have looked just about everywhere on Bachmann trains website to find if they have something that states the min. curve each engine will make.
maybe the bach man will know.
thanks for any help
Dear IHRR,
Which loco are you talking about?
Thanks!
the Bach-man
Generally, the bachmann engines will take a minimum of 18" radius.
As a general rule for most brands:
2-axle streetcars, minimum 12" radius
multi-truck electrics, minimum 18" radius
2-axle diesels, minimum 12" radius
4-axle diesels, minimum 15" radius
6-axle diesels, minimum 18" radius
'historic' steam engines (Lafayette, DeWitt Clinton, Best Friend of Charleston, etc.), minimum whatever the flextrack will allow
0-4-0, 2-4-0, 0-4-2, 2-4-2, minimum 12" radius
4-4-0, 0/2/4 - 6 - 0/2/4, minimum 15" radius
0/2/4 - 8 - 0/2/4, minimum 18" radius
0/2/4 - 10 - 0/2/4, minimum 22" radius; unless the middle wheels are flange-less, then 18" radius
articulateds, minimum 18" radius, looks better on minimum 30" radius
Of course, the larger the radius, the better the train will look; so try to keep your yard minimum at 15" radius, your siding minimum at 18" radius, and your mainline minimum at 22" radius, space permitting.
A prevalent mindset often wants to run the biggest big mama-jama on the sharpest track radius possible .
It took me a long time to get into a mindset that, in the model railroad world, less is always more. Less sharp curves and smaller equipment = more realism and better operation. My biggest steam engine is a 4-8-2 that , while it will operate on 26" radius curves, just doesn't look right. I will sometimes run a lesser offending 2-8-2 but in reality, a 2-8-0 is the biggest steam engine that doesn't do funky overhangs on 26" radius curves. Those big engines are orphans from the glory days of a huge club layout that likely will never return.
my layout's largest curve is 36" everything else will probably be 30" . the trolley will be as small I need to get though the town curves since it is the old Bachmann single axle. my largest engine is a sd 40-2 , one is a 4-6-2, other is to be a 4-6-0 , a 4-8-0 , 4-8-2 . I also have a 2 and 3 trk hiesler , 0-6-0 goat, 0-4-0 , and s2 , 70 tonner, 45 ton, 44 ton. hope these help
30" R ought to handle just about anything well except maybe a large Mallet like an EM1.
thank you all for your help.
Trainman, I was just jotting down the minimum radius the engines are designed to work on, not what they should work on.
;)
If I remember right the Bachmann Catalogue does give minimum radius curves for each locomotive. Since in a given scale a locomotive is a locomotive it should work on the other brands of the same locomotive.
Ok understood.
Sidebar: I can get into a "large" T shirt. But there is a lot of "overhang" 😮🤭😱😂😂😂. An XXL looks SO MUCH BETTER!😀
Quote from: indian_hills_r_r on November 28, 2018, 10:35:17 PM
have looked just about everywhere on Bachmann trains website to find if they have something that states the min. curve each engine will make.
maybe the bach man will know.
thanks for any help
The "minimum curve" information is in the detailed information for a specific locomotive. Such as here, where the last line of the description says, "Performs best on 18" radius curves or greater."...
https://shop.bachmanntrains.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=258_276_1055&products_id=6483&zenid=be3ehk8hmqh6fdpej0qectnv97
The general page on the locomotive, like this one on the 4-6-2:
https://shop.bachmanntrains.com/index.php?main_page=index&cPath=258_276_1055&zenid=be3ehk8hmqh6fdpej0qectnv97
doesn't tell you. You have to pick one of the specific locos to get the information.
Keep in mind that, "Performs best...", statement just means the loco will run on that size curve. Not that it will look right on it. Larger is always better, especially with steam locos.
Len
Len
I found this from Bachmann Forum 2010:
Pacific Northern:
Quote from: ABC on September 26, 2010, 01:31:18 PM
Here is a list of everything
Thomas, Toby, Mavis, Salty, Bill, Ben & Percy 15"
James, Gordon, Emily, Spencer, Donald, Douglas, Edward & Henry 18"
4-2-0 Pegasus 18"
0-4-0 Dewitt Clinton 15"
4-8-4 22"
2-8-4 22"
4-8-2 22"
2-10-4 22"
2-10-2 22"
2-8-0 18"
2-6-2, 2-6-0, 0-6-0 & 0-6-0T 18"
4-4-0 (both) 18"
DDA40X 22"
GP50, GP40, GP38-2, GP35, GP30, GP7 18"
SD40-2, E33 22"
RF-16 Shark, B23/30-7, U boat, H15/16-44, Ft-A/B, GE70 ton, E60CP 18"
GE 44 ton, MDT plymouth, 15"
PCC, Brill trolley, cable car, gandy dancer, high railer (MOWs) 15" radius
Title: Re: Min Radii of Bachmann HO locomotive (Steam and diesel)
Post by: ABC on September 26, 2010, 06:20:22 PM
Note Bachmann says it "performs best" on these radius curves and it is not the absolute minimum.
