zstripe Now we have another,equation added to the mix,,,,Pushing,verses Pulling...And coupled, at that..
Now we have another,equation added to the mix,,,,Pushing,verses Pulling...And coupled, at that..
Well, let's face it. Pushing a single car down a section of track may be a good way to test wheel friction or the lack thereof for good rolling capability, but it is not the best way to determine if the wheels are in gauge to avoid future derailments.
Rich
Alton Junction
I was on your side........
Cheers,
Frank
zstripe I was on your side........ Cheers, Frank
You was or you is???
richhotrain ATLANTIC CENTRAL I can't say I have seen every version of every car, from Walthers or the others like BLI, MTH, Rapido, etc, but most all that I have seen, on layouts or on display, when coupled and stretched out on straight track, have gaps between the diaphragms - some very small, some pretty obvious, but gaps none the less. I install American Limited diaphragms on all my passenger cars at a coupling distance that is literally only about 4 scale inches more than typical prototype car spacing. The diaphragms touch under all conditions and run fine. And depending on the length of the car, work fine down to about 30" radius and #5 turnouts. The developing, underlying theme to this thread seems to be that if you don't have diaphragms that touch each other, it is not worth modeling passenger trains at all. I beg to disagree. If you replace the Walthers supplied couplers with Kadee long shank couplers and run your equipment on 32" radius curves as I do, it still looks fairly realistic and there will be no performance issues such as derailments. Let's be honest with ourselves. Even if your passenger cars have diaphragms that touch, how realistic does the rest of your layout look? You are running trains on highly compressed versions of the real thing. Even on the largest club layouts, you might have a 15 or 20 car passenger train running over what? A mile or two of track in scale terms? So why get too caught up with diaphragms that touch? Get real, guys. I get it when I see 85' cars trying to run on 18" curves, it does look rather silly. But, once you get up to 24", it doesn't look too bad, and by 30" or larger, it begins to look pretty good. And, we are talking about curves. On the straight sections of mainline, 85' passenger cars with long shank couplers look pretty darn good even without those diaphragms touching. Model railroads can only look somewhat realistic. The rest is up to the imagination. Rich
ATLANTIC CENTRAL I can't say I have seen every version of every car, from Walthers or the others like BLI, MTH, Rapido, etc, but most all that I have seen, on layouts or on display, when coupled and stretched out on straight track, have gaps between the diaphragms - some very small, some pretty obvious, but gaps none the less. I install American Limited diaphragms on all my passenger cars at a coupling distance that is literally only about 4 scale inches more than typical prototype car spacing. The diaphragms touch under all conditions and run fine. And depending on the length of the car, work fine down to about 30" radius and #5 turnouts.
I can't say I have seen every version of every car, from Walthers or the others like BLI, MTH, Rapido, etc, but most all that I have seen, on layouts or on display, when coupled and stretched out on straight track, have gaps between the diaphragms - some very small, some pretty obvious, but gaps none the less.
I install American Limited diaphragms on all my passenger cars at a coupling distance that is literally only about 4 scale inches more than typical prototype car spacing. The diaphragms touch under all conditions and run fine. And depending on the length of the car, work fine down to about 30" radius and #5 turnouts.
The developing, underlying theme to this thread seems to be that if you don't have diaphragms that touch each other, it is not worth modeling passenger trains at all. I beg to disagree.
If you replace the Walthers supplied couplers with Kadee long shank couplers and run your equipment on 32" radius curves as I do, it still looks fairly realistic and there will be no performance issues such as derailments.
Let's be honest with ourselves. Even if your passenger cars have diaphragms that touch, how realistic does the rest of your layout look? You are running trains on highly compressed versions of the real thing. Even on the largest club layouts, you might have a 15 or 20 car passenger train running over what? A mile or two of track in scale terms? So why get too caught up with diaphragms that touch?
Get real, guys. I get it when I see 85' cars trying to run on 18" curves, it does look rather silly. But, once you get up to 24", it doesn't look too bad, and by 30" or larger, it begins to look pretty good. And, we are talking about curves. On the straight sections of mainline, 85' passenger cars with long shank couplers look pretty darn good even without those diaphragms touching. Model railroads can only look somewhat realistic. The rest is up to the imagination.
Rich,
Respectfully we are all entitled to our own view of what is realistic and what is not. Obviously many people are just fine with widely spaced cars, good for them. I'm not.
