THANK YOU IRON ROOSTER - YOUR LINK TO NMRA WAS MOST HELPFULL AND I CAN GIVE IT TO GIFT BUYING FAMILY MEMBERS. I AM BUILDING A LAYOUT WITH 18" RADIUS DUE TO SPACE LIMITATIONS AND USING ROUNDHOUSE 34' MAX. LENGHT CARS FOR APPEARANCE.
Joe Fugate Modeling the 1980s SP Siskiyou Line in southern Oregon
LGBFan123 wrote: NeO6874 wrote:now, in hopes of not refueling a flame war....Like you said (as have others) sometimes the "appearance" doesn't matter, just that they will negotiate the radius you have available.IMO - this almost causes a double standard to develop - there's the standard of having an authentic representation of some of the greatest pieces of machinery every developed (including, but not limited to K-4's, Atlantics, Challengers, Mallets, Consolidations, Americans, um... <all the rest of the steam loco wheel arrangements>) but on the other hand being able to market this to more people than those who have the space to make the 30"+ radii curves or the 150'+ straightaways to make a coal drag look "good". In order to do this, (as a good portion of other posters have said), we have to cut corners/modify/etc most everything that hits the high iron.Personally, I hope to be able to one day accurately model some part of the PRR or NYC or NKP or some other road. I have high expectations of what I want to do - entirely hand-laid (scale) 39' rail (hey, the REAL Railroads did it this way, so why can't I?) as close to 100% accurate locos, cars, etc (ie all wheels flanged, enough space to put in a prototype yard/engine facility enough space for curves large enough to handle everything reliably, AND look excellent while doing so...Now, my reality will be more along these lines: sectional and/or flex-track locos/cars modified to fit my constraints yard/engine facility scaled WAY back to fit the space i actually have curves that are small enough to fit said available space (hey, that sounds like all of us...)So perhaps it is "cheesy" to have a massive (~130') locomotive be able to track a curve that an ~80' car can't (although said locomotive isn't a rigid 130')... but we have to live with these deviations from reality in order to fit out basement empires IN our basement (and within some form of a budget)...I guess what I'm trying to say is that, after a day's work, as long as you can sit back and watch the trains roll over the high-iron to destinations unknown, then does it really matter if we aren't 100% true to prototype? If you agree that everyone compromises in some way....I am 100% behind you. Some of us, because we lack the real estate, compromise in the size of our layouts. But who is to say users of 18" or 22" curves are LESS PROTOTYPICAL than those who are using scale radius BUT so-called "steam engines" that don't run off of REAL coal and water? Diesel engines that do not run off of petroleum products, I hate to say it, are NOT BEING PROTOTYPICAL...and you are compromising just as much as putting a heavyweight coach around 22" radius. Face it, if you make a face for those who run big stock around tight curves---unless you got HO live-steam engines and real diesel fuel intoxicating your hobby room, you are compromising BIG TIME. Thus, a "model steam locomotive" that does not run off REAL STEAM is at best a TOY. So all you pesky types shouting to others "your layout isn't prototypical...." must get a grip...you are at best, playing with neato looking toys yourself.
NeO6874 wrote:now, in hopes of not refueling a flame war....Like you said (as have others) sometimes the "appearance" doesn't matter, just that they will negotiate the radius you have available.IMO - this almost causes a double standard to develop - there's the standard of having an authentic representation of some of the greatest pieces of machinery every developed (including, but not limited to K-4's, Atlantics, Challengers, Mallets, Consolidations, Americans, um... <all the rest of the steam loco wheel arrangements>) but on the other hand being able to market this to more people than those who have the space to make the 30"+ radii curves or the 150'+ straightaways to make a coal drag look "good". In order to do this, (as a good portion of other posters have said), we have to cut corners/modify/etc most everything that hits the high iron.Personally, I hope to be able to one day accurately model some part of the PRR or NYC or NKP or some other road. I have high expectations of what I want to do - entirely hand-laid (scale) 39' rail (hey, the REAL Railroads did it this way, so why can't I?) as close to 100% accurate locos, cars, etc (ie all wheels flanged, enough space to put in a prototype yard/engine facility enough space for curves large enough to handle everything reliably, AND look excellent while doing so...Now, my reality will be more along these lines: sectional and/or flex-track locos/cars modified to fit my constraints yard/engine facility scaled WAY back to fit the space i actually have curves that are small enough to fit said available space (hey, that sounds like all of us...)So perhaps it is "cheesy" to have a massive (~130') locomotive be able to track a curve that an ~80' car can't (although said locomotive isn't a rigid 130')... but we have to live with these deviations from reality in order to fit out basement empires IN our basement (and within some form of a budget)...I guess what I'm trying to say is that, after a day's work, as long as you can sit back and watch the trains roll over the high-iron to destinations unknown, then does it really matter if we aren't 100% true to prototype?
