Can someone tell me if a 2-8-8-2 will run on a 18" radius curve? I have no idea what steam engines will perform on my 18" radius track. Is there a minimum size that will work on 18" radius curves and what about turnouts? Does anyone no where I can get good info on things like this?
Thanks
Am I to presume that you are talking HO Scale? If you are talking N Scale 18 inches is an enormous radius and, for practical purposes, everything will operate. However, HO Scale is that proverbial horse of a different color and whether it will operate on curves that sharp will, to a great extent, depend upon the mechanics designed into the mechanism by the manufacturer - it may or it may not negotiate 18 inch radius curves. If it will, however, it is going to look like aitch doing it!!!
If you mean a PCM Y6b, then yes, it will handle 18" radius curves. I don’t know about other makes, but my guess is also yes for them. Brass would be different, I expect.
Depends on the manufacturer. General answer is probably not.
There is no minimum size that will operate on 18" radius track… probably 2 axles and a motor that runs. Now, there is an effective MAXIMUM size that can operate around 18" radius curves. the largest loco I could get around my 18" curves (before i expanded to 22") was a 2-8-2, and it has 2 blind drivers. I would say that if it didn’t have the blind drivers it would have never made it around the curve. A 4-6-4 is probably the largest steam loco that you can get around 18" curves without needing a lot of slop in the drivers or a blind driver or two.
Edit- forgot to add that a lot of this depends on teh manufacturer. Look at the specifications for the particular locomotive to see the minimum radius it will negotiate.
Rivarossi Y6b will but any that will won’t look very good and you better be sure the track centers are far enough apart becasue it hangs over big time.
MINIMUM radii are used on MINIMUN sized layouts - generally because they’re SIMPLER to build - not because of availability of room. Why?
A 4’X8’ takes up 12’X16’ of room because needed access to operate. (Similar to usin a Pool table or 'Table Tennis); 2. ‘N’ scale is designed for apartment sized rooms; 3.Too FEW of those claiming “lack of room” use ‘N’ scale.
For best results: Those with ‘MINIMUM’ sized layouts should also use ‘minimum sized’ equipment (instead of 'what will still stay on the track). A 2-8-8-2 steam engine on 18" radus will give you problems.
National Model Railroad Association minimum recommendations are ‘3X’. A radius of 18" wants a piece of equipment 6" long, a 60’ car, not a 2-8-8-2 - plus your ‘Amateur Standing’ will remain intact.
I have a P2K 2-8-8-2 purchased a few years ago (as opposed to the new release) and it will negotiate an 18" radius. I do it slowly and only to turn the locomotive using a wye in an industrial area. I don’t like to pick it up because of the detail. I have run the locomotive through some 18" curves on a branch line including a 270 degree climbing turn and it negotiated them as well.
I would not consider this for normal running - as was said earlier it looks very strange with the smokebox and cab hanging out so far and the driver trucks swiveled way out of line. But the engineering on this beast is impressive. It has never derailed in the 3 years I have owned it. There is even a deck plate between the locomotive and tender but it will run forward and back over multiple turnouts and curves without a hitch.
George V.
There are two parts to this answer, because there are two different factors to consider:
I realize that there are a lot of published sectional-track plans with 18" radius curves, meant to be built on a 4 x 8 sheet of (fill in the blank.) If you have more than that 4 x 8, or can build around the walls, put in the widest possible radii. Your locos will thank you.
Chuck (modeling Central Japan in September, 1964)
The determining factor, I would suspect, is whether the 2-8-8-2 is truly prototypical or not. Real articulated engines generally allowed only the front set of the two sets of driving wheels to swing. The rear set was rigid. Brass locomotives generally stick to this principle while modern plastic locomotives allow both sets to swing. The latter arrangement greatly reduces the minimum curvature required so that 18" should probably work.
Trying to determine a general rule for steam engines is a little difficult because driver size varies a lot. A Northern and a Mikado have the same number of driving wheels but the former’s drivers are much bigger and so it will require a larger curve. In addition, different models have different amounts of flexibility in the drivers (some while shift left/right more than others).
Anyway, the best bet is to check with the manufacturer or hobby shop, though the former tends to overstate the minimum curve required since they don’t want bad PR related to false advertising claims.
