Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Rokuhan tight curves

Expand Messages
  • mark2playz
    Richard, Great video, and not a bad table top layout in general. I played with the small radius track (excuse me for using the manufacturers radius rather
    Message 1 of 12 , Mar 29, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      Richard,
      Great video, and not a bad table top layout in general. I played with the small radius track (excuse me for using the manufacturers' radius rather than degree of curvature) and it can be surprising what will and won't work on tight curves. A lot depends on the coupler type and how it's mounted as well as the length of the rolling stock.

      I tend to suggest to people who want to model American prototypes not to go beyond 120mm R (60 degrees) for a couple of reasons. First, all the appropriate (<60 ft) rolling stock and all the 2 axle locos as well as the Maerkin steam I have work reliably. Second, some of the rolling stock can't pass on the 25mm track centers for parallel tracks below 120mm. Third, it doesn't look prototypically correct with too much of the rolling stock hanging beyond the rails. And I guess a fourth reason is that many people don't want to read: "It will work if... (you modify the shell, convert to a body mount coupler, etc.)

      I don't know common the 95 degree curves are in general, but in N. California, they were common for urban streetcar service, which frequently did double duty as freight delivery.

      Mark

      --- In z_scale@yahoogroups.com, "rgminutillo" <rgminutillo@...> wrote:
      >
      > When people ask about Rokuhan track they are often warned to stay away from the really tight curves. And it's certainly true that a lot of locos and rolling stock cannot handle them. On the other hand...
      >
      > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-wWA_ZkbNg4
      >
      > This video shows what I call my Rokuhan torture track layout, and on the inner line is a completely un-modified Marklin F7, negotiating the curves without a problem, including some sections of 95 degrees!
      >
      > Steam locos, even ones based on the small Marklin tank locos, have problems with these curves because of their fixed axles. Dual-truck locos like the F7 should have no problem, in theory. In fact, what happens is that the truck rotation required to negotiate a tight curve will hit parts of the body shell. The Micro-Trains F7, for example, needs to have its front coupler opening modified to allow for wider swing. Marklin's F7's, however, do not have this problem.
      >
      > Most of the various GP's I've tried also have problems with the tighter Rokuhan radii, but again, only because the trucks have to rotate so much that they bump into bodywork: skirts, hanging stairs and the like.
      >
      > The design changes or modifications required to allow many two-truck locos to operate on tiny Rokuhan curves are in fact pretty modest, if un-prototypical. In any case, may folks I suspect would find the track overhang unattractive; and you certainly won't find too many 95 degree curves in real life. But if you really want to build an interesting small layout, Rokuhan is the way to go.
      >
      > RGM
      >
    • BAZ
      Degrees is the length if the arc, has nothing to do with the radii. Packaging will say degrees so one knows how Many pieces one needs to make a semi- or full
      Message 2 of 12 , Mar 29, 2013
      • 0 Attachment
        Degrees is the length if the arc, has nothing to do with the radii. Packaging will say degrees so one knows how Many pieces one needs to make a semi- or full circle (for example). All radii track (245, 220, 195, etc.) could come in the same degree specification (see a märklin track planner for examples).

        Even though a loco and/or rolling stock (wagon) can run in the narrower radius, it is important to use a transition radius (like proto) to avoid the serious offset from one car to the other as they enter or exit the extreme curve section. Flex track is the easiest but on a larger layout, one would use essentially 490, 245, 220, 195, etc. to the smallest radius an back. Avoids that Lionel look.

        Jeff
        SF Bay Area Z

        Sent 'from the road'

        On Mar 29, 2013, at 9:19 AM, "mark2playz" <mark.markham@...> wrote:

