I am sure most of the time, when people choose a 4x8 format for a layout, it's because that's the dimensions of the most common size. NOT because they derived those dimensions from their available space.
There are other sizes: 5 x 6, 8, 10, 12
Ed
I think the discussion has gotten lost from the original topic.
Steve
If everything seems under control, you're not going fast enough!
7j43k I am sure most of the time, when people choose a 4x8 format for a layout, it's because that's the dimensions of the most common size. NOT because they derived those dimensions from their available space. Ed
Maybe, maybe not. My "educated guess" is that new hobbyists gravitate to the 4x8 platform due to space limitations AND because it is simply the most prevelant - at least based on my observations over the past 45+ years. Add to that, if there isn't a pre-baked plan of something inbetween some standard format, it probably isn't considered - partly because novices are most likely to use sectional track and may not consider if there is a way to get a larger radius than what fits a standard 4x8 format.
Rio Grande. The Action Road - Focus 1977-1983
NWP SWP I think the discussion has gotten lost from the original topic.
It's pretty typical here - eventually you'll get used to it, or not.
riogrande5761 7j43k I am sure most of the time, when people choose a 4x8 format for a layout, it's because that's the dimensions of the most common size. NOT because they derived those dimensions from their available space. Ed Maybe, maybe not. My "educated guess" is that new hobbyists gravitate to the 4x8 platform due to space limitations AND because it is simply the most prevelant - at least based on my observations over the past 45+ years. Add to that, if there isn't a pre-baked plan of something inbetween some standard format, it probably isn't considered - partly because novices are most likely to use sectional track and may not consider if there is a way to get a larger radius than what fits a standard 4x8 format.
Your point of a pre-baked plan is a very good one. For a beginner, an off-the-shelf plan is VERY tempting. And, actually, very reasonable. If everyone designs 4 x 8 plans, then those will be the ones chosen.
Also, actually knowing about and obtaining the bigger sizes is another impediment.
With my first layout, I wanted to use the 22" snap track on the outside, so I could run a 4-8-4. Which placed the track SCARILY close to the edge. I added a plank or something onto the back of the sheet to gain some more width--still kept the plan, though.
7j43k Your point of a pre-baked plan is a very good one. For a beginner, an off-the-shelf plan is VERY tempting. And, actually, very reasonable. If everyone designs 4 x 8 plans, then those will be the ones chosen.
Often a new hobbyist may need to go through the exercise of building a 4x8 layout - just to get the basic experience of getting a layout built and running, even if space is available for something bigger.
Sooner or later, the hobbiest may reach a point where he/she may find the 18/22 inch curves are too restrictive and voice disatisfaction. Think Steven who is forever dreaming of big engines for example. But even if there isn't space for something much bigger than a 4x8, there may be space for something a slightly larger and grant them bigger curves that may allow the dream of loco or other rolling stock to function on the layout.
By thinking "outside the box" it may be possible to free-design something of a slightly larger format to gain larger curves, say a 4.5x8 or even 5x9 etc. (you name it), perhaps based on an existing track plan. There is some prefab track that allow larger curves in gradations if the novice isn't comfortable with flex track, so there are a couple of ways to get curves bigger than 18 and 22 inches - KATO uni-track to name one. Or flex track if they are frisky enough to use a trammel and draw out curves that way on a slightly larger format layout.
Also, actually knowing about and obtaining the bigger sizes is another impediment. With my first layout, I wanted to use the 22" snap track on the outside, so I could run a 4-8-4. Which placed the track SCARILY close to the edge. I added a plank or something onto the back of the sheet to gain some more width--still kept the plan, though. Ed
Being close to the edge of a layout is totally up to the hobbyist as far as comfort goes. I've seen many large layouts as well which have mainlines anywhere from an inch or two or even farther from the edge, but if trains derailed, there is nothing that would prevent them from careening off the edge on to the floor. I would guess the layouts are designed that way for visual appeal but anyone who is risk averse can design in features or "impediments" to keep rolling stock from going off the edge. One easy solution I used was to simply attach a piece of masonite to the side to that it provides a guard rail of sorts, which works fine as long as the sides of the trains clear it sufficiently.
OK so Athearn BBs have their issues.
Now I was looking at Athearn RTR units, it "appears" that the chassis is moulded out of something possibly plastic, is this true? If so slightly stretching the chassis would not be too difficult would it? Drive lines would have to be lengthened of course.
