Can't speak for the specific track plan, but I have run the Mantua standard-gauge 2-6-6-2T down to 300mm radius, a smidge under 12 inches. Other locos that have duplicated the feat are the Spectrum 0-6-0T, the ancient Tenshodo Baldwin 0-6-0T and a variety of Japanese-prototype six-drivered teakettle tanks. The Baldwin 0-8-0T once imported by Max Gray is the only four-coupled loco that can take that tight a curve, mainly because it has 44 inch drivers.
Another thing to think about is that your other rolling stock will have to be able to take the curves. Even AAR standard 40 foot cars will bump corners on 300mm radius curves. (It's a non-issue to me, because I run cars about the size of ore jimmies. OTOH, a lot of JNR rolling stock is embargoed from that route.)
Chuck (Modeling Central Japan in September, 1964)
Hi Tanked, I have both the Bachmann Shay and Climax. The Shay won't handle any radius below 18 inch unless you can extend the link between the tender and the cab (not easy since that would also effect the drive). The Climax has run less than an hour all together so I have no idea how tightly it can turn. My Climax is currently at Dave's shop (NWSL or OSO) after two trips back to Bachmann for broken gears. Despite the flaws I really like those locos but I feel certain neither will handle 12" radius but both will get up the 4% grades on my as yet incomplete SOL RR (that's Southern Ore & Lumber) with up to 6 shorty log cars in tow. The Climax improved its pulling power after the addition of some weight (2 lead tool boxes and 2 lead barrels but those plastic gears are not made for any stress.
Good Luck, Roy
Roy Onward into the fog http://s1014.photobucket.com/albums/af269/looseclu/
Hi Tanked,
markpierce TankedEngine Mark - can you point me to an Internet accessible layout plan for the above JA design? I don't believe it is internet accessible. The plan was published in the August 1953 Model Railroader magazine (original street price of 50 cents). If you can't find one, perhaps Kalmbach would be able to send you a copy of the article entitled "Variety in Five by Ten." The article covers three layout plans, including the Foothill & Excelsior. Mark
TankedEngine Mark - can you point me to an Internet accessible layout plan for the above JA design?
Mark - can you point me to an Internet accessible layout plan for the above JA design?
I don't believe it is internet accessible. The plan was published in the August 1953 Model Railroader magazine (original street price of 50 cents). If you can't find one, perhaps Kalmbach would be able to send you a copy of the article entitled "Variety in Five by Ten." The article covers three layout plans, including the Foothill & Excelsior.
Mark
Thanks Mark.
I don't know what the copyright situation is, but I wonder if Model Railroader can scan it & put it somewhere on their website for interested persons??
Is that feasible Andy Sp.??
Thanks
Tanked
markpierce . I quickly abandoned it after finding a much more suitable layout design (John Armstrong's Foothill & Excelsior RR on a 5x10 donut). Mark
. I quickly abandoned it after finding a much more suitable layout design (John Armstrong's Foothill & Excelsior RR on a 5x10 donut).
I haven't been able to find one in an initial search.
fwright Bachmann's Shay drive has had reports of not being rugged enough for continued use with heavy trains. And the Bachmann Shay is a large locomotive. The only Shays that might hit 12" radius would be the Keystone or some brass imports of very tiny Shays. There are some reports that the Rivarossi Heisler drive does not hold up well or pull well on steep grades. I've never put mine to the test, so I can't say. The Climax is probably your best bet, although it is a noisy beast in stock form. Unfortunately, grinding the frame to give it a more realistic appearance will probably cost pulling power. Fred W
Bachmann's Shay drive has had reports of not being rugged enough for continued use with heavy trains. And the Bachmann Shay is a large locomotive. The only Shays that might hit 12" radius would be the Keystone or some brass imports of very tiny Shays.
There are some reports that the Rivarossi Heisler drive does not hold up well or pull well on steep grades. I've never put mine to the test, so I can't say.
The Climax is probably your best bet, although it is a noisy beast in stock form. Unfortunately, grinding the frame to give it a more realistic appearance will probably cost pulling power.
Fred W
Just keep in mind that usually the only reports one hears is from users with problems. Some of use have no issues with the Bachmann
You should note that the Keystone is an unpowered kit, and in order to power it has led some folks to take up knitting.
Actually I have 2 Bachmann Shays, 1 Riv Heisler and an MDC Climax, The Heisler (last version) runs very well, and pulls as good or better that the Bachmann Shays.
