A heads-up for those desiring to run some of today's highly detailed RTR rolling stock thru 18 & 20" curves; be prepared for a little nip & tuck of that beautiful underside brake rigging to allow full swing of the trucks.
Offenders so far are a few 50 & 60 footers from three different Mfg. I do appreciate and covet the highly detailed cars and realize that Model Railroading is after all a tinkering hobby. Not that I want any Mfg. to be caught in a fidelity gap, but am I wrong to expect that the 50' boxcar that I just plunked down $50+ for will negotiate an 18"R curve at slow speed without modification?
Regards, Peter
Seems like the short answer is "yes", given your account of their behavior.
That being said, is it maybe a simple issue of the trucks being too tight?
-Dan
Builder of Bowser steam! Railimages Site
Are the cars from the modern era, a specific reporting mark, or something else? Such answers can help others avoid similar issues. I guess even expensive cars have their issues.
Perhaps RTR does not equate to full-proof.
NeO6874trucks being too tight?
Thanks for the reply, trucks aren't too tight, definitely a brake rigging issue. On the 60' hopper clipping a small piece of the brake chain away did the trick.
In fairness the one Mfg. I contacted about the issue offered a refund, but not as a defect and basically said that such things are part of meeting today's demand for more and better detailed rolling stock models. Also a friendly suggestion was made about their less detailed line of models.
I do recall seeing minimum radius recommendations for some locos and long passenger cars, but not freight cars. Maybe such recommendations would be good for those who don't wish to modify a car, but not from a sales standpoint.
Thanks again and regards, Peter
HO-Veloam I wrong to expect that the 50' boxcar that I just plunked down $50+ for will negotiate an 18"R curve at slow speed without modification?
Yes, sad to say. Whatever the equivalent curve degree that would match an 18" radius in HO, I suspect only certain pieces of prototype equipment could negotiate such a curve, regardless of slow speed. Our cars and locomotives that are built to negotiate an 18" radius curves have many compromises from scale and prototype: wheel slop, changing wheelbase, coupler swing, eliminating or altering or changing placement of details such as steps and end platforms, and the list goes on, often over and above the compromises that are already built into NMRA standards for track and wheels.
As a rule the higher priced pieces of rolling stock are priced that way due to their higher fidelity to scale and fewer compromises.
Dave Nelson
Peter,
While they won't tell you as that would cut into their sales, many of the new cars, especially the highly detailed ones aren't made to run on 18" radius. It's a shame, as I have a few that won't run on 22" radius. I have some tight spaces on my railroad. Passenger cars from one company recommend 24" radius and most people who I talk to have issues with them running on that radius as well.
Yes, some small cuts here and there do help to make them run. I guess maybe we're expecting too much from some factories?
Sometimes instead of a quick snip, see if you can tuck the offending bit up or over and CA it out of the way, so you can reverse the procedure after you move into your castle with a big train room.
Brent
"All of the world's problems are the result of the difference between how we think and how the world works."
The Maryland and Pennsylvania had some of the sharpest mainline curves. Their 20 degree curve was sharper than some narrow gauge lines. In HO that's 39.7 inches.
So yes if you want highly detailed correct models including brake rigging then you will need broad curves.
18 inch curves require compromises.
Paul
HO-Velo A heads-up for those desiring to run some of today's highly detailed RTR rolling stock thru 18 & 20" curves; be prepared for a little nip & tuck of that beautiful underside brake rigging to allow full swing of the trucks. Offenders so far are a few 50 & 60 footers from three different Mfg. I do appreciate and covet the highly detailed cars and realize that Model Railroading is after all a tinkering hobby. Not that I want any Mfg. to be caught in a fidelity gap, but am I wrong to expect that the 50' boxcar that I just plunked down $50+ for will negotiate an 18"R curve at slow speed without modification? Regards, Peter
Yup, and some 50 footers wont run on 24 inch radius curves because the trucks bump into the rigging.
