7j43kI'm using the "SW7" drive under a Varney NW2. And I'll bet that tickles your heart. It's gonna have DCC/sound, too. And a Kato motor. And a full cab interior.
Ahhh! Beautiful! Its been many years since I heard of such repowering projects.
You're quite correct such projects tickles my heart and brings a big smile to my face.
Larry
Conductor.
Summerset Ry.
"Stay Alert, Don't get hurt Safety First!"
Larry,
I'm using the "SW7" drive under a Varney NW2. And I'll bet that tickles your heart. It's gonna have DCC/sound, too. And a Kato motor. And a full cab interior.
Tomorrow I'm milling out the sound chamber for the speakers. Sunday I will likely be machining a fuel tank out of brass. For the weight.
This is a project I've been wanting to do ever since they came out with the slow speed gearing (which this one has).
Ed
Ed,What shell are you using? I know Hobbytown offered a drive for the Athearn SW7.. Maybe the Varney or Revell too? I don't recall. Are there others I missed?
Down deep I miss those Hobbytown RS3s and RSD4/5s and the drive for the Athearn Geep. Those universal shafts sounds far better then the tubing we used in the early to mid 60s.
My Hobbytown switcher's curve limit is caused by the gear tower hitting the inside edge of the frame. I suppose I could do some filing; but, like I said, I don't need that. At least for the forseeable future, all my industrial and yard trackage will have at least a 24" radius.
All the drive joints are with universal shafts--no flex tubing.
7j43kSadly, my Hobbytown switcher can't get much below 24" radius. Without train. Not that sad, though, 'cause I don't have any curves sharper than that. But it IS kinda weird feeling.
Ed,Speaking of Hobbytowns the RS3 and the GP7 drive for Athearn GP9(GP7 in truth) would go around a 18" curves but,here lays the secrete in doing so..
The flexible drive shaft had to be soft enough to bend in order to go around those curves..However,I built mine for switching and club use and I used R/C model airplane fuel line for the drive shaft since many modelers of the time believed the fuel line was superior to rubber tubing.
A Athearn SW7 can traverse a 15" curve with 40' cars in tow. The only reason I know that is I seen a 4x4' figure eight loop layout that had 15" curves.
IMHO 15" curves is ridiculous and should join the X2F coupler in a museum..
oops ... never mind
Layout Design GalleryLayout Design Special Interest Group
A UP SW10 had a minimum radius (without train) of 14.5" (HO).
A BNSF GP15-1--16.5" (without train)--23.5" (with train)
Those are for relatively recent locomotives.
ATSF 2200 (early Baldwin switcher)--6.9" (without train)--16.5" (with train)
To be clear, the above is about prototype locomotives, not model.
Sadly, my Hobbytown switcher can't get much below 24" radius. Without train. Not that sad, though, 'cause I don't have any curves sharper than that. But it IS kinda weird feeling.
BRAKIEM.C. Fujiwara layout is a super nice N Scale switching layout that I rate as one of the best designed.
Thanks, I was happy that M.C. chose my published design to build from -- he did a great job with it.
M.C. Fujiwara layout is a super nice N Scale switching layout that I rate as one of the best designed. I followed the build and watched a video on you tube.
The first photo I consider a modified time saver.Its ok for a newb in N Scale ISL designs there are better modern ISL designs for N Scale as you may know.
I notice no small HO ISLs photos.So be it.
18" curves will work, the negativity comes from years of reading how evil they are. They must work or Atlas would quit making them.
You should know there are uses for 18" curves and yes,those awful snap switches and that use is between having a simple loop layout or no layout. 18" curves also works quite will for some tight urban industrial areas.
BRAKIEAtlas calls either one a #4 regardless of the package they come in so,where's confusion? There isn't any.
The original poster is looking for information. If he uses a Walthers #4, it will be sharper than the atlas Customline #4½. That's why clarity matters.
BRAKIESo,have you decided to build operate a 1x6 footer for the experience?
How is that question even germaine? The Original Poster isn't limited to 1' X 6'. And this isn't about my layout. Or yours.
BRAKIEIf not you have no experience
I have enough exposure and experience with 18" radius curves in HO from building layouts and seeing others in operation.
I have built a couple of small switching layouts for myself and I'm building another now. I've designed several for clients in HO and N which they have built and enjoyed.
Here's one I built for myself.
And here's just one example built from my plan.
Built by my friend M.C. Fujiwara and described in this thread:
http://cs.trains.com/mrr/f/11/t/195425.aspx
But none of this is really pertinent to the Original Poster's layout.
cuyamaAgain, if they are Atlas CustomLine "#4"s, they are broader than true #4s. That makes a difference. If one is going to give advice, clarity is helpful.
Atlas calls either one a #4 regardless of the package they come in so,where's confusion? There isn't any.
So,have you decided to build operate a 1x6 footer for the experience? If not you have no experience to say what will and will not work on those tiny ISLs..
dehusmanNever said you were wrong, I just said if somebody wants to do it, they have to have quality track and cars.
