Happy New Year
I am working in the "Meramec Valley RR" (April 2k8 M.R) into my square donut H.O scale layout where I am dropping to a lower level (right hand side, 11" over 18') for a yard/switching industries and coming up to the upper level left hand side. The over all measurement is 3' working surface/scenery 18' long and 10' wide.
I want to use the Meremec plan to take the place of The Boynce City RR , an old logging RR that interchanged with the Michigan Central RR. Since the logging locomotive and it's freight cars will be 40' scale feet or less I see no issue except that I am not sure if they make a 12' radius curve. If not how tight can I use flex track without throwing it out of true? Any help and advise would be greatly appreciated
THX
Freelancing MCRR/NYC Northern Division - Angelo
What you hope to accomplish is in the range of 'extreme' for radius in HO. The only recommendation I could offer you in good conscience would be to mock up the circumstances as accurately as you can, temporarily of course, and do repeated trials with any locomotives and rolling stock you could conceive of putting around that setup once you have it permanently built on your layout. There's nothing like positive proof, and trials is in the top drawer in this hobby.
Another problem is 11" in18 feet is a 5.1 percent grade. This is rather steep.
Dave
I am using 12" because the plan calls for 12" radius the overall size of the pan is 2'4" by 7"10" and I built my bench work slightly wider. :-)
Hi Dave - No problem I've encountered, My F7's climb it with 7 40' box cars and a caboose also I get to double head if I go longer. I know the lenght is correct, maybe I have the decent measurement wrong? I did this all by eye and running my loco's across the drop. :-)
Happy New Year,
15" radius is the sharpest commercial track I have ever seen (Atlas). You should be able to get flex track down to 12". As mentioned, I'd do a lot of testing before I secured the track.
Good luck,
Richard
Isn't there tight radius curves made for trolleys and busses?
I don´t think there is commercially made track with a radius of 12" available, so you will have to use flex track for that. Just get a gauge and make sure the track holds the gauge when you lay the track.
A 12" radius curve limits your choice of motive power you can run on your layout. Small 0-4-0 or 0-6-0 steam engines and small Diesels like a GE 44 tonner is about the max you can run. I am not sure whether a Bachmann Shay, although the prototype was designed to negotiate sharp curves, will be able to cope with a 12" radius.
When it comes to cars, you won´t be able to run cars with body-mounted couplers, which is today´s standard. You will need to get older cars with truck mounted couplers.
Last but not least, a 5.1% grade is steep, but not that steep. With your engines being properly weighed down (you may have to add weight), ir should be a problem for a reasonably short train to climb that.
All I am saying it can be done, but I certainly would not recommend it. If you are starved for space, consider changing scale.
Schönen Tag Ulrich,
Well I measured the drop and it is only 8" below level over 18' oops. I have a Logger engine and a shay that should work I didn't think about the rolling stock, thanks! After all the comments/advise and further reasearch I may just add bench work to accommodate that part of the layout. The way I have it set up I can go point to point or continuous run option.
I'm not starved for space, I just wanted something more exciting than a helix. I thought switch backs would add operational interest and use my stable of motive power. SInce I am working on the lower level I may rethink the helix? Maybe deep down I am intimidated by the propect of building a helix? Thanks for your input
Tight curves and helices don´t mix well!
A friend of mine had built a beautiful Swiss prototype layout with two of those critters - each one with Marklin´s typical minimum radius of 360mm or 14.75". They were a constant source of annoyment as any train with more than three cars bwas prone to derailment. He finally tore down the layout in disgust!
Building a helix requires a high degree of accuracy - better to stay away from them or buy a kit, if you don´t feel comfortable.
There used to be companies that built helixes to order. Maybe a web search?
Sounds like you're deciding against the 12" radius track section, but just wanted to share this pic.
The small inner loop is for a trolley line (disregard the fact that the trolley is on an outer loop in this picture). The outer loops are 22" and 18" radius, so I'm sure parts of the trolley loop are 12" if not tighter (the curve between the tunnel portals in the back is the sharpest part). Before closing in the mountain, I rode the trolley at full speed both directions several days with no problems. As you know, trains and cars are a different story, but at least it appears flex track can handle the tight curves.
My coal hauler has 350mm (slightly over 14 inch) radius curves and a short stretch of 4% grade. Most of the equipment run on it is very short (think ore jimmies) so the, "Three times the length of a car," rule isn't usually violated.