(hey, that sounds like all of us...)So perhaps it is "cheesy" to have a massive (~130') locomotive be able to track a curve that an ~80' car can't (although said locomotive isn't a rigid 130')... but we have to live with these deviations from reality in order to fit out basement empires IN our basement (and within some form of a budget)...I guess what I'm trying to say is that, after a day's work, as long as you can sit back and watch the trains roll over the high-iron to destinations unknown, then does it really matter if we aren't 100% true to prototype?
If you agree that everyone compromises in some way....I am 100% behind you. Some of us, because we lack the real estate, compromise in the size of our layouts.
But who is to say users of 18" or 22" curves are LESS PROTOTYPICAL than those who are using scale radius BUT so-called "steam engines" that don't run off of REAL coal and water? Diesel engines that do not run off of petroleum products, I hate to say it, are NOT BEING PROTOTYPICAL...and you are compromising just as much as putting a heavyweight coach around 22" radius.
Face it, if you make a face for those who run big stock around tight curves---unless you got HO live-steam engines and real diesel fuel intoxicating your hobby room, you are compromising BIG TIME.
Thus, a "model steam locomotive" that does not run off REAL STEAM is at best a TOY. So all you pesky types shouting to others "your layout isn't prototypical...." must get a grip...you are at best, playing with neato looking toys yourself.
Well, I wasn't going so far as to say that about the locomotives...
I was just making the point that we all have high hopes/dreams for our own basement (or bedroom/office/garage/wherever) empires... (as in the list I made of things that I would eventually want to do)... but also was making the point, that when I actually have the time, money, and space to build said dream layout, I will more than likely have to compromise - so as to fit the available space, budget, etc.
-Dan
Builder of Bowser steam! Railimages Site
Cudaken
UP is up, the opposite of down, or, look in my signature for another translation.
But, in the RR world, some folks think it stands for Union Pacific. Go figure.
Brad
EMD - Every Model Different
ALCO - Always Leaking Coolant and Oil
CSX - Coal Spilling eXperts
Safety Valve wrote: We dont live in the big houses and have large spaces devoted entirely to trains. Usually the people who purchase "Big steam" are well aware of the limitation of radius and will find a way to accomodate it. My first big steam was a Bachmann GS-4 with the inframe pancake motor. Yes it took 18" but looked really bad and did not pull anything worthy of a train. That engine was a lesson if anything on how to run big steam properly with future locomotives. I recall being told if you got room to run 30+ cars, you already have room to run big steam. You can still run that on a smaller layout but from a camera's point of view you may only have a few feet worth of benchwork and scenery to run that train past. It is a hobby of compromises and I myself have it both ways... a consist of 4 axle units to handle heavy trains on sharp curves and the big steam to run where there is room to get up and go. I also have a small group of little steam that are very enjoyable as well. Im happy. Are you?
We dont live in the big houses and have large spaces devoted entirely to trains.
Usually the people who purchase "Big steam" are well aware of the limitation of radius and will find a way to accomodate it. My first big steam was a Bachmann GS-4 with the inframe pancake motor. Yes it took 18" but looked really bad and did not pull anything worthy of a train. That engine was a lesson if anything on how to run big steam properly with future locomotives.
I recall being told if you got room to run 30+ cars, you already have room to run big steam. You can still run that on a smaller layout but from a camera's point of view you may only have a few feet worth of benchwork and scenery to run that train past.
It is a hobby of compromises and I myself have it both ways... a consist of 4 axle units to handle heavy trains on sharp curves and the big steam to run where there is room to get up and go. I also have a small group of little steam that are very enjoyable as well. Im happy.
Are you?
You better belive it. I am doing the same as you. Big steam, got a bunch, running on 36"+ radius and small- 2-8-2 and such on 28" min. Smallest on the layout is 22" for about 3" (curved turnout 22" and 24") changing that out to the biggest I can find!
I like my Camelback pulling 36 ft billboard cars and also like the Big Boy's pulling coal drags and PFE.
I am Happy with what I built and will fix that curved turnout as soom as I find one!
