marklin-users.net community | Forum

 
Welcome to the forum   
Welcome Guest! To enable all features please Login or Register.

Notification

Icon
Error
C-Track Radius Compared to 18-24 inch Curves
Share
Options
View
Go to last post in this topic Go to first unread post in this topic
Previous Topic Next Topic
Offline Karl Pann  
#1 Posted : 01 February 2004 16:25:52(UTC)
Retweet
Karl Pann


Joined: 01/02/2004(UTC)
Posts: 3
Location: ,
Can someone please explain the radius of the Marklin system curves? In the US, a lot of hobbyists believe that 22 or 24 inch curves are the minimum to operate longer cars or locomotives. My question is, how do these numbers like 18 or 24 inch, relate to say the R1, R2, R3 and so on of the Marklin system. Is the R1 curve sharper than an 18 inch curve?

Thanks,
K. Pann
Back to top

Wish to join the discussion?! Login to your marklin-users.net community | Forum accountor Register a new forum account. Or Connect via Facebook  
Back to top  
Offline Transfesa  
#2 Posted : 01 February 2004 16:45:14(UTC)
Retweet
Transfesa


Joined: 31/01/2003(UTC)
Posts: 140
Location: Madrid, Madrid
Hi Karl,

If you want to compare the radius of the curves, Märklin R1 have a radius of 360 mm, so it's more or less like US 14 inch curves. There's no doubt it's too tight for a main line track, so many modellers only use R1 on hidden areas, and in the visible track they only use R2 (437 mm, like 17 inch curves) and even R3 (515 mm, like 20 inch curves). If you have enough space, the wider the curves are, the more realistic a long-coaches train looks wink

Hope to have helped you.
Julio Castillo
Madrid, Spain
Back to top
Offline perz  
#3 Posted : 01 February 2004 17:25:10(UTC)
Retweet
perz

Sweden   
Joined: 12/01/2002(UTC)
Posts: 2,578
Location: Sweden
It should be noted that all (or at least almost all) Märklin H0 cars and locomotives can be operated on R1 radius. Modellers with lot of space often avoid the R1 radius, but mainly for aestetic reasons. Another reason to avoid R1 could be if you want to use non-Märklin equipment, since not all locos and cars of other brands can negotiate the 360 mm radius.

For C-tracks there are:
R1 = 360 mm (14.17 inch)
R2 = 437.5 mm (17.22 inch)
R3 = 515 mm (20.28 inch)
R4 = 579,3 mm (22.81 inch)
R5 = 643.6 mm (25.34 inch)
And also 1114.6 mm (43.88 inch)

For K-track there are:

R0(?) = 295.4 mm (11.63 inch). Not all Märklin models can handle this, but many anough.
R1(?) = 360 mm (14.17 inch)
R2(?) = 424.6 mm (16.72 inch)
R3(?) = 553.9 mm (21.81 inch)
R4(?) = 618.5 mm (24.35 inch)
And also 902.4 mm (35.53 inch)

For M-track there are:
R0(?) = 286 mm (11.26 inch). Not all Märklin models can handle this.
R1(?) = 360 mm (14.17 inch)
R2(?) = 437.4 mm (17.22 inch)
Back to top
WWW
thanks 2 users liked this useful post by perz
Offline Lars Westerlind  
#4 Posted : 02 February 2004 00:07:14(UTC)
Retweet
Lars Westerlind


Joined: 19/10/2001(UTC)
Posts: 2,379
Location: Lindome, Sweden
Karl,
please note that this is an international forum, so if you'd be so kind not to use local measures. As well as we normally don't use french or swedish, even if that's also possible to translate.

Regards,
Lars
Back to top
WWW
Offline Webmaster  
#5 Posted : 02 February 2004 00:28:24(UTC)
Retweet
Webmaster


Joined: 25/07/2001(UTC)
Posts: 11,161
Karl, welcome to the forum.

One inch is about 25,4 mm, so an 18-inch curve radius should be about 457 mm in the metric system, which is somewhere between the R2 and R3 for C-track from Märklin according to perz's table.

Lars, I understand the quest for international measures everywhere, but as I understand - that is exactly what Karl is asking us to help him with...wink
Juhan - "Webmaster", at your service...
He who asks a question is a fool for five minutes. He who does not ask a question remains a fool forever. [Old Chinese Proverb]
Back to top
WWW Twitter
Offline jorge_vilarrubi  
#6 Posted : 02 February 2004 01:05:42(UTC)
Retweet
jorge_vilarrubi


Joined: 15/12/2003(UTC)
Posts: 655
Location: Buenos Aires,
Hi Karl, I work for IBM/USA and know about the difficulties with translation from/to inches/metrics, as well as temperatures in Fahhrenheit or Celsius, Pounds or Kilograms, etc. However, metrics are the standard in Europe ( and in South America too ), so they millimeters to indicate radii. The good news is that Märklin appends the angle in degrees to curved tracks and the lenght in millimeters to the straight tracks.
All tracks are numbered 24nnn. So, 24 can be ignored...
For curved track: the third digit indicates the Radius, the fourth and fifth the degrees.
So a 24530 is R5, 30 degrees.
For straight track: the last three digits indicate the lenght in millimeters, so a 24229 is a straight track 229 millimeters long.
With the conversion table above, you'll find the measurement for any track you want to use.
In regards to radii, my preference is the largest curves possible. I use R5 and R4 for the mains, R3 only for yards. Long turnouts (24711/12) are ideal for non-Märklin locos and 1:87 coaches (Roco & others).
If you plan to use non-Märklin locos and/or American type locos (big boy...) avoid curved turnouts (24672/72) and the double slip 24624, they are derailment prone...
Hope not to have confused you too much... ;-)
Regards from this hot Buenos Aires.
Jorge Vilarrubí
Buenos Aires
ARGENTINA
Back to top
thanks 1 user liked this useful post by jorge_vilarrubi
Offline Karl Pann  
#7 Posted : 02 February 2004 13:43:39(UTC)
Retweet
Karl Pann


