Seems like the short answer is "yes", given your account of their behavior.
That being said, is it maybe a simple issue of the trucks being too tight?
-Dan
Builder of Bowser steam! Railimages Site
Are the cars from the modern era, a specific reporting mark, or something else? Such answers can help others avoid similar issues. I guess even expensive cars have their issues.
Perhaps RTR does not equate to full-proof.
NeO6874trucks being too tight?
Thanks for the reply, trucks aren't too tight, definitely a brake rigging issue. On the 60' hopper clipping a small piece of the brake chain away did the trick.
In fairness the one Mfg. I contacted about the issue offered a refund, but not as a defect and basically said that such things are part of meeting today's demand for more and better detailed rolling stock models. Also a friendly suggestion was made about their less detailed line of models.
I do recall seeing minimum radius recommendations for some locos and long passenger cars, but not freight cars. Maybe such recommendations would be good for those who don't wish to modify a car, but not from a sales standpoint.
Thanks again and regards, Peter
HO-Veloam I wrong to expect that the 50' boxcar that I just plunked down $50+ for will negotiate an 18"R curve at slow speed without modification?
Yes, sad to say. Whatever the equivalent curve degree that would match an 18" radius in HO, I suspect only certain pieces of prototype equipment could negotiate such a curve, regardless of slow speed. Our cars and locomotives that are built to negotiate an 18" radius curves have many compromises from scale and prototype: wheel slop, changing wheelbase, coupler swing, eliminating or altering or changing placement of details such as steps and end platforms, and the list goes on, often over and above the compromises that are already built into NMRA standards for track and wheels.
As a rule the higher priced pieces of rolling stock are priced that way due to their higher fidelity to scale and fewer compromises.
Dave Nelson
Peter,
While they won't tell you as that would cut into their sales, many of the new cars, especially the highly detailed ones aren't made to run on 18" radius. It's a shame, as I have a few that won't run on 22" radius. I have some tight spaces on my railroad. Passenger cars from one company recommend 24" radius and most people who I talk to have issues with them running on that radius as well.
Yes, some small cuts here and there do help to make them run. I guess maybe we're expecting too much from some factories?
Sometimes instead of a quick snip, see if you can tuck the offending bit up or over and CA it out of the way, so you can reverse the procedure after you move into your castle with a big train room.
Brent
"All of the world's problems are the result of the difference between how we think and how the world works."
The Maryland and Pennsylvania had some of the sharpest mainline curves. Their 20 degree curve was sharper than some narrow gauge lines. In HO that's 39.7 inches.
So yes if you want highly detailed correct models including brake rigging then you will need broad curves.
18 inch curves require compromises.
Paul
HO-Velo A heads-up for those desiring to run some of today's highly detailed RTR rolling stock thru 18 & 20" curves; be prepared for a little nip & tuck of that beautiful underside brake rigging to allow full swing of the trucks. Offenders so far are a few 50 & 60 footers from three different Mfg. I do appreciate and covet the highly detailed cars and realize that Model Railroading is after all a tinkering hobby. Not that I want any Mfg. to be caught in a fidelity gap, but am I wrong to expect that the 50' boxcar that I just plunked down $50+ for will negotiate an 18"R curve at slow speed without modification? Regards, Peter
A heads-up for those desiring to run some of today's highly detailed RTR rolling stock thru 18 & 20" curves; be prepared for a little nip & tuck of that beautiful underside brake rigging to allow full swing of the trucks.
Offenders so far are a few 50 & 60 footers from three different Mfg. I do appreciate and covet the highly detailed cars and realize that Model Railroading is after all a tinkering hobby. Not that I want any Mfg. to be caught in a fidelity gap, but am I wrong to expect that the 50' boxcar that I just plunked down $50+ for will negotiate an 18"R curve at slow speed without modification?
Regards, Peter
Yup, and some 50 footers wont run on 24 inch radius curves because the trucks bump into the rigging.
I paid $35 for a boxcar and had to remove the detail that partly made it $35.
