OMG! 42" radius curves?

The edit function works for the thread's title, also.  Give it a try.

Pat - welcome to the 2 rail O scale world.  With tight curves you'll be pushing the envelope a little but with kink free rail joints on the curves and carefully selected rolling stock you'll be able to build and operate a smooth running railroad.  As questions arise by all means use the OGR 2 rail forum as a sounding board.

Ed Rappe

Tom Platten:

Pay no mind to the Nomenclature Police.  The train hobby is supposed to be fun. Have fun with your trains and share your enthusiasm with the fuddy-duddy's that are among us. Shucks, even I suffer from fuddy-duddyism sometimes. Many of us need to be kicked in the pants sometimes for our elitism and such... me included.

Thanks Tom and Ed. I can't wait to establish 15 mph slow speed and dimensional restrictions on my frail backwoods short line, just the like prototype I'm copying.

The OP did pay attention to the nomenclature police and the spelling nerds (guilty on both counts) but his title no longer matches his post.  It doesn't matter at this point, because everybody is talking about the same thing - 21" radius curves and a 2- rail layout.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with a 21" radius O Scale railroad.  If one has a space problem, it is the obvious solution.  Clearly, there will be no 21" K-Line cars on it.  It is marginally possible that a scale 0-6-0 might work.

"There is absolutely nothing wrong with a 21" radius O Scale railroad.  If one has a space problem, it is the obvious solution.  Clearly, there will be no 21" K-Line cars on it.  It is marginally possible that a scale 0-6-0 might work."

   I guess it's a matter of taste but I can see lots wrong with a 21 inch radius O layout. That's only 84 scale feet or solidly in trolley territory( the sharpest prototype steam railroad yard  I can recall off the top of my head is Harlem Transfer's 90 foot radius).  If one must use 21 inch radius in their space going with S scale would turn that into 112 scale feet or HO scale would give a generous 152 feet :> ........DaveB

I'm jn lamings' camp.......c'mon the guy made a slight mistake and all the flamers come out of the woodwork to blast the poster.

     help don't hinder the man

Thanks Dave.

I did do research into S or the "just-right scale". I viewed several train show S scale portable layouts over the past year, held and viewed the models, viewed the graphic comparisons O vs S vs HO, track and equipment systems and space comparisons, the growing popularity of S as well as MTH buying out one of the big producers and it's entry into the market.  Model railroading is a game of compromises and, me being in my mid 50's with failing eyesight and short time to retirement, I found the heft and size of the O models attractive now and especially long term. I seriously considered settling on HO but the increased model-scale (from N) wasn't enough, and S only seemed marginally better. O scale gave me that ahh-ha moment for all the senses, and appeared a natural combination with a G scale (Geriatric scale) module I've begun...for the same ahh-haa reasons. After decades of abbreviated and fragmented N en devours this will likely be my lifetime layout project, and something I've put much thought. You're right...21" rail is excessive but my research leads me to feel that 40ish/31/27" will provide the foundation for a selectively tight yet workable solution for the few curves I may need for a smaller irregular space.

And FYI, I'm not the thread starter author and the suspect thread title.  I came into this discussion late and via the search feature for "minimum radius". Lots of great and diverse opinions, experiences ind information expressed in this thread.

What's to "guess"; of course everything about model railroading is a question of taste.

No matter where "one" looks, there are all sorts of "taste" decisions made by the owner/operator.  These always involve compromises between what is a prototypically accurate representation of true 1/4" to the foot, and what one's taste will accept as a compromise from this ideal.  The compromises accepted among a group will, of course, vary. 

I've learned one thing from this topic - a cheese sandwich isn't safe.

Maybe we are just bored, and have nothing else to talk about.  I simply do not care whether the OP fixes the title.  He did confuse me on page 1 - I really did think he was talking about a 42" radius.  Others were more discerning - our webmaster knew he was talking about diameter and calling it a radius.

We should be encouraging folks who wish to run trains that can run on 3-rail curves to consider running them on 2-rail.  The myth persists that the center rail is what enables sharper radii.  It is almost as bad as the myth that says 3-rail cannot run on DC.

Personally, my minimum radius is 60", and about half my equipment needs 70" or better.

This is so true about the center rail it bears repeating. 

bob2: agree ,people need to know a little better what they are posting. there are a few that need to go back to school to brush up on their spelling and sentence composition.-jim

I don't know if links to other Forums is permitted but I found this conversation on the Atlas O Forum interesting.

"I think the tight radius taboo is what holds two rail O scale back."  http://forum.atlasrr.com/forum...c.asp?TOPIC_ID=68264

I've been around three rail, hi-rail since no later than 1984 with a recent 10 year hiatus recently ended and I've never heard such a myth:  the center rail allows tighter radii.  In all the years of attending train shows, subscribing to CTT, OGR, and other mags, attending monthly train shows, let alone talking trains with buddies, I never heard even a hint of such a myth.

I'm not saying there is no such myth; only, that I've never heard of it.

