldn't have much straight track.

Gordon

[Jetrock]

Urban/industrial modeling seems to be more popular these days--this might help explain the tendency towards sub-minimum radius. I suppose it is a little weird that this interest seems to be coupled with plenty of posts about people obsessed with "Big Boys" and other large heavy-duty locomotives. I suppose the big stuff is always eye-catching and not everyone shares my taste for light-duty GE switchers and wood interurban box motors--but it would certainly make more sense if they did. It seems like traction is having a bit of a rebirth too, which is well-suited for tiny layouts.

New houses tend to be bigger these days, it's true--but lots of new home buyers aren't buying those, they are buying slightly older houses vacated by the folks buying the new houses, and these tend to be the folks just getting into model railroading.

It would be nice, I suppose, to have a layout with 36" minimum radius and #8 turnouts throughout--but my hoise (not apartment) is 731 square feet, with a luxurious 16x8 foot garage as my layout space/workshop/garden shed, so six feet of shelf layout with 12" curves is all I can manage.

[Anonymous]

In my day there were made tracks out of wood and metal starting at 32" and working down to 24" Anything smaller was used for yard and industrial. Big engines were not sent into these areas.

There were plenty of big houses with basements also. Not so today. Sure they are being built but sometimes are so pricey compared to apartments etc.

Sectional track of 18" radius was considered toy train track back then too. Today it seems to be the minimum that everyone needs to get any kind of mainline on a small 4x8 type layout. And virtually everyone who is new to the hobby discovers that those big beautiful engines dont always fit on the 18" I know.. been there done that.

I myself will be adding onto my house in the future the planning is completed, even then the train room will only be about 16 x 36. It will take some money to accompli***his. But first the bills need to be paid off. Until then I have a small 24" radius loop with a 3 foot test track on the bench.

I do like to see the equiptment to match the radius. For example a spectrum 2-8-0 on a 18" working up to 3 towns down the line with 7 cars to switch is a "train" on a 4 x 8. Now large equiptment is fine to have and there is nothing wrong with running it. I suggest something like a loop of 35" radius Bachmann ez-track on a hardwood surface or something similar.. no carpet. to get the big engine bug out of system for day.

To me, more of a concern on these forums is rather a feeling of disappointment in routine items that are considered fixable.. such as broken couplers and such. Also couplers are causing confusion and possibly a lack of workbench space or tools to fix these minor issues.

There is alot of energy being invested over trains that wont stay on track these days rather than trains that will run well on well made track. I wonder if the decline in craftmanship and exposure to the different "skills" needed to enjoy the hobby with a minimum of outside support (hobby shop, service etc) is the real problem?

[soapbox] I am sorry for a long post but somethings get me steamed up and ready to roll and I never know when to stop.

Best of luck all.

Lee

[Anonymous]

Randy's observation is accurate.
There seems a contradiction in terms, when a "high- tech high- price" steamer like the BLI NYC Hudson is advertised as capable of running on 18" radius...yet the only cars that are appropriate for it to pull, are full length passenger cars.
The whole BLI line is intended to attract the MOST discriminating of modellers, who, one would think, would NEVER run full length passenger cars on 18" radius...right ?[:0]
Happy New Year,
Mike[:D]

[Anonymous]

It isn't dropping.

People have ALWAYS tried to squeeze full-length passenger cars and large steam locos onto their 4'x8' layout.

Since the internet is relatively new, there's no way to establish whether these people would have posted the same questions in the 60's or 70's or 80's. But I bet they woulda.

I figure these people usually advance beyond this stage to either (a) accepting what looks good for their small layout, or (b) building a larger one that will accomdate such equipment.

[Anonymous]

My impression, from reading the forum posts, is: MORE rather than fewer people are seeking information on whether and how to shoe-horn compound steam power and 90' cars onto 18" radius curves and 4 by 8 layouts.

Suitability, opperability or proportion are not considerations. It is enough to own the largest currently available example of X or Y. Why this is so I leave to the reader.

Randy

[leighant]

IS minimum radius dropping? Where do you get that idea, from the forums? Is it perhaps that there are simply a lot of inexperienced modelers asking questions on the forums?
Or are there more people not interested in passenger trains (or full-length 89' TOFC flatcars or BigBoys) for whom smaller track standards are acceptable?

[IRONROOSTER]

I don't know everyone's situation of course, but some cases would include:
1. Alot of new homes are townhouses, which usaully are not that large and usually don't have an unfinished basement. Although some have a one or two car garage on the bottom floor they have to park cars there beause of inadequate street parking. Thus a spare bedroom, usually the smallest, is all that's available.
2. With the rising cost of housing/apartment rent it can be too costly for children to leave home when they first start out , but they have more stuff as adults so less room for layout.
(that's my case, two of mine live at home one working full time and the other part time and going to school part time. Actually, I'm not too bad off as I have an 11x18' train room in the basement. But when the kids move out I can move my home office to a spare bedroom and the shop to the garage and triple my space.)
3. Most of those homes from the 60's and 50's are still here and people are living in them, so they don''t have any more space.
4. With the higher cost of lumber, track, etc. not every one can afford to build a large layout.(That was my case for many years when the children were smaller and my wife didn't work.)
So, while alot of people have more space for a layout, there are alot who don't.
Enjoy
Paul

[ndbprr]

Back in the late 60's it was pretty much agreed with the advent of full length passenger cars that 30" radius was the accepted mainline practice with #6 turnouts in HO. Now I see that a number of people are asking if equipment will take 18" - 22" radius curves and #4turnouts and I am curious. The average house being sold is about double the size of then yet we are going back to 40-50's layout planning. Why is this happening? Space shouldn't be a problem which should allow bigger radii not smaller.