7mm Has anyone tried 2 foot radius curves in 0 gauge?

[geoff_nicholls]

I've started a 7mm tuning fork micro based on East Anglian harbours, planning to use Y3, Y6, Y10 J70 steam and 04, 05 diesels (possibly an 08?) But After exhibiting my circular gauge 3 layout "Rundle" at Romford, I realised how much I enjoy just sitting and watching the trains go by. With all the G3 stuff, I don't have much space in the railway room. With Rundle (22.5:1) I have a Y6 on a 4 foot radius circle, which implies I could do half that in 7mm, so 2 foot radius, on an oval layout. I stress that curves that tight would be hidden. One of my modelling heros Graham Overton did have D and S six wheelers running round 3 foot radius, but I'm not aware of anything smaller.
So, has anyone used a radius that tight? or close to it?
As I said (like Rundle) it's a harbour branch, so mostly goods only, but I would like to run grain wagons and possibly six wheeled milk tanks.

 

[Eastsidepilot]

In O gauge you might get away with it, O gauge has a lot of slop in it and if your using only four wheeled loco's and stock then these may be ok, buffer locking springs to mind.
On my own project in S7, the tightest radius I'm using for dockside is a scale 130' as this is the min. that was used on the prototype it's based on, the loco used on this was a Y4, 0-6-0's where prohibited.
You may have a problem with an 08 and the six wheeled tank wagon may need a lot of side play on the centre axle.
Build your own track and you can induce some gauge widening, a case of experimenting.
Col.

 

[40057]

Lots of people have used 2’ radius for 0 gauge. Anyone who had Hornby 0 gauge tinplate trains (apart from the Princess Elizabeth with its special 3’ radius track). 2’ radius replaced 1’ 8” radius as the standard 0 gauge ‘large radius’ around 1904. It remained in general use until the 1960s.

 

[Ian@StEnochs]

On my S7 'Auchlin' layout there is a 2'2" reverse curve with a check rail on a 1in12 gradient on the pit line. It is only used by 4 wheel pugs and wagons but other than the restriction due to the gradient there has been no problems.

Ian.

 

[geoff_nicholls]

Lots of people have used 2’ radius for 0 gauge. Anyone who had Hornby 0 gauge tinplate trains (apart from the Princess Elizabeth with its special 3’ radius track). 2’ radius replaced 1’ 8” radius as the standard 0 gauge ‘large radius’ around 1904. It remained in general use until the 1960s.

I'm sorry, I didn't make my question clear. I need to know if it would work with today's stock eg dapol and Parkside dundas, and with three link couplings. I guess the era you are writing about used couplings analagous with triang or hornby 4mm, or even kadees, which are entirely different.

On my own project in S7, the tightest radius I'm using for dockside is a scale 130' as this is the min. that was used on the prototype it's based on, the loco used on this was a Y4, 0-6-0's where prohibited.

On my S7 'Auchlin' layout there is a 2'2" reverse curve with a check rail on a 1in12 gradient on the pit line. It is only used by 4 wheel pugs and wagons but other than the restriction due to the gradient there has been no problems.

Ian.

Thank you Ian and Eastsidepilot, this is what I was hoping to hear, and to hear it in S7. better still. I had doubted I could run an 08 on such tight curves, not because of the wheelbase, but because of the length over the buffers. On my G3 layout, a GWR 13XX ran and looked okay, but the length over the buffers meant it couldn't be coupled to any wagons. An 0-6-0ST of similar size, but with short dumb buffers was perfectly happy pulling 9ft and 10ft wheelbase wagons.

 

[Neil]

I've done 10" radius in OO so 2' in O gauge should work. There's a description, plan and a few photos here.

 

[Northroader]

I think the problem is always going to be buffer locking. You need to fit a coupling which will keep the buffers apart all the time, pulling and propelling. This implies a stiff link between a pivot point at the coupling hook, free to swing at a wider angle than usual. You’ll get trouble free operation, but ditch any thoughts of sticking to prototype practice.

 

[Yorkshire Dave]

Buffer locking will not be an issue providing all of the vehicles are the same overall length. Buffer locking only occurs when you mix vehicle lengths.

One issue may be the coupler length (if using 3 links and as partially alluded to above) which may have to be stretched to accomodate the tighter curve.

 

[Marc Dobson]

I've used 3'4 curves no check rails and I'm regretting it. Now very limited to what can go through them pulling ok pushing not ok. I would stick to a 4' curve minimum, especially with 0-6-0s

 

[Jordan]

Buffer locking will not be an issue providing all of the vehicles are the same overall length. Buffer locking only occurs when you mix vehicle lengths.

The vehicle length still has to be appropriate for tight radius curves.
Here's my Heljan 31 & 37 (similar lengths) on the 3ft radius curves of my American O layout. As well as the issue of coupler length you noted, they sure as eggs suffer from buffer lock when transitioning from straight to curve!!

Yes I've heard the arguments about using transition curves, but I dread to think how long & gradual they'd have to be to go from straight to 3ft radius and back for these engines!!
By contrast here's some of my Dapol 8750 & 4-wheel stock, all good although the Dapol 3-links are a bit short so the link is tight & buffers compressed. Not sure the Pannier would get down to 2ft radius, but short 4-wheelers might.

I've done 10" radius in OO so 2' in O gauge should work. There's a description, plan and a few photos here.

How about 9&5/8" radius in O scale? Of course, Kadees help....


Just my latest bit of comedy modelling......

 

[Neil]

..... How about 9&5/8" radius in O scale? Of course, Kadees help....

Respect.