How's Your Radii?

[Fergmiester]

The MESS has been quite an evolutuion for me over the past 14 years. I've had ups and down as well as abadonment issues over the years all depending on workload and raising a family or whatever. During this time I've amassed a fair collection of Engines and rolling stock.

I now find myself facing my biggest "problem" with regards to my layout to date.

What to do with the layout?

I have a 24" minimum radius main line and some of the Engines though "designed" to handle it look awkward. (4-6-6-4, 2-6-6-6, 2-10-4 etc)

I have the option to do the following

1. Turn a blind eye and enjoy what I have

2. rebuild to two curves in question which would require a chainsaw and splicing a new section into the existing 10 x5

3. Tear the whole thing down and start from the ground up putting me back 5-10 years. ( I realize there are some of you out there who do this on a regular basis but I can't see myself doing this)

5. Bury the unsightly awkward areas in lot of forest (kinda like 1 but no blind eye)

6. Walk away and try something else (Wife would have me committed or she would commit her self) 

My personal thought is number two but even that is a major undertaking. 

Fergie 

 

[Brian M]

Number two.  It's a bit of work, but will make things more to your liking.

 First rule of model railroading: IT'S ALWAYS A COMPROMISE.

May The Force be with you.

Brian

[jrbernier]

Fergie,

  I have dealt with the same issues.  The layout has some 22" radius curves(and it was designed that way with the idea of using 4 axle GP9's and 50's era freight cars).  I am still modeling the 50's, but in the past 20 years, nice P2K SD7's, BLI USRA Heavy 2-8-2's, and Walthers passenger cars have entered my collection.  The SD7's can run on the layout, but are really too big when switching on those curves.  The BLI steam actually runs good and even looks OK.  The Walthers Hiawatha cars will not even run on the home layout. 

  I have decided to do some rebuilding for now.  I retire in a little over 3 years and at that time I will tear down the layout and start over(retirement project).

Jim Bernier

[wedudler]

I would go with # 2.

For my layout there's a branch with 60cm (24'' ) radius. But I've a mainline with  1,2m (47'' ) radius. For my heavyweights the branch was a problem. And for some brass engines from friends the radius is a bit small. Then they can use the mainline.

Wolfgang 

[gandydancer19]

I was almost in the same position as you are, but my problem was different, which I won't get into here.

My layout was my "dream" layout that I built when I retired from the Navy, and we got our first place where we were going to stay put for a while. After 15 years, I had even just acquired a new space right next to the current layout room, which made expanding into it even easier. Then things took a turn and I had to ask myself if I really wanted to continue or start over. I had to ask myself some questions before making the decision.

1. The layout was started in the mid 80's and used the current technology at the time.

2. Am I really ready for a change?

3. Do I really want to start over?

4. Did I want to keep running with the same track plan, or was I getting tired of it and want something better?

5. Were operations doing what I wanted them to do?

6 Is the current layout building and electrical technology that much better than what I have now?

7. Did I learn anything from that layout that will really help me with a new one?

8. What can I salvage and use over?

9. What would happen if I moved? Could I build one that could be moved if necessary?

Well, it turned out that I could salvage all the buildings, trees, and bridges, autos, people, details, and signs, plus a lot of the electronics. This was more than I expected. The hardest part of building a layout to me was building all the buildings. So being able to save all of them for reuse later was a major point in deciding to start over. The other two big things were building one that could be moved if necessary, and using the new technology available in today's modeling.

I tore it out and started over. I was also able to save most of the lumber from the benchwork.

Do I regret it? Only sometimes. My new layout is being built better using all the things that I learned from the old one and more. I am also looking forward to working on something new and different each time I go in the layout room to do some work. It has sort of given me a new energy.

[ndbprr]

How satisfied are you with the rest of the layout?  What do you see twenty or thirty years from now?  If the answer to either is negeative you might want to reconsider the whole thing in light of your givens and druthers.  On the other hand if you see yourself using this layout for many years by all means modify it. 

[loathar]

As long as your trains run OK on it, #5. Out of site, out of mind.

[selector]

I have to be happy in my hobby.  Otherwise, it might as well be so much dog poop.

I have to be happy in my own skin.  As an aging and mature adult, I have found myself to be almost singly intolerant of unsatisfactory circumstances.  I problem-solve and get them fixed.  That includes in my hobby because of reason #1 above.

Every time I have found my eyes and mind drawn to something that bugs me about my layout, I rip it out and fix it.  I have done that to track, to scenery, to buildings...life's too short to just make do when you have the means to make improvements.  Your layout should be a standing symbol of accomplishment, not just good enough to run trains.  It should be a warm source of pride for you.  It should bring you joy....tons of it.  If it fails, then you are facing a problem.

