# Large enough for F-gauge layout?



## Grimm (Oct 5, 2009)

Hi,

I'm just starting out with my garden railroad an I'm hoping I have enough space to put one in. Here is a diagram I made of the space I have to work with. I would like to do a standard F gauge track that is 2.781 inches wide between the rails. But I'm not sure that my space will be big enough or just how wide I can do the curves. 










My interest is the early American railroads (1830-1850) so most of the locomotives I plan on running will be small and the largest passenger car would be prototypically about 40' long. Thanks for looking,


Jason


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

From your diagram, it looks like you'll be able to fit in a 7' minimum radius, assuming you want a loop at the right side with a 16' clearance. That gives you enough for a loop and a bit on the outside for scenery, landscaping, etc. Given the diminutive size of equipment from that period, I'd think you'll have no problems. Most early cars were on the order of 30', and not much larger than "modern" narrow gauge equipment. The locomotives were even smaller, so I know they'll have no trouble. 

That's an absolutely fascinating period with some wonderful prototypes. Do you have any finished models we can drool over? 

Later, 

K


----------



## Scottychaos (Jan 2, 2008)

Jason,
thats a GREAT space! 
much larger than what many people have! 
its a space just begging for a dogbone trackplan.(a loop at both ends)

Lots of extra room for yards, towns, bridges, etc..
you have enough real estate to make some grades and have some tracks passing over others..

With Fn3, you want to make REALLY wide curves..as big as you possibly can..(even if you think you are only going to run "small" trains..just ignore that..)
on the right side of the plan, you are limited to about 14' diameter..which is still pretty big..(most people consider 8' diameter the absolute minimum..but thats still considered "tight"
and you should go wider than that if you can..) So 14 foot diameter would be your minimum because of the right side of the space..

over the left side, you can do up to to 20' diameter, which is very nice..

If you arent interested in a dogbone, and instead prefer a "point to point" for operation, you still have plenty of space..
personally I would go with the dogbone, but thats just me..

but to answer your basic question..yes, your space is very nice! (im jealous! 
and will accodomminate a Fn3 railroad very nicely..

now you just have to get planning!

Scot


----------



## Grimm (Oct 5, 2009)

Posted By East Broad Top on 06 Oct 2009 12:23 PM 

That's an absolutely fascinating period with some wonderful prototypes. Do you have any finished models we can drool over? 

Later, 

K 
Thanks K,

No, not yet, but I am working on a snowplow from the 1840's to get my feet wet. I'm almost finished with some early examples of rail too. So far I have done an example of castiron fish-bellied rail from the 1820's and an example of strap rail. I hope to be able to use strap rail for my layout and it appears to be working pretty good, at least the small section I made is. I am working on getting a lathe and a milling machine too so I can start building loco's and cars. 


7' curves seems tight to me, is this because I'm going with F standard gauge?

Jason


----------



## Grimm (Oct 5, 2009)

Posted By Scottychaos on 06 Oct 2009 12:44 PM 
Jason,
thats a GREAT space! 
much larger than what many people have! 
its a space just begging for a dogbone trackplan.(a loop at both ends)

Lots of extra room for yards, towns, bridges, etc..
you have enough real estate to make some grades and have some tracks passing over others..

With Fn3, you want to make REALLY wide curves..as big as you possibly can..(even if you think you are only going to run "small" trains..just ignore that..)
on the right side of the plan, you are limited to about 14' diameter..which is still pretty big..(most people consider 8' diameter the absolute minimum..but thats still considered "tight"
and you should go wider than that if you can..) So 14 foot diameter would be your minimum because of the right side of the space..

over the left side, you can do up to to 20' diameter, which is very nice..

If you arent interested in a dogbone, and instead prefer a "point to point" for operation, you still have plenty of space..
personally I would go with the dogbone, but thats just me..

but to answer your basic question..yes, your space is very nice! (im jealous! 
and will accodomminate a Fn3 railroad very nicely..

now you just have to get planning!

