Trying to use loong engines on 15", 18" and 22" radius?

[Don Gibson]

This is for all those trying to fit long engines and passenger cars on 'postage stamp' layouts:

Do you buy track to fit your engines, or engines to fit your track?

Everyone has some limitations: Time, Money, Space, Talent, and how about Imagination or Intelligence.

A 4X8 sheet of plywood limits one to 22" and under curves, regardless of any of the above. - 'nuf said?

[EL PARRo]

I expanded my layout from 4'x8' to 5'x9' just so I could adjust my trackplan to have 22" min. radius curves and still have a small yard in the very front of the layout. I think that it paid off because I can use larger locomotives and rolling stock than I could with only 18" curves. So to answer your question, I originally bought track to fit my engines, but now that all the track has been laid, I now have to buy engines to fit my track, although the larger curves broaden my selection.

I also have one part of my layout that has only 15" curves, and in that instance, I had to buy a locomotive (Rivarossi 2-truck Heisler) just for that part of the layout (although, until I get a switcher, it also works the yard on the south side of the layout).

[Anonymous]

I'm getting a 5x8 but for now just have an oval inside and oval (i.e. double track main line[;)]) on the floor with 22" and 18" curves. I can get my Rivarossi FEF-3 4-8-4 and my Spectrum 4-8-2 around both with no problems. When I get my 5x8 that will let me have 26" curves, big enough to hold a Big Boy.[:p]

[Don Gibson]

Using heisler's or switch engines on 15" radius, and Road engines on 22"?
Makes too much sense. (Keep it up).

If someone wants to own an SD-70MAC - expand your layout to 5' X 9 - and run on 28" curves! You'll have less derailments and won't have to complain about the manufacturer.

[Anonymous]

Engines to fit layout. Thus the biggest locomotive on my layout is a C424.

I'd really like a couple SD75I's and C44-9W's in CN NA paint. Maybe later this summer, once I've torn down the current layout and replaced it with an around the wall layout with 30-36" curves.

[skir4d]

Of course, you miss the obvious one. I can run anything I want on 22" curves in N-scale. And I bet in Z scale its even easier.

Jack W

[Anonymous]

This is why I chose to build a shelf layout - no sharp curves at all! If I extend the layout I'll probably need to turn through 90degrees, so I'll be designing that module with a minimum radius of 30in - I want to be able to run anything I like the look of!

I designed the layout to fit a loco - though I started work in 2001 and have only just bought the type of loco it was designed to handle (Athearn DD40)! This does mean that normal-sized diesels don't look cramped though.

[johncolley]

Railroading...Brit, We have a philosophy here in the colonies: If it moves, and shouldn't, use duct tape. If it doesn't move, and should, use WD40. Keep the kettles simmering, eh? Happy Railroading!

[csxns]

I run SD75-I 's SD70's AC4400CW's SD90's and SD80's on 22 radus curves all the time.

[Anonymous]

I plan my stuff with 24" minimum and #6 on the main and engine areas. There is room for the smaller engines to go where the big ones cant.

"Operation" =) I would have one up and running already except I would have to go thru walls to get em to continiously run. My house is just too small.

I do have a 12' by 5' dogbone staked out and in planning stages, gonna fold it over with a grade, and a 2x8' town on one end and a yard at the other. I will be running something by the end of the year.

I have always loved big steam. But I also know to get that seafood down to the dock means my Heisler gets the job. Right now the biggest one I own is a BLI PRR 4-8-2 M1a. I figure if I can run that without all the shorting, sparkling and coupler digging into the ties I can run anything.

A friend of mine has 22" curves. It is simply too tight for me.

In ending, I view tight curves and small switches as a "operational Problem" that requires smaller engines such as the Heisler or the Ma and Pa 4-6-0 to complete the car movements.

[Don Gibson]

QUOTE: Originally posted by csxns

I run SD75-I 's SD70's AC4400CW's SD90's and SD80's on 22 radus curves all the time.

SO Is that really an accomplishment ? One can walk across a busy intersection blindfolded, too . Q: but Is it smart.?

Here's one for you CSXNS: You like big engines. WHAT is limiting yourself to a 4' board? Notice i said "WHAT" (not 'why".)

"Space":? A 4X8 board (if that's what you use) needs 10' X 16' of floor space - to walk around just like a Pool Table. (to access each side and play.)

Money:? Look what you have invested in engines.

Time:? You ARE running your trains aren't you.?

Skill:? You tell me.

Maybe the last two limitations in my post should not be addressed..

[Anonymous]

I by track to fit my space. I think my tightests radius is 26" but not sure as I am in the planning/rebuilding stage. I would like larger radius but to have my long straight mainlines I gotta squeeze the tracks a little. Still enough to pull an ac4400 trough. Though the hangover looks odd. It's a 90% so I'm going to name it Horseshoe curve, complete with a park scene.( i know, "how original") but it's a place I remember so I put it in.
Andrew Miller

[Anonymous]

Both....

I have 30" radius for my cab forwards and other large steam... They look ridiculous on anything much tighter. All my small stuff also looks good on the large radius. If I had smaller curves, I would not have cab forwards or other big motive power...

In the old days, I ran Marklin 2-10-0s around 15" radius curves for years and never had a problem with how they ran, how they looked was another story...

