Fred Mills said:Wash your mouth out with Lemon Gin!!! "Blended Scotch" is an oxymoron.
Bob; you said it for me......cutting back on good whisky, is a sin......of course the lad might be drinking that blended stuff.!!!!!
And Bob, you’re right. It was a momentary lapse of judgement brought on by the traumatic effect of contemplating cutting back on the scotch.
Kevin:
"Accucraft’s Ks (even the K-37) negotiate 4’ radius curves. "
46+ inches is close enough to 48 to work.
And the ones I had here were FR from 2" extra to work.
…Or should I say, “As a holy water”…
Anyone with an ounce of common sensewould realize that putting any loco of the wheelbase of a K class, through anything less than a 5 foot radius is ready for the funny farm…but then I’ve been pushed to seek help by friends that say I’m obsessed with the IPP&W… where we constantly operate rather than run in circles…!!!
Two points. First off, I agree with Fred’s sentiment that 5’ is probably the smallest radius that looks remotely reasonable with 1:20.3 equipment, especially the large stuff. My “temporary” railroad was laid with 4.5’ radius curves. My equipment handled it quite well, but it never looked “right” doing so. I enlarged that to 5’ on my current line, and even that looks small with some of the larger locos. But all that’s an aesthetic judgment, having no foundation on the physical limitations of the equipment we operate. Which brings me to my second point:
Accucraft’s K-37 on 1600 curves. It fits with room to spare. Not a whole lot, mind you, but room to spare. (And yes, all the wheels are on the track.)
The tender is connected to the middle position on the drawbar. There’s around 1/4" space between the loco and tender at the closest point. The drawbar holes are around 3/8" apart, so on the closest position, the tender would hit the locomotive going around these tight curves. But that’s why manufacturers give you more than one position on the drawbar. Remember, my original comments were in response to Fred’s assertion that a Bachmann K wouldn’t be able to physically negotiate a 4’ radius curve without compromise. Based on what I’ve seen from Accucraft with regard to their K-37, I think Fred’s assertion can be easily laid to rest. Clearly, it can be done. Experience with other “BIG brass locos” is really irrelevant to the point I was making. One example of success is sufficient for proof of concept.
Of course, just because you can do something, doesn’t mean that you should. Later, K
Kevin and all:
Kevin, thanks for the input.
My take is I am willing to close my eyes instead of watching a K27 negotiate the 8’diameter curves on our layout because of the lengthy straight sections.
IF Bachmann produces a highly detailed K-27 (1:20 scale) , and IF it will negotiate an 8’ diameter (4 +/- radius) SOLD!
Wendell
The two versions I have had were K-27’s (tender knocked off) and a Berlyn K-36 (we won’t go there).
No metal touching on that 37?
As in, short?
But, running a big loco “light” is certainly different than actually coupling something to it.
Tried?
I tried calling, Kev.
The accu K-27’s that I’ve had through here had drawbard about 1-1/8" long.
Pivoted from a plate under the back of the cab, to a pin at the front of the tender.
Geometry alone disallows tight curves.
The K-36 was worse.
My drawbar is just under 6-3/4" long, not counting the tang on the front tender truck.
If you have less than an inch of lateral movement (and that’s on straight track) from a drawbar, it doesn’t work.
Stop and think.
If that unit has a LONG drawbar pivoted like at the engine trailing truck pivot, maybe it will be as you show.
But:
"I’ve seen from Accucraft with regard to their K-37, I think Fred’s assertion can be easily laid to rest. Clearly, it can be done. Experience with other “BIG brass locos” is really irrelevant to the point I was making. One example of success is sufficient for proof of concept. "
Back to geometry.
Postulates and theorums.
You can have virtually an infinite number of examples to prove your point, but it only takes one to disprove it.
You have one that will.
Better check the others.
No metal touching. The way I read the Accucraft manual is that the locomotive frame and body is electrically isolated anyway, so there’s nothing to short out if it did touch. And, if necessary, there’s still one more hole on the drawbar to move the tender back an additional 3/8" or so. Plenty of clearance on curves.
With a string of cars behind, the whole system is in tension, thus tending to pull the loco and tender straighter than it would be traveling light, forcing the tighter corners apart. Compressive forces from pushing a train (such as backing up a grade or having the weight of a train pushing against it moving downgrade) would cause the connection between the loco and tender to want to go askew. But with a solid drawbar, you’re still limited to how much play there can be.
Quote:Which is exactly what Accucraft's K-37 does with regard to Fred's statement. You've got the countless examples that would seem to illustrate his point (that such a large beast cannot fit around tight curves), I've got the one that disproves his point, showing that it can be done. Perhaps Accucraft has learned from past practice?
