Hey Everyone,
I have just about finished up the bench work and now I am trying to work out track plans. My initial planning was to have a mainline with big 30" curves so that I could run atleast one big steam engine probably a 4-8-8-4 bigboy and some long passenger cars. I am now seeing how much real estate these big curves are taking out of my layout design.
I am not ready to write off having this one train just yet. My question is how small of a radius can this engine run with out derailments and not look to bad on?
Thank You I am looking forward to hear some thoughts on this.
Ron
I refuse to grow up!!!
Actually, for my money I'd say that the 30" radius curves yu have right now would be considered a bare minimum if you want the Big Boy and those 85' passenger cars to not look "to big for your layout".
The bigger the radius the better they're going to look. I would stay with the bigger radius and go even larger if you can, or plan on running smaller equipment.
But that's just my opinion, I'm sure others will disagree as they so often do.
Mark
NMRC
What are your priorities? Is it to enjoy the engines you develop a hankering for, or to have a railroad, or what? I am not being facetious....for me it is being able to enjoy large steamers. And long passenger cars. They just don't look right, to me, on curves under 28". So, if curves that small would help you, maybe it's a good compromise over the common standard of 22"....seems to have crept up from 18" some time in the past three or four years.
But why not use the outer dimensions you have with the 30" curves for your looped main so that you can watch the trains run? You can always use a diverging curve turnout to afford your trains access to a more complicated track system inboard of an outer loop. Retain the larger curves for their obvious benefits, and run a different type of operation inside that loop...a passenger terminal, loading docks, coal production with chutes filling hoppers, a cattle ranch and corral with chutes.....
So, I'm with Mark on this one, and don't disagree at all. I would not abandon my strong druthers about running the types of trains I like if it was as easy as figuring out what else to put inside those nice generous curves.
Crandell
i have to agree with mark on this one. by my own standards, 30" curves are pretty sharp and i will not even try to lay out a curve without an easement.
today's locomotives are able to negotiate much sharper curves than the same size engines from years gone by. i have several older brass imports with 8 and 10 large drivers and that long, rigid wheelbase causes them to bind noticably on 36" curves. they make it through but you can tell they are laboring from the added rolling resistance.
not to preach but instead of trying to find out what you can get away with, you might consider how broad can i make my curnves?
even a big 4-8-2 has a lot of overhang on a 36" curve when compared to the prototype. it looks like a stiff snake trying to peek around a corner. not to mention, if i couple the tenders close to the locomotives like they should be, the cab roof corners can foul on the coal bin of the tender.
i read somewhere that the prototype big boys could handle the equivalent of a 48" radius in HO but that would be at walking speed probably in a terminal or somewhere like that. that was their designed limitation, not their normal, routine operation.
grizlump
I will agree with the previous posters and may add that if you are planning on running large BRASS steamers they can even give you fits on 30" radius curves. I know that is a bare minimum for my PRR J-1 2-10-4, and it doesn't even like that much. Brass just doesn't have the slop built into it that the the RTR modern plastic steamers have.
Chris
I don't have a Big Boy, but I do have 32" radius curves. That is the bare minimum for larger steamers like 2-10-2 and 2-10-4. Also, IMHO, 32" radius curves are the true minimum for 85' passenger cars.
On my old layout, I had 26" and 28" radius curves. Too tight for all of the above listed equipment.
If I were going to run the Big Boy, I would want 36" radius curves. With a 4 inch space for protection on the outer side of the track, you would need an 80 inch wide piece of real estate to make a loop.
Rich
Alton Junction
Thank You all for your replies, I seem to be getting quite the education here lately. I was pretty sure that this was the answer that I was going to get, but with all the time I have been away from the hobby I just wanted to ask and be sure. Right now my main goal is to just get my main line up and running and have some fun, in two years I know that my current space issues will change drasticaly and what I am building now will be but a small portion of what I am planning.
So I think I will hold back on that big steamer and concentrate on getting to run the trains I already own, the last couple of weeks have been like Christmas for me as I have been finding boxes of stuff that I have had packed away for well over twenty years. There is also the stuff I have picked up along the way, never passing on a deal at the flea market or garage sale on anything Train related or in HO.