In my view, wide spacing between cars is exactly what gives our trains a toy look - like LIONEL. I'm not the first to make this observation or work to improve it:
http://webspace.webring.com/people/ib/budb3/arts/tech/cupcls.html
To my eye, a string of Athearn passenger cars, close coupled, with working diaphragms, and some super detailing, running around 36" radius curves, is WAY MORE realistic looking than anybodies 85' cars widely spaced running around 30" radius curves.
As as been discussed on here at great length over the years, different layouts have different themes and act to represent different aspects of the prototype. I have explained before that my approach is to model one place and model the trains as they enter and leave that relatively short streach of mainline - but in my case that still is nearly 8 scale miles of mainline. I am not trying to model both "ends" of the line or even more than one major destination - that is what stagging is for.
15-20 car passenger trains? Maybe out west, but not here in the east - virtually never. Historic records and photos show most passenger trains on eastern lines to be in the 7 to 15 car range. My version of the C&O George Washington is 10 cars. Most of my passenger trains are 7 to 10 cars long, which also works better with the shorter cars - BECAUSE of all the selectively compressed elements you speak of.
This whole crop of new RTR passenger cars make better static models of single cars than they do operational trains for a model layout.
Sheldon
PS - but on the issue of train length, my layout is designed for 35-50 car freight trains - so a 15 car passenger train would not be a problem except in the station - where the platforms are only long enough for those 10 car trains.
Sheldon--
I understand your point, but please be aware I have some stock Walthers cars that appear to be as closely coupled, on a tangent track with the slack streched out, as the ones in the photo you provided.
They are definitely close enough that uncoupling them for any reason actually becomes a challenge.
Installation of Kadee couplers can bring them even closer together, depending upon the shank length employed, and makes it easier to get the cars apart.
I'm not given to measuring prototype distance between cars; when it's close enough together that they are a challenge to uncouple, I'll call that good enough. Mine look ok to my eyes and the diaphragms touch well enough, often enough for me.
Having owned brass cars with incorrectly cut "fluting" and being aware of the correct window and interior arrangements of the various major sleeper series, I do prefer the accuracy of some of the Walthers/Proto cars and the beautiful plated finish they are providing which rivals the best of Korean brass.
To each his own; I've learned never to expect you to agree with me.
Respectfully submitted--
John
John, I understand that some of the newer offerings are better in this area, and that is good. But that is unlikely to get me buying them.
My modeling goals do not include duplicating some exact historical passenger consist, and if it did, the railroad I would be interested in modeling is poorly represented by anything Walthers or the others have offered.
My modeling goals are more about the overall "feel" and visual impression of the layout, and less about "exact" prototype details as they might have been on a particular road, on a particular day.
The ATLANTIC CENTRAL, and its interchange with the B&O, C&O and Western Maryland are about creating believable fiction.
And, as stated many times before, I'm just not into collecting high priced RTR stuff - I would rather buy something inexpensive and make it into a better model myself. But when I do buy expensive RTR, I have very high standards, and I have explained why these cars don't meet those standards.
Casual viewers do not know one Pullman from the next, but they do know when the whole scene "looks right" - that is when it looks believable.
One more thing, I have never owned a brass passenger car, and have only owned a few brass locos - but I still have most every model train I ever bought - 130 plus locos, 800 plus freight cars, 200 plus passenger cars.
Respectfully, I suspect we are in different versions of this hobby, and that is the primary reason we seldom agree. I have little interest in your version of the hobby, and I am quite sure you have little interest in my version of the hobby.
I strive for "believable" on my layout too--but the criteria for me of what makes a train--or layout-- "believable" are just different from Sheldon's. My roster currently has only 3 BLI E units (more passenger power is coming)...and a bunch of Walthers' passenger cars, and I'm pretty content with that (I have kids and other monetary priorities that go with them). I just purged everything else--all engines and just about every single stinking freight car--on Evilbay--so that I can focus on a few nice quality passenger trains and not feel guilty about the money I have tied up when my family needs other things. Some of my sales proceeds went for those other things of life--the rest will help cover my pre-orders for more passenger equipment, and it will be all good stuff.
I've owned and used the shorter length passenger cars--and they just don't do it for me--not anymore.
