Curves Needed To Best Run GGD Super Chief Passenger Cars

I would say that O72 is the minimum radius for those cars.  Although they might negotiate a smaller radius curve, they will have some noticeable overhang.

They are full scale length.

O-112 to O-120 reduce the overhang and the cars look good.  How much room do you have?  John in Lansing, ILL

First picture shows Weaver Osgood-Bradley New Haven lightweight passenger cars (21-inch model length, 84-foot full scale length) on O-72 curved track. Second picture shows same two cars on O-54. Third picture shows couplers on O-72 curved track. Fourth picture shows couplers on O-54. Note increased overhang, body angles and coupler angles on O-54 compared to O-72. These cars would run on O-54 but you cannot be certain that would be the case with all 21-inch scale-length passenger cars. I have GGD heavyweight Pullman cars on order but will run them only on O-72. Don’t take a chance with the layout. At least O-72. But I find 18-inch passenger cars satisfactory on O-54.

MELGAR

Capetrainman posted:

In the process of re-building a new layout from scratch.  Is 072 the preferred track to use, or will 063 or 054 give me enough curve to create a good visual of the cars taking the curve?  

Paul

As John mentions, to avoid the cars looking like they are on a 45 degree angle when rounding a curve probably 112"-128" diameter curves.

I agree with KD, the 15"/16" cars look great rounding a 72" curve, and a streamlined passenger train of 16" aluminum cars looks fantastic gliding through 96" curves.

My mainline curves are all 120" dia.  The next layout will be larger curves and 120 will be my industrial track standard.

Running 0144" curves just starts making the long passenger cars look comfortable.  My short haul N&W creeper  with 60 footers looks great.  I sold most of my long passenger cars and keep my remaining 80' cars in storage for appearance sakes.

A quick subjective determent factor:  does my passenger train in a curve look  like a segmented snake or a series of dominoes? 

After spending many a lunch hour on a bridge watching the Amfleets run by on the NE race track my viewing tastes have been affected.

Thanks for all the feedback and pictures depicting 072 and 054 performance accommodating a 21" car.  I wish my available table space was greater.  The existing table dimension is 8' by 25'...so my main curves will need to fit within an 8' width.  I may be able to use 072, but it would be tight taking into account the scenery setting I'd like to use.

I appreciate all your comments and will respond in a few days after I work further with the curves to determine a solution. 

I'm interested to see what you're planning. 25'-by-8' should certainly allow you to use at least O-72 curves. Are you thinking of multiple trains/loops/levels?

MELGAR

Personally, I'd go with curves as wide as possible.  My 70' passenger cars from MTH look OK on 0-72.  Anything longer would look silly, IMHO.

Can you go with a wider table?  Maybe 9 or 10 feet wide instead?

If not, a 96" wide table can accommodate the 76, 80, 84, and 88 inch curves that you can get from Gargraves/Ross.

When I built my current layout, I thought 0-72 and 0-64 were the bees knees.  The biggest engine I had at the time was a Lionel scale NKP Berkshire.  The next "table" will allow for 0-96 and 0-84 instead.

On a positive note, almost everything looks better running on wide curves.

If wide curves are needed consider going around the wall.  You will get maximum curves.

If I did an island table,  I too would be limited.   but following the walls really opened up the possibilities.

Using wall supports provides a clear floor and 12' diameter curves

Tom Tee:  Your carpentry/furniture making always impresses the h*ll out of me!

Berkshire, thanks but it's the cheap camera and select angles which hide the blems.

Paul, have you considered using larger curves at each end and provide an short over width bump out of the benchwork just to provide support for the little bit extra width needed for the track at that point?

A little trick you could think about would be to use a tight curve for the first 90 degrees of the curve which could be inside a rear corner mountain at each end of the platform and then come out of the portal with a much larger curve for a cosmetic advantage.

If you added  a     \__________/    shaped bump out that could accommodate the bump of the curve.

Some thing like this at the bottom of the photo:

I made some of these for folks a long time ago.  They were featured in OGR around 2003 or 2004 as new products.  They provided the ability to use 072 in a bulb shape on a 4x8.

OGR advertiser Custom Model Railroad Benchwork could make something like this for you,  They are very friendly priced.

Yes, Tom - very nice.  I personally think 20" cars need 72" radius, or O-144 in three-rail-speak.  Even then, my articulated Daylight coach needed an extra 1/8" space between car bodies to avoid derailment.

Bob, thank you.

