I HAVE THE FRAME WORK BUILT FOR MY HO LAYOUT. RUNNING INTO THE SAME OLD PROBLEM, ROOM!!!. I AM IN THE ERA OF 1900 TO 1950, AND DONT WANT PASSENGER CARS ANY LONGER THEN 50’. I HAVE A MANTUA 0-10-0 AND A IHC 4-8-2 AS MY LARGEST ENGINS. WILL THESE AND THE PASSENGER CARS WORK ON AN 18" RADIUS? 20"RADIUS? OR DO I HAVE TO GO LARGER STILL. THANKS FOR THE ADVICE
First, I would want to know why you are “running out of room”. This sounds like the dismayed voice of someone who does not understand the need for a well researched trackplan. I don’t mean to be judgmental in saying that, only that it must be so because you have run into an entirely avoidable problem.
So, if you can steel yourself to stop and do some thinking at this point, and also to perhaps undo much of what you have in place, you will serve yourself very well.
In any event, 18" radius curves will be just fine for what you say you will be running…if you do a good job of laying all the pieces of track and have good quality turnouts. HOwever, it is very likely that you will want to grow into your layout. This seems to be a universal thing that once you get satisfaction and pleasure out of your layout, you begin to look for a new thrill…inevitably, that comes when you find a deal on a Challenger or 2-10-2 with sound that you simply can’t pass up. Mr. Challenger will probably do okay on your 18"ers, although it will look terrible…in my opinion. Not so good for the 2-10-2.
So, if you can make yourself do some planning, including planning for future acquisitions (oh, you can count on them!), do yourself the grand favour and get nothing less than 22" into your track plan, and try hard to stay above #4.5 turnouts…with #6’s much better.
That is what I would do.
Good luck, however it goes.
Maybe he has a small space like I do. I have all 18" radius curves. I run all diesel, models from the forties to present day. The longest rolling stock I run is 60’, all freight. The smallest loco I run is a Porter Hustler and the largest is an AC4400. Mostly I run E, F, GP, SD, RS, RSC, and PA units. Yes, you can get away with 18" radius but I recommend at least 22" radius if at all possible.
I strongly also recomind somewhere on your layout, a switch to nowhere or a storage track that you could connect to anouther layout. It allows expandability.
[#ditto]
This came in very handy for me when I planned my 3.5’ x 5.3’ extension.
The best guide for what radius to use is here on the Layout Design SIG’s web site.
I agree with Joe. You can go sharper than the recommendations. But it’s going to be on a case-by-case basis. Manufacturing tolerances, the tolerances and quality of your trackwork, vertical and horizontal curve easements, and the amount of “tuning” of your rolling stock all play roles in how tight a curve you can get away with. In general, the more time you are willing to invest in testing and tuning both your rolling stock and your track, the sharper the curve you can get away with. However, the law of diminishing returns applies. Is it worth tuning (removing underbody details and adding truck mounted couplers) all your longest (60ft) cars to run on 18" radius instead of 27" radius curves? If you really work at it, remove some more underbody details, go over your track with a fine tooth comb, and install long shank couplers on the trucks with plenty of swing, you can probably even do 16" radius curves.
Note that none of the above says anything about appearance going around sharp curves. Nor does it address the stringlining issue, or the extra horizontal clearance from your scenery or parallel tracks required by the overhang on curves. Stringlining (the tipping inwards of cars on curves) limits train length on sharp curves, period. On a 4x8 in HO, that’s not usually a problem - the trains are short anyway.
So can you do what you said you wanted to do (60ft rolling stock and some large steam on 18" radius curves in HO)? Yes, but. There is no guarantee any particular larger engine (anything bigger than a 2-8-0 is large for 18" radius in HO) or passenger car will make it. You will have to test each one individually on YOUR track to know for sure.
As an example
Thanks to all of you who replied. I knew I could get some help on this forum. I read it most every day. Guess I’ll redraw, and rethink. Just want to get in a hurry and run trains and build scenery but realize the planning stage is probably the most important in the long run. Again thanks for the thoughts. I am sure I’ll be back with more questions later.
By 1900 there would be few 50’ passenger cars left, at least on standard gauge mainline trains. Passenger cars went out to their current 80’ length in the 1890’s. 1900-1950 era your typical cars would be 60’-80’ heavyweight cars. If you’re running sharp curves, Athearn heavyweights would probably be your best bet.
I have a 4x8 layout with 18 inch curves. I went thru the same thought problems you are going thru. I run ahearn passenger cars (70 ft) with no problems. I had trouble at first with the tracklaying on the curves. I went to Atlas true track and have no more problems. Good luck!
I have a set of old Mantua passenger cars. They are 70-footers, and they handle my 18-inch curves just fine. However, they have truck-mounted couplers, not body-mounts. This is the trick for running long stuff on tight curves. They are not prototypical, and have some performance issues, but some compromises must be made.
My BLI 4-6-4 Hudson handles 18-inch curves fine, but I do have to use the “wide” setting rather than the “tight” setting for the loco->tender drawbar, or they bump on tight curves.
Lots of good layout planning advice at the site, but its article on track standards hasn’t been written yet.
Mark