Arnold D. Cribari posted:raising4daughters posted:Overall, I think the minimums are there also for aesthetics. Even if a 42" rated scale Hudson makes it through 31" curves, how will it look? And what about the 42" rated rolling stock, how will they look? Overhang, slowing down due to binding, etc. For me, minimum diameters are like towing capacity....always better to have some cushion.
I totally agree.
I think raising4daughters touched upon the points I thought about on this issue, its not a question of can they do it, but more of how well they can do it....running any equipment on smaller curves than what they were meant for brings a myriad of problems that may make the operating experience less than desirable, the biggest being binding in curves where the locomotive will have to labor (for real) to get through it, with labor, comes heat, motors slow down with heat....now one would have to either keep the equipment screaming through the curves to keep it going, or constantly man the throttle. If that's your cup of tea, so be it. longevity wise, doing this will cause premature wear on components. driver flanges, and what not. No, it wont happen immediately, but the wear will happen. The perfect example I can give from my own experience is the O27 polar express outfit we run under our tree, running it on the recommended track that came with the outfit was kinda a PITA, couple of hours and that's about it, its tired and hot, speeds up slows down, and you constantly would have to keep an eye on it. We switched out the O36 for O54 and now that little train can run sun up to sundown all day, every day for the entire Xmas season. only stopping for the occasional lube. Unfortunately, this is a case where bigger is better.....hope that helps Arnold...good thread!