Scot


Thanks Scot,

Actually I'm hoping to do F standard gauge, not Fn3. Does that change the curves any? I'm thinking dogbone as well, although I think I'm just going to do a simple oval first. I'm planning, I'm planning!!







There is a bit of a learning curve for all of this isn't there?







Thanks,


Jason


----------



## George Schreyer (Jan 16, 2009)

Do the largest curves you can get no matter what the gauge of the prototype. They'll all be too small anyway. 

That space has folded dogbone, loop to loop or out and back point to point written all over it


----------



## Mike Reilley (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By Grimm on 06 Oct 2009 12:13 PM 
Hi,
.....I would like to do a standard F gauge track that is 2.781 inches wide between the rails. But I'm not sure that my space will be big enough or just how wide I can do the curves. 


My interest is the early American railroads (1830-1850) so most of the locomotives I plan on running will be small and the largest passenger car would be prototypically about 40' long. Thanks for looking,


Jason 


WOOF...you want to do TRUE F scale? Not Fn3? F corresponds to standard gauge track...at 2.781" as you stated. Fn3 corresponds to narrow gauge track....at 1.85"/45mm. For the period you are interested in there is little equipment available,,,but at least trucks are available to support scratch building. As far as I know there are virtually NO standard gauge (F scale) parts out there for that period.

As for your yard, if you are planning on TRUE F scale, it should fit...since you can support over 12' curves. Some of the earlier responses were referring to Fn3 narrow gauge track...which can be curved very tightly for short wheelbase loco and cars.


----------



## vsmith (Jan 2, 2008)

great period to model, guess your going to scratch everything, I'll look forward to seeing pics of that!


----------



## Webber (Sep 4, 2008)

Hi Jason 
That's a wonderful space. I'm looking forward to any photos. Please post photos as you go along. I'm planning to model standard gauge F 20.32 scale same era too. Please let us know what you are up to as you explore and and build. Do you have a specific geographic location or prototype railroad you want to model? 
Best of luck, 
Web


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

Mike, the c. 1830 - 1850 equipment being considered is small. (Think "Tom Thumb," "Rocket," "John Bull," etc.). In truth, much of it will probably be much smaller than c. 1930s narrow gauge equipment we run on the 45mm track. Curve radius shouldn't be an issue--certainly not with that kind of space. (Wish I was so lucky!) 

Later, 

K


----------



## Grimm (Oct 5, 2009)

Thanks guys,

This really helps.

Mike, so it looks like I could plan on at least 12 foot curves then maybe larger in the left hand area? Yes, I understand that there will be no commercial support for my venture. That's ok, although it's going to be difficult. I'm just going to go one step at a time, and it's going to be a very long term project(s). The main reason I choose standard F-gauge is because of how small the old engines were, and I really want to get into live steam. For example, If you look at Camden&Amboy's John Bull locomotive, the boiler is only 30inchs in diameter. By the time I convert it to Gauge 1 (1:32) the boiler is less then an inch in diameter. I was going to go with Gauge 3 but Dave Queener convinced me to go with the slightly larger F gauge (actually you gain more then 1/4 inch between the drivers). In F-scale the John Bull boiler is a much more reasonable 1.5 inches in diameter and the vertical Grasshopper boilers are 2.5 inches. Lots of space for water to boil and I hope longer run times.


vsmith - Yes, I will have to scratch build everything, but it should be fun. 

Web - You bet!! Actually it will be nice to have a fellow traveller on the trip. I will post some pictures of my projects in the relevant forum categories. I still need to finish the example tracks. No, I haven't decided on one prototype road to do, well actually I have decided that I don't want to limit myself to just one. There are just too many cool things to do from this time frame. Have you finished or are currently working on any projects? 


Jason


----------



## Steve Stockham (Jan 2, 2008)

Hmmm......live steam in F Scale........should be workable! My father finished an _Invicta _in 3/4" scale which is 1:16 and I can tell you that it would have absolutely NO problem going around a 14 ft. diameter track and that is 3 1/2" gauge! 2 3/4" should be a cake walk! Question: Is this going to be a coal fired brass engine or a "sparkie?" If coal fired and brass, you might want to consider raising the track up to where you could make a riding car! The scale _is_ large enough....