There was a guy on Atlas Rescue Forums, btw, who was deep into a project to make a correct hood DD35A (IIRC) from an Athearn blue box DD shell. He had literally cut it in half down the middle to remove the extra width and was working on roof details etc. adding back to roof fans etc. He was pretty far along, and mind you this guy has a great deal of experience kit bashing, and gave up on the project. Oviously taking an Athearn BB engine and kit bashing it to scale width is far out of reach for all but the more seasoned kit bashers.
The biggest issue with the wide body BB Athearns is their appearance, but if that doesn't bother you, then thats fine of course. Many had taken Athearn blue box engines and detailed them up to be nice looking engines for what it's worth. Of course the scale width hood BB engines come out looking best in the end.
I don't believe the Athearn BB chassis are anything but some sort of metal, not that I'm aware of anyway.
NWP SWP OK so Athearn BBs have their issues. Now I was looking at Athearn RTR units, it "appears" that the chassis is moulded out of something possibly plastic, is this true? If so slightly stretching the chassis would not be too difficult would it? Drive lines would have to be lengthened of course.
All the ones I threw away were cast metal.
This was the frame I was looking at.
Looks metal to me.
Athearn RTR has metal frames.
Larry
Conductor.
Summerset Ry.
"Stay Alert, Don't get hurt Safety First!"
Yep, metal.
NWP SWPThis was the frame I was looking at.
.
I don't think that is a blue box frame. At least it is not like any of mine.
Athearn blue box frames are metal, and the frame is "hot" meaning it is 1/2 of the electrical circuit for the motor. This adds an entirely different level of headaches if you want the final locomotive to be DCC, link up with othe BB locomotives, or pull a brass freight car.
Athearn blue box frames also do not lend themselves to being stretched very easily. You might need to learn to drill and tap brass bar stock to make a suitable extension piece for the frame.
You need all kinds of skills if you are ever going to complete a project like this.
-Kevin
Living the dream.
SeeYou190 NWP SWP This was the frame I was looking at. I don't think that is a blue box frame. At least it is not like any of mine. -Kevin
NWP SWP This was the frame I was looking at.
I agree. The give away to me is the circuit board mounted on the top of the chassis. I don't believe blue box chassis ever had a circuit board mounted; however the RTR versions as a rule do have a circuit board.
riogrande5761 SeeYou190 NWP SWP This was the frame I was looking at. I don't think that is a blue box frame. At least it is not like any of mine. -Kevin I agree. The give away to me is the circuit board mounted on the top of the chassis. I don't believe blue box chassis ever had a circuit board mounted; however the RTR versions as a rule do have a circuit board.
Guys,That's a Athearn RTR frame.
Am I the only one that passed Athearn 101?
The whole concept of trying to save money by trying to bring blue box models somewhere close to even RTR is hard to understand. It's been 50 years since I owned some of their first releases of the SDP-40 and SD-45, so I'm relying on memory only. First, the overly wide shells were held on the mechanism by four pegs extending from the cast metal underframe. The pilots were open to allow the mechanism to drop out if the shell sides were spread to disengage those four pegs. If my memory is correct, that cast frame was cast to be a snug fit inside that oversized body. To fit this frame in a narrowed wide body requires days/weeks of filing or, access to a milling machine, then a method of securing the modified body to the modified frame must be devised. All BB were DC only. No circuit boards to be "DCC ready". No flywheels. Overly wide, non skew wound motor. Electrical contact depended on a strip of metal that clipped onto the top of the motor and made occasional contact with L shaped extensions on the trucks. if my memory is correct, the wheels were brass, the truck sideframes were cast in the same metal as the underframe. Sound? That was what the motor and drive train were for. As far as the fat body shell goes, I think the hood doors were cast in relief instead of outline, as are most current products. All grab irons were cast on, handrail stanchions were simply bent wire. Why anyone would want to spend the time AND MONEY (which was supposed to be saved by this regression) trying to bring one of these technoligical dinosaurs into the 21st century is hard to comprehend, unless it is a labor of love or, the challenge it presents. When they were the only thing available, they were acceptable. As soon as more accurate, higher quality models became available, I couldn't dispose of my wide bodies quickly enough. Why go back?
NHTX The whole concept of trying to save money by trying to bring blue box models somewhere close to even RTR is hard to understand. .... When they were the only thing available, they were acceptable. As soon as more accurate, higher quality models became available, I couldn't dispose of my wide bodies quickly enough. Why go back?
The whole concept of trying to save money by trying to bring blue box models somewhere close to even RTR is hard to understand. .... When they were the only thing available, they were acceptable. As soon as more accurate, higher quality models became available, I couldn't dispose of my wide bodies quickly enough. Why go back?