I paid $35 for a boxcar and had to remove the detail that partly made it $35.
Maybe producers should test them, instead of thinking people buy them just to display, then provide a disclaimer about what radius curve they wont run on without removing details.
- Douglas
nealknows Peter, While they won't tell you as that would cut into their sales, many of the new cars, especially the highly detailed ones aren't made to run on 18" radius. It's a shame, as I have a few that won't run on 22" radius. I have some tight spaces on my railroad. Passenger cars from one company recommend 24" radius and most people who I talk to have issues with them running on that radius as well. Yes, some small cuts here and there do help to make them run. I guess maybe we're expecting too much from some factories?
A disclaimer on the box would be nice.
I don't want to use the word fraud, but its generally accepted that 50 foot cars will run on 18 inch radius curves, so taking advantage of a known assumption by not disclosing it fails the known assumption because of the details they use to get their prices, seems shady to me.
It seems to me that highly detailed models with fidelity to scale or near-to-scale details would obviously be at odds with 18" radius curves: one attempts to match the prototype as closely as possible, the other makes no attempt to do so.
I'm not saying that you shouldn't run such cars on those curves, but only that it would be wise to temper your expectations, and perhaps be prepared to do some modifications.
Wayne
doctorwayne It seems to me that highly detailed models with fidelity to scale or near-to-scale details would obviously be at odds with 18" radius curves: one attempts to match the prototype as closely as possible, the other makes no attempt to do so.
Which introduces an interesting philisophical question. Since we compromise so much fidelity when we build a layout, why the fuss over high fidelity equipment?
Doughless doctorwayne It seems to me that highly detailed models with fidelity to scale or near-to-scale details would obviously be at odds with 18" radius curves: one attempts to match the prototype as closely as possible, the other makes no attempt to do so. Which introduces and interesting philisophical question. Since we compromise so much fidelity when we build a layout, why the fuss over high fidelity equipment?
Which introduces and interesting philisophical question. Since we compromise so much fidelity when we build a layout, why the fuss over high fidelity equipment?
We?
I got me 48" curves.
So it's a rare day when rolling stock won't make my curves.
If I was forced to use 18" curves, I'd be running 40' cars on my industrial layout set in the '30's. And enjoying it, I might add. Let's not forget that B&O had their Docksides for a reason. And that first diesel switcher ran on some incredibly tight curves. With cars.
I think people who expect a 4-12-2 to take their 18" radius curves should just hold their breaths until they turn blue.
I DO feel that every car and loco should have a minimum radius (a REAL one) printed on the box it comes in. So it hurts sales? Well, it hurts sales, too, when customers can't run their new stuff on their railroad!
Ed
7j43k We? I got me 48" curves. So it's a rare day when rolling stock won't make my curves. If I was forced to use 18" curves, I'd be running 40' cars on my industrial layout set in the '30's. And enjoying it, I might add. Let's not forget that B&O had their Docksides for a reason. And that first diesel switcher ran on some incredibly tight curves. With cars.
That's my feeling too. Realism is important, so space dictates what kind of railroad I want to model. I think some, if not many, are committed to modeling a certain railroad, time, or place and try to make it fit into what ever space they have.
I see a lot of people seeking advice about their layout design on this forum who seem to take the latter approach quite often.
Different approaches. Different compromises made.
In general, the more detail, the more likely tight curves may cause problems. Curves in the 18 to 20 inch radius range are basically train set curves and are extremely sharp by today's standards. Using such tight curves is going to inherently going to force compromises in 1/87 scale versions of trains. I always strongly recommend increasing radius as much as possible; every bit helps. Otherwise expect limitations to be a fact.
It reminds me of my computer gaming days when people would they to run games with all the "eye candy" on a minimum spec computer and be disappointed with the results.