...You can have virtually an infinite number of examples to prove your point, but it only takes one to disprove it.
Later,
K
Could be.
The K-27 was one polarity on loco, one on tender.
How long is your drawbar?
The rule still stands.
They don’t.
You have an example that does.
Plus, all anyone has to do is look at that front coupler.
Curmudgeon said:The instructions make a point to mention that the drawbar carries no power at all, and that all wheels (except the pilot and trailing trucks) pick up power. It's got a 12(?) wire connector between the loco and tender. The tender picks up from both rails. From what you're saying, that's evidently an improvement over what used to be--perhaps to solve the shorting-out problems you describe?
Could be. The K-27 was one polarity on loco, one on tender.
I didn’t measure the drawbar, but can when I get home. It’s longer than what you describe on the K-27.
Curmudgeon said:
The rule still stands. They don't.You have an example that does.
Curmudgeon said:Exactly why I posted that photo. It's one of those "Well, it [i]can[/i] fit, but why would you want to?" things. I don't know how many pieces of rolling stock have enough lateral play in the coupler to stay attached to that, either. The front coupler has NO lateral play.
Plus, all anyone has to do is look at that front coupler.
Later,
K
Okay, based upon the liberal-media application of theorums and postulates, if you drove a Ferrari at 240MPH on the freeway in Montana, theoretically you can now claim that all automobiles will travel at 240MPH on the same freeway in Montana.
Like with reviews, one should never claim inclusive rights.
And, on the length of the drawbar, there ya go.
Since the discussion was upon what we had experienced, and you bring in a K-37 that obviously someone had decided needed to be improved, you make a statement that it is possible to run large brass locos on sharper curves is misleading at best.
Run it past the GR editor.
Curmudgeon said:[i]When properly engineered to do so, yes.[/i] A Yugo--obivously--is not properly engineered to do so. A Prosche, on the other hand, is.
Okay, based upon the liberal-media application of theorums and postulates, if you drove a Ferrari at 240MPH on the freeway in Montana, theoretically you can now claim that all automobiles will travel at 240MPH on the same freeway in Montana.
The original claim was–in sum and substance–that it is physically impossible to properly engineer a large loco to fit around tight curves without compromise. Accucraft’s K-37 has been engineered–without compromise–to fit around tight curves. That doesn’t magically give all locos the ability to do so. It does give the designers of future locomotives a blueprint on how to do so if they desire to. Doesn’t mean they will, just that they have the potential to be designed to do so if the existing blueprint is followed.
Curmudgeon said:
And, on the length of the drawbar, there ya go. Since the discussion was upon what we had experienced, and you bring in a K-37 that obviously someone had decided needed to be improved, you make a statement that it is possible to run large brass locos on sharper curves is misleading at best.Run it past the GR editor.
Later,
K
Kevin Strong said:
The original claim was--in sum and substance--that it is physically impossible to properly engineer a large loco to fit around tight curves without compromise. Accucraft's K-37 has been engineered--without compromise--to fit around tight curves. That doesn't magically give all locos the ability to do so. It does give the designers of future locomotives a blueprint on [i]how[/i] to do so [i]if they desire to.[/i] Doesn't mean they will, just that they have the potential to be designed to do so if the existing blueprint is followed.Curmudgeon said:
And, on the length of the drawbar, there ya go. Since the discussion was upon what we had experienced, and you bring in a K-37 that obviously someone had decided needed to be improved, you make a statement that it is possible to run large brass locos on sharper curves is misleading at best.Run it past the GR editor.
Again, you’re misunderstanding something somewhere. This is a stock K-37, fresh off the boat and out of the box. No one made any custom modifications to it. Changes in the K-37 I have sitting on my desk for review relative to the K-27 you have in front of you are due to design changes made at the factory, not custom modifications of any kind. Occasionally, manufacturers do make design changes to correct defects.Later,
K
Nobody said custom modifications. Gotta watch them media glasses.
You have one example that will.
To say that someone can drag their 1:20 brass K-27 out of storage and do that (which is what your dissertaion leads us to believ initially) ain’t gonna happen.
At least when I review Bachmann products I tend to keep an open mind.
Tight corners can get expensive. I know a rerstaurant that wore out wheels on two LGB engines because the corners were too tight, We had a club member that burned out a motor (I believe) because the club’s module layout had too tight corners. Even if the engine can do it it may not do it for long!
Shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!
Don’t knock his rose-coloured glasses off!
Curmudgeon said:Dave, I took that to mean that very few people had layouts with large enough curves to handle these locos; NOT that a few of the locos could work on tighter curves. I can't speak for Kevin but perhaps he understood it that way as well.
