Skip to main content

Originally Posted by jonnyspeed:

Just blind the innermost axles like 3-rail models do and that OMI SD70 will go around 36"r I bet

LOL.

 

However, believe it or not, the MTH C40-8's, C44-9W's, ES44's and SD70ACe's can actually get through a 36" radius curve (without kinks) with a full set of flanged scale wheels and cars coupled. In the video below,  the track inside the tunnel is Gargraves fixed radius sectional O-72 (the track on the trestle is 48" radius). Those China drives can twist quite a bit. Wouldn't even THINK about it with a large horizontal-drive locomotive. Or course, I now drive other club members nuts by running scale-wheeled trains (two of my would-be 2-rail cohorts run a lot of 2-rail rolling stock).

 

 

Last edited by AGHRMatt
Originally Posted by AGHRMatt:
Originally Posted by nw2124:

I thought jonnyspeed's comment was funny. Besides if anyone is using 36 inch track, they aren't in 2 rail.

Stephen

I'm sure Paul Lally and Ed Reutling (if he was still with us) would dispute that.

So would all the new 2 rail O scalers in "post Lenz" Germany and elsewhere who are

using the basic Lenz radius of 914 mm [ = 36", more or less ] -- picked so that 2 rail home layouts are more feasible. 

 

Stephen, the vapidity, even aside from the boorishness, of your posts continues to both amaze and disappoint me.  You may be the worst ambassador for 2 rail 0 scale I have ever encountered.

 

SZ

Last edited by Steinzeit

SZ: MY comments were based on my large brass units that jonnyspeed joked about. Plus it would be very unprototypical to run on that radii. WOW I am now an ambassador! I tell people the truth about O scale that it is like G scale ---"All over the place and screwed up." I am still waiting for massed produced Proto 48 and then I would dump all the junk. AM I still entitled to my opinion or do you want to dictate that also? Stephen

Have fun and you get what you pay for!

Last edited by nw2124

I have been running Overland 6-axle modern diesels with horizontal drives, (SD70MACs & SD70ACe) on MTH Realtrax O-82 curves on the floor for many years. The locomotives may not look impressive going around that curve but will make it. The problem comes if you have a lighter car or lighter locomotive following the Overland model. The overhang on the heavier Overland locomotive with Kadee couplers will topple the car or locomotive behind it.

Since last year I have been running these with 1 or more 10” section on either side of the O-82 curves & I have had no problems so far. I haven’t noticed any issues pulling 12 diecast intermodal cars either.

I am currently modifying an MTH Realtrax O-72 curve to allow the scale wheels to go through them. I will make a video one I am satisfied with the results.

These are just my opinion,

Thanks,

Naveen Rajan

 

IMG_4256 [1024x768)

IMG_4259 [1024x768)

Attachments

Images (2)
  • IMG_4256 (1024x768)
  • IMG_4259 (1024x768)
Originally Posted by pitogo:
Originally Posted by nw2124:

Naveen: When you do the video please post. I would enjoy seeing it.

Overland is not in business at this time. Nothing is being produced in any scale.

Best regards,

Stephen

Shame really.  Maybe it's ATM or Ajin that stopped.  Would like to see a nice GEVO.

Builders are still building, for Overland [a business] to make their "margins" they can no longer get sufficient buyers to support the investment, Key, DP and maybe a few others work to a much smaller market, truly a custom built product for serious collectors and smaller margins,smaller runs.On the other forum there are photos of the new Key cab forward,check it out and see what 7K +/- can get you only 40 made[according to website]

Originally Posted by nw2124:

hilbar: Insufficient buyers is not the problem, I will not go into the reason why. If you like to know you should ask Brian directly. OMI is NOT  doing any brass. The last project wasthe O SCALE  units with well over 100 Plus produced.

 

Stephen

Not that many over 100 and I personally know of 3 buyers who between them took 25 units,many others took multiple units to fill out there heritage collection,so you were really not talking that many buyers. Brian had to sell direct to make the project feasible and that I believe  was an issue not to mention ATrain [Ajin] not exactly prioritizeing his project [no longer the big dog in Korea]at one time Ajin built exclusively for Overland. Bottom line future O scale diesels were not worth taking a chance on for them.JMO

Originally Posted by naveenrajan:

I have been running Overland 6-axle modern diesels with horizontal drives, (SD70MACs & SD70ACe) on MTH Realtrax O-82 curves on the floor for many years. The locomotives may not look impressive going around that curve but will make it. The problem comes if you have a lighter car or lighter locomotive following the Overland model. The overhang on the heavier Overland locomotive with Kadee couplers will topple the car or locomotive behind it.

Since last year I have been running these with 1 or more 10” section on either side of the O-82 curves & I have had no problems so far. I haven’t noticed any issues pulling 12 diecast intermodal cars either.

I am currently modifying an MTH Realtrax O-72 curve to allow the scale wheels to go through them. I will make a video one I am satisfied with the results.

These are just my opinion,

Thanks,

Naveen Rajan

 

IMG_4256 [1024x768)

IMG_4259 [1024x768)

 

 

OK.. off topic but when ever i see carpet and base board layouts i get excited Here is mine.

 @   beginning  east bound CSX BNSF 4 engine multi unit
    @  .55  west bound Guilford Pan Am  5 engine multi unit
    @ 1.54  east bound Guilford 2 unit switching track

 

Last edited by willygee
Originally Posted by AGHRMatt:
Originally Posted by jonnyspeed:

Just blind the innermost axles like 3-rail models do and that OMI SD70 will go around 36"r I bet

LOL.