Years ago I built a layout in my garage 16x19 ft with 30 inch minimum curves, which I though we're reasonably broad. A friend brought his brass heavy weight CNW heavy weight passenger cars over. Couldn't run them as the truck side frames shorted out against the frame. Surprised and disappointed.
More detail, expect larger radius curves will be needed or mods to the rolling stock. Many in the hobby for years know this already.
Rio Grande. The Action Road - Focus 1977-1983
Everything I have runs on 18 inch curves. That's mostly 40 foot freight cars, some 50 footers. I don't press my luck with long well cars or giant tankers which are beyond my era anyway.
I've got some longer Rivarossi coaches I've tinkered with, but I relented and re-did the track to a true 18 inch curves.
It takes an iron man to play with a toy iron horse.
kasskaboosecars from the modern era
Yes these are modern era cars, and yeah, RTR doesn't mean full-proof.
Does seem ironic that the brake rigging on these recently purchased cars make them unrealiable where such details are more noticeable, like a few spurs on my small switching layout.
Though any highly detailed 50' car with underside brake detail might be suspect in negotiating an 18"R curve, there are many that do so right out of the box.
Can't hurt to pass along feedback to the Mfgs about making minimum radius recommendations available, at least on their website car descriptions. A reasonable thing to know before deciding which car to bust out another $50+ on, regardless of model railroading experience, layout size, or era modeled.
Thanks and regards, Peter
While I only occasionally bother adding fairly well-detailed brake gear to a freight car, like on this scratchbuilt model of a Seaboard 1932 ARA recommended design...
...I make sure that the rods, which would supposedly operate the brakes, are not in any way going to interfere with the wheels or with truck rotation...
...and from the side, if anyone bothers to notice, it still looks as if everything goes to where it should...
The modeler that is disappointedwhen his true-to-scale, $50+ freight car won't negotiate a train set curve, should realize that although all prototype equipment was made to the same "scale", there were places certain equipment could not be used. Look at tinplate curves. What was the solution of Lionel and American Flyer? Shorter than prototype cars, on Talgo trucks! Back in the days when everybody in HO was relying on Varney Docksides to power their short strings of 40 foot cars, talgo trucks were the "standard" for a lot of ready to run equipment. Curves as sharp as 15 inches were available in snap-track and 22 inches was considered broad radius. Code 100 brass rail, fiber tie strips, pizza cutter flanges, horn-hook couplers were the "standard" of that era.
Fast forward to today. Find any of the former "standard" items for sale new, today? No. Instead, just like any other human endeavor, progress has long since passed them by. Who today lays their code 100 brass rail on compressed paper tie strips? How many 40 foot boxcars were in the last prototype freight train you saw? Why do the real railroads still have four axle locomotives, instead of everything being six axled? Because not all equipment can go everywhere. There are curves and other track issues that prohibit it.
The manufacturers are producing prototypically accurate models that do not compromise anything EXCEPT the trucks and in some cases, couplers and draft gear boxes. When a person lays out $50 for one of these masterpieces, it is expected to replicate the real thing. If the manufacturer brought out a line of three deck enclosed auto racks 40 feet long, how many would you buy? How about 40 foot streamlined passenger cars? They would be modified to be totally compatible with 18 inch radius curves. Reflection of the prototype? No. The problem is, the prototype and thus the models have surpassed the 18 inch radius curve and sadly the trusty old 4X8 sheet of plywood.
The Layout Design Special Interest Group published rule of thumbs for the ratio of radius to car length over couplers and the consequences: http://www.ldsig.org/ldsigwiki/hints-tips/curve_radius_rule-of-thumb
Here is the table from the link. The website contains additionally some examples.
Ratio Description2X - Some model equipment may be able to track reliably on 2X their length, but this is generally considered pushing it.
3X - Making your curve radius at least 3X the length of your longest cars gets reliable tracking around curves, but looks toylike.
4X - If you make your curve radius at least 4X, your longest cars will look much better on curves.