I really enjoyed reading the revised, expanded edition of Fred Frailey's "Twilight of the Great Trains" and that book got me hooked on running just passenger trains. I already have two "balloon track" loops--one at each end of a shelf layout. Now I need to add a passenger terminal facility inside/adjacent one of the loops (other ducks under a mountain in my attempt to provide the illusion of distance and to break up the layout into separate scenes). My single track mainline is 81 feet long.
I strive for "believable" on my layout too--but the criteria for me of what makes a train--or layout-- "believable" are just different from Sheldon's.
Now that sounds like something we can agree on.
John, I have a saying about life and it applies here - "I use to be well rounded, until I learned what I REALLY liked".
I figured out what I wanted to model, and how I wanted to model it over 20 years ago. And bery little that has happened to the hobby in that time has had much impact on my choices.
I once thought I "needed" all exactly scale, super detailed passenger cars. Back in a time when you only got them in brass or by building fairly difficult kits - which I did some of - I do like to build models.
But then I learned about the whole selective compression and visual impression thing, and studied the model work of some of the great masters of this hobby, and found my own set compromises.
I full well understand my choices are not "typical", but they are research abd result based, not simply founded in what "most people" do.
It isd just like what I said earlier to Rich about layout theme. My layout, although large, does not try to model multiple destinations along the mainline. It attemps only to do a credible job in modeling one division point twon and a fewmiles of mainline on either side of that town.
I have a friend who models the PRR. His basement filling layout, on THREE levels, ONLY models the PRR trackage in Baltimore. It is a fabulous concept that brings new levles of realisum to model trains - yet I 'm sure many on here would say "what? he hasa whole basement and he only models one city?".
Think of it like this - rather than playing engineer of one train, play dispatcher at a major rail center as dozens of trains come and go.
One more thing, all that buying and selling, buying and selling, over and over, that's not a hobby to me, that's work. But admittedly, I'm not the collector type. One I paint them in ATLANTIC CENTRAL nobody else wants them anyway.
Here's the thing about selective compression.
On my Dream Layout, I would model a 14 block stretch from 8th Street (Polk) to 22nd Street (Cermak) in downtown Chicago from Dearborn Station to Alton Junction. In HO scale, that would require 106 feet of space. I only have 42 feet for this purpose, so even for that relatively short run, I only have 40 percent of the space required. So, even there, I need to rely on selective compression. Imagine what it would take just to model Baltimore, or Chicago, in terms of space.
So I am going to get worked up over a 1/8" space between the diaphragms of my HO scale passenger cars? I think not.
When are we going to start?? I'll work on all the bridges and the Chgo river branches,my guess is we will need at the very least 15 bridges,not counting the vehicle ones..Think your wife would mind,if we gave her the basement and we moved upstairs??
The buying and selling was me trying different things and experimenting to find what I liked and what had the best quality or features for my purposes.
Few people have owned and actually run on a layout (day after day) the variety of engines and rolling stock that I have tried. It was an expensive education, but in the end was worthwhile, as I have a good feel for what I don't need.
UP 4-12-2 Sheldon-- The buying and selling was me trying different things and experimenting to find what I liked and what had the best quality or features for my purposes. Few people have owned and actually run on a layout (day after day) the variety of engines and rolling stock that I have tried. It was an expensive education, but in the end was worthwhile, as I have a good feel for what I don't need. John
In 1967 my father built a nice starter layout for me at age 10, equiped with a Mantua Pacfic and Mikado, a Penn Line GG1, and some Varney F-3's.
At age 13 I started working in the local hobby shop. By age 14 I was doing most of the repairs there.
At age 15 I was lucky enough to be one of the few "youth" members allowed membership at the Severnal Park Model Railroad Club, where I learned a great deal from some of our hobbies masters.
At age 19 I was the train department manager of another hobby shop.
I've touched it all and played with it all - without buying stuff I did not want or need.
But I have never been into "serial ownership" in any part of my life - you know, first you think you want a boat, then after you try that you sell it to buy a sports car, then you get bored and trade it in on a monster truck, which you then sell to buy a jet ski? That's not me.
At the time I really wanted some of the stuff, but especially with high priced brass models, I can be a perfectionist--if it does not cosmetically meet my standards, it is gone. If it does not run well and I can't adjust or fix it, or get help from someone else to do the same, it is gone.
It's been too many years ago since I worked the hobby shop. Yes, at that time I got to try out everything--but that was before my friends got me into brass, and it was before the plethora of models we have available today.
