TheRailwire
General Discussion => N and Z Scales => Topic started by: Ed Kapuscinski on December 03, 2015, 10:46:56 PM
-
I'm working on a plan for the next phase of Windsor St, and I'm curious what folks thoughts are on mainline curve radius.
What do you consider an appropriate mainline radius?
18"? 22"? 24"?
What are your thoughts?
-
I am currently in the 22" camp
-
18 minimum. If you can go 24, do it. That's the NTRAK main minimum and it looks damn good compared to 18.
-
I'll be going 24"or larger for my curves. I've had to redesign my plan a few times so far.
Adam Draskovich
-
Depends if it's in view
And how much room you have
In your case, you got plenty of room for big curves
I vote for big
-
The bigger the better, BUT it's all a series of trade offs. You open up the radius here, and have to squeeze something else there. I have 18" minimum, but I model 1950, with a lot of 40' cars and first generation diesels, and even then, I have a number of larger radius curves where possible, up to 54". Modern era, I wouldn't go under 22", and more where possible. But again, there are a lot of variables and you need to come up with an optimal mix that's right for you.
Best, Otto K.
-
Consider grades too.
I'd probably settle on something like 18" in flat hidden or staging areas, but I'd increase that by 3" for every 1% of grade.
Visible areas I would do 24".
To each his own, obviously, but I don't think I'd want to build a layout if I couldn't manage that, given the long trains I'd want to run.
-
What every body else says. I had to go as low as 161/2 inches to fit in another peninsular so for me it was worth the compromise. I do not run any cars over 60ft however.
Rod.
-
My standard is 18 inches, but I have one 16.5 inch curve on a passing track. 85 ft passenger cars and 89 ft flatcars with body mounted couplers take it just fine, but I wouldn't go much below that. If you have to use sharper curves, I'd recommend keeping the truck mounted couplers, or make sure you have plenty of truck and coupler swing. It's also important to watch the car combinations. Just like on the prototype, long and short cars with body mounted couplers don't mix well on sharp curves. Don't couple the ore car to the autorack!
That said, I'd go with the biggest you can fit. If you have room for 36 inch curves you will be in the prototype range for sharp mainline curves, and shouldn't have trouble with anything, regardless of couplers, except maybe extreme length/overhang mismatches. I wouldn't waste space going wider than that, unless you're trying to model a particular location to exact scale.
-
After having lived with 18" minimums for years now, I would never ever go back to anything tighter.
And... if you have room, I would definitely go for 22 or 24. You will have to decide how much you might have to give up
in additional trackwork, scenery, or space for structures by going broader. There's no question that everything just
runs easier and derails less when you get up around 18". And with some of the long steam, I have even occasionally run
into issues on 18", so I wish I had the room to go broader.
You may not be running big ol' steam locomotives, but I still say the improvement in ease of use is worth it.
As for looks:
I've got some 22 and 24, and some 18 on my layout.
The trains definitely look better on the 22 and 24. Those are the curves where the 80' passenger cars finally stop looking
"broken in half".
-
I used 18" radius HO snap track to layout the curves on my Grande Valley rebuild because I could not find the 22" radius track.Of course as soon as I have roadbed and PECO flex laid I find the 22". I would never go back to a smaller radius curve (at least not on the mainline).
Auto racks are still silly looking critters on 18" but anything smaller I simply would not run them.
-
I think it comes down to a couple of basic things - in this particular order:
- How much space do you have? As @seusscaboose already noted you've got plenty of room, and N scale allows for the maximizing of that room.
- what sort of operations will you be adding when you expand? mainline running or industrial switching? Both - and everything in between - can be enhances by the right choice of radius.
- Whats your era? this gets at cars most likely to be seen and car lengths, which influences minimum radius as well as siding length.
-
When considering curve radii, I always go back to what I learned in my HO days. Everything that I read back then put curve radii into three categories:
Sharp-23 inches, or less
Conventional-24 to 29 inches
Broad-30 inches, or better.
In N scale this works out to
Sharp-12,52 inches, or less
Conventional-13,08 to 15,79 inches
Broad-16.33 inches or better.