"Model railroading is a game of compromises and, me being in my mid 50's with failing eyesight and short time to retirement, I found the heft and size of the O models attractive now and especially long term. I seriously considered settling on HO but the increased model-scale (from N) wasn't enough, and S only seemed marginally better. O scale gave me that ahh-ha moment for all the senses, and appeared a natural combination with a G scale (Geriatric scale) module I've begun...for the same ahh-haa reasons. After decades of abbreviated and fragmented N en devours this will likely be my lifetime layout project, and something I've put much thought. You're right...21" rail is excessive but my research leads me to feel that 40ish/31/27" will provide the foundation for a selectively tight yet workable solution for the few curves I may need for a smaller irregular space."

  Hi Pat, I understand the attraction to O scale, I modeled in O for many years but then decided I want to downsize my train space to allow moving to a new smaller house. S is a lot smaller than O but still requires more room than I might end up with so I'm also open to modeling in HO or TT scale if need be.   If you can use 40ish / 31/27 inch radius you'll be a lot better off than using the 21 inches we've been discussing. Almost all O equipment can be made to run great on 36 inch and much will work on 27 I'd guess. For those who need to go with 21 inch radius I'd suggest 3 rail as it is designed specifically to run on tight curves. The larger flanges, truck mounted couplers, and wheels that freewheel on their axles to eliminate super sharp curve scrubbing give it a big advantage over trying to force 2 rail equipment around curves it was not designed for. When you get down to 21 inch radius O models( unless they are trolleys) are gonna look just as bad on 2 rail track as they do on 3 rail track so no reason to make it harder than it needs to be....DaveB 

They need a good dose of the School Sisters of Notre Dame.

Why not post, based on your personal experience, what equipment worked on 21" or so radii; what adjustments to equipment were necessary to do so; and, what equipment won't work.  Isn't that what the OP sought?

I have no personal experience running O scale, fixed pilot, body mounted couplers, and such or I would offer that experience.

A good adage to keep close on discussion forums like OGR, and should be familiar to us all:  when your opinion (or mine) is sought, it will be asked for.

The common myth:  I really want to go 2-rail, but I do not have space for those wider curves.  The reality: a model must be modified to go around tight curves, and when you get to the type curves we are talking about you probably need full-swivel trucks and truck-mounted couplers, just like the Scout.  The center rail has nothing to do with it, but you will still have toys.  A 44-tonner, some ore cars, and a four wheel caboose will work just fine on 21" radius curves, but 40 foot box cars will need Lionel underframes with insulated wheels.

I get seriously distracted when reading material with spelling, grammar, or other technical problems.  That is my problem, not the problem of the originator.  On forums, I routinely see egregious grammar problems and simply ignore them - on TV recently the mis-use of "me" and "I" has become so pervasive that I expect the English texts to be re-written soon.  The mis-use of "myself" in typed material is commonplace.  Perhaps that too will be re-defined. Even spelling can be changed to suit the latest fads. It will not be soon that "radius" and "diameter" will be interchanged, but there will always be a large percentage of the population that will remain peacefully unaware of the meaning of many technical terms.

Once we are aware of the idea behind a sentence, information transfer is complete.  

Nice quote...

FWIW,I will sometimes set up an oval of 1970's vintage Atlas track (which I believe is 24" radius), and all of my stuff (body-mounts)works. Sure,it looks a bit "silly",especially the 50' cars,but they do work,and it gives me a chance to watch some O scale run...

Mark in Oregon

Awareness, not unlike consciousness, is something that is to be striven for by all intelligences.

If the curve works for you for what you seek to accomplish, then do it.  Nothing is engraved in stone and if you want to change it later, you are always free to do so at your discretion.

Do try to have fun on this day that was once upon a time for just such a pursuit when most of us were wee lads.

And I thought I was the only one with the I vs me problem.  People who spell does dose also drive me nuts.

If you can't take the time/effort to get basic communications that says a lot to me about how someone approaches everything.  Whether or not it is business or hobby or family or whatever is irrelevant.  Communication is communication.

I don't have a layout at all.  The fact is I would be completely dissatisfied with a layout less than about 50'-100' so why should bother taking the time or spending the money on something less.  I don't HAVE to have a layout. I got beyond the Christmas tree layout and moved on to HO before I was 12.

If I am going to have a layout it has to be able to run full length passenger cars without looking silly and it has to be able to run modern 75+ full size freight car trains.  Anything less it just unacceptable to me.  One of these days I may find a space that suits me I can afford, maybe not.

When you have the stones to write a comment like the one above, you'd be wise to ensure that your own posts are squeaky clean:

Anything less it just unacceptable to me.

Really?  It just ok with me.  

For the record, spelling "does" as "dose" could just be a typo.  Sometime it happens because two letters are transposed by clumsy fingers while typing.  It can also happen when muscle memory causes flying fingers to type the wrong thing faster than the brain can realize that it's happened.  I suspect that's exactly what happened when you typed "it" instead of "is" in the quote above.  Since "it" and "is" and "does and "dose" are all valid words, these types of harmless mistakes will never be flagged by any spelling checker.

