Trains.com

Is the trend for new engines that need ever wider diameters a good idea?

10579 views
95 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    December 2001
  • From: Smoggy L.A.
  • 10,743 posts
Is the trend for new engines that need ever wider diameters a good idea?
Posted by vsmith on Wednesday, May 19, 2004 10:31 AM
This issue has been burning in my head for a while now...

Is the current trend of manufacturers whos newest engines require ever widening diameter curves a good idea for the hobby?

I personally think the trend is stupid and lazy on the part of manufacturers and in the end hurts the hobby more than helps.

Let me explain, as the trend towards newer and larger engines continues, we will see larger engines come on the market, AC's newest DASH 9 is a good example. Yet it requires a 8 foot minimum diameter curve to work. OK I can see this, the dam thing is almost 3FEET long so the wider diameter is a given. Same with the new 2-8-8-2 articulated coming out this fall.

BUT! Bachmann's new relatively small Heisler ALSO recommends 8 foot diameter curves or it could bind up, Bachnmann's 2-8-0 Connie is known to complain loudly on even 6 foot diameter, yet its not that much larger than the 4-6-0 Annie which can run on as small as a 4 foot diameter curve. How much do you wanna bet the re-issue Shay will have a re-issue wider diameter requirement? The Spectrum 2-6-0 and 4-4-0? you guessed, 8 foot dia recommended.

I see this as a problem for future Garden Railroaders.

EVERYTHING form LGB will work on the small 4 foot diameter curves, WHY?because its a design criteria from the start. Even the new Mikado will take the 4 footers, it may not look pretty doing it, but the point is that it doesnt hamstring a modeler that might not have the room for 20 foot diameter curves on their layout.

The manufacturers seam to think we all live on 3 acres of land and can spread out far and wide for our layouts. Well, I dont! I'm on a small suburban lot with very limited space for an outdoor layout. I think I am typical of a large number of model RR's who would like to try for an outdoor layout but I am getting a little frustrated that I cant seam to find anything beyond the most basic engines and cars to consider for an outdoor layout. The largest curves i can afford are the 6.5 foot AC curves. I'm sure there are a great many for whom even that is too wide and 4 footers are all they can afford space for.

Now I'm not advocating that EVERYTHING should work on 4 foot diameter. But I do feel that manufacturers are short changing most of us by forcing us to rebuild what we have in order to accomodate thier newest products or they are just cutting a lot of existing and potential garden RR's right out of the loop. It doesnt take that much more engineering to work a locomotives tracking so it can run a wider range of curvature. To me its just lazyness on the manufacturers part. There isnt a single locomotive in Bachmanns roster that shouldnt easily negotiate a 5 foot diameter curve. 5 foot is easily negotiated by most of AC's 4 axle deisel engines.

I would like to see an effort by manufacturers to widen the range of use of their products. That to me means spending a little effort on THIER part to make their products more applicaple to OUR layouts, not us having to spend vast amounts of time and $ rebuilding OUR layouts to accomodate the standards THEY decide to impose.

Whadda Ya Think? Am I The Only One Who Can See A Future Problem Here?

Did you really like rebuilding your layout just so you could run a DASH 9 on it?



PS My rant is based on the fact that I really wanted a Spectrum 4-4-0 and a Connie for my planned outdoor layout. I still plan on the 4-4-0 but will now pass on the Connie.