I was in the train shop during the "fathood era", when the best engines available were Atlas/Kato or Stewart/Kato...and Railpower Products shells were "new" on the scene.
Joh
Atlantic Central,
There are a number of photos in books, magazines, and online showing east coast trains such as; The Silver Meteor, The Champion, and the Southern Crescent running 17 to 20 cars hauled by E-unit quartets (and GG1s in the Wash-NY section of the corridor).
ATLANTIC CENTRAL ......................................15-20 car passenger trains? Maybe out west, but not here in the east - virtually never. Historic records and photos show most passenger trains on eastern lines to be in the 7 to 15 car range...................................... Sheldon
......................................15-20 car passenger trains? Maybe out west, but not here in the east - virtually never. Historic records and photos show most passenger trains on eastern lines to be in the 7 to 15 car range......................................
"I like my Pullman Standards & Budds in Stainless Steel flavors, thank you!"
Hi Guys:
Lots of great comments - I have done a little work on the cars, and this is the result:
The 6 axle heavyweights - I cut the framework underneath, you can barely notice it, they now will run on 22" radius with SOME derail problems remaining.24" radius works pretty well now.
Some of the diaphragms are a little tight, I put a touch of vegetable oil on them with my finger and they slide side-to-side much better now - this was a big cause of derailments.
The trucks on the heavyweights needed work - the center axle did not move up and down enough to accommodate small imperfections in track. When you would go over a minor bumps - such as a crossing or a turnout - the center axle would keep the outer wheel from maintaining contact with the rail and the truck would derail. PLEASE note that everyone can't get their track absolutely perfect - even plywood and styrofoam insulation has small undulations....Once I routed out the wheel journals so that center axle could move up and down, the problem with that was solved. This was simply poor engineering on the part of the manufacturer.
Next step: Adding weight - the cars are a little underweight according to NMRA standards - you would think that expensive cars like these would be at the proper weight. I will almost bet that the cars will navigate without derailing after some weight is added.
As far as my use of 24" and 22" radius, my layout has only the width of plywood to turn around and will be concealed under landscaping anyway - the appearance on smaller radius curves was not a consideration - the only areas where these cars are visible are long, gradual radius turns and straights and they look absolutely awesome....
I would post some photos, but I can't figure out how to get that part to work on this site....
Again, thank you for the comments, they were very helpful, I hope my method of modifying these cars can help others....it has been a pain to do it, but I have made great progress toward actually running the beautiful cars on my layout..
I still think WALTHERS should be more honest with their customers, and I also believe that these EXPENSIVE cars should run the 24" right out of the box without modification. False advertising....
just to the point " you state your cars well run on 24r, then they SHOULD run on 24r " period, the only BUTS should be" track condition " ex. level ,no kinks, no S curves etc.....
.IF coupler change or other modification is required, seller should clearly note ,before opening the BOX .
that said I like em , but agree they don't do what they should do "out of the box"..Jerry
ATLANTIC CENTRAL I don't buy Walthers and similar high priced RTR passenger cars - guess why? Because they WILL go around 24" or 26" radius curves. What? That's right. I will not buy expensive RTR passenger cars that have gaps between them that allow them to go around sharp curves - yes 28" radius is a sharp curve in my view. For the kind of money those things cost, they should couple at scale distances and have perfectly detailed working diaphragms that touch and stay touching all the time. And that can be made to work very well down to about 30" or 32" radius. I am not about to spend that sort of money, and then have to rebuild the coupler/diaphragm system on the cars to my standards. Sheldon
I don't buy Walthers and similar high priced RTR passenger cars - guess why? Because they WILL go around 24" or 26" radius curves. What? That's right. I will not buy expensive RTR passenger cars that have gaps between them that allow them to go around sharp curves - yes 28" radius is a sharp curve in my view.
For the kind of money those things cost, they should couple at scale distances and have perfectly detailed working diaphragms that touch and stay touching all the time. And that can be made to work very well down to about 30" or 32" radius.
I am not about to spend that sort of money, and then have to rebuild the coupler/diaphragm system on the cars to my standards.
I didn't read all or your posts but maybe you can afford brass which allows you to turn down Walthers and other plastic passenger cars so easily. But given that the majority of us can't afford it, we can't live up to that high standard and have to muddle through.
Here is the thing about Walther's. If you can't afford brass - "raises hand" and you want correct passenger cars - some are - then it's that or nothing. Unless you don't mind running "generic" passenger cars - it's true many don't. But I'd think if a person was particular enough to want close coupled passenger cars with diaphragm's and all those things, they'd also want the passenger cars to match real passenger cars.
As it stands, Walthers doesn't make many passenger cars useful the a D&RGW fan - mainly just the 52 seat Pull man standard coach, which I paid the "high price" of $16 dollars each when Walthers had a sale on the first run. Those match the Prospector P-S chair cars which D&RGW inherited C&O's over committed factory slots at Pullman Standard. (they are not 100% due to a number board being in the wrong position - but I can live with that. Then I have around 21 BLI CZ cars for the CZ and RGZ and yes I have 2 brass passenger cars I managed to acquire some years back which are Palace Car Company P-S baggage/dorm/chair cars which match the combines used by the D&RGW on the Prospector and Rio Grande Zephyr. My main argument here is if you want plastic passenger cars which match the real thing and Walthers makes them and no body else does, then you fix them to close couple. That is, if you can't afford brass ... just sayin...
So
Rio Grande. The Action Road - Focus 1977-1983
If you are still having trouble, try replacing the couplers on one end of each car (front or back doesn't matter as long as all are the same) with a longer shank coupler. If that doesn't work, go for the longer shanks on both ends. The increased spacing between cars will greatly reduce if not eliminate the diaphragm problem. I would advise ditching the vegetable oil. It will eventually go gooey on you and will always attract dirt & dust. If you must lubricate then, use something dry like graphite.
Good luck!
There is a product out, called, Super Lube DRI-FILM Lubricant, made by Synco Chemical Corp. Bohemia, NY. That I have used many times, sprays on wet,with one of those small nozzle's and drys,leaving a slippery film on it. It is safe,for rubber,leather and most plastics. Has many uses. Will not collect,dirt, or dust..
riogrande5761 ATLANTIC CENTRAL I don't buy Walthers and similar high priced RTR passenger cars - guess why? Because they WILL go around 24" or 26" radius curves. What? That's right. I will not buy expensive RTR passenger cars that have gaps between them that allow them to go around sharp curves - yes 28" radius is a sharp curve in my view. For the kind of money those things cost, they should couple at scale distances and have perfectly detailed working diaphragms that touch and stay touching all the time. And that can be made to work very well down to about 30" or 32" radius. I am not about to spend that sort of money, and then have to rebuild the coupler/diaphragm system on the cars to my standards. Sheldon I didn't read all or your posts but maybe you can afford brass which allows you to turn down Walthers and other plastic passenger cars so easily. But given that the majority of us can't afford it, we can't live up to that high standard and have to muddle through. Here is the thing about Walther's. If you can't afford brass - "raises hand" and you want correct passenger cars - some are - then it's that or nothing. Unless you don't mind running "generic" passenger cars - it's true many don't. But I'd think if a person was particular enough to want close coupled passenger cars with diaphragm's and all those things, they'd also want the passenger cars to match real passenger cars. As it stands, Walthers doesn't make many passenger cars useful the a D&RGW fan - mainly just the 52 seat Pull man standard coach, which I paid the "high price" of $16 dollars each when Walthers had a sale on the first run. Those match the Prospector P-S chair cars which D&RGW inherited C&O's over committed factory slots at Pullman Standard. (they are not 100% due to a number board being in the wrong position - but I can live with that. Then I have around 21 BLI CZ cars for the CZ and RGZ and yes I have 2 brass passenger cars I managed to acquire some years back which are Palace Car Company P-S baggage/dorm/chair cars which match the combines used by the D&RGW on the Prospector and Rio Grande Zephyr. My main argument here is if you want plastic passenger cars which match the real thing and Walthers makes them and no body else does, then you fix them to close couple. That is, if you can't afford brass ... just sayin... So
Jim,
Actually, since you did not read my other posts, and since I don't expect anyone on here to remember what I have posted in the past, I will explain briefly as possible again.
I am that person who runs mostly "generic" passenger cars. As for your assumption that anyone who would be concerned about touching diaphragms and and scale coupling distances would also want exactly correct cars, well I don't see the link there.
Why? Because the touching diaphragms and scale coupling distances are a matter of visual proprotion that seperate models from toys in appearance. And even a novice may not know why, but he will just "feel" that the closer spaced, diaphragm connected cars are more "in proprotion".
But many experianced modelers, let alone casual observers, have no idea about the subtle differences in window arrangements, rivet detail, roof types, and actual lengths of various passenger cars.
AND, I am largely a freelance modeler - the ATLANTIC CENTRAL can commision Pullman Standard, ACF, Budd or our own shops to build, or rebuild anything we want.
AND, I believe, that unless one goes for 48" curves (which I have a few of), selectively compressed (shorty) passenger cars actually look better in our model scenes that also usually contain other selectively compressed elements - sharper turnouts, smaller buildings, etc.
AND, not all passenger cars were 85' long anyway. Most heavyweight coaches were only about 78' - that makes an Athearn car only off by 6'. Virtually no head end equipent was 85', and even many early smoothside and some light weight equipment was less than 80-85'.
So most of the passenger cars on the ATLANTIC CENTRAL are Athearn (heavyweights and streamliners) ConCor 72' smooth side, and MDC Harriman style, with just a few Bachmann heavy weights and Branchline heavy weights thrown in here and there.
Many are kitbashed into types and window arrangements not offered and most have a fair amount of additional detail in addition to the American Limited working diaphragms and close coupling that is within a few scale inches of prototype practice.
A few more thoughts on prototype passenger cars. Passenger car were built in small batches, very few to the exact same plans. THEN, they were rebuilt early and often into different uses, modernized, sold, repurposed, and so on, and so on.
Duplicating anything other than a few well documented name trains is an effort in research that is beyond even my interest in history - let alone then recreating those cars in HO - even with some close starting points from Walthers, Rapido, MTH or whoever.
And the actual roads I model are generally poorly represented by these companies anyway - B&O, C&O Western Maryland. C&O being the best represented, but B&O cars from the 50's were mostly heavy weights rebuilt into smooth side cars by the B&O shops - not often modeled even in BRASS - never yet in plastic, save one or two cars here or there.
So why sweat it! - paint them up and run them. My operating plan requires about 150 passenger cars - that's right, about a dozen 12 car trains, spread over the four roadnames. And, another advantage of shorter cars, longer car counts still fit in front of long, but still compressed , station platform lengths (about 8-9' in my case).
Brass? - I don't even buy used brass locos, let alone brass passenger cars.
The club I belong to, very high profile and nationally known for its' historic and accurate modeling, decided to get rid of the diaphragms completely.....problems solved. Cars are prototypically correct and car-to-car distance is on the mark, but the diaphragms were a pain. The cars are so close together you really don't even notice it.....
They sacrificed a little prototype accuracy for operational dependability......maybe that's what I should do.....
wigman The club I belong to, very high profile and nationally known for its' historic and accurate modeling, decided to get rid of the diaphragms completely.....problems solved. Cars are prototypically correct and car-to-car distance is on the mark, but the diaphragms were a pain. The cars are so close together you really don't even notice it..... They sacrificed a little prototype accuracy for operational dependability......maybe that's what I should do.....
The secret to reliable operation of working diaphragms is to use the same diaphragms and same coupler mounting standards on all cars - something that is likely impossible to achieve on a club layout.
Just another reason why I'm not a club sort of guy - I'm not changing my equipment or modeling standards to be able to run them on a club layout.
So tell me, what do guys do with big slots left in the ends of many of these expensive new plastic models when they remove the diaphragms, since the diaphragm design is integral to the car end?
Sheldon,
Put chewing gum, in them?
ATLANTIC CENTRAL I am that person who runs mostly "generic" passenger cars. As for your assumption that anyone who would be concerned about touching diaphragms and and scale coupling distances would also want exactly correct cars, well I don't see the link there.
No link was needed. The assumption I made was based on modelers who are interested in "correct" scale passenger cars" in nearly the fullest sense of the word correct (i.e. scale length plastic cars which match real passenger cars used by major railroads from the steam day to the present).
I confess, the freelance/fantasy angle was the farthest thing from my mind - a difference between our modeling styles. My apologies, I haven't followed your modeling style enough to remember if it was prototype or fantasy and I tend to assume most people are not freelance/fantasy. I haven't seen any polls or surveys lately here to confirm or deny that.
Given your modeling scheme, freelance, it is totally understandable why you could be much choosier about what brand of passenger car you would buy since following a prototype is moot. However, your "solution" may not work for many people for that same reason, people who are interested in copying Santa Fe, UP, NYS, PRR, SP, D&RGW and all of those!
Cheers, Jim
Given your modeling scheme, freelance, it is totally understandable why you could be much choosier about what brand of passenger car you would buy. However, your "solution" will not work for many people for that same reason, people who are interested in copying Santa Fe, UP, NYS, PRR, SP, D&RGW and all of those!
Jim, not to go too far a field here, but -
First I complelely agree that just like in discussing loco choices vs brands, if one needs a particular model and it is out there - buy it.
Secound, yes, my primary modeling, the ATLANTIC CENTRAL is freelanced, protolanced, fantasy, whatever you want to call it - BUT - I also model three prototype roads with realtively high accuracy - the B&O, C&O and Western Maryland.
There are not enough accurate B&O passenger cars on the market, even if you bought everything that was close in the last 15 years, to make one complete correct B&O train without buying brass.
The C&O situation is a little better, but not much.
The Western Maryland only had a hand full of heavy weight coaches, combines, baggage and RPO cars - and a special business car train - pretty easy to get real close even with some "generic" cars.
BUT, here is where my modeling style is REAL different from yours. I am MORE interested in the over all "impression" the layout makes than I am in worrying about the down to the rivet correctness of every piece of rolling stock.
Going back to my earlier comments about passenger cars, and how most are nearly one of a kind, and even with all these very nice models made recently, we have only scratched the surface in providing modelers with "correct" passenger cars - even just as it relates to the BIG railroad in North America.
I understand that for some people it IS about every piece of rolling stock being exactly correct - assuming we even know for sure which cars were in use, what color they were, which modifications had or had not been made, etc, etc.
I was into that kind of modeling thirty years ago - I decided it was not fun anymore and moved to a more relaxed approach.
When someone looks at my layout, I want them to get the "feeling" that it 1954, here in the Mid Atlantic, in small city along this busy railroad, the ATLANTIC CENTRAL. And that will be reinforced by real life connections to the B&O, C&O and Western Maryland.
I am a protolance modeler, EVERY loco and piece of rolling stock that says ATLANTIC CENTRAL is something that any knowledgeable railfan, rail historian, or modeler would see as being plausable and believable for the era and region in question - there are no UP Big Boys lettered ATLANTIC CENTRAL.
BUT, the B&O railroad, along with countless others, stripped passenger cars down to their bones and rebuilt them repeatedly into new cars types, and dozens of roads had cars built to unique plans. So as long as construction and design follows practices consistant with the era modeled, then yes, the ATLANTIC CENTRAL will have whatever cars suit my taste.
I take no issue with those who model differently, as I said, I have tried a few different approaches myself over the 46 years I have been at this.
BUT, I will say this, after 46 years I know what I enjoy about this hobby, I know what I like, I know what I want to accomplish with my trains. That does not change on a whim, or because some new product comes along, or because some new technolgy comes along.
So in conclusion, my passenger cars may be "fantasy", stand in, selectively compressed - but close coupled with working diaphragms they look more realistic to me than "correct" cars with six scale foot gaps between them.
ATLANTIC CENTRAL There are not enough accurate B&O passenger cars on the market, even if you bought everything that was close in the last 15 years, to make one complete correct B&O train without buying brass.
The same problem exists for me too; ain't much for D&RGW at all. I only pushed my time frame back to allow me to run some sessions in to the mid-late 1960's so I could run the California Zephyr since I really like that train and D&RGW pulled it! I can cheat a little and run a correct Yampa Valley Mail by using one of my 2 brass passenger cars and the Walthers 52 seat coach, both of which are based on Pullman Standard passenger cars D&RGW bought originally intended for the C&O. Otherwise my modeling the 70's and 80's allows me to model nearly correct passenger trains using BLI CZ cars for the Rio Grande Zephyr (1971-1983) and Walthers Superliner cars for the Amtrak California Zephyr (1983-1990, end of my modeling time frame).
Honestly I do want my cars to look like the real thing ever since I was in my early 20's. It comes from reading too many of those old children's "Highlights" magazine where you gotta pick out the differences between two scenes like I Spy books. Rivet correctness? I'm not that neurotic. I do want all the windows of a passenger car to be in the right place and size however, the major stuff should look like the real passenger car.
I happily bought Athearn's SD45R diesels which have the major features look like an SP SD45R - someone who really knows the SD45R pointed out to me a host of details that were wrong for the rebuilds, but it didn't rattle my chain much, things I didn't even know about. So that illustrates that I'm not worrying about down to the rivet correctness. Back toward the original topic, someone on the various forums pointed out to me he wouldn't buy the Walthers P-S 52 seat coach because it wasn't 100% correct for the D&RGW Prospector coach. Considering how few plastic passenger cars match D&RGW, I didn't feel I could be that picky! The windows are all in the right position and size, the fluting etc. roof, but a number board is in the wrong spot cause the car is C&O prototype. It's dang close however an I can deal with the 1% thing that is wrong.
That's very true, so unless you are among the few who model the:
Santa Fe ChiefSanta Fe El CapitanCalifornia ZephyrNYC Broadway LimitedNP Empire BuilderN&W Arrow (rusty on that one)The CanadianUP Passenger trainsSouthern Pacific Daylights (several version)
I may have missed a few, there are still quite a few never done. All that said, we have quite a few major passenger trains to be thankful for. Such as it is, there are many modelers who remain unsatisfied. It's a good time to be a western modeler no doubt. And the sad thing is here I am a western modeler and stuck in the east where there ain't much of that going on!
I understand that for some people it IS about every piece of rolling stock being exactly correct - assuming we even know for sure which cars were in use, what color they were, which modifications had or had not been made, etc, etc. I was into that kind of modeling thirty years ago - I decided it was not fun anymore and moved to a more relaxed approach.
If you can give into the Swartz and do that, it's good for you. For those who want things correct, well, it's still a good time to be in the hobby as there has never been more of that out there. Problem is keeping up with it! ExactRail is releasing beautiful D&RGW quad hoppers but heck if I can afford more than a few - will have to fill out the rest of the train with also correct but more crude Walthers quads! I really can't complain!
BUT, I will say this, after 46 years I know what I enjoy about this hobby, I know what I like, I know what I want to accomplish with my trains. That does not change on a whim, or because some new product comes along, or because some new technolgy comes along. Sheldon
You seem to say it like changing on a "whim" is a bad thing. But if that makes someone happy, well, is it bad? I'm more like you however, I know what I like, I've always like it and even better, it's pretty much all available in plastic, mostly. Some new products came along that changed my interest marginally, mainly all the nice Southern Pacific equipment in the past ten years from Athearn, Intermountain and ExactRail. It wasn't a paradigm shift, but since the D&RGW and SP partnered in the 1980's, my going back to my roots was serendipitous, because Rio Grande pooled with SP diesels, had bay window cabooses on their trains and hauled a lot of lumber from the Pacific northwest!
I personally think all of the wonderful products on the market only give people more choices; people who want to draw from the well of existing proven stuff like Concor or some of the older brands, and kits, there is tons of that stuff at train shows still available. Those who want to dip from the well of the newer products can enjoy what they have to offer. The last 10-15 years IMO have been a real golden age for the hobby.
Completely agreed.
One of the other things that brought me to my view on passenger cars was that once I saw a set of well detailed, but freelanced, selectively compressed passenger cars actually operate on a layout, close coupled, snaking through crossovers with diaphragms always touching, I was hooked by the realistic sense of motion that was just like real passenger trains I have watched.
Personally, it would take 48" radius curves and #10 turnouts to even begin to get me back into the 85' passenger car market again.
All that detail and "correctness" is just ruined for me when guys run them on 30" curves with passenger killing gaps betwwen the cars.
Even as it is, I run my 72' passenger cars on no less than 36" radius.
This hobby is full of trade offs, we all see those trade offs differently.
ATLANTIC CENTRAL All that detail and "correctness" is just ruined for me when guys run them on 30" curves with passenger killing gaps betwwen the cars.
richhotrain ATLANTIC CENTRAL All that detail and "correctness" is just ruined for me when guys run them on 30" curves with passenger killing gaps betwwen the cars.
"Martha, if you want to go to the dining car for dinner, you are doing to have to jump"
"Well I never....next time we will travel on the ATLANTIC CENTRAL"
ATLANTIC CENTRAL richhotrain ATLANTIC CENTRAL All that detail and "correctness" is just ruined for me when guys run them on 30" curves with passenger killing gaps betwwen the cars. "Martha, if you want to go to the dining car for dinner, you are doing to have to jump" "Well I never....next time we will travel on the ATLANTIC CENTRAL"
ahhh, Sheldon, the truth hurts. I plead Guilty.