Daryl Kruse DarylK

I'm putting together my staging yard for my UPRR Evanston Subdivision. What kind of performance can I expect from autoracks on 28" radius curves? This will be level track and up to 28' trains. 

Reply 0
Prof_Klyzlr

MRH Issue 1

Dear Daryl,

It may sound trite, but literally the first Issue Ever of MRH had an article titled "Insights on Curve Radii", which is one of the more-useful discussions of said Issue to be published in recent memory...

https://model-railroad-hobbyist.com/mrh2009-01/curve_insights

Very much worth the read...

Happy Modelling,
Aim to Improve,
Prof Klyzlr

 

Reply 0
blindog10

Take it easy

A 28 foot train of autoracks is three engines and 25 racks, which is often seen on modular setups at train shows, and those often have 30 inch minimums, so you should be okay at slow and steady staging yard speeds.  IIRC, Joe's thesis from Issue #1 holds that mainline minimums should be 3x the longest car, or 36 to 38 inches with standard autoracks.  My experience is only with standard 89 foot racks, not the articulated versions which postdate my era, but your staging yards should be okay as long as you are also able to keep a foot of tangent track between reverse curves.

Scott Chatfield 

Reply 0
Oztrainz

More reading for Daryl

Hi Daryl, 

You sure know how to go play hopscotch on a minefield. There are a whole flock of modelling "landmines" based on how trains run on rails that could badly hurt your yard plans.  Scott's advice may well be right, I hope it is. But the difference between 28" and 30" radius might just be enough to trigger a landmine. Here's where some of them are buried.  

First landmine - Having watched your Youtube and found your track plan, can I suggest that you have a long read and a slow think about your staging yard and how this thread might relate to what you are planning. If you have to increase your track spacing due to sideswipe considerations though the 90 + 180 + 90 degree bends leading under the stairs then into the run along your wall, then a 12-track yard at "standard track spacings" might be unachievable.  Long autorack and passenger cars will be the most problematic rolling stock for sideswipe conditions. You may have to increase your track spacing which will result in fewer yard tracks being possible on the same layout width. 

Second landmine - With your track plan, the tightest radius will also change sides as you work your way around from the basement under the stairs to staging. Here's what I mean:

  • From the basement 90 degree right turn (with tightest radius on right track) 
  • to head under the stairs 180 degree left turn ( with tightest radius on the left track)
  • after passing the furnace 90 degree right turn (with tightest radius on right track) 
  • you may have to restrict which tracks in the yard you use for your autoracks to stay away from your planned 28" minimum radius.
  • by rights the the tendency to derail should be reduced if you use the centre tracks for your autoracks and any passenger consists. These middle tracks should have a radius bigger than 28"

Third landmine - In-train forces and string-lining. With a 28' long train like you are planning wrapped around multiple +90-degree curves, you are facing probably the worst string-lining tendencies where a train "straightens out the bend" by string-lining and derailing. With long trains your in-train forces are significant and are added to by the lateral forces from the flange resistance from the track at the wheels when being dragged along the inside rail of tight curves. In the real world the tendency to string-line is expressed as an L/V ratio  (Lateral forces caused by curve resistance versus the Vertical forces holding the wagon down on the rails. See the Force Balance under static conditions slide For L/V =0.82 in the presentation slide, the car stays on the rails. For L/V =0.83 the outside wheels will lift, the car will string-line and be over on its side. And that's an applied static load with the car not moving. The position is a whole lot more complicated when things start to move on rails.

Fourth landmine - The L/V calculation mentioned previously does not take into account slack run-in and run-out forces or the effect of a model head-end loco or helper loco "hiccupping" on dirty track or a track irregularity that could cause abrupt and sharp increases in in-train forces while your train is working its way through these curves. Have a look at the slide in the presentation for the lateral forces action on the lumber car on various curves. A 1= string-line derailment where the outside wheels lift from the track. Note the car is designed to take a buffing load off 62 kips (force unit) but a lateral force of 10 kips is starting to throw derailment events. At 20 kips sideways force you are in the dirt and over on your side on whatever radius curve. A model locomotive hiccup and the subsequent snatch as the power comes back might cause enough variation of the in-train forces to cause problems.  

