"Shorty Passenger Cars" and modest Curves

[shayfan84325]

I run shortened passenger cars with great success on 20" radius curves:

I think they look realistic enough.  Pikers are 25 scale feet long.  My "first class" car is 36 feet.

 

I also shorten my freight cars and I find that 36 feet works well and looks good with small steam power:

 

 

 

[ATLANTIC CENTRAL]

Allan,

Your are most welcome, glad you found it useful.

Sheldon

[BRVRR]

Sheldon,

Thanks for your missive on passenger cars.

I have several trains of Athearn passenger cars. Both light and heavyweight.  I have made some of the modifications you mentioned to the lightweight cars, but never tried to modify the heavyweights. I was particularly interested in your methodology for adding diaphragms and for proper spacing between cars and locomotives.

The 'shorty-cars' operate flawlessly on my 22-1/2 and 20-1/2 inch radius mainlines and seem to fit my layout better than their larger/longer brothers.

I have several scale-length cars from Walthers, Bachmann and Riverossi. While they may look a little strange, these cars run well on the 22-1/2" line and I have modified many to run on the smaller main line.

I intend to apply many of your modifications to some of my 'shorty' cars for better realism.

Thank you so much for posting your thoughts.

[ATLANTIC CENTRAL]

Here is a little sometihng I wrote on the subject nearly a decade ago:

Selective compression, passenger car length and other thoughts

A commentary by Sheldon Stroh

The following thoughts came to me after reading the July 2003 issue of Model Railroader in total and specifically the several letters in RPO regarding the recent articles on passenger cars, “At the Throttle”, Andy’s “8 tips for better passenger car operation” and Tony’s “Trains of Thought”. I often disagree with Tony and have written more than once to say so but this time he makes good points without sounding like the ultimate rivet counter. None of the following is intended to disparage anyone or any of the excellent model work that appears in MR, or anywhere else for that matter, but it is intended to challenge some fixed ideas that seem to be prevalent in the hobby press today. These comments are mainly directed at HO, since it is the topic of most of the articles in question and the scale/gauge (let’s not go there) that I model in.

Why are we so willing to selectively compress buildings, scenery, track (radius and switch number), and number of cars in the train, but not the train itself? OK we are modeling the train and these other things are just support players, or are they? If we are modeling the “railroad” than maybe the case for all this exact to scale equipment (especially passenger cars) is not as strong as one might think? In virtually all recent conversation in the model railroad press, less than scale length passenger cars (like Athearn) are completely excluded. What snobbery! And how unfair. Athearn passenger cars are well detailed and run well for their extremely modest price. Also one of their biggest features is what is not included, no lousy molded on underbody detail that has to be removed to improve the detail level. Athearn heavy weight cars can be easily detailed to levels that far exceed many brass imports (now bordering on the ridiculous in cost) and on newer (and much more expensive) plastic offerings. More on detailing later. Regarding Athearn heavy weights on the issue of scale length, only the Pullman and the Diner are completely with out prototype. Many coaches and most all head end equipment were only in the 70’ range anyway and even the observation has a similar prototype in Canadian Pacific #27.

Admittedly I am a freelancer with a fictitious road so what could have been can often pass in place of what actually was, however Model Railroader’s own survey shows only one in ten modelers follow a particular prototype “as closely as possible” yet 5 in 10 model real railroads with “flexibility”. I think selective compression is an element of flexibility that has always been used in this hobby. Why then the sudden shift in thinking by the modeling press? I have MR and RMC collections that reach back to the early fifties and have been in this hobby since the mid sixties, this attitude was never the case until recently. Many older articles talked freely about the NEED for selective compression and a creating a realistic impression rather than absolute accuracy in every case. We can learn much from the old timers who had much less to work with than then the wonderful products and boundless prototype information we have today!

In Andy Sperandeo’s article “8 tips for better passenger cars” he spends much time and effort on scale height. A quick measurement of Athearn cars reveals that the heavy weights are the correct height out of the box and the streamliners are only about 2 scale inches too tall. Something is wrong with the idea that a brass passenger car costing hundreds of dollars could not conform to this simple item of scale accuracy and that one costing only $10 does so well.

So I will ask again the question asked by Steve Novotny of Pasadena Calif. In the July 2003 RPO, why no mention of shorter cars in ANY of the recent passenger car articles? While I would also challenge Steve by saying that designing even a small layout with curves in the 24-30 inch radius range is not that difficult, I still don’t want to squeak any 85’ Pullmans around those curves. Surely I am not the only modeler still buying shorty passenger cars, why not some articles on improving them and using them? And why not some further development by the manufacturers in this area? A combine and a full RPO would be great additions to the Athearn heavy weight line.

Let’s look at this more closely. Many experienced modelers run their exact scale length Pullmans around 30 inch radius curves. In the prototype what translates to a 30 inch radius curve in HO would not be found in a coach yard let alone on a class one main line? Yet many modelers do this and laugh behind their back at the new guy with the Athearn shorty’s because they are not “to scale”. These same modelers, who must have that exact scale length Pullman, don’t have one turnout on their layout that would qualify as “scale” for a class one main line. How many #12’s do you have on your layout? An eighty five foot car in HO looks just “OK” going around even 36 inch radius, but a seventy two foot car looks comfortable and majestic on that curve! Just like the prototype!

