[Gary]

I like my Radius 1 curves and I like locomotives that can run on them. Radius 1 curves are of the radius first used by both Hornby Dublo in the 1930's and Triang in the 1950's and have a radius of 371mm. This permits the provision of an HO/OO oval layout within a baseboard width of 800mm and permits tight return loops at each end of shelf type layouts permiting non stop operations. Hornby trainsets used to have Radius 1 curves as standard up until the 1970s' when a move to Radius 2 trainset curves took place as the norm.

Sadly for whatever reason Hornby and others are producing fewer and fewer new locomotives that can operate on Radius 1 curves. This is probably down to perceived demand for a higher level of running gear detail and a more accurate appearance in these regions and in pandering to those who demand this then they are forced to produce models that cannot run on Radius 1 curves.

However there is something about this that I find curious. See the images below:-

This is the Hornby veteran tender loco in the range the Class B12:-

Now this is where is all gets very curious from a radius 1 curve point of view:-

Yes, the Hornby Class 9F can run on Radius 1 curves!

Now considerable play and lateral movement is required in the axles to achieve this miracle as you can see in the images below. And this is also taking into account the flangeless wheel in the middle:-

Now I challenge advocates of British Outline HO to find almost the width of a wheel (2.5mm) between the outside of the wheel and the outside of the body within which to fit the motion gear for this loco!

And if the Class 9F can run on Radius 1 curves why shouldn't all Hornby locomotives and the locomotives of all manufacturers?

Lets give up some of the "perfect" detail under for the operational side of things. Get rid of centre wheels with flanges!

Happy modelling
Gary

PS to put this into context you need 550 mm baseboard width for the standard Radius 2 N gauge curve. You only require another 250mm for a Radius 1 OO/HO gauge curve!

 

[LisaP4]

QUOTE (Gary @ 23 Oct 2005, 10:30)Now I challenge advocates of British Outline HO to find almost the width of a wheel (2.5mm) between the outside of the wheel and the outside of the body within which to fit the motion gear for this loco!

Like this? Same as the last one, reduce the width of the wheel, reduce gap between wheel and coupling rod, reduce thickness of bolt head, move connecting rod inside of crosshead instead of bolted on the back, and one other thing, straighten up the crosshead so it runs inline with the slidebar.

 

[LisaP4]

oops forgot to trim my play space off the pic', sorry.

 

[Gary]

QUOTE Like this? Same as the last one, reduce the width of the wheel, reduce gap between wheel and coupling rod, reduce thickness of bolt head, move connecting rod inside of crosshead instead of bolted on the back, and one other thing, straighten up the crosshead so it runs inline with the slidebar.

You cannot reduce the gap between the wheel and coupling rod as this clearance is required to allow for lateral movement of the rod on curves. And there is a smaller brass ring within the wheel itself to push the coupling rod clear of the wheel to give it freedom of movement. You want to get rid of this. And the bolt heads are the same size as used by all RTR manufactures of OO and HO model railways and cannot be reduced in size as production line power tools are not available to work with anything smaller. If you are a Swiss watchmaker then maybe but this is a loco that costs £70 not one than costs £700!

And the crosshead and all the other gear is straight in the second image (see below). Do you plan to only run on straight track?

I am sorry LisaP4 but your modifications are simply not practical.

Your Class 9F would never operate on Radius 1 curves.

The last operation was equally flawed but this was a better example to use.

Happy modelling
Gary

PS one thing that bugs me about "narrow" wheels is that the coupling rod rivets are always falling out due to a lack of depth and resulting bite. The conrod eases and turns the rivet as the wheel turns and inevitably it falls out over time. I find this on the majority of models that I check out that have had "narrow" wheels fitted. Inevitably in time the rivets are soldered on by the model owners to prevent this from occuring where finescale wheels are used.

 

[double00]

It was most interesting to read Gary's suggestions on rolling stock Radius 1 curves.The number of boxes holding various locomotives, show in bold outlined lettering that content of box is not suitable for Radius 1 curves and indeed apply in some cases to Radius 2 curves.
I have three modern diesel locomotives, all have two bogies with six wheels fitted to their chassis. These diesel's will not run over the Radius 1 curves and indeed the radius 2 curves are no go, as the three locomotives simply slow down when traversing over the radius 2 curves.
I have been invited by Heljan to send them one of the Class 47 in question for observation and possible rectification to the bogy wheels alignment - well I will just have to await Heljan's findings.