That should be the main key for any size layout. Over the years I found HO is far more forgiving then N Scale when it comes to less then ideal track work. Still solid track must be one of the main goals of any layout regardless of scale.
Some may wonder why a 8' switching layout..
I could have bought everything needed for a maybe some day layout or simply go with what I had to work with. For me the answer was a no brainer go with what I had to work with since that beats plan,buy and wait and wait and wait to build that maybe,hopefully some day layout..
Today I have a 12' ISL and still far from the Godzilla size ISL with size 8 switches I always wanted to build..
BRAKIENow by using #4s
Again, if they are Atlas CustomLine "#4"s, they are broader than true #4s. That makes a difference.
If one is going to give advice, clarity is helpful.
BRAKIEWith respect how many 1'x6' switching layouts have you built over the years and operated?
I've built and seen and designed enough layouts to know what works and doesn't. Thanks for asking. By the way, the Original Poster's layout is larger than 1' X 6'
BRAKIEDo you know who owns and maintains industrial sidings
Yes.
BRAKIEWhat does it take for folks to understand? I have years of experience building and operating ISLs 6 or 8 foot long and never had to call the 0-5-0 wrecking crew even though I've used cars up to 62'.
Never said you were wrong, I just said if somebody wants to do it, they have to have quality track and cars.
I'm sure with your experience you know how to lay quality track and you maintain your cars. Somebody who doesn't have that experience needs to know that they can't expect to slap down minimum radius stuff with minimum quality control and expect it to work right.
Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com
dehusmanSo sure you can build a layout, especially a switching layout with minimum radius and tight switches, but you have to make sure the track and equipment is quality. If not, have the 0-5-0 big hook on hot standby.
What does it take for folks to understand? I have years of experience building and operating ISLs 6 or 8 foot long and never had to call the 0-5-0 wrecking crew even though I've used cars up to 62'.
Here a idea-build and operate a 6' or 8' ISL using #4 switches and gain the needed experience to tell me I'm wrong instead of relying on so called "experts" opinions to tell me I'm wrong..
My ideal ISL would use #8 switches and modern industrial buildings up to 30" long and no less then 10" high with bulk storage silos up to 18" tall and 3" around.
The harsh reality is I never had room for a Godzilla size ISL and the cold truth the majority of my ISLs was 8 footers and I had to do things that you and others may think impossible..Those few 6 footers I built was a challenge to design even using those awful snap switches but,those was the lessor of the two evils.
BTW.A two industry and one team track ISL is the results of using #6 switches and thus not very fun to operate..
Now by using #4s you gain a extra siding and 3 car spots per industry plus a off spot-I favor 2 boxcars and a tank car or coveredhopper unloading spot.
BRAKIEBTW. Do you know who owns and maintains industrial sidings? Not the railroad but,the industry the siding serves.
BTW do you know who owns the layout that will model the railroad and the industrial siding? The same modeler so no matter who's responsibility the problem is, the railroad or the industry, the modeler is the owner/recipient of all the problems.
"Minimum" radius means it is a lower bound, not a "standard". Flaws are additive. Yes long modern cars and long modern engines can operate on 18" radius and #4 switches, especially if everything is going very slow. BUT, if there are flaws in the track (alignment, guage, crosslevel, vertical curves, etc.) and flaws in the cars (truck swing, truck equalization, coupler height, coupler swing, coupler gathering range, underbody details, light weight, etc) can compound to cause poor performance. When you build the layout to the operating minimums you have to make sure all the other stuff is up to snuff, the tighter the parameters and the laxer the conformity, the more holes there are in the "swiss cheese" and the greater the chance the holes will line up.
So sure you can build a layout, especially a switching layout with minimum radius and tight switches, but you have to make sure the track and equipment is quality. If not, have the 0-5-0 big hook on hot standby.
My feeling - just my opinion - is that it's too easy to get sucked into the trap of thinking that a switching layout has to have super-tight curves and turnouts. If you don't have to have a sharp curve - like to allow for a continous run or a curve at the corner of the layout room - why not go the other way and make it as close to the real thing as possible? In real life, a no.6 or no.8 turnout is pretty sharp, and would only be seen in say an industrial area. Many real diesels would be limited to the equivalent of an HO 24"R or larger curve...I think a real SD-40-2 would need something like a 28 or 30"R.
In building my layout, I started with a shelf area and put in a switching layout using no.6 turnouts. Sure, I could have used no.4 turnouts and maybe gotten an extra car in a siding here or there, but it's awfully nice to be able to run any equipment I want and have it work reliably and look good too.
cuyamaBut in any case, if the original poster has room and wants to model modern-era railroading, why suggest standards that may cause trouble?
Why? With respect how many 1'x6' switching layouts have you built over the years and operated? Experience is the best teacher and I know by that experience cars up to 62' will traverse around a 18" curve and through a snap switch. I also found Peco medium switches to be superior to #4s for switching layouts.