5X - If you make your curve radius at least 5X, your longest cars will couple easily with minimal manual fiddling of the couplers.
This measurement is based on the length of your longest car (coupler to coupler).
In another publication two more ratios were given:
3.5 x - Equipment will look less toy-like when viewed from inside the curve
Perhaps these results of the LDSIG help with the selection of the proper cars.Regards, Volker
HO-Velo Can't hurt to pass along feedback to the Mfgs about making minimum radius recommendations available, at least on their website car descriptions. A reasonable thing to know before deciding which car to bust out another $50+ on, regardless of model railroading experience, layout size, or era modeled. Thanks and regards, Peter
So rather than complain to fellow modelers, why don't you give feedback directly to the manufacturers? Afterall, it's them you want to feed the customer with more detailed specs about how tight a curve you can get away with.
NHTX The modeler that is disappointedwhen his true-to-scale, $50+ freight car won't negotiate a train set curve, should realize that although all prototype equipment was made to the same "scale", there were places certain equipment could not be used. ... The manufacturers are producing prototypically accurate models that do not compromise anything EXCEPT the trucks and in some cases, couplers and draft gear boxes. When a person lays out $50 for one of these masterpieces, it is expected to replicate the real thing. If the manufacturer brought out a line of three deck enclosed auto racks 40 feet long, how many would you buy? How about 40 foot streamlined passenger cars? They would be modified to be totally compatible with 18 inch radius curves. Reflection of the prototype? No. The problem is, the prototype and thus the models have surpassed the 18 inch radius curve and sadly the trusty old 4X8 sheet of plywood.
The modeler that is disappointedwhen his true-to-scale, $50+ freight car won't negotiate a train set curve, should realize that although all prototype equipment was made to the same "scale", there were places certain equipment could not be used. ...
The manufacturers are producing prototypically accurate models that do not compromise anything EXCEPT the trucks and in some cases, couplers and draft gear boxes. When a person lays out $50 for one of these masterpieces, it is expected to replicate the real thing. If the manufacturer brought out a line of three deck enclosed auto racks 40 feet long, how many would you buy? How about 40 foot streamlined passenger cars? They would be modified to be totally compatible with 18 inch radius curves. Reflection of the prototype? No.
The problem is, the prototype and thus the models have surpassed the 18 inch radius curve and sadly the trusty old 4X8 sheet of plywood.
This ^^^ x 1000
It's a often a nasty surprise when hobbyists are still following the 4x8 sheet of plywood format and find out a toy trainset style layout is best for running toy trainset type rolling stock - as mentioned by NHTX the compromises made in other scales to shoehorn those trains around extremely tight curves.
IMO, customers expect manufacturers to warn them about everything but when you buy $50 freight cars, generally at that price point you are getting a scale masterpiece which, for most of us at least, it's common sense that a 4x8 absolute minimum curve format layout isn't going to play nicely with high fidelity scale models.
Sure, most have always expected 50' box car to operate on a 4x8 with tight curves (and 18" curves ARE very sharp in HO), but traditionally the rolling stock operated on those layouts has had comprises engineered into them, even some of the better detailed RTR cars. But then when you get into the high end like Moloco, Tangent etc. where there are less and less compromises because people who pay those prices are expecting high fidelity.
And the OP also mentioned 60' rolling stock; quite frankly 60' freight cars on an 18" curve, even omitting the high fidelity cars, is pushing it, so I'm definitely not surprised those are not user friendly.
As mentioned, about the only compromises still there are the wheels (usually standard 0.110 profile or sometimes semi-scale 0.088 profile and Kadee couplers. The only things left to go even closer to fidelity would be Proto 87 with correct to scale wheels and couplers (Seargents?) and there you have to have Proto 87 track or things aren't going to go well.
http://www.proto87.com/What_is_Proto87.html
So to the OP, rather than complain to forum folks, go directly to the manufacturers. I'm not sure they will add verbage to the packaging or advertising but you never know. I wouldn't be surprised if manufacturers were forced to list minimum radius for a 60' box car that it would be 22 inches, and the OP listed 18 and 20 inch curves, to there you go, no sale. But frankly, the high fidelity manufacturers probably wouldn't lose many sales because they aren't aiming at the 4x8 crowed.
