What would you do if Märklin releases a "must have" model that requires a minimum radius of 420 mm (R2).

I have some of C-tracks 1st Radius included Curved turnouts.

The Trix E 19.0 is untypical - minimum radius 420 mm.
Maybe she'll be the first non-R1 Märklin model.
Or she'll never come in a 3-rail version (more likely, I'm afraid).

The new BR 50.40 and R1 could become an interesting topic, too. Time will tell.

So is the Trix ET56 trainset (T22625/22626) - minimum radius 420 mm. Quite a good looking model, I think.



Right.
How does this one going to perform?
Basically, its five driving axle underframe will not be articulated as the previous model (save cost) - so the current model that it will most closely ressemble is the BR45.

Without R1 curves, I'm dead in the water. I would have to totally redesign my layout and eliminate double track operating. This would limit me to running one train at a time.

If I were to buy locos that don't run on R1, I can limit them to the outer track, but I might have to remove the curved turnouts, which are R1 as well.

Yes, the long coaches look silly on R1 curves, which is also why I prefer shorter-than-scale coaches. It's the best compromise all round which still allows me to run express trains.

Haven't we talked about all this a million times before!

I think the Märklin policy to always support 360 mm radius is important. Model railroading should not just be for the ones who have huge train rooms. If your space is small enough it is R1 curves or no layout at all. I have lots of 360 mm on my layout, but even if I hadn't I think the 360 mm capability would be worth defending just because of everybody else with too little space. Buying a Märklin H0 loco that did not manage 360 mm radius would be to support a development in the wrong direction. If you want someone to not do something, you should not give him money for doing it.

I started a poll to get some figures.

So: no arguing, please - and use your vote!

I have no R1 on my lay-out, R2 is minimum.
Most trains look better on larger curves.

R2 doesn't scare me as I can fit it in a reasonable space. I've been shocked to see a few of my Roco's that supposedly have an R3 minimum handle R2 no problen and R1 carefully!

On the other hand, a 22" radius like the new MTH locomotives are is a deal-killer. If I had that kind of space I'd be running O scale!

John,
I believe on what I have read here that Rocos R2 is M R1 and therefore Roco R3 is M R2.

NN

It wasn't my intention to address you, I wanted to address all to avoid repeating discussions we had before (thus I quoted that particular sentence from you).
Maybe I should have made my intention clearer. I'm sorry that I made you feel "uncomfortable" (I'm lacking a better word here).

I'm glad about opinions. But threads can easily go down the drain if we start to discuss length scale again (and this was discussed before as you mentioned).

Opinions are welcome.

It is interesting to see the different points of view on this and other issues. What I find hard to comprehend is the rigidity of those points of view.
For example, a member might have an old or existing layout with R1 and R2. Their primary interest may be to have more loks and rolling stock for that layout.
Others build layouts and are interested in the options that new larger radii offer, so they build new layouts and either integrate the original one into the new plan, or replace the old layout with the new one.
Perhaps, because I have not had the chance to build a permanent layout, I have my old collection of M Track, some K Track with R4 and R5 from my college days and the new C Track in R4 and R5 AC and R3 DC.
Would those with an existing M Track or small radii K or C layout consider larger radii if they decided to make a new layout?
Would those with R2 and R1 curves who insert straight tracks between quarter circles consider replacing those straights and curves with larger radii curves (w/o straights)?
Would it help if Maerklin offered a better selection of switches for larger radii, including curved switches between 3, 4 and 5?
Clearly Maerklin has to attract new clients to survive. Does this mean that they have to be open to new ideas and models that are more realistic in addition to satisfying their existing clientele?

We are all willing to accept some kind of compromise in the operation of our layouts on tracks that are way too tight radii for actual scale trackage.

Regards

Mike C

R1 is always handy in tunnels, hidden sections, hidden yards and industrial areas. The lay-out I am planning has "exposed" only R2 to R5 (with mostly R4 and R5 on the mainline). However, my hidden part reversing loop has R1 and so do some curves in tunnels. It would be a pain to have a loco that cannot negotiate those curves.