Announced New Mallet Question?

[vic]

Will it be R1 capable? 

I ask because the real Uintah Baldwins, also 2-6-6-2T's, could take a 66 degree curve, thats pretty close to an R1 curve, of course they did it  while grinding up a 7% grade at the same time at Morro Castle. 

If so, I'll start saving my pennies, if not.... 

[Kevin Strong]

A 60-degree curve is around 5' radius in 1:20.3--still quite wider than R1. For comparison, a 2' radius (R1) curve equates to a 141-degree curve! 

Later,

K

[vic]

Stop being a buzz kill Kev 

I'm trying to give the Bachmann a guilt trip so he doesnt forget us guys with tight layouts that would still like one or two bigger engines

I'm just getting tired of everything new coming out requiring an 8' diameter curve, even the smaller stuff like Mainline Models USRA 0-6-0, and even USAs stupid little 0-6-0T needs a 6 foot curve 

[altterrain]

Five foot radius? I can handle that. Why don't you buy one Vic and keep it here. Then you can come visit and run it whenever you want. 

-Brian

HEY WEBMASTER! FIX THE FORUM BUGS!!!!

[Superheater]

A 60-degree curve is around 5' radius in 1:20.3--still quite wider than R1. For comparison, a 2' radius (R1) curve equates to a 141-degree curve! 

Later,

K

Math aside, a Uintah mallet on Morro Castle Curve looks like this:

http://home.bresnan.net/~bpratt15/images/UintahMallet75.jpg


John Fitch

[Steve Stockham]

Guys,
  The simple reality is that R1 curves were never designed for 1:20.3 (Fn3) scaled engines and rolling stock! LGB went to some incredible lengths to get their stuff to go around R1 curves but LGB was nominally 1:22.5 and wasn't into "scale models" but toy train carricatures.
  It simply isn't fair to ask Bachmann to compromise with their attention to scale fidelity by having them modify their engines and rolling stock to handle R1 curves! Fn3 is considerably LARGER than G! Don't be fooled because smaller Fn3 prototypes will run with G scale cars. These newest Spectrum engines have been modeled after LARGE prototypes! 8ft diameter curves as a minimum are about the best we can expect in all fairness.

[chuckger]

Mr Bachman,
  I think you have a winner with your new engine. Do you have any pictures of the new caboose, #0404 ??

  Thanks, chuckger

[vic]

Guys,
  The simple reality is that R1 curves were never designed for 1:20.3 (Fn3) scaled engines and rolling stock! LGB went to some incredible lengths to get their stuff to go around R1 curves but LGB was nominally 1:22.5 and wasn't into "scale models" but toy train carricatures.
  It simply isn't fair to ask Bachmann to compromise with their attention to scale fidelity by having them modify their engines and rolling stock to handle R1 curves! Fn3 is considerably LARGER than G! Don't be fooled because smaller Fn3 prototypes will run with G scale cars. These newest Spectrum engines have been modeled after LARGE prototypes! 8ft diameter curves as a minimum are about the best we can expect in all fairness.

Steve, its a little called engineering 

I didnt ask for a R1 capable K, or a 3 truck Shay or even that the Connie be R1 capable because given the size and rigid frame I knew that was an extreme impracticality...all I'm asking for is that if the basis of this engine, the Uintah Mallet in reality was designed to take what in 1/20 scale would be a 5' diameter curve, its logical to expect that so would this engine if it were actually built. Now to jump from 5' to 4' in model train construction doesnt take that much extra engineering when the product is in development, and it opens the engine up to an even larger market, LGB knew this when they introduced the 1/22 mallet and that engine really helped them expand here in the US.

Now if this engine ends up R1 capable, it could help Bachmann  do overseas what the Mallet did for LGB here, open up to new markets. Afterall there are a lot, A LOT, of layouts that still use the R1 curvature not just here but especially around the world. Not everyone has 1/2 an acre to devote to a garden railroad, hence the name; GARDEN railroad, not Giant Open Field railroad

Now that said, what am I expecting the answer to be? Lets just say I'm not holding my breath...