Fifth landmine - in the previous lumber car example, the curves in the presentation topped out at 12 degrees. A 28" radius in HO equates to about a 200' radius in the real world or a 28 degree curve. This is way tighter than a real railroad would or probably could operate an autorack and have it remain coupled and on the rails.  The only way we can bend our models around curves that the prototypes can't is because of some smart design work by our model manufacturers, but there are limits. The increased sharpness of our model curves greatly adds to the sideways forces acting on your wheel flanges. And our model flanges are a lot smaller than the prototype's flanges. 

Sixth landmine -  model structural limitations with couplings - you are relying on both your couplings and bogies operating at the extreme end of their flexibility limits. There will be significant sideways force acting at the couplings. (remember that 2L in the 3rd landmine above?)  This force is transferred to the wheels through the bogie pivot. You are relying on the couplings being able to move freely within their coupler boxes without them locking up. Any tightness of the couplings in the coupling box or elsewhere in the draftgear will add to the sideways force at the wheels.  

Seventh landmine - bogie pivots - It the bogie swing is restricted by steps or under-gear, then you could be at a fail point before you get to 28" radius. To check for any fouling under your autoracks,  accurately bend a piece of flex track that is longer than your autorack to 28" radius. This gives you  piece of track that you can see through to check for anything underneath that could restrict your bogie swing and cause derailment problems. Remember to reverse the car, the bogie swing might not be the the same when pivoting the other side of centre. 
Brian's first example was for the articulated autoracks. The articulation should prevent a derailment happening at the centre bogie, but the position of the outboard boogie pivots relative to the end of the car will have a massive effect on where the coupler head finishes up relative to the outside rail of the curve. This applies to both ends of a non-articulated auto rack. See the AAR Train Make-up Manual slide in the presentation and note the car dimension factors. In simple terms. you are in possible derailment trouble if the uncoupled knuckle head is close to or outside the outer rail on the curve.  

Eighth landmine - your track laying is going to have to be near perfect though these 28" radius curves. a localised dip on the inside rail may be enough to allow a flange to lift and climb the rail resulting in a string-line derailment. 

A suggestion - before you start build, can i suggest that you grab a couple of trestles or foldup tables and some plywood to mock up a test rig for what you are about to attempt out in the middle of your basement. You will need at least 28' of track BEFORE you start your 28" radius curves You can probably reduce the amount of straight track between the 90 degree bends and the 180 degree bend between them. You will also need another 28' of track after the curves to make sure your train makes it through OK. The in-train forces and sideways drag on your flanges will be at their worst as your locos reach the end of the last 90 degree bend with the rest of the train strung out though all the curves.   

In closing - if you are going to push the edge of the envelope, sometimes it might help to have some idea where the edge of the envelope might be. Good Luck, (hopefully you won't need it)

Regards,

John Garaty

Unanderra in oz

Read my Blog

Reply 0
railandsail

Fantastic analysis

Fantastic analysis JohnGaraty. I will have to reread that a few times to gather all of the fine points.

I recently experienced a number of derailing problems while backing some nice Walthers metal-framed 40' foot container cars. Haven't fully understood all of the contributing factors yet, but it did appear that the very fine wheel flanges were picking the frogs,...(and these were the same routes and turnouts I had backed some 60' hi-cu box cars over without any problems,... same length/configuration as an autorack). 

I wasn't aware of this that you posted,...

Quote:

And our model flanges are a lot smaller than the prototype's flanges. 

Reply 0
Daryl Kruse DarylK

Over thinking?

Thank you so much for your well thought out information, even though it may be a bit of overthinking. Mocking up a test rig... not gonna happen.   Being an N scaler switching to HO scale, I'm pretty sure I'll have less issues with derailments and I had close to zero on my N scale layouts!

From all the input I have received from people with experience in HO scale (including ScaleTrains) I believe a single 28" curve would be fine for my auto racks at 30' train length.  However, the point you make regarding the multiple curves is valid.  The curves will add to the forces acting on the trains.  So, I am going from 2.5" track separation to to 2.125" which will make the inside curves 30.5"  This will mean cars on adjoining tracks will come very close to each other on curves, but they will still clear.  Hopefully this will allow the auto racks to operate successfully on all 12 tracks.  If I still have problems @ 30.5", I will limit trains with auto racks to middle tracks.

