Minimum Curve for Scale Decapod & GG-1

You could make them work on 064 by leading into the curve with 072 then go into 064 in the middle sections and back out to 072 BUT you will need to SLOW DOWN the locomotives when going into the 064 curves

Simple, get a few pieces of 064 and test it out  And remember to add car or two to pull through the curve.

Ron

Thanks guys. I thought about buying some O-64 and testing it, but figured I'd ask here first. The O-72 - O-64 option is a good alternative as well. Either way it will be testing and slow speed through the curves.

I don't have the MTH PRR I1 Decapod, but I do have the scale 3rd Rail versions.  My long tender 3rd Rail will handle O63 curves (Gargraves flex track) just fine.  The limiting factor on going tighter than that is the tender.  Those 8-wheel trucks will hit the tender skirt on tight curves.  My 3rd Rail short tender I1's happily run around O54 curves and could probably go tighter.

Hmmm, I have some O-54 track. I'll have to experiment.

@Jack L posted:

I have an MTH Premier 2-10-0 Decapod and GG-1. Both boxes indicate O-72 minimum curve. I am planning to build a layout based on one in the May 2008 issue of Classic Toy Trains. The layout uses O-96 and O-88 on the mainline, but has some O-64 curves. I suppose I could modify the layout where needed, but if these two engines will operate on O-64 why bother.

Does any one have experience on whether O-64 will be ok to use?

But - even if the Decapod, etc., are successful on sub-spec curves, will this situation come back to haunt you in the future when an 072 loco comes along that you would really like to own, but turns out to actually mean "072"? Most do.

Sure - I "had all the locos I needed" years ago. Cough. Cough. Then what are all these other things that showed up since then?

Seems to me like the wrong question.  I would think the more important question is  'how does it look doing it' as opposed to, 'can it do it'.

The mainline on the layout I am planning is double track with O-88 minimum curves so I would have no problem running bigger locos. The issue is the route to the roundhouse. If I have to resort to O-64 it will as few as possible and only a section or two of the O-64 with larger lead curves where I can.

As noted earlier, with slow running (and no car pulling) to the roundhouse, your decapod will probably handle O64 curves.  However, a track test is highly recommended.

But, you're not really going to put a GG1 in a roundhouse are you?

Chuck

I could run my MTH GG1 on Atlas O63 track on my first layout.  It was a half circle of nothing but O63.  It did look bad.  No O63 on current layout.

While not in the roundhouse, I have two Gs that use the turntable to park.  I don't see a problem.  Sometimes my Gs identify as steam engines.🙄

Two sizes of Decapods.  Thirdrail, Pennsy decapod, (middle), with a long haul tender.   MTH, Pittsburgh Shawmut,&Northern bottom.   Using (blind drives, without flanges), allows for tighter curves.   As mentioned tender trucks, tend to be curve limiting.

I have to agree with the comment about curve size.  I've been bit many times by the "too tight a curve" issue.  Since O72 is the standard that anything commonly produced runs on, that was my minimum curve size when I built my latest layout.  I'd suggest you seriously consider just increasing the curves to O72 if possible and eliminate any possible issue that might bite you in the future.

I am in the process of re-designing the layout track-work to use O-72 minimum. I will only drop to O-64 where absolutely necessary.

Put the G in the roundhouse - didn't even think about that. I'll probably use the turntable and a storage track not in the roundhouse as RonO45 said.

Here is a picture of the Decapod I have. Box says it is 26" long. The tender is actually bigger than the engine.

@Jack L posted:

Here is a picture of the Decapod I have. Box says it is 26" long. The tender is actually bigger than the engine.

Odd, it doesn't even look like a locomotive!

@gunrunnerjohn posted:

Odd, it doesn't even look like a locomotive!

I don't know what you mean by this.

Jack, your photo did not upload properly.  All we see is a white box with "Image Not Found" in it.

I obviously do not know how to attach/upload pictures. I tried looking for instructions on how to do that, but could not find them.

Never mind, I just found them!

So I edited the post inserting the picture following the instructions. Let me know if the picture shows up correctly now please.

I give up. I followed the instructions and the picture still does not show up (I checked on my iPhone).

I tried again here:

Its working now.

@Jack L posted:

I give up. I followed the instructions and the picture still does not show up (I checked on my iPhone).

I tried again here:

That is one long tender.  Wow!  NH Joe

@New Haven Joe posted:

That is one long tender.  Wow!  NH Joe

I think it was called the coast to coast tender.

Good luck and have fun, Jack, you'll figure it out... Always remember rule no. 1.  Your railroad, doing it your way'.... is the only way'...✔😉

@Jack L posted:

I think it was called the coast to coast tender.

Yes, because if the coupler was on the east coast the drawbar would be on the west coast… Seems like Pennsy tenders were often bigger than the engine they were attached to…

Well, the size of the tender determined the range before taking on water, so the bigger tender, the longer leg they could run.  Of course, it was a double-edged sward, the long haul tender was a lot heavier with a full load of water.