If the thought of major surgery leaves you cold, and your heart isn't into it, then it may be time to re-think your entire approach.  This is the problem with taking 10-15 years to build a layout.  It's a great journey, but if the world rotates under you, your original end-point will have moved (changed).  Fifteen years is a ton of time these days in terms of development and evolution. Fifteen years ago maybe 30 people in the entire hobby were talkinig about DCC and had a firm grasp of the concept.  Think about where engine technology and capabililty is now.

So, I am going to be the fly in the ointment and suggest to you that your time is up.  Your original idea has met its natural end, and you should enjoy the planning and execution of an update.

This time, take two years.

-Crandell

[jeffrey-wimberly]

Combine #1 and #5.

[tomikawaTT]

My initial, no-thought, answer would be #2 - but use a reciprocating saw with a thin blade.  Chain saws make too much of a mess.

Then, the other shoe dropped.  How much expansion room do you have?

If the original 10x5 can just grow a little, it might be wiser to do a complete redesign for your space.

If the 10x5 can balloon into full use of a much larger space, keep it and go with #2 (modified.)  When John Allen expanded the Gorre and Daphetid into a basement-filler, he incorporated his original card-table size layout - as a substandard-radius branch embargoed to any but his smallest locomotives.

My own end-of-the-railroad module has turnouts which my larger JNR power can't handle, and a pair of 20 meter DMU cars look as out of place as (fill in NBA center of choice) at a pre-schooler's picnic.  My solution was to keep it as the far-end terminal of a private railroad which doesn't run JNR power or passenger equipment.  (Someday, in the not-too-distant future, it will be incorporated into my under construction double garage filler.  Until then, I can still operate it as a stand-alone module with cassette connection to the outside world.)

Chuck (modeling Central Japan in September, 1964)

[R. T. POTEET]

Ah, yes! This prolonging HO-Scale problem: how do you squeeze 19 gallon locomotives onto 18 gallon curves? Unfortunately, those 24 inch radius curves sound enormous but it is, in reality, an 18 gallon curve for those 19 gallon locomotives you describe - 4-6-6-4, 4-6-6-6(?) - I think you probably mean a 2-6-6-6 - 2-10-4.  

When I got out of the Air Force thirty years ago I had accumulated a sizable stable of die-cast HO-Scale steam locomotives the largest of which was a Bowser Mountain. I had tried, at one time, to get my hands on a Bowser Challenger but it was out of production at that particular moment and when it finally did come available a few years later I had lost interest in anything that big. I discovered quite early on that, at least appearance wise, that Mountain was a 19 gallon locomotive and, at least for the foreseeable future, my layout room was going to restrict me to 18 gallon - 18 inch radius - curves. I think that my track planning capabilities have vastly improved over the years and I will admit in hindsight that I could probably have exercised a little bit more care and gotten 24 inch radius curves to fit my available space in which case that Mountain would have shrunk to 18 gallon size and fit in those 18 gallon curves. I got discouraged, however, and decided that those 18 gallon HO-Scale curves fit perfectly in the N-Scale operating environment.

That was my compromise and that's where I have been ever since. Again, in hindsight, an alternative would have been to go to smaller - MDC lokes, for example - motive power which would have looked acceptable on 18 inch radius curves; my problem, however, was less one of locomotive size as it was 80 foot heavyweights.  If you lack the capability of expanding to a 30 inch minimum radius you need to either compromise and come up with a fleet of smaller locomotives or start thinking of a smaller scale!

If a vote were being taken on your listed options I would cast my ballot for #5 - but, then again, to get a disguise to work you must create a disguisable environment - something that is not always possible.

[IRONROOSTER]

Number 3.  That's what I am doing right now.  The layout I started in 1993 never got finished, for the usual reasons: kids, money, school.  But my interests have changed and after trying to figure how to modify it, I finally gave up and started over. I tend to be a slow builder (I do have a life outside the basement ) so it's not an easy decision, but for me it's the right one.  Plus I need to find out if an operations oriented model railroad is what I want to do for my big retirement layout.

Enjoy

Paul 

[dinwitty]

I have a test 15 inch radius loop and only the 4 wheeled trucks diesels and the smallest steam like it. Running a test train around I kinda like the short twisting turns but running only the max 40 ft cars (or 50 ft) but also have this deep well flatcar with 4 trucks that wiggles thru the 15 inch with ease.

Big articulateds, no way. My new layout design is going 24" and if my engines can take the curves, cool.

If I were in such a debacle, if I studied the problem and could fit in a wider radius, I would do it.

