Yes, it's the radius question...

[bwftex]

Casey,
I have a very similar situation to yours. In my case I originally intended to have no radius of less than 26". But it came down to this: Either drop down to about 22" at one location and 24" at several others or I would not be able to build the design I wanted. I dropped to 24" and 22". My layout is set in the era of about 1919 give or take so like you the locomotives and rolling stock are not affected operationally. With these tighter curves I was able to stick to using only #6 or larger turnouts. For me using #6 or greater turnouts is more important to looks and smooth operation than an inch or two of curve radius. At least tighter curves can be compensated for in both the visual and operational departments by easing them a little and slightly super elevating the tracks. Bruc

[selector]

QUOTE: Originally posted by twcenterprises

Since we're on the subject, anyone have any suggestions (trackplans) for an 8x20 room? Only 2 stipulations: NO duckunders, and the door is on one of the 20' walls, 5' from the corner. I'll be running '50's era shorter equipment, so 18-22" curves won't be a problem. Will need continuous running for display purposes.

Brad

Without knowing what you wi***o model, I would place a yard and service facility (turntable and roundhouse if steam) in the 5' corner, behind the door, with the door sweep path clear until 120 degrees past perpendicular from the jamb. Then, around the wall as much as possible, with another lump at the far end for wye or turnaround with industry or town there, too. That lump could have a modest mountain through which the reverse loop runs as a tunnel, and an upper level for the wow factor.

Dunno if that helps..?

[Anonymous]

I'll echo what someone else said earlier. If you can hide the 24" parts of the layout and increase the curves elsewhere it's the best of both worlds.

My railroad has mostly 40" curves with the exception of two 22" sections. One is under the table, the other is mostly in a tunnel. Since the trains run fine it's the perfect crime!

Good luck with your exciting new adventure!

Jawbone

[twcenterprises]

Since we're on the subject, anyone have any suggestions (trackplans) for an 8x20 room? Only 2 stipulations: NO duckunders, and the door is on one of the 20' walls, 5' from the corner. I'll be running '50's era shorter equipment, so 18-22" curves won't be a problem. Will need continuous running for display purposes.

Brad

[rolleiman]

QUOTE: Originally posted by kchronister

Well, gang. I worked over the track plans and got 'em output as image files that are relatively legible. But I got no access to a web server and since you can't upload in this forum I got no way to show 'em to you. .. But I've got great information thus far even without that tool for you.

If you're able to upload at all,

http://www.photobucket.com

free, no web server required to share photos.. They require you keep it under 250k and will seriously chop it down if it exceeds that amount..

Show us!!

Jeff

[k41361]

My real interest in model railroading is appreciating the the scale and detail on a steam locomotive.I've seen people with these exquisit locomotives that are going around a small radius and it takes away the realism of the locomotive.Also some of these beautiful layouts,with again,small radius curves.
I'll be starting my layout after the first of the year in a 11X 24 foot area.My minimum exposed radius will be 60 degrees.My minimum hidden will be 22 degrees.
Terry P.

[wjstix]

I use truck-mounted couplers on my passenger cars, and I can get 80' cars to go around a 22" radius curve no problem. I can test it on my ore dock line which has 22" radius, my mainline minimum is 28"R.

I guess if you can conceal the 24" R curves (behind scenery, in a tunnel etc.) and use broader "cosmetic" curves whereever possible, the layout should work swell. I'd probably go for a little bit tighter radius and much more mainline.

[nbrodar]

For passenger cars and big steamers, 30" is the way to go. However if your equipement operates reliably through the 24" curves, with creative scenery and some easements, they can be useful.

I, too, like running passenger trains, so the passenger lines have 28 and 30" curves, while other areas, that only see freight trains have 24" curves. I use easements on all the curves, which helps things enormosly.

Nick

[Anonymous]

Well, gang. I worked over the track plans and got 'em output as image files that are relatively legible. But I got no access to a web server and since you can't upload in this forum I got no way to show 'em to you. .. But I've got great information thus far even without that tool for you.

[Anonymous]

Thanks for all the input so far, folks. It's definitely helping me think this through.

For what it's worth, since the subject came up a few times, the curves I'm speaking of are either in the corners (to keep the train from hitting the wall, as someone said) or at the end of peninsulas to turn and go back the other side.