Radius and frog number, it seems to me that no one bothered to actually read John Armstrong’s book “Track Planning for Realistic Operation” or Paul Mallery’s “Trackwork Handbook”. I say this because of the large number of layouts whose specs include #6 or larger turnouts and only 30 inch radius curves. Even the NMRA recommended practices missed the simple math that Mr. Armstrong laid out in his book. If it will run on 30 inch curves it will go through #4 Atlas (really #4-1/2) turnouts, crossovers excepted! And turnouts eat up much more layout space than curves in the big picture of track planning. Paul Mallery says you guys with the #8 turnouts should be using 48” as your minimum radius! Paul and John apparently both passed trigonometry!

Scale coupling distances, in general I have always been in favor of shortening the distances between cars to a more scale distance. Reliable operation of diaphragms has always been a concern and I agree passenger cars look naked without them. I know many have had good results with shortened Walthers diaphragms, but with the number of more detailed working diaphragms on the market today, I wonder if maybe a well detailed diaphragm that works well at a greater than scale separation might not be just as effective visually? And as Andy Sperandeo alluded to in his article, with the radius’s we are using, scale coupling distances work fine with the tapered ends of heavy weights but streamliners can be different story, and since railroads heavily intermixed heavy weight and light weight equipment, a common standard on any given layout would seem to provide more reliable operation.

On this topic of coupling distances, I am amazed by the number of excellently detailed diesel cab units (especially EMD E’s & F’s) coupled at nearly scale distances, with working diaphragms between them, which then have a Kadee coupler sticking 5 scale feet out of the pilot? What is with this? Why is it important to get the cars a scale distance apart only to have eight scale feet between the baggage car and those back to back E units? I have E & F units (and ALCO FA’s & PA’s) with the front couplers mounted in a nearly scale location. With just a minor trim to the bottom of the pilot and sometimes a creative reworking of the uncoupling pin on the loco’s coupler, these couple and operate flawlessly with both passenger and freight equipment. My not so scale diaphragms (American Limited) rub nicely on the buffer plates of those E units just like the real thing.

Detailing, I have detailed both Athearn heavy weights and streamliners to where some modelers did not even recognize them until I told them they where Athearn cars. I guess the length didn’t give them away after all. Here’s a few of my tricks/tips.

1. Remove the half the battery box from the body that does not contain the holes for retaining the body, then file the edge of the exposed under fame portion of the battery box rounding it off at the bottom edge. This is now a water tank, found on almost all cars. On the other side do the same but don’t round it off, add a small grill to the face and it is now a generator or air conditioner equipment cabinet.

2. Body mount Kadee # 36 couplers with Jay-Bee coupler pads, spaced for use with American Limited diaphragms. When using American Limited diaphragms and these body mounted couplers on the heavy weights, eliminate the spacer included with the diaphragms and adjust the coupler position to give the mounting face to face dimension specified for other cars. Three scale feet from the diaphragm mounting face to center of the coupler mounting hole is usually right with the American Limited/Kadee #36 combination. For an extra measure of realism, file off the cast on door frame/diaphragm before positioning the couplers and installing the American Limited diaphragms.

3. Add a Cal Scale UC brake set or two, many heavy weight cars had two brake cylinders and additional air tanks for water systems, etc. Also add a Cal Scale belt driven generator, steam traps and air and steam hoses. Add tailgates and styrene inner vestibule walls to vestibule ends, make styrene doors for non vestibule ends.

4. Add Central Valley brake beam kits to the trucks and replace the wheel sets with Kadee 36” wheel sets. The brake beam near the coupler may need some modification if your curves are less than 36”, but with this modification they should run well down to radiuses in the high 20’s. Mine run well through #4 Atlas crossovers! Weight the car to NMRA standards.

5. For really extra detail, remove the cast on grab irons and replace them with wire ones. Add additional roof vents based on similar cars you may be modeling, especially on the diner. Add Cal Scale mail catchers to the RPO.

6. Kit bash other types of cars. Full RPO’s, combines, dome observations and mid train lounges are easily made by combining two kits and doing some splicing. Prototype “parlor” cars had window arrangements virtually identical to coaches, so lettering alone makes it in to a Parlor Car instead of a coach.

7. Lightweight cars get similar treatments with the same coupler/diaphragm setup, Cal Scale HSC brake sets, air and steam lines and steam traps. Water tanks, and other equipment is simulated with wood or styrene shapes. Trucks are usually replaced with Model Die Casting Commonwealth trucks and Kadee wheel sets.

Most of this can be done to decorated cars without disturbing the paint job, and Athearn has expanded the number of road names available in both the kit and ready to roll lines. Additionally they have improved the quality of the artwork on many of the older road names in the line. I have made similar use of the Con-Cor “shorty’s” with good results also.

I am currently building a new layout, fairly large, 20’ x 40’ room, double decked, walk-in, around the walls/peninsula. It will have 36” minimum radius curves (32” radius on some hidden storage tracks) but I still plan to run only “shorty” passenger cars for the improved effect of their appearance on the curves. It also allows trains to be “longer” in number of cars, creating more of the class one feel I am going for.