        > Richard,
        > Great video, and not a bad table top layout in general. I played with the small radius track (excuse me for using the manufacturers' radius rather than degree of curvature) and it can be surprising what will and won't work on tight curves. A lot depends on the coupler type and how it's mounted as well as the length of the rolling stock.
        >
        > I tend to suggest to people who want to model American prototypes not to go beyond 120mm R (60 degrees) for a couple of reasons. First, all the appropriate (<60 ft) rolling stock and all the 2 axle locos as well as the Maerkin steam I have work reliably. Second, some of the rolling stock can't pass on the 25mm track centers for parallel tracks below 120mm. Third, it doesn't look prototypically correct with too much of the rolling stock hanging beyond the rails. And I guess a fourth reason is that many people don't want to read: "It will work if... (you modify the shell, convert to a body mount coupler, etc.)
        >
        > I don't know common the 95 degree curves are in general, but in N. California, they were common for urban streetcar service, which frequently did double duty as freight delivery.
        >
        > Mark
        >
        > --- In z_scale@yahoogroups.com, "rgminutillo" <rgminutillo@...> wrote:
        > >
        > > When people ask about Rokuhan track they are often warned to stay away from the really tight curves. And it's certainly true that a lot of locos and rolling stock cannot handle them. On the other hand...
        > >
        > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-wWA_ZkbNg4
        > >
        > > This video shows what I call my Rokuhan torture track layout, and on the inner line is a completely un-modified Marklin F7, negotiating the curves without a problem, including some sections of 95 degrees!
        > >
        > > Steam locos, even ones based on the small Marklin tank locos, have problems with these curves because of their fixed axles. Dual-truck locos like the F7 should have no problem, in theory. In fact, what happens is that the truck rotation required to negotiate a tight curve will hit parts of the body shell. The Micro-Trains F7, for example, needs to have its front coupler opening modified to allow for wider swing. Marklin's F7's, however, do not have this problem.
        > >
        > > Most of the various GP's I've tried also have problems with the tighter Rokuhan radii, but again, only because the trucks have to rotate so much that they bump into bodywork: skirts, hanging stairs and the like.
        > >
        > > The design changes or modifications required to allow many two-truck locos to operate on tiny Rokuhan curves are in fact pretty modest, if un-prototypical. In any case, may folks I suspect would find the track overhang unattractive; and you certainly won't find too many 95 degree curves in real life. But if you really want to build an interesting small layout, Rokuhan is the way to go.
        > >
        > > RGM
        > >
        >
        >


        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • StonyS
        I believe that the confusion may have come from the old railroad practice of referring to degrees instead of radius. A surveyor would position his transit on
        Message 3 of 12 , Mar 29, 2013
        • 0 Attachment
          I believe that the confusion may have come from the old railroad practice of referring to degrees instead of radius.

          A surveyor would position his transit on the center of the track and focus on a marker 100 feet down the track. Whatever angle was measured around a curve was how the bend was referred to, so it's actually a tangential measurement. Interestingly enough, if your locomotive had been 100 feet long, the angle between the trucks and the body would be (half of) that same angle.

          --- In z_scale@yahoogroups.com, BAZ <sjbazman49@...> wrote:
          >
          > Degrees is the length if the arc, has nothing to do with the radii. Packaging will say degrees so one knows how Many pieces one needs to make a semi- or full circle (for example).
        • mark2playz
          Jeff, Isn t the Degree of curvature (as defined in NMRA data sheet 3A): the number of degrees in the angle formed at the center of curvature by radii drawn to
          Message 4 of 12 , Mar 29, 2013
          • 0 Attachment
            Jeff,

            Isn't the Degree of curvature (as defined in NMRA data sheet 3A): the number of degrees in the angle formed at the center of
            curvature by radii drawn to the ends of a chord 100 scale feet long?
            or
            R (Prototype) = 50ft/Sin((DofC/2))

            Doesn't this make Richard's 95 degrees of curvature = to a Z radius of 94mm or a 95mm section and for my 120mm radius 70 degrees of curvature (I screwed up the arcsin in my previous post)?

