I've never had curve track radius larger than 054 - thinking of using 072 on my next layout - other than the obvious make sure you have enough room for it - Is there a down side to larger radius track from the standpoint of eating up space on your platform etc ?
Just curious - I'd like to know your thoughts
Thank you
Joe S
Replies sorted oldest to newest
Pro: Any Locos look better taking a 72 in turn
con: You lose real a bit of length because your curve starts sooner.
However, you can put a perimeter trolley track with 27” or 31” around the outside of the layout, too!
Pro - you can run anything and it will look good.
Con - none.
I love my larger radius curves. They do eat up a lot of real estate.
My only regret is I didn't do this previously! This time I have nothing but a couple of industry sidings with anything less than O72, and I'm SOOOOOO happy I decided to go that way! Sure, they take up a little more room, but you get to run anything you like! As mentioned, another bonus is even smaller stuff looks much better on wider curves.
Minimum O72 here. Some of the newer scale Locomotives and some Intermodal freight cars require it. Even at O72, passenger cars still jet out when going from an O72 curve to straight away. So it's not a cure all.
Anthony
The only downside is after installing 072 you'll wish you went to 080, or 096 or heck even 0120. But then you'd probably just end up with a big circle.
@Farmall-Joe posted:The only downside is after installing 072 you'll wish you went to 080, or 096 or heck even 0120. But then you'd probably just end up with a big circle.
I actually got a full O96 circle two weeks ago. It really is an annoyance unless you have a large hall sized train room. I didn't even have a big enough spot on the floor for it.
I have found fitting the larger radius curves (96 etc) inside one of another inside an oval require math skills long since parked. Mixing gauges really complicates this.
If you build your layout around the wall instead of the traditional island platform you can max out to the largest curves, determined only by the distance between the RR room walls.
Well now you will get to run all those neat engines you always wanted, that is one of many big changes...however there is a down side... those big brutes cost more buckos. 
However those small engines look much better on the curves.
@rattler21 posted:Have you heard anyone complain about their curves being too large? John
Yes, but not in the context of a train layout!
@WRW posted:I have found fitting the larger radius curves (96 etc) inside one of another inside an oval require math skills long since parked. Mixing gauges really complicates this.
Did that with HO Scale (26,28). Luckily I was paying attention in Trigonometry. I'm 3D printing some additional piers even as I type. A
I tried a case of 96 inch from Menards and I couldn’t fit it without major destruction, the scenery was too far along. The 96 did look good, majestic, reminded me of the HO desert layouts you see at train shows.
It’s like the incline grade discussion that pops up every so often, less grade is better, if you have the space. The bigger curves the better if you have the space.
If you are running scale stuff and articulated locomotives and 21 inch passenger cars a turn of 72 inch will get small pretty fast, between the overhangs and the way the cars look on the turns. If you are running post war and MPC stuff you’ll be fine with 72 or less. I’m finding sadly that my 72 inch turns are not as large as I thought for running and are becoming a more of a minimum.
Well technically it does not eat up more space, you just need a wider area to handle the curve diameter. I am so happy to have been able to lay in an 072+ track as an outer loop. If I had know when I first built the layout I would have laid in a double 072 mainline.
There is a potential downside in that it can get really difficult to use the inside area of the layout. I had to compromise and use minimum 042 track and switches in places. My space available is really tight to model in.
Put the maximum radius possible on your layout. Go for the 072 as you are not limiting your purchases.
@Ted Bertiger posted:Put the maximum radius possible on your layout. Go for the 072 as you are not limiting your purchases.
It could also be said that choosing smaller radiuses and limiting purchases is beneficial for one's wallet...
The large articulated engines make O-72 look tiny, so moving up from anything smaller will both look better and give you the options to run those rivet-counting, wallet draining engines on the minimum recommended O-72 curves. If you have some additional space, O-84+ will always look nicer, but there's a certain exponential curve to track prices, and larger curves really grind the budget (Good thing it's tax refund season eh?). But they do wonders for a more realistic turn with engines.
