Just to agree Rusty's thoughts, I have long operated two FEF 4-8-4's and three SP GS-4's on my layout. All curves are 48" minimum radius except one inside loop curve that is 44" (I screwed up in design!). Both FEF's operate well through the 44" radius curve. Likewise the GS-4's. I found the FEF's to be the most "forgivable" of the 4-8-4's, despite their long wheelbase. No problems on the lead or trailing trucks, either, for me. That's not something I can say about the GS-4's which all seem to have unique problems that vary by each model, especially the lead truck, even on 48" radius curves. I didn't have to "whack" anything, however, on any of these model's lead trucks. Just lot's of "adjustments" to the length/size of the slot they swivel on. The FEF's are really LONG engines and do not look good on anything less than 48" because of their very long cab overhang.
Bob Hogan --- In [email protected], "Rusty" <thebrassbas...@...> wrote: > > I think you will find that you either have to whack away at the cylinder > covers on the FEF in order to get it to go around a 42 inch curve, or > lengthen the lead truck. I painted a model for another S Scaler and he tried > to run it on ED L.'s layout with 48 inch radius. He had to grind away on the > cylinder covers to get it to go around Ed's 48 inch radius. If i had know > they was a problem i would have lengthened his lead truck instead. After > learning the problem I made a lengthened lead truck for my FEF and tested it > on a 42 inch radius and it worked. I've had to do this to a couple of > Niagara's also but I have no idea how well they ever really ran over time. > My layout is a true point to point with no curves so it is no longer an > issue for me and the Menlo Park S Scale is all 60 inch and bigger. I've also > been working on the Big Boy and the Challenger. I've finished both models but > am now at the stage of going back and removing removing the drive mechanism > and replacing them with a new ones. The factory installed drive is too noisy. > This is after changing both models to NASG standards and weight balancing > both engine frames and re-springing. > I started to build a couple of 4-12-2's years ago but did not get far. > I have the drivers done but nothing else. I would like to finish that project > along with about 25 other brass projects in the planning, construction stage. > I have been thinking lately of just retiring from the hobby. > > > Rusty Rustermier > --- In [email protected], "up148" <up148@> wrote: > > > > Hi Jim, > > > > > > This is great news about the Turbine as they are the only "S" locos I still > > have and I really, really wanted to run them. I've been hanging around in > > "O" scale the last few years but this new house is the last for us so an > > "S" scale layout is in the cards. The only other larger steam loco I'd > > really like to have and run is one of the OMI FEF-3. > > > > Since I'm still strictly a UP modeler there isn't much else in the way of > > steam to run. I won't miss the Sunset Bigboy and Challenger as they never > > ran very well and I'm sure 44" curves are way too small for them, but an > > FEF-3 would be really nice. > > > > Thanks, > > > > Butch > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "raisinone" <raisinone@> wrote: > > > > > > Hi Butch... been a while... > > > > > > The only S scale locomotive I know of that won't like those radius > > > numbers is (are) the PRR J1 2-10-4 and C&O T1 2-10-4. They were > > > specifically constructed for 48" radius curves. I have had reports of > > > them running well on 46" spiral eased curves, but have never personally > > > seen it. > > > > > > Other than those two models, you are good to go. BTW, I routinely run my > > > turbine on a 32" radius "S" curve that is part of a car storage lead on > > > the DPV layout. I won't say it looks the best at that radius, but it does > > > pull and track. > > > > > > One final though... If you ever plan to have one of the UP 9000's, I'm > > > not sure even 48" would be enough! I would have loved to build them but > > > S scale can't support projects like that any more. > > > > > > Take care... > > > Jim > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "up148" <up148@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Thanks Danny, > > > > > > > > I appreciate the info. Coming from an "O" background I'm just not sure > > > > what will work and what won't. > > > > > > > > Butch > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], Danny Click <ndragon92@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > The Houston Group's S Modular layout has 42" inside and 45" outside > > > > > radius curves. To my knowledge, there are not any locomotives we > > > > > have operated (when I have been there)that can not negotiate those > > > > > curves. On my home layout, I am using 45" and 42" curves with no > > > > > problems. (plenty of six axle engines and the occasional 4-8-4). > > > > >  > > > > > Danny Click > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/S-Scale/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/S-Scale/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: [email protected] [email protected] <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [email protected] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
