radius in N scale

[Anonymous]

thank you to all, excellent advice. big boy on kitchen floor sounds good for a trial and error excercice. then back to negociation table to get the right amount of space.

[Adelie]

That's what I have always liked about the "squares" method of developing a track plan. Once you know your absolute operational minimum radius, balancing the size of the squares (and minimum radius) vs. the available space makes it pretty easy to reach a compromise between larger radius, space and desired layout shape.

[Bikerdad]

QUOTE: Originally posted by pizzo

what should be the minimum radius in N scale, to allow for a decent look? thank you for your feed back [8D]

As noted, "it depends." One element has already been addressed, namely, it depends on what you're running. GPs pushing a bunch of 55t ore cars around have a lot more leeway on "lookin good" than the D&RGW PA/PB/PA consist pulling the California Zephyr.

There's an even bigger, more significant consideration though: what looks good to you. [8D]

Nobody else can answer that. I personally have no problem with the Zephyr running on 9.75" radius curves. Yes, I would prefer to run it on bigger curves, but preferences are malleable beasties that often buckle under the relentless force of geometry. Bigger is preferred, but only you can determine what the minimum you will accept will be. I'd suggest that you get some flex or sectional, put it down on the kitchen floor (sweep first), and run trains to get a sense of your radius demands.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by pcarrell

There is a question behind your question. The question is, "what should be the minimum radius in N scale, to allow for a decent look with the equipment I am running?"

You see, a Big Boy will look OK on aa 18 inch curve, but to really make it look good you are going to need a larger radius.

One of the big benefits of N scale is that it has a higher scenery to track ratio in a given space then most other scales. Why not, if we have the available room, take advantage of that?

One of the ways to do that is to use very broad curves.

This makes our scenery look more realistic. It also makes our equipment look more realistic.

Now to answer your question more directly, I would base my curve radius on several things; the era of the railroad, size of the equipment to be operated, and available real estate.

Lets assume you are using Big Boys and 85 foot passenger cars.

In a room where you want it to look good but not engulf the entire room: something in the neigborhood of 24 or 26 inches would look very nice. Larger would only enhance the visual appeal.

Ok, now what about something smaller, say 40 or 50 foot cars and 2-8-0's and first generation diesels and such?

18 to 20 inches or so would look good.

How about small equipment, say turn of the century and stuff.

Maybe 15 or 16 inches minimum to look decent.

Logging and trolly?

Now you are getting down there. Maybe 10 or 12 inches.

Now keep in mind that all or this is subjective, so...

[Adelie]

As a general answer when planning, the largest you can get away with. Also, use easements for performance and, on extremely broad curves, appearance.

[pcarrell]

There is a question behind your question. The question is, "what should be the minimum radius in N scale, to allow for a decent look with the equipment I am running?"

You see, a Big Boy will look OK on aa 18 inch curve, but to really make it look good you are going to need a larger radius.

One of the big benefits of N scale is that it has a higher scenery to track ratio in a given space then most other scales. Why not, if we have the available room, take advantage of that?

One of the ways to do that is to use very broad curves.

This makes our scenery look more realistic. It also makes our equipment look more realistic.

Now to answer your question more directly, I would base my curve radius on several things; the era of the railroad, size of the equipment to be operated, and available real estate.

Lets assume you are using Big Boys and 85 foot passenger cars.

In a room where you want it to look good but not engulf the entire room: something in the neigborhood of 24 or 26 inches would look very nice. Larger would only enhance the visual appeal.

Ok, now what about something smaller, say 40 or 50 foot cars and 2-8-0's and first generation diesels and such?

18 to 20 inches or so would look good.

How about small equipment, say turn of the century and stuff.

Maybe 15 or 16 inches minimum to look decent.

Logging and trolly?

Now you are getting down there. Maybe 10 or 12 inches.

Now keep in mind that all or this is subjective, so...

[Anonymous]

From my readin 18 is pretty generous. I think that I remember 16 being classified as broad. (I think from Track Planning for Realistic Operation, I could be mistaken.) So depending on your goals, you might be able to work down a bit.

Here is a link to the NMRA "Recommended Practice"

http://www.nmra.org/standards/rp-11.html

[Anonymous]

From my readin 18 is pretty generous. I think that I remember 16 being classified as broad. (I think from Track Planning for Realistic Operation, I could be mistaken.) So depending on your goals, you might be able to work down a bit.

Here is a link to the NMRA "Recommended Practice"

http://www.nmra.org/standards/rp-11.html

[Anonymous]

thank you, I was hoping for something smaller but you are probably right.

[DSchmitt]

18" main line
as little as 10" on industrial track where only short cars and small locos will operate

[Anonymous]

what should be the minimum radius in N scale, to allow for a decent look? thank you for your feed back [8D]