----------



## ralphbrades (Jan 3, 2008)

(COUGH!!!)

I am a Gauge 3 builder. Which is one of the original gauges... This is 63.5mm between the rails -or 2.5 inches. I am also the author of "The Technical Manual" for the Gauge '3' Society and also the Secretary for the Society. This means I have already worked out *several* tight curve problems of my own(!) 


The main problem is :* "What configuration of locomotive are you planning to build?"*

My curves are 7 feet 6 inches radius and 11 feet 3 inches radius. The biggest configuration of rigid wheelbase locomotive that I can get around those curves is a "Baltic" 4-6-4 or 2-C0-2 (US ="Hudson") with a maximum driver spacing of 11cm with 2mm side float on the central axle.

If you tell me the type of locomotives that you intend to build or use -then I can work out the tightest curves that each would take. 


regards

ralph


----------



## Grimm (Oct 5, 2009)

K - You beat me to it. 

Steve - Thanks, that is great! I feel much better now knowing that I shouldn't have any problems with sharp curves. I would very much like to build a coal fired engine but I'm also not a fan of elevated railroads and the thought of having to chase the loco on my hands and knees doesn't appeal to me. I'm probably going to end up doing a butane fired engine and putting an RC system into it. That's my plan at this point in time anyway.


----------



## Grimm (Oct 5, 2009)

Hi Ralph,

Thanks, that would be great! Yours is more proof that I will be able to get away with smaller curves if I need to. The engines you are talking about would be much larger then the largest engine I would run. The first loco I'm thinking about building would be a Winan's coal crab, a 0-4-0 with 3 foot drivers and I think 4 feet between the centers. In F-scale that would be 1.77 inch drivers and 2.36 inches between the centers. The largest engine, I was thinking it would be fun to do, might be an 0-8-0 like an early camel (1848) or an early 4-4-0. There might be an early 4-6-0 too that would be fun, but I might be getting out of my time frame for that one. So no large engines, they all would be tiny compared to your engines even when they are in a larger scale. 


Jason


----------



## ralphbrades (Jan 3, 2008)

Jason,

For 0-4-0, 4-4-0, 0-6-0 and 4-6-0 locos with no more than 90mm between driver axle centres and 2mm side play on the central axle for an x-6-x loco: 


The minimum radius is 3.056metres -*slightly over 10 feet*.

For your 0-8-0 loco you would have to give the 1st and 4th axle a *1mm* side play and the 2nd and 3rd axle *2mm *side play to take this curve.


I hope this has helped.

regards

ralph


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

For 0-4-0, 4-4-0, 0-6-0 and 4-6-0 locos with no more than 90mm between driver axle centres and 2mm side play on the central axle for an x-6-x loco: 
The minimum radius is 3.056metres -slightly over 10 feet. 
Ralph, how do you figure, especially relative to the 0-4-0? Aristo's Eggliner and Hartland's Mack both have wheelbases on the order of 90mm, and can fit around a 18" radius curve. Yeah, you throw a pilot wheel on that and the equation changes, but 10' radius minimum? Not based on what's commercially being run. A friend of mine has a gauge 3 railroad with 5' minimum radius, and runs a live steam 4-6-0 (or something of that general size) on it. 

Later, 

K


----------



## ralphbrades (Jan 3, 2008)

Kevin, 

I used the general "Greenley" formula. If Jason widens the gauge on corners then he can tighten them up. The maths are for an x-6-x with no gauge widening. As such, I think your friend could be running *Spur II* and not Gauge 3(?) 

Assuming a Gauge 3 (63.5mm) track. 