LGBFan123 wrote:<<What is cheesy to me is making a Big Boy that will run on 18" radius track, and not letting you know what non-prototypical modifications were necessary to make that happen, and how bad the overhang will be on 18" radius.>> Hmmmm...that would be cheesy, but I have not seen this happen with either the Trix model or the new Genesis Big Boy. Both models clearly state in advertising and specifications that they negotiate tight raidus and this is due to both drives pivoting (which is apparently unprototypical). Manufacturers , if the loco can manage it, will say "will run on 18" but 22" recommended". That is good enough for me , from that I can deduce that a Big Boy will have a big overhang on curves. So what? I rather have a big boy with overhang than none at all. Matter of fact, even if you have not been into HO for some time, without that information putting a HO Big Boy on a tight curve would seem to have much over-hang. This is no-brainer. I am glad a Big Boy can negotiate such curves and I applaud the manufacturers for this....and I plan to purchase them because of it.
<<What is cheesy to me is making a Big Boy that will run on 18" radius track, and not letting you know what non-prototypical modifications were necessary to make that happen, and how bad the overhang will be on 18" radius.>>
Hmmmm...that would be cheesy, but I have not seen this happen with either the Trix model or the new Genesis Big Boy. Both models clearly state in advertising and specifications that they negotiate tight raidus and this is due to both drives pivoting (which is apparently unprototypical). Manufacturers , if the loco can manage it, will say "will run on 18" but 22" recommended". That is good enough for me , from that I can deduce that a Big Boy will have a big overhang on curves. So what? I rather have a big boy with overhang than none at all.
Matter of fact, even if you have not been into HO for some time, without that information putting a HO Big Boy on a tight curve would seem to have much over-hang. This is no-brainer. I am glad a Big Boy can negotiate such curves and I applaud the manufacturers for this....and I plan to purchase them because of it.
jfugate wrote:Selector:I think most of us knew what you meant, and you are the last person on here I would think is trying to talk down to the rest of us.I took your comment to mean that we all get to learn things the hard way now and then, and it's in comparing the "hobby scars" that we can all see everyone has their share of boo-boos and wished-I-had-done-it-different stories. That's nothing to be ashamed of nor is it a put-down. It's called experience, and is something highly sought in our culture.So the next time you pull a moaner of a boo-boo, just remind yourself you are getting experience!
Joe I agree 100% Folks like you, Selector, Spacemouse and Randy Rinker and there are others. Always show class and make a person that reads your posts understand that it is a well thought out post and worth reading. Some others like to just raise heck for whatever reason.
I got my EXPERIENCE when I had to tear out 60 feet of track to increase the radius from 28" to 36". I body mounted all my couplers on the Rivarossi passenger cars and did not like the look of them on a curve that will probably become a focal point on the layout. Did not loose any track or roadbed. All was put down with Latex Caulk and in that area we used WS foam roadbed. Nice when you listen to what people tell you about laying track.
...and, oooohhh, how I am getting experience. I have learned that I detest using cloth under my hardshell because it has no rigidity. But it sure makes some great and varied topography. So, when I want to move along, I use aluminum window screen, but when I want great scenery, I have to do it the way I like least.
Thank-you for your kind words, Joe. (sniff).
LGBFan123 wrote: selector wrote: I agree with Fred. And, let's not forget that the cars in question are not $6.99 items. They are purposefully offered to those who need and can afford them, not to those who merely want them. Walthers is not going to make a $28.00 (discounted) heavyweight that has paper thin steps so that the trucks can get around 18" curves, nor will they mount the couplers on the trucks like the $6.99 item manufacturers have done. True, the engine manufacturers have altered their articulated engines, but the fact is that they would sell far fewer, and they would therfore have to raise their individual prices, if they made them too much like their brass counterparts. Just like BLI locomotives, the heavyweights are more accurate, more costly, and intended for a specific market. Finally, I feel that everyone in this hobby has a duty to come away with a hard lesson learned now and then. I learned about track planning that way, and it looks like our friend has learned about matching commercial products for operational choices he intends to keep for himself. You last comment is very insinuating. I totally disagree. I don't think its everyone's duty who is in this hobby to buy an expensive product only to learn that it will not run on his layout (especially knowing the typical hobby store return policies!). Just because you got burned doesn't mean that its good that others get burned as well. And we talk about spreading the word about the fun of model railroading! Sheesh....with attitudes like this, no wonder many young people find other things to spend their time with. But choices are important in any hobby, especially in the niche HO model rail market. Many people that love trains, love railroading, and have a passion for modeling do not live in big houses where they can dedicate a whole room or basement to the hobby. Its a good thing that I can buy a BIG BOY that will run on a small layout. I think era-specific cars costing $40 should come in a version that will also run on the same layout. If these cars have "unprototypical" features to make them run , I don't care, as long as they are quality runners. Big layouts should have proto cars ....but the little layouts should also have the option of running semi-proto as well. Besides, it means more hobbyists will be spending their money and it will be better for the model railroad industry. WIN-WIN. In the particular case of the Walther's cars, Walther's did say 24" radius, so at least they are telling the consumer what the deal is. I will take a look at the Bachmann cars, hopefully they are good enough runners. I was also ready to buy the Walther's units. Regards, Tom M.