The "Standard" sharp curve back in the HO days was 18 inches, which works out to 9,79 inches in N
The alleged "conventional" SNAP-TRAK (@) curve of 22 inches, really fell into the upper-middle of the "sharp" category. Twenty Two inches in HO works out to 11,98 inches in N.
The advice of the time (back in my HO days, a majority of the modellers were still running mostly steam) dictated that you could operate anything up to a 2-6-2 or
4-6-0 on sharp curves. Conventional curves allowed anything up to a 4-6-2 or 2-8-2. You could run anything on a broad curve. There was something thrown in about the diesels: you could operate small and average diesels on sharp curves and larger on conventional. If you wanted to run shorty passenger cars, you needed conventional curves. Full length passenger cars could operate on broad.
The exception to the above was nineteenth century and trolley equipment. All of that was supposed to be able to operate on sharp curves.
In HO, I was "modelling" a fictitious SP secondary on the SF Peninsula in the mid-1950s, so all that I was running were Pacifics, Atlantics, Ten Wheelers, Moguls, Mikados, Consolidateds and six wheel switchers, anyhow (Varney and Roundhouse had many models back then which were based on SP prototypes). I used Athearn "Blue Box" passenger equipment, which was slightly shorter than the prototypes on which they were based. Thus, I got away with "conventional" 24 inch main line curves.
In all honesty, the large steam and full size passenger cars did not look quite right on thirty inch curves. At thirty three, or better, it looked allright. HO 33 inches works out to 17,96 in N.
As I recall, you are running more modern equipment: longer rolling stock, longer SD-whatevers and the larger GEs. Thus, while it is likely that you might get away with the eighteen inches, the larger radii would look much better. Twenty two inches in N works out to 40,41 inches in HO; 24 inches in N to 44,09. If you can go to 24 inches, it would be better, of course, but you will get away with the eighteen.
On my non-historic railroad, I run 0-6-0s, ten wheelers, eight wheelers, moguls and consolidateds. The diesels are first generation four axles. The freight rolling stock is no longer than fifty scale feet. The passenger equipment is B-mann sixty-five foot shorty passenger cars or WOT and MT seventy foot head end cars. Thus, I get away with the Kato 13,75 inch curves on the main line. I would get away with the Kato #4s, except that they are so horrible that I went to the #6s. That put an end to point and frog picking.
To be sure, if you scaled these standards out to 1:1, even the curves in the "broad" category would be too sharp for anything other than industrial or trolley trackage.
-
I'm running parallel two-track mains of 13/15 as standard. My own observations:
1) You're pushing it - hard - on any brass steam. I had to modify my Hallmark Northern to even run 15".
2) It looks a whole lot better the higher the eye view is, (I use 52" table height) and also if you are on the INSIDE, rather than the outside of the curve. As I only have one curve of that radius visible from the outside view, I think its a factor in the visual. On my layout you're looking from the inside of the curve out for 360 degrees of curvature over eight feet. Overhang is more objectionable looking from the outside where you can see the rails under the center of the cars. I've got a 15-car piggyback as my worst-case scenario.
3) If you've got a lot of body-mounts, long cars, and long trains (I run 30 car trains) you're pushing the stringline factor on that combination. I'm OK with truck mounts though.
Performance factors on hidden track: I go down as tight as 12" on one tight reverse loop, works fine. You can run through curves it still looks relatively absurd on with most things with fewer problems than you'd think.
I came from HO with 18" curves stuck on nothing bigger than a 4x8 so a 15" curve seemed like heaven to me then in N. But I also have my little portable logging modules than use 9" on about everything, so that 13/15 still looks good by comparison.
I also tend to superelevate the curves and run relatively slowly, or so I've been told. It's not a big layout, I just kinda push the limit on the size of equipment and length of trains I operate. Without demolition, I don't have any more space, I'd have to go to Z or something.
-
I was planning on broader corners, but space restrictions pushed me to my 22" minimum. I like how my 36" radii look much more, but I'll make this work.
-
@Ed Kapuscinski,
As others have suggested, go as big as possible without killing aisle space and the overall track plan. Unfortunately, the largest radius curve on my layout is 16". But, it is noticeably the best place to watch trains circumnavigating curved track on my layout.
I, however, will buck the trend of those who have suggested that sharp N scale curves will not allow body-mounted couplers or long cars to run reliably. On the Seaboard Central, my minimum mainline radius is 12-3/8", and I have a passing siding with a short section of curve as low as 11". Sadly, I had no choice on a layout that began its life as a simple HCD layout. But, you know me, I'm highballing passenger trains with 85' cars and intermodal trains with 89' flatcars through this trackwork that includes superelevation on the mainline curves and #5 and #7 turnouts. Have you seen the length of my AutoTrain?! So, conventional and sharp radiused curves can work, but you must be really careful when tracklaying. Thankfully, you have more room than me, so, again, go as big as you can, without sacrificing other aspects of the layout and the room.
DFF
-
I'm using 24" minimum on mainlines, 18" on the "back in time" branchline.
Big Boys and DD's are barely acceptable on 24", looks-wise. I'm still at the point where I could rejigger the plan for broader curves, but at the expense of a lot of railroad, and the necessity of access duckunders.
-
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-3xZfOWwuuAI/T_o--CG_37I/AAAAAAAARDU/oHDv5eAtors/s1024-Ic42/CR2775%252520%2525285%252529.jpg)
The line around the Beast was set as a 30" diameter/15" radius, with the scenery providing the necessary mask.
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-n7486aB49ek/TeW4ttKKEhI/AAAAAAAAV_M/Q4J0XOUe_OQ/s912-Ic42/ReconstructionPh2%252520128.jpg)
Never had an operational issue, even on a pretty substantial grade with tunnels and switches.
My helix was also 15" r, and worked great, as long as I had the switches properly set down below... :P
Unless you're planning run long wheelbase steam (which you're not) or a high volume of long cars (TOFC? Auto Racks?) you might want the visual of something wider, but with good easements and a nice scenic costume, 15" should be all you need given the tight quarters you're working in.
Lee
-
I got a door so that limits me. My layout is just an inch or two below my eyes so the sharp curves don't look as bad. And I made sure passenger cars can pass each other without touching.
-
My worst-case scenario was proven when I got Atlas 89' flats with short-shank couplers and body-mounts, not enough swing or shank and they stringlined on the 13" curves anyplace before the middle of a 15-car train, lifted the car right off the outside rail edge under motion. BLMA flats and Tranworx flats, with longer coupler shanks and body mounts did not stringline and I'm still running those. Sold the Atlas cars as a solution after accepting I'd finally crossed the line here with what would work in practice. Bought MT flats and those always work without a hassle, have never had an issue with those.
So....yeah....maybe.... but you're on the ragged edge.
-
As large as you can in the visible areas.
-
My worst-case scenario was proven when I got Atlas 89' flats with short-shank couplers and body-mounts, not enough swing or shank and they stringlined on the 13" curves anyplace before the middle of a 15-car train, lifted the car right off the outside rail edge under motion. BLMA flats and Tranworx flats, with longer coupler shanks and body mounts did not stringline and I'm still running those. Sold the Atlas cars as a solution after accepting I'd finally crossed the line here with what would work in practice. Bought MT flats and those always work without a hassle, have never had an issue with those.
@randgust,
What works for me is putting a BLMA flat (with longer couplers) between Atlas cars, so that the short couplers on the Atlas cars don't inhibit operation through sharper radius curves. It works on curves down to 11".
DFF
-
I don't know when or if I'll ever have another layout, but I always test anything I'm working using a 15" radius. I'm hoping whatever I build won't have to go below that.
Jason
-
My 25 cents worth, based on my smallish, unfinished layout, is:
1) Adhere to a minimum operating radius, based on equipment considerations.
2) Use a larger radius in visible areas, based on their aesthetic importance.
3) A tighter radius is more objectionable on outside curves, and when viewed from above. Inside curve, and near-eye-level situations are more tolerant of tighter radii.
MH
-
Thanks for the great info everyone.
I did 15 and 18 on the NCR shelf (that now lives with @chicken45), and I didn't have any operational issues, but I'm definitely thinking of going bigger on the next thing if I can.
Basically, what I'm planning now is to close the loop on the Windsor St Yard layout so I can get running. Here's what I'm thinking.
[attach=1]
The yard is to the bottom, and I want to do a double sided thing. The idea is to simply "close the loop" with a minimum of fuss and muss.
I want to do a double sided thing down the center, and it looks like I can do it with an 18" radius curve going to it and then 22" and 24" to the outer loop. Since those seem to be the sweet spots, I think I can live with them.
-
Something I didn't see mentioned yet is to plan for easements when using smaller radii. They won't help with the visual, but will definitely aid in operation.
Jason
-
Something I didn't see mentioned yet is to plan for easements when using smaller radii. They won't help with the visual, but will definitely aid in operation.
Jason
Actually I think they help with visual too, depending on how much of the curve is the spiral vs set radii. The bone jarring gap between cars on the curve vs straight at the start and end of the curved section are the most visually insulting parts of sharp turns to my eye, so the easements help with that. And many times the central portion of a tight curve can be hidden by trees, a cut, or building.
If I were designing again from scratch, I would consider 21 inches as a minimum in visible areas instead of my current 18 with most visible curves at 19.25 or 19.5. Some of my industrial trackage goes down to 15 inches, but while that may work operationally, spotting a 73' centerbeam along a loading dock after it goes around a 15 inch curve still leaves an afterimage of said car overhanging.
In my 2 loops of hidden track I went with Kato UniTrak to ensure reliability. I cut their large radius double track concrete tie sections in 1/2 and got the 18 7/8 radius curve pieces I needed.
I'm very curious to see how N scale evolves in the minimum radius department, as I've noticed that some newer releases with body mounts or larger new engines are stating minimum radius of 11 or 12 inch curves versus the old 9.75 inch standard minimum from snap track days.
-
I try to use 28 1/4" Radius on the main, but I mix in some 19" when needed. The track I use is 15 degrees so I need 12 pc's to to turn 180degrees. I might use 6 ,28 1/4" and 6 , 19"
-
Someone hinted at broader radius in spots and narrower in others. On my old layout, I broadened out the visual curves coming out of my tunnel to the yard, and made the non visible part a bit tighter. The problem is, the train, or certain kinds of cars, like Racks, slows down on the curves, even if hidden, causing some visible change of speed to the visible part of the train. So, don't make that mistake of a compound curve.
I also used super elevation, and think a small bit of it helps performance and looks great. Easy to do, just put 0.01 or 0.02 strips under the outside. Doesn't have to be solid.
On my new layout, I have one Atlas C55 curved turnout in my mainline. So, I set that curve at the 21"/16" (going from memory) so it flowed. So, if you have any curved turnouts, it might affect your choice.
My only tips.....
-
I have one area thats 15" (Wheeling Jct) and it's signaled for restricted speed (15mph) .. 89" go through there ok, but don't go fast
-
Out on my mine line - I am using a min of 21"R. Same for going into and out of the yard. My switch complex is a bit different. I went with what ever radius would fit a particular industry. (I have no idea what size they are). For me, it doesn't matter.
Thanks,
Wolf
-
Something I didn't see mentioned yet is to plan for easements when using smaller radii. They won't help with the visual, but will definitely aid in operation.
Jason
Doodling on xTrackcad for my layout I came up with 16-15-13-13-13-13-15-16 for the main curve......
-
I have one area thats 15" (Wheeling Jct) and it's signaled for restricted speed (15mph) .. 89" go through there ok, but don't go fast .. the rest is 22" or 24"
-
Ed, I would definitely add some super-elevation on the curves. I have it on my main visible curves and seeing the trains lean in looks damn cool.[attachimg=1] As a side issue I added drainage ditches beside all of my mainline tracks to make the mainline ballast stand out even more.
Rod.
-
I'm running 17/19" inches on my "mainline" double track and it seems to work fine and looks good as well. A number of the curves are at least double that though. The larger cosmetic curves 30"+ look really good on a mainline if you have the right sight angles set up.