Ron:
Just as an afterthought: My Yuba River Sub has 34"/36" radius curves, and I run a lot of big steam, especially articulateds. However, since most of my articulateds are brass imports and 'prototypically' articulated (only the front set of drivers swivel), even on those fairly generous curves, I have a lot of boiler 'overhang' . I've learned to live with it, but I do get some pretty strange looks from people when I run them around the 'horseshoe' curve at Wagon Wheel Gap.
Here's what I mean. It's a Yellowstone--almost as long as a Big Boy, and also with a 14-wheel centipede tender. It's on an inside 34" radius of the double track, but even at that, if I had a train parked on the outside 36" radius, there would be some SERIOUS sideswiping, LOL!
Tom
Tom View my layout photos! http://s299.photobucket.com/albums/mm310/TWhite-014/Rio%20Grande%20Yuba%20River%20Sub One can NEVER have too many Articulateds!
'Run' and 'look nice' are two different categories.
Most model Big Boys (other than brass) can actually 'run' on 18" radius curves. 22" for some decent reliability. They look silly, but they run. Full-length 85' passenger cars, unless they are AHM/IHC style with truck mounted couplers on long extension arms, will probably not even run anything less than 24" radius, definitely not if they have workign diaphragms and couple at prototypical distances. Even on 30" radius curves, I had to extend the center distance between double track to more than 2" center to center before sets of 85' cars could pass each other without sideswiping. Luckily, experimentation showed this BEFORE the track was fixed in position.
WHich brings up the most important part - TEST with the actual equipment you plan to run Determine what works and what doesn't work before you fasten any track down. That's the only way you will know for sure - anythign else, including my reply and that of anyoen else, is pure speculation, perhaps based on actual experience, but it is just so much theory unless you are running the same model cars and locos everyone else used. Many of the ones I had to manage were the old Walthers kits - as in, basically built from a box of pieces that were vaguely passenger car shaped. They overhand and track differently than the new Walthers RTR cars, or some other oldies but goodies liek JC Models, or other newer ones liek Branchline. They're all different - this is why it is important to test things out before making the layout 'permanent' and end up having to tear out sections and redo them becuse, oops, those car's DON'T handle the curve.
--Randy
Modeling the Reading Railroad in the 1950's
Visit my web site at www.readingeastpenn.com for construction updates, DCC Info, and more.
Ron, how visible will the turns be?
I run two big Steamers, both are PCM's, a Big Boy 4-8-8-4 and a Y6 b 2-8-8-2. (Y6 b is about 4 inches shorter than the Big Boy) and both track great on tight turns. Most of my turns now are 24 to 26 inch and they don't look totally goofy. Yes they would look better on a bigger turn, but unless you are a inspiring rivet counter who cares? Buy and run what you want for now, the bigger layout will be coming.
On trick is if you are viewing from the outside of the turn, they will look better. Use view blocks to hide the inside of the turn.
This is the only picture I have at hand of my Big Boy going around a 24 inch turn.
Here is a picture that will give you a idea how big the Y6 b is, it is in the center.
BLI made 3 Y6 b's that I know of, the PCM, Paragon II and a Blue Line version. Last two can still be found for around $300.00. Get a Y6 b, you will be glad you did.
Cuda Ken
I hate Rust
I have 3 articulated steamers and 85' passenger cars and my layout has 30" min radius for the mainline. Some other curves are down as small as 24-26" but they are in the yard and are no problem for them. You just have to limit where you run them but for appearance sake, 30" would be best kept for a minimum. I just love to watch the Big Boy and others running on the layout, no matter what the raduis. If you can keep the mainline to 30" you should be OK. Enjoy your trains!
Bob
Life is what happens while you are making other plans!
My 4-6-6-4 ----2-6-6-4-----2-8-8-2
All run OK on my 24
But I only do that once in a while just to see and hear them
The rest of the time they stay in my display cabinet as they don't look quite right on a 6 1/2 by 9 1/2 around the walls
51% share holder in the ME&O ( Wife owns the other 49% )
ME&O
This radius business brings to mind another subject: Like you and perhaps most others, I have some locomotives of rather mighty rigid bases. I also remember that, as a kid, remember seeing moguls and ten-wheelers pulling commuters on the B&M up through Arlington heights, and NH I-4s into Quincy station on their way to Middleboro. While these engines will fit nicely on R36", I have watched, photographed at eye level, my longer-based beasties, and they always give me the impression that they do not belong on tight radii. This isn't in any way, meant to condemn anyone running big power on tight track. My thought here is to why companies such as Bachmann, Kato, et al, look to marketing moguls, ten-wheelers, Atlantics, etc; with the same running qualities and level of detail as their other offerings.