            Mark


            --- In z_scale@yahoogroups.com, BAZ <sjbazman49@...> wrote:
            >
            > Degrees is the length if the arc, has nothing to do with the radii. Packaging will say degrees so one knows how Many pieces one needs to make a semi- or full circle (for example). All radii track (245, 220, 195, etc.) could come in the same degree specification (see a märklin track planner for examples).
            >
            > Even though a loco and/or rolling stock (wagon) can run in the narrower radius, it is important to use a transition radius (like proto) to avoid the serious offset from one car to the other as they enter or exit the extreme curve section. Flex track is the easiest but on a larger layout, one would use essentially 490, 245, 220, 195, etc. to the smallest radius an back. Avoids that Lionel look.
            >
            > Jeff
            > SF Bay Area Z
            >
            > Sent 'from the road'
            >
            > On Mar 29, 2013, at 9:19 AM, "mark2playz" <mark.markham@...> wrote:
            >
            > > Richard,
            > > Great video, and not a bad table top layout in general. I played with the small radius track (excuse me for using the manufacturers' radius rather than degree of curvature) and it can be surprising what will and won't work on tight curves. A lot depends on the coupler type and how it's mounted as well as the length of the rolling stock.
            > >
            > > I tend to suggest to people who want to model American prototypes not to go beyond 120mm R (60 degrees) for a couple of reasons. First, all the appropriate (<60 ft) rolling stock and all the 2 axle locos as well as the Maerkin steam I have work reliably. Second, some of the rolling stock can't pass on the 25mm track centers for parallel tracks below 120mm. Third, it doesn't look prototypically correct with too much of the rolling stock hanging beyond the rails. And I guess a fourth reason is that many people don't want to read: "It will work if... (you modify the shell, convert to a body mount coupler, etc.)
            > >
            > > I don't know common the 95 degree curves are in general, but in N. California, they were common for urban streetcar service, which frequently did double duty as freight delivery.
            > >
            > > Mark
            > >
            > > --- In z_scale@yahoogroups.com, "rgminutillo" <rgminutillo@> wrote:
            > > >
            > > > When people ask about Rokuhan track they are often warned to stay away from the really tight curves. And it's certainly true that a lot of locos and rolling stock cannot handle them. On the other hand...
            > > >
            > > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-wWA_ZkbNg4
            > > >
            > > > This video shows what I call my Rokuhan torture track layout, and on the inner line is a completely un-modified Marklin F7, negotiating the curves without a problem, including some sections of 95 degrees!
            > > >
            > > > Steam locos, even ones based on the small Marklin tank locos, have problems with these curves because of their fixed axles. Dual-truck locos like the F7 should have no problem, in theory. In fact, what happens is that the truck rotation required to negotiate a tight curve will hit parts of the body shell. The Micro-Trains F7, for example, needs to have its front coupler opening modified to allow for wider swing. Marklin's F7's, however, do not have this problem.
            > > >
            > > > Most of the various GP's I've tried also have problems with the tighter Rokuhan radii, but again, only because the trucks have to rotate so much that they bump into bodywork: skirts, hanging stairs and the like.
            > > >
            > > > The design changes or modifications required to allow many two-truck locos to operate on tiny Rokuhan curves are in fact pretty modest, if un-prototypical. In any case, may folks I suspect would find the track overhang unattractive; and you certainly won't find too many 95 degree curves in real life. But if you really want to build an interesting small layout, Rokuhan is the way to go.
            > > >
            > > > RGM
            > > >
            > >
            > >
            >
            >
            > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            >
          • rgminutillo
            Uwe, I don t think that the Rokuhan roadbed track is that much easier to assemble than Marklin track; it s probably a little sturdier and of course the ends
            Message 5 of 12 , Mar 30, 2013
            • 0 Attachment
              Uwe,

              I don't think that the Rokuhan roadbed track is that much easier to assemble than Marklin track; it's probably a little sturdier and of course the ends and connectors are a little better protected. And there's not much difference at all between MTL roadbed track and Rokuhan; I subjectively prefer Rokuhan, but that's just me. And of course Rokuhan offers a lot more variety than MTL.

              RGM

              --- In z_scale@yahoogroups.com, Uwe Liermann <maillist@...> wrote:
              >
              > Hello Richard,
              >
              > > This video shows what I call my Rokuhan torture track layout, and
              > > on the inner line is a completely un-modified Marklin F7,
              > > negotiating the curves without a problem, including some sections of 95 degrees!
              >
              > Thank you for the video, Richard, I like those tight 90° curves and I
              > wouldn't believe that a Maerklin F7 could negotiate those 95mm radii.
              > But you proved just that.
              >
              > Currently I use MTL tracks whenever I go to the local monthly meeting
              > where the others are H0 folks. Since I would like on those occasions
              > to create a track plan that are a little more varied then possible
              > with those few MTL sections available, I would like to ask if those
              > Rokuhan sections are even better for assembling on the fly, then the
              > MTL sections are compared to the Maerklin sections?
              >
              > If so I would get me a supply for those occasions.
              >
              > --
              > GreetingZ
              > Uwe
              >
            • rgminutillo
              Mark, You re quite right about the coupler factors being a critical factor, and yeah, however they re measured and/or described, tight curves in general don t
              Message 6 of 12 , Mar 30, 2013
              • 0 Attachment
                Mark,

                You're quite right about the coupler factors being a critical factor, and yeah, however they're measured and/or described, tight curves in general don't look prototypical.

                Interesting comment about the street car track; led me to try a pair of Marklin 8817-style railbusses that I have. This particular set was modified 9not by me) with a permanent drawbar connection between the cars. The curves themselves present no problem, but in the one section of the inner dogbone where the curve reverses the drawbar essentially flips the one car off the track as the other car changes angle. An individual railbus would probably be fine.

