Well my parents have told me that my cab forward is going to have to be a purchase made by me with my own money... so I am looking into diesel alternatives...
Are Athearn GE U50s good runners? And are Athearn DDA40Xs good runners?
Sound and DCC for both and which is the better choice?
Steve
If everything seems under control, you're not going fast enough!
One important aspect worth noting is that the Athearn DDA40x requires a minimum radius of R28" to operate properly, which is larger than the IM Cab Forward of R24" and more expensive. The Athearn GE U50, OTOH, requires a minimum radius of only R18" and probably would be less expensive.
Also, the maximum radius for your proposed 4 x 8' layout would be R22", which would give you a 2" buffer along the outside edge. If you want or need larger radii curves, you'll need a minimum 5' wide plywood to accomplish that.
Why not think smaller initially for both? You'll learn a lot from your first layout then you can plan your next one and purchase the "Godzilla" locomotives when you have the pennies and the known space for it.
Just a suggestion...
https://tstage9.wixsite.com/nyc-modeling
Time...It marches on...without ever turning around to see if anyone is even keeping in step.
tstageJust a suggestion..
Mike
Water Level Route tstage Just a suggestion.. And a darned good one at that. Even if you could shoehorn one of those monsters onto your proposed 4x8, it would look ridiculous pulling a small string of cars around it. When people learn to swim, they don't jump into the deep end and hope it works out. Model railroading should be the same.
tstage Just a suggestion..
And a darned good one at that. Even if you could shoehorn one of those monsters onto your proposed 4x8, it would look ridiculous pulling a small string of cars around it. When people learn to swim, they don't jump into the deep end and hope it works out. Model railroading should be the same.
That's EXACTLY how my dad taught me to swim.
With that being said, the OP has been given some pretty good advice about starting small with his first layout. My first layout had a 22" minimum radius curves, and I limited it to 4 axle Athearn BB locomotives. My current layout has 28" minimum radius curves. Longer locomotives look a lot better negotiating curves. Next(?) layout with have 48" curves. But, that's depending on whether or not I win the Powerball.
Marlon
See pictures of the Clinton-Golden Valley RR
It's not so much learning to crawl before learning to walk, it's the standing up. I know most of us have to learn it for ourselves, but do try to take the advice hear to heart. If all you have room for is a 4x8 layout, NONE of those 3 engine choices is suitable. Oh, they may CLAIM to work on an 18" or 22" radius curve - but experience tells us they do not run WELL. This is supposed to be a fun hooby, not a frustrating one - and running excessively large locos on a small layout is one sure way to frustration. Those massive beasts may look cool, but you'll lose yours when it constantly derails if run at better than a creep speed, or you can only fit a 5 car train behind it.
I see in the other thread you mentioned even combining two 4x8 tables - if you have room for that much layout, you have room for a more useful larger donut shape layout which WILL give you plenty of space to have 28" and 30" radius curves, which would at least allow those beast-size locos to run reliably. That's another thought. But if you are limited to a 22" maximum radius, do reconsider wanting one of those giant locos. You'll be happier in the long run.
--Randy
Modeling the Reading Railroad in the 1950's
Visit my web site at www.readingeastpenn.com for construction updates, DCC Info, and more.
rrinker If all you have room for is a 4x8 layout, NONE of those 3 engine choices is suitable. Oh, they may CLAIM to work on an 18" or 22" radius curve - but experience tells us they do not run WELL.
If all you have room for is a 4x8 layout, NONE of those 3 engine choices is suitable. Oh, they may CLAIM to work on an 18" or 22" radius curve - but experience tells us they do not run WELL.
Sort of like having a minimum spec computer but wanting to run the latest computer game on it and expect a satisfying experience. It's the old proverbial "eyes are bigger than the plate of food" syndrome.
Yes, the biggest engines ever to exist in the US are impressive but on a 4x8 layout? SMH. Well, there is fantasy and there is reality. Many of us have the same thing going on for years but in most cases, the ability do make those kinds of dreams happen occurs after college, career, wife, kids and then enough income for a train room and enough time to build a decent layout and still keep the wife happy - remember, "happy wife, happy life" and often happy model railroading!