The former are all not visible so strictly a matter of operability/reliability to my way of thinking, the latter mostly are visible, but unfortunately those are also the drivers of my space constraint - I've done a dozen different plans, but any time I use 30" curves I lose at least an entire peninsula and have to have some 24" aisleways, or lose two peninsulas and stick to my hoped-for 36" aisleways...

Along the walls/long part of the peninsula, I am using some wide, sweeping curves of the 60"+ variety, that are much more scenic devices to avoid paralleling the edge of the benchwork than actual 'curves' to turn corners, etc...

I'll try working the trackplan to a point where I can post it here. Right now it's so small and hard to read (at the size I could post it), that I'm not sure it would make any sense.

[selector]

Casey, it means going back to the drawing board, but would you consider keeping 22" curves in other areas that "don't count, or don't matter" quite so much, and saving 30"ers for up front where you will appreciate them more? Can you do an elevation or crossing someplace that would permit an even more sweeping curve somewhere close to where you operate...say a radius of 60"?

I'm whistling in the wind here, but with those long cars, you will get the most "wow" with a long sweeping curve, or a couple of 30" ones. Keep the minima for inside mountains, or elsewhere.

Remember, too, that at some point you will get a hankering for a 2-20-4 or similar steamer, that will need even more than 22". The BLI PRR J-1 needs 24" minimum. I can say with certainty, now about 24 months before I start on Sentinel Mountain #2, that I will have a Niagara and a PRR J-1 on my next trackplan. I just.....gotta!

I envy your position; you are at an exciting point where you are making decisions that are building a dream for you. Good luck!

-Crandell

[markpierce]

You said " Well, I loosely model late 1940's PRR in the Central PA (i.e. around Harrisburg) region. My longest rolling stock is 80' heavyweight passenger cars, which are probably half my fleet (I'm heavily into passenger ops compared to many). The other rolling stock, freight cars of this era, is simply not an issue on that front - typically 40'. Motive power is lots of M1's (4-8-2) and K-4s (4-6-2). There's also a T-1 (4-4-4-4) and a single 2-6-6-2 to complicate matters, though it runs fine on 22" and looks fine too (to me)."

I'm amazed you don't have difficulty running full-length passenger equipment and such large motive power on only 22" curves. I assume you're talking HO scale. I would think 30" would be minimum for reliable operation, and larger would be better for viewing particularly if you are "outside" the curve rather than "inside." I've got some 2-10-2s (from Sunset, they're so cheap!) I expect need to be modified to operate on my planned layout with 30" curves. Does anyone out there have experience with Sunset's models of these SP "decks" (don't dare call them Santa Fes!)?

[pedromorgan]

try scanning and posting the track plans.

peter

[rolleiman]

QUOTE: Originally posted by kchronister

So the question is this:

I've come down to two plans. The major difference being one calls for 30" minimum radius on the mainline, the other 24" minimum (though most is more 26-28" range). The smaller radius plan allows for nearly double the mainline run in my 20x28 space.

Yes, as you may be able to tell I'm leaning toward the 24" option, so for those of you thinking "it sounds like you've already made up your mind"... I understand why... But my response is "No, not really." I lean that way, but part of me also has a naggging doubt that I'm leaning toward the wrong decision. In short, I'm not convinced.

That's exactly what I'm looking for here... The opinion, experience and input of all of you folks here. Thanks ahead of time...

Casey.

I'm going to answer your question with a question.. Are any of these turns what are referred to as Blobs?? That is, are they full loops are are the turns in corners of the room to keep the train from hitting the wall? The reason I ask is if it's the latter, I would go with the 30" minimum.. Even on the loops if you have any, especially in the space you have.. Mine is 30 minimum and that's only because that's the largest loop I could 'get around' comfortably in the aisle. On the shelf portions, I'm actually running 50 and 60 inch turns (HO scale) and I have to tell you, the trains look fantastic coming around them. The down side of it is, it doesn't leave much straight - a - way for installing switching options.

Jeff

[dgwinup]

I second Jack's motion. It's in the trade off. Not knowing what your layout plan is, I can offer only some general comments.

In any part of your trackplan, can you substitute 30" or greater radius, even if only in small sections? That might allow you to keep your mainline length and have some large radius curves that the big equipment will look good on.

Another possible solution is to make extensive use of easements for your curves. You can usually fit these in to a trackplan without sacrificing a lot of track.