Peter
-
A sharp thread on a broad subject. :ashat:
-
I'd suggest going with 57" radius curves, like this one. Unfortunately this was the only one I could fit on the layout... My mainline minimum is 22". I had a peninsula-ender at 19" that I ripped out and replaced with a 22" while sacrificing 6" of aisle space. Yes, it did make a large difference (to me anyway!).
(https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5705/22815197377_ed9705485a_k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/AL6Rj2)IMG_1339 (https://flic.kr/p/AL6Rj2) by Dean Ferris (https://www.flickr.com/photos/92891042@N06/), on Flickr
-
I'm stuck with using at max 17" radius curves. My modern equipement sometimes looks a little goofy going around it but I don't have any issues with any of it. Whenever I can upgrade from a HCD layout I'll stick with 20"+ curves.
-
Lots of good information here, and I probably don't have a lot to add to what's already been said.
However, let's see if I can sum it up.
(1) 18" bare minimum mainline radius. Do your best to keep it in areas you can't see too well (cuts, fiddle yards, tunnels, etc.) or on branchlines. It will function just fine, but suffer a bit in the appearance dept.
(2) 16" bare minimum industrial/commercial trackage. This is restricted to smaller-wheelbase motive power...just like the prototypes do it.
(3) 24" minimum preferred mainline radius. This is the MINIMUM...if possible, make other curves as broad as you can. I have several mainline curves with radii exceeding 100", and as John Armstrong knew, they are very photogenic.
(4) Superelevate your mainline curves. This is a really great way to make running and photographing your trains much more realistic. Be cautioned to not do it too much...I consider Kato's superelevated Unitrack to be WAY TOO MUCH...about half their angle would have been much better looking.
(5) Use easements...especially on smaller radii mainline trackage. This really makes your trains glide smoothly from straight track to your fixed radius curves. It DOES take up a bit more room, but operationally and visually it really makes a huge difference...especially with longer cars and engines.
(6) Get a good layout planning CAD program. The one you have now isn't fitting the bill! :D
I think that about covers it.
In addition, I have several large curves on my layout that are nothing but spiral easements, with a short fixed radius connecting them in the middle at the apexes of their smallest radii. Trains really look good going through these spiral tracks, especially noticeable being the passenger trains, with car ends not wagging around anywhere on the curves or transitioning to straight trackage.
If anybody isn't already aware of it, you should be advised that Atlas 55 turnouts have a much sharper effective diverging track radius than equivalent prototype turnouts do because of the disproportional shortness of the closure rails on all of their turnouts. This means their #7 turnout has an effective diverging radius equivalent of a properly proportioned #5.5 (approximately) turnout. The Atlas 55 #10's diverging radius is approximately what a properly proportioned #8 would be.
On the other hand, Micro Engineering #6's ARE properly proportioned and their effective diverging track radius is slightly larger than the Atlas #7's.
IMO, if you're concerned about what radii you're using on your layout, you should be aware of the eccentricities of the Atlas 55 turnout diverging track effective radius.
Photo (1) Big Blow on spiral radius, superelevated mainline trackage at Echo Curve heading east out of Echo to Wahsatch:
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-ei-no6biOO8/VEoXW00Th9I/AAAAAAAADvQ/2u3r3Odcu5k/s000-Ic42/Turbine%252520at%252520Echo%252520Curve002.jpg)
Photo (2) UP Livestock Dispatch leaving the signal at Echo Yard. Engines are on 71" radius trackage, and cars in the distance are rolling on a 106" radius curve:
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-8kWszIrM2QM/UECFxOaKXuI/AAAAAAAACqk/zDNVnhGyUjg/s000-Ic42/UP%252520Livestock%252520Dispatch%252520002%252520Reduced.jpg)
Cheerio!
