Size is relative when we default to non-linear units. Mine's bigger'n yours is a relative comparison, and it happens also that it is entirely subjective.
Apart from that astounding bit of widsom (..cough...), each of us starts with what 'we got'. For some, it's a shelf above our desk crammed into a corner of a common room. For others, it's 1500 square feet of mostly unimpeded/open basement or out-building. I think it's safe to say most of us willingly expand our lofty fantasies into the available space with alacrity. Every time.
Our visions create our limitations. For me, I wanted broad curves which, for me, meant in the 40" range. The only way I could do that was to have a central operating space surrounded by the benchwork and tracks. And, it happened, with a duckunder access. I got my wishes, but it also meant the track plan was just a folded loop with a rudimentary yard and two long spurs. Big deal. Well, it turns out my lofty fantasy was a longish loop with some decent scenery. I want to run trains, not to operate them. For the best speeds and for trouble-free speed running, broad curves were the way to go.
One caveat...I wanted to run WWII era heavyweights with 4-8-4 engines and larger. It meant that I needed curves wider than what Walthers says is the minimum radius of 24". That set my lower or minimum radius to "Armstrongian tight radius of 24-ish inches (and not his 18). Somewhat later, when I actually towed and shoved strings of those cars, I found my minimum was too low.
As some have stated, we set our parameters using some knowns and some givens, plus a few druthers and dreams. Some of us even use 18" curves on those massive basement empires because that's what it takes to execute the grand plan.
jmbjmb Everytime one of these discussions comes up, sooner or later it begins to seem like a "you're not a real model railroader if ..." with the sum total of those "ifs" being a relatively large layout (larger than the typical spare room in most tract homes).
Everytime one of these discussions comes up, sooner or later it begins to seem like a "you're not a real model railroader if ..." with the sum total of those "ifs" being a relatively large layout (larger than the typical spare room in most tract homes).
Usually it's "your not a real modeler" if you don't build trains from kits and buy RTR - thats the theme thats arisen the most here in the past 3-4 years. This one is new for me but no-bother. There seems to be a few negative vibes in this discussion that I don't know where they come from. If it's a sensitive topic here in MR forums, maybe I'll just avoid it going forward and save those discussions for other venues. Live and learn.
Many/most homes do not have basements. And of those that don't few even have dedicated spare rooms for a layout. I'd love to have a spare room. Maybe once both kids are grown and on their own. Right now I have a shelf along two walls; a total of 26 square feet. Not even as much space as the proverbial sheet of plywood. It has one curve of about 19 inches. While I'd love 30 inch radius, it's just not going to happen.
It depends on what part of the country too. I grew up in California where basements are extremely rare. Later in upstate NY and in Virginia they are quite common, almost standard. Probably half the town houses have them too, but the cost is significantly more - and am appreciative that my wife made it a priority that we could manage after much looking, find a townhouse with a basement - although it's not been without it's problems - water issues.
That said, keep in mind I was in the same boat as many of the readers here. From about 1999 to about 2014, I was living in small apartments with no space for even a 4x8, so I get it, I understand we all can't have the "ideal" features in a layout. In fact I have this "boring donut" layout right now but compared to what I had for the 15+ years prior, I'm pleased realtive to what I used to have - nothing. Before, I was one of those "collectors" dreaming of a time I could build even smallish layout. Maybe when my daughter is out of college and I don't have that Yuge financial burden, I might be able to move into a place with a bigger basement like a few of our veteran members here.
I do have a lot of memories of reading articles with sizable layouts using minimum 30 inch curves, and mentioning it in another topic. That seems to have poked someones bear to the point academic studies were undertaken to prove my memory as somehow faulty - sorry about that. Sure, I realize that space is a very real limitation, but I also see the 4x8 sheet of plywood as a sort of mental standard for design that tends to steer new modelers into 18 and 22 inch modular track dimensions. Of course the 30" or larger dream goal isn't always attainable, but going up even a little above the trainset track geometry can reap rewards. Take it for what it's worth, food for thought, not barbs or perhaps some sort of unrealistic lofty ideals. Cheers and remember, Model Railroading is Fun!
Rio Grande. The Action Road - Focus 1977-1983
I have a memory of a newbie coming into the LHS while I was shopping. He asked a few basic questions about getting started of the guy behind the counter and unsolicited, one of the three "regulars" that always hung out in the shop spoke up about "minimum radius". In just a matter of moments, they had all agreed that they wouldn't even bother with a layout that had less than 30" curves. The newbie left the store without buying as much as a magazine.
If you want to be helpful, talk about radius in the context of the trade-offs we have to make when designing a layout to meet our own personal limits and desires. And stay away from dismissive remarks like "trainset track geometry". Otherwise you too will become one of the grumpy old farts hanging out in the LHS scaring off the newbie.
BTW, in TPFRO after defining what he considers to be sharp, conventional and broad curves, Armstrong goes on to say that full length passenger cars and modern (85' plus) freight equipment require broad curves to look and operate well. He saw no need to redefine sharp, conventional and broad based on the long equipment - neither do I.
I have the right to remain silent. By posting here I have given up that right and accept that anything I say can and will be used as evidence to critique me.
carl425 I have a memory of a newbie coming into the LHS while I was shopping. He asked a few basic questions about getting started of the guy behind the counter and unsolicited, one of the three "regulars" that always hung out in the shop spoke up about "minimum radius". In just a matter of moments, they had all agreed that they wouldn't even bother with a layout that had less than 30" curves. The newbie left the store without buying as much as a magazine. If you want to be helpful, talk about radius in the context of the trade-offs we have to make when designing a layout to meet our own personal limits and desires. And stay away from dismissive remarks like "trainset track geometry". Otherwise you too will become one of the grumpy old farts hanging out in the LHS scaring off the newbie. BTW, in TPFRO after defining what he considers to be sharp, conventional and broad curves, Armstrong goes on to say that full length passenger cars and modern (85' plus) freight equipment require broad curves to look and operate well. He saw no need to redefine sharp, conventional and broad based on the long equipment - neither do I.
Such a shame to read about this person leaving the store confused and frustrated. These are two traits most experience in trains. They are a lot of fun, but also can create a bit of tension among people who think that a layout must have a certain something to become enjoyable.
I've seen small layouts that were very detailed and looked more enjoyable. That looked more fun than layouts that consumed entire basements without any scenery or logic. How one sets up a layout is certainly a function of time, money, and space. These are the largest factors to consider. Just because someone doesn't have enough of one to have a 30" radius doesn't make their layout any worse that somene with a sizeable operation.
Hi all
Well let's throw the pidgeon at the cat.
The smallest comercial HO curves avalable are 15" so that is the absalute minimum you can go.
It is restrictive yes but it is the smallest you can go.
I would sugest that the ruling radius on a modest layout is 18" but then my definition of modest may be smaller than the OP's
All our curves are sharp when you concider that what is a 10' radius for us is what the prototype conciders to be very sharp.
I find it disapointing a beginer would be told that the min radius is probably to big to fit in the space his parents or partner depending on age would allow him.
When the the first G&D had close enough to 15 inch curves and when many of us started with a set that had probably 18 inch curves in it.
Some of us have very small layouts and I bet the very small layout people have just as much fun with them as the big layout people do
regards John
A few months ago I overheard a hobby shop owner and a customer talking about needing 36" minimum curves in N scale. Which is crazy since one of the advantages of N scale is small curves.
While my primary scale is S, I have a test layout that currently includes an HO oval with 15" sectional Atlas curves. My Bachmann 4-4-0 runs around it with no problems pulling 36 and 40 ft cars with body mounted KD couplers.
Sure some trains require 18" or 24", but you go with what you have. Some of that traction stuff gets around tighter curves.
Enjoy
Paul
IRONROOSTERA few months ago I overheard a hobby shop owner and a customer talking about needing 36" minimum curves in N scale. Which is crazy since one of the advantages of N scale is small curves.
Nonetheless, there are reasons why someone migtht choose to go with a relatively generous min R. They have nothing to do with what's "good" or "bad" and I think we're maybe being a bit thin-skinned to say that people who prefer a wider min R are somehow dissing on someone who is constrained in some manner from going wider.
In other words, the concept of minimum radius doesn't apply simply to the min R possible with your equipment -- although it's often thought of that way -- but it's also about the aesthetic factors that go with a wider min R.
It is regrettable that any experienced member of the hobby or shop owner would discourage anyone from going with a relatively sharp min R because of space limitations provided they take the time to explain the trade-offs that will factor into that decision. A sharp min R is less than desirable in many cases and THIS SHOULD BE POINTED OUT, but that doesn't mean you should get discouraged provided you can adapt what you have in mind to successfully operate a RR that suits you. Big Boys and 15" min R doesn't work, but it would work great with short logging cars and suitable locos, for just a couple of examples.
The main issue for anyone's min R is whether or not it works for the operations and equipment that are intended to operate over it. The only time it reflects poorly on one's modeling skills is when you try to push the limits by expecting equipment to run over it that is far too lengthy to work on that sharp of a curve. Then it's not only about staying on the track, but coupler swing, etc.
Mike Lehman
Urbana, IL
mlehmanNonetheless, there are reasons why someone migtht choose to go with a relatively generous min R. They have nothing to do with what's "good" or "bad" and I think we're maybe being a bit thin-skinned to say that people who prefer a wider min R are somehow dissing on someone who is constrained in some manner from going wider.
Bingo, well said.
The main issue for anyone's min R is whether or not it works for the operations and equipment that are intended to operate over it. The only time it reflects poorly on one's modeling skills is when you try to push the limits by expecting equipment to run over it that is far too lengthy to work on that sharp of a curve. Then it's not only about staying on the track, but coupler swing, etc.[/quote]
All very true. People can't always go with whats ideal, and of course that may or may not limit things. You do the best you can with what you have. In some cases, you may be able to squeeze a bit wider curves, in some cases no way.
mlehman IRONROOSTER A few months ago I overheard a hobby shop owner and a customer talking about needing 36" minimum curves in N scale. Which is crazy since one of the advantages of N scale is small curves. Nonetheless, there are reasons why someone migtht choose to go with a relatively generous min R. They have nothing to do with what's "good" or "bad" and I think we're maybe being a bit thin-skinned to say that people who prefer a wider min R are somehow dissing on someone who is constrained in some manner from going wider. In other words, the concept of minimum radius doesn't apply simply to the min R possible with your equipment -- although it's often thought of that way -- but it's also about the aesthetic factors that go with a wider min R. It is regrettable that any experienced member of the hobby or shop owner would discourage anyone from going with a relatively sharp min R because of space limitations provided they take the time to explain the trade-offs that will factor into that decision. A sharp min R is less than desirable in many cases and THIS SHOULD BE POINTED OUT, but that doesn't mean you should get discouraged provided you can adapt what you have in mind to successfully operate a RR that suits you. Big Boys and 15" min R doesn't work, but it would work great with short logging cars and suitable locos, for just a couple of examples. The main issue for anyone's min R is whether or not it works for the operations and equipment that are intended to operate over it. The only time it reflects poorly on one's modeling skills is when you try to push the limits by expecting equipment to run over it that is far too lengthy to work on that sharp of a curve. Then it's not only about staying on the track, but coupler swing, etc.
IRONROOSTER A few months ago I overheard a hobby shop owner and a customer talking about needing 36" minimum curves in N scale. Which is crazy since one of the advantages of N scale is small curves.
No this was not a preference thing. I understand that for aesthetic reasons, etc. one could use a large radius. And of course the prototype uses much larger radii than most of us. While one advantage (probably its biggest) of N is a layout in a small space , another is being able to have prototypical curves, 100 car freight trains, etc. in a typical basement. So, sure if you have the space and that meets your objectives then do it.
They were talking about this as a minimum radius for everybody and how a lot of people buying N scale did not understand they "NEED"ed this radius. Anything smaller wouldn't work.
IRONROOSTERNo this was not a preference thing. I understand that for aesthetic reasons, etc. one could use a large radius. ...They were talking about this as a minimum radius for everybody and how a lot of people buying N scale did not understand they "NEED"ed this radius. Anything smaller wouldn't work.
Paul,
I understand they were misleading this person.
And I noted that this is really NOT helping this person, even though they might have thought they were somehow doing this person a favor.
I just wanted to note that the concept of minimum radius is not simply the sharpest acceptable curve for the quipment being operated. There seems to be some confusion here that min R is some sort of hard number that cannot be violated. It's usually not.
