Upping my radius...

[Anonymous]

Hi all, i am thinking of adding a small 5x5 on the end of the layout (currently 13ft long all ready) to accomidate a 26" to 28" radius curve, i currently have 22" radius where the end of the table is now. I want to add the 5x5 and do away with that 22. Will 26-28 fit on the 5x5ft extension with no problems? Will i notice a big difference in the look of my passenger equipment (full 85ft stuff) from 22 to 26 or 28? Any one have a picture of some full length cars on 28" or under?

Thanks! [:D]

[Nataraj]

Those cars will look better for sure!! Go for it!!

[Anonymous]

Upping the radius is good

DO IT

[selector]

HOnestly, no you won't. Not for the ranges you are talking about, at least. If you were to increase to 40", then you are talking of a substantial improvement in appearance. But the difference from 22" to 28" will be disappointing, if my experience is anything to go by. I have just gone from a layout with 22" everywhere to spline roadbed with some curves as much as 45", and many at my minimum of 28". My Walther's heavyweights still look toylike on the 28" curves. They look darned good on the broader ones.

This is my opinion, of course...

[Anonymous]

Secector is wrong. for every bit you increase the radius you have a bit less overhang, can tolerate a bit poorer trackwork and can go a bit faster

Alexander

[Nataraj]

Go as big as you can go. This is not a all or nothing game as selector is saying.
Go for it, you will notice the difference. Even between 18 and 22", there is a big difference in appearence.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by alexander13

Secector is wrong. for every bit you increase the radius you have a bit less overhang, can tolerate a bit poorer trackwork and can go a bit faster

Alexander

I don't think he's wrong - Hotshott's original question was will he notice a big difference in the look of his 85-ft passenger equipment expanding from 22" radius to 26" or 28". No, he would not notice a big difference in the looks. He might notice a small difference, but that change is just not that great. Will it function better? Yes. Can he run faster? Probably. Will the effort in expanding be worth the results (pretty much the kernel of his question)? Only he can answer that ...

[Anonymous]

The cars will look a lot better if there is another 6 inches added to the radius.

Alexander

[jbloch]

I would only add that if you are going to use a 28" radius on a five foot extension, you're going to be pretty close to the edge of your extension (i.e. two inches from the center of the track) so the track is going to be pretty close to the edge. Generally, you need approx. 6-8 inches beyond 2 X radius for the width of your table at that curve point if the curve is a 180 degree turn.

Jim

[jeffrey-wimberly]

QUOTE: If you were to increase to 40", then you are talking of a substantial improvement in appearance. But the difference from 22" to 28" will be disappointing, if my experience is anything to go by. I have just gone from a layout with 22" everywhere to spline roadbed with some curves as much as 45", and many at my minimum of 28"

He has 5 feet to work with. At that he has barely enough room for the 28" radius. For 40" radius he would need 6 1/2 feet which I don't think he has.

[fwright]

Because you are very close to the minimum practical radius for the full length pasenger cars at 22", rasing the radius to 26" or 27", especially with easements, will have much more impact on both appearance and operation than would going from 30" to 34" or 35".

A suggestion: mock it up on the dining room table with a couple of pieces of flex track and a couple of pieces of 22" radius Snap Track. See for yourself whether the difference in overhang and better performance of couplers is worth the extra effort.

my thoughts, your choices
Fred W

[selector]

My response was one of caution based on experience. One would think that the improvement in appearance would be substantial, and that is not my observation. Truthfully, even on my 40+-inchers, the heavyweights still look like they overhang a lot. So, the vision that I had, of much better looking trains on the much larger curves, simply did not come about.

Of course there will be improvements in tracking, fewer derailments caused by streamlining, and improved appearance, but I wanted to warn our asker that he may have an idealized version of the result, as I did, that did not come about.

I know that his space is limited, and the increased curves would add to his pleasure. My use of the 45" was to SCALE the intervals over which he would begin to appreciate the investment in costs and effort noticeably.

My [2c]

[jsoderq]

contrary to the opinion of some who seem to have no evidence to base their judgement on, Selector is correct. Many years ago we widened a return loop by four inches and after all the work it really did not appear that much better. You are down near the minimum for those cars and are not making a significant change.Adding four inches to 22 " is less than 20 % increase

[DigitalGriffin]

Walther's Heavyweights recommend a minimum of 24"
Branchline Blueprint's require a minimum of 28" if you want to use safety collar
A number of after-market working diaphrams require a minimum of 28"...Some are 32"!

I myself just went from 22->28" minimum on all passenger mainlines. It does appear to help tracking and appearance. But the difference is not staggering. It's not so much the overhang, but the swing between car sections that ruins the illusion.