selector wrote: I agree with Fred. And, let's not forget that the cars in question are not $6.99 items. They are purposefully offered to those who need and can afford them, not to those who merely want them. Walthers is not going to make a $28.00 (discounted) heavyweight that has paper thin steps so that the trucks can get around 18" curves, nor will they mount the couplers on the trucks like the $6.99 item manufacturers have done. True, the engine manufacturers have altered their articulated engines, but the fact is that they would sell far fewer, and they would therfore have to raise their individual prices, if they made them too much like their brass counterparts. Just like BLI locomotives, the heavyweights are more accurate, more costly, and intended for a specific market. Finally, I feel that everyone in this hobby has a duty to come away with a hard lesson learned now and then. I learned about track planning that way, and it looks like our friend has learned about matching commercial products for operational choices he intends to keep for himself.
I agree with Fred. And, let's not forget that the cars in question are not $6.99 items. They are purposefully offered to those who need and can afford them, not to those who merely want them. Walthers is not going to make a $28.00 (discounted) heavyweight that has paper thin steps so that the trucks can get around 18" curves, nor will they mount the couplers on the trucks like the $6.99 item manufacturers have done. True, the engine manufacturers have altered their articulated engines, but the fact is that they would sell far fewer, and they would therfore have to raise their individual prices, if they made them too much like their brass counterparts.
Just like BLI locomotives, the heavyweights are more accurate, more costly, and intended for a specific market.
Finally, I feel that everyone in this hobby has a duty to come away with a hard lesson learned now and then. I learned about track planning that way, and it looks like our friend has learned about matching commercial products for operational choices he intends to keep for himself.
You last comment is very insinuating. I totally disagree. I don't think its everyone's duty who is in this hobby to buy an expensive product only to learn that it will not run on his layout (especially knowing the typical hobby store return policies!). Just because you got burned doesn't mean that its good that others get burned as well. And we talk about spreading the word about the fun of model railroading! Sheesh....with attitudes like this, no wonder many young people find other things to spend their time with.
But choices are important in any hobby, especially in the niche HO model rail market. Many people that love trains, love railroading, and have a passion for modeling do not live in big houses where they can dedicate a whole room or basement to the hobby. Its a good thing that I can buy a BIG BOY that will run on a small layout. I think era-specific cars costing $40 should come in a version that will also run on the same layout. If these cars have "unprototypical" features to make them run , I don't care, as long as they are quality runners. Big layouts should have proto cars ....but the little layouts should also have the option of running semi-proto as well. Besides, it means more hobbyists will be spending their money and it will be better for the model railroad industry. WIN-WIN.
In the particular case of the Walther's cars, Walther's did say 24" radius, so at least they are telling the consumer what the deal is. I will take a look at the Bachmann cars, hopefully they are good enough runners. I was also ready to buy the Walther's units.
Regards,
Tom M.
Tom, all I meant was that if we want all that the hobby can offer us, we have a responsibility to learn some lessons, and it seems that we must learn a few the hard way. I gave my own example of a hard knock type of lesson as a form of commiseration. I was not passing judgement, and wanted you to know that I had gone down that path. Perhaps my use of the third person could have been left out.
Sorry for my artless composition.
SunsetLimited wrote:You would have to model an earlier era and not something modern with a shelf layout that small, your not going to be building any large passenger trains on that kind of layout, i guess you could model some pike sized trains as MRR suggests from time to time. You really need a 20x20 or larger if you want to model normal sized passenger trains in a point to point type setup. I have an 18ft looper and my superliner and budd trains take the entire length of one side, we are talking 2-3 engines, a baggage, and at least 10 cars, thats about 15ft long right there, if you run an auto train or any type of mail or reefer service on the same train then you are talking longer. The room involved is what turns most off of modelling passenger, its a shame to because its really a fun thing to model!
