As a passenger train lover, I am striving for the largest possible radii for the sake of appearance of the trains as they transit the curves. This involves all sorts of chicanery, including 10% smaller radii on curves viewed from the concave side (the 10% figure is arbitrary, based on my admittedly subjective conclusions from trying different combinations); spiral easements (which, in addition to improving operating reliability, add immeasurably to the appearance of trains as they enter and exit curves); and hiding smaller radii in tunnels. I have a well-worn copy of an early edition of Track Planning for Realistic Operation, and still adhere to many of John's precepts--though I do insist on greater clearances for 1:1 scale humans than he advocated.
Fred Tolhurst Maryville, TN -----Original Message----- From: John <[email protected]> To: S-Scale <[email protected]> Sent: Fri, Dec 28, 2012 11:02 pm Subject: Re: {S-Scale List} Re: Minimum Radius for Passenger Cars Yes "he" did. but I told him to get the cuves and space between sections of layouts he designed smaller and the modelers would have smaller curves at their waist lines John Armstrong (our families were relatives prior to the Revolution) ----- Original Message ----- From: gsc3 To: [email protected] Sent: Saturday, November 24, 2012 10:48 PM Subject: {S-Scale List} Re: Minimum Radius for Passenger Cars A major factor is whether we build our layouts for operations or for railfaning. However, John Armstrong suggested that we could get away with tigher curves if they were viewed from the inside of the curve. Curves viewed from the outside of the curve are worst offenders. George Courtney --- In [email protected], "raisinone" <raisinone@...> wrote: > > Rhett: > I think there are two separate issues here: technical and visual. On the > technical side, using spiral easements will ease cars through tight radius > curves: 30 - 33 - 36". They will run fine but visually they will still look > like they are going around a tight radius curve. > > >