Bob Gilmore
-
Photo (1) Big Blow on spiral radius, superelevated mainline trackage at Echo Curve heading east out of Echo to Wahsatch:
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-ei-no6biOO8/VEoXW00Th9I/AAAAAAAADvQ/2u3r3Odcu5k/s000-Ic42/Turbine%252520at%252520Echo%252520Curve002.jpg)
Photo (2) UP Livestock Dispatch leaving the signal at Echo Yard. Engines are on 71" radius trackage, and cars in the distance are rolling on a 106" radius curve:
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-8kWszIrM2QM/UECFxOaKXuI/AAAAAAAACqk/zDNVnhGyUjg/s000-Ic42/UP%252520Livestock%252520Dispatch%252520002%252520Reduced.jpg)
Cheerio!
Bob Gilmore
Wow Bob, those are some of the best looking model railroad curves I've ever seen! All hail N-scale!
-
A 10 degree curve is sharp for a modern mainline, but there are quite a few out there. In N scale, it scales to just over 43 inches. Anything over 36 would look "right" in scenery where sharp curves would be found.
A prototype GP28-2 will take a 140 foot radius - by itself. Coupled to a 50 ft car, the limit is 302 feet, or about 22.5 inches in N scale, according to the EMD operators manual.
As others have said, all of your curves don't HAVE to be the minimum radius. If you have room, widen any that you can. Even the prototypes don't use the same curve everywhere. Curves don't even have to be circular. The radius can change within a curve, as long as none of it is below the minimum. And, yes, easements do help, where there's room for them.
-
Consider the following prototypical considerations:
You're modeling York PA in a heavily industrialized area, so tighter curves than the California desert should be expected.
You're modeling the Northern Central, the second line out of Baltimore only to the 1827 route of the B&O. Despite that early start, York was there before the railroad, so tighter curves than Montana should be expected.
You're modeling the Atlantic Piedmont region, where older rail lines followed narrow water courses through undulating countryside, so tighter curves should be expected. Okay, not as tight as say the M&P, but you're in the same neighborhood, so you're not building a race track.
Some modeling considerations:
You're modeling primarily yard operations, so the main visual consideration should be how the trains look approaching and departing the yard. How they get to staging or to the return loop are minor issues visually, but should be accounted for operationally.
Longer cars will be in play, the NC was a key route for Truck Trains during the PRR and PC eras, so 89' flats and auto racks should be in your fleet. Make sure your curves play nicely with them operationally to get them in and out of staging, and don't worry so much about the camera angles. Again, my layout handled this traffic just fine on 15" r even in the helix.
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-psCkwGlLsZE/TeW-O7Dv7fI/AAAAAAAAZ2k/-OIcYM88u3U/s912-Ic42/N%252520Scale%252520Articles%252520004.jpg)
Note that the outer loop was 16.5 r and designated for the up hill run to reduce the effective grade slightly.
Lee
-
Train length effects whether you can run certain equipment on tight curves and steep grades. Or at least, it affects where it can be in a train. If you're trying to run a 10ft or longer train up a 16.5" radius and 2.5% grade.... you'd better not have 89' flats with body mounts up front.
I think in general it will hold true that if your space is tight enough to warrant smaller curves then you're also going to end up with shorter trains, so that mitigates the issue somewhat for layouts with less space. The pitfalls are for the guys with a lot of space who want to take advantage of it and really run long trains. You've got to take advantage correctly or you'll be disappointed when you (or your buddy) says 'oh come on, let's see how long a train you can run'. Which will happen.
-
So photo #1: what is the radius here we are looking at? Also what is the width of the layout here?
Your overall post is sticky material imho. :D
Photo (1) Big Blow on spiral radius, superelevated mainline trackage at Echo Curve heading east out of Echo to Wahsatch:
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-ei-no6biOO8/VEoXW00Th9I/AAAAAAAADvQ/2u3r3Odcu5k/s000-Ic42/Turbine%252520at%252520Echo%252520Curve002.jpg)
Cheerio!
Bob Gilmore
-
(4) Superelevate your mainline curves. This is a really great way to make running and photographing your trains much more realistic. Be cautioned to not do it too much...I consider Kato's superelevated Unitrack to be WAY TOO MUCH...about half their angle would have been much better looking.