I love modeling passenger trains as well, but they can get long quick. I am about to finish a late 50's Super Chief/El Capitan and it is 18 cars long (including a business car), with an ABBBA consist of F7s on the point. I am about to start a late 50's Sunset Limited, and that will be 14 cars long (one of the advantages of the Sunset is that it gave me an excuse to order a PA/PB/PA set from Precision Craft, dressed up in Daylight paint).
I originally wanted to model two seperate trains (a Super Chief and El Cap), but the consolidated train allowed me to remain prototypical, and at the same time lessen the space two full consists would have taken up.
fwright wrote:...hopefully someday they will make something I want (a well-detailed, smooth running, low speed 1890s Mogul with sound for $250?) ...
hopefully someday they will make something I want (a well-detailed, smooth running, low speed 1890s Mogul with sound for $250?)
whitman500 wrote:Joe: My comments aren't meant to knock this forum or the vast majority of participants and I apologize if in the heat of the moment I've overstated my criticisms. What bothers me is that there is a small but active minority of people on this forum who go out of their way to ridicule posters that because of haste or inexperience ask questions or make statements that can be attacked. The victims in these attacks are usually young and/or new hobbyists, the type of people that model railroading desperately needs and the type of people who can be easily turned off to the hobby by being called an idiot the first time they post a question. What also bothers me is that this behaviour seems to be on the rise. It is certainly worse now than when I joined a couple of years ago. This is not Kalmbach's fault or the fault of 90% of the members of this forum, and I don't expect Model Railroader to take direct action (censorship, etc.). But what I would like to see is more instances where forum members stick up for each other when getting attacked by some of the bullies that lurk on this site. If there was a justification for some of my negative comments about the forum, it was to prod other members to be more proactive about setting the right tone of discussion on the site and not letting the bullies run the show. Things feel like they are headed in the wrong direction right now, and it would be shame to see a great site deteriorate into more threads like this one.
Joe:
My comments aren't meant to knock this forum or the vast majority of participants and I apologize if in the heat of the moment I've overstated my criticisms.
What bothers me is that there is a small but active minority of people on this forum who go out of their way to ridicule posters that because of haste or inexperience ask questions or make statements that can be attacked. The victims in these attacks are usually young and/or new hobbyists, the type of people that model railroading desperately needs and the type of people who can be easily turned off to the hobby by being called an idiot the first time they post a question.
What also bothers me is that this behaviour seems to be on the rise. It is certainly worse now than when I joined a couple of years ago. This is not Kalmbach's fault or the fault of 90% of the members of this forum, and I don't expect Model Railroader to take direct action (censorship, etc.). But what I would like to see is more instances where forum members stick up for each other when getting attacked by some of the bullies that lurk on this site.
If there was a justification for some of my negative comments about the forum, it was to prod other members to be more proactive about setting the right tone of discussion on the site and not letting the bullies run the show. Things feel like they are headed in the wrong direction right now, and it would be shame to see a great site deteriorate into more threads like this one.
Ray Seneca Lake, Ontario, and Western R.R. (S.L.O.&W.) in HO
We'll get there sooner or later!
Whitman 500 wrote:... The very fact that people are still trading insults on this thread long after the original question has been forgotten just shows what a cantakerous, petty place this forum has become.
lvanhen, what part of the truck or coupler is causing the problem? I have one engine that is a 12 wheeler and hated my 18" turns. I pulled the center axles and does fine now. Did the same on my 12 wheel passanger cars and helped.
Are you using flex track? If I did the math right you should be able to get a 22" turn on a 48" wide but not much room to spare, say 2" either side. I made most of my 18" turns into 20" and that helped me with string effect.
More than likely you will not want to changed the board if you have done nices detail work. I am lucky there I guess, mine is ruff so not lossing anything when I move the rails around.
As far as gettting "we told you so, it won't work and why did you buy thay" boy I have got more than my share of it. Seems I like to buy used stuff of E-stupid and when I have a problem it is throwen up in my faces. But, the people that are doing that in there own way have helped me and are trying to help.
By the way, being new to this hobby, wwhat doe's UP stand for?
