Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
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.>>   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.    <<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.   <<<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!>>> 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. <<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. <<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.>> 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 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?   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.
Tags (Optional)
Tags are keywords that get attached to your post. They are used to categorize your submission and make it easier to search for. To add tags to your post type a tag into the box below and click the "Add Tag" button.
Add Tag

Update Reply

Subscriber & Member Login

Login, or register today to interact in our online community, comment on articles, receive our newsletter, manage your account online and more!

Model Railroader Newsletter See all

Sign up for our FREE e-newsletter and get model railroad news in your inbox!

Subscriber & Member Login

Edit post

Post Body

Tags (Optional)

Subscriber & Member Login

Users Online

Search the Community