If I take a 70mm axle spacing and punch the FORTH-79 definition I get the following: 

Central Axle play -no Gauge Widening 
0mm 1mm 2mm 
7.538m 2.969m 1.849m 

Central axle play 1mm Gauge Widening 
0mm 1mm 2mm 
2.969m 1.849m 1.342m 

As you can see with widening the gauge and increasing the axle play -the loco can take tight corners. So, if your friend has Spur II track work (*64mm*) and widens the gauge by 1mm and has 2mm central axle play then it is easily possible to get a 4-6-0 loco around a 1.24m (five foot) radius curve. 

Jason, 

If you widen the gauge on the corners of your track you will be able to decrease the minimum radius of your curves. HOWEVER this will involve building a track gauge with a "normal" and "widened" setting. This can be either of the "comb" or "triangle" type. The best way to approach a widened gauge curve is the keep the outer rail constant and to move the inner rail towards the centre of the curve. 

I would never stop any one doing what they want to. But in Gauge 3 and Spur II all the maths etc has been worked out... 

regards 

ralph


----------



## Grimm (Oct 5, 2009)

Ralph,

Thanks, that does help. I think I will plan on having 12 foot minimum curves on the layout then, larger in areas I can. Do switch yards normally have tighter curves? 


Jason


----------



## ralphbrades (Jan 3, 2008)

The "normal" Gauge 3 radius of curvature for a set of points (turnouts) is 5.4m (18 feet). Shunting yards have tighter curves -but the speeds are slower and the curves normally widened. I tell you what I will do. Send me an e-mail via the system here and I will attach you some of the Sections of "The Technical Manual" that I think will help you. Yes I know that they will only be "correct" for G3 -but they WILL give you some idea of what you are looking at with an "F" gauge layout. 

regards 

ralph


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

Well, he calls it gauge 3, and I didn't have my micrometer to measure a half-millimeter gauge difference.  

I have to assume the Greenley formula has much tighter tolerances for the difference between track gauge and wheel gauge (measured from the point where the flange meets the tread) than what we commonly use in Gauge 1. The people to talk to would be David Queener and Don Niday. They're the two folks doing F (standard gauge) whose wheel and track standards can probably give you a more difinitive answer. (I still maintain that despite Greenley's formula, you'd have zero issues with a 7' radius by using gauge 1 wheel and track profiles widened the extra distance.) 

Later, 

K


----------



## ralphbrades (Jan 3, 2008)

Here are the specs for a Gauge 3 wheel: 

http://www.gauge3.org.uk/technical.html 

regards 

ralph


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

Muchas Gracias, señor! Is that based on Greenley's formula, or do you have another link to that? The reason I ask--there's a movement afoot for the NMRA to develop standards for F standard gauge in more than just the proto standards, so any guidance as to what is already being done will greatly help make sure what the NMRA comes up with is consistent. 

Later, 

K


----------



## ralphbrades (Jan 3, 2008)

Kevin,

I would imagine that the NMRA is well aware of the Gauge 3 wheel std -just as it is is of the G1MRA wheel std...

The general curvature formula for a 6 wheel vehicle is: 

Radius of curvature in inches = (0.25 x (wheelbase in inches x wheelbase in inches) )) / (clearance between rail and wheel + extra gauge allowed on curves + lateral play on central axle)


Ok for bogied loco. The bogie wheels should be in a line meeting a line drawn from the flanges of the rigid wheels at about the centre of the wheelbase. The wheelbase is the length from the centre of front bogie axle to the centre of the rear fixed wheel axle. The maximum curvature is the point at which the angle of the rail matches the angle cut on the flange -in the case of a Gauge '3' wheel that is *10* degrees for G1MRA wheel that is *20 *degrees.