~Don

[jpwc50]

Anytime you have the opportunity to use a larger radius...Go for it! Of course you will notice a difference between 22" & 28" both operationally & visually, it';s just not gonna be one of those "OH WOW" expierences....regards, John

[m sharp]

I agree with Fred that making a mock up with some flex tack will answer your own question. I did the very same thing to come up with a minimum radius for my layout. I am still in the planning stages on it, but making this mock-up made me realize that there seemed to be a significantly better appearance to the look of piggybacks and autoracks traversing a 34 inch radius, then anything smaller. Why? Because I did not see the outer rail while looking at the train from an agle, slightly above track level. That 34 inch radius, I determined, was a good minimum for me. With your passenger cars, you may find that a 28 inch radius will accompli***he same.
Therefore, I believe the increase could be a significantly better option for your radii...just try it out first and see for yourself.

Mike

[SilverSpike]

[#ditto] what Jeff said above.

The first thing I looked at was the amout he could fit in the 5X5 area, the 28"radius has a total span of 4.7 feet. That only leaves about 2 inches at each side of the bench for the outer edges of the track. A very tight fit if you ask me, might want to increase the width of the benchwork or lower the radius a bit.

[Anonymous]

Im planning 32" myself.

Those walthers heavyweights will need surgery on the trucks to loosen up before they can stay on any track.

Any time you can increase the radius DO IT.

You should have seen the old DD40 hang out on the 18" track.. shudders.

[NYCentral1]

You have to just go ahead and realize that a 40" curve or greater is probably not going to be practical for 90% of Model Railroaders. While it would be nice, that would take up more room than most of us have...If you look at most of the featured layouts in the magazine, most of them are around 26" to 30".

Any improvement in radius is an improvement, so do it if you can. I recommend enjoying the fact that you have a fun layout and just have run some trains instead of worrying about a few "unprototypical" operations.

[tomikawaTT]

It's more of an operating advantage than an appearance issue. If (fill in the blank) is designed to operate on 24 inch radius, it MIGHT operate on 22 inch. It WILL operate on 26 or 28 inch radius as long as there are no kinks or rail-out-of-gauge spots.

Strictly speaking, any HO curve below 48 inches, viewed from the convex side, makes longer rolling stock and big-overhang engines look toylike. Even 20-meter carlengths look improbable on 610mm (24") radius.

Chuck

[jeffrey-wimberly]

I would love to have 22" to 28" curves on my layout, but with the small space I have I can only go as high as 18". So for me, running heavyweight passenger trains and freights with 89' and 98' foot cars is out. I just run medium to medium-large locos and cars up to 60-70' and be as happy as I can. The only way I would be able to run larger radius curves on my HO layout is to knock out the walls. My small trailer would not like that and going to N-scale is out due to health reasons.

[BR60103]

There is an old engineering rulr of thumb that a dimension should change by 50% to give an appreciable difference. So the curve should go up to 33" from 22".
(It's interesting to apply this test to the major track gauges: 24", 36", 56.5", 84.25".) The original article was about driver sizes.

[Anonymous]

There is one place with a wealth of information for anyone to use. NMRA Standards and Recommended Practices. Forthis topic have a look at http://www.nmra.org/standards/rp-11.html.

We have to work with the space we have, but if it is limiting we just have to do the best we can. For Hotshott his rolling stock in RP11 is either Class O or Class P (full 85ft stuff). The minimum radius recommended for Class O is 32" and Class P 40".

That does not mean that he is not allowed to use 22" or 28". It is his railroad and he can do what he likes and space permits. It is just that from experience, the people who put together the NMRA Stds & RPs thought that a much bigger radius is preferable.

There are three choices and none of them very attractive:

• Don't run "full 85ft stuff". Yeah I know - I love that stuff too!!
• Change to N scale. Then you can run "full 85ft stuff" on 21.5" radius. Yeah, I know you already have HO and don't want to start again, like me.
• Run your "full 85ft stuff" on 22" and 28" curves because that is what you are stuck with.

To answer your original question, I am very sorry, but the increase to 28" will give only limited improvement in appearance and running qualities in my opinion. There will be an improvement, but the degree of improvement is a subjective thing. We can beat our gums all day about whether it is worthwhile or not. In the end that is Hotshott's opinion and decision. Plenty of dummies like me have given him their thoughts, but it's his railroad.[2c]

[Anonymous]

Hey Hotshott,

I didn't read the fine print in RP11.

"Note 4. Minimum radius and turnout number may be reduced one class for equipment using truck mounted couplers or for equipment using two trucks at each end, with coupler mounted on the span bolster. The longest possible coupler shank is recommended. "

There is another option to insert in my remarks in previous post. Use truck mounted couplers with longest available shank on your long cars.[tup];[:)][:P]