 

However, believe it or not, the MTH C40-8's, C44-9W's, ES44's and SD70ACe's can actually get through a 36" radius curve (without kinks) with a full set of flanged scale wheels and cars coupled. In the video below,  the track inside the tunnel is Gargraves fixed radius sectional O-72 (the track on the trestle is 48" radius). Those China drives can twist quite a bit. Wouldn't even THINK about it with a large horizontal-drive locomotive. Or course, I now drive other club members nuts by running scale-wheeled trains (two of my would-be 2-rail cohorts run a lot of 2-rail rolling stock).

 

 

Sheesh!

I hate my voice on tape. But you sound just like a kid Matt????

(nice trains)

Originally Posted by Engineer-Joe:
...
Sheesh!

I hate my voice on tape. But you sound just like a kid Matt????

(nice trains)

LOL. I'm getting older, but I REFUSE to grow up. If you heard my real voice it would be horrible.

 

Actually, that was one of our semi-regular visitors. He was about five or six back then and came in with his grandfather. The kid has autism and didn't speak much when he first came in. As we saw more of him he became much more communicative and asks lots of questions. Trains seem to have a VERY positive affect on kids with autism.

Originally Posted by AGHRMatt:
Originally Posted by nw2124:

I thought jonnyspeed's comment was funny. Besides if anyone is using 36 inch track, they aren't in 2 rail.

Stephen

I'm sure Paul Lally and Ed Reutling (if he was still with us) would dispute that.

I was just playing around actually. While I doubt many 2R modelers would want to run the SD70 on 36"r I will say that if I loved that engine and I had to choose between keeping it on a shelf or running it on 36"r I would absolutely modify it to run on 36"r!

 

Minimum radius has nothing to do with whether you are a 2 railer or not. To claim that it does perpetuates an elitist snobbery that many people on the outside hate about 2 railers. As Matt correctly points out both Mr. Lally and Mr. Reutling built layouts that have limited radii, but no one would ever claim that they weren't 2 railers. I have read everything I can find about Mr. Lally's Youngstown and Southern and I absolutely agree with his concept. He has a fantastic layout. It's one of my favorites.

 

I have limited space myself. I am building a 2 rail layout that will have 36"r minimum curves. From my perspective I could either do 3 rail, or I could modify 2 rail to accommodate those curves. That is an easy choice...

 

By nw2124's definition this must not be a "real" 2 rail engine:

 

20140918_221858335_iOS

This is a K-Line 3 rail Hudson converted to 2 rail by Joe Foehrkolb. It has blind center drivers (would you have known if I didn't mention it?) and it will negotiate 36"r or less.

 

I'm sorry for getting off topic, but these kind of comments are detrimental to the future of 2 rail IMHO and I feel the need to rebut them so anyone considering 2 rail won't think that they are in fact correct.

Attachments

Images (1)
  • 20140918_221858335_iOS
Great discussion on radius!

I am a 2-railer and currently have a layout with one curve at 36 inch radius because that all that fits if I wanted my design to work.  My stuff runs through there fine.  My next layout will likely be larger and not need that right of a radius.  My current layout is 32 ft by 14 ft with additional staging areas. 

I would prefer to stay up near 54 inch or 60 inch but for every inch you waste in radius you loose operational design.  My last layout design had 60 inch but it ate up to much space that I personally felt was a waste. 

It's all personal taste. Operations trump visual aesthetics for me personally.  But not with everyone.  It's all personal taste.  It's your layout!

Thanks.  I love hearing all the different opinions and experience. 


Don
jonnyspeed posted:
Originally Posted by AGHRMatt:
Originally Posted by nw2124:

I thought jonnyspeed's comment was funny. Besides if anyone is using 36 inch track, they aren't in 2 rail.

Stephen

I'm sure Paul Lally and Ed Reutling (if he was still with us) would dispute that.

I was just playing around actually. While I doubt many 2R modelers would want to run the SD70 on 36"r I will say that if I loved that engine and I had to choose between keeping it on a shelf or running it on 36"r I would absolutely modify it to run on 36"r!

 

Minimum radius has nothing to do with whether you are a 2 railer or not. To claim that it does perpetuates an elitist snobbery that many people on the outside hate about 2 railers. As Matt correctly points out both Mr. Lally and Mr. Reutling built layouts that have limited radii, but no one would ever claim that they weren't 2 railers. I have read everything I can find about Mr. Lally's Youngstown and Southern and I absolutely agree with his concept. He has a fantastic layout. It's one of my favorites.

 

I have limited space myself. I am building a 2 rail layout that will have 36"r minimum curves. From my perspective I could either do 3 rail, or I could modify 2 rail to accommodate those curves. That is an easy choice...

 

By nw2124's definition this must not be a "real" 2 rail engine:

 

20140918_221858335_iOS

This is a K-Line 3 rail Hudson converted to 2 rail by Joe Foehrkolb. It has blind center drivers (would you have known if I didn't mention it?) and it will negotiate 36"r or less.

 

I'm sorry for getting off topic, but these kind of comments are detrimental to the future of 2 rail IMHO and I feel the need to rebut them so anyone considering 2 rail won't think that they are in fact correct.

+1... on all points made.

 

Mark in Oregon

Add Reply

Post
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×
×