Hi all
I havent posted here in a while. been busy moving into a new house. I now have the space to build an awesome layout and need some advice on curves. I have several extra long box cars, I think they are scale representations of the 86’ cars used now a days. What is the minium radius curve that can handle these witgh out causing derailment?
What’s the scale?
You can go pretty tight if it’s Z scale, but if it’s G, well, I hope you have A LOT of room.
It is HO scale
It also depends on how big your layout is going to be. If its a smaller layout you will need tighter curves. (vise versa) Those are fairley big box-cars and I would always keep it on the safe side Whith curving the track. Mabey try to exparament with 2 of your box-cars and differnt curving track.
86’ cars? They could take 24" radius but they’d look pretty funny. Better would be a 30" radius or better.
[#ditto]
David B
Jeffrey is right on the money as usual.
On my layout’s 30" and 33" curves I find that they are OK but not fantastic to look at, even though they run fine on 25". Bigger is better.
It all depends on how much space you have of course.
Karl
If you have the space for an awesome layout, why are you asking about “minimum” size curves. Go with a broad curve, 36" or greater in HO, where they will run well and look OK at the same time.
If you don’t have a particular section of a prototype that you want to model my advice would be to take a plan that is for a smaller area and expand it. Increase the size of the curves and turnouts. Most people try to do too much with a big space and find out they can’t handle all the maintenance so keep it simple and make it more prototypical. That’s what I am doing.
Try and go 30" or larger as mentioned. Even 24" and 26" can be a problem.
Folks:
One thing i have noticed is that sharper curves look better if your layout is closer to eye level
If you are modeling in HO and have the space, use 36 inch curves as a minimum on your mainline. All locos and rolling stock will look better. On my last layout I used 30 inch curves, which worked well, but some of the longer equipment would still have looked better on 36 inch curves.
Tilden
I would have thought that the closer to the eye the more noticible the equipment overhang would look?
GD:
I suppose it depends how the track is arranged, and what sort of equipment is run. Athearn shorty passenger cars will run on 18" radius. If you are looking at them from above, they look somewhat ridiculous, as the car forms a very obvious chord, and the whole track is exposed to view. Nearer eye level, the effect isn’t so bad. For one thing, trees and houses tend to obscure parts of the cars, you can’t see the whole train looping around the curve, but only parts of it passing, and though you can see the overhang, you can’t see the track clearly poking out from under the car, which is IMHO the ugliest thing about long cars on short curves.
Take a look at some prototype switchwork from an overhead bridge, if you can. Looking down at an oblique angle, you can see that the switches are quite long and gentle compared to model ones. Looking at a sharper angle, it’s a lot harder to make a comparison - curves and switches look quite abrupt and sharp. Raising the models closer to eye level takes advantage of this.
With lots of room (I am planning for a 24 x 44 foot room) I use 36" minimum and on outside corners up to 48 inch radius. Why, because with spiral easements and superelevation they look fantastic. Rather than think minimum radius, I think maximum radius wherever possible. And No. 8 switches as a MINIMUM!. My last layout was mostly around the wall, so I was able to use 48 radius curves in all of the corners. Whenever practical, bigger is BETTER!
86’ cars will require a wide radius, so hope you have the room. I have some 70+’ cars and they look hideous on 26" curves, and merely out-of-sorts on 28-30" curves. Therefore, those 70’ cars never see any action. I can only imagine what 86’ cars would look like on those tighter curves. I avoid cars over 60-65’ like the plague.
Remember: the smaller the radius, the larger the track and scenic separation required to allow for horizontal clearance.
Mark
This makes sense, and for obvious reasons. The other part of curves on layouts that I have pointed out to folks in previous discussions is that very few of us will appreciate much of a difference between how longer passenger cars look on 24" curves as opposed to 30" curves. Believe it or not, there just isn’t a whole lot of difference that is truly noticeable. Since the cars are rated for 24" minimums, and if a person lays solid trackwork to that radius, they’ll work just fine, time after time. It gets easier to fudge the poorer trackwork as the radius increases, but the looks over a 6" range just don’t seem to register. Once you get into the 26" radius, now the advantages in looks is quite apparent.
So, between these two observations, my counsel would be to do a good job of fitting in the curves that give you the best looks and the best running in the measures that meet the individual’s needs and tastes in any given space. If well-laid 24" curves do the job and the viewing angle is nice and low…great! Mission accomplished. If one’s skills in laying track are still developing, and one’s vantage point is going to be necessarily well above the longer rolling stock, try to get longer curves to provide you with some reliablity and pleasing appearances.
Model railroading is about trade-offs. It’s a mix of materials, skills, time, and space.