The MDC Climax ("the blender") will pull a house off of the foundation, when I can get it to move with that crap MDC gearbox. I never did get that Ron Lafever model
I never tested any at 12" radius, if any could do it , the Climax probably could.
"The true sign of intelligence is not knowledge but imagination."-Albert Einstein
http://gearedsteam.blogspot.com/
Enjoy
Paul
cuyama On 4/30/09: TankedEngine I am in the planning phase of an 8' x 20' approx. layout that could have 3 vertical levels (a bit like a layered cake I guess) Today: TankedEngine Being an obdurate builder I am of course attracted to probably one of the more difficult HO 8' x 4' layouts when it comes to a rugged scenery/mining/logging scenario. I refer to Carroll Weis's subject layout, # 35 in L. Westcott's '101 Track Plans'. So what's the story?
On 4/30/09:
TankedEngine I am in the planning phase of an 8' x 20' approx. layout that could have 3 vertical levels (a bit like a layered cake I guess)
I am in the planning phase of an 8' x 20' approx. layout that could have 3 vertical levels (a bit like a layered cake I guess)
Today:
TankedEngine Being an obdurate builder I am of course attracted to probably one of the more difficult HO 8' x 4' layouts when it comes to a rugged scenery/mining/logging scenario. I refer to Carroll Weis's subject layout, # 35 in L. Westcott's '101 Track Plans'.
Being an obdurate builder I am of course attracted to probably one of the more difficult HO 8' x 4' layouts when it comes to a rugged scenery/mining/logging scenario.
I refer to Carroll Weis's subject layout, # 35 in L. Westcott's '101 Track Plans'.
So what's the story?
The 8' x 20' in half the detached garage is morphing into an 8' x 18' in the basement.
This is because in my 1st winter at this 1880's house my gauges in the garage told me it was on the damp side, & hits 30C on a bad day.
Whereas the basement is dry, & only varies +/-3C from 60c, all year.
There you have it.
Pragmatic relocation.
The basement is longish & narrow. The available space is 8" x 18' & I am thinking a 'U' shape with splayed ends for 22" curves, if necessary , & an aisle up the centre so I can get at track . This 8' x 4'ish layout for the log/coal/ore crawlers is envisaged as a sub set of the whole.
I would welcome suggestions for suitable 8' x 4' 'ish' layouts. Thanks to Byron for a link to alternatives to 8' x 4' , & thanks to all posters for some very useful info.
Layout Design GalleryLayout Design Special Interest Group
TankedEngine Being an obdurate builder I am of course attracted to probably one of the more difficult HO 8' x 4' layouts when it comes to a rugged scenery/mining/logging scenario. I refer to Carroll Weis's subject layout, # 35 in L. Westcott's '101 Track Plans'. A quite clever & fascinating twist & turn layout with elevation & 'sharp curves'. Has anyone built this to plan in HO? Things to watch out for??
A quite clever & fascinating twist & turn layout with elevation & 'sharp curves'. Has anyone built this to plan in HO? Things to watch out for??
As my first layout, I started building it in 1963. I didn't get much further than the benchwork and about half the trackwork. I quickly abandoned it after finding a much more suitable layout design (John Armstrong's Foothill & Excelsior RR on a 5x10 donut). Weiss's plan has extreme limitations caused by the very sharp curves and steep grades. I also realized that seeing trains limited to twisting and climbing was not my idea of interesting operations.
Shays normally struggle more on very sharp curves than other small model locos due to the telescoping line shafts on the outside of the frame. If the line shafts can contract enough to round the curve on the inside, they will slip apart when on the outside, and vice versa. The effect is actually worse on standard gauge than on narrow gauge. Also, Bachmann's Shay drive has had reports of not being rugged enough for continued use with heavy trains. And the Bachmann Shay is a large locomotive. The only Shays that might hit 12" radius would be the Keystone or some brass imports of very tiny Shays. Testing would be needed, tinkering is a good possibility. Again, narrow gauge would have more chance of success. HOn30 is better than HOn3.
The other 3 locomotives listed are real possibilities - I have heard of all 3 successfully making 14" radius curves. A testing program would be needed to establish whether 12" curves are possible or practical. There are some reports that the Rivarossi Heisler drive does not hold up well or pull well on steep grades. I've never put mine to the test, so I can't say. The Mantua Logger is reportedly a strong puller and great locomotive. But its size may make it too big for the curves and/or layout. I have seen the Roundhouse Climax pull a 3 car train up 8% grades on a 15" radius at a show. I know 4% grades on 18" radius curves have never fazed the one I own. The Climax is probably your best bet, although it is a noisy beast in stock form. Unfortunately, grinding the frame to give it a more realistic appearance will probably cost pulling power.