Joined: 01/02/2004(UTC)
Posts: 3
Location: ,
Thanks everyone. I appreciate it.
K. Pann
Back to top
Offline Gregor  
#8 Posted : 02 February 2004 14:22:53(UTC)
Retweet
Gregor

Netherlands   
Joined: 17/04/2003(UTC)
Posts: 996
Location: Netherlands
Wasn't there some kind of a satelite or moon probe which crashed last year because the engineers used the imperial value for gravitational constant instead of the metric value?? Slightly worse than a model train derailment... (Although maybe the engineers involved now have plenty of time to enjoy the hobby....wink[}:)])

Gregor
Back to top
Offline McLae  
#9 Posted : 02 February 2004 23:12:51(UTC)
Retweet
McLae


Joined: 16/07/2002(UTC)
Posts: 1,575
Location: DeSoto (Dallas area), TX
If I remember correctly, it was a Mars probe. Some number was not converted from Imperial to Metric, resulting in a navigation error.[:(!]

I do most MRR calculation in Metric (I even have a metric measuring tapeSmile). The length combination tables in the Operation Related area do come in handy.biggrin
The McLae
IB digital, DB, OBB, SBB epII-V
Providing a home for little lost 'Gators
Back to top
WWW
Offline Webmaster  
#10 Posted : 02 February 2004 23:52:01(UTC)
Retweet
Webmaster


Joined: 25/07/2001(UTC)
Posts: 11,161
As I understand, the Pathfinder (ie the Rover...) was supposed to do it all in metrics but that thought had not propagated throughout all the channels at NASA...

Ok, we're a bit off topic now - but it shows how lack of respect to international standards can mess it up also in the most advanced projects sometimes... [B)]
Juhan - "Webmaster", at your service...
He who asks a question is a fool for five minutes. He who does not ask a question remains a fool forever. [Old Chinese Proverb]
Back to top
WWW Twitter
Offline jorge_vilarrubi  
#11 Posted : 02 February 2004 23:57:37(UTC)
Retweet
jorge_vilarrubi


Joined: 15/12/2003(UTC)
Posts: 655
Location: Buenos Aires,
A Boeing 767 suffered an accident when ran out of fuel because the fuel load was calculated in Kilograms but loaded in Pounds, 454 grams instead of 1000 per Kilogram...
Jorge Vilarrubí
Buenos Aires
ARGENTINA
Back to top
Offline McLae  
#12 Posted : 03 February 2004 01:22:19(UTC)
Retweet
McLae


Joined: 16/07/2002(UTC)
Posts: 1,575
Location: DeSoto (Dallas area), TX
I think that was in Canada. There was a story of how the pilot was able to land on an abandoned airfield.
The McLae
IB digital, DB, OBB, SBB epII-V
Providing a home for little lost 'Gators
Back to top
WWW
Offline jonnymac  
#13 Posted : 03 February 2004 21:29:56(UTC)
Retweet
jonnymac


Joined: 17/01/2004(UTC)
Posts: 136
Location: ,
true story - landed in a little town called Gimli Manitoba. The 767 has been called the Gimli Glider ever since. Here's the web page. http://www.wadenelson.com/gimli.html
Back to top
Offline kimmo  
#14 Posted : 06 February 2004 11:12:42(UTC)
Retweet
kimmo


Joined: 11/08/2003(UTC)
Posts: 397
Location: ,
Thanks John,

Really amazing story. Thanks for providing the link. I had never read the story before.
Kimmo
Back to top
WWW
Offline McLae  
#15 Posted : 12 February 2004 02:15:19(UTC)
Retweet
McLae


Joined: 16/07/2002(UTC)
Posts: 1,575
Location: DeSoto (Dallas area), TX
As an interesting tidbit.....
Go to the Viessmann web site http://www.viessmann-modell.de/.
Click on Produkte
Click on Oberleitungen (catenary), then HO
scroll to the bottom of the pate, and click on Zubehor
scroll down some to find two tables with Track maker, radius, and Catenaty wire length. Also Viessmann part number of the wire.biggrin

This handy reference has the track radius of Marklin, Roco, Tillig, and Fleischmann.biggrin

The McLae
IB digital, DB, OBB, SBB epII-V
Providing a home for little lost 'Gators
Back to top
WWW
Offline Tamrac  
#16 Posted : 16 February 2004 08:00:33(UTC)
Retweet
Tamrac


Joined: 08/11/2003(UTC)
Posts: 197
Location: Frenchtown, New Jersey USA
For those that need a quick fix!
This website has helped me with many a conversion:
http://www.onlineconversion.com/
Back to top
Users browsing this topic
Guest
Forum Jump  
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

| Powered by YAF.NET | YAF.NET © 2003-2024, Yet Another Forum.NET
This page was generated in 0.743 seconds.