Those massive beasts may look cool, but you'll lose yours when it constantly derails if run at better than a creep speed, or you can only fit a 5 car train behind it. I see in the other thread you mentioned even combining two 4x8 tables - if you have room for that much layout, you have room for a more useful larger donut shape layout which WILL give you plenty of space to have 28" and 30" radius curves, which would at least allow those beast-size locos to run reliably. That's another thought. But if you are limited to a 22" maximum radius, do reconsider wanting one of those giant locos. You'll be happier in the long run. --Randy
Yeppers, and even on a larger donut layout with a bigger radius, watching large engines going around a circle will lose it's appeal in short order, which is why more satisfaction comes from combining many other aspects of the hobby together like scenery, buildings and other things.
Rio Grande. The Action Road - Focus 1977-1983
I see there's alot of opinions on this... I was/am wanting the U50 or DDA40X to rub at the club and on my larger layout I have planned for the near future... and I won't do the 4x8 with 22" curves and instead I'll do a donut with 30 " curves...
Sensible opinions. To be fair, even seasoned hobbiests are often tempted to go beyond practical limitations; we see posts here frequently asking how sharp a curve can they "trick" a long piece of rolling stock to fit around because it's often not possible to user curves bigger than 22 inch radius or sometimes something a bit bigger.
My advice is ALWAYs try to use the biggest curves you can fit into whatever space you have. The fact that sectional track is most often traditionally 18 and 22 inch curves (due to 4x8 type layout dimensions), mean beginners usualy have that to work with and then they want to run trains that don't work so well on such restrictive contitions.
Thankfully some makers of modular track now offer larger radius curves, such as Kato Unitrack so if using flex track and designing your own custom track curves is not in your skill set or desire, you can use that track. For example Kato's larger modular radius includes 28 and 31 inch radius, which will allow you to run most longer engines or passenger cars. They may not look great on those still relatively tight curves, but they should operate reliably in most cases. My last 10x18' around the walls layout had minimum 32-inch curves, and the 89' TOFC flat cars looked pretty long on those, but worked fine.
FYI, in the future if you ever get more space, keep in mind one of John Armstongs layout design elements: cosmetic curves. In otherwords, minimum radius may designed for reliable operation, but may not offer the best appearance for longer rolling stock, so design in one or more areas with a nice broad curves to a more visually pleasing appearance with long train cars as they pass through.
Example here below, the curve at the bottom is my cosmetic curve at 54" radius, while at the top it is 32" radius:
NWP SWP I see there's alot of opinions on this... I was/am wanting the U50 or DDA40X to rub at the club and on my larger layout I have planned for the near future... and I won't do the 4x8 with 22" curves and instead I'll do a donut with 30 " curves...
Okay, so what is your club layout minium radius? Will the DDA40X's R28" minimum pose any issues?
As mentioned earlier, the DDA40X (new) w/DCC & sound costs slightly more than the IM Cab Forward. So, if you can't afford the Cab Forward at the moment the DDA40X is out of the question, as well - unless you go used.
Maybe I'm wrong, Steven, but I perceive you desperately trying to find some intriguing locomotive to purchase and run...without sitting down and thoroughly considering all the facts and ramifications of your purchases ahead of time, and whether it will work for you in your current situation. It's fine to have loftly goals but they still have to be seated in some sort of reality in the here-and-now.
If you are just itching for a locomotive, find one that you can currently afford and enjoy running that at the club you belong to. That's something you can utilize now AND later on - i.e. whenever your "near future" layout comes to fruition.
Tom
tstageIf you are just itching for a locomotive, find one that you can currently afford and enjoy running that at the club you belong to. That's something you can utilize now AND later
Steven, if you are as enthusiastic about model railroading in general as it appears you are from all your posts/threads, I would guess you will find a fair amount of enjoyment simply owning and running your own locomotive, almost regardless of it's size. Find a nice running 4 axle diesel in a paint scheme you like. Buy it. Run it at the club. Run it at home. I'll bet you will find yourself having more fun than you anticipated.
Are you modeling the Transition Era?
I would say right now I model 1920 to 1960 so yeah I pretty much model the transition era...
But right now my power roster is:
Pennsylvania Railroad T-1 #5501
Austin & Texas Central RSD-15 #442