Santa Fe 2-10-4 won't handle 22" curves

[Sakda50]

Hi All.

I have a Bachmann 2-10-4 Santa Fe loco that won't handle the Bachmann 22" EZ Track curves.  Beautiful loco.  Have installed Quantum Revolution A decoder at around $100 my cost.   Is it me or do others have same problem keeping the loco on 22" curves?

[rogertra]

Sorry to be blunt but why on earth would you expect a 2-10-4 to handle curves that are bordering on toy train curves?

It's a large locomotive and requires larger radii curves.  22 inch curves are good for first and second generation B-B diesels and steam locos up to 2-8-0s, 4-6-2s and perhaps 2-8-2s but definitely NOT anything larger.  Not only is negotiating 22 inch curves troublesome for longer wheel based steam but they look stupid doing so.

[Nigel]

Sorry to be blunt but why on earth would you expect a 2-10-4 to handle curves that are bordering on toy train curves?

It's a large locomotive and requires larger radii curves.  22 inch curves are good for first and second generation B-B diesels and steam locos up to 2-8-0s, 4-6-2s and perhaps 2-8-2s but definitely NOT anything larger.  Not only is negotiating 22 inch curves troublesome for longer wheel bases steam but they look stupid doing so.

+1 think more like 28" MINIMUM radius.

[ebtbob]

The BAchmann 2-10-2 operates on 22 inch radius,  but grudgingly.   I agree,  22 r is really too small for such a large engine.   It should run on 24 inch radius,  but again I agree,  26 or 28 in radius would be better.   One thing I have noticed over the past several years.   Whatever the manufacturer says is the minimum radius add at least two inches to be safe.

[Sakda50]

Thanks to all.  Completely agree that prototypical 2-10-4 shouldn't be on 22" curve.  We all have to fudge sometimes.  I have limited space and just wanted to see the loco run sometimes.  Bachmann suggested 22" curves as minimum and this clearly is not possible so wanted to know if it was 'me' or does evryone have the same problem.  Bachmann needs to suggest realistic track arrangements.  Really wish I had a bigger layout.   Have retired this loco to the display case.  Thanks for all of your comments.

[J3a-614]

If I may offer a suggestion---

---starting here with the late Carl Arendt's site:

http://carendt.us/index.html

What I might suggest is a second layout, a shelf, perhaps a foot wide and maybe 6 or 8 feet long, wrapped around a corner if need be.  Most people would think of this as a switching layout, and that's what I have in mind--but this could represent an engine terminal, with locomotives being moved in and out for service at water tanks, coaling towers and ash pits (coal burners), lubrication sheds, even onto and off a turntable at a widened end.  One could even have a portion of a roundhouse (not the full house)  with a detailed stall or two visible through the windows.  Ha, who needs cars on such a layout?

Alternately, could you consider a "high line," a model railroad built on a skinny shelf near ceiling level, high enough to clear doors, windows, and heads?  That could give you your larger radii and a place to run the monster (or monsters--one is never enough!), along with a decently long train. . .maybe a double-tracked line, and the other train could be a classic silver streamliner behind warbonnet F-units. . .

Hmm, who says you can only have one model railroad in a house?

Have fun. . .

[Pacific Northern]

Thanks to all.  Completely agree that prototypical 2-10-4 shouldn't be on 22" curve.  We all have to fudge sometimes.  I have limited space and just wanted to see the loco run sometimes.  Bachmann suggested 22" curves as minimum and this clearly is not possible so wanted to know if it was 'me' or does evryone have the same problem.  Bachmann needs to suggest realistic track arrangements.  Really wish I had a bigger layout.   Have retired this loco to the display case.  Thanks for all of your comments.

Before I retired the engine I suggest you contact Bachmann and explain your situation. As there catalogue states that this engine will run on 22" radius track. Your engine does not have enough slack in the axel length to allow it to run on 22" track.
Ask if you can trade the engine for one that does run on 22" track. Bachmann certainly could check the engine for you.