Rather, minimum radius is determined by the choices we make as modelers as much as it is by the physical characteristics of the track and equipment. If that is clearly understood, then people are better able to have a useful discussion of layout design, equipment acquisition, and what's involved in making compromises that still allow us to enjoy the equipment we prefer to operate.
You call 10' X 18' modest, wow! thats a HUGE ECHO ECho echo space to build a model railroad in.
Most people I know including me dream of having that kind space and think a 9' X 12' room to build nothing but a layout in means they are building a very large layout.
The term modest certainly rings a different bell for different people. What is considered to be a huge layout in Japan, is a standard layout in my country, already a big one in the UK, where they build layouts in box files, but certainly a micro layout in the US.
I´d consider my HOm (metre gauge narrow gauge, running on 12mm track)layout of roughly 3 by 5 ft with a minimum radius of 13" to be a modest layout.
im n scale and using kato's 28 1/4 as a minimum radius. around the walls on 18 inch shelves. i like big curves, but by using them, i have found alot of the track ends up in the middle so its kind of hard to fit in spur tracks. i think i can manage a few, still tinkering. after seeing a train go around that big curve, even 19 inch radius looks sharp. yet another "trade off" i guess.
Hello All,
For the minimum curves on my pike I use 15-inch Atlas snap track. I also use #2 Peco turnouts.
With this combination I have built a Wye in the center of my 4x8 pike and a corkscrew from the upper level of my coal loading dock back down to the mainline.
The mainline oval of my pike also consists of asymetrical curves consisting of three sections of 18-inch radius and three sections of 15-inch radius curves.
Because of the sharp radius of these curves I only run 4 axle diesel units or an 0-6-0 for my Olde Tyme excursion train.
This setup works well for my purposes.
Hope this helps.
"Uhh...I didn’t know it was 'impossible' I just made it work...sorry"
I agree that modest layout size is a realitive term.
My layout is 17' by 12'6". Because I wanted multiple person operations, I also wanted a double sided peninsula. I have four 50' boxcars, a few gondolas, one four bay hopper, and several 40' cars.
I set the layout in 1960, as a subbranch of CN, and to get everything in, I used 22" radius. 72' passenger cars with truck mounted couplers, back around these curves.
A bigger room would definitely produce bigger aisles and broader curves.
Have fun with what you have.
Dave
davidmurray A bigger room would definitely produce bigger aisles and broader curves.
The bigger room also generates more potential areas for derailments, electrical issues, etc. Planning a layout requires considering time, money, layout size, etc. Having a layout that consumes a basement is great, but I prefer having a flawlessly running operation where people don't have to travel around a large area to enjoy everything.
Depends on the space available, I think. A modeler build its layout, choosing the railroad and the landscape that wants to reproduce in scale, based on the space available.
My Redstone Branch ho scale layout (www.prrho.com) covers an area of meters 1,70x5,50. I hade to make compromises and, even for the my limited budget, I did a very small layout without complicated tracks. Necessarily then, also the curves are of small radius (max 28", min 22").I hope that result is acceptable.
John Busby Hi all You call 10' X 18' modest, wow! thats a HUGE ECHO ECho echo space to build a model railroad in. Most people I know including me dream of having that kind space and think a 9' X 12' room to build nothing but a layout in means they are building a very large layout. regards John
By European terms, thats a large space, however in America, most house basements have much larger spaces hence why train layouts here are often built in basements. California homes generally do not have basement so they rely more on garages or perhaps attics. The reason mine is small is it is in a townhouse basement. I can see it really depends who is reading this as to how they would perceive things. The rise of the American middle class after WWII combined with lots of land gave rise to many people with stand alone homes with sizable basements often featured in Model Railroader magazines over the years. Please keep that in mind for perspective. Now after the recession of 2008 and other factors, many are decrying the disappearance of the middle class in America so things have been heading the other direction and space for model trains isn't like what it was say in the 1960's through 1990's. I've been to Germany and England and know they have very little space compared to here so I understand why they have tight radius curves - it does depend on where you are and what your circumstances are too. It seems I've poked some bears by discussing the articles I've read in MR magazine in the 80's and 90's. Don't shoot the messenger!