However, I do have a cosmetically modified Mantua 'Logger' 2-6-6-2T running on it. That loco tested OK down to just under 12 inch radius on my test spiral, and stays coupled to my hopper-brakes with no problem.
As for flex track, if you treat it gently it will take, and hold without fastenings, a 350mm radius. You have to bring it down to something like six inch radius to accomplish the feat, and you will have to take extra care to get the ends of the rails down to the same radius. I've done this with Atlas code 100 and code 83 - don't know about some of the stiffer brands of flex.
With extremely tight radii, spiral easements are essential. That modified Mantua will ease into my curves without a hiccup at (scale) 40kph. At the same speed, the abrupt transition from tangent to 15 inch radius sectional track will put it on its side.
My actual logger is HOn30, with locos built on small N scale mechanisms. It should handle 175mm (seven inch) radii with ease. Of course, all the cars are either disconnects or built on disconnects. (Translation, about one inch long.)
Chuck (Modeling Central Japan in September, 1964 - with tight curves)
Hi Chuck.
Great tips! My logger is a shay style used in the great north western operations of the early 1900's. I can't remember the proper name, I will try using flex and see what happens before it's set in stone. This will be a lay out within a larger lay out. I've been working on the decent to the lower level all last week as I tested retested and got the gradient correct as to not over tax my locomotives.
Thanks again. Love this forum I've learned allot.
Howdy, Pardner,
You either have a Willamette (all cylinders face same way, valve chambers outward, cylinders forward of cab, Walschaerts valve gear) or a Pacific Coast Shay (Lima built, piston valves,rear cylinder reversed.) Willamettes were built by the Willamette Iron Works in Portland, OR, and were pretty much confined to the Pacific Northwest. Lima Locomotive Works built all their Shays in the Ohio city of the same name and shipped them all over the world.
Somewhere in my junkpile I have a photo of Alishan Forestry Railway (Taiwan) 2 cylinder 18 ton 30 inch gauge Shay #15 with its boiler drained. It's listing like a sailboat on a hard beat to windward, machinery side down.
Chuck (Modeling Central Japan in September, 1964)
Hi Chuck,
Thanks for in information. Here is my one and only logger I purchsed this from Lothar in Washington State. My idea was to have this unit merrily chug along while I operate whichever section of my lay out. I started another layout and was 25% complete but found it really didn't suit my needs. Now my plans has what I believe to be taste of all. I have industrial switching, main line passenger/freight and two short line interchanges. The lower level has a holding area to simulate distance and a stub end yard where i can swap out rolling stock on two open ended tracks.
And in my spare time I experment:
Hi Maddog,
Here's what I have so far. The last picture will be my holding area it will have four track yard so I can simulate distance and inbound freights out of the subdivision before going back to upper level to the left. Before going back up I will have another track going to a stub end yard where I can swap out rolling stock and so on. Thanks for your input :-)
Maybe I missed something in the original post, but if you have 3' width to work with, I wouldn't go with 12"R curves just because you're basing it on a plan that used 12"R curves. You could use 15"R curves in that space, or Kato Unitrack 16-7/8"R curves. (BTW I think one of the German HO companies makes sectional track that is 14"R IIRC, think that's the sharpest I've ever seen.)
FWIW, if I really only had space for 12"R curves, and hadn't bought a lot of equipment, I would seriously consider switching to N scale....
Yo W.
Plan comes from model railroader data base. Meramec Valley RR if you'd like to look at it. Sure I could go 15" curve but I was very intrested in the 12" curve and keeping with the orginal lay out plan :-)
Peace Out Angelo
Nickel Plate RoadI was very intrested in the 12" curve and keeping with the orginal lay out plan
If you have more room, I'd strongly suggest that you broaden the curves. It will give you more leeway for slight imprecision in construction and let you run a wider variety of equipment reliably.
Layout Design GalleryLayout Design Special Interest Group
When Atlas first came out with their O scale cars in the early seventies, I used to run the 40' and 50' cars on my O-27 layout, so running full-size equipment on sharp curves can be done...however those Atlas cars had truck-mounted couplers. If nothing else, I would think the ease (and cost saving) of not having to convert all my HO cars to talgo truck-mounted couplers would justify going to 15" or larger curvers.
