Has anyone tried the BLI cab forward on 18" radius? BLI’s web site recommends 22" radius… but I can hope, can’t I ???
Prompter
It’ll do it, but VERY slowly! And if you’re using sectional track, make SURE that the sections are really in line! Otherwise, you’re going to have Cab-forward all over the place. I really don’t reccommend it, but with the double articulation that BLI has built into the steamer, it should be okay, without too much stress on the motor. But be CAREFUL!
Tom
While I’ve done some wild things in the hobby [:0] I sure don’t recommend a cab-forward on 18" curves…I would go with the recommended 22" curves.
Personally,I would want nothing less then say a 24" or 26" curve for that long wheel base locomotive.
Big locomotices require big layouts. Period. While the manufacturers generally make the bad decision to screw with the engine’s mechanism to make them run on tight curves, the engines neither like the curves nor look good negociating them. And they’ll generally only pull VERY short cars around those curves, if they can pull any at all.
You’re better off either buying one for display purposes only, or rebuilding your layout with larger curves. Or switch to N scale.
Indeed–if you’re going to run big engines, give your layout bigger curves! It’s perfectly fine to have super-sharp curves on one’s layout, as long as one is willing to appreciate the smaller locomotives that can handle those curves.
Another benefit of point-to-point shelf layouts: being able to run any locomotive you want, because you don’t have any curves at all!
Prompter.
I have a BLI CabFoward, the engine will take the 18" curve, but as the folks advised above, slowly is the best. Other wise, the front trucks under the cab are usally the first to pop off and the drag outside the rail.
I have found by accidedent when I left a switch open and before I knew my CF came around and went down an industrail siding that winds its way through a 16/17" radius turn. I caught just in time to clear the tight spot and keep on going back on the mian line. I was pretty amazaed.
Good luck,
John k
I agree on the desirability of BIG radius curves. But I have a choice of 22" mainline and 18" radius branchline/passing tracks - or no layout. And I’m too much a fan of SP not to have a cab forward. I have a brass F/P AC-7 that I’m going to have to sell because no way will it work given my restrictions. So the BLI is a good option for me.
I have a 1962 Akane AC-9 that will slowly negotiate an 18" curve with much complaining, and it’s only a single articulated. 22" is no problem at all for it. I can’t imagine the double-articulated BLI will be any more stringent. It will look REALLY strange on 18", and you’ll have to run really slow, and it will likely smack into all kinds of scenery since it’ll swing outside he F-plate NMRA guage, but if it floats your boat…
-dave
This gets into the matter of aesthetics–just because you CAN do something doesn’t mean you SHOULD do something.
I wouldn’t recommend it. I’m scared to even send it around 22". It is a large locomotive. 18" radius may stress the hell out of it.
Try double heading smaller engines like 2-8-0’s you may actually pull more train than one articulated around that 18" er
Double 2-8-0s = Articulated Consolidation. [:)]
INSTEAD of forcing a huge locomotive on a beginner’s layout , WHY don’t you build sone larger curves?. Too tough? Add a 6"X 8’ board to one side if your layout…
Already manucturers are cheating on wheel dimesions figuring that beginner’s won’t know the difference., .OR won’t care. It’s like fishing for Whales in a row boat.
If you’re rich enough for a $400 engine (I have no problem with that) you should also be smart enough to build larger curves,. Adding just 6" allows 28" r. curves,.
Gibson is right. Try to add a few more inches to your width to accomidate slighly wider curves.
My curves are just double yours (34-36") and the AC-5 looks JUST comfortable on them. I have some brass articulateds (single articulation) that have a fearful overhang even on 34" radius–I have to be very careful about double-track curve spacing–so I really agree with the other people on this thread about building wider radius curves (even though I said in my first post that you could, but be careful). If you’re going to run big steam power, you’re really going to have to think seriously about wider radius. 22" at the VERY minimum, preferably 24-30" for best operation. I know a lot of these newer steam locos are advertised for tight radii, but that’s only going to start putting undue stress on the motor, leading and/or trailing trucks. I think if you invest in wider radii, you’re going to be a lot happier with the operation in the long run (and so will your steamers.).
Tom
The responses to my question have been interesting. First, let me say that last night my new BLI AC-4 was very able to negotiate 18" radius (slowly) with a surprisingly limited overhang. It is truely an impressive locomotive. I suspect it looked as a real AC-4 might have looked negotiating through a temporary shoo-fly around the site of a derailment.
Secondly, I should mention that my use of 18" radius doesn’t mean that I’m a beginner, as seem to be implied above. In fact, I’ve been in the hobby for more than 40 years. Given the space, I would love to build a 20’x40’ layout. But reality comes to all of us at some point, and in a retirement home space limitations are a sad reality.
And finally, as many of the fine editors at MR have pointed out over the years, this is a hobby. Each of us finds our own form of enjoyment – within the bounds of what’s possible – and fo me, watching a fine piece of machinery that brings back memories of my life is as good as it gets!
Oh, one last thought. That AC-4 will only be on the 18" radius when it has to take the siding to allow the Big Boy to pass. (Just joking!!!)
Prompter
Prompter–Sorry, I didn’t know the circumstances (I should have asked). Glad your AC is taking the curves (slowly). Just curious, how big is the layout?
Tom
My new layout exists only on paper so far. I’ve negotiated one end of a 9’6"x11’4" bedroom (still in intense negotiation over exactly how deep that one end will be). Probability (hope) is that the layout wil be a modified L shape 9’6" x 8’.
I’m is San Jose, note you’re in Carmichael. That sounds like Cab-forward country…
Definitely cab-forward country–I grew up around Truckee, CA and grew up with cab-forwards. My great-uncle was a brakeman on the Truckee-Norden helper run, so when I was a kid I got to ride in the cab of an AC-6 over Donner Summit. I don’t think I realized that other railroads ran their articulateds with the cab in BACK until I was about 12, LOL! You said you were negotiating for a 9x11? Not to beat a dead horse, but do you think you could squeeze in a 22" radius? Just wondering. Let me know how the negotiations pan out, will you? I’d be interested.
Best,
Tom[:D]
“when I was a kid I got to ride in the cab of an AC-6 over Donner Summit.”
I’m green with envy, Tom. Re: radius, yes, mainline will be 22" with easements, passing sidings 18". Just finished more negotiations over lunch, armed with a pictire of Walthers’ new 130’ turntable – she loves the hobby as much as I, and is starting to concedeon the idea of the entire 9x11 bedroom. I think that’s because she wants to be able to run her first train purchase several years ago – the complete 1938 COSF in brass!