The general curvature formula for bogied vehicle is:

Radius of curvature in inches = (wheelbase in inches x wheelbase in inches ) / ( half the wheelbase in inches x tangent of the flange angle)


So you can see that a Gauge '3' profile wheel cannot corner as tightly as a G1MRA profile wheel 


Kevin to be honest I doubt that any information about existing scale and gauge stds would be even looked at by the NMRA. *They have always gone their own way and ignored everyone else. *You are welcome to the formulae -they are in all the books -I got mine from "Model Railways" by Henry Greenly -I have the 1924 edition....


regards

ralph


EDIT:

I have just checked the Fn3 and F wheel specs from the NMRA web site -they appear to be identical. The F wheel is thinner at 7.16mm to the '3' at 8mm (minimum). There is no mention of flange angle check rails etc etc in the NMRA specs as there are in the '3' specs and G1MRA specs...


6/10 (Could Do Better) 

*
*


----------



## Webber (Sep 4, 2008)

Hi Jason
I'm still planning and researching. I agree there is so much interesting work that was going on in that era. I like to tie it together with real history. Recently I've been collecting images and dimensions of everything to work out basic track planning limits. My current (fluid) thinking is to do geography and industries (scenes) that will support both 1830s and between 1855 to 1865. Then I can have different running sessions with different rolling stock and people at different times. I'm especially interested in showing the relationship between the railroad and other ways of getting around such as boats, horses and wagons. I'm trying to plan my track so it will run even modern or larger equipment. I'm hoping to have guest trains or take sections out to hook up with modular groups. I enjoy model railroad people and want to be with people as much as I can.


I spotted your strap rail thread. I may have a section of strap rail to commemorate the beginning of passenger service, but I figure I'll mostly be modeling Stevens rail (pre-1865 Walsh rail and conversion steel).


I'm finding that I love the idea of F scale but everything is ENORMOUS. I'm going to be using selective compression and every visual trick in the book and still have to trim down my wish list of industries and scenes. I don't want to get lost in rivet-counting, but I do want to create a high level of detailed realism for the fun of it. I agree, my project is sure to be a very long one. I enjoy scratch-building and I'm sure there will be plenty of it.


My impression is that F radically shifts your attention to details and away from many traditional modeling approaches like lots of track and lots of operations inside grand sweeping vistas of geography. If it's well done F can make it easier for the operator/viewer to imagine themselves inside the scenes. 


Please let us know what's "cool" in this time frame and where you want to set your railroad. 


- Web


----------



## DavidQueener (Jan 10, 2009)

Hi Gentlemen, 

I just mailed Jason some 30" F gauge wheelsets for one of his scratchbuilding projects, so I am eagerly anticipating what he comes up with. 

I'm also very excited to see all this discussion of standard gauge modeling in 1:20.3. One can really do a lot with a small amount of space, much more than a man might first expect. My friend Don Niday's indoor layout, using Fn3 for continual loop operations and switchbacks, combined with a dual gauge yard and turntable is a case in point. Don and I have take a lot of pictures, and they are now finally organized in my computer, ready for me to post in his gallery on my train website, that is, as soon as I get the updates to my own locomotive page done. 

In the meantime, you might like to see my work on F gauge freight cars from the last couple of years. Kevin Strong--Hey, Kevin!--has figured strongly in the research on one of these projects in particular! You can see the update here: 

http://www.cumberlandmodelengineering.com/Dave'sFreightCars.html[/b] 

Cheers! 

Dave Queener 
Knoxville, TN


----------



## Grimm (Oct 5, 2009)

Web - Yes, I'm finding the same thing.  There are some loco's that are really hard to ignore from the 1850's, but I need to keep focused and not stray too far from my path. Are you going to do an outdoor or indoor layout? You might be interested in my project for this weekend. I'm building a master for the Winan's friction wheel that was used for journals in the early B&O years. I'm going to cast some in white metal. This is the largest casting I have done so far, so I'm hoping it will turn out. I will post my results in your wagon passenger car thread. I also will post some more images I found.

Dave!! - Thank you so much, I received the wheelsets today. They are perfect, now I can start on that 1840's snowplow. I think I have almost everything I need to finish it, just need a few more items. I like the updates on your pages. You guys are doing some amazing stuff. My websites are severly neglected. Part of my real job is creating and maintaining web sites, so like the cobbler's children, my own sites don't get any attention.  


Jason


----------