In my opinion it would depend on the railroad and the time period modeled. A standard guage class 1 transition era railroad or railroads modeled: freight only 24" minimum is a good number, 4 axle passenger trucks need at least 24-26 depending on manufacturer and length of truck, 6 axle branchline kit trucks need at least 26" would prefer 30". I have imperfectly installed 24" minimum radius curves (23"-25"), consequently my heavyweight cars only run on my club's modular layout. A more modern era railroad, you might think about trying to get those minimum curves up to 26" or more if possible, just dont sacrifice all of space for curves.
I also am not a fan of the 4x8 layout. As many others have noted on this forum and other forums, if you have room for a 4x8, you have room for an around the walls layout, and if you build it right, you can use the space for other things. My layout runs around a spare bedroom, which is still useable as such, as well as containing a television, several book cases, dvd racks, this computer etc.
Edit: Other pet peeve, articulateds that pivot in the middle. I have a 3 rail O N&W Class A (2-6-6-4) and it runs on 36" radius curves without the rear drivers pivoting. Watching an HO scale articulated bend in the middle with the cab swinging out looks absolutely absurd.
I'm planning a "small" urban switching layout, approx 3' x 5' that will use 15" R curves with #4 turnouts. Yeah its tight, that's the point. Its modeled on tight urban rail lines like the SP Rathole
Have fun with your trains
As the discussion has pointed out, there are multiple reasons or criteria for the minimum radius. My first 'real' HO layout was built in a 13' by 15' room in my parents basement(late 60's). It started out as my Dad's shop, but it was consumed by the layout. 22" radius curves, and Atlas Customline turnouts were used. Running 50's era 4 axle diesels, and 40' freight cars for the most part worked just fine.
I suspect that a 'modest' sized layout today(10' by 12' room) running 4 axle diesels and 50' could get by with 22" radius curves and look decent.
Current layout occupies a 25' by 20' area(minus a 7' by 12' utility room in one corner). 30" radius curves and I still run transition era 40' & 50' freight cars. I can now run full length passenger cars (and 6 axle locomotives).
If I finally 'retire' from home ownership, I may build a new smaller layout in a townhouse(they have basements in Minnesota).
Jim
Modeling BNSF and Milwaukee Road in SW Wisconsin
Jim townhouses can have decent sized basements. If mine was a contiguous space it would be 18 x 26 feet which is decent for a layout. However its divided with the largest room at 10 x 18. I would like a stand alone home hopefully for a few years before retirement.
riogrande5761When I forget to post messages like a lawyer and use absolutes like "every", I frequently get burned. Chalk another one up - it will help me to choose my words more carefully next time.
-------
Generally I would have thought 24" radius was the norm. I remember trying to figure out why the Cat Mountain was able to get so much into about the same space as my club layout at the time. Didn't take too long to find out the difference was that the Cat Mountain used 24" minimum while the club minimum was 36".
I have no idea what I would consider a "modest" sized layout. I am currently dealing with a "lost in space" type area that is the total opposite of modest.
Way back when I started planning a "final" permanent layout I was determine to use 30" minimum because that was the specified minimum of several brass locos that I had my eye on. Since then I've raised it because of the Walther's passenger cars.
------
To the other running sub/side-topic of this thread. I am also always puzzed by some who learn something (or worse read something second hand) and take it to extreme levels becomming fanatical as the "right" way. It greves me that any hobby store owner would make someone believe they could not get started into the hobby on 18" radius curves, and others who instantly poo-poo many newbies ideas and dreams by piling on "facts" about the "right" way to do it.
i really don't see a contentuoius discussion here, I believe that everyone tries to use the broadest curve possible for their available space. My plan, initially called for a main line with 32" minimum, however, I found everything I wanted didn't fit in my space. My choice, stick with broad curves and fewer industries, or sharper curves (26" radius?) and more switching. Everyone's situation and solution is different.
Texas Zepher riogrande5761 When I forget to post messages like a lawyer and use absolutes like "every", I frequently get burned. Chalk another one up - it will help me to choose my words more carefully next time. at least we still aren't as bad the old Atlas forum was.
riogrande5761 When I forget to post messages like a lawyer and use absolutes like "every", I frequently get burned. Chalk another one up - it will help me to choose my words more carefully next time.
at least we still aren't as bad the old Atlas forum was.