[CCSII]

Here you go Vic:

[Superheater]

Steve, its a little called engineering 

I didnt ask for a R1 capable K, or a 3 truck Shay or even that the Connie be R1 capable because given the size and rigid frame I knew that was an extreme impracticality...all I'm asking for is that if the basis of this engine, the Uintah Mallet in reality was designed to take what in 1/20 scale would be a 5' diameter curve, its logical to expect that so would this engine if it were actually built. Now to jump from 5' to 4' in model train construction doesnt take that much extra engineering when the product is in development, and it opens the engine up to an even larger market, LGB knew this when they introduced the 1/22 mallet and that engine really helped them expand here in the US.

Now if this engine ends up R1 capable, it could help Bachmann  do overseas what the Mallet did for LGB here, open up to new markets. Afterall there are a lot, A LOT, of layouts that still use the R1 curvature not just here but especially around the world. Not everyone has 1/2 an acre to devote to a garden railroad, hence the name; GARDEN railroad, not Giant Open Field railroad

Now that said, what am I expecting the answer to be? Lets just say I'm not holding my breath...

Before you dig yourself in any deeper check your math. 

Hold your breath, stomp your feet, have a full blown tempertantrum if you like.  The difference between an R1 curve (two foot radius) and the five foot RADIUS curve of the Morro Castle is more than "a little engineering."  The five foot diameter curve that LGB produced to run parallel curves with the R1 is only half as large as what you need.

A two foot radius curve (R1) makes for an approximate 40 foot circle in scale.  That means you could set up a 1:1 (not model!) railroad that made a figure 8 on a hockey rink with room to spare! (85 x 200) There's no mallet alive that would ever manage that kind of curvature without being hinged in the middle, or perhaps chopped into three pieces and chained together. 

R1 curvature, in 1:20.3 is best suited to mine carts, field railway stuff, and amusements.  And perhaps the new diesel you insist on calling "Davey" if you grease the flanges a bit. 

To expect an articulated 2-6-6-2 to navigate that kind of curvature is preposterous.  Please sit down and be quiet before you get the project killed, Ok?

John Fitch

[CCSII]

A 2' radius curve would be 4' in diameter which in 1:1 would be 80' in diameter.

It would break the basketball court.

[Superheater]

A 2' radius curve would be 4' in diameter which in 1:1 would be 80' in diameter.

It would break the basketball court.

Thank you.  Fixed.  Point remains.

John

[JerryB]

2' radius at 1:20 scale equals 40' radius at 1:1 scale. According to Kevin, the prototype B.C. locomotive could operate down to a 60 degree curve, which is equal to ~5' radius in 1:20 scale.

Everything compromised to run on one minimum radius curve can seriously compromise a model and doesn't look too successful from a business model standpoint.

Vic: I'll offer you a virtually new Uintah #50 in trade for the new Biles Colman 2-6-6-2 in 1:20.3.

My personal hope is that the announced B.C. locomotive will be able to operate over a 4' radius, but I'm prepared to widen my balloon track if necessary. I've been wanting to change it to code 250 rail anyway.

Happy RRing,

Jerry

[vic]

OOPS!  I must be getting old, cant read worth a dam anymore

Guess I missed that whole "Radius vs Diameter" notation...dam, it'd sure be nice to have one of these on my layout but Kevins was right the first time, Sorry Kev, sorry guys.

5' RADIUS means 10 foot diameter, so even if they make it 8 foot diameter thats still tighter than proto.. So I guess theres less than zero chance this will be anywhere remotely R1 capable...POOH!

...unless maybe some cutting here and trimming there...Hmmmm

[vic]

Here you go Vic:

Thanks 


How about one of these instead?

Oh Mr B