Guy

[Jetrock]

I can't understand the fascination with big engines. I like small stuff and tight curves. Industrial lines, narrow-gauge short lines, cramped switching yards and lightweight engines are my cup of tea! You folks can keep your Big Boys and your cab-forwards--I'll be happy with my 44-tonners, 0-4-0's and single-truck trolleys. It also means that I can run my equipment over 12-15" radius with no problem at all...

I don't understand the fascination with 4x8's either. Thirty-two square feet of layout surface area would make a wonderful around-the-room shelf layout that could be tailored for Class 1 engines, boxcab critters, or anything in between (or both!) instead of a rectangle with 18-22" radius blobs on either end.

[BRAKIE]

[bow] [bow] [bow][:-^][:-^]

[Anonymous]

Minimum radius is probably the first rule that newbies "violate". I learned the hard way when I purchase a rather expensive brass steam engine (Royal Hudson) and tried to run it on a layout that didn't have the correct curves. I could run it backwards and forwards about 5 feet and that was it. Fortunately, I have friends who have large layouts so it is run there.

[CP5415]

After the lastest of re-aligning of the mainline, all my curves are 22"s.
Even the dreaded 18" curve I had in a tunnel was replaced with 22" without having to modify a whole lot of benchwork.
22" does work a lot better I have to admit for my AC4400's & SD40-2's & I would recommend at least 22" minimum for a mainline even though I never had any problems with the 18" at full throttle.

Just my 2 cents

Gordon

[mustanggt]

the minimum mainline radius on my new layout will be 26", and my biggest loco is a lifelike SD60M. So i wont have any problems. But if I tried running one of those crazy schnabel transformer cars, There would be some problems [:O]!

[TrainFreak409]

QUOTE: Originally posted by 4884bigboy

I'm getting a 5x8 but for now just have an oval inside and oval (i.e. double track main line[;)]) on the floor with 22" and 18" curves. I can get my Rivarossi FEF-3 4-8-4 and my Spectrum 4-8-2 around both with no problems. When I get my 5x8 that will let me have 26" curves, big enough to hold a Big Boy.[:p]

Amazing, that sounds like me! As of now, my "layout" consists of whatever Bachmann EZ Track, and Marklin 3Rail C Track I can put on the floor. But, I am trying to design a layout with 22", 24", or possibly 26" radii. But, the amount of space my mother will let me have, might limit it to only 22".
My largest locomotive is Bachmann's Union Pacific Overland Northern. It doesn't look that bad. But still, it would look better on larger curves. My AT&SF Dockside looks right at home!

[8]TrainFreak409[8]

[ddechamp71]

QUOTE: Originally posted by skir4d

Of course, you miss the obvious one. I can run anything I want on 22" curves in N-scale. And I bet in Z scale its even easier.

Jack W

It's a question of ratio. A lot of Z-scalers have small / very small layouts, with tight curves (8'' / 20 cm), and until 3 to 4 years ago it wasn't a problem, as the only available stuff were F7s, light steamers and 40' or 50' boxcars. It began a problem when the big stuff became available, C44-9s, SD45s and SD40s, 60' and more rolling stock.
As I'm myself interrested in heavy power and LOONNNG trains, I elected to start a Z scale layout in an area where I could have been able to build a big N scale layout or a fair HO one (6.5 x 4 meter room), because one of my goals was having broad curves to operate long trains with strong lashups of heavy / long CC diesel-electric locos.
Dominique

[ddechamp71]

Another idea in this topic: I'm not involved in HO, neither in N, but I think the technology is the same whichever the scale; about my modern Z scale motive power (C44-9s, SD40s, SD45s, F45s, etc...), their couplers are body mounted, and not truck mounted (and, according of what I see in MR, MRC and others, it looks like the same in N and HO scale). This means that when operating this brand of locos on tight curves, they are overhanging such a way that it drives to first car derailment if this one is truck coupled....So about big power, there are aesthetic reasons matching operating reasons to use them on broad curves.
Dominique

[ddechamp71]

Another idea in this topic: I'm not involved in HO, neither in N, but I think the technology is the same whichever the scale; about my modern Z scale motive power (C44-9s, SD40s, SD45s, F45s, etc...), their couplers are body mounted, and not truck mounted (and, according of what I see in MR, MRC and others, it looks like the same in N and HO scale). This means that when operating this brand of locos on tight curves, they are overhanging such a way that it drives to first car derailment if this one is truck coupled....So about big power, there are aesthetic reasons matching operating reasons to use them on broad curves.
Dominique

[Anonymous]

What, if any, effect would using easements on say an 18" radius do to help with a C44-9 or autorack around a corner? How much easement would you use?

[Yampa2003]

I have a 5' x 9' layout with 20" radius curves, but only operate 4 axle diesels with either 40' or 50' freight cars. Even then I try to keep the 50' cars to a minimum in any one train. Also use the Atheran ready-to-roll passengers cars, the shorty ones. Not prototypical but look more practical on a small layout.
I leave the big loco's to the club layout (along with the Walthers passenger cars etc).

Brian W.

[Anonymous]

I had the standard 4x8 with 18" curves and knew right away I needed a bigger radi. Since then I built a new layout, the first criteria was 22" minimum curves. This way if I do decide to buy that big engine I can more than handle it on the track. Even the smallest engine with look good on the largest curve one installs. Build the layout with a minimum curve size in mind, and don't build it with your current roster in mind. We change our engine preferences over time. Better to invest in the beginning.

[csxns]

Big Bad DON GIBSON you dont know how big my layout is but i bet i have MORE LOCOS and ROLLINGSTOCK than you do so go and kiss it where the sun dont shine.