I agree with you completely on your sentiments. I haven't owned a wide body Athearn since I left highschool back around 1977; I don't remember what happened to the one or two I had - I suspect my mother got rid of those thing around that time. But NHTX, keep in mind the starter of this topic is a young teen who doesn't have the benefit of 40 or 50 years in the hobby and if you read his siggy, you'll learn something about him that may explain some of what you see here in terms of posting content.
BRAKIE Guys,That's a Athearn RTR frame. Am I the only one that passed Athearn 101?
Definitely not.
I have a boat load of RTR Athearn's and in case it was missed I said, the circuit board was one major give-away.
NHTXNo flywheels. Overly wide, non skew wound motor. Electrical contact depended on a strip of metal that clipped onto the top of the motor and made occasional contact with L shaped extensions on the trucks. if my memory is correct, the wheels were brass, the truck sideframes were cast in the same metal as the underframe.
Later Athearn blue box locomotives had flywheels and narrower good running motors.
The metal strip contact is easily upgraded to hard wiring and much more reliable once modified.
Wheels have been all kinds of materials, but NWSL and Athearn both have made upgrades available that are very nice.
Truck sideframes became plastic at some point, and the bearing surface was moved to the inboard side of the axle. This was a great improvement. Only my Trainmaster has metal sideframes. I have never found a plastic sideframe Trainmaster chassis.
All my custom blue box projects use 0-80 screws to hold the body to the frame. This is not an easy modification.
I am not defending the blue box at all.
For what I do, the blue box frame is ideal. I run DC, and I like to build custom locomotives. For this purpose, the blue box frame with its rugged and reliable simplicity is great for me. For others, probably not, and like I said, I would not recommend it al all for what Steven suggested.
I do not lengthen blue box frames, and other than the electrical improvements, I make no other mechanical or electrical modifications. They have a whole bucket of built in defficiencies and should not be considered by DCC operators or serious detail guys.
For weirdoes like me that are just having fun, they have all types of uses and advantages.
SeeYou190 Later Athearn blue box locomotives had flywheels and narrower good running motors.
"good running" depends on the roll of the dice with those Athearn motors - I've had a few coffee grinders myself. Even the ones that weren't coffee grinders
The metal strip contact is easily upgraded to hard wiring and much more reliable once modified. . Wheels have been all kinds of materials, but NWSL and Athearn both have made upgrades available that are very nice. I am not defending the blue box at all.
And you are just giving some of the basics forgetting totally about the fat body shell. The upgrades you list at one time would be common to an upgrade worthy blue box like and SD40-2 or GP40-2 etc.
. For what I do, the blue box frame is ideal. I run DC, and I like to build custom locomotives. For this purpose, the blue box frame with its rugged and reliable simplicity is great for me. For others, probably not, and like I said, I would not recommend it al all for what Steven suggested. -Kevin
For sure YMMV. The rugged BB engines can make ideal candidates for Museums which run trains day in and day out.
riogrande5761And you are just giving some of the basics forgetting totally about the fat body shell.
I use Athearn blue box frames for the chassis for my custom locomotive projects. Since I am building a whole new body shell, the wide bodies do not matter one bit. The garbagemen can deal with those!
The only blue box locomotives I run with the Athearn shells are by PA-1/PB-1, and my Trainmaster. I also have a SD45 and and FP45 I painted for the STRATTON & GILLETTE, but they only used to run at train shows. Now they sit in boxes.
On the PA there is no issue with a wide body.
I honestly do not know if my Trainmaster has a wide body or not, but I love the look of the Athearn model. It looks impressively massive.
riogrande5761"good running" depends on the roll of the dice with those Athearn motors - I've had a few coffee grinders myself. Even the ones that weren't coffee grinders
Jim,You have no clue on how quiet these drives are when compared to the true coffee grinding brass and some plastic diesels that howled,grind and scream going down the track. The brass steamers wasn't as bad.
Our hearing started improving with the Atlas/Roco drives.
This is a RTR SD40T-2 frame. Earl...
BRAKIE riogrande5761 "good running" depends on the roll of the dice with those Athearn motors - I've had a few coffee grinders myself. Even the ones that weren't coffee grinders Jim,You have no clue on how quiet these drives are when compared to the true coffee grinding brass and some plastic diesels that howled,grind and scream going down the track. Our hearing started improving with the Atlas/Roco drives.
riogrande5761 "good running" depends on the roll of the dice with those Athearn motors - I've had a few coffee grinders myself. Even the ones that weren't coffee grinders
Jim,You have no clue on how quiet these drives are when compared to the true coffee grinding brass and some plastic diesels that howled,grind and scream going down the track. Our hearing started improving with the Atlas/Roco drives.
