Since the Märklin versions of the BR 012 (aka 01.10 oil fired) use an ancient design and make a mess of motor noise when run, I went with the Roco BR 012 (78137) that was released as a new item last year. It has a minimal curve radius of 419.6 mm, which means Märklin c-track R1 curves of 360mm are out of the question, but Märklin c-track R2 curves of 437.5mm are fine. This is my only loco restricted to not running R1.

That's all well and good but as I'm still designing my layout I in theory have the chance to make sure I'm only running R2/R3 - though so far I've planned R1/R2. So if it turns out that due to fitting the desired routes into the room most effectively still requires R1/R2 for the main line, I've been giving some thought to how to handle that.

The main line is 2 tracks that run side by side, so anywhere there as an R1 inner curve, there would be an R2 outer curve. This means for right turns, I'd need to switch the train over to the left track first, make the turn, then switch it back to the right track (as the German rail system is right hand drive). That could be accomplished by installing the appropriate turnouts before and after all bends like this (likely at tunnel entrances/exits ).

Does anyone else do this sort of thing or has addressed a similar problem?

If Märklin ever comes out with an updated full-new BR 012 I could switch to that and sell the Roco but by then even I will have built my layout I suspect, so I'll have found a solution. The intended use of the loco is as a museum train only occasionally brought out for special runs ( It will have a plinth-like existence as the 01 1102 did in Bebra, Germany, except maybe once or twice a year bring it out for special runs).


I'd not be opposed to modifying the Roco in a minor way to allowing it to run on 360mm track, but I suspect that that isn't a viable option, otherwise there would have been an option to configure it that way out of the box.

I designed my permanent K track layout with R3 (K track R3 = C track R2) and higher to avoid this issue. Also, smaller radii are unrealistic and don't look good anyways.
I understand not everyone has a whole lot of room, though it hardly takes much more room to avoid 360mm radius.

Thankfully both Marklin K and C track standard turnouts are R3/R2 so they are not an issue. The original K track turnouts were R2 though (360mm) ie. 21xx series.
Annoyingly the K track curved points are R3 to R2 and with K R2 being 360mm it rules out being able to use curved turnouts. C track now have the wide radius curved turnouts.

edit: what I am a bit annoyed about though is that a lot of locomotives requires 500mm + radius for the cylinder rod protectors.
This is fine for the mainline but my branchline has the R3 424mm curves so I wont be able to use them there.

Well, of course you could just have only left turns . (I realise that you've thought of this already).

Can you give us an idea of your space and/or track plan ideas? I would think that if you are willing to have the BR 012 only run in one direction around the mainline, then you could just have mostly left turns (R2 on outside), and then have the occasional R2/R3 curves when you need to turn the other way, and not have the complication of switching back and forth. Also more of the joy of seeing trains pass each other on the mainline.

Good point in testing it. I'm planning that with a temporary c track setup in the car coming week.

The track plan has an R1/R2 helix as it's going to be a two level that runs around the perimeter of the room on shelves making a turn around at the end stations via a loop around. While I could probably replace most of the R1 with R2 and R2 with R3 the available space in the room for walking would shrink substantially and reduce the area I could place stations in substantially as I'm intending to have 6 stations along the two levels, one at each section where there is straight running (it's complex without a picture , which I cannot provide yet).

Having everything else park when this special train runs may not be the end of the world. The helix isn't an issue but the two end turnaround loops would be the only places that would be unavoidable. I'll have to get into wintrack and see what I get by making them R2 (ctrack). Most of the tight curves are intended to be under terrain so the optics are not a critical issue for me.

Good that the turnouts are bit likely anything to worry about but my test of track will check that out as well. I'll try to post a picture from wintrack in the coming weeks for this curious.

Sadly I don't have any because my layout has way too many r1 curves and I'm not the type who would buy a Lok only to have it sit

on a shelf. Peter.

I had the same dilemma. I have the 241 and it requires R2 min curves. But fortunately my layout is small (4x8 double oval) so it was easy for me to change from R1/R2 to R2/R3. I added 12" to one end of the layout table (now 4x9) to make room for the larger radius lengthwise, and also allowed me to add some length to the straights. I am now quite pleased with the result. An additional benefit is that my storage sidings have more length so that they can now accommodate longer trains.
I had originally built this small layout as a stepping stone to a much larger one, but after two years, I am liking it just fine. Less track to clean!

Boy, I wish you had some better things to say about Roco. I recently ordered my first one and I'm hoping it will be a winner.

On watching you video you seemed to have solved the R1 operating issue. I noticed too that when you switch on the sound that it sounds somewhat better /different from the Märklin sounds that I used to hearing. At least that's something I have to look forward to. You may want to consider contacting Roco and sending the pic you've taken of the spring with the hope that they would be able to tell you where it belongs.

Chuck

I plan on doing a review of it once it arrives, hopefully soon. On Roco's site they used to show a photo of the prototype but now it's a photo of the actual model. This to me is a good sign showing that it already being produced.

Here's a link: http://www.roco.cc/en/pr...-0-0-002-1/products.html

The loco would have been fine if I'd not had to do anything other than rail it. The frustration was in the reattaching the tender to the loco because it requires inserting the shaft again and one part moves around while also aligning the electrical contacts tab into a fixed slot - and they are near the same length so you need to get both aligned at almost the same time (while the speaker wiring gets in the way).

So don't take it apart or need the diagrams to figure out parts and it's great.

My guess on the spring is it is to pull in the slack of the speaker wire into the cab. I'm just heasitant to try and put it back in as it would require bulling the tender off again.

No I'd not worked with a Roco loco before. The loco tender interface is a problem though as it seems to require 3 hands and tiny fingers to get back together or some jig to hold things just right along with small tweezers (which is more like Kelly the way). A good way to hold the loco at eye level and support both the loco and tender bodies and hold them while allowing you to slide the tender towards the loco AND simultaneously manipulate the shaft and contact plate is key. If there is a secret I'd sure like to know.

The spring has been identified by folks on stummi as the one in question ( see my 2018 loco arrivals post) but now it's a question of if I can get it back in without pulling the tender off again as I want to avoid that at all costs. And get as much slack of the speaker wires back into the tender. A lot of this feels like delicate surgery on a mouse.

Someone in a Facebook group did warn that while the 012 may appear to run fine on 360mm radius that this could damage the connecting rods over time. As I'm not running my 012 much except for maybe annual special occasions I'm hoping not to come into any issues.