I laid down a loop of 15" radius to test what can/can’t, results are surprising…
N&W Rivarrossi Y6b 2-8-8-2, loves it
Bachmann early N&W J 4-8-4 with clock drive- loves it, but not the rough track portion.
Rivarrossi 4-8-8-2 cab forward…iffy, doesn’t like the rough track sectionmakes thru some of the curves.
Older Athearn SD9, 6 wheel trucks, OK, wobbly on the curves tho
Older athearn DD40 2 motors, Talgo trucks-yup, but no likey rough track section.
LL NKP 765 first run-tight but no
BLI N&W 2-6-6-4 - no
Akane DM&IR 2-8-8-4 - OMG it got into the curve! The centipede tender balks at it tho, a little more side play on the wheels it might make it. It just might like 18 inch radius tho.
Bachmann 2-10-2 - no - front drivers off in this pic.
Bachmann W&LE 2-6-6-2 - YES - iffy on the rough track tho
Bachmann 4-8-2 - YES -
Brass NKP South Shore 700 - YES
Bachmann E33 - no
Rivarossi 2-6-6-6 first run - YES - they did it again…doesnt like the rough track
Thanks for the uncomfortable horror show. All of those engines were scary on that tight track. Should have just put those engines on a straight piece of track to show us your engines
Could you explain what you meant by “rough track”? Did you mean something besides the tight radius?
I would be very curious to know how the Rivarossi Cab Forward does on 18" and 22" as I have one sitting in a drawer for years and 22 inch is likely to be my maximum radius for now. (I know it won’t look right, but
would like to know if it’ll derail. I have a 1989 or 1990 model, i think. Thanks if you have the larger radii test curves handy.
Rivarrossi’s locos could all handle 18" radius, by design. Both front and rear drivers pivot. Plus there is enought lateral sloppiness in the drivers that lets it do this. The 2-8-8-4 however is prototypically designed, rigid rear drivers and front pivot. Because of this I was surprised the 2-8-8-4 made it into the 15" curve, huge overhang. Kudos to Akane and their design, it almost could do it.
My rough track area, I sloppy laid down these boards and theres about a 1/4" dip/rise at one section and I simply laid the snap track down on it making whatever hazard it made, this one is on a 15" radius curve, spiked down secure tho. The train behind makes it thru fine and some of the engines. I’m working on a different section of my layout thats being built CORRECTLY so no rough areas and will rebuild test tracks on it, this stuff is going to dissappear when thats done and correct construction done for the modules. Then I will have a long test dogbone to have fun with, testing my Michigan City module at the same time. Watch for more fun tests sometime. 8-D
Thanks for the correction, I am running on memory, I don’t have my diesel spotters guide open.
I think there was an SDP40a when they added a rivet to hold the right rear electrical cable under the engine, nobody could see it but it was a definate alteration to require a change in the designation. 8-D …jking…
Theres a lot of design differences between model versions that only involve changes in vents or fan design areas, etc, thats can be a discussion for a long thread elsewhere…
Except there’s a BIG difference between a SD9 and a SDP40. They look nothing similar. it should take a spotter’s guide to know that there’s a difference between them. Typically when then were minor changes in a design they have been referred to as phases such as Phase I, Pahse II etc. not new model designations.
I tend to push the edge, must be my music background or sumpthin…
I needed to test engines and equipment for performance in my layout development, I’m dissapointed my 2-8-0 has a hard time, that might be solveable but I don’t need it where I am modeling. I’m studying the 2-8-0’s designs if it can be modded into a N&W 4-8-0, needs a new chassis and smaller drivers but the boiler looks big like the N&W M2’s.
I finally tested my LL 0-8-0 it loves it all. Thats what I needed, my Belt Railway of Chicago line is my little cheater interchange line winding thru everything else popping up where you least expect it. It HAS to move cars between the South Shore and North Shore via C&NW because those lines have no direct connection to the modeled east lines.
I’m glad the South Shore 700 takes 15" because there is a small industrial area (was) on the west side of South Bend its a great switching puzzle, 15" radius will help pack the track in and take less room. Selective compression you know.
Here’s my kitbashed PRR M1 4-8-2 on a 15" radius curve:
Of course, that’s N scale. The inside curve is about 13.75" radius. Both engines still look awkward even through the HO scale equivalent is about 27-29" for these curves.
