Need some help converting two Lionel display layout plans into gargraves track, need to know what radius the curve track is. I have the diagram and the list of parts but the curve radius is not listed only part numbers[%-)]
I am looking at D-225 and D292 and it refers to curve track No. 31
Is that 36 inches diameter of a circle of standard curved pieces, measured center-rail to center-rail? Yes? No?
Evidently there were also “wide radius” sections produced.
…
It is my understanding that Mike Spanier and “superotrackdon” are very well informed on the subject of Super-O track. They can be found on the Yahoo FasTrack forum, among other places.
" Is that 36 inches diameter of a circle of standard curved pieces, measured center-rail to center-rail? Yes? No?
Evidently there were also “wide radius” sections produced."
Yes, Super O is approximately 38 inches in diameter to the outside rail. There were no wider radius sections produced by the Lionel Corporation. Recently, hobbiests have taken standard #31 curves and have been widened them out, but none were ever produced by Lionel.
I have no personal experience with either the original Lionel Super-O track or the large radius track known as “Welz curves” attributed to one Ed Welz as mentioned on the webpage below, which I neglected to cite properly. Mea culpa. Evidently it was not a Lionel product, a distinction which I failed to make clear.
My main point, which you illustrated quite nicely, was that how one measures curved track (center-rail to center-rail, end of ties to end of ties, or outer-rail to outer-rail, etc.) depends ultimately on the purpose of the measurement, along with common usage or convention. Therefore, if you are trying to figure out whether a layout will fit inside a given space, you need a measurement between the farthest extent of the ties; whereas the spread between center rails may be useful for other reasons. On One measurement cannot possibly serve in all situations.
And there remains that perennial hobgoblin of model train parlance, the difference between diameter and radius, and the confusing but persistent misuse of the two terms.