It makes no sense for you to have to shelve the engine. You could also trade that for another engine that will run on 22" track

[full maxx]

my little engineer is getting a 4-8-8-4 from Santa and the ad says 22in curves so hopefully it will be ok cause thats the biggest I have at the moment...planning to expand to another room but thats after Christmas

[ebtbob]

Max,

      In the case of an articulated engine you have a better chance of it negotiaing a 22 r curve than a rigid wheel based engine such as a 2-10-4.

[rogertra]

Max,

      In the case of an articulated engine you have a better chance of it negotiaing a 22 r curve than a rigid wheel based engine such as a 2-10-4.

True Bob but it will still look stupid doing it, as all large engines do on 22 inch curves.  Just because it can, doesn't mean it should.   

[blwfish]

Many years ago (1974) I had an AHM/Rivarossi Big Boy that really did go around 18" curves very reliably. I had a relatively large layout with 24" curves, but one of my friends had a little 4x8 with 18" and we just had to try it out. As long as there was enough clearance on the outside of the curve, it was able to pull a silly train that stretched all the way around the oval to just a couple of inches from the coupler of its caboose! Maybe 20-22 cars?  The overhang was pretty ridiculous, though, and I'm pretty sure we couldn't run it on the inner loop if there was any equipment on the outer loop.

He preferred diesels to steam, so he had kitbashed a DDA40x Centential out of an Athearn DD35 and some GP40 shells. It looked almost as ridiculous as the 4-8-8-4.

[ebtbob]

Roger,

      While I agree with you about the appearance,  remember the way things look varies greatly from person to person,  so what is stupid to you or me is not necessarily the same for everyone.
      Also,   from working in a train store,  I have seen statements for experienced modelers,  using words such as stupid,  turn people away from our wonderful hobby.   I find it much more helpful to show someone that with large engines on small railroads,   overhang may create the need to have more distance between parallel tracks to avoid sideswiping thus eliminating some potential track that might be used otherwise.    Conversation like that will create dialog with the newbie and help him or her immensely.

[hawaiiho]

Branch lines and short lines with small steam engines are so much better suited to the limited space of model railoads than trying to run Big Boys and such in cramped quarters.  Small equipment and a small amount of it on-track makes the layout look bigger too. 

But.  It's an attitude that seems to get grown into over time.  It took me a long time to disconnect from huge thundering mainline stuff and get into teakettle engines on weedgrown track.

I do have a 2-10-2, 4-8-2 and (4) 2-8-2's, but I only run them at the club on 36" min r. and use 4-4-0's and 4-6-0's mostly at home, along with a couple of 2-8-0's and 2-10-0's.

PF

I have been resisting commenting on this thread, but here goes.

If the locomotive will make the circuit without problems, then it comes down to appearance and preference. And as long as I have been in (and out) of model railroading, I have yet to meet two members of the hobby that totally agreed on this subject. Soooooo, why not just leave it up to the individual.

Respectfully,

Will

[hawaiiho]

Of course, Will, model railroading is fun, that's what The Magazine has said for 50 years or more now.  But at some point most peoples' ideas and visions refine and some things that used to seem OK aren't any more.

If you want your railroad to look realistic, minimize the equipment count and size, and maximize curves and switch number.  If you don't care, who else cares?  Do whatever you like, it's your railroad.  I do put my 2-10-2 on my home layout with less than one scale mile of track once in a while just to see it roll and to blow the whistle between its trips to the club where it pulls 30 car freights over the 6 scale mile mainline with 36" radius curves.

One other thing some one told me.  If you look at large equipment running on sharp curves at eye level, you don't see the overhanging so much.  I have one 22" curve and the 2-10-2 runs over it OK and at eye level it sort of looks OK. But the 4-4-0's and 4-6-0's look so much better there, to me at least.

PF

No problem.  If that's what you want to do(take your larger locos to a club layout), fine. Not everyone has access to a club layout and not everyone has a large layout with 36" curves. But some  may want to run a larger locomotive on what they have available to them. I, too, am fortunate enough to have several options.
But, I would be the last person to tell  someone not do it, unless they will damage their equipment. And even then, it's their equipment and their money.
I've witnessed a guy deliberately crash an RC model plane, just to video the crash. I don't have that kind of money, but it was his plane and his money.

[uncbob]

My 2-8-4 Berk handles the 22 radius no problem