                RGM

                --- In z_scale@yahoogroups.com, "mark2playz" <mark.markham@...> wrote:
                >
                > Richard,
                > Great video, and not a bad table top layout in general. I played with the small radius track (excuse me for using the manufacturers' radius rather than degree of curvature) and it can be surprising what will and won't work on tight curves. A lot depends on the coupler type and how it's mounted as well as the length of the rolling stock.
                >
                > I tend to suggest to people who want to model American prototypes not to go beyond 120mm R (60 degrees) for a couple of reasons. First, all the appropriate (<60 ft) rolling stock and all the 2 axle locos as well as the Maerkin steam I have work reliably. Second, some of the rolling stock can't pass on the 25mm track centers for parallel tracks below 120mm. Third, it doesn't look prototypically correct with too much of the rolling stock hanging beyond the rails. And I guess a fourth reason is that many people don't want to read: "It will work if... (you modify the shell, convert to a body mount coupler, etc.)
                >
                > I don't know common the 95 degree curves are in general, but in N. California, they were common for urban streetcar service, which frequently did double duty as freight delivery.
                >
                > Mark
                >
                > --- In z_scale@yahoogroups.com, "rgminutillo" <rgminutillo@> wrote:
                > >
                > > When people ask about Rokuhan track they are often warned to stay away from the really tight curves. And it's certainly true that a lot of locos and rolling stock cannot handle them. On the other hand...
                > >
                > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-wWA_ZkbNg4
                > >
                > > This video shows what I call my Rokuhan torture track layout, and on the inner line is a completely un-modified Marklin F7, negotiating the curves without a problem, including some sections of 95 degrees!
                > >
                > > Steam locos, even ones based on the small Marklin tank locos, have problems with these curves because of their fixed axles. Dual-truck locos like the F7 should have no problem, in theory. In fact, what happens is that the truck rotation required to negotiate a tight curve will hit parts of the body shell. The Micro-Trains F7, for example, needs to have its front coupler opening modified to allow for wider swing. Marklin's F7's, however, do not have this problem.
                > >
                > > Most of the various GP's I've tried also have problems with the tighter Rokuhan radii, but again, only because the trucks have to rotate so much that they bump into bodywork: skirts, hanging stairs and the like.
                > >
                > > The design changes or modifications required to allow many two-truck locos to operate on tiny Rokuhan curves are in fact pretty modest, if un-prototypical. In any case, may folks I suspect would find the track overhang unattractive; and you certainly won't find too many 95 degree curves in real life. But if you really want to build an interesting small layout, Rokuhan is the way to go.
                > >
                > > RGM
                > >
                >
              • Uwe Liermann
                Hello Richard, ... In my opinion the MTL sections are a little easier to connect then the Maerklin sections, and yes they are also better protected at the
                Message 7 of 12 , Mar 30, 2013
                • 0 Attachment
                  Hello Richard,


                  > I don't think that the Rokuhan roadbed track is that much easier to
                  > assemble than Marklin track; it's probably a little sturdier and of
                  > course the ends and connectors are a little better protected.

                  In my opinion the MTL sections are a little easier to connect then
                  the Maerklin sections, and yes they are also better protected at the
                  ends, because of the roadbed and those roadbed joiners.


                  > there's not much difference at all between MTL roadbed track and
                  > Rokuhan; I subjectively prefer Rokuhan, but that's just me. And of
                  > course Rokuhan offers a lot more variety than MTL.

                  I don't understand why MTL didn't made more different sections.
                  Somehow the MTL system looks like work started, but not finished. Also
                  the turn out drives are uglier then the Maerklin ones.

                  So I will think about a change to the Rokuhan system. Besides I also
                  like the idea of a batterie run system.



                  GreetingZ

                  Uwe
                • Gardenrails
                  Thanks for the information. I have ordered some of the track and switches so we will see. I have a lot of the MT track but I have had problems with the
                  Message 8 of 12 , Mar 30, 2013
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Thanks for the information. I have ordered some of the track and switches so we will see. I have a lot of the MT track but I have had problems with the switches so I am making the change. I like the power routing concept of the Rokuhan switches and the battery power as well. Transformer is the next purchase.

                    Mack


                    Sent from my iPhone

                    On Mar 30, 2013, at 5:56 PM, Uwe Liermann <maillist@...> wrote:

                    > Hello Richard,
                    >
                    > > I don't think that the Rokuhan roadbed track is that much easier to
                    > > assemble than Marklin track; it's probably a little sturdier and of
                    > > course the ends and connectors are a little better protected.
                    >
                    > In my opinion the MTL sections are a little easier to connect then
                    > the Maerklin sections, and yes they are also better protected at the
                    > ends, because of the roadbed and those roadbed joiners.
                    >
                    > > there's not much difference at all between MTL roadbed track and
                    > > Rokuhan; I subjectively prefer Rokuhan, but that's just me. And of
                    > > course Rokuhan offers a lot more variety than MTL.
                    >
                    > I don't understand why MTL didn't made more different sections.
                    > Somehow the MTL system looks like work started, but not finished. Also
                    > the turn out drives are uglier then the Maerklin ones.
                    >
                    > So I will think about a change to the Rokuhan system. Besides I also
                    > like the idea of a batterie run system.
                    >
                    > GreetingZ
                    >
                    > Uwe
                    >
                    >


