Introduction, new to TT

Re: Introduction, new to TT

Postby ConducTTor » Thu Aug 09, 2012 11:00 am

I would stay away from overpasses on a layout of this size.. It's simply not big enough for the inclines to be of a reasonable grade (let alone realistic).
What people think: "liberals/conservatives are ruining my country"
What the powerful know: divide and conquer
User avatar
ConducTTor
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8293
Images: 13
Joined: Sat May 23, 2009 4:52 pm
Location: Atlanta GA USA

Re: Introduction, new to TT

Postby WillYart » Fri Aug 10, 2012 12:47 pm

Thanks, yeah, I see. I just estimated the minimum grade to accomplish that at about 2.7% and that might be optimistic given the need for a gradual initial sloping into the grade (this is assuming 2 10/32" clearance per NMRA plus another 13/16 for track, overhead thickness). I'm just glad this board exists so I can get TT specific input.

Speaking of constraints. Do you have any advice on standards? Should I should go with NMRA standards or European standards in terms of curve radius and tunnel clearance? I guess it all depends on what I'm trying to do, which is as follows.

I'm planning to get a European diesel locomotive (Tillig or Roco, I guess), but some American rolling stock. The thing is, someone mentioned on this board that European manufacturers don't always follow the European standards standards.

I don't own anything yet so I've been trying to research acceptable curve radius and tunnel clearance for planning purposes. Three values for the minimum vertical clearances from surface of rails for TT are in the NMRA standards, the highest of which is 2 10/32": http://www.nmra.org/standards/sandrp/pd ... 011_02.pdf.

Similarly this NMRA specifies minimum curve radius, but I'm concerned about possible differences with the wheelbase of the European models vs. American. Seems when I modelled trains as a kid the wheels were much closer together in HO.

(NMRA standard on curves I was referring to) http://www.nmra.org/standards/sandrp/rp-11.html

Anyway, thanks,

Bill
WillYart
 
Posts: 204
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2012 6:42 am

Re: Introduction, new to TT

Postby WillYart » Sat Aug 11, 2012 6:47 am

Hi LVG1,

Thanks for the pointer; so I found the standard NEM 105 in English. Translations of several (but not all) NEM standards are in English here (but they note that the English versions are not considered authoritative):

http://www.blainestrains.org/NEM.html

From that standard, I calculated the required clearance for a straight rectangular tunnel entry and came up with 4.54cm.
WillYart
 
Posts: 204
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2012 6:42 am

Re: Introduction, new to TT

Postby LVG1 » Sat Aug 11, 2012 8:40 am

Thank you for the link!

I remember to have seen a limited number of NEM norms in further languages on the MOROP website some years ago. But I can't find them any more. They obviously have removed them.
On the site, you referred to, they seem to have saved at least the English versions.
"Let's eat, grandpa."
Punctuation marks save lives!
User avatar
LVG1
 
Posts: 864
Images: 34
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2012 10:01 am
Location: Guben / Gubin; Germany? Poland?—No, Lusatia!

Re: Introduction, new to TT

Postby WillYart » Sun Aug 12, 2012 9:16 am

Sure. I guess we should all save them on our hard drives.
WillYart
 
Posts: 204
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2012 6:42 am

Re: Introduction, new to TT

Postby WillYart » Mon Aug 13, 2012 9:28 pm

@everyone, I might get a starter set so I can get some trains running for my kid while building the layout. Because, I've become ambitious, I'm planning a fold-up layout as attached. Are the locomotives included with the Tillig starter sets just as good as the locomotives sold separately?

@Hi Mark, Do you know, does that 4-axle locomotive have 2 power units or 1?

Anyway, here's an update on the layout plan; it includes an harbor somebody suggested on the forum for the Anyrail software. I think my longest train ever will be about 8-9 40' cars (because my longest storage siding, in the flat area on top that doen't fold up, is about 4 feet long).

fold_downHJ01.jpg
WillYart
 
Posts: 204
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2012 6:42 am

Re: Introduction, new to TT

Postby Arseny » Tue Aug 14, 2012 2:46 am

billwrw wrote:@everyone, I might get a starter set so I can get some trains running for my kid while building the layout. Because, I've become ambitious, I'm planning a fold-up layout as attached. Are the locomotives included with the Tillig starter sets just as good as the locomotives sold separately?