Big steam + tiny curves = awkward look at best / poor operation at worst.
I think mine looks awkward too. Moreover, even on the 15" radius curve, my M1 slips with a heavy load… On my next layout, 18" will be my minimum N scale radius (nearly 36" in HO).
Hi dinwitty,
Thanks for the “rough track” explanation. Just wanted to be sure what you meant there.
I thought I remembered the Cab Forward being advertised as being able to take 18" radius curves
but it’s been a very long time since I’ve contemplated a layout again.
By the way, I’m a musician too. Ex Music Ed. major. We’re comfortable with a little improvisation
Model railroading has always had compromises, my layout to be has planned 24" radius minimum and wider whenever I can do it. This will be going up/down serious grades on curves for the N&W Y6b’s, I don’t have the room for wider. I was in a club where 36" is minimum. Luckily for the time period cars are 30’-50’ and planning a lot of coal drags with 36’ hoppers, I will be dumping/selling my quad hoppers.
I may have some long scenicked curves to break up straight monotony. Doing multi-level envision your picture then add a few stepped levels maybe crossing over/under/tunneled in it, thats how it would look.
Holy cow, that Yellowstone on a 15"? Almost dropped my glasses when I saw the photo, LOL! I KNOW Akane built a lot of lateral motion into the loco and tender to enable it to take about a minimum 24" radius, but you’ve really pressed her, my friend. But at least you know that if you decide on 24" minimum, you’ll have a brass articulated that can do it. However, if you haven’t done it yet, I’d really suggest putting in a NWSL universal joint between the 1st and 2nd set of drivers. The rubber tubing that Akane uses can cause enough lateral stress around curves to burn out the motor. Found that out with my first one.
But boy, I NEVER figured the Yellowstone for THAT small a radius, LOL!
Neither did I. It almost could, tho I don’t reccomend it. I just ran it into the curve to see what, boy I was surprised.
I have been running it on 22" radius loop from time to time to break it in sporadically as its mechanics are tight. Its technichally a brand new engine as it sat in a hobbyshop virtually untouched. I’m guessing the motor magnet could be weakened. But its running like a champ for now. I have the NWSL linkage laying around and I want to change the motor to a NWSL. I will prolly take it apart in the future and re-go over the mechanics, make the changes then it’ll be a ripping engine.
I looked up the DM&IR line, its a small line, really, never knew that, needed these huge engines.
Real layout minimum, 24" minimum, been in my plans all along except for the South Shore portion, 26" minimum where the Lil Joe runs and passenger cars, 15 or 18" radius where the 700’s can run.
Yup. DM&IR was a relatively small line, but small line+heavy tonnage (ore)=BIG locos! Actually, the M3/4 Yellowstones were based on the big Western Pacific 251-class 2-8-8-2’s, previously built by Baldwin for heavy freight service in the California Feather River Canyon. Missabe wanted an elongated all-weather cab, which resulted in a four-wheel trailing truck to support the extra length under a slightly larger and evidently more efficient firebox. Which also increased the tractive effort to something like 148,000 pounds. As far as sheer pulling power, the Missabe’s were a little more powerful than UP’s famous Big Boys, but they were used initially for only one purpose, handling heavy ore trains in Minnesota. However during WWII, when the Missabe line was generally shut down for the winter, the road loaned out their big M3/4’s to other roads, most notably Rio Grande, Northern Pacific and Great Northern (there are rumors that they even worked the Western Pacific, but I’ve never seen any photos of them doing so). On the Rio Grande, they worked the Moffat Tunnel route, and from what I’ve heard, Rio Grande engineers said that they were the best steam locos they’d ever operated. They were clean-running, smooth, and from what I’ve seen in a video I’ve got–they could race along pretty darned well. They’ve been called the best articulateds Baldwin ever built, and I think had they been better ‘advertised’, they’d probably be right up there with Alco’s Big Boy, the N&W A-2-6-6-4 and the Lima C&O 2-6-6-6 Alleghenies as the absolute epitome of smooth, powerful ‘modern’ articulated steam power.
For my money, they’re the most spectacularly handsome articulated ever built. Just LOVE 'em, I do. And they seem to be high on the list of locos that current HO modelers want to be produced. Which I thin