It’s all been said. The larger the radius the better everything will look running on it. Plus you’ll never have to say, “I really love that engine but it needs a minimum of O72 curves!”😩
@dorfj2 posted:I've never had curve track radius larger than 054 - thinking of using 072 on my next layout - other than the obvious make sure you have enough room for it - Is there a down side to larger radius track from the standpoint of eating up space on your platform etc ?
Just curious - I'd like to know your thoughts
Thank you
Joe S
If I could consistently gone bigger than O72, I would have done it. I do have one very gradual curve that is larger than O128 and it really adds to the scene. The rest of the mainline is O72.
I would also advise you avoid turning your layout into a "plate of spaghetti" by cramming a bunch of track inside your O72 curves. Given them enough space to have some visual impact.
George
Echo what everyone else is saying - if you have the space, no cons. Trains look better on it and it allows for the largest engines, if the bug bites you. I was tempted to go smaller radius on my 12x8 layout but I’m glad I went with 072 for the outer loop.
Jon,
Yes, that would be another wise choice ic a person’s wallet is limiting his purchases. But… if you only live once. So go for the max and beyond! Lol!
@Ted Bertiger posted:Jon,
Yes, that would be another wise choice ic a person’s wallet is limiting his purchases. But… if you only live once. So go for the max and beyond! Lol!
I fully agree. I would not wish to limit my roster due to track and switch issues.
As stated above adding 072 curves will allow you to run anything you want.
My smallest curve is 072 then 081 and 090.
The only down side is, once you add the bigger curves you'll want to buy/run the bigger locomotives and that will require adding big $$$$$ to your acquisition budget
There are no Cons, the only problem has been space. Since Lionel started Making Scale engines ( in the 1930's ) It should have been the minimum. Scale modelers back then knew that!
My best hope is to be able to move up tp 054. That being said the broader the curve the better.
Curious as to who on this thread may have gone to an around the walls layout instead of a traditional island style layout?
Having done both styles of layouts, I found that the track planning freedom around the wall design brings to the table is totally liberating.
The generous curves then available can exceed your imagination. 21" passenger cars will look at home. Scenery will finally relax when an articulate engine runs by.
IMO, the biggest benefactor will be PW, traditional size trains and small locomotives with 40' freight cars. They will have a very prototypical appearance gently cruising along the spacious right of way.
I am on my fifth around the wall layout in as many decades and never looked back to my earlier island efforts.
The present layout has 0-120 and 0-144 curves which seem to be minimally accommodating. So much of life is relevant, I sometimes find the 0-120 curves can present visual nit picking.
Building layouts has been a life long past time for me. 4' x 8' then 8' x 8' "L" then 8' x 12', 8 x 16' then back to 4' x 8' then my first around the wall in a 10' x 10' spare room in HO. Followed up with a post divorce around the wall 27' x 30' floor G scale on two levels then around and through the walls in a 27 X 30 home office in 1:32 #1 scale, then with a fresh marriage, a three car garage in 0 scale which then grew to a five car garage and now my final layout 1900+ s.f. irregular basement 3 & 2 rail 0 scale.
So my response to Joe S. Think outside the box. Go to the largest curve imaginable,"072 and Beyond".
Give us a sketch of the available RR playground that you have and ideas will be flowing from many on board to inspire your imagination!
Side bar: the biggest hindrance to a good layout is a bad marriage.
Yes as others have stated above. Go as big as you can. All 3 loops of my layout are 0-72. My thinking was that I can run anything, engine wise on those curves, although 21 inch cars don’t look as good as 18 inch cars. Also if your budget allows go with the best track out there too.
PS.
TOM TEE, I like that last line about marriage. 😀
I've never had a layout with 072 curves, so I have no experiential knowledge to share.
However, the aesthetics of 072 is undeniable. IF one has the space, 072 makes anything look better.
In fact, I've posted this picture before, but it shows how that large curves make traditional postwar look even better. Such a good "flowing" look of the PW trains in this picture! (Picture by "wgb pete".)