(5) Use easements...especially on smaller radii mainline trackage. This really makes your trains glide smoothly from straight track to your fixed radius curves. It DOES take up a bit more room, but operationally and visually it really makes a huge difference...especially with longer cars and engines.
Maybe because it's just obvious, but it never really gets mentioned that super elevation is directly tied to easements. They start and end together i.e. where the SE reaches it's highest point is where the easement becomes tangent with the curve.
Or another way to say it, if you have super elevation, they should be coupled with easements.
Jason
-
Guys, this has been an incredibly great thread. Thanks for all the great info!
I fired up my old Win XP VM and cranked up RTS (I really need to learn a newer program, but it worked for now).
Here's what I came up with.
[attachimg=2]
[attachurl=1]
The tightest I've got there is some 18" in the flextrack areas, but the "sectional" (which will really be flex in real life) is all 21.25". I think that's a decent balance for the area I've got.
-
Ed,
If you do want to find a new track planning application, look at Anyrail. I tried at least a dozen programs, including
the most popular ones that I shall not name. I think Anyrail whips them all. Too bad it's Windows-only.
https://www.anyrail.com/index_en.html (https://www.anyrail.com/index_en.html)
-
^^^^^ +1.
The GC&W is planned entirely in AnyRail. It was the only layout planning program of the six or seven I tried where I wasn't driven to impact-test the mouse against the monitor. :|
-
^^^^^ +1.
The GC&W is planned entirely in AnyRail. It was the only layout planning program of the six or seven I tried where I wasn't driven to impact-test the mouse against the monitor. :|
Completely concur.
-
Jagged Ben: Long cars, especially light long cars, on the front of a long train are a problem for the prototype as well. According to BN rules from the early 70s unloaded 89 ft flats should be handled at the end of the train. Of course, if the entire train is empty TOFC flats, that can be a problem...
For models, a loaded TOFC flat, of an autorack, can be top heavy, which is a problem on sharp curves, while it seldom causes problems on the prototype, except maybe in high winds, or when taking a high-speed curve at slow speeds. There the "excessive" superelevation can cause the slow moving train to tip over. That can also be an issue on model track if the curve isn't properly laid.
-
So photo #1: what is the radius here we are looking at? Also what is the width of the layout here?
Your overall post is sticky material imho. :D
Photo (1) Big Blow on spiral radius, superelevated mainline trackage at Echo Curve heading east out of Echo to Wahsatch:
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-ei-no6biOO8/VEoXW00Th9I/AAAAAAAADvQ/2u3r3Odcu5k/s000-Ic42/Turbine%252520at%252520Echo%252520Curve002.jpg)
Thank yew...Thankyewverymuch...
Since both curves are spiral easements, they have no constant radius. I laid them out using a single Masonite spline 1" deep X 1/8" thick, which is an easy way to get close to a true spiral easement...then added additional splines using yellow hot glue and yellow carpenter's glue on either side of the central spline for a subroadbed for each track that's about 1.25" wide. However, the curves are never less than a 32" radius at their smallest.
The "width" of the layout is difficult to determine also because the fascia "flows" rather than being straight. However, I took measurements this afternoon from the point the camera was at to the wall, and that was 6' 7" with a 15" bottlenecked aisleway. My portable sections on my layout are 6' X 3', but sometimes they're narrower or wider. This spot is on a 6' section at a corner, running into another 6' section, which starts at 4' 8" deep (there's a 1' X 6' removable section against the skyboard) at the east end of Echo Yard and angles down to 3' deep as you travel westward 6' away.
Here's a photo showing an overall view I took at the Hostlers Show in Union Station in Ogden about five years ago, which I can't do in my layout room.
Photo (1) Overall View of Echo Side of Layout at Hostlers Show 2010:
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-exDkuteeTPg/UECJ7ThnWdI/AAAAAAAACoY/wj2t4ohazUw/s000-Ic42/SmallerOverallShow.jpg)
You can see the non-linear flowing fascias vs linear skyboards and why it's difficult to say just how wide the layout is except at specific points.
To sorta keep this relevant to this thread, I would suggest that sharp inner corners be rounded and track designed to not be parallel with the fascia, which makes for better aesthetics as well as allowing broader curves to be used.