This is one of those topics where a lot of people on this forum will give you a hard time for trying to run a large engine on small curves. My recommendation is to ignore them. For some of us, seeing a Big Boy on our layout with ugly overhang is better than never being able to run a Big Boy at all. The hobby is full of compromises and this is just one of many.
practically all the Rivarossi lokies are made to handle 18" But generally they had truck mounted couplers. Its pretty much the standard for the hobby to make the equipment 18" capable, but the quality equipment will be better on larger radius. I have a Bachmann 4-8-2, tho it can deal with 18", its better for larger radius. I have wrestled with radius for my new layout and it all depends how its handled and used. 24" mainline minimum but 26" for my South Shore portion. Thats for my Little Joe. For industrial areas, I will go down to 15" and small switching lokies only, depending what railroad and equipment to use on it.
Passenger cars have the same isue and the long 85 foot freight cars. They will just be better on wider radius. This is why shortie passenger cars were made so they could handle 18", the Athearn RDC was minus a window because of the HO scale adaptation for 18". The there were articles to expand the model to its prototype length…ah well, the fun.
My 2-8-8-2 runs on my 18s. I have 2 PFM brass 2-6-6-2s that run, but I had to improve te track work for them. I also run them slow. I brought a 4-6-4 home to try it and it would not run.
I like the looks of the big articulateds struggleing around the corners. Its the over hang that looks cool to me.
My only advice, try it before you spend big bucks on a big engine that will not work…
[sigh]
Okay, let’s hear it.
I have a 5x9 set up and have a main laine close to the edge of the table and as of now I am up to a 4-8-4 engine with no issues. I also have a smaller turn on my layout that is 18" and still have not had any issues. I will keep trying more and more steam to find my limit. I wonder how a 2-10-2 or a 4-4-4-4 will do? I will experiement very soon. [oX)]
Just the BIG LOCOS on tiny curves question again…
Look at the back of my Dash 8 in this photo.
And that’s just a Dash 8 on a 30" curve! Looks like crap!
WHILE ‘subtly’ trying to point out ‘It’s not a good idea’ - (even amateurish). Considering the cost of large locomotives - I might add “not very smart” - however, some people like to get off on ‘marginal’ results.
Full length passenger cars on a 18" curve take on a ‘square-like’ appearance. ‘Macho’ - or El Dumbo?
For the comparative cost, I’d rather have 3 engines that REALLY work WELL. The same money spent on superior switches (turnouts) produces less derailments (I’ve tried and used 6 brands).
Well, if you wanted to be totally prototypical, you wouldn’t have any curves on your mainline of over a few degrees, which in HO works out to curve radii of twenty feet or more. Even on a tight curve, like an industrial siding, a prototype modern diesel road loco needs curves of 20 degrees or less which is still an eight (or so) foot radius curve.
So what it comes down to is that we’re all making compromises, and everyone has to find what works for them. For me, a big loco on 18" curve would look ridiculous and terribly unprototypical, which ruins the effect I like to go for, but that obviously works just fine for other folks. And I’m ok with that. It doesn’t affect my modeling one single bit. And I’m sure there’s folks out there that would see my little pike and sniff with disdain that it’s not accurate enough either. And again, I don’t care. It’s my railroad, after all, not theirs.
So back to the original post, will a 2-8-8-2 run on 18" curves? I’m sure one can be engineered to do so, so go for it if that’s what you want. It’s your pike!
I have noticed the Blueline Bigboy will handle 18" turns. Maybe give it a shot. I have seen some large steam work on 18" but not all engines will. I am trying myself to use larger steam to see what my main line’s limit is.
HO manufacturers go to enornous lengths to make everything run on 18" radius curves. The makers don’t want to loose sales to the overwhelming number of 4*8 layouts done with SnapTrack 18" curves. The package ought to have “18 Inch Radius” marked on it somewhere, unless the maker’s marketing guy is totally brain dead OR the unit really won’t hack an 18" curve.
That said, a 2-8-8-2 is a lot of locomotive to squeeze around 18 inch curves. I would attempt to arrange a moneyback guarantee or an instore demonstration before plucking down serious money on something that big if my layout had 18 inch curves. It probably will cut it, but you never know. Other poster’s comments about extreme overhang on curves are right on.