My layout plans is being able to run what I like and look right. No modern here, its 50s, 85 foot boxcars, sorry no room. Y6b's and 35ft hopppers, super duper on 24" radius.

Good planning makes the difference.

 

[jfugate]

I've said it before, but one of the best online to minimum radius guides in any scale is the Layout Design Special Interest Group's Curve Radius Rule-of-Thumb.

Many modelers would have saved themselves a lot of layout design grief if they knew about these simple but very insightful guidelines. And they work in any scale!

[Fergmiester]

... an 18 gallon curve for those 19 gallon locomotives you describe - 4-6-6-4, 4-6-6-6(?) - I think you probably mean a 2-6-6-6 - 2-10-4.  

I stand corrected though a 4-6-6-6 would be different.

Seriously I will probably leave it all be for the summer and mull it over and see what the fall brings forth. Part of the problem is I just don't have the desire at this point to do much. Not sure if it's frustration, boredom or whatever. It hasn't been a great winter as I sat around and went through the motions. I just haven't been able to get motivated. Hopefully a change in the weather will improve things.

Lou: where were you 14 years ago! I just wish I had thought about these issue before I started over again. That is a very good article and one that should be tacked onto the top of the page for all the Newbies and Restarts.

Fergie 

[johncolley]

I would opt to rebuild the curves with easements. If rework of the roadbed is needed (it may already be wide enough to offset the curve by 1/2 to 3/4 inch ) I would take up the track at least a foot back into the tangents before taking a rental reciprocating saw to the roadbed. That would be the quickest and easiest way to make the change while saving the layout. Enjoy the learning curve as you will be grateful for the skills aquired! jc5729 John Colley, Port Townsend, WA

[wgnrr]

On the main layout, we have a radius of 39'' on the outer loop, with 32'' on the inner loop. We can run anything on them, but Walthers cars still look out of place...(SURPRISE???)

I would do what we did on the old layout...rebuild the layout to accomodate a larger curve. We were running a 30'', and found it to be a bear to run on. After a expansion, moving of all shelves, and a complete take-over of the layout, we got a 45'' out of it. It was never a problem to run anything on it.

However, I can't tell a major running difference between the 39'' and the 45''.

Option #2 is my choice too (although burying it in the back woods was thoughtful)

Phil

[selector]

Phil, you have touched on something that I have mentioned in earlier threads....about not being able to tell the difference in running characteristics between 69" and 45".  Visually, it is exactly the same, especially in the tighter curves.  If a person runs a train of heavies through 24" curves and then through 30" curves, it is not obvious how different they look...they're still both very tight.  In fact, I find that the heavies don't begin to look good until outboard of 36".

Mind you, that is my personal bias doing the talking, but I wanted to point out that I could not tell an appreciable difference in visual improvement with a 25% lengthening of radii.  That's a whopping change.

-Crandell

[delray1967]

Fergmiester, how visible are the curves?  Do you have any pics of your layout and the 'problem' curves?  It would be better to re-lay the curves, of course, but if the trains run reliably through them and you don't want to rebuild, see if you can disguise or interrupt the undesireable sight lines.  If the trains don't run well in the curves, rebuild them.  I know 5-10 years seem like a lot of 'lost' time, but if you design a new layout, you will use all of your skills to improve just about every aspect of your layout.  I'll even bet you can rebuild quicker than you think.  Design it in sections so you can change things around in the future (rebuild a new section in the workshop then when it's done, take the old one out of the layout and replace it with the new improved section, almost uninterrupted running on the layout).  Better (for us at least), hold a layout design contest and see all the possibilities the forum can generate!

[Paul W. Beverung]

Hi Fergie: I just checked my radii and it seems to be all right. It runs fron the center point of the curves to the center of the track. No problems. LOL

I built my layout in moduals so the radius is about 40 and 38 inches in the corners. I've been considering changing the alyout since it's a double oval ala modual constructin. I'd like a more linuar run. If I do change the radii will be min 30 on the main line. Why not try some layout drawings for your space and see what you can do? You  may find that you come up with something that would make doing it over worth while.

By the way the Walthers Hiawatha cars look real good on the large radii.

[johncolley]

Phil and Selector, right on track! Look at some photos of the real ones on a curve. How many cars of what length do you see on the curve? HO trains do look beautiful on big curves! Remember folks that a 10 degree railroad curve scales out to 88" radius, and 10 degrees of curvature would often call for a speed restriction if not banked (superelevation). I love big curves and have built Free-mo modules with 72" and 60" radius curves, and these look good even with 85' cars. Once you get below 48" r. it really starts to look "toylike". So, like all things in life, your ultimate choice is a compromise.

jc5721 John Colley, Port Townsend, WA