The biggest consideration is of course the amount of available space. While "size does matter", in all these discussions, one part of the radius Vs length of engine / car, issue with respect to tracking, that has not been addressed. That is the issue that of easements in building curves. Without any easements, and / or requisite super elevation (depending on track speed) tracking problems may be encountered especially using articulated locomotives. Bill --- On Sun, 9/5/10, Ed <[email protected]> wrote:
From: Ed <[email protected]> Subject: Re: {S-Scale List} Radius Curves To: [email protected] Date: Sunday, September 5, 2010, 10:13 AM Butch.... My experience is that any loco can be modified/fixed/reworked/etc. in order to get around a curve or through a turnout. Sometimes the effort is minimal and sometimes major. But it can be done and done in a way that is not visible to the casual observer from two feet away. Rusty, Bob Hogan and a few others are real experts at doing that sort of stuff. On the other hand, the cosmetic appearances of a large loco or full scale length (85') passenger cars coming around a sharp curve is quite disconcerting to many and of little concern to others. Positioning the models on track lines drawn on the plywood might be helpful to determine where your personal line in the sand stands. I tend to look at the overhangs (ends and center) and also at the angle between adjacent passenger cars. Compare that angle to overhead prototype photos and there is a world of difference on most any layout from the real thing. But how much difference is acceptable? It is your subjective judgement that counts in this case. So what to do....?? My thoughts are to ALWAYS use the largest possible curve that will get the track going toward where you want it to go. Use a sharper curve only if it is absolutely essential to the overall concept of your layout design. Sharper curves, if needed, can be hidden under mountains or behind tall buildings. If a sharp curve is viewed at eye level from the inside of the curve, it is hardly even noticeable. If that sharp curve is viewed from above or along the length of the train, it can be very obvious. So maybe you can figure out some creative methods for hiding the sharp curves if you really do need them. Remember the wise old man with a long gray beard living on top of a mountain in Nepal who said: "Building a model railroad layout is little more than an endless stream of making compromises and tradeoff decisions." Looks vs. operation, cost vs. time, great vs. good enough, now vs. later, alone vs. lots of help, and so forth. Sure beats watching TV, eh? Have fun...Ed L. >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 > > 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. <snip> He had to grind away on the cylinder covers > > to get it to go around Ed's 48 inch radius. <snip> After learning the > > problem I made a lengthened lead truck for my FEF <snip> I've had to do > > this to a couple of Niagara's also > > Rusty Rustermier [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] ------------------------------------ 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/