   Have fun with your trains

  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Wednesday, May 19, 2004 11:54 AM
vsmith
This is a good rant.I like to keep my railway along the sides of the garden so it is not too obvious.(.Also keeps Wifey happy).As a result I have a fair few tight curves around various things.If I use large curves everywhere it intrudes too much.All my engines are LGB but they are pricey.I'd like to get some Bachman loco's but I'm always worried if they will fit.Troy
  • Member since
    January 2003
  • From: Sarasota, Fl.
  • 106 posts
Posted by BudSteinhoff on Wednesday, May 19, 2004 12:25 PM
This will just be my view on large engines and yes I did have to redo my layout to a min. of 8ft. dia curves and switches.
I was getting bored and tired of the same style engines and all the foreign stuff that I was not interested in.
There is still a large availability of small equipment for smaller layouts.
I was glad to see a larger variety, more interesting and different equipment becoming available even if the layout needed to be modified.
The Bachman 2-8-0 caused much widening of many areas and now with my new Challenger I had to again widen and move many bridges and buildings due to the boiler hanging out in the front area on curves.
They may look weird on only 8ft. curves but I enjoy the big ones along with the small ones and in the future will only purchase different items like the Mallet and eventually may have to go to larger curves.
If you want larger engines then you need larger curves, period.
To me I like the challenge of getting all this equipment around my layout and getting them parked.
In my opinion the mfg. needs to keep the interest up for a variety of hobbiests and some of us enjoy larger more interesting engines to suppliment the smaller ones we already have.
Bud[8D]
Bud
  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Wednesday, May 19, 2004 1:36 PM
VSmith

Yes, you have a good rant and something that needs to be addressed by ALL.
Myself I plan 20' curves and 8's. Why you ask is because I have the land and it is not right for one hobbyer vs another but THEY keep doing what THEY want.
That is why my research for 3 yrs has been HELL!!!!![:(!]
You see I have not intended to make the 20' in my GRR, THEY made me, plus THEY made me spend MORE $$$$$$[:(!]

Hope that made since, I am pissed now....
  • Member since
    December 2003
  • From: Coldstream, BC Canada
  • 969 posts
Posted by RhB_HJ on Wednesday, May 19, 2004 2:47 PM
Vic,

Yeah, yeah so LGB squeezes everything through R1 (600mm rad) and what does it look like?

Like a circus in which the elephant dances on the head of a needle.
Look at the Mikado! Sure it makes it through R1; problem is what's the wear on both engine and track? And then there is that minor little detail that the critter comes out of curves and never straightens up because of that "ingenious" [}:)][}:)] articulated design.
You want big engines, you'll need large curves. At least the mfgs are honest enough to tell you what's required.

Ever seen a BigBoy go around a street car curve? No? Just wait 'til LGB decides to get into the really big stuff!
What do you think the LGB GG1 will look like? Scale of 1:26/27 in width and height and 1:33 in length. Hardly noticeable, eh? Well I tell you Raymond Loewy is probably going to spin in his grave![:(!][:(!]

Of course this is just "silly old me" who thinks that a garden railway can be a model railroad instead of a charicaturized toy.[8)][8)]
What a concept!! Eh....!!

Cheers HJ http://www.rhb-grischun.ca/ http://www.easternmountainmodels.com
  • Member since
    December 2001
  • From: Smoggy L.A.
  • 10,743 posts
Posted by vsmith on Wednesday, May 19, 2004 4:07 PM
I should point out my position isnt what I want!

Its where are we going and is that a good thing?

Are we heading toward a time when nothing new will work on less than 8 foot diameter? Where to seriously contemplate a garden RR we need to have a good acre of land ready?

I dont want or expect a DASH 9 to negotiate a 4 foot turn, but I am concerned that as time goes on less and less on the smaller diameter capable items will be offered and more and more wider only items will come to dominate the market.

How many suburban garden RR's will even consider the hobby when they go into the LHS and get told, "dont even think about a garden RR unless you have a 20' wide by 40 ' long area..."

Thats why I see this trend as having some unforseen pitfalls for the hobby...

   Have fun with your trains

  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Wednesday, May 19, 2004 4:16 PM
QUOTE: Originally posted by vsmith

I should point out my position isnt what I want!

Its where are we going and is that a good thing?

Are we heading toward a time when nothing new will work on less than 8 foot diameter? Where to seriously contemplate a garden RR we need to have a good acre of land ready?

I dont want or expect a DASH 9 to negotiate a 4 foot turn, but I am concerned that as time goes on less and less on the smaller diameter capable items will be offered and more and more wider only items will come to dominate the market.