I decided to look up the track plan and the article from the archives (April 08 pg 44). The layout looks great, but it appears that the author is using 0-4-0 switchers and <40ft cars. Could not tell if he had truck mounted couplers or not. Not saying it cant be done (it has been), but your trackwork will need to be bulletproof. There isnt much margin for error there.
Youve mentioned that you have wider than original track plan benchwork, I would suggest as others have that you go with a wider radius. At the very least run tests on your 12" radius to see if your locomotives and cars will actually work on that radius.
The logging locomotive you showed in the picture is a Class C (3 truck) Climax. It may or may not work on those tight curves. Modern models of the shay type do not like supertight curves (I do not remember what the engineering limit is, but it is related to the drive shaft either coming appart or being pinched together, depending on the direction of the curve).
Atlas actually made a 12 in radius SnapTrack many decades ago in the last century if I am not mistaken. It didn't last long. I still have never seen any.
Ken Vandevoort
Thanks for the input I have put together a logging set, the climax engine, three 40 foot flat cars with log loads, four 40' empty flat cars and two 40' pulp gondolas. I have decided to go to 15' raidus curves and weave in the interchange at the far left curve of the lay out and work in a small lime stone quarry against the cliff side?
Have a great day
Angelo
Hi Ken
I had a 4x8 layout when I lived in NJ in the early 90's and fell out of the hobby. I was so involved with life that my hobby took the back seat in the bus. I resently took up the hobby again last January.
Since then I had started building a layout but tore it down in september as it wasn't floating my boat. After lots of reading and research my new one is sea worthy. I will look on line and see if I can locate some of that track you spoke of?
Thx Angelo
As to the issue of bending flex track into a 12" radius curve, I haven't tried it but that would require a 24" diameter to complete a semi-circle. So it would be easy enough to try since a section of flex track is typically 36" long.
Rich
Alton Junction
The club I belonged to in Toledo back in the 1970's built a portable trolley layout where we had a reverse loop at each end of the layout on a 24" wide table. The resulting radius was in the 10" radius curve area. We could run an Athearn SW-7 around the loop with 40' boxcars without any problem.
Rick Jesionowski
Rule 1: This is my railroad.
Rule 2: I make the rules.
Rule 3: Illuminating discussion of prototype history, equipment and operating practices is always welcome, but in the event of visitor-perceived anacronisms, detail descrepancies or operating errors, consult RULE 1!
CRIP 4376Atlas actually made a 12 in radius SnapTrack many decades ago in the last century if I am not mistaken.
I don't believe that's correct. Smallest Atlas SnapTrack has always been 15" radius. (It does take 12 pieces to make a circle)
Fleischmann offers 365.5mm (about 14" radius) sectional track in HO. But it's expensive and harder to find in the US.
In any case, the Original Poster has said that he has enough space to expand the radius, which will be more flexible in the long run. Since he is set on recreating a specific published layout, the flexibility of building with flextrack would likely give him the best chance of success (pardon the redundancy).
It's worth noting that the Meramec Valley layout he is trying to recreate was built with flextrack.
Sir Madog brought a good point with coupler problems but I think there is a solution too.
Well, not necessary truck mounted couplers as he said, but they have to be long shank for sure and when it comes to operations on curves, coupled manually since when centered in relationship to the adjacent cars they will be under huge angle. In neither case pushing is safe, always prone to derailments. With long couplers body mounted will do but again depends on the equipment. If there is really no way to increase 12" curve, I can suggest one thing but do it on your own risk since I am not familiar with your equipment. Japanese HO manufacturers sometimes manage with short equipment such as 40' to get it through 8" curves. The way they do it - trim the thickness of underframe to less than prototypical in points where wheels approach underframe, like this
I did this successfully with 50' equipment earlier the first time I came to Canada a decade ago and had very compact space: it went well through 8" curves when at the wheel contact level underframe was negligible and made 89' autoracks go through 14" curves that way. I just filed down the underframe at the wheel contact point. However I do not suggest doing it unless you are confident this will work since I do not want to be responsible if this method does any damage to the equipment, so decide on your own risk. And prioritize, do you prefer it to get through tight curves or look prototypical at the underframe level. With this method, although I did autoracks to get 14" curve, 12 I believe would be possible too if desired but couplers have to be extra long and no push, only pull. Other than this there is nothing else I can advise but to take time and rebuild to broaden the curve.