I use mason’s line and surveying stakes to measure out curves. I connect the curved track to be used to existing track, drive the stakes thru the rail joints. I then run the mason’s line to determine percentage grade.
Well…as they say if you like it it’s fine 
But I read a looong time ago that 5 x the length of your longest rolling stock item is a good Radius to use for that smooth look. So a 3 foot car would need a 15 foot radius to really look nice. That’s what I use even though I only have an 80 foot by 60foot RR space. And I prefer shorter stuff like 40 foot cars (16") anyway. I bound to run some intermodal stuff (again) someday so I stick with as wide a radius I can use. The down side is that it eats up real estate fast.
Yep, cannot say that my train does not look somewhat toylike… I normally run freight and 40 foot cars max.
Just could not resist one shiny streamliner though!
greg
Greg Elmassian said:
Yep, cannot say that my train does not look somewhat toylike... I normally run freight and 40 foot cars max.Just could not resist one shiny streamliner though!
greg
Large sweeping transitional curves mean nothing if you have a house or a fence in the background. At least we have trains in our yards outside which I find very cool, not too mention dealing with the elements like the big boys do. However if your happy with what you have that is all that matters. My land area is as big as Marty’s but what makes Marty’s much better is the background. Stick a few houses and a privacy fence around the North Table Creek RR and the photo op’s completely change. My viaduct would look killer at dad’s B.S. RR or at Marty’s but here it sit’s on the CVRR with a privacy fence behind it and I’m happy with that.
David Russell said:Ah, but you missed something. The photo ops don't really change all that much, if we could place backdrops and scenery section in the "good old days"in the smaller scales then ..... why couldn't one use whatever digital manipulation to get the backdrop that fits? Easier and more "fitting" than ever before, just a matter of investing a bit of time and using one's noodle.
Large sweeping transitional curves mean nothing if you have a house or a fence in the background. At least we have trains in our yards outside which I find very cool, not too mention dealing with the elements like the big boys do. However if your happy with what you have that is all that matters. My land area is as big as Marty's but what makes Marty's much better is the background. Stick a few houses and a privacy fence around the North Table Creek RR and the photo op's completely change. My viaduct would look killer at dad's B.S. RR or at Marty's but here it sit's on the CVRR with a privacy fence behind it and I'm happy with that. ;)
BTW chances are that those who include transition curves probably paid attention to a few more details that also enhance the overall aesthetics; chances are pretty good to excellent. 
:lol:
Really?
Larry, thanks for that info. If I apply that formula then I figure I need a little over 11" radius. I think I can can get real close, and then as we all know, it’s my railroad and it only has to look good to me!! I’ll just convince everybody else that it is suppose to be that way. People who have been walking down my street are just amazed that there are train tracks outside. I don’t think they will notice the undersized curves!!!
shelley sherbondy said:
I’m also not impressed with the combination of passenger engines and freight, now that I see it on the track. I guess I will have to switch to a freight engine.
Here is something to consider, have a look at what’s behind these,
Forrest Scott Wood said:
shelley sherbondy said:
I’m also not impressed with the combination of passenger engines and freight, now that I see it on the track. I guess I will have to switch to a freight engine.Here is something to consider, have a look at what’s behind these,
going back to look at that, those might be FA instead of PA, but hey, it has has wheels and runs, they’ll use what works for the train they want to run.
Remember the manufacture is stating that the engines will operate at the min. curve. This may not be the curve that looks good to you.
When you figure what you want to do cut some cardboard that will be your track set your train on it and give it a look to see if that is what you want.
Then do your roadbed work.
Saves a lot of time and effort.
David
11" or 11’ Shelly…
Other points to ponder… Consider where you’re going to be viewing the railroad when designing your curves. A few thoughts…
-
Curves look wider when you’re viewing them from the inside. If the train is going around you, your eyes compensate a bit for the tightness of the curve. Since the train is wrapping around you as opposed to away from you, the angles between the cars and locomotives look shallower than they really are.
-
Curves look wider when you’re not looking down on them. The closer to eye-level the curve, the less you actually “see” the curve. It doesn’t take much–maybe 12 - 24" or so from the ground can make a significant difference in how “tight” a curve appears.
-
Curves look wider when they go around something big. A 5’ radius curve laid out along the edge of a patio will look smaller than a 5’ curve laid out around the edge of a big hill, because the hill creates a “reason” for the curve. It provides a view block so you don’t see the curve doubling back on itself. The train emerges from behind the curve.
Both my dad’s and my railroads have 5’ minimum radius curves (10’ diameter). On dad’s railroad, the 4 instances of this 5’ radius curve are (1) on a trestle elevated about 24", (2) wrapping around an open sitting area in the garden, (3) at the end of a very large hill, and (4) inside a tunnel. (Note - #4 isn’t exactly recommended practice, but there was no other way.) His curves are very well “hidden” optically. They look a lot larger than they really are. On mine, my 5’ radius curve is ground level on a reverse loop with a fairly flat space on the interior. Same size to the curve, but just in how it’s laid out, it ends up visually appearing a lot smaller than those on my dad’s railroad. I’m still, even 6 years later, playing around with plantings and landscaping trying to change how the curve appears.
I’ll also echo the recommendation to use transition curves leading into and out of curves. They also work well to make the curve look wider. A transition curve and a properly placed view block will make a 5’ radius curve look twice its size.
@HJ - I’m toying with the idea of getting 10 or 20 yards of blue or green fabric to drape over the fence or hang along the edge of the patio when I take photos, then key in suitable background. It would easily work for video, too. I’ll have to experiment with which color works better. Green is most commonly used nowadays, but given its closeness to the color of the vegetation, blue might be the better option in this application.
Later,
K
(http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f72/Shortybear/ECLSTS/RydersShots059.jpg)
9’ and 10’ diameter or 4.5’ and 5’ radius
Kevin said - “Green is most commonly used nowadays, but given its closeness to the color of the vegetation, blue might be the better option in this application.”
How about a real pale blue to almost white, very non-noticeable. Sounds like a great idea. But after your article and the included pictures, I really don’t feel qualified to say much at all.
Ric Golding said:
Kevin said - "Green is most commonly used nowadays, but given its closeness to the color of the vegetation, blue might be the better option in this application."How about a real pale blue to almost white, very non-noticeable. Sounds like a great idea. But after your article and the included pictures, I really don’t feel qualified to say much at all.
Ric,
There are two Chroma Key colours in use: Green or Blue; best known (or unkown) from the weather forecast set-up on TV. Using other colours gets a bit problematic.
But doing the layers trick in Photo Shop will work just fine for the digital pictures.