How many suburban garden RR's will even consider the hobby when they go into the LHS and get told, "dont even think about a garden RR unless you have a 20' wide by 40 ' long area..."

Thats why I see this trend as having some unforseen pitfalls for the hobby...


Vic, I agree, the scale must diversify, however they must not do away with the type of loco that can negotiate 4, 5, and 6.5 diameter.

  • Member since
    January 2014
  • 1,264 posts
Posted by bman36 on Wednesday, May 19, 2004 4:19 PM
Vic,
Interesting thought. Currently I am set up for 8'. Indoors though all I can have is 4'. Great....I was planning on a Heisler for the indoor in addition to my Shay. Now what??? yeah this is frustrating considering the Shay, Climax, and the Heisler all ran on the same crummy track. Go figure that this new loco can't run with the rest. Does anyone know for sure if the Heisler needs more than 4'??? I'd like to know so I can let myself down easy. As for the big ones...if there's a market they will build them. Apparantly Lewis Polk is doing a talk on the future of Garden Railroading at the MWLSTS. Let me see if I can ask him myself on this very topic. Later eh...Brian.
  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
How about rolling stock?
Posted by Anonymous on Wednesday, May 19, 2004 4:23 PM
Is there any rolling stock that is not viable for small diameter curves. I should hope not, I would hate to purchase ($100 US) what will end up a piece of junk.
  • Member since
    December 2003
  • From: Coldstream, BC Canada
  • 969 posts
Posted by RhB_HJ on Wednesday, May 19, 2004 4:40 PM
QUOTE: Originally posted by vsmith

I should point out my position isnt what I want!

Its where are we going and is that a good thing?

Are we heading toward a time when nothing new will work on less than 8 foot diameter? Where to seriously contemplate a garden RR we need to have a good acre of land ready?

I dont want or expect a DASH 9 to negotiate a 4 foot turn, but I am concerned that as time goes on less and less on the smaller diameter capable items will be offered and more and more wider only items will come to dominate the market.

How many suburban garden RR's will even consider the hobby when they go into the LHS and get told, "dont even think about a garden RR unless you have a 20' wide by 40 ' long area..."

Thats why I see this trend as having some unforseen pitfalls for the hobby...


Vic,

I hear you!

However mfgs don't build anything that they know won't sell.
If LGB sells 10'000 Mikes and Aristo only 4000 then that means
a) people don't have the room for the 4ft+ rads
b) they like the looks of the LGB Mike better
c) they buy LGB never mind what

Hang out on the "LGB heavy" fora and you'll get the drift. People want to squeeze it through R1 even if they have to squeeze their eyes even harder not to see how ridiculous it looks.

If the mfgs want to produce and sell monster engines they must be aware of the demand.
I've read one or two of Lewis Polk's "poor us, this is such a small market" posts. Well either he's pulling our leg or he's squandering money. Because if the LS market is small, the segment that can run monster engines is even smaller.

I can tell you we don't produce and stock LS trees like there is no tomorrow. If someone needs an indoor forest tomorrow we'll build it, but it won't come off the shelf.

BTW according to the info I have the Bachmann Heisler runs OK on 2ft rads.

Cheers HJ http://www.rhb-grischun.ca/ http://www.easternmountainmodels.com
  • Member since
    December 2001
  • From: Smoggy L.A.
  • 10,743 posts
Posted by vsmith on Wednesday, May 19, 2004 4:53 PM
QUOTE: Originally posted by Capt Carrales

Is there any rolling stock that is not viable for small diameter curves. I should hope not, I would hate to purchase ($100 US) what will end up a piece of junk.


Yes, any USA or AC streamliner or heavywight passengers car will not do less than 8 footers without risking derailment or coupler popping due to swing and overhang. The Budd RDC will not do less that 8' but remember these cars are over 3 FEET LONG! Thats alot of car to be swinging around in 6 feet.

Almost everything else with truck mounted couplers will work on the smallest R1 curve. Some just dont very pretty doing it though.

