I have tried a search and I cannot seem to get a firm answer on what the min. radius is for larger passenger cars? I will be using Unitrack and the curve approximates 21"-22". Will that be enough? These are the 180 degree turns and the rest would be more along the lines of the 28". As always your responses are greatly appreciated! Jeff
I think by 180 degrees for 21" he would have 10.5" radius. That is tight but most cars will go around. They would look a little goofy to me but all my Kato passenger car go around on my Unitrak test track with the tight radius track.
r_i_straw Sorry about the confused post. Bob has it right it would be a 21-22 inch radius and 44 inch diameter. Thanks! Jeff
They will look great on a radius that size! :thumbs_up: Try not to have any tunnel portals or curves though... specially single width portals. The overhang, even with 21"-22" radius, might catch the edge of the portals.
Don't forget easements An easement is a gentle curve of gradually increasing radius that provides a transition between straight track (tangent) and curve track. Using easements makes passenger trains look much more realistic because overhang is decreased to near-prototypical levels. For prototypical operation with Unitrack, I recommend using a minimum radius of 481mm (19") for visible curves. To create an easement, place a single piece of 718mm (28 1/4") radius track at the beginning and end of the curve. I think you'll be pleased with the results. The following shows 718mm sections being used as easements into a triple-track curve composed of 481mm sections: If you need a tighter curve that still looks fairly prototypical, begin with one 718mm section followed by a 481mm section, and continue the curve with 381mm (15") track. Note that, as the above photograph attests, there is sufficient latitude in the Unijoiner connections to create double-track and even triple-track curves using the 481mm sections, with radii ranging from 17 - 21". Avoid the No. 4 switches. Although they incorporate a 19" radius S curve, essentially, there isn't any tangent between the two legs of the "S," resulting in way too much overhang for 85' passenger cars. The No. 6 switches are better but it would be nice to have No. 8 or preferably No. 10 switches for mainline passenger operation. Have fun! Bryan
I use easements and 17" radius turns on my layout for my Con-Cor passenger cars (I'm limited to 3' for my end loops). The eight car consists look good behind my double headed PA1's.
Bryan that looks great!!! I haven't been using the 28.25" (718mm) sections on my curves... but after the mishaps I've had with long trains on curves I'm simply going to have to use them as you've done.
I run autoracks on 16" min. radius, and they look a bit funny. They runs smooth, however. 18" min is my tightest on the mainline, the 16" is hidden trackage. Anything tighter than 15" I hear is about the limit for body-mounted couplers on autoracks.
Jose: You can always trim the tunnel portal width to accommodate the 85' passenger cars. You won't void any warranty by doing the necessary trimming on the portals. Stay cool and run steam....
Now that I know what the minimum curve radii can be, what's the minimum height clearance? Eyeballing seems to be about 3". Thanks Jeff
Bryan, those curves look great! I've been trying to layout Unitrack parallel 180 degree curves with 381 and/or 481 mm pieces, on XtrkCad, for a couple months with little success. Someone on another forum passed along a trick for double track 481s with intermittent 78 mm straight pieces in the outer curve, but that's as close as I've gotten. Otherwise the parallel curves start out OK, but once over 90 degrees things start looking bad. Does the Unijoiner fudging hold up for higher degree curves?
Don't use XtrkCad to plan Unitrack layouts XtrkCad is a great program but it's very frustrating to plan a Unitrack layout with it. I too struggled with the program for some time; finally, I gave up, made a pencil drawing, and started laying track. That's when I discovered how much free play there is in the Unijoiners. It works for 481mm. With 381mm, there isn't enough free play to create double-track curves. I use 381mm (15") for the outer curve and 348mm (13 3/4") for the inner curve. --Bryan
I keep falling back to the 381/348 combo...but then I set one of the Super Chief cars on a 348 and cringe. But when I go to trying the 481s I lose what very little flexibility I had in my small space (48x74 max that shrinks to around 45x70 when I subtract for a staging track running along the two non-viewing sides). Lately I've even gone to playing with ideas of using hidden Pico curved turnouts and/or a double slip switch for connection to the staging tracks...still yielding nothing without a prohibitively high price tag or Ewwwww-factor. Back and forth I go, and getting more than a bit frustrated. :sad: :embarassed:
1 E7 A powered/sound 1 E7 B powered/sound 1 E7 B dummy 2 E6 B dummy 19 Kato 85' cars, 1 rpo, 4 baggage, 5 coach, 1 diner, 4 sleeper, 3 dome, and 1 observation.
If I ran that train on my layout, I'd just about be coupling the observation car to the front of my first loco Very nice train indeed!