Communication is communication, yes, but having a sense of compassion also helps facilitate understanding.  Capisci?

They are indeed harmless mistakes.  There is absolutely no requirememt in our society for anyone to have good grammar or learn to spell, or to learn Euclidean geometry.  Tat is why I was careful to say that when I am bothered by this sort of thing it is my problem, and not the problem of the person who is exercising the privilege of free expression.

Do try to have fun on this day that was once upon a time for just such a pursuit when most of us were wee lads.

I have been having fun - I did sixteen landings on 11 different runways, sprayed some yellow paint, and am off to dinner with friends.  Christmas could be a beautiful holiday - there is so much about it that I like - lights, some of the very best music (Handel, Pachelbel, Shubert, Bach) and certainly an ancient religious tradition that was added to a pagan celebration.  I applaud all that.

But I am not personally religious - I would love to give the holiday back to the Christians, and skip the frenzy involved in buying stuff, including trains.  If I never visit another mall between Labor Day and Christmas, if I never hear "Jingle Bells" and "Rudolph" again, I will be just fine.

Just to add to that - I googled "Mass in G" and sure enough - I can find decent music on the Internet.  I could not find the Messiah on any radio or TV channel this year, so maybe I shall google that.  Or a little Bach - I tried to learn one of those on the guitar, many years ago . . .

Your are must be commenting on the email you received.  If you look at the actual post you will see I edited it about one minute after I posted it to change the "is" to "it".  I always read the posts after they are submitted to see if what I wrote in the box is correct after the whole thing is posted.  I feel I owe that to the reader.

I never claimed to be perfect, it's just a goal I strive for and fail at most of the time.

At least we haven't seen "low and behold" lately.

"If I am going to have a layout it has to be able to run full length passenger cars without looking silly and it has to be able to run modern 75+ full size freight car trains. "

  Sounds like you would make a great N scale operator.

    For O scale in a smaller space you could just model a passenger terminal with display tracks for the cars and switching operations to serve the commissary, REA building, etc. Mainline would just be the entry to the scene. Add an engine servicing facility if there's more space or a  small freight yard with team track and maybe a couple of city type industries  if you have even more room. The way I look at it is that any layout is better than no layout and if one has a big stash of locos and cars taking up space they are more fun sitting out where they can be seen and played with......DaveB  

Current month's O Scale Trains magazine editorial stated future plans to cover smaller layouts as well as coverage on UK O-scale modelling, where few have large tracts of land for the purpose. Evidently reality and O stereotype is hampering many a potential 2-rail modeller. I'm looking forward to see what other 2-railer (and 3 rail) hobbyists devise.

I've seen a few tight radius O scale layouts (24" curves"), and both of them were very nice layouts. I've personally built a few layouts with the AHM curves (32.75"), and I had no problem running 2-6-0 steam locos and 4 axle diesels.

As I've stated before, tight curve radius is not a deal breaker when building a nice layout. The tight radius does affect and limit the design and operation, but other factors influence both of those, curve radius just being one thing among many.

Jeff C

Well howdy doody and Happy New Year to you all from 'lille' ol' New Zealand (NZ). Interesting thread where it's kept on the subject and not got hung up on Radius vs Diameter or spelling and gramma four that mata.

I traditionally run NZ Railroad (NZR) 9mm to the Foot (1:33.86 scale) locos and rolling stock. Our prototype mainline here in NZ 1066 mm (3ft 6in for any imperial folk). If one does the maths here, that equates to about 31.5mm track gauge in scale terms. So we run our mostly commercial brass, or scratch or kit brass/resin/white metal cars and locos on O gauge track.

I own a 50' by 20' modular layout built by a group of us back in the early 1990s which I bought off them in 2007 and with the assistance of a group of mostly US HO modellers I belong to here in Wellington, we erect the layout mostly for local train exhibitions. It's done several local annual AMRA events here in NZ too running a combination of US O scale and NZR 9mm trains. The smaller radius of the double track squiggly bits on the modular layout is 108" (I guess that equates to O-216!).

Per chance a number of the HO modellers here had some O scale US rolling stock under their layout when I arrived here in Wellington with the layout so it gets to run now when we put the layout up in stead of sitting in boxes (the largest train so far has been about 65 cars). I also have purchased some US O scale rolling stock which includes a number of locos and freight/Pax cars I've converted from 3R to 2R (currently on the desk is a Williams P42 just waiting for some NWSL wheels and some circuitry for DCC which I have to make up).

What caught my eye on this thread is obviously it's title as we've just shifted into a new house and I intend to build a Lance Mindheim style switching layout around the walls of our double garage. Over this last week I laid out some board on the floor and trial pinned track at a radius of 58". It's tight but looks ok. I'll post some pics of both the exhibition layout and what I'm dabbling with in O scale if anyone is interested.

May 2015 be a rewarding year for you all,

Kind Regards

Brent H

Wellington NZ