   Have fun with your trains

  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Wednesday, May 19, 2004 4:54 PM
I personally have a minimum of 8 foot diamiter curves on the origional portion of my layout but with all of these new engines coming out, I decided to go with 10 on my new sections and then once done go back and replace my smaller curves. My stuff is squeezed onto three sides of the yard and the curve goes from the fence to the border in one place. Although I meet the requirments, it's a pain for my stuff to not work very well on the 8 foot i have. My USA SD40-2 usually pulls the cars off the track when going around, even with Kadee couplers. I think the problem is getting manufacturers to get their stuff to work not only on smaller curves, but ALSO work WELL on them. That would solve many problems.
  • Member since
    December 2001
  • From: Smoggy L.A.
  • 10,743 posts
Posted by vsmith on Wednesday, May 19, 2004 4:57 PM
QUOTE: Originally posted by Teran5

I personally have a minimum of 8 foot diamiter curves on the origional portion of my layout but with all of these new engines coming out, I decided to go with 10 on my new sections and then once done go back and replace my smaller curves. My stuff is squeezed onto three sides of the yard and the curve goes from the fence to the border in one place. Although I meet the requirments, it's a pain for my stuff to not work very well on the 8 foot i have. My USA SD40-2 usually pulls the cars off the track when going around, even with Kadee couplers. I think the problem is getting manufacturers to get their stuff to work not only on smaller curves, but ALSO work WELL on them. That would solve many problems.


Teran, I think your experiencing what I fear is coming, as the turning radius gets larger more and more of us are going to find we dont have anywhere to expand to! You can only go so wide before most of us run out of real estate.

   Have fun with your trains

  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Wednesday, May 19, 2004 6:33 PM
Vic

I do not regard what you had to say as a rant at all, it was a reasonable remark about a problem that will rebound on the manufacturers in good time. However in the meantime a few people will buy equipment they can't use and will have wasted hard earned dollars.

I just do not have the room for 2 odd metre curves, as I do not have back yard, merely a series of courtyards, so if I was even more unknowing than I am I would not even consider that the equipment wont fit my layout and i would not like my cahnces of getting a refund on those grouds, someytimes we do not all look at all the fine detail to start.

I think that if it was clearly indicated what size track this equipment will need, then the only ones that would buy them are those that can use them. This will automatically reduce their appeal and therefore cost said manufacturer market share, which they will not like, so hopefully the problem will be self fixing.

Rgs

Ian.

PS you guys havent heard much from me lately, as I have actually been working on my layout and I have had a major breakthrough with my pumphouse problem.
Joe did you like my refelections.
  • Member since
    December 2003
  • From: Coldstream, BC Canada
  • 969 posts
Posted by RhB_HJ on Wednesday, May 19, 2004 6:46 PM
QUOTE: Originally posted by vsmith

QUOTE: Originally posted by Teran5

I personally have a minimum of 8 foot diamiter curves on the origional portion of my layout but with all of these new engines coming out, I decided to go with 10 on my new sections and then once done go back and replace my smaller curves. My stuff is squeezed onto three sides of the yard and the curve goes from the fence to the border in one place. Although I meet the requirments, it's a pain for my stuff to not work very well on the 8 foot i have. My USA SD40-2 usually pulls the cars off the track when going around, even with Kadee couplers. I think the problem is getting manufacturers to get their stuff to work not only on smaller curves, but ALSO work WELL on them. That would solve many problems.


Teran, I think your experiencing what I fear is coming, as the turning radius gets larger more and more of us are going to find we dont have anywhere to expand to! You can only go so wide before most of us run out of real estate.


Vic,

I'm sure any of us can expand as far as we want, it is just a matter of setting some realistic parameters.

BTW a few of the "give me a break" conditions are again directly related to the "scale" question ( [}:)][;)][:D] ). For instance running 1:29 monsters means they get long, running NG in 1:20.3 scale means there is considerable bulk and the overhang that goes with it.
Body or sill mounting couplers that are more or less to scale means the critters will also require closer to scale radii.