It depends on specific set.
Sometimes they pput the same locomotives, but sometimes they put the "start" versions into the sets.
But in any case, "start" locomotives are not bad. They have less lettering and less detalisation of body shell, but they have the same power unit.
I plan to use BR218 start version as power unit for my ALCO diesel.

billwrw wrote:Anyway, here's an update on the layout plan; it includes an harbor somebody suggested on the forum for the Anyrail software. I think my longest train ever will be about 8-9 40' cars (because my longest storage siding, in the flat area on top that doen't fold up, is about 4 feet long).

fold_downHJ01.jpg


Nice plan; but what minimum radius will you use? It seems to me that some curves are too sharp.
Some locomotives need 310-mm radius as minimum (especially long steamers).
Tillig provides "R0" curves = 267-mm radiuses, but only for industrial branches and short 2-axle cars and short locomotives. Check it before you build the layout and order the locomotive!
User avatar
Arseny
 
Posts: 2615
Joined: Fri Jul 03, 2009 4:42 am
Location: Saint-Petersburg, Russia

Re: Introduction, new to TT

Postby WillYart » Thu Aug 16, 2012 11:24 am

Hello, Arseny, thanks; oh I never got notification of your response; well here we go.

So on curve radii I'm consulting the NEM 111 standard; after studying it and choosing a car class for my layout I concluded that my minimum radius on the "mainline" should be 420 mm (they also provided other explicit values for other tracks). Which curve seems too sharp?

Now that you bring them up, I'm a little worried about the unique issues caused by 2-axle cars as illustrated in the NEM standards: http://www.morop.org/en/normes/nem111_e.pdf. Do they generally have fewer or more problems than 4-axle cars with proper wheel trucks?

Re. locomotives, here again are the locomotives I'm looking at (no steam ever on this layout, maybe the next one):

6 axels:
https://www.reynaulds.com/products/Tillig/04533.aspx

4 axels:
https://www.reynaulds.com/products/Tillig/04588.aspx

I'm posting something related to these locomotives in the DCC area of the forum.
WillYart
 
Posts: 204
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2012 6:42 am

Re: Introduction, new to TT

Postby Arseny » Thu Aug 16, 2012 1:39 pm

billwrw wrote:Which curve seems too sharp?


Look here; I marked it by red. What radius do you plan to use here?

fold_downHJ01-radius.jpg


Concerning radiuses - of course, 420-mm radiuses will look good... if you have enough space for your layout.
If you use flex tracks, you can build any radius you want, but if you use ready-to-use, fixed curves, you can use:
Tillig:
R2 = 396-mm
R1 = 353-mm

Kuehn:
Radius 1 = 321mm
Radius 2 = 365mm

TT-model or Krueger:
330 mm
376 mm

In fact, you can 310-mm or 353-mm without any doubt. Almost any European locomotive can take 310-mm curve. And only big American locomotives, like old HP Mountains or Texas need 15-inch or 18-inch radiuses.

As concerns your locomotives - they are good enough, I am sure they can take 310-mm curves.
BTW, Russian modellers often use NOHAB as power unit to build ChME-3 model, or SD-45 (from Norkin).

Don't worry about 2-axle cars. They can take any radius you can build!
For example, look here:

Image
(it is H0e! )

Image
(It is H0 too, radius is 280-mm)

Or look at this "Christmas" layout:
Christmas2520251.jpg


- it is TT, and it is 400-mm in DIAMETER, i.e. 200-mm radius! And 3-axle BR80 locomotive runs and can pull 3 cars!


In fact, you can meet any problems with radiuses only if you use big steam locomotives, or if you use LONG cars (no matter, 2-axle or 4-axle). Some long 4-axle cars can not take small radiuses because some details (such as footboards) hinder tracks to turn.
And of course long 4-axle cars do not look nice on the 310-mm radius curves...

Finally, don't worry about radiuses. 420-mm will be more than enough, at least until you find old 2-10-4 Texas in TT! 8-)
Your MY 1131 NOHAB or BR202 (Class 202) will take even 310-mm with ease!
User avatar
Arseny
 
Posts: 2615
Joined: Fri Jul 03, 2009 4:42 am
Location: Saint-Petersburg, Russia

Re: Introduction, new to TT

Postby j p » Thu Aug 16, 2012 3:47 pm

Arseny, you are maybe right about (some) model's ability to run through those streetcar curves.
But do they look like curves on a real railway? No.
Do the long passenger cars look good when running through a streetcar radius? I don't think so. Another problem is that the trains would keep derailing if the radii were too small - just because of the centrifugal force. And if you compensate for the centrifugal force by cant, the train would fall off the track when stopped :)
I would recommend 420 mm radii, they look much better. Of course smaller radii can be used when limited space does not allow for better.
Regarding the flextrack: not only that it allows for any radius of your choice, it is also cheaper!
j p
 
Posts: 1194
Images: 69
Joined: Sat Jan 30, 2016 5:08 pm

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests