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.
Rich
Alton Junction
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.
Sheldon
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.
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.
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--
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.
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.
zstripe I was on your side........ Cheers, Frank
I was on your side........
Cheers,
Frank
You was or you is???
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.
steemtrayn richhotrain steemtrayn I have a few Walthers cars tha pop of 28" radius curves when I push them one at a time by hand. Couplers have nothing to do with it. Nothing? That's right, nothing. (In this case, anyway.) How could couplers have anything to do with the derailment when there is nothing coupled to them?
richhotrain steemtrayn I have a few Walthers cars tha pop of 28" radius curves when I push them one at a time by hand. Couplers have nothing to do with it. Nothing?
steemtrayn I have a few Walthers cars tha pop of 28" radius curves when I push them one at a time by hand. Couplers have nothing to do with it.
I have a few Walthers cars tha pop of 28" radius curves when I push them one at a time by hand. Couplers have nothing to do with it.
Nothing?
That's right, nothing. (In this case, anyway.) How could couplers have anything to do with the derailment when there is nothing coupled to them?
Oh, I see what you are saying. If you push them and they derail, what does a coupler have to do with that.
True, but pushing a car is not a totally accurate test. You can derail a perfectly fine car if you apply too much pressure or too much speed or too much lateral movement. The better test is to couple the cars together and couple them to a locomotive and run the train.
I will most definitely agree with Rich and some others who posted,,the want,of having 85ft cars,seems to be over bearing in this case,,but reality sets in as to the function,or purpose of having them..One good point that was mentioned,was the locale of your layouts theme,,,a one horse town with a whistle stop station,or a two horse town?Where are all the people coming from,that will be on that train??
Just My Reality,Thinking,
zstripe Do they, ''Pop off'' at a 100 smph push,or a 200 smph push?? YIKES!! Cheers, Frankie
Do they, ''Pop off'' at a 100 smph push,or a 200 smph push?? YIKES!!
Frankie
Actually, it was more like a 10 smph push. Using E-Z track, I started on a section of straight track, and gradually decreased the radius, starting with 35.5, then 33.25 then 28.
I did the research, and now I share the results. No charge.
Dave
Just be glad you don't have to press "2" for English.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zQ_ALEdDUB8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6hqFS1GZL4s
http://s73.photobucket.com/user/steemtrayn/media/MovingcoalontheDCM.mp4.html?sort=3&o=27
UP 4-12-2 Sheldon-- The fact is that Walthers has been doing a fine job of making incremental improvements on their passenger cars. The diaphragms on the newest cars actually work pretty well, all things considered--and if I had the luxury of operating on 30" or 32" radius curves, I bet the diaphragms would actually be touching almost all the time. I was most upset at one time that the lighting units didn't actually fit at least one of the cars...but times change. They have improved, and now that I don't have to butcher the roof during attempted removal (because factory installed lighting--and even installed figures on some special releases--are now available) I find them to be an outstanding value--especially compared to comparable newer brass cars at $750/each. Respectfully submitted-- John
The fact is that Walthers has been doing a fine job of making incremental improvements on their passenger cars. The diaphragms on the newest cars actually work pretty well, all things considered--and if I had the luxury of operating on 30" or 32" radius curves, I bet the diaphragms would actually be touching almost all the time.
I was most upset at one time that the lighting units didn't actually fit at least one of the cars...but times change. They have improved, and now that I don't have to butcher the roof during attempted removal (because factory installed lighting--and even installed figures on some special releases--are now available) I find them to be an outstanding value--especially compared to comparable newer brass cars at $750/each.
John,
Not the best photo, but maybe you can see what I mean about close coupling:
As for brass, not on my radar. I'm really not interested in collecting expensive models, I'm into building them myself. Sheldon
As for brass, not on my radar. I'm really not interested in collecting expensive models, I'm into building them myself.
I don't buy Walthers ans 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 would much rather start with some other car and built it and detail it to my standards.
As for the OP's comments about false advertising on the part of Walthers regarding this issue - like Rich, I tend to agree.
As to the OP's personal situation regarding his layout - all I can say is that in this information age it would not have taken much research to know that 85' passenger cars and 22" radius curves were a bad idea BEFORE either building the layout or buying the cars.
Perhaps the reason Rivarossi and Bachmann are re-releasing their shorter length HW passenger cars in a number of new road names is due to this lack of better quality coaches not being able to run on the shorter radius curves.
While I did buy some of the 60' Rivarossi coach sets back when they were first released I certainly could use additional coaches and combines to add to my roster.
Well Wigman, you have a couple of choices..........
- somehow get to 26 inch minimum radius
or
- not run the walthers cars
Other than ruining the cars (i.e. tearing out the undercarriages, etc), what you are trying to do won't work well. And whatever cars you do get to run will look pretty uncomfortable.
If you are stuck with the 22/24 inch curves, get some Athearn cars and enjoy!
ENJOY !
Mobilman44
Living in southeast Texas, formerly modeling the "postwar" Santa Fe and Illinois Central
Trimming the sill plates on each end will allow better performance on 24' curves, 22' is pushing it. Believe Walthers has this recommendation in the instructions that come with the cars, could be wrong on that one though. they can be touchy though. mine sit on a siding most of the time and I run 5 old AHM cars, not as nice by a long shot, but they just run and run.
The cars are able to do 24" radius if your track work is nearly perfect--ie no vertical kinks at joints and no vertical kinks or superelevation the wrong way on horizontal curves.
Again--the layout design books clearly state that operation of full length passenger cars on anything less than 27" radius curves is problematic at best. You are asking the car to negotiate curves sharper than the prototype ever could--and any vertical displacement, or one rail being higher than the other one at a given joint--is all that is needed to cause a derailment.
The manufacturers make it possible for these cars to negotiate 24" radius curves--sharper than the prototype ever could--but that doesn't mean they will operate perfectly. One bad Chinese-made axle on a given truck can cause a problem. All wheels on each truck should touch a piece of glass sitting on a table top. If you can rock the truck on the piece of glass, it should be adjusted, period. Also check the wheel gauge--sometimes it can be a little bit too wide, and if the axles don't roll true relative to truck centerline, they can bind on curves.
Having owned several brass passenger cars through the years, I think Walthers is doing an absolutely terrific job on the current production--especially the cars with factory lights and grab irons installed. That's how I've wanted them, and I'll keep buying them. I have 4 sleepers pre-ordered now along with the Rock Island red/yellow F unit.
wigman My serious beef here is that Walthers, BLI, and all the others who say their cars can negotiate 24" minimum radius curves. The cars SHOULD be able to do so right out of the box without a problem or weeks worth of adjustment so they will work properly. I attribute this to these companies trying to get small pike owners to buy these cars at exorbitant prices, knowing full well that they will NOT work on the stated minimum radius turns. It is false advertising, if you ask me. Wig
My serious beef here is that Walthers, BLI, and all the others who say their cars can negotiate 24" minimum radius curves. The cars SHOULD be able to do so right out of the box without a problem or weeks worth of adjustment so they will work properly. I attribute this to these companies trying to get small pike owners to buy these cars at exorbitant prices, knowing full well that they will NOT work on the stated minimum radius turns.
It is false advertising, if you ask me.
Wig
LOL
Wig, I couldn't agree with you more.
Out of the box, they don't run all that well on 24" radius curves and, for that matter, they don't run all that well out of the box on larger radius curves either, without some fine tuning.
But, don't despair. Add some long shank couplers, and you just might be surprised at the improved performance.
Well, now that I have heard from everyone who thinks anyone can fit huge radius turns on their layouts, I can't. Don't have the room on my long and narrow layout, and my trains have to have some method of getting back to where they started by other than going backwards.
These cars cost a small fortune to purchase, and apparently they aren't worth it to anyone other than those who can run huge radius turns on their layouts.
I guess the solution to it all is go back to the old Rivarossi, Athearn, Model Power, etc. cars that don't have a problem with these radius turns, cost 1/10 as much, and to hell with the fancy stuff - they can spend their lives on the display shelves in my layout room.
I had purchased the entire Empire Builder set from Walthers at great expense and it isn't worth a crap, if you ask me, because I can't run it on track that THEY said it would run on. The Proto2000 locos will run on track down to 18" radius, they are fine and perfect examples of high quality at reasonable cost.
From this point on, I will not be purchasing any more of these cars. Their loss, not mine.
Thanks for all the replies, I appreciate your input very much!
This is exactly why I'm getting rid of all my 24" radius curves, and reworking the tracks for min radius of 32".
I run a lot of passenger trains. Walthers, MTH, Rapido, BLI.
Michael
CEO- Mile-HI-RailroadPrototype: D&RGW Moffat Line 1989
I believe Walthers recommends 24" minimum operating radius for their passenger cars, as do other manufacturers of full length 85' cars. (BLI's CZ car have full skirts and although they can do 24" radius, they don't like it--neither did any of the brass models of the very same cars, which require about 28" minimum just to operate, as I have owned them).
Additionally, the various Kalmbach layout planning books (including those written by Armstrong) which have been available on the market for many years have consistently recommended 27"-28" radius for full length passenger car operation.
Accordingly, if I were building a layout, I would not have used anything less than 24" radius, period. I'm not saying this to be arrogant or mean, so I hope it doesn't read that way--but I would not design for the minimum radius, especially if I had space for 100' mainlines, because designing for the minimum does not allow any room for error in track joints, etc. Even with Kato track, which is very rigid, it is still possible to get "kinks" in the alignment that can be enough to derail a long passenger car or a large steam engine.
My minimum curve radius is (Kato metric converted to English) 26.375". I own several Walthers cars, both lightweight (4 axle) and heavyweight (6 axle). Some of them are a pain to operate as they derail. I find that replacing the factory couplers with Kadee #148 whisker couplers helps to eliminate most but not all of the derailments. Some squeak and oil doesn't always help--the 6 axle cars tend to be noisier in general.
I have in the neighborhood of 120 Walthers 85 ft cars bought over a 10 year or so period, and have found that trying to run them on anything less than 28" radius is often going to require fixes. As pointed out, diaphragms push on each other with springs strong enough to derail, or catch on each other. Trucks can hit coupler boxes, skirts and ladders. Twisted truck frames are trouble, more likely on 6-wheel trucks.
But even worse, once a consist is OK going forward, try backing it up. Because the coupler slack disappears, a more likely minimum radius for backing is 36". Using longer coupler shanks may fix going forward, but also cause worse backing problems.
Proper coupler height is almost twice as critical on 85' cars as 50' freight cars, to avoid decoupling on short-term variations in track height, because of the greater bolster to coupler distance.
Walthers' use of steel axles into metal sideframes seems to result sometimes in not very free-rolling wheels. Sometimes a truck tuner helps. Some squeak, but oil doesn't always help.
Long passenger cars tend to be a pain. Especially Walthers. IMHO, of course.
Hal