How different knuckle couplers "behave" and how that compares to LGB H&L couplers can be read about in the 2/2004 issue of GARTENBAHNprofi, Engli***ranslation available as free PDF at www.easternmountainmodels.com (English>Services>GartenBahnProfi).

The gist of the matter is: you like to run on R1? restrict yourself to either a certain theme or specific manufacturers and/or specific items. You like things to scale in a large way? be prepared to either limit yourself to NG modeling or considerable real estate.
Either way there are limitations, we can't have the cake and eat it. As much as we would like![:)][:)]
Cheers HJ http://www.rhb-grischun.ca/ http://www.easternmountainmodels.com
  • Member since
    December 2001
  • From: Smoggy L.A.
  • 10,743 posts
Posted by vsmith on Wednesday, May 19, 2004 7:10 PM
I never said I want everything to run on R1

I said I am concerned that the trend to larger radius curves will alienate many potential garden RR's that dont have the space.

For MY garden RR I am planning on AC 6.5' curves, but i was rather dismayed to learn that the Bmann Connie AND the new Heisler both recommend no smaller than 8 foot. Thats what got me wound up. I can understand why a 3 foot long diesel engine needs 8 foot, but a 18" engine and a 12 inch tender?

   Have fun with your trains

  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Wednesday, May 19, 2004 8:07 PM
Vic and HJ I was thinking that you guys musn't have a life and it is the middle of the night over there, it is 11 AM thur here, but doing some calculations it must be about 7 pm last night (wed) where you are, so you have an apology in advance from me ok.


Ian
  • Member since
    December 2003
  • From: Coldstream, BC Canada
  • 969 posts
Posted by RhB_HJ on Wednesday, May 19, 2004 8:15 PM
QUOTE: Originally posted by iandor

Vic and HJ I was thinking that you guys musn't have a life and it is the middle of the night over there, it is 11 AM thur here, but doing some calculations it must be about 7 pm last night (wed) where you are, so you have an apology in advance from me ok.


Ian


Ian,[;)]

It's a quarter past six, I'm cooking supper while posting[:)][:)]

No, supper doesn't come out of a can.[:I][:I]

Cheers

HJ

PS Thanks for the pix you sent already, yours is an unique garden railway!
Cheers HJ http://www.rhb-grischun.ca/ http://www.easternmountainmodels.com
  • Member since
    December 2001
  • From: Smoggy L.A.
  • 10,743 posts
Posted by vsmith on Wednesday, May 19, 2004 11:40 PM
Hey Ian, its 9:30pm pacific standard time, had Sushi for dinner, now watching "Secrets of the Dead" on PBS, wife's watching "American Idiots..I mean Idol" in the other room.

Of course your probably hard at work as it must be afternoon your way.... [(-D]

   Have fun with your trains

  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, May 20, 2004 1:20 AM
Hi
The manufacturers can make what they like but if it breaks LGB's 1100 rule
they will not be selling it to me.
If it don't go round R1! it don't run on my line.
What will [censored] me off is if the range of small stock suitable for R1 becomes limited and boring.
Some like large locomotives but if that is your cup of tea then dont use R1 they look YUK! going round it.
If like me the preference is for smaller locomotives then while not ideal R1 is fine
and can get more railway into the space hopefully without over crowding.
regards John
  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, May 20, 2004 2:25 AM
Hi guys,
This topic has stirred up a hornets nest hasn't it. From the manufacturers point of view it has to be one of diminishing returns whereas, and these are all rough figures, 100% can fit LGB small rad track in their gardens, 80% 8' curves, 70% 10' curves and so on to perhaps 1% can fit a big boy in on realistic curves. We will now see more limited edition locos? but tooling costs being what they are the price would be prohibitive to most of us. The future of the hobby has to be products that the majority of people can afford and these products have to be able to run on track that all rail roaders can fit in their yards. Commercial sense? The manufacturers can not be allowed to steer the hobby, they have to be guided by their customers and produce what the majority want. If they want to do limited editions costing thousands, then so be it, but do so alongside models that are affordable and that everyone can run. I do wonder if we are actually in the golden era of the hobby where we can afford what we do and we can run what we buy. Rene, could this be something that Garden Railways mag can take up on behalf of the hobby and remind the manufacturers now and then?
Cheers,
Kim
[tup]
  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, May 20, 2004 4:02 AM
QUOTE: Originally posted by vsmith

