# LGB R3 curves and USA/Aristo Trains rolling stock



## leikec (Jul 19, 2008)

I'm doing a combination 1/29 trolley layout and switching layout indoors in my garage. I'm thinking I'll use ME code 205 rail and hand lay my track and turnouts. I'm pretty comfortable track planning for the trolley equipment, but I'm not too experienced regarding regular large scale 1/29 trains--will 40' and 50' freight cars and 4-axle diesels negotiate 45-46" radius curves without operating-coupler issues?

What is considered the absolute bare minimum radius curve for that equipment?

Thanks,

Jeff C


----------



## Totalwrecker (Feb 26, 2009)

Before going further you should understand Minimum Radius is a device to SELL rolling stock. 
It is not an endorsement saying it looks good or is easy on your equipment.... trains and track will wear faster. 

Yes they can, depending on the couplers. 

Truck mounted will pull ok, but might derail being pushed. Too long and heavy trains can pull over the curve in a straight line called 'clotheslining' as they derail inside the curve. 

These things may not happen to you, but I won't make any promises .... 

We usually 'say' 8' Diameter (sounds bigger) than 4' Radius, this is BIG $cale after all! On top of that; Actual foot dimensions are aproximations based on a Metric Original product, for the scale to thrieve we all shared one track. 

Best of luck, 

John


----------



## chuck n (Jan 2, 2008)

Four axle diesels and 40' cars should be OK. As John said truck mounted couplers might be better. 50' cars probably will work, especially with truck mounted couplers. LGBs streamliners, about the same length as USAts would work because LGB designed them for smaller curves than R3. They don't look too great, but they will navigate the curve. If you are making a switching layout, you may not be able to push too many cars through a curved switch and a reverse curve into the siding with truck mounted couplers. Body mounts work better when cars are being pushed. Lay out some track and experiment. See if anyone in your area has some cars with different coupler styles and see how they work with the track and sidings you are planning (hoping) to use. That is the only way to know for sure. Chuck


----------



## leikec (Jul 19, 2008)

Thanks, guys.

That's why I mentioned the R3 curve, because I plan to pick up a few pieces to go with the straight sections I already have to use as test pieces for checking things like track to wall clearances and other track planning details....

Jeff C


----------



## Trains (Jan 2, 2008)

I used LGB R-3 curves for 18 years, ran four and six axle diesels. Ran forty foot cars with body mount couplers, never ran anything longer in cars. 

Don


----------



## cape cod Todd (Jan 3, 2008)

Wider diameter track is better than tighter stuff when it comes to running long trains with modern equipment. 8' diameter is a good compromise. When I first started I used 4 diameter track which was fine for my shorty locos and trains but as my interests grew so did my trains and the R1's wouldn't cut it. I have a mountain route that is pretty much shut down because it is built with R1's. This past Spring I went around the layout and worked on a track curve easement. The 5' were swapped out for 8' and the 8's for 10' diameter curves wherever I could fit them in. If I had it to do over I would go as wide as possible from the start. 
One of my tunnels is built around a 5' diameter R2 horseshoe and then I bought a Bachmann 2-6-6-2 which reads on the box requires a 8' minimum. I didn't want to experiment by sending this fine loco into the tunnel having it derail then having to drag it out so I setup a test track and found that if the track was level the loco could make it around without derailing. Today it is cleared for the tunnel. 
I also use the most forgiven of couplers truck mounted hook and loops. 
Happy RRing


----------



## leikec (Jul 19, 2008)

Long trains won't be happening, and the steam road stuff will definitely play second fiddle to the streetcars. In fact, I've even thought about using a freight motor/trailer combo instead of standard rolling stock. 

R3 (46" radius) is the absolute max I could fit, so I'll have to give it some thought. 

Thanks, 

Jeff C


----------



## Totalwrecker (Feb 26, 2009)

A Hartland Mack might fit your bill. 
Small industrial and seen on trolley/interurban lines.


----------



## K.A.Simpson (Mar 6, 2008)

I actually made a smaller radius curve to fit in my indoor layout. It worked to a degree, but I eventually removed it & replaced it with a larger radius curve. 
At slow speed you can actually see and hear the 0-4-0 lgb loco binding in the rails. On my battery operated locos at very slow speed it can actually stop the loco, which had me worrying about applying power to the motor but at a binding stall. I wasn't taking the chance on a "burn out" Always go biggest radius possible, it saves wear & tear on eqiupment, also the annoyance of derailments & possible damage. 
Andrew 
Sandbar & Mudcrab Railway


----------

