Thanks for your reply. That was an interesting idea. I will pursue that suggestion but not with cardboards. I will create the outlines in AutoCAD to determine the minimum horizontal & vertical curve radius. Would I be correct in assuming that if this approach would give me the minimum radius, then the recommended radius for realistic-looking operations would be determined by the available space or are there other factors to consider?
I already have the freight cars, Lionel 48’ Husky stack cars & Atlas Gunderson stack cars that I converted from 3-rail to 2-rail. I also have the diesel locomotives, SD70MAC & SD70ACe from Overland & a 2-rail ES44AC from MTH. I have also reserved the Golden Gate Santa Fe Hi-Level set.
Thanks,
Naveen Rajan
Thanks everybody for contributing to this interesting topic. Could someone please explain a way to convert the minimum radius specified by manufacturers of 2-rail models into a recommended layout width for realistic operation? For example Golden Gate Depot specifies a minimum horizontal radius of 48” for their future Santa Fe Hi-Level cars & Overland recommends a 45” to 49.5” minimum horizontal radius for their SD70ACe. But if I were to design a layout with a dual track main-line what would the minimum width of the layout, horizontal & vertical curve radius & track spacing have to be to provide clearance for overhanging ends & to prevent equipment with low profile from bottoming on vertical curves cresting grades?
an
Not having either the room, track or cars in hand, I'd grab some large cardboard boxes and my utility knife, and just cut out some mock-ups of both the track curved areas for multiple tracks and some rectangles for cars and just test what spacing works out on the kitchen table. Low tech, but low cost and minimal stress on the neurons, too.
Take pictures and notes when you have what works and apply that knowledge when you are ready to build for real.
You can do similarly for that bottoming out issue.