BTW. Do you know who owns and maintains industrial sidings? Not the railroad but,the industry the siding serves. A railroad can embargo a industry's siding but,seldom does. Did you know short lines have issues with today's 90 and 100 ton cars on light rail that is 60 or more years old? A industrial lead is also on the bottom of MOW department's to do list since its not primary trackage.
Even a MP15,SW1500 or a loaded freight car can make that old rail crackle and pop.
BRAKIEI would not hesitate using #4 switches and 18" curves but,would limit my car lengths to 50-62' since I have use those lengths with #4 switches with no issues.
Again, if these are Atlas Customline, they aren't true #4s, but #4½. So they work better with 18" curves in HO than would true #4s.
But in any case, if the original poster has room and wants to model modern-era railroading, why suggest standards that may cause trouble?
K_FrazierThe industrial depot I'm basing my layout on is an old Army Depot, built in 1942. Since I didn't think there would be freight cars much larger than 40' during that time, I thought the track would be built to the tighter standards. If that is not the case, I can easily adjust to larger switches and curve radius as I haven't begun designing the layout yet.
Prototype standards (even 1940s standards) are (and were) much broader than model railroading standards. Unless this was tight urban trackage originally, the real-life railroad (or the Army) wouldn’t have designed-in overly tight curves in the first place.
The physics are different for real-life cars and model cars, particularly when shoving. (Yes, I know I keep saying that -- sorry, not sorry.)
Some older tight industrial tracks have been rebuilt to handle modern cars. Others are abandoned completely. To me, layouts are no fun if they don’t run reliably.
Of course, everyone must make their own choices, but I’d personally not design-in potential reliability problems from the start. Re-worked building doors, signs that denote restricted side clearances, and other indications could be modeled to suggest that this is older track now being used for modern cars.
K_Frazier cuyama Why are you choosing such tight standards? For modern-era freight cars a bit broader turnout and minimum radius will increase reliability, particularly when shoving. #5s would pair well with 22-24” radius or so, which would likely be more reliable when shoving the occasional longer car. The industrial depot I'm basing my layout on is an old Army Depot, built in 1942. Since I didn't think there would be freight cars much larger than 40' during that time, I thought the track would be built to the tighter standards. If that is not the case, I can easily adjust to larger switches and curve radius as I haven't begun designing the layout yet.
cuyama Why are you choosing such tight standards? For modern-era freight cars a bit broader turnout and minimum radius will increase reliability, particularly when shoving. #5s would pair well with 22-24” radius or so, which would likely be more reliable when shoving the occasional longer car.
Why are you choosing such tight standards? For modern-era freight cars a bit broader turnout and minimum radius will increase reliability, particularly when shoving. #5s would pair well with 22-24” radius or so, which would likely be more reliable when shoving the occasional longer car.
The industrial depot I'm basing my layout on is an old Army Depot, built in 1942. Since I didn't think there would be freight cars much larger than 40' during that time, I thought the track would be built to the tighter standards. If that is not the case, I can easily adjust to larger switches and curve radius as I haven't begun designing the layout yet.
This is a problem railroads face just about every day some times its a 100 ton covered hopper on to light rail due to the track being there since the place was built. Curves meant for shorter cars is still common.
On the PRR a lot of the industrial leads was pretty sharp so,we would "walk the train" around any tight industrial siding curve.What that means a brakeman would watch the wheels as they round the curve at walking speed. Some times we would use several buffer cars for switching a industry due to light rail or sharp curves.
How bad can it get? Please watch the video. Note the flatcar's overhang.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W7tfxwBmRD0
That is to the extreme to say the least.
I have built several switching layouts using Atlas snap switches including a rather ridiculous sharp snap switch crossover-not recommended unless one plans on using a 0-6-0T and 36-40' cars.
I would not hesitate using #4 switches and 18" curves but,would limit my car lengths to 50-62' since I have use those lengths with #4 switches with no issues..
K_Frazier My planned layout will be an industrial park/depot in the modern era. I'm thinking of using #4 turnouts and a minimum 18" radius for curves. What would the typical speed limit be in this type of environment? Motive power will be MP15AC and possibly a GP3x at a later date.
My planned layout will be an industrial park/depot in the modern era. I'm thinking of using #4 turnouts and a minimum 18" radius for curves.
What would the typical speed limit be in this type of environment?
Motive power will be MP15AC and possibly a GP3x at a later date.
You might go with 10 MPH. See below:
http://railroadtransportationsimulator.wikia.com/wiki/BNSF_Speed_and_Signal_Page
That, of course, is TOP speeed. But it's not uncommon to have a loco running at walking speed (3 MPH). 'Cause a switchman is, uh, walking out in front.
K_FrazierMy planned layout will be an industrial park/depot in the modern era. I'm thinking of using #4 turnouts and a minimum 18" radius for curves.
True #4s are pretty tight. Atlas Customline #4s are actually #4½ and would be a better match with 18"-20" radius.
Speeds are slow in modern industrial parks in any case, but the physics of model cars are different than the real thing – again, particularly when shoving.