EF-3 yellowjacket
What you say here is good, and I encourage-especially the younger newer modellers-to do as you and others here have advised, to experiment and strive for good quality workmanship. As a kid, I had the privilege to go to DC/Alexandria in the late fifties, and did see N&W articulateds at work. As I remember, they glided through the curves and turnouts smoothly. This would be a tough proposition on a layout, but there are lots of really neat tricks for us to employ on something like a train layout.
When I first started employing photography in my experimentation, I noticed things that I probably otherwise would not have; such as erratic movement caused by either poor trackwork, crud, etc; so I also encourage the newer modellers to use their camera, as it will freeze motion, enabling you to stand out a lot of discreptancies. Reading is also a great tool, and there are many sources of information available. Have fun and good luck!
If I had a small space for a layout now, but was going to have a larger one later, I would consider building a transferable layout that would fit in the larger space. In particular, I might build an industrial switching area, or perhaps a short branchline operation. The curves could be less than 30". The big stuff could be held for later.
Ed
I can run full length passenger cars with a big steam engine like a Big Boy around my 22" radius without problems. It does look very unrealistic, but that's the widest curve I have room for. Like the others said, 30" or so is an absolute minimum for approaching realism, and 36" and up is where things will look best. All the non-brass Big Boys can run on an 18" radius (the Marklin/Trix model can go as low as 13"!!), but they all use Rivarossi's old method of making both engines turn under the boiler. Well, the Bowser kit doesn't, but those are hard to find and take an enormous amount of work to get running.
_________________________________________________________________
My multiple mainlines have curves at 29"R minimum. mean average of 32"R. I have dozens of articulated steam locomotives and heavy electrics and they handle these curves with no problems. I agree they do look their best on W I D E curves. My plans for a dedicated train building will allow that in the future.
Rick
Santa Fe - All the way! Missouri Pacific - Route of the Eagles!
To me all that has been said here just reinforces what I have said for years, we "all" do the best we can with what we have to work with. Some have more to work with than others and some have less but that doesn't mean we can't all strive for our perceived ideals.
To me, this is what makes "model railroading" interesting and what makes what others are doing in the hobby interesting as well.
Sometimes you get new ideas, sometimes you learn new things, but at the very least you get to see how others perceive the hobby through their eyes.
Most stuff will run on 18" (and look hideous). All non-brass will run on 22" and Everything will run on 30", though the long wheelbase engines x-10-x are still looking a tad awkward but will run quite well as long as there are no dips or bumps in the rail.
Have fun with that one
Fergie
http://www.trainboard.com/railimages/showgallery.php?cat=500&ppuser=5959
If one could roll back the hands of time... They would be waiting for the next train into the future. A. H. Francey 1921-2007
Finalized my track plans last night and on the one main line I will have 26" radius, it is just a big oval around the entire layout but about 50% of it is hidden beneath the scenery. The second main will have 26" and 24" curves. Thank You All for the replies this has been a very informative conversation.
I run big steam on my layout with 85' passenger cars too, most of my equipment is either 2-8-8-0 or 2-8-8-2 mallets plus a healthy dose of 2-8-0 and 4-6-2. I run a 40" radii on my mainlines and 36" on the branch lines. I found this works out best for overall operations and prevents alot derails as well as looks close to prototypical. But I wouldn't go any lower than 36" for the big steam equipment, especially if you want to run at speed. I run alot of double headed big steam pulling long coal drags on my layout. It's always nice to see the big engines run on a layout.
Ron, are you getting a Big Boy? If you are having problems finding one, my LHS has a Blue Line BLI still on the shelf the last time I looked. It is right at $300.00.
B&O Far as hauling caboose around the tight turns, my Y-6 and Big Boy will haul butt with out derailing with my tight turns. After a few and playing Smokey Mountain Breakdown the great Train Races starts. Y6-b is faster than the Big Boy, which seems odd with it having the smaller drivers.
Everyone needs a Big Boy as long as it not a Athearn with a MRC decoder.
How tight are your turns? Is Y6-b and Big Boy the only big steam you run or do you perhaps have a GS4?