More questions 'bout my layout should be PM'd to me to not hijack this thread.
Cheerio!
Bob Gilmore
-
Every time someone talks curves, I remember this photo in N Scale Magazine years ago. It was a winter shot of a Monon drag freight in winter scenery. It was one of the best shots I have ever seen. The train seemed to snake through rolling hills with a subtlety I never seen before. It also used wither hand laid or Atlas C55 track and the combination was great.
I hope to capture this on the Boston Line. Mainlines will be 30+ inches while the tightest curves on industrial trackage will be 22-25 if all goes well.
-
Every time someone talks curves, I remember this photo in N Scale Magazine years ago. It was a winter shot of a Monon drag freight in winter scenery. It was one of the best shots I have ever seen. The train seemed to snake through rolling hills with a subtlety I never seen before. It also used wither hand laid or Atlas C55 track and the combination was great.
I hope to capture this on the Boston Line. Mainlines will be 30+ inches while the tightest curves on industrial trackage will be 22-25 if all goes well.
Yep, that was Lance Mindheim's Monon, and has served as an inspiration for everything I've done since.
-
Guys, this has been an incredibly great thread. Thanks for all the great info!
...
Here's what I came up with.
...
The tightest I've got there is some 18" in the flextrack areas, but the "sectional" (which will really be flex in real life) is all 21.25". I think that's a decent balance for the area I've got.
Ed,
To minimize the visual impact of the corner in the front, you could move the track above "NCR North" closer to the backdrop and make a broad curve in the middle of that straight segment, it will reduce the curve on the left.
-
24" is is my minimum and it looks pretty good. My layout is an around the walls arrangement with no peninsulas, so most of my major curves are "inside" corners. However, there is one large "outside" corner (like a corner you might find on the end of a peninsula) where I was able to use a really wide radius and it's turned out to be one of my favorite "railfanning" spots. So I suggest, from a purely visual perspective, try to keep the "outside" curves as wide as possible and cheat a little on the "inside" curves if you have to. I run a lot of passenger and the gaps between cars close up (from the operator's viewpoint) as the trains moves thought the inside curves, and with the wide radius on that outside curve, the train looks much better.
Geoff
-
Jagged Ben: Long cars, especially light long cars, on the front of a long train are a problem for the prototype as well. According to BN rules from the early 70s unloaded 89 ft flats should be handled at the end of the train. Of course, if the entire train is empty TOFC flats, that can be a problem...
For models, a loaded TOFC flat, of an autorack, can be top heavy, which is a problem on sharp curves, while it seldom causes problems on the prototype, except maybe in high winds, or when taking a high-speed curve at slow speeds. There the "excessive" superelevation can cause the slow moving train to tip over. That can also be an issue on model track if the curve isn't properly laid.
Yeah, it's a bigger problem for models, all around. For example, say your operation scheme says a car is loaded but it's a boxcar and as a modeler you don't actually add or remove weight from it.
-
Yep, that was Lance Mindheim's Monon, and has served as an inspiration for everything I've done since.
Ah... someone sent me a link to the photos:
(http://www.monon.org/models/mindheim5.jpg)
(http://shelflayouts.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Mon5.jpg)
-
As the relative noob here I may interject that in planning my double deck (potentially 2 separate scales N/HO) it all depends on viewing height. If you plan to be eye level, you can get away with a bit shorter...beauty is in the eye of the beholder, my 85' passenger stock didn't look so good on 15" curves but it had no problem handling tighter... If you plan this to be a helicopter experiance I would try to afford greater radii' than if you plan to be sitting eye level during most ops/viewing... I am planning my latest revision as being eye level and narrow in depth such that I dont end up with spaghetti or unable to reach the furthest operational track... Aiming for 24" min mainline here and shorter on industrial. One of my inspirations is the Claremont & Concord which had absurdly tight radius and steep grades being an ex traction line...so your prototype should in part dictate what you decide to include or be inspired by...what looks right to me may not look prototypical to you unless you step into my neck of the woods ;) Regards