Climax 22"
Shay 18"
2-10-0 22"
SD-45 22"
8-40C(W) 22"
Title: Re: Min Radii of Bachmann HO locomotive (Steam and diesel)
Post by: bobwrgt on September 26, 2010, 09:48:32 PM
A lot of engines listed for 22in radius will work just fine on 18in. YOU MUST HAVE GOOD TRACK WORK THAT IS LEVEL AND SMOOTH. I run the following on 18in all the time at all speeds.
8-40CW
8-40c
SD45,s
Heavy and light mountains 4-8-4
2-10-0 's
2-10-2 Santa Fe
On the 6 axel diesel you may need a long shank coupler to keep from pulling the first freight car off on the curves. You can also just make sure the first car has a long shank coupler.
Bob
I'm wondering. Why doesn't someone take photos looking at the front of a 2-10-2 on each of these curves - 15", 18", 22", 24", and 28" - so we can see once and for all that the center of the pilot overhanging the outside rail is akin to a tutu-wearing bear riding a bicycle in the circus.
Yes. The engine will get around all those curves. It will do it. And look like a toy in the process instead of a realistic model.
It all depends on how important realism is to you. It's important to me so I don't squeeze them around minimal radius curves. If it doesn't matter to you, have at it.
Trainman - I've got an O27 General. It would give you a heart attack if you ever saw that.
O27 is a different and very cool game. I had the Santa Fe Hudson when I was a kid . A scale 100 mph around a 13" radius curve! And it stayed on the track!!!! We'd pile Lincoln logs on the track and plow that baby right through them. We were running the Mexican Border!!! I don't think I've hsd as much fun with my Serious Model Railroad as we did with that indestructible Lionel stuff!!!
Quote from: Joe323 on December 05, 2018, 07:46:59 AM
If I remember right the Bachmann Catalogue does give minimum radius curves for each locomotive. Since in a given scale a locomotive is a locomotive it should work on the other brands of the same locomotive.
This is generally not the case as often some manufacturers alter their locomotives to run on tighter radius curves, such as the Bachmann 4-8-4 N&W J class which has a ton of "play" (side to side) to allow it to make sharper curves than any other manufacturer's model of the J can negotiate.
We have to make compromises and trade-offs in the hobby all the time. Dealing with curves is perhaps one of the biggest trade-offs. The prototype describes curves in degrees. A ten degree curve is considered sharp for main line operations. Most main line steam locos could negotiate a 20 degree curve at very low speed (such as a turning wye). The conversion formula for degrees to radius is: 5,730 divided by the degrees of the curve. Therefor a 20 degree curve has a radius of 286.5 feet. In HO this equates to 39.5 inches radius. Most of us don't have the space to build a layout using that as a minimum radius. So, models are compromised in design to handle much tighter curves so we can build a practical layout. I would note that a lot of the brass imports of larger steam locos had minimum radii of 24 to 30 inch radius. There were compromises in mechanism design such as longer wheelbase lead trucks, blind drivers, open space above the trailing truck where any ash pan should be, etc. You work at your own comfort level. Oh, by the way, that 10 degree main line curve equates to a 79 inch radius curve.
I used to do barricades and put autos across the track and crash into them too when I was a kid with O27. ;D
ebtnut...
about the 'compromises' we as modelers make...
Blind drivers are a prototype thing.
I have a few books on steam engines (not just trains but actual engines as well) and I came across a picture of I think it was a 2-6-2. The middle pair of drivers was blind.
There were blind drivers on a few prototype long wheelbase steam engines. I'm not going to research a thesis, but my aging memory seems to recall the UP 4-12-2 as one example.
The otherwise nice new 2-8-2 and 4-6-2 are compromised for train set level operation in a few ways. The pilot is well over a scale foot above the railhead to accommodate crummy unlevel track. The closest possible cab/tender coupling is a good bit further apart than the former realistic Spectrum close coupling to stop complaints about engines unable to negotiate near 90 degree corners, and the trailing truck has so much unprototypical see-through clear air space around it, you could drive a car through..... all to allow toy train level trackwork.
I mostly like both of these engines, their operation is flawless, the motor control CVs are near perfect from the factory, compared to Spectrum models which should have been better. The sound Value chuff is well timed compared to before. But these clearance compromises to work on toy train track drive me quite nuts. I find myself avoiding viewing these models from certain angles to not see the compromises.
Agree that blind drivers are relatively common in the prototype, especially for locos intended for branch lines, narrow gauge, and other instances where sharp curves are common. Even the Pennsylvania RR's big 2-10-0 decapods were originally built with the 3 center driver sets blind. Many were later modified to only have the center driver blind. But many models have been made where the prototype did not have blind drivers but the model does in order to negotiate our super-sharp curves. It's a trade-off and that's OK. I would note that in almost all cases the tires on those blind drivers were about an inch and a half wider than the flanged ones in order that the wheel wouldn't drop behind the railhead on a minimum radius curve.
Personally, I understand the compromises that have to be made. And i'm glad for it. The choice often comes down to having sharp curves or not having a layout at all. As long as the locomotive operates well and doesn't derail itself or whatever is coupled to it, I can deal with the overhang. it's better than having 30 feet of straight track along the back wall and being bored to tears.