Hey Ian, its 9:30pm pacific standard time, had Sushi for dinner, now watching "Secrets of the Dead" on PBS, wife's watching "American Idiots..I mean Idol" in the other room.

Of course your probably hard at work as it must be afternoon your way.... [(-D]


Vic, I glad to see I'm not alone with American Idiots being viewed, hoever the women in my house seem to all watch it but on different T.V. sets throughout the house instead of watching it together[|(] leaving me with none.[censored]

I would hope G scale manufactures will still produce stuff other than holiday theme sets that run on R1 curves. Imagine X-mas colors getting stripped and repainted just for the funtion of the car. I really don't deal with change well though, I like improvements to items but not the discontinuence of what works.
  • Member since
    December 2003
  • From: Coldstream, BC Canada
  • 969 posts
Posted by RhB_HJ on Thursday, May 20, 2004 8:01 AM
Vic,[;)]

Just finished reading what the MLSers had to say on this subject, I only check that outfit every two days or so.
Pretty well down the line I expected, including the likely proponents for each side. [^][^][:0]

In short: It's all about choice. The modeler chooses what he wants to run and the mfg chooses what he wants to produce; and somewhere along the line each modeler ends up with what he likes and each mfg sells to his target group.

Kimbrit,

Hornets nest? Not as bad as the gauge/scale thing.[;)][}:)][^]

IMHO that's all for the better, the more often people think about these things, the more likely it will be that most will understand where LS is going and why.
Cheers HJ http://www.rhb-grischun.ca/ http://www.easternmountainmodels.com
  • Member since
    December 2001
  • From: Smoggy L.A.
  • 10,743 posts
Posted by vsmith on Thursday, May 20, 2004 9:59 AM
QUOTE: Originally posted by RhB_HJ

Vic,[;)]

Just finished reading what the MLSers had to say on this subject, I only check that outfit every two days or so.
Pretty well down the line I expected, including the likely proponents for each side. [^][^][:0]

In short: It's all about choice. The modeler chooses what he wants to run and the mfg chooses what he wants to produce; and somewhere along the line each modeler ends up with what he likes and each mfg sells to his target group.

Kimbrit,

Hornets nest? Not as bad as the gauge/scale thing.[;)][}:)][^]

IMHO that's all for the better, the more often people think about these things, the more likely it will be that most will understand where LS is going and why.



Yeah, but ya gotta be real delicate over there! [:0]

I have to keep repeating that its a discussion about the overall future of the hobby, NOT what I personally want on my layout.

It seams a small number of MLS members can take things real personal and think your putting them down if your not carefull (not from my post but from others I've read). Most are pretty good at reading the real issue and there have been some interesting and very different viewpoints.

It seams each year the offerings open to the R1 rule are getting smaller and smaller (except LGB)

   Have fun with your trains

  • Member since
    December 2003
  • From: Coldstream, BC Canada
  • 969 posts
Posted by RhB_HJ on Thursday, May 20, 2004 1:41 PM
QUOTE: Originally posted by vsmith



Yeah, but ya gotta be real delicate over there! [:0]

I have to keep repeating that its a discussion about the overall future of the hobby, NOT what I personally want on my layout.

It seams a small number of MLS members can take things real personal and think your putting them down if your not carefull (not from my post but from others I've read). Most are pretty good at reading the real issue and there have been some interesting and very different viewpoints.