Maybe producers should test them, instead of thinking people buy them just to display, then provide a disclaimer about what radius curve they wont run on without removing details.
- Douglas
nealknows Peter, While they won't tell you as that would cut into their sales, many of the new cars, especially the highly detailed ones aren't made to run on 18" radius. It's a shame, as I have a few that won't run on 22" radius. I have some tight spaces on my railroad. Passenger cars from one company recommend 24" radius and most people who I talk to have issues with them running on that radius as well. Yes, some small cuts here and there do help to make them run. I guess maybe we're expecting too much from some factories?
A disclaimer on the box would be nice.
I don't want to use the word fraud, but its generally accepted that 50 foot cars will run on 18 inch radius curves, so taking advantage of a known assumption by not disclosing it fails the known assumption because of the details they use to get their prices, seems shady to me.
It seems to me that highly detailed models with fidelity to scale or near-to-scale details would obviously be at odds with 18" radius curves: one attempts to match the prototype as closely as possible, the other makes no attempt to do so.
I'm not saying that you shouldn't run such cars on those curves, but only that it would be wise to temper your expectations, and perhaps be prepared to do some modifications.
Wayne
doctorwayne It seems to me that highly detailed models with fidelity to scale or near-to-scale details would obviously be at odds with 18" radius curves: one attempts to match the prototype as closely as possible, the other makes no attempt to do so.
Which introduces an interesting philisophical question. Since we compromise so much fidelity when we build a layout, why the fuss over high fidelity equipment?
Doughless doctorwayne It seems to me that highly detailed models with fidelity to scale or near-to-scale details would obviously be at odds with 18" radius curves: one attempts to match the prototype as closely as possible, the other makes no attempt to do so. Which introduces and interesting philisophical question. Since we compromise so much fidelity when we build a layout, why the fuss over high fidelity equipment?
Which introduces and interesting philisophical question. Since we compromise so much fidelity when we build a layout, why the fuss over high fidelity equipment?
We?
I got me 48" curves.
So it's a rare day when rolling stock won't make my curves.
If I was forced to use 18" curves, I'd be running 40' cars on my industrial layout set in the '30's. And enjoying it, I might add. Let's not forget that B&O had their Docksides for a reason. And that first diesel switcher ran on some incredibly tight curves. With cars.
I think people who expect a 4-12-2 to take their 18" radius curves should just hold their breaths until they turn blue.
I DO feel that every car and loco should have a minimum radius (a REAL one) printed on the box it comes in. So it hurts sales? Well, it hurts sales, too, when customers can't run their new stuff on their railroad!
Ed
7j43k We? I got me 48" curves. So it's a rare day when rolling stock won't make my curves. If I was forced to use 18" curves, I'd be running 40' cars on my industrial layout set in the '30's. And enjoying it, I might add. Let's not forget that B&O had their Docksides for a reason. And that first diesel switcher ran on some incredibly tight curves. With cars.
That's my feeling too. Realism is important, so space dictates what kind of railroad I want to model. I think some, if not many, are committed to modeling a certain railroad, time, or place and try to make it fit into what ever space they have.
I see a lot of people seeking advice about their layout design on this forum who seem to take the latter approach quite often.
Different approaches. Different compromises made.
In general, the more detail, the more likely tight curves may cause problems. Curves in the 18 to 20 inch radius range are basically train set curves and are extremely sharp by today's standards. Using such tight curves is going to inherently going to force compromises in 1/87 scale versions of trains. I always strongly recommend increasing radius as much as possible; every bit helps. Otherwise expect limitations to be a fact.
It reminds me of my computer gaming days when people would they to run games with all the "eye candy" on a minimum spec computer and be disappointed with the results.
Years ago I built a layout in my garage 16x19 ft with 30 inch minimum curves, which I though we're reasonably broad. A friend brought his brass heavy weight CNW heavy weight passenger cars over. Couldn't run them as the truck side frames shorted out against the frame. Surprised and disappointed.
More detail, expect larger radius curves will be needed or mods to the rolling stock. Many in the hobby for years know this already.
Rio Grande. The Action Road - Focus 1977-1983
Everything I have runs on 18 inch curves. That's mostly 40 foot freight cars, some 50 footers. I don't press my luck with long well cars or giant tankers which are beyond my era anyway.
I've got some longer Rivarossi coaches I've tinkered with, but I relented and re-did the track to a true 18 inch curves.
It takes an iron man to play with a toy iron horse.
kasskaboosecars from the modern era
Yes these are modern era cars, and yeah, RTR doesn't mean full-proof.
Does seem ironic that the brake rigging on these recently purchased cars make them unrealiable where such details are more noticeable, like a few spurs on my small switching layout.
Though any highly detailed 50' car with underside brake detail might be suspect in negotiating an 18"R curve, there are many that do so right out of the box.
Can't hurt to pass along feedback to the Mfgs about making minimum radius recommendations available, at least on their website car descriptions. A reasonable thing to know before deciding which car to bust out another $50+ on, regardless of model railroading experience, layout size, or era modeled.
Thanks and regards, Peter
While I only occasionally bother adding fairly well-detailed brake gear to a freight car, like on this scratchbuilt model of a Seaboard 1932 ARA recommended design...
...I make sure that the rods, which would supposedly operate the brakes, are not in any way going to interfere with the wheels or with truck rotation...
...and from the side, if anyone bothers to notice, it still looks as if everything goes to where it should...
The modeler that is disappointedwhen his true-to-scale, $50+ freight car won't negotiate a train set curve, should realize that although all prototype equipment was made to the same "scale", there were places certain equipment could not be used. Look at tinplate curves. What was the solution of Lionel and American Flyer? Shorter than prototype cars, on Talgo trucks! Back in the days when everybody in HO was relying on Varney Docksides to power their short strings of 40 foot cars, talgo trucks were the "standard" for a lot of ready to run equipment. Curves as sharp as 15 inches were available in snap-track and 22 inches was considered broad radius. Code 100 brass rail, fiber tie strips, pizza cutter flanges, horn-hook couplers were the "standard" of that era.
Fast forward to today. Find any of the former "standard" items for sale new, today? No. Instead, just like any other human endeavor, progress has long since passed them by. Who today lays their code 100 brass rail on compressed paper tie strips? How many 40 foot boxcars were in the last prototype freight train you saw? Why do the real railroads still have four axle locomotives, instead of everything being six axled? Because not all equipment can go everywhere. There are curves and other track issues that prohibit it.
The manufacturers are producing prototypically accurate models that do not compromise anything EXCEPT the trucks and in some cases, couplers and draft gear boxes. When a person lays out $50 for one of these masterpieces, it is expected to replicate the real thing. If the manufacturer brought out a line of three deck enclosed auto racks 40 feet long, how many would you buy? How about 40 foot streamlined passenger cars? They would be modified to be totally compatible with 18 inch radius curves. Reflection of the prototype? No. The problem is, the prototype and thus the models have surpassed the 18 inch radius curve and sadly the trusty old 4X8 sheet of plywood.
The Layout Design Special Interest Group published rule of thumbs for the ratio of radius to car length over couplers and the consequences: http://www.ldsig.org/ldsigwiki/hints-tips/curve_radius_rule-of-thumb
Here is the table from the link. The website contains additionally some examples.
Ratio Description2X - Some model equipment may be able to track reliably on 2X their length, but this is generally considered pushing it.
3X - Making your curve radius at least 3X the length of your longest cars gets reliable tracking around curves, but looks toylike.
4X - If you make your curve radius at least 4X, your longest cars will look much better on curves.
5X - If you make your curve radius at least 5X, your longest cars will couple easily with minimal manual fiddling of the couplers.
This measurement is based on the length of your longest car (coupler to coupler).
In another publication two more ratios were given:
3.5 x - Equipment will look less toy-like when viewed from inside the curve
Perhaps these results of the LDSIG help with the selection of the proper cars.Regards, Volker
HO-Velo Can't hurt to pass along feedback to the Mfgs about making minimum radius recommendations available, at least on their website car descriptions. A reasonable thing to know before deciding which car to bust out another $50+ on, regardless of model railroading experience, layout size, or era modeled. Thanks and regards, Peter
So rather than complain to fellow modelers, why don't you give feedback directly to the manufacturers? Afterall, it's them you want to feed the customer with more detailed specs about how tight a curve you can get away with.
NHTX The modeler that is disappointedwhen his true-to-scale, $50+ freight car won't negotiate a train set curve, should realize that although all prototype equipment was made to the same "scale", there were places certain equipment could not be used. ... The manufacturers are producing prototypically accurate models that do not compromise anything EXCEPT the trucks and in some cases, couplers and draft gear boxes. When a person lays out $50 for one of these masterpieces, it is expected to replicate the real thing. If the manufacturer brought out a line of three deck enclosed auto racks 40 feet long, how many would you buy? How about 40 foot streamlined passenger cars? They would be modified to be totally compatible with 18 inch radius curves. Reflection of the prototype? No. The problem is, the prototype and thus the models have surpassed the 18 inch radius curve and sadly the trusty old 4X8 sheet of plywood.
The modeler that is disappointedwhen his true-to-scale, $50+ freight car won't negotiate a train set curve, should realize that although all prototype equipment was made to the same "scale", there were places certain equipment could not be used. ...
The manufacturers are producing prototypically accurate models that do not compromise anything EXCEPT the trucks and in some cases, couplers and draft gear boxes. When a person lays out $50 for one of these masterpieces, it is expected to replicate the real thing. If the manufacturer brought out a line of three deck enclosed auto racks 40 feet long, how many would you buy? How about 40 foot streamlined passenger cars? They would be modified to be totally compatible with 18 inch radius curves. Reflection of the prototype? No.
The problem is, the prototype and thus the models have surpassed the 18 inch radius curve and sadly the trusty old 4X8 sheet of plywood.
This ^^^ x 1000
It's a often a nasty surprise when hobbyists are still following the 4x8 sheet of plywood format and find out a toy trainset style layout is best for running toy trainset type rolling stock - as mentioned by NHTX the compromises made in other scales to shoehorn those trains around extremely tight curves.
IMO, customers expect manufacturers to warn them about everything but when you buy $50 freight cars, generally at that price point you are getting a scale masterpiece which, for most of us at least, it's common sense that a 4x8 absolute minimum curve format layout isn't going to play nicely with high fidelity scale models.
Sure, most have always expected 50' box car to operate on a 4x8 with tight curves (and 18" curves ARE very sharp in HO), but traditionally the rolling stock operated on those layouts has had comprises engineered into them, even some of the better detailed RTR cars. But then when you get into the high end like Moloco, Tangent etc. where there are less and less compromises because people who pay those prices are expecting high fidelity.
And the OP also mentioned 60' rolling stock; quite frankly 60' freight cars on an 18" curve, even omitting the high fidelity cars, is pushing it, so I'm definitely not surprised those are not user friendly.
As mentioned, about the only compromises still there are the wheels (usually standard 0.110 profile or sometimes semi-scale 0.088 profile and Kadee couplers. The only things left to go even closer to fidelity would be Proto 87 with correct to scale wheels and couplers (Seargents?) and there you have to have Proto 87 track or things aren't going to go well.
http://www.proto87.com/What_is_Proto87.html
So to the OP, rather than complain to forum folks, go directly to the manufacturers. I'm not sure they will add verbage to the packaging or advertising but you never know. I wouldn't be surprised if manufacturers were forced to list minimum radius for a 60' box car that it would be 22 inches, and the OP listed 18 and 20 inch curves, to there you go, no sale. But frankly, the high fidelity manufacturers probably wouldn't lose many sales because they aren't aiming at the 