Cuda Ken
I hate Rust
Don Gibson wrote:Whitman wrote ... As for the "helpful" comments that several people supposedly made, Ivanhen specifically said at the beginning of this post that he did not have room to expand. Yet people, including you, just kept saying build a bigger layout. Were these helpful solutions?" But that's not quite what he said "I remember reading somewhere that a majority of us modelers that have a layout, have a 4'x8' layout (just happens to be the size of a sheet of plywood!) This restricts us to a 22" radius unless we want to hang half of the track off the edge! I recently bought 3 Walthers heavyweight passenger cars. After installing the lighting kits and about 20 figures in each car, I found out they are designed to run on 24" minimum radius! ... Anyone else with this problem?" NO mention of "room'. So aside from complaining about other's posts, WHAT would be your "helpful" solution ?
As for the "helpful" comments that several people supposedly made, Ivanhen specifically said at the beginning of this post that he did not have room to expand. Yet people, including you, just kept saying build a bigger layout. Were these helpful solutions?"
But that's not quite what he said
"I remember reading somewhere that a majority of us modelers that have a layout, have a 4'x8' layout (just happens to be the size of a sheet of plywood!) This restricts us to a 22" radius unless we want to hang half of the track off the edge! I recently bought 3 Walthers heavyweight passenger cars. After installing the lighting kits and about 20 figures in each car, I found out they are designed to run on 24" minimum radius! ... Anyone else with this problem?"
So aside from complaining about other's posts, WHAT would be your "helpful" solution ?
Go back and read the thread from the beginning. You will SEE that he responded as follows in the fourth post of the thread:
"thanks, but if I had the space available I would not have a 4x8!"
This was right at the beginning of the discussion and yet, as I mentioned, many people kept telling him to expand either to beat a dead horse or because they, LIKE YOU, didn't bother to read the thread before responding.
As for a solution, the author was not looking for a solution (he had already found one: modifying the cars). He was wondering whether others had had the same problem with the cars and to complain about the fact that Walthers, at least on its web site, had not mentioned the minimum operating radius (I went and looked after reading this thread and verified that this is the case).
And as for my argument, you've gone ahead and proved it since, like lots of other people on this thread, your goal was to give someone a hard time when you didn't even have the facts straight. The very fact that people are still trading insults on this thread long after the original question has been forgotten just shows what a cantakerous, petty place this forum has become.
LGBFan123 wrote: Hmmmm...I have heard brass models called "cheesy" as far as running qualities. Actually, I have talked to many people in HO railroad clubs and they used terms far more vulgar than "cheesy" to describe their expensive brass locos. They sure look good, but if they don't run who wants them. I would be surprised to hear that the HO brass loco market is in a healthy state right now.
Hmmmm...I have heard brass models called "cheesy" as far as running qualities. Actually, I have talked to many people in HO railroad clubs and they used terms far more vulgar than "cheesy" to describe their expensive brass locos. They sure look good, but if they don't run who wants them. I would be surprised to hear that the HO brass loco market is in a healthy state right now.
You and I obviously have different interests in the hobby. I have never expected any locomotive to run smooth as silk right out of the box. Some brass did (and does), especially compared to the competition of the time. I enjoy tinkering, detailing, and painting a locomotive to make it look and run the way I want it to. You prefer to take them out of the box, and watch them run on your 4x8. That's OK by me, but why so hard on manufacturers that cater to my niche? As for the HO brass market, it's healthy enough that any models on eBay that appeal to me are priced out of my range.
That is good enough for me , from that I can deduce that a Big Boy will have a big overhang on curves. So what? I rather have a big boy with overhang than none at all.
Again, a matter of personal preference. My preference is the opposite. I do not want to run a Big Boy on my small layouts (I've never had bigger than 4x8), even if it can make the turns, because I just can't make it look "right" enough. There isn't room for enough cars, nor is the gross overhang acceptable to me. Please continue to purchase such items (seriously) because it keeps the manufacturers in business and hopefully someday they will make something I want (a well-detailed, smooth running, low speed 1890s Mogul with sound for $250?)
Well, I don't consider Big Boys and heavyweight passenger cars (the original thread, btw) "modern era" railroading. Modern era railroading, at best, is relative to the hobbyist. But to me that is container-piggy backs and MAC diesels of the 1990s and beyond.
You are right. But running Big Boys and heavyweight passenger cars on a 4x8 is basically the same as trying to run modern era.