So to Steve Novotny, who was not afraid to speak up, and all the rest of you with fleets of less than scale length passenger cars, take heart, you are not alone. You may actually be the majority, just a silent one not given your due or any modeling help from the “experts”.

For those of you whose goal is to duplicate a specific car or train, this information, these options and my opinion are not for you. That is fine, what you do is important to the hobby and the history of railroading. Just as that position is valid and important, so is the position of those whose goal is capture the “feel” of the whole railroad, or at least a medium sized chunk of it. Those with that goal should not be discouraged or made to think they need an auditorium and a million dollars to come close to their goal. So let’s reconsider the use of selective compression as a modeling tool, even for some rolling stock.

Sheldon

[BroadwayLion]

LION runs R-21 series 50' IRT subway cars.

Curves are no problem.

ROAR

[don7]

I am surprised that more people on this site are not aware that Rivarossi still produces their 60' HW passenger cars, there was an anouncement not long ago indicating that more road names are being added.

In addition, Con Cor not only produces their 72 smoothside passenger coaches they also produce a 65' set of HW coaches in their Suburban Line, these come in a wide variety of roadnames, these coaches have interiors and are also lighted.

In addition Con-Cor also has their MP54 cars, these are part of the Electric powered coaches recently released.

[fwright]

Curve radius and actual train length, as well as personal desires, drove me to model an earlier era.  An era with wood passenger cars that ranged all over the place in length. 

While technically built after 1900, the 34ft Overton cars used 19th Century techonology (wood underframe, wood body, and truss rods) to obtain cars that would fit the switchbacks on the Angel's Branch.  And those Overton cars look mighty good behind a Shay (prototypical), Climax, or even a 4-4-0.  Narrow the bodies and put on appropriate trucks and couplers, and the MDC plastic Overton cars look great for free-lance narrow gauge, too.

If you want models of the more typical 50ft+ wood passenger cars, they are available in plastic from a variety of manufacturers.  MDC's Overland and Pullman Palace (full length) series do well here.  Labelle makes some nice, pretty accurate wood kit models in both standard and narrow gauge.

just my thoughts and experiences

Fred W

....modeling foggy coastal Oregon in HO and HOn3, where it's always 1900....

Picture Gorge & Western Railway     "none more picturesque!"

Port Orford & Elk River Railway & Navigation Co    "Home of the Tall Cedars"

[BRAKIE]

Although they look terrible the Athearn passenger cars will go around a 18" curve.

Back in the 60s Athearn sold these in train sets that included 18" curves.

However..

 

Most of us back then choose to use these cars on 22-24" radius curves.

[b60bp]

Folks,

eagle1030's recent post on pushing radius to it's limits regarding passenger cars raised a good question and recieved some good replies. I believe eagle 1030 was thinking in terms of full length passenger cars to be run on 23" radius, slightly below the car's recommended radius.

I guess what his question got me to thinking about was the subject of 'shorty' or shorter passenger cars. I didn't address them on his posting because I understand he's more interested in a full length, or at least longer car. Anyway, I always think of the been around forever Athearn cars, both lightweight and heavyweight. I recall when the heavies first came out around 1960 and made quite a stir. Other body styles were added over the years. Now, if you overlook the Santa Fe tone on most of them, about the only car in the batch that's really a shorty is the Pullman. All of them are in the 70-72 foot range, I don't recall exactly. and thats just fine for headend cars, coachs and even the obs car if it's used as an office car.  The diner has five windows rather than six, but could well serve as a cafe car. The Reading Company, one of my favorites, had shorter cars than most lines, and this car would serve nicely on a "Clocker" behind a couple of BCW Reading coachs and a combine.

Athearns streamliners are another matter, as most lightweights were over 80 feet long, but even then the RPO and straight baggage-express are very usable as is.And I've seen trains using only Athearn lightweights, with a few heavies mixed in and it didn't look all that bad.  If modeling a line that painted the window panels such as MC or B&M, the cars look longer than they are and the effect is pretty fair.

There's quite a few prototypical cars available that are shorter than 'full length' from ConCor, Bethlehem and others. Walthers had a lot of 70ish foot cars in their old kit line that still turn up and I think it was Rivarossi that had a set of four body styles, all based on C&NW cars, in the 60 foot range. There's a good deal of equipment around that is very happy on 23-24' radius, especially if you use easement curves.

No need to 'cheat' on car length either. One of my favorites, the Interstate Express, ran Philly-Scranton-Binghamton (with a Syracuse Pullman) over Reading-CNJ-DL&W. It was mostly a mail clunker, often running 15 cars including one non-AC coach and the Pullman, and the only 'full length' car on the train waz the sleeper. Everything else was composed of 40' box express cars, 50' express reefers, 60 and 70 foot express cars and an RPO-storage car. It would be a fun train to operate on a layout too, as it dropped cars along the way all night and split in two near Scranton.

I like full length cars as much as the next guy, but if I didn't have to radius for them I'd still operate passenger trains.

Regards,

Benny