I really do appreciate the time you took to provide the information.  Somehow, I've become more of a smart ass in my retirement years.

Daryl

Reply 0
Oztrainz

Absolute size and weight re flanges..

Hi Brian, all 

when I wrote

Quote:

And our model flanges are a lot smaller than the prototype's flanges.

I meant in terms of absolute dimensions. Real flanges are a lot deeper than our scale model flanges. The forces acting on those prototype wheel flanges are also a lot bigger that can cause a flange to lift under load causing a real world derailment. However the forces acting on our model flanges are still the same forces faced by the prototype (but of much less magnitude) that can also put our models "in the dirt". But a fraction of a millimetre flange lift won't worry a prototype car. But on our much smaller model flanges, such a small flange lift may well cause our models to derail.   

For our models, if we start pushing the edges of our rolling stock's capability to handle much tighter curves than the prototype ever could, then "everything" on our models has to be finetuned a whole lot more than the prototype to enable our model wagons or locomotives to get around those much tighter curves without problems. And it takes a whole lot less force acting on these much smaller flanges to cause problems.  Mass and force do not scale linearly when applied to our models.  But it does help when looking at derailment problems in our models if you have got some understanding of how things roll on rails and how the forces acting between rolling stock, wheel flange and rail interact. 

Your derailment problems with 40 container cars where 60' cars go through OK tends to suggest to me that the problem is with the container cars and NOT with the turnout. You need to take a real close look at what is actually going on with those cars.  It might not be (and very probably isn't) the size of the wheel flanges causing the problem.  

Can I suggest that we bounce your problem with the 40' container cars to a new thread? We'll leave this one for Daryl and his dream layout design. Hopefully we can all help him along the way so that his dream layout doesn't turn into a nightmare when the yard is built.  

 

Regards,

John Garaty

Unanderra in oz

Read my Blog

Reply 0
railandsail

New Thread

John, I did just that....

https://modelrailroadforums.com/forum/index.php?threads/container-car-tracking-derails-etc.33629/#post-505743

Reply 0
Daryl Kruse DarylK

Quote " Hopefully we can all

Quote " Hopefully we can all help him along the way so that his dream layout doesn't turn into a nightmare when the yard is built."

While this may be my first foray in HO scale, I am not a beginner.  You not only are an overthinker, you are also quite condescending.

Daryl

Reply 0
jimfitch

From a practical standpoint,

From a practical standpoint, what are the minimum radius for the auto racks you plan to run.  I'm guessing that most, if not all are 24" minimum.  At the lower radii, every bit you can increase makes a sizable difference, each inch you can increase.

Judging by my reading of John Armstrong's Track Planning for realistic operation, you will probably be ok with 28" minimum curves as long as you plan in easements and about 12" of straight track between S-curves.  I highly recommend the afore mentioned book.

BTW, I plan on running 89' and 85' auto racks and TOFC flat cars with a maximum length of 21'.  I settled on 32" minimum curves for the layout I am building but most are a bit bigger in the 33 to 36" range and a few larger.  Here is the scale drawing of the track plan I am working from:

D&RGW focus late 70's thru early 80's west of Grande Junction CO.

Jim Fitch
northern VA

Reply 0
TomO

Overthinking and he’s not a new modeler

Yes, Daryl is going from N to HO but he had years of experience especially as a well known modeler in  N scale. His you tube videos capture the excellence this man has shown and just because it’s a different scale then HO doesn’t mean he is ignorant.

He has listened to the information and will change his spacing. But like any “good” modeler if the yard doesn’t work right he’ll make adjustments. Offer encouragement instead of a personal opinion and follow what happens.

