Well I have a nice Overland engine and when they say recommended 28"+ radius they mean it! I love this engine so much I will not sell it though. I will just have to run it on my outside mainline. I tried to send it thru the 24" curves I have and it derailed every single time. But how can I ever sell this beautiful Brass SD70ACe? There is no way in the world I could do so. I am one of a handful of owners of this model/engine. Well that is till Tower 55 versions come out in the Summer of this year.
The other 6 axle locos from other manufactures always recommend a minimum radius of about 22" but you can always run it thru a 18 or 20" ,but not the Overland. Let me ask you Overland owners a question. Is there any way to get this engine to make a smaller radius in any way?
I can’t help but think that running a fine loco on minimum curves is going to affect it before long. For example, would there not be more wear and tear on the drive and flanges than if it were running on curves 10" greater?
One thing about brass locos–and that goes for steam or diesel, they are made with VERY tight tolerances. For instance, if you want a brass steamer that will take an 18 or 22" radius, you’re going to be limited pretty much to 4-6-0’s or 2-8-0’s, whereas in RTR plastic, you can go as high as a 2-10-4. I just purchased a brass 2-10-2, and the minimum radius for that is 30" And I mean MINIMUM. Brass locos are crafted as close to possible to prototype tolerances, which means that most of them require fairly generous curves. I know your feeling and you have my sympathy–for years I was trying to get a brass 4-8-2 to take a 24" radius without derailing either the lead or trailing truck, and almost sold it, until I was able to get the space to build a layout with 34" minimum radius.
So DON’T sell your Overland, because I’m sure that eventually you’ll be able to get the space for wider curves. And you’ll be glad you did, because that baby will probably outlast any RTR plastic by about six lifetimes. I know–I’m running brass locos that I bought in the 1960’s, and they’re darned near indestructable.
As to modifying the locomotive–usually the only way you can get a brass loco to take a smaller radius is to start chopping off the details that prevent the trucks from swiveling any tighter. But do you really want to do that? Probably one of the reasons you spent the money in the first place was that the locomotive was so beautifully detailed that you HAD to have it (I know, believe me, that’s why I always look for brass first when I’m locomotive shopping). My reccomendation is to leave it alone and hope for the day when you can get room to lay out a 30" minimum radius and let her roll.
Tom [:D]
22" radius is the ‘default’ radius for those buyng a 4X8 plywood board. It’s a simple holdover from the ‘Lionel’ toy trains trains era - except those Lumber Yard boards were 8 X 10.
OVERLAND equipment is designed for the more serious (and well-heeled) modeler who presumably has graduated, and knows how to build a better layout support system. Overland’s 4-8-4s presumably have protottype sized wheels.
THOSE who say they have “no more room”, need to be gently reminded that a 4X8 layout requires walk-around space to play - taking up far more floor space. Pros today are designing 1.5’ wide walk-alongs, with aisles and 5’ penninsula turn -arounds. 5’ translates into 28" r. curves.
No surprises there. Even if they had not stated that, one should expect it. Brass aren’t made with all that loosy goosy play in the drive trains like the “toys” are. Most brass models never really get run anyway. They sit on collectors shelves.
Well I have no plans on leaving my engine on a shelf as other “serious modelers” I bought it for the reason to have it on the layout, well basically to bless my layout with its presence. I have big plans for him.
David- I was just thinking I MAY get lucky and still be able to get away with a slow speed pass thru on a smaller curve (24") which is big enough for my SD90MAcs to go thru top speed.
Up close, at low speed, very bright light, and sometimes magnification, I can usually tell exactly why a loco or car is coming off the track. It takes several passes, first to find ut exactly which wheels comes off first, then to see exactly where they are coming off, and finally to see exactly what happens just before and as they come off.
Only when you understand the sequence can you have a chance of fixing the problem, and many times, you find that a solution involves something you can’t or aren’t willing to do. Still, that’s where the process begins.
For 6 axle diesel power, I’d immediately suspect that the play in the individual trucks only allows a defined rectangle which is being forced up and out of the rails because it is too long to negotiate the curve. If that’s the case, more end to end play in the axles, blind center axle wheels, or larger radius curves are your maor options.
Second suspect in 6 axle power would be the turning radius of the two trucks themselves. It’s usually easier to see what’s obstructing the trucks from turning when the shell is off, if possible.
Clearly any rail unevenness or gauge problems with the track, especially at joints, can be the final straw that derails a piece that’s already straining to make the turn, again close inspection may reveal this.
You may find that something simple and easily remedied is preventing you from running your loco, and you may find that a solution involves more than you’re willing to do, but the first step is isolating and identifying the problem.
I actually find the manufacturers are pretty clear about this, if you pay close attention.
Many locos will say minimum “suggested” radius of 22"… Translation - it might go through an 18". It may not do so well or at any significant speed, it’s probably hard on the loco, and it may look quite silly doing so, but it probably will.
Conversely, I find that most Mfrs. who “mean it” about minimum will say just “minimum radius” or perhaps minimum “required” radius of X"… Another good clue: if they make a big point of it - they mention it in the ads, they put it very noticeably on the box, etc… That’s another indication that they “mean it”…
I’ll add I’ve never had a single loco bigger than X-6-X that would run on 18" in any way worth doing, back when I had any 18" track. Even if they’d go 'round the curve, it was a dice-roll on derailments, and you could almost here the drivers binding and the motor straining…
Kchronister, I have old time and “modern” 2-8-0’s that run 18" curves all day every day. The old timers scoot through 15" radius curves without problem, and the modern 2-8-0 only comes off at a track joint on the 15" curves. I could probably fix the joint and use the locomotive, but I just don’t need him in there, so it’s not worth the effort. He’s a mainline guy only.
The only derailments I have these days are when my foggy old brain forgets to throw a turnout, or when backing long trains of cars using talgo trucks through a yard ladder. Maybe you just lay lumpy track…
(Ducking behind the peninsula, peeking around the corner, alert for flying power packs)
For those feeling the limits of the standard sheet plywood 4’ x 8’ I humbly suggest go to a sporting goods shop and spring the bucks for a Ping-Pong table which is 5’x9’. And…it has legs! 28" radius= no problem!
Seriously, the answer is much simpler… I don’t have a 2-8-0, which tends to be about the smallest x-8-x you can get (for either era) and it makes sense it would take smaller curves. My x-8-x motive power tend to be Mountains and Northerns… much bigger locos which are much of unhappy on 18" curves, even perfectly laid.
Interesting. Where do they bind up? Drivers or lead/trail trucks can’t make the swing? I just noticed that none of the Baldwin’s drivers are blind, but they’re quite a bit smaller than the drivers on my Pacific.
Sorry, that old legend went out with Catholics not eating meat on Fridays. 3/4ths of my large steam roster is brass, and it ALL gets run and frequently. Maybe there are a few collectors left who just stare at their locomotives, but for the rest of us, we RUN the stuff!!
Tom [:D]
I mean when even my brass 2-10-4 with her larger 63" drivers can handle my 20" radius, then why should this small brass 2-10-2 with her 60" drivers not?
What do you think? When I look at the photo of the underside of the engine, it seems to me that the drivers have quite a bit of lateral play…