<<A 4x8 in HO will at best comfortably take transition era freight cars, and "shorty" or other passenger cars specifically made to run on 18" radius. Even then, the longest reasonable train length is only going to be engine plus 6-7 freight cars or 3-4 passenger cars. A 4x8 is a starting place for a train set, not a modern-era layout.>> 6 or 7 freight cars max on a 4x8 layout? Guess again. It can take a lot more than that. Especially when you are talking UP 1940s fruit reefers. Also passenger consists I am comfortable at about 6 cars on the pike.
6 or 7 freight cars max on a 4x8 layout? Guess again. It can take a lot more than that. Especially when you are talking UP 1940s fruit reefers. Also passenger consists I am comfortable at about 6 cars on the pike.
The essence of our disagreement. Operation of the trains you suggest is pretty much limited to making circuits on the main line. While I enjoy "railfan" operations in small doses - 10 minutes is usually good for me - having a train that is on both end turns of a 4x8 at the same time loses its railfan appeal to me. I also do not like the train to be in 2 "towns" at once. I much prefer the "engineer" style of operation. While I enjoy long trains as much as anybody, if the train is too long to fit on the passing sidings so I can make run-around switching moves, then the train is too long. A passing siding on a 4x8 is physically constrained to about the lengths I suggested, and are often even shorter depending on the track system used.
<<If you want to make very long cars and/or trains run on very small curves (radius equal to less than 3x car length), then be prepared to buy already modified rolling stock, or make the modifications yourself. Truck-mounted couplers and removal of some underbody detail, along with testing and tuning of each piece (car and locomotive) are the keys to success with very sharp curves.>> I rather buy RTR stuff that will negotiate a 22" radius. My time is more precious than my hobby money. If it can be done (as you have shown without shortening car length) a manufacturer should offer it. My ending thought is that like you said, getting prototypical length cars around tight radius can be done---so why can't you buy ready-made-ready-to-run versions and save lots of hassles, lots of frustrations, and be able to seduce more people with small layouts to buying such cars. Regards, Tom M.
I rather buy RTR stuff that will negotiate a 22" radius. My time is more precious than my hobby money. If it can be done (as you have shown without shortening car length) a manufacturer should offer it.
My ending thought is that like you said, getting prototypical length cars around tight radius can be done---so why can't you buy ready-made-ready-to-run versions and save lots of hassles, lots of frustrations, and be able to seduce more people with small layouts to buying such cars.
You can buy the heavyweight passenger cars you desire - just not from Walters and other manufacturers who put more effort into prototypical accuracy. I have a display set of nice looking, full-length Bachmann Spectrum PRR heavyweight cars that would meet your requirements, so I know they are made. If I had a layout that had the 36" radius that is desirable for such cars, I would prefer not to buy the ones that have the underframes modified and truck mounted couplers to go around 22" radius curves. But since I don't have such a layout, and am not likely to get one, my choice is to limit myself to 50ft and shorter passenger cars. In HO, at least there are choices to fullfill both of our desires and needs (not as many for me as for you, but that's OK - I'm thankful for what there is).
My real point is that the sacred 4x8 has been touted as all one needs to build a reasonably complete layout in HO. It's not, especially if one combines long rolling stock with a desire for more operation than watching a train flash through a scenery element.
Again my thoughts, your choices. But please don't disparage manufacturers who choose not to meet your needs/desires.
Fred W
I WROTE:
Okay guys....you made your point about forethought and reading the labeling. But even I am surprised that these heavyweight cars need 24" radius when a Big boy can go thru 17" radius curves! Give me a break! Also, a 4 X 8 layout is the "standard" hobby table that many people use for their HO layouts. You would think the manufacturers of standard passenger cars would make it work for those of us who don't own big houses or lots of real estate for our hobby.
So, as to the original post and poster---I am with you, my friend--it seems cheesy that your biggest engines run thru fine but the damn cars won't stay on the track! And another major drawback for seducing newcomers to the hobby!