We are trying to keep a lid on the flaming etc. but I've found MR and ARF has each their own share of "fun". Forums seem to be full of trolls and and semi-trolls everywhere, even if some like to think their hangout is better than someone elses hangout. I was just on another forum where a guy dis'd ARF as full of negative people and the next post later there was a "negative Nancy" post... heh heh.
------- Generally I would have thought 24" radius was the norm. I remember trying to figure out why the Cat Mountain was able to get so much into about the same space as my club layout at the time. Didn't take too long to find out the difference was that the Cat Mountain used 24" minimum while the club minimum was 36". I have no idea what I would consider a "modest" sized layout. I am currently dealing with a "lost in space" type area that is the total opposite of modest. Way back when I started planning a "final" permanent layout I was determine to use 30" minimum because that was the specified minimum of several brass locos that I had my eye on. Since then I've raised it because of the Walther's passenger cars.
I thought David Barrows Cat Mountain had 30" minimums - I'd have to dig through my old MR's but he's gone through many iterations, more recently domino's and maybe he's retired now.
You raised your minimum above 30" radius? As for 24 inches, I've seen some Walthers cars minimums raised to 26" radius in recent years, which is why I wouldn't recommend 26" - you never want to go with an absolute minimum if you can manage it. Of course space can be limitation as we all know.
It greves me that any hobby store owner would make someone believe they could not get started into the hobby on 18" radius curves, and others who instantly poo-poo many newbies ideas and dreams by piling on "facts" about the "right" way to do it.
Unfortunately the hobby is full of opinionated people, however, it's bad business and shooting ones self in the foot for a hobby shop owner to say stuff like that. Instead they should just say, if you are going with 18-inch curves, thats fine, but be aware that there are some things you may have trouble running - such as scale length passenger cars and long freight cars, and some loco's. Thats all.
I dont think there would be as much discusion about minimum radii if there were less layouts built on a 4 X 8 sheet of plywood. It is not a good place for a beginner to start in my opinion.
A shelf layout looks better, operates prototypically, trains look better, easy to expand, saves space, no reach issues, easy to wire, can attach to a club, portable, etc. etc.
Steve
Choops I dont think there would be as much discusion about minimum radii if there were less layouts built on a 4 X 8 sheet of plywood. It is not a good place for a beginner to start in my opinion. A shelf layout looks better, operates prototypically, trains look better, easy to expand, saves space, no reach issues, easy to wire, can attach to a club, portable, etc. etc. Steve
The problem is most beginners (correct me if I'm wrong) probably aren't too keen on running trains back and forth on a short stretch of track - thats something which comes with undertanding how some train operations work and then wanting to duplicate them semi realistically. So the loop of track on a 4x8, or maybe something a little larger is what most beginners - and some experienced people would rather build. Sure, I "get it" that people can grow bored of trains going in a circle fairly quickly, but thats where you need the switching opportunities built into even a 4x8, so there is some interesting things to do beyond the building of the layout and running trains in circles.
Hey, don't feel, bad b'out nothin, I had trouble at first too. For example, o gauge and ho scale, have a lot in common, so I learned from Lionel magazines about curve radius. This radius, can go from 027 to 072, 036 fits most and that goes for ho scale as well. Although you could have a different scale such as 0 scale, America flyer, (aka s gauge), z scale, n scale, oo-gauge, or large scale, (aka g scale). These I'm still not sure if it applies, but 036 is ideal for compact layouts like mine, a slide out.
I only briefly considered a 4x8 for my first layout. It would not have paid off in the end. I am still stuck with 22" curves, though most are 24". I hate running my DDA40X on the minimum, but the space you have is the space you have.
Thankfully in my case I'll be getting a larger running space soon, so I may expand the layout a bit for the first build.
Julian
Modeling Pre-WP merger UP (1974-81)
riogrande5761 Sure, I "get it" that people can grow bored of trains going in a circle fairly quickly, but thats where you need the switching opportunities built into even a 4x8, so there is some interesting things to do beyond the building of the layout and running trains in circles.
Steve:
The flip side of this is that some people prefer to have trains run in circle as opposed to switching operations. I have had two different model rails come to a few of my operating sessions, friends with everyone present, but decided after 6 or 8 sessions that they just weren't interested.
Rather sit sipping tea as first one, and then another and then another train does a few laps.
I would sooner watch a TV documentry on growing grain in Alaska, but to each his own.