Here is the original. It does NOt say you cannot, is says very few: "Nice locomotives that only a select few can afford and very few can run on their layouts."
He has one example.
I know of more that won’t work on LGB 1600 curves.
You need to be more expansive in your dissertations, as he is beginning to be…but it took a 20-mule-team to drag it out of him.
Okay, here’s the post that started this whole thing (from page 2)
Kevin Strong said:That singular proposition from Fred is the [i]only[/i] point that I have been debating. Perhaps I should have singled out the K-37 instead of generalizing all Accucraft's locos, as that's the only one I have firsthand experience with testing. To my knowledge, however, all Accucraft Ks are spec'd to run around 4' minimum radius curves. The K-27's specs are no longer posted on Accucraft's website, but the 28, 36, and 37 are. (As are the EBT mikes from both Accucraft and Rich Yoder. His ads are wrong; got that from him personally.) I was unaware of any of these models' apparent inabilities to meet those minimum stated specifications.Fred Mills said:Fred, why not? Accucraft's Ks (even the K-37) negotiate 4' radius curves. I'll agree, they look a might silly doing so, but they do. The only compromise that I found on Accucraft's K-37 was the lack of flanges on the center two drivers, where the prototype had flanges. There's no reason in my mind to expect Bachmann's loco to need more.
...[b]If you are hoping for a 1:20.3 scale K27, from B'mann, that will negotiate an 8 foot diameter curve; you must be really drowning in LGB mentality...[/b] [i](Emphasis mine. Here's the second line of Fred's post, which I omitted from my original.)[/i] I'll be surprised if the minimum radius is less than 6 foot, or 12 foot diameter, for the K27, as the model will be closer to a scale model than anything LGB ever thought of producing.
That is the closest I ever came to saying large locos could fit around tight curves. I modified my position to limit the discussion specifically to the Accucraft K-37 once I was made aware of examples that have come up short. I certainly have no reason to doubt Dave’s observations, and I would never say they were wrong. But those shortcomings are irrelevant to the single task of rebutting Fred’s original proposition, which was my one–and only–point. So long as one locomotive has shown that it is physically possible to successfully negotiate a 4’ radius curve, it stands to reason that future models can if the manufacturer decides to pursue that as a goal.
In truth, half of Fred’s proposition is accurate. While it has been demonstrated (at least with one example) that it is possible to fit such a large loco around such tight curves, the aesthetics of doing so do reek of “LGB mentality.” A loco that size looks no better going around a 4’ radius curve than the LGB Mogul does going around a 2’ radius curve. I think the K-series locos (and others of that general size) would look best on 6’ or larger radii. But from a marketing perspective, I can see where making that minimum benchmark is a desirable thing.
Curmudgeon said:Sorry, TOC, I interpreted that as you thinking the K-37 was modified from its original form. My apologies for the misunderstanding.
... Nobody said custom modifications. Gotta watch them media glasses.
Curmudgeon said:Boy, I wish I knew how you were interpreting my argument as leading one to believe that. But--as above--misunderstandings happen. The "one example that will" has been the focus all along. Yes, I mentioned the K-27 in the original post, but you told me it couldn't, I believed you. Why would I continue to say it can? You know I take you at your word. I only needed one example to prove my point that it can be done, and the K-37 illustrates that rather handily.
You have one example that will. To say that someone can drag their 1:20 brass K-27 out of storage and do that (which is what your dissertaion leads us to believ initially) ain't gonna happen.
Curmudgeon said:You're absolutely correct, TOC. Unfortunately, [u]you're quoting the wrong quote.[/u] That's not the genesis of this debate. If what you're quoting is the proposition you think I'm arguing, I can see how you may be misinterpreting my thoughts. Please re-read Fr. Fred's proposition, and perhaps my arguments will make a bit more sense.
...Here is the original. It does NOt say you cannot, is says very few: "Nice locomotives that only a select few can afford and very few can run on their layouts." ALWAYS best to get the quote correct before you run off half-cocked
Curmudgeon said:That reeks of a personal attack, and I hope I'm just reading that wrong. But if that is indeed where you wish to tread, go it alone.
...At least when I review Bachmann products I tend to keep an open mind.
Later,
K
Egads…I just try to add a wee bit of thought to a thread, and end upgetting quoted over and over…never thought I would get to be that popular !!!
It will be interesting, to see what the new K27 actually will “Bend around”, when it finally is on the market. Like many other threads; the speculation usually far exceeds the facts, but what the heck; it makes for humourous reading, as long as the comments don’t get personal…we sometimes forget that, to most of us; this is just a hobby, that we try to build a little humour into.
Keep smiling guys…