Hi All
I finally get to start laying track this week. My minimum radius is 22" . I was just wondering if I was to run some 60 foot box cars and so on would I risk a lot of derailment headaches?
Thank You So Much For Your Help
Duane
60’ freight cars will track OK on 22" radius curved track without derailments, but in my experience you are nearing the minimim radius for reliable performance with 60’ rolling stock.
On my first layout, I ran a double mainline with 22" and 24" radius curves. Rolling stock up to 70’ performed well.
I later replaced my layout with a new one with 30" and 32" radius curves so that I could run 85’ rolling stock.
Rich
You shouldn’t have a problem. I run sixty foot freight cars around 18" radius curves all the time and that’s on rough track. If they can handle that your 22" will be a walk in the park.
Hi!
I fully realize a lot of MRs just don’t have the space for broad HO curves and can only use 18 or 22 or the like. Of course, those same MRs often want to run large locos and cars (been there).
While a lot of larger cars and locos will run on say 22 or 24 inch radius, the propensity for problems with them is pretty high. And - maybe a bigger factor - is that they can look “toylike”, reminding me of the Lionel trains of my childhood.
In the long run, I think the use of smaller locos (steam switchers, F units, smaller GPs) and cars will bring greater enjoyment to the serious operator…
For what its worth…
MRH mag has an article in issue one or two (both are free downloads) where someone went to the trouble of checking out and documenting radius (looks and performance of different size cars), S curves etc. I know that 60’ is the max on S curves without major problems but if I remember right you should still be able to couple even on 22".
Hmmm, I must be doing something wrong because I find it somewhere between diificult and impossible to couple cars even on 30" radius curves.
Rich
The MRH magazine article data came from the LDSIG curve radius rules of thumb referenced earlier.
As far as coupling, those very rules of thumb suggest that you need at least 5X radius to ensure coupling on curves. So 22" in HO wouldn’t be sufficient for anything longer than about a 30’ car to ensure automatic coupling on a curve. But that’s necessary for a layout – you can always align the couplers together with a pick if necessary to couple on a curve.
Longer cars will operate OK, up to 53’ for sure (3X for 22" in HO) and probably a bit higher to 60’ or so. As you get to the edges of the performance envelope, individual car differences (such as how far the truck bolsters are from the end of the car and coupler length/swing) become important.
To the original poster, you should be able to, as a rule, run 60’ cars on 22-inch track, but my guess is anyone who has enough space for 22-inch minimum curves, could, with a little planning squeeze in a little broader radius if they could just shed the straight jacket of the 4x8 sheet plywood and sectional pre-fab track. Most folks could widen their table or layout by a few more inches and boost the minumum to 24 or even 26 inches, and reap the benefits of being able to run most of the popular freight cars including cars longer than 60’ feet, although they may not look very graceful.
I had 30 inch mimimums on a garage layout I had some years back and even on the 36’ inch curve, the autoracks sitll made the curve look sharp. But I digress… if you can shed the sectional track and use flex, try to boost your minium radii, even by a little - you’ll be glad you did.
Agree’d. Who would want to couple on a curve? It is a givin that you do it on straight tangent. No brainer for anyone who has even only a little experience with model trains, you figure out very quickly you don’t couple cars on curves except to put a train back together that has become uncoupled, and that using the 5-finger method!
Also note that the rules of thumb are for pulling cars. Shoving longer strings of mixed-length cars through s-curves such as a yard ladder with a locomotive may be a bit more demanding. A mock up to test is almost always time well spent.
Although they aren’t common in HO, truck mounted couplers (often found in N) also figure into the mix, especially when shoving strings of mixed car lengths and coupler type.
One of the big factors is the cars them self. Free wheeling and proper weighted cars will track much better on tighter turns. I still have 2 tight turns (18") and run mostly 50 cars. I all so have some Con Cor Short Passenger cars that will handle the tighter turns.
Good track laying is all so a big factor. Make sure you don’t have high and low spots on the rails. While mine is not perfect I can still run Big Diesels and good sizes Steam Engines with out derailment problems.
Have fun and post often
Cuda Ken.
Thanks for all the great answers so far and I still need all the help I can get. I am going to try and model the middle 40’s to the mid the late 50’s. And was going to get a couple of passenger trains and I know there are some long ones. I just wanted to be safe and not have to be worried about derailing in a tunnel at a 22" curve.
Thanks Again
If you absolutely can’t break free of the 22-inch radius constraint, the 1950’s without passenger trains is great because of the plethora of 40 and 50’ freight cars, which are user friendly on sharp curves.
Please keep an open mind about building a layout with slightly larger radius curves, the differnce between 22 and 24 inches or more is pretty major at that radii. Basically at tight curve standards in that range, each inch you add to the radii adds a major advantage operationally, and as you get up higher in radii, the returns begin to diminish.
Full length (85’ for American outline) passenger cars are probably not a good choice for 22" curves. Many current models are labeled for 24" and higher and mean it. The Con-Cor style “shorty” passenger cars that are shorter than real-life lengths might be OK, as others have mentioned.