Cheers,
Tom M
--------------------------------------------------------------------
YOUR REPLY
QUOTE:
<<Tom
I disagree. There is nothing cheesy about making a more correct to scale model that takes a bigger radius to run. The imported brass locomotives and cars did this for years, and I haven't heard them called cheesy.>>
<<<But the real cheese award goes to all the 4x8 layout designs that imply you can do modern era modeling in HO in that space. Atlas finally started printing trains to scale on the same page as the track plan to give some idea how bad things were really going to be, but most folks don't notice. And the trains Atlas printed don't use modern long rolling stock!>>>
<<A 4x8 in HO will at best comfortably take transition era freight cars, and "shorty" or other passenger cars specifically made to run on 18" radius. Even then, the longest reasonable train length is only going to be engine plus 6-7 freight cars or 3-4 passenger cars. A 4x8 is a starting place for a train set, not a modern-era layout.>>
<<Even in N, a modern-era needs more than a 4x8. In N, the modern-era cars (auto racks, container cars) are just as long as HO transition era cars. Modern-era N needs the 18" radius curves to look good, but would still be limited to 7-8 modern era long cars on a 4x8.>>
I am not interested in modern era piggy backs. I like 1950s steam and diesel. If the Big Boys and Diesels of the Golden Age can handle the 22" or less, why not the passenger cars?
<<If you want to make very long cars and/or trains run on very small curves (radius equal to less than 3x car length), then be prepared to buy already modified rolling stock, or make the modifications yourself. Truck-mounted couplers and removal of some underbody detail, along with testing and tuning of each piece (car and locomotive) are the keys to success with very sharp curves.>>
<<My ending thought is that we need to quit implying/advertising that a 4x8 can do anything more than a transition era or earlier short line or branch in HO.
Fred W>>
When a 4 x 8 is plenty big to run a Big Boy and a nice freight consist, as well as a Diesel consist, all controlled by DCC, why stick with a branch line?
LGBFan123 wrote: Okay guys....you made your point about forethought and reading the labeling. But even I am surprised that these heavyweight cars need 24" radius when a Big boy can go thru 17" radius curves! Give me a break! Also, a 4 X 8 layout is the "standard" hobby table that many people use for their HO layouts. You would think the manufacturers of standard passenger cars would make it work for those of us who don't own big houses or lots of real estate for our hobby. So, as to the original post and poster---I am with you, my friend--it seems cheesy that your biggest engines run thru fine but the damn cars won't stay on the track! And another major drawback for seducing newcomers to the hobby! Cheers, Tom M.
Tom
I disagree. There is nothing cheesy about making a more correct to scale model that takes a bigger radius to run. The imported brass locomotives and cars did this for years, and I haven't heard them called cheesy.
What is cheesy to me is making a Big Boy that will run on 18" radius track, and not letting you know what non-prototypical modifications were necessary to make that happen, and how bad the overhang will be on 18" radius.
But the real cheese award goes to all the 4x8 layout designs that imply you can do modern era modeling in HO in that space. Atlas finally started printing trains to scale on the same page as the track plan to give some idea how bad things were really going to be, but most folks don't notice. And the trains Atlas printed don't use modern long rolling stock!
A 4x8 in HO will at best comfortably take transition era freight cars, and "shorty" or other passenger cars specifically made to run on 18" radius. Even then, the longest reasonable train length is only going to be engine plus 6-7 freight cars or 3-4 passenger cars. A 4x8 is a starting place for a train set, not a modern-era layout.
Even in N, a modern-era needs more than a 4x8. In N, the modern-era cars (auto racks, container cars) are just as long as HO transition era cars. Modern-era N needs the 18" radius curves to look good, but would still be limited to 7-8 modern era long cars on a 4x8.
If you want to make very long cars and/or trains run on very small curves (radius equal to less than 3x car length), then be prepared to buy already modified rolling stock, or make the modifications yourself. Truck-mounted couplers and removal of some underbody detail, along with testing and tuning of each piece (car and locomotive) are the keys to success with very sharp curves.
My ending thought is that we need to quit implying/advertising that a 4x8 can do anything more than a transition era or earlier short line or branch in HO.
my thoughts, your choices
Bill H. wrote: Texas Zepher wrote: lvanhen wrote:I recently bought 3 Walthers heavyweight passenger cars. After installing the lighting kits and about 20 figures in each car, I found out they are designed to run on 24" minimum radius! It does say right on the outside end of the box 24" minimum.The real solution is to purchase equipment that will fit the layout. To put that another way, would you buy 17" tires for your car which has 15" wheels? Why not? A little forethough is advantageous...
Texas Zepher wrote: lvanhen wrote:I recently bought 3 Walthers heavyweight passenger cars. After installing the lighting kits and about 20 figures in each car, I found out they are designed to run on 24" minimum radius! It does say right on the outside end of the box 24" minimum.The real solution is to purchase equipment that will fit the layout.
lvanhen wrote:I recently bought 3 Walthers heavyweight passenger cars. After installing the lighting kits and about 20 figures in each car, I found out they are designed to run on 24" minimum radius!