 

[Rail-Rider]

It only seems like a few hours ago that Gary proposed splitting the 'Tru Brit' OO section from everyone else's HO section. Yet here we have him pulling it back together again for another argument! Another example of opposite extremes being used to actually create problems.

You can have toy trains that please one faction, or you can have scale models that please another or you can have something in between that might please everyone but probably pleases no one!

If space is so tight as to enforce use of radius 1 curves, then you would sensibly not expect to run the largest locomotives you can find on that particular layout. It not only looks ridiculous with massive overhangs, but it makes the poor old manufacturer appear quite stupid in being unable to please anyone! If you want to run huge locos you must either sensibly provide the running space to do so or you must accept models made to coarse toy standards.
You can't have your cake and eat it too.

BTW, while I am no expert on the Class 9F, I believe that the protoype in fact did have NO flanges on the centre wheels and reduced flanges on the 2nd and 4th pairs also.

 

[double00]

The average modellers mostly live in modern built houses that can be classified as "rabbit hutch" and the lofts are most restricted in size due to the formation of 3"x2" roof supports.
Railrider says not to buy large locomotives if you have not the room, seems the hobby is now becoming restricted as it appears all new models are geared to a market of large locomotives and to the modellers who are fortunate to have unlimited space or model clubs.
Perhaps the solution would be to have two types of modellers "Professionals" and "Amateurs", as reading most feed backs in forums, details in models is more important to the few than the enjoyment of running their rolling stock on a small layout.

 

[Gary]

Whilst the Hornby Class 9F has a flangeless centre wheel has anybody noticed that the Class B12 also has a flangeless centre wheel?

The point about running mainline locomotives on Radius 1 curves is valid to an extent as you can see from the images above that there is an overhang. Radius 1 curves are definitely space saving though and do permit the use of an up line and down line in a oval layout with the additional use of Radius 2 curves which just about squeeze onto a standard 900mm wide board.

Ok, there are modellers who simply are not turned on by tight curves (now we are talking model railways folks!) but there are those who are not fussy and like the operational aspects that the Radius 1 curves permit in small layouts.

I have a sneeky feeling that the new Bachmann 9F will not be able to run on Radius 1 curves.

Just cought double00's post above:-

QUOTE Perhaps the solution would be to have two types of modellers "Professionals" and "Amateurs", as reading most feed backs in forums, details in models is more important to the few than the enjoyment of running their rolling stock on a small layout.

What a brilliant idea!

Maybe the forum should be split into these catagories.

A forum for the amateurs who don't care for conversation about fine detail and the appearanceof locomotives but just like having fun and as long as it looks nice and runs straight out of the box they are happy, and a forum for professionals who want everything to be just perfect and prototypical and spend time tweaking and altering until its just how they want it.

And we do need to consider the type of rabbit hutches that the new generation of railway modellers live in. Manufacturers should consider this when setting minimum curve radius specifications for new locomotives.

Happy modelling
Gary

 

[LisaP4]

You can't be serious about wanting to split the forum up? Such things do nothing to promote the hobby, and if anything just put potential new modellers off. You'd probably just end up with the "amateurs" (for want of a better word) calling the "professionals" (again, for want of a better word) elitists, and back the other way toy trains would probably come in to play. So let's not be silly about this.

As for that 9F, there's alot more space ther if it is built correctly than you'd care to admit to, the crosshead is still in the wrong place in the second photo, the connecting rod is likewise in the wrong place, the excess slop in the crankpins can be removed, the wheels can be slimmer, as can the head of that bolt.
I really can't be stuffed modifying another picture, as you clearly don't want to see the obvious.

 

[double00]

LisaP4 might consider reword my last topic words "Professionals" and "Amateurs".
Can LisaP4 be invited to give numbers of "Professionals" and "Amateurs" (until better words are introduced), estimated to exist in the railway fraternity.
Modellers if balloted, would probably show that the numbers of "P" or "A" are the manufacturers bread winners? I would guess personally, that the "A" would show to be the largest numbers of railway modellers and the manufacturers main stay.
However. the "P" are essential in keeping the manufacturers on their toes with regards to correct scale and decals.