As a 'lone wolf' operator myself, I know why you want those long, continuous-running mainline runs. I think that if you trade off too much of your mainline in favor of larger curves, you will not be happy with the results. You've already stated that the 24" curves don't bother you and you are the only one who MUST be pleased with your layout. Anyone you invite to visit who criticizes the smaller radius curves doesn't have to be invited back!

Selective large-radius locations and lots of easements will probably give you the layout you really want without a lot of compromises.

Hope this helps.

Darrell, quiet...for now

[Anonymous]

try both, and decide for yourself what you prefer.

[jxtrrx]

Casey,
I keep noticing that everything in model railroading comes down to a trade-offs... and each of those must be decided by each of us individually. The guys telling you that things will look better on wider curves are certainly right. But it ain't free. As you said, it costs dearly in main line (double ! you say). So... which is more important TO YOU? Graceful steam and passenger cars going around those curves, or a whole lot more mainline? It'd be nice to have both. You can't have both. It's a trade-off.

[Anonymous]

Go with the 30"

I have a train of heavyweights and probably will stick with the 30" When you stated that you are running a 4-4-4-4 that pretty much decided the issue.

I second the previous posts.

I dont mind getting down to 24" if I have to. But I have always stated the bigger the radius the less problem it will be on your railroad.

30" is my final answer.

[Don Gibson]

IF your main thrust is PASSENGER running, 44"-46" radius is where it start's - run's better - look's better. Anything tighter is a compromise and car's will look Octagnoal. Freight's can run on less and SOME equipment can operate on 24"r, but it's a COMPROMISE.

Sheet plywood dictate's 22"r max. curves on 4X8's (and the simplicity of 40'-60' car's from 50 year's ago)as well as occupying 10'X14' of FLOOR space.

[Anonymous]

Sorry, you're quite right that it can't be properly addressed without that. I should have covered that up front.

Well, I loosely model late 1940's PRR in the Central PA (i.e. around Harrisburg) region. My longest rolling stock is 80' heavyweight passenger cars, which are probably half my fleet (I'm heavily into passenger ops compared to many). The other rolling stock, freight cars of this era, is simply not an issue on that front - typically 40'.

Motive power is lots of M1's (4-8-2) and K-4s (4-6-2). There's also a T-1 (4-4-4-4) and a single 2-6-6-2 to complicate matters, though it runs fine on 22" and looks fine too (to me).

The Burlington Zephyr is waiting to take an occasional PR tour of the region (Yeah, that violates my era, but I live with it). And to make my daughter happy and horrify any real sticklers out there, Thomas the Tank Engine makes the occasional jaunt around the place... Definitely no radius issues there, though! Nor any radius concern with the various geared locos and log/ore cars for the mining/logging areas.

[Anonymous]

Casey,

What era you modeling? Got any 89-footers (TOFC/Auto rack)?

Since I answered 'YES' to the second question above, I opted for a minimum 30" radius on my main line. If you are running an earlier era with shorter cars you can probably stay with the 24-inch.

[Anonymous]

Okay, it's not a new topic, but I'd like to get some viewpoints on the subject of radius. Here's the deal:

1) As some may recall, I've recently moved and am building a new layout "ground up." I'm in extreme "plywood central" stage, with only part of the benchwork even built.

2) I am mostly a "lone wolf" operator. I have some MRR friends who come over on occasion, but the ops sessions are very casual and I'd say 90% of the time I am running things solo.

3) I do like to just "let 'em run" to a large extent. I tend to put some trains in motion on the mainline (all my layouts and plans call for a continuous running option, which I do want), then amuse myself switching locals and freight runs around them

4) I have tested all my locos and rolling stock down to 22" radius and there are no technical issues with that, i.e. they all run, and run fine.

5) While I recognize that the longer locos/cars do look aesthetically better on larger radius, they don't bug me running on 24" either... Part of that may be that previous layouts were much smaller and to some extent, 24" radius is already "expansive" by my previous standards.

So the question is this:

I've come down to two plans. The major difference being one calls for 30" minimum radius on the mainline, the other 24" minimum (though most is more 26-28" range). The smaller radius plan allows for nearly double the mainline run in my 20x28 space.

Yes, as you may be able to tell I'm leaning toward the 24" option, so for those of you thinking "it sounds like you've already made up your mind"... I understand why... But my response is "No, not really." I lean that way, but part of me also has a naggging doubt that I'm leaning toward the wrong decision. In short, I'm not convinced.

That's exactly what I'm looking for here... The opinion, experience and input of all of you folks here. Thanks ahead of time...

Casey.