                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  • mark2playz
                    Richard, Thanks for the railbus info. I d been wondering how they would perform, since I don t have any myself. I suspect if you wanted to rethink the drawbar,
                    Message 9 of 12 , Mar 30, 2013
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Richard,
                      Thanks for the railbus info. I'd been wondering how they would perform, since I don't have any myself. I suspect if you wanted to rethink the drawbar, the set would work just find.
                      We talk about tight curves, but most people don't realize how much we do a "radius compression": the prototype I'm modeling (WP) had a rule of less than 1% grade and 4-degree ( nearly 2m if I did the math right) So,while I appreciate the 245 & 270 mm curves, I'd like to see a 490 mm 30-degree curve.

                      Mark

                      --- In z_scale@yahoogroups.com, "rgminutillo" <rgminutillo@...> wrote:
                      >
                      > Mark,
                      >
                      > You're quite right about the coupler factors being a critical factor, and yeah, however they're measured and/or described, tight curves in general don't look prototypical.
                      >
                      > Interesting comment about the street car track; led me to try a pair of Marklin 8817-style railbusses that I have. This particular set was modified 9not by me) with a permanent drawbar connection between the cars. The curves themselves present no problem, but in the one section of the inner dogbone where the curve reverses the drawbar essentially flips the one car off the track as the other car changes angle. An individual railbus would probably be fine.
                      >
                      > RGM
                      >
                    • thomas cipelle
                      Iproberly have more rokuhan track than most you it works well just remember rokuhan power packs not very  fond of marklin engines  may trip electronic safty
                      Message 10 of 12 , Mar 30, 2013
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Iproberly have more rokuhan track than most you it works well just remember rokuhan power packs not very  fond of marklin engines  may trip electronic safty device I run rokuhan from litte as 6inch circle all way up better 22inch circle plus  using engines from marklin   micro train and azl. pulling set 28cars  single engine on 30inch by 4foot track my average train  is 16 cars long.
                        tried both  4wheel marklin and 2boogie marklin also some 18 axle marklin pulling thru  roukhan cross over as well as marklin double  slip switch  at present running20 car tank train  mix  marklintank cars  mtl tank cars as well as 8 single dome MTL tank cars second train is 9 MTL flat cars 3balk head 5uncle wills hoppers2 mtl covered hoppers.opps by the way roukhan is 13degree cross over also mixed  track 1/3 is MTL to prove point how blendable the  MFG most inporant ruleNEVER glue down  roukhan switches let them  float.fact protect bottom switches while secenery drys I use wax paper   Thomas C


                        ________________________________
                        From: Gardenrails <gardenrails@...>
                        To: "z_scale@yahoogroups.com" <z_scale@yahoogroups.com>
                        Sent: Saturday, March 30, 2013 6:55 PM
                        Subject: Re: [Z_Scale] Re: Rokuhan tight curves

                         

                        Thanks for the information. I have ordered some of the track and switches so we will see. I have a lot of the MT track but I have had problems with the switches so I am making the change. I like the power routing concept of the Rokuhan switches and the battery power as well. Transformer is the next purchase.

                        Mack

                        Sent from my iPhone

                        On Mar 30, 2013, at 5:56 PM, Uwe Liermann <mailto:maillist%40famliermann.de> wrote:

                        > Hello Richard,
                        >
                        > > I don't think that the Rokuhan roadbed track is that much easier to
                        > > assemble than Marklin track; it's probably a little sturdier and of
                        > > course the ends and connectors are a little better protected.
                        >
                        > In my opinion the MTL sections are a little easier to connect then
                        > the Maerklin sections, and yes they are also better protected at the
                        > ends, because of the roadbed and those roadbed joiners.
                        >
                        > > there's not much difference at all between MTL roadbed track and
                        > > Rokuhan; I subjectively prefer Rokuhan, but that's just me. And of
                        > > course Rokuhan offers a lot more variety than MTL.
                        >
                        > I don't understand why MTL didn't made more different sections.
                        > Somehow the MTL system looks like work started, but not finished. Also
                        > the turn out drives are uglier then the Maerklin ones.
                        >
                        > So I will think about a change to the Rokuhan system. Besides I also
                        > like the idea of a batterie run system.
                        >
                        > GreetingZ
                        >
                        > Uwe
                        >
                        >

                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.