Fatter freight cars.
doesn't the width clearance need to increase as cars get longer on smaller radius curves ?
greg - Philadelphia & Reading / Reading
gregc doesn't the width clearance need to increase as cars get longer on smaller radius curves ?
Yes, there is cconsiderable information on this in the NMRA Recommended Practices. Again, this is not the function of the gage/gauge.
Sheldon
SeeYou190 I do not use my gage to check clearances. I use an 86 foot high cube boxcar for that. I space my tracks wider than NMRA recommendations for finger clearance.
I do not use my gage to check clearances. I use an 86 foot high cube boxcar for that. I space my tracks wider than NMRA recommendations for finger clearance.
SeeYou190 I think I will stick to using the big Athearn High Cube for clearance checks. It is larger than any other train car I will ever run, so if it is good, all is good.
I think I will stick to using the big Athearn High Cube for clearance checks. It is larger than any other train car I will ever run, so if it is good, all is good.
Rich
Alton Junction
Overmod Fatter freight cars.
If you're thinking taller, I'm sure you're correct.
If you're thinking wider, I don't see it. Perhaps you would inform us.
Ed
RP-2 says in regard to using the Gage as a clearance tool:
"This check is valid only for tangent track and curves of very wide radius."
RP-7.3 seems to imply that radius would be great than 13', since it shows an increase over the tangent dimension.
ATLANTIC CENTRALYes, there is cconsiderable information on this in the NMRA Recommended Practices.
My NMRA data sheet set dates from the 1970s.
Since I model the 1950s, I think that I will be OK with the information that I have.
-Kevin
Living the dream.
Lastspikemike 7j43k RP-2 says in regard to using the Gage as a clearance tool: "This check is valid only for tangent track and curves of very wide radius." RP-7.3 seems to imply that radius would be great than 13', since it shows an increase over the tangent dimension. Ed That's an interesting point for anyone successfully using 2" track centres for all curves.
7j43k RP-2 says in regard to using the Gage as a clearance tool: "This check is valid only for tangent track and curves of very wide radius." RP-7.3 seems to imply that radius would be great than 13', since it shows an increase over the tangent dimension. Ed
That's an interesting point for anyone successfully using 2" track centres for all curves.
I'd say it's an even MORE interesting point for anyone UN-succesfullly using 2" track centers for ALL curves.
Curves should be wider than 2" on center. Period.
SeeYou190 Mine is a Mark IV. Does anyone have a link to the instructions for how to use it? I think that would be very helpful. I have a feeling some contributors are are not using the gage the same as others, or maybe we are talking about something the gage is not even intended to be used for. I do not use my gage to check clearances. I use an 86 foot high cube boxcar for that. I space my tracks wider than NMRA recommendations for finger clearance. -Kevin
Mine is a Mark IV.
Does anyone have a link to the instructions for how to use it? I think that would be very helpful. I have a feeling some contributors are are not using the gage the same as others, or maybe we are talking about something the gage is not even intended to be used for.
Hey, Mike.
Still waiting for your working example of 1.5" track spacing.
Lastspikemike 7j43k Hey, Mike. Still waiting for your working example of 1.5" track spacing. Ed We had to take it apart to move the layout. Sorry, a never to be repeated situation. Wasn't my idea in the first place. Some people just don't know what's impossible and do it anyway. Like the Wright brothers.....
7j43k Hey, Mike. Still waiting for your working example of 1.5" track spacing. Ed
We had to take it apart to move the layout. Sorry, a never to be repeated situation. Wasn't my idea in the first place. Some people just don't know what's impossible and do it anyway. Like the Wright brothers.....
Strange. After proving the wisdom of this concept at the old layout, it was never repeated. Quite a surprise, I must say.
And so the Wright Brothers went home to their bicycle business.
I'm not going to argue, dispute, suggest or disagree with anything or anybody here.
I'm just going to make three simple statements.
First, as orginally suggested by several/many so far, simple testing is always a good idea.
Second, the NMRA has always been very "generous", and thereby conservative in its recomendations for curved track centers. Yet they have always "danced around" the tangent track center issue with scale feet rather than a real life dimension.
Their 14 scale foot recommendation is 1.931"..........
Third, I have used 2" track centers for tangent track since I was introduced to this hobby. As explained earlier it is the defacto industry standard for bridges, crossovers, etc.
I have used 2" track centers on curves, maybe sometimes stretching them out to 2-1/8", ever since I started using 36" radius as my minimum.
I have tested this with locos as big as the Bachmann EM-1 passing 80' Bachmann and Branchline passenger cars with no issues and room to spare.
So for appearance, space and better track civil engineering (yes, I engineer the track location before I install it), I will stay with 2" (or cheat them up just that 1/8") track centers. The NMRA recommended 2-15/32" is just ugly and unnecessary at 36" radius and above.
DISCLAIMER - I don't own a UP BigBoy, brass plastic or diecast, and I have no plans to ever own one. So I think the EM-1 qualifies as a large enough test loco.
ATLANTIC CENTRALFirst, as orginally suggested by several/many so far, simple testing is always a good idea.
Absolutely. I believe strongly in testing before building anything permanent.