Best to you Daryl

TomO

Reply 0
joef

It also helps to work in reverse

It also helps to work in reverse … compute the curve ratio of a 28” curve to an 89’ auto rack car. We’re assuming HO here. An 89’ car in HO is 12.3” over the couplers. 28/12.3 = 2.27 which is slightly below the 2.5 minimum curve ratio for barely tracking okay. Most likely at that curve radius, the cars can’t couple even if they can be made to roll okay. They will look horrible if they do roll okay. Bottom line, the curve ratio guidelines projects major problems with an 89’ car on a 28” radius in HO. The next step is to get some flex track, bend it to a 28” radius, then test the cars and see. Also check the clearance needed for any parallel tracks so that nothing hits by placing another curve next to it since we’re talking a staging yard here. The curve radius guides on an 89’ car in HO predicts … 2.5x or 31” radius to get a curve the cars will roll on just barely, and coupling could still be a bear unless couplers have a coupler box that swings up to 50% the width of the car. Kadee sells such coupler boxes. 3.0x or 37” radius the cars will roll decent and should couple okay with manual help. 3.5x or 43” radius, the cars will look decent if you’re viewing them from inside the curve. This is the minimum visible layout curve radius for the cars to start looking decent. 4.0x or 49” radius, the cars will look decent if you’re viewing them from outside the curve. This curve radius will work anywhere on the layout if you care about how the cars look and realism. 5.0x or 62” radius — use this radius in a yard on a curve if you want the cars to couple without manual fiddling of the couplers. Now you might be might be able to cheat a little and make the curves a bit tighter if you tune the cars carefully or if you have a particularly nice running car. You should also check each radius with the actual cars and some track to make sure the predictions hold true for your specific test case. But in general, the curve radius guidelines have proven to be very close to what actually happens with cars of various lengths on curves and make a very dependable track planning curve radius standard.

Joe Fugate​
Publisher, Model Railroad Hobbyist magazine

[siskiyouBtn]

Read my blog

Reply 0
ctxmf74

autoracks on 28" radius curves?

I'd recommend a track plan that doesn't need marginal curves then you won't have to worry about these things. Modern railroad equipment  looks much better on wider curves so it's not just a matter of will it squeak around the curves. Unless your room is only 5 feet wide it should be possible to design in wider curves. Keep in mind that modern railroads also are less track intensive and tend to eliminate as many turnouts and tracks as possible so wide curves and less compression should give a more realistic scene. Modern era is quite different than modeling 1950 when it comes to car length and railroad infrastructure so takes more design restraint when it comes to how much of what can fit .....DaveB

Reply 0
Daryl Kruse DarylK

This is for the staging yard...

The mainline radius will be 40" with most curves at 50"+.  This is for the staging yard. There won't be any couple/uncouple operations needed.  The cars just need to stay on the track and stay coupled.  Also, as I said in a previous post, 28" will be pushing it with the number of curves in staging, so I have moved the minimum to 30.625".  I really think everything's going to be just fine.

I'm really excited to be modeling in HO for a change instead of N scale.  But I have to say, I'm not that thrilled to be being a part of the HO modelers scene.  You guys are really a joke.  I just wanted to know what people's experiences were and to get some feedback.  Did not expect a treatise on car/rail/wheel/flange forces and other lectures.  I'll likely stay an N scaler at heart.

Daryl

Reply 0
Michael Tondee

Testing

Thank the Lord, I run short stuff, nothing longer that 50 footers on my layout but I never ever trust a track plan or even the  math alone. I get a handful of flex track and test. I always have. I was long time N-scale guy who switched to HO myself and clearances and everything else are a different world. It took probably a year before my sense of proportion even adjusted. There are some really knowledgeable guys contributing to this thread, regardless of what scale they are in. I'd be inclined to listen but that's just me...

Michael, A.R.S. W4HIJ

Model Rail, electronics experimenter and "mad scientist" for over 50 years.

Member of "The Amigos" and staunch disciple of the "Wizard of Monterey"

I call what I do "An artistic impression of reality" and you can see my layout journal here...

The Blackwater Island Logging&Mining Co.

Reply 0
jimfitch

The mainline radius will be

@Joe

Quote:

The curve radius guides on an 89’ car in HO predicts …

2.5x or 31” radius to get a curve the cars will roll on just barely, and coupling could still be a bear unless couplers have a coupler box that swings up to 50% the width of the car. Kadee sells such coupler boxes.

Is the above based on empirical testing?  I get the impression a lot of hobbyists run 89' rolling stock on say 32" curves with no issues.  Of course 89' rolling stock doesn't look great on 32 inch curves or even 36".

@Daryl 

Quote:

The mainline radius will be 40" with most curves at 50"+.  This is for the staging yard. There won't be any couple/uncouple operations needed.  The cars just need to stay on the track and stay coupled.  Also, as I said in a previous post, 28" will be pushing it with the number of curves in staging, so I have moved the minimum to 30.625".  I really think everything's going to be just fine.

Sounds like you have quite the layout planned!  I'm thinking you'll be ok with the 30 1/2 inch minimum, and I assume that means the other curves will be broader. 

Quote:

I'm really excited to be modeling in HO for a change instead of N scale.  But I have to say, I'm not that thrilled to be being a part of the HO modelers scene.  You guys are really a joke.  I just wanted to know what people's experiences were and to get some feedback.  Did not expect a treatise on car/rail/wheel/flange forces and other lectures.  I'll likely stay an N scaler at heart.

Daryl

Daryl,

Please don't take a few testy emails as typical of the HO crowd.  My guess is we have a couple of forum members "on the spectrum" if you get my drift.  In other words are short on social graces, but probaby don't have anything against you personally.  I'd enjoy seeing your track plan.

As an aside, my main thing is HO but I've been collecting a good batch of N scale trains as a second hobby and I expect I'll have to downsize at some point and N work better in a smaller space.

D&RGW focus late 70's thru early 80's west of Grande Junction CO.

Jim Fitch
northern VA

Reply 0
Daryl Kruse DarylK

@Jim Fitch

Thanks for the input.  I knw you are correct regarding HO crowd.  Thanks for reminding me.  I did learn quite a lot from a few knowledgeable Union Pacific members when I was building the N scale UPRR Geneva Subdivision. And, I did make a course correction on my staging yard using input from this thread.

Daryl   

Reply 0
jimfitch

Cheers!

Cheers!

D&RGW focus late 70's thru early 80's west of Grande Junction CO.

Jim Fitch
northern VA

Reply 0
Daryl Kruse DarylK

How things ended up

Here's a look at the results of getting input from this forum as well as from comments to my YouTube channel.  I ended up with 30.625" minimum and 2.125" track separation.

Reply 0
jimfitch

I too am using OSB for my

I too am using OSB for my staging yard, but added a sandwich layer of Homasote and painted it a similar color as you.  I used a trammel on a camera tripod to draw my curve centerlines.  I preferred to go with closer to 2.5 inch track centers.

D&RGW focus late 70's thru early 80's west of Grande Junction CO.

Jim Fitch
northern VA

Reply 0
joef

Yes it is

Quote:
Quote:

The curve radius guides on an 89’ car in HO predicts …

2.5x or 31” radius to get a curve the cars will roll on just barely, and coupling could still be a bear unless couplers have a coupler box that swings up to 50% the width of the car. Kadee sells such coupler boxes.

Is the above based on empirical testing?

Yes it is. One of the Layout Design Special Interest Group members did extensive testing and wrote about all of his observations, coming to the conclusion regarding 2.5x the car length vs 3.0x the car length.

He also said you can make 2.5x work okay if you’re careful about the trucks you use, making sure they hit NO underbody details or the stirrup steps, and if you make sure the coupler boxes can swing wide such as with Kadee's extended swing draft gear mounting kit, or if you use talgo trucks (trucks with the coupler box mounted on them).

He went on to say talgo trucks suck bigtime in backing up because the couplers apply side forces to the trucks, making them very derailment prone when backing up. Body mounted couplers won’t do that, so the Kadee wide swing body mount for couplers is preferred over talgo trucks.

The entire writeup of his testing is a fascinating read … I hope it’s still available on the LDSIG website.

Joe Fugate​
Publisher, Model Railroad Hobbyist magazine

[siskiyouBtn]

Read my blog

Reply 0
Daryl Kruse DarylK

Nice!

I'm planning on laying the staging yard track directly on the OSB with clear caulk.  Will use Hobby Innovations 3/8" Flexxbed on the mainline and 3/16" cork on secondary track.

Daryl

Reply 0
VSOTTO

Daryl

I've watched (almost) all of your n scale youtube vids.  The work you did was truely amazing and I was nearly heartbroken how much end up trashed.  I'm excited to watch your new layout.  Keep up with the good work!

Reply 0
TomO

Daryl

I will echo what VSOTTO wrote. I will miss checking in on your N scale but look forward to the future. I am glad the auto racks work as you had hoped

TomO

Reply 0
Reply