It seams each year the offerings open to the R1 rule are getting smaller and smaller (except LGB)


Vic,[:D][:D]

Delicate[8)][8)], yeah that's it!!! That's why I refer to the place as Mighty Large Soap [:)][:)]. You don't watch it, you'll slip on the &^%$*#@ stuff.
Been there, done that, got 3620 posts to prove it and a few "good discussions" with "Idler".

BTW there are a few ( small number ) over there who have a real problem reading, writing and comprehending. Which is some doing considering it's online, eh!?! [;)][}:)][;)][:D]
Cheers HJ http://www.rhb-grischun.ca/ http://www.easternmountainmodels.com
  • Member since
    December 2001
  • From: Smoggy L.A.
  • 10,743 posts
Posted by vsmith on Thursday, May 20, 2004 3:35 PM
QUOTE: Originally posted by RhB_HJ


BTW there are a few ( small number ) over there who have a real problem reading, writing and comprehending. Which is some doing considering it's online, eh!?! [;)][}:)][;)][:D]



I've kinda noticed that too, not just there but also here on the MR forum and especially the Trains.com forum. I think we have some of the more literate members right here on the GR forum. [:D]

   Have fun with your trains

  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Friday, May 21, 2004 7:00 AM
I keap a speile checkker handi sew I dont loock licke an idiot?

Your right Vic, got myself in trouble over on the TRAINS forum but the "good guys" evenually backed me up. I haven't had the courage to go back yet.

On the large radius issue there is another dimension that can also cause problems for existing layouts; overhead and side clearance. Several of us here in Minnesota have built our layouts with cement land forms on all or part of the line. So our layouts are literally chiseled in stone and not easy to change.
On out RR we used the Bachmann Big Hauler as a clearance gauge since it was the largest locomotive at that time.
When the Bachmann shay came out I really wanted one. Then a member of our club brought his shay over to run it on our line and it was too tall for the tunnels. Sorry, NO shay for me!!!

Then along came the Bachmann 2-8-0 (with sound) and I couldn't live another day without one. When it arrived I realized it was too massive to negotiate our layout. I needed to rip out several areas and rebuild with more side and top clearance. This was a lot of work!!!
Fortunately the large loco takes our single 40" radius curve without too much complaining.

No room to widen the track radius so we can NOT buy any rolling stock that needs a wider curve.

OLD DAD
  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Friday, May 21, 2004 11:30 AM
Hi Old Dad
Beeing the reel litrit type I am and reel komputre litrit as well[:D]
I figure as long as it is good enough to get the message across that will have to do untill I work out how to spell check a post.
Loading gauge is not a problem I thought abou in regards to the descusion in hand
but I take the point on trying to make a large item go through field railway clearances
Concrete hills ect wow will have to find out how too do that one day.
regards John
  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Friday, May 21, 2004 2:46 PM
I have made the descision not to have tunnels on my layout. At best, I May eventually run a line over the main as an "overpass," but tunnels bring on a whole set of major problems I just don't want to have.

Clearance, however, is an issue for an engine house and shop I may elect to build.

I don't really see myself buying one of those "monster" diesels or articulated steam engines, I plan to have a "fleet" of lesser expensive Bachmann steam locos.

Are those on the TRAINS forum really that...hostile?
  • Member since
    December 2001
  • From: Smoggy L.A.
  • 10,743 posts
Posted by vsmith on Friday, May 21, 2004 4:51 PM
Be warned, I think Bmann's Connie is one of the largest engines out there clearence wise!

For many who could never afford a 1/20.3 Accucraft K27 and build their layout around those beasties clearances , then finally buying the more affordable Connie and/or the 45ton Diesel, found a new definition of "minimal clearances" when it came to large scale narrow gauge! Wheres that shovel !

My planned little outdoor layout will not have a "tunnel" per-say. But it will be built with generous clearances thoughout.

   Have fun with your trains

Search the Community

FREE EMAIL NEWSLETTER

Get the Garden Railways newsletter delivered to your inbox twice a month

By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Garden Railways magazine. Please view our privacy policy