Other locomotives that might work: Bowser (Varney) Docksider (0-4-0T), Mantua Lil Six (0-6-0T), or Booster (0-4-0T). Make sure you get a metal boiler for the extra weight to pull decently on the grades. For that reason, I'm not sure the Tyco plastic boiler tank engines or the Bachmann 0-6-0T will pull anything up the grades.
Another possibility is the Ken Kidder 0-4-0T and 0-4-0 series that were imported in the '60s. These low end brass models were made in both HO and HOn3. The Kidders have to be remotored and/or regeared for decent control - in stock form they have 2 speeds, stop and Mach 2+. There are several web articles on remotoring and rebuilding them. These will definet
Kidder and FED also made small HOn3 2-6-0s which just might make 12" radius. Both require remotoring (and probably regearing) to run well. With a remotoring kit, total cost is over $200 for either of these, and that's before adding any details.
The next issue will be cars on a 12" radius curve. If using conventional 40ft long HO cars on those curves, you will probably have to go to truck mounted couplers. If the cars are 30 scale ft or shorter, body mounted couplers will likely work.
My guess is that you will be unable to fit all the track into a 4x8 space in HO with enough horizontal clearance. And Atlas #4 turnouts will assuredly not fit. The plan was drawn with NMRA-spec HOn3 #4 turnouts (assuming it was drawn accurately) which are much shorter and have a sharper frog angle than Atlas Custom Line #4s. Before committing to any purchases, I would redraw the plan with XtrkCad, using your chosen turnouts. I can almost guarantee that with any commercial turnout, you are going to need more space, or will have to cut back on the amount of track. And going to standard gauge is going to exacerbate the situation.
You definitely have a challenge to pull it all together for a successful layout. Read Charlie Comstock's experiences with his 1st Bear Creek & South Jackson http://s145079212.onlinehome.us/rr/bcsj/index.html) - a 4x8 twice around. That and John Allen's 1st G&D are the only plausible complex 4x8s I have seen. Note that both were expanded slightly beyond the original rectangle. The BC&SJ had the 4x8 ends bowed out slightly, and the G&D had the yard/terminal moved to an extension at the left lower corner.
my thoughts, your choices
Hello "Tanked,"
That Denver & South Park track plan was intended for HOn3 – the prototype South Park line was a three-footer using small 2-6-0s and 2-6-6T Mason Bogies – and probably isn't practical for any but the very smallest standard gauge locomotives and rolling stock. I doubt that even the HOn3 Moguls and Bogies that have been available as brass imports could operate on the 13-inch-radius curves specified for that plan in 101 Track Plans. If you're looking to take on a challenge, you've picked the right plan.
Good luck,
Andy
Andy Sperandeo MODEL RAILROADER Magazine
I'd say not only obdurate, but masochistic. I've never seen anyone attempt this, and like many plans in 101 Track Plans, it may never have been built as drawn. Your challenge will be to find locos that can negotiate not only the 12" radius but also the abrupt stub turnouts, all while dealing with grades over 5%. Challenging.
And in the end, I wonder if you would find the finished layout to be worth the effort. There is one online industry (and limited places to add more), only two passing sidings, mininmal yard trackage, etc.
Most people who have room for an HO 4X8 and its aisles have room for something more engaging when they consider their options. And even if you absolutely, positively insist on an HO 4X8 "sacred sheet", there are better choices that would be more practical to build, IMHO.
ByronModel RR Blog Layout Design Gallery
A quite clever & fascinating twist & turn layout with elevation & 'sharp curves'.
I have several questions ;
(1) Has anyone built this to plan in HO? Things to watch out for??
(2) Which locos will actually get around the, what look like down to 12" radius curves? In particular, say using Atlas code 100 flexi-track for the tight curves, which of the following could negotiate a 12" radius curve:
Roundhouse Climax A?
Rivarossi Heisler?
Bachmann Shay?
Mantua Classic Logger?
I think the Rivarossi 2-8--2 & Cab Fwd articulateds are probably too big, but I am curious as to what minimum diameter curves they can actually manage??
Any other HO steam locos that could be used on it??