Minimum O31... the fine print

Of course they are "022" switches, not 027.
mseifert wrote:

On Feb 1, 8:16=EF=BF=BDpm, "mseifert via ModelGeeks.com" wrote:=
Flame me if I'm wrong, but O27 switches have a 27" radius, meaning that those patrons in the diner are going to have soup in their laps for sure!

There is nothing significant just under the Lionel O-22 switch motor cover in the area closest to the rails, so you could consider filing away the offending 1/8" of cover if there are just a few switches at issue. I you have lots of switches that are all going to cause a problem, you could consider removing the trucks from the diner and reattaching them with shims or washers to raise the car enough to pass over the inside corner of the O-22 switch motor.
It would be possible to remove the O-22 switch motor and substitute a separate switch machine of the type 2-rail scale modelers use. Removing the switch motor gives open access to the underside of the O-22 moving points assembly, but it also removes all of the electrical contacts that make the O-22 such a nice product, so you would lose the non-derailing feature and the route indication on the O-22C switch controller on you control panel. If you select a robust O (or maybe better G) separate switch machine with DPDT electrical contacts, it should be possible to connect it so as to restore these features of the O-22, but it'll be a whole lot more work than the filing or washer options above. Geezer

The 022 is the model number of the O31 switches - with a 31" diameter. So 31" is the minimum curve of my layout. They still are ending up with soup in their lap when the car hits the casing!
video guy - wrote:

Geezer, Thank you for your suggestions. I've been contemplating the filing off of the cover and I appreciate knowing that there is nothing close to the rails behind it. I also wondered about shimming it up, so at your suggestion I will take a closer look at whether that can work. Since I have 6 other cars in the set, changing the height of just one car might be ascethetically unacceptable. I will probably go with the first option. --Michael
Geezer wrote: