In my observations regarding passenger equipment is this: It's better
to power your passenger trains with F units (or similar shorter diesels)
or steam engines 4-6-2 or smaller. Most people will accept sharper
curves with passenger cars than a longer engine where the cab sticks way
out away from the tender--the fireman would then drop off onto the
ballast while trying to gather the next scoop of coal.
E units are a bit different but if you're a UP fan where you are running
six E units you simply don't have room for an eight car train. I've
seen PRR and CB&Q in similar situations--so many of those beautiful
trains just don't compress well.
All this being said I do have a big FEF and some E 9's that I love to
run, but I know the appearance isn't the best. Here is where prototype
practice and our compression factors fight each other.
Bob Werre
PhotoTraxx
On 11/6/12 6:09 PM, [email protected] wrote:
My problem is, I am afflicted with a love of passenger trains. If I
ever do get an S scale layout built, radii will indeed be at the top
of my priority list, simply to get the varnish to look as good as
possible!
Of course, Bob W is right--the track plan gets limited by space very
quickly...
Fred T in Tennessee
P. S. George Courtney is more of a man of action than I. He builds
while I alternately dream and worry :-)
-----Original Message-----
From: Bob Werre <[email protected]>
To: S-Scale <[email protected]>
Sent: Tue, Nov 6, 2012 6:02 pm
Subject: Re: {S-Scale List} Raduis Roll Call
George, you're right. If your radii is put at the top of the priority
list, it won't take long for even a fair sized room to become just an
oval of track without a lot of operational possibilities. That's the
problem the 0 guys normally have!
Bob Werre
PhotoTraxx
On 11/6/12 4:49 PM, gsc3 wrote:
I wish I had larger radius for looks. But the trackplan, not coupler
swing or lack thereof determined my radius. I wanted to accomplish
certain operational moves on the layout and this led me to the radius
I adopted.
George Courtney