This is why even modeling the 1950’s will not work for tight radius curves for some people, because passenger cars have been 85’ since the 1920’s and 85’s cars don’t work on 22-inch curves. As you noted, model makers have been offering “shorty” cars like Athearns streamlined passenger cars (based on Santa Fe prototypes) and Concors cars etc. so that the 4x8 layout with tight curves can be accomodated.
[ Soapbox ] If people could get out side of the box, and bump up to a 24-inch radius, you might be able to manage 85’ passenger cars.[/soapbox]
The reality of why people still regularly want to use sectional track of the 18 and 22 inch variety is because it is still 90% of what is offered in stores. This is the mind set tha tis hard to overcome, but the challenge now is for folks to think outside the box, and of course, outside of the 4x8 straight jacket sheet plywood.
If you could manage to design based on John Armstrongs 24-inch “standard/conventional” radius curve (see Track Planning for Realistic Operation by John Armstrong), you may then be able to run 85’ passenger cars of some varieties, depending on construction. Way back when the book was written, John Armstrong argued you could actually fit 85’ passenger cars onto the layout and as long as you were willing to, in many cases, fiddle with obstructions like center sills or other things, you could get them to run. If you refuse to part with the 22-inch c
Hi again,
Modeling the '40s -'50s will yield mostly 40 ft freight cars, with some 36 ft (caboose, tankers) and some 50 ft (gondolas, box and reefer). So with the freight cars, you should be fine.
As indicated, passenger cars are of size, with the typical ones being about 85 foot. While some of the models “might” be able to do 22 in., they will look pretty rough with the significant overhang.
You do have the option of using Athearn passenger cars. These - both standard and streamline are “shortys”, and about 60 foot in length. Frankly, for the money they look pretty good, and will take 22 inch curves with ease.
At the risk of being called some names, I will offer my thoughts:
First, the Athearn streamlined passenger cars are only partly based on a few AT&SF cars and are basicly just frelanced shorty cars - all being 72’ long except the 60’ RPO. The AT&SF did have steamlined coaches, palors and other streamlined cars that were 75’ long, but those cars had different roofs and other details different from the Athearn cars.
Second, that said I am a BIG fan of selectively compressed passenger cars considering the curves many of us are forced to use do to space restrictions.
And, given the fact that North Amercian passenger equipment is often nearly “one of a kind” and other than brass and a handfull of “lucky” modelers who happen to be interested in what Walthers or BLI has made in the last few years, most of us will never see accurate models of the passenger cars used on the railroads we model unless we build them ourselves, one may as well just run selectively compressed cars for their better operation and appearance on sharp curves.
Yes I said sharp curves - 30" radius in HO is a sharp curve based on ANY reasonable understanding of the prototype. The late Paul Mallery recommended 48" radius as a working minimum for modeling a Class I rairoad in HO scale.
My previous layout, and the one currently under construction, had/have a minimum mainline radius standard of 36". The old layout had a few cosmetic curves well above that. The new layout will have a great percentage of the visable curves more in the 40" range.
Guess what - I have no plans to get rid of my Athearn and Con Cor passenger car fleets in favor of 80’ and 85’ cars.
The shorter cars look even more realistic on the broad curves, the long cars still look toylike as they “squeek” around 36" radius.
I have a few 80’ heavyweight cars, I don’t have any 85’ streamlined cars. But all my passenger cars are coupled at nearly scale seperations with working, TOUCHING, diaphragms - a feature I think is
No disagreements there, I only said the shorties were “based on” Santa Fe and beyond that, I’m not interested in the finer details about them. They do look decent, and have the general look similar to the Santa Fe streamlined cars, and to that extent, folks will find a use for them if they just want to run streamlined 50’s style cars on a small layout with sharp curves - which is the context of this discussion.
Actually, I as I think about how many fairly accurate passenger trains have been produced to date, it is amazing to think how many accurate passenger trains can now be modeled. If you happen to be in a group that models a more obscure line and passenger service, yes, you may never see an accurate and affordable passenger car for your interest. I’m in that boat with the Prospector series passenger cars, and feel lucky to have gotten even one which was duplicated on the C&O.
[quote]
Yes I said sharp curves - 30" radius in HO is a
Actually, I as I think about how many fairly accurate passenger trains have been produced to date, it is amazing to think how many accurate passenger trains can now be modeled. If you happen to be in a group that models a more obscure line and passenger service, yes, you may never see an accurate and affordable passenger car for your interest. I’m in that boat with the Prospector series passenger cars, and feel lucky to have gotten even one which was duplicated on the C&O.
I would hardly call the B&O an obscure line - yet not one 1940’s or 1950’s B&O name train exists in plastic.
The B&O built (rebuilt from heavy weights actually) most of their own streamlined passenger equipment for their flagship trains. Unless you model the B&O in the 20’s or early 30’s, you don’t have a shot at a correct name train other than brass.
It was Tony Koester who shortened piggy pack flats, maybe someone else also shorted auto racks, don’t rememnber that.
As to the other issues, I agree, we all need to do what satisfies our goals - I was just putting an alternative idea out there - it is almost like you can’t suggest the idea of selective compression.
As to the other issues, I will follow up with a PM.
Sheldon
If you’re not using sectional track, try to lay an easement going in and out of that 22" curve. That’ll help too.