SO... if'n ya got the room, go fer it!
Andre
No one has brought up flex track in this conversation. With flex track the notion of curve size goes out the door. Unfortunately, O-scale flex track is extremely expensive and Lionel Fastrack obviously has no notion of flex track. I have noticed that many mature HO scale layouts tend to incorporate a lot of flex track. Of course, the price is also much cheaper.
@Tom Tee - Regarding wall layouts...I dislike wall layouts because they lose that My Rogers' Neighborhood feel that you get with islands and peninsulas. The lack of depth disrupts my ability to take in the layout as well.
Anthony
The wider curves not only look better, our trains will run better as there is less chance of derailment pulling and pushing longer trains around big curves.
If you have the for it, I don't see any cons to larger curves whatever size you can fit. The only con I see to using 072 curves is not using larger than 072 if you can make it work.
The real benefit of 072 as a minimum standard is the ability to run nearly every 3 rail train made to date.
@A. Wells posted:No one has brought up flex track in this conversation. With flex track the notion of curve size goes out the door. Unfortunately, O-scale flex track is extremely expensive and Lionel Fastrack obviously has no notion of flex track.
Au Contraire, I actually found that the cheapest option was Gargraves flex track. I used three cases of Gargraves flex, slightly over 450 feet of track for my current layout. All the switches are Ross, and no arguing those were expensive, but worth every penny. Gargraves flex is far cheaper than any sectional track, except maybe tubular from Menard's, etc.
My minimum radius is O72. I’ve got Lionel & K-Line tubular track with Ross Switches. I drew my whole layout up on AutoCAD before it was built. 😎 Mine is a double dog bone and the center island is lower so that you can see across it from anywhere in the room. It’s built in a 30’x32’ pole building on the second level.
My first layout was O42 and I don’t regret the change. When we moved I decided to go big or go home. 👊🏻
We are minimum 072 right on up to 120 BUT we have used a few 054 in places where large equipment should never go (caboose yard). As stated above, there are almost no situations where larger radius track, properly used, is not better.
@N&W 1218 posted:
My minimum radius is O72. I’ve got Lionel & K-Line tubular track with Ross Switches. I drew my whole layout up on AutoCAD before it was built. 😎 Mine is a double dog bone and the center island is lower so that you can see across it from anywhere in the room. It’s built in a 30’x32’ pole building on the second level.
My first layout was O42 and I don’t regret the change. When we moved I decided to go big or go home. 👊🏻
Wow...I've been running trains on your layout for 10 years and never knew you had a map! Now I might know where I'm going!
my current layout is table style 5'×12'. it is in a spare bedroom of my apartment. it uses 036 curves and switches. it was designed to be encorperated into my bigger layout that I am planning when I get a house someday.
yes I am limited as to what engines and rolling stock that can run on it. this layout however lets me do switching opps. try out various techniques such as wiring,scenery,and other skills I will need further down the road.
my next layout is going to be around the walls about 3 feet deep. keeping the track right up front for easy turnout reach and ease of track cleaning.
only the railroad will get modeled like most of the HO guys do it. it will be made for operation also like the HO guys do it.
as for my current layout. it will be encorperated into my next layout as it is. it will be relegated to a brachline so no large engines will work the brachline and have to run on it.
I belive 072 minimum and aroung the walls with peninsulas is the way to go in a layout. building a layout for operation with trains working like real life. this to me is much better than a gigantic table style layout just watching trains go in circles chasing there tail.
if I had been thing like this back in the day. my apartment layout would have been around the walls also.
@Lionelzwl2012 posted:only the railroad will get modeled like most of the HO guys do it. it will be made for operation also like the HO guys do it.if I had been thing like this back in the day. my apartment layout would have been around the walls also.
Can you elaborate on your HO guys comment? A
@cjack posted:Wow...I've been running trains on your layout for 10 years and never knew you had a map! Now I might know where I'm going!
Or not! 😎
Access to this requires an OGR Forum Supporting Membership