Regarding the original complaint; here are things you have control over:
1) make modifications to the rolling stock if you can't build a layout with larger radius curves (which sort of defeats the purpose of buying high fidelity rolling stock to a degree) or,
2) rebuild your layout with larger curves and break free of the 4x8 straight jacket. Even a 5x9 which is still quite small, would allow you to go with 24 and 26.5 inch curves which probably would make significant difference, because at low radiuses, every inch you can increase yields much bigger dividends than every inch at higher radiuses.
riogrande5761 More detail, expect larger radius curves will be needed or mods to the rolling stock. Many in the hobby for years know this already.
Perhaps many, but not most. Highly detailed underside RTR models have not been around a very long time. I'd wager most who bought them let them sit in the box for a long time, displayed them, used them on a switching layout, etc. before they ran them and found out they didn't work as assumed.
Afterall, Atlas has been producing freight cars with underside detail for a long time and they all work on 18 inch curves, IIRC. Why wouldn't the other Mfgs cars work also?
There's a large difference between a car running on a certain radius and it operating well. I commend those who can get a car to operate on an 18" radius despite suggestions to keep the curves broader. Defining the term "broad" is somewhat subjective, so thanks for avoiding a heated debate about that topic.
While fun to play the game of "how tight to make a curve," there are standards for ensuring different car lengths can function on curves. Publishing this information on the boxes of cars might increase the cost of manufacturing. It might also encourage a level of standardization sorely needed to reduce frustration.
doctorwayne ...I make sure that the rods, which would supposedly operate the brakes, are not in any way going to interfere with the wheels or with truck rotation... ...and from the side, if anyone bothers to notice, it still looks as if everything goes to where it should... Wayne
Thanks Wayne. That is the point.
Some Mfgs are advertising how more accurate their models are than others, but fail to disclose the compromise made for that extra fidelity. JMO.
And if they are truly designing their cars to cater to only those operators who have broad curves, they would go bankrupt.
Again, JMO.
EDIT: My experience is that some of those 50 foot boxcars won't run on 24 inch radius curves. Don't know why we're focused on 18 inch radius.
Doughless Afterall, Atlas has been producing freight cars with underside detail for a long time and they all work on 18 inch curves, IIRC. Why wouldn't the other Mfgs cars work also?
If they're the ones I'm thinking about ... the "underbody detail" is
I still can't figure out why some would pay $50 for an HO scale freight car. But, that's for another thread...
Having said that, I did purchase 3 of the high end RTR cars from two of the top manufacturers. None of the three were up to my standards with crooked mounted brake wheels, ladders, etc, so I sold them. I will stick with my kit built stock, then I only have myself to blame if they don't look right. Plus, I will make sure they work the way I want before they are finished.
A 50' car should be able to negotiate an 18" curve...
Chuck - Modeling in HO scale and anything narrow gauge
trwroute I still can't figure out why some would pay $50 for an HO scale freight car. But, that's for another thread...
Since you brought it up, I'll address that comment as "fair game".
If you can't figure it out, then those models are not marketed for you would be my guess, was well as those who do not find value in these models. Obviously they are selling judging by my observations of Moloco, for example, which sell in the $53-$56 range and many of the road names are sold out.
It's a bit like saying, I can't figure out why someone would buy a Mercedes or a BMW, but I see tons of them on the road here where I live. I don't find value in them personally as a means of transportation but it's clear many do find value and/or can afford them. It just depends on what your "poison" is.