Paul, some thing to think about, there are at least three things that I would assign priority to when designing a layout:

1.- Adequate curvature.

2.- Turnout placement.

3.- Gradient.

These elements will have a strong influence on how smoothly  (or not) our RRs will run.

Maybe consider adaptable scenery to be the garnishment to our layouts.

Thank you all for the great suggestions offered here!   I'm going to re-consider my strategy based on the good suggestions here. Eight foot width is my maximum width for the main table.  I'm considering adding an 8 x  8 additional coming off the main table creating a 90 degree "L" off the main table, rather than re-assembling my pool table in that area.  With the addition, my width on one end of the table goes to 16' creating the "L" shaped table.  The majority of the 8 x 8 addition would accommodate an engine house, several side tracks, and basically a rail yard, with a single track loop going around the addition.

I'll do a more detailed drawing of the proposed layout and post it here.  Thanks again to all of you for helpful suggestions!

I'd like to update you on progress so far.  I've decided on a scenery plan, mountain area, main city area, freight yards, etc. on the main layout of 8' x 25'.  I designed the plan around the main track line using 0072 curves with 063 inside curves.  In order to utilize the Korber engine house ( built for my prior layout 8 years ago), the GGD coaling tower, and the Atlas two bay engine barn, along with other accessories, I've decided to add an 8 x 8 addition creating an "L" shape at one end of the table.  The 8 x 8 addition will for the most part house the buildings noted and several side tracks for storing engines.

I ordered additional Gargraves curved track today to finish up the two main lines.  I haven't yet figured out how to include the two bridges from the last layout.  When I install the new track, I'll post a picture of the layout.  Thanks again for your helpful suggestions!

You may want to proceed slowly building around the roundhouse with the space you have available.   You may wind up with a steam engine servicing display layout, unless that is your goal.

Having more than one TT which was a necessity due to my layout's theme it became apparent I had to compress the engine service facilities for an overall  visual balance.

A 1930 aerial view a PRR  facility gave me some direction.  In a crowded urban setting the ready engines were stored in a linear fashion leading away from the TT instead of the traditional TT radial fashion.   The take away is that there is much more available aisle space and an 18 stall round house looking for a new home.

Not sure if this is possible in your situation but put really big curves in areas that can be seen and put tight curves in hidden areas. it will save some space and give the look you want.

Edmund Schwartzel 060518 posted:

Not sure if this is possible in your situation but put really big curves in areas that can be seen and put tight curves in hidden areas. it will save some space and give the look you want.

Won't work really well if you need to run equipment on 0-72, 0-54, etc.

We have a Gargraves O-72 curve in a tunnel and the GGD Super Chief cars go through fine. However, the visible curves on the primary mainline are 48" radius (O-96) or larger. For appearances, full scale cars look better on 60" radius (O-120) or better. All Nation gave me a formula that I tend to take to heart -- measure the wheelbase of the car (bolster-to-bolster) and multiply that by three and that yields the minimum mainline curve the car can normally handle at normal speeds. And if you look at an 85-foot (21 inch) passenger car, the wheelbase is right around 16". While they can make it through 36" radius, even with body-mounted couplers, running at high speed can cause problems (not to mention inside/outside clearance problems).

Bottom line -- wider is better. Even on this switching design for 40-foot cars and a single Geep I went with 42" radius on the corner just in case I needed to check a passenger car or six-axle diesel.

Berkshire President posted:

Edmund Schwartzel 060518 posted:

Not sure if this is possible in your situation but put really big curves in areas that can be seen and put tight curves in hidden areas. it will save some space and give the look you want.

Won't work really well if you need to run equipment on 0-72, 0-54, etc.

The terms "big curves" and "tight curves" are relative. He wasn't suggesting any specific curve diameter.

Edmund, I agree with your suggestion. I did this on my layout. The two corners furthest away from the viewing area have 072 and 088 for my double main. In addition, the overhang here is towards the corners so less visible from the edge of the layout. The curves closer to the viewing edge of the layout are 088/096 or larger.

John

Don't think in terms of "minimum" radius, but in "maximum", go as big as you possibly can.  Don't cram everything known to model railroading on your layout, can't be done anyway.

Also, forget scenery for 1 year.  Put track down and run trains, you're going to find things that need to be re-worked guaranteed. I've got 4 sidings on my 13x30 layout and they've all been relocated at least twice, that would have meant removing scenery if it had been in place.  Doing it this way will also let you know of any mistakes you made in trackwork which will be easier to fix.