Dave
From Mt Pleasant, Utah, the home of the Hill Valley and Thistle Railroad where the Buffalo still roam and a Droid runs the trains
Well, how big is big? Yes, a Big Boy is huge, but a C&O 2-6-6-2 is also an impressive engine, but not quite as large. And the prototypes ran around some pretty tight curves back in the hollers, with plenty of overhang, so it wouldn't be quite so unrealistic. Still, you'd probably want 30" minimum.
Sean
HO Scale CSX Modeler
cudaken Ron, are you getting a Big Boy? If you are having problems finding one, my LHS has a Blue Line BLI still on the shelf the last time I looked. It is right at $300.00. B&O Far as hauling caboose around the tight turns, my Y-6 and Big Boy will haul butt with out derailing with my tight turns. After a few and playing Smokey Mountain Breakdown the great Train Races starts. Y6-b is faster than the Big Boy, which seems odd with it having the smaller drivers. Everyone needs a Big Boy as long as it not a Athearn with a MRC decoder. Cuda Ken
By the way Cuda do you know why Chyrsler's are called MoPar? = More Power at races, I own a hemi Charger.
Ron,
I would not go any smaller than the 30 inch radius you already have. I believe that 36 inch radius is the bare minimum for such locomotives and passenger trains.
Craig North Carolina
I wish I had the real estate on my layout for those big 30" plus radius curves but as it is now I had to cut them down to 26" .
Ken; That big steamer is just not in the budget right this moment but I wanted to try to get big enough curves to handle one when the time comes. The wife has issued a freeze on train spending until after all the traveling we have to do this summer.
Hey Ron, There's a simple solution there, buy yourself that Big Boy, hand her the keys and say have fun dear and send me a postcard if you get a chance!!
That way you both get what you want. ;-]
WGAS
Dave, I had 2 GS4's and they took the the 18 inch turns fine, all so a Class J, M1a, Heavy Mike (smallest of my steam fleet) and a Hudson.
If you want big steam and do not have room for big turns there are two things you must do.
1 Have the best laid track you can. Bigger turns are more forgiving when it comes to track laying.
2 Make sure the Manufacturer says the Engine will work on 18 inch turns. If they don't list the turn they will take, call them before buying.
Yes, bigger turns are better. My next bench smallest turns will be 26 inch on the branch lines. Will mainly run F units on them. Mains will be 30 and 32 inch, that where the steam will spend most of there time.
B&O fellow Mopar fan. While my 69 Charger R/T does not have a HEMI. It's 440 is topped off with a Big Bore GMC 6-71 over driven 10%.
Cuda is a 1970 with a warm over 383, and my 68 Road Runner (nick named Miss Lumpy because of the .628 lift cam) has a 63 426 Maxie Wedge.
See you all later
Ken
cudaken Dave, I had 2 GS4's and they took the the 18 inch turns fine, all so a Class J, M1a, Heavy Mike (smallest of my steam fleet) and a Hudson. Ken
Thanks for the reply and the insight into making the GS4 run on 18" track. Did you do any modifications to your GS4's?
My layout is a 5x16 island that started with a 4x8 based on Linn Westcott's book HO Railroad that Grows, and it did. The original part was Atlas sectional track with snap turnouts. Most of the newer part and some replacements on the old part are now Atlas flex track. Have worked most of the bugs out of the track, but the snap switches are still a bit of a problem, partly because the mainline goes through the diverging track on several. All this was done before I learned about easements, Yahoo groups and this wonderful forum.
Have done some close inspection and measuring of the snap switches and determined that if they are replaced with handlaid turnouts they can have a smooth radius and a bit of an easement. Had two older DC Bachmann GS4's that were a gift. One has been upgraded to a new DCC on board and the other has been sent in for replacement. On the new loco the pilot wheels hit the cylinders at first so had to file a small bevel on the lower edge of the cylinders. The tender wires are quite stiff and I believe that causes some problems. Plan to replace them with Miniatronics ultra-fine wire when it arrives and am considering building a longer drawbar and modifying the ash pan so that the drawbar can attach just behind the attachment point for the rear truck on the loco. This should significantly reduce any side load caused by pulling the tender and cars around the curves.
Any other thoughts or suggestions you might have will be most welcome.
Thanks again,