Having said that, I did purchase 3 of the high end RTR cars from two of the top manufacturers. None of the three were up to my standards with crooked mounted brake wheels, ladders, etc, so I sold them. I will stick with my kit built stock, then I only have myself to blame if they don't look right. Plus, I will make sure they work the way I want before they are finished. A 50' car should be able to negotiate an 18" curve...
Fair enough. Some would also say an 85' passenger car "should" negotiate a 30" curve, but I found out a set of lovely brass C&NW heavy weight passenger cars could not.
The moral of the story is modelers need to have realistic expectations and reality is some models will not meet them; some models are manufactured with certain hobbyists in mind.
As for you sticking with kits, I would guess Obi Wan would do the Jedi Hand way and say, "these high end models" are not the droids you are looking for". Move along, move along.
NeO6874 Doughless Afterall, Atlas has been producing freight cars with underside detail for a long time and they all work on 18 inch curves, IIRC. Why wouldn't the other Mfgs cars work also? If they're the ones I'm thinking about ... the "underbody detail" is brake reserviour triple valve maybe the major pipes (trainline, feeds to the two above-mentioned parts), while staying away from the trucks.
That's true, but my Fox Valley 50 foot boxcar wouldn't negotiate a 24 inch radius curve due to the trainline (I think) being angled towards the truck. I don't know if fidelity demands that it runs towards the trucks at an angle, or if Atlas chooses to run it down the center to create truck clearance.
My point is not about the choices modelers make. They're all good. Its about what the Mfgs knowingly do. It seems to me the category of customer that buys high fidelity rolling stock falls into a few categories ( maybe more?)
1. Own a large radius railroad and inherently know before purchase that underbody detail makes the car only applicable to large radius layouts.
2. Collector who either displays the car or doesn't open the box.
3. The guy who buys it for the "future" layout, only to discover three years after he accumulating 50 of these cars finds out none of them run on his planned layout.
4. The guy with a small radius layout who buys a few then stops because he has to remove the detail he paid for.
I think customer's #2 and #3 keeps these Mfgs in business. (and helps #1 get what they want at an affordable price)
So a disclaimer on the package and website would seem appropriate.
DoughlessSome Mfgs are advertising how more accurate their models are than others, but fail to disclose the compromise made for that extra fidelity. And if they are truly designing their cars to cater to only those operators who have broad curves, they would go bankrupt.
So far that doesn't seem to be the case.
I sense an ill tone toward some of these manufacturers in this topic; it could be a case that those unhappy with this issue are minority enough that the manufacturers haven't been compelled to lable their products with a minimum radius. Just guessing.
Anyway, it would seem common sense to take this beef straight to the manufacturers, unless the point is to stir up sentiment and get others to find pitchforks and torches and go as a group to the manufactures to get them to change their ways.
Or as an alternative, just buy what works for you.
Because the OP included 18 inch radius in his original complaint?
riogrande5761 Since you brought it up, I'll address that comment as "fair game". If you can't figure it out, then those models are not marketed for you would be my guess, was well as those who do not find value in these models. Obviously they are selling judging by my observations of Moloco, for example, which sell in the $53-$56 range and many of the road names are sold out. It's a bit like saying, I can't figure out why someone would buy a Mercedes or a BMW, but I see tons of them on the road here where I live. I don't find value in them personally as a means of transportation but it's clear many do find value and/or can afford them. It just depends on what your "poison" is. I found out a set of lovely brass C&NW heavy weight passenger cars could not.
Jim, I wouldn't have expected any other reply from you! You've been in this hobby just as long as I have, and building kits has always been a big part of it, at least for me. If I fork out the dough to buy one of the elite RTR cars, it dang sure better do what I want it to do. As was pointed out in an earlier comment, it isn't hard to make a few changes to make sure these cars are truly RTR.
Besides, why worry too much about about having all the brake gear when so much of it is out of scale anyway?
Brass is it's own thing. You would be lucky to find a 40 footer that would make an 18" curve.