I'm on my 4th or 5th O-scale layout, 3-4 HO layouts prior to going large.

tr18 posted:

Berkshire President posted:

Edmund Schwartzel 060518 posted:

Not sure if this is possible in your situation but put really big curves in areas that can be seen and put tight curves in hidden areas. it will save some space and give the look you want.

Won't work really well if you need to run equipment on 0-72, 0-54, etc.

The terms "big curves" and "tight curves" are relative. He wasn't suggesting any specific curve diameter.

Edmund, I agree with your suggestion. I did this on my layout. The two corners furthest away from the viewing area have 072 and 088 for my double main. In addition, the overhang here is towards the corners so less visible from the edge of the layout. The curves closer to the viewing edge of the layout are 088/096 or larger.

John

My point was as follows:  if the OP is using 72 & 63 inch curves as is....and you then "squeeze" the unseen corners/curves to allow for wider curves that are visible...you'd lose the ability to run anything that requires O-72 curves.

So, if that matter to you, it may not be a good idea in this situation.

AGHRMatt posted:

We have a Gargraves O-72 curve in a tunnel and the GGD Super Chief cars go through fine. However, the visible curves on the primary mainline are 48" radius (O-96) or larger. For appearances, full scale cars look better on 60" radius (O-120) or better. All Nation gave me a formula that I tend to take to heart -- measure the wheelbase of the car (bolster-to-bolster) and multiply that by three and that yields the minimum mainline curve the car can normally handle at normal speeds. And if you look at an 85-foot (21 inch) passenger car, the wheelbase is right around 16". While they can make it through 36" radius, even with body-mounted couplers, running at high speed can cause problems (not to mention inside/outside clearance problems).

Bottom line -- wider is better. Even on this switching design for 40-foot cars and a single Geep I went with 42" radius on the corner just in case I needed to check a passenger car or six-axle diesel.

I can run my GGD full-scale-length cars with scale flanges on the club layout with this proviso: curves must be smoothly laid, no kinks, etc.

I don't body-mount my couplers. Rather, I mount them on swing arms pivoted back from the endsof the cars, length to keep diaphragms from locking on curves.

Capetrainman posted:

Is 072 the preferred track to use, 

Paul

Well I sure wouldn't say it is the "PREFERRED" track, but it is the absolute minimum for those cars. I run my set on 072 without issue using the factory 3 rail couplers. I converted my Daylight cars to Kadee and had a lot of issues requiring moving the couplers outward and even using the long shank Kadee 746 on several of them.

072 is the minimum....GO BIGGER and give up a little straight track on each end! You won't regret that choice!

AGHRMatt posted:

We have a Gargraves O-72 curve in a tunnel and the GGD Super Chief cars go through fine. However, the visible curves on the primary mainline are 48" radius (O-96) or larger. For appearances, full scale cars look better on 60" radius (O-120) or better. All Nation gave me a formula that I tend to take to heart -- measure the wheelbase of the car (bolster-to-bolster) and multiply that by three and that yields the minimum mainline curve the car can normally handle at normal speeds. And if you look at an 85-foot (21 inch) passenger car, the wheelbase is right around 16". While they can make it through 36" radius, even with body-mounted couplers, running at high speed can cause problems (not to mention inside/outside clearance problems).

Bottom line -- wider is better. Even on this switching design for 40-foot cars and a single Geep I went with 42" radius on the corner just in case I needed to check a passenger car or six-axle diesel.

Great information thanks for posting.

Making some progress with the main table of the layout...L shaped 8 x8 addition will happen later on this summer.  I used the 072 Gargraves for the  outside curve and 063 for the inside curve.  I needed to leave room against the cement wall for scenery (mostly rock type wall).  At the far end of the table, you can see main street, with buildings placed just for planning at this point.  I'll post more as the layout develops.

Thanks again for all your helpful suggestions.  

Hi John...I haven't run engines yet...just wired up the main track tonight, but I did run two GGD 21" passenger cars by each other on separate tracks going around the curve and they cleared with room to spare.  I should be ok.  If you look closely down the track, you should be able to see at least one of the test cars.  I hope to run a K-line f unit on the track Saturday.  First engine out of the box after five years.  I was told those late K-line engines had capacitors rather than batteries.  Hoping that's true because all my MTH engine will most likely need new batteries

Tracks are 4.5" apart center rail to center rail...