I have no clue because I couldn't afford brass engines - never owned one.
riogrande5761I have no clue because I couldn't afford brass engines - never owned one.
When I was buying brass diesels from Trains Inc,Alco Models and Hallmark in the mid 60s they was around $34.00. These models used those very noisy KTM drives.
And yes,we detailed those wide body Athearn diesels and some replaced the weatherization hatch on the GP7 with a 36" fan.
Testors bodyputty was a must have back then.
BRAKIEWhen I was buying brass diesels from Trains Inc,Alco Models and Hallmark in the mid 60s they was around $34.00. These models used those very noisy KTM drives.
Hah hah, sometimes I feel I'm getting old, and you come along and make me feel a little less old! I would have been in Kindergarten in the mid-1960's and was still playing with the plastic version of Thomas the Tank - they were called Child Guidance toy trains! I don't even think I knew brass trains existed until about 10 years later when I saw some in Sacramento hobby shops.
That said, it sounds like it was a blessing that I sort of avoided early brass diesel engines. In the early 1990's I hung around with some guys who had enough money to buy collections of brass engines and got to hear about their woes - so maybe I dodged that bullet.
BRAKIEOur hearing started improving with the Atlas/Roco drives.
Man is that the truth. Hobbytown, Varney, Athearn - all were considered to be good quality drives that pulled like the very Dickens for those of us who started in the hobby circa 1960, and were quieter than brass and the cheaper stuff such as the Marx F3 or the Fleischmann Baldwin, which were the real coffee grinders. Things improved a bit in the late 1960s, early 1970s - even Athearn got much quieter and smoother once they introduced flywheels and the more slender motors.
But when those first Atlas diesels came out, it changed everything in terms of expectations; it was a cliche at the time to say they ran like Swiss watches. Even today my Atlas Alco seems whisper quiet (but I am no longer a Pennsy modeler so I rarely run it), and you could make a case that those Atlas engines are about the oldest things out there that are worth converting to DCC with sound. It may pay to convert an older 1960-65 era Athearn to DCC if you care to go through the work but not to DCC plus sound because the engine noises compete too much.
Dave Nelson
dknelson But when those first Atlas diesels came out, it changed everything in terms of expectations; it was a cliche at the time to say they ran like Swiss watches. Even today my Atlas Alco seems whisper quiet, and you could make a case that those Atlas engines are about the oldest things out there that are worth converting to DCC with sound. Dave Nelson
But when those first Atlas diesels came out, it changed everything in terms of expectations; it was a cliche at the time to say they ran like Swiss watches. Even today my Atlas Alco seems whisper quiet, and you could make a case that those Atlas engines are about the oldest things out there that are worth converting to DCC with sound.
Was that Atlas ALco the ones with the KATO drive? I had an Atlas yellow box RS3 and it was a KATO drive, similar to the KATO Stewart drives, which to this day are still top notch. Really the KATO drive yellow box Atlas were in a different class as far as the chassis go vs. the ROCO drive versions.
Certainly the ROCO drive were a huge improvement back in the 1970's. I had several ROCO drive Atlas yellow box GP40's but the shells and ugly fuel tank caused me to sell them off when the Atlas red box came available around 1999 and later.
I did build a layout in my garage and ran my yellow box Atlas GP40's. They were definitely not as smooth as my KATO drive Stewart F7's or Atlas RS3, but they were quiet and decent. I'm sure they were a huge improvement over many of the other choices back when they were introduced in the 1970's and 1980's.
Funny how different modelers prioritize things for being either important or not important. Myself, I don't care about fidelity in the areas of proto-specific details, proper paint color, every little part in its proper place; but I am a stickler for dimensional accuracy.
Even as a kid, wide bodies and Atlas/Kato chunky fuel tanks turned me off to the point where I never owned one. Even the Athearn modern boxcar issue ( I believe their FMCs) and old MDC, where the boxcar is one scale foot too wide, is enough of a dimensional error to inhibit me from owning any.
Being a freelancer, I'm not stuck to a prototype and maybe that's why certain proto-fidelity issues aren't important to me. I understand that if someone needed a specific DD40 for their layout/collection they might have to buy what's available. Again, its interesting as to what things bother some and not others.
- Douglas
Jim,The Atlas/Roco S4 is still a smooth runner and just as quiet as the Atlas/Kato drive.I have 4 of those S4s plus several Atlas/Kato engines.
Atlas/Roco also made the SD24.
Advanced modelers would fill that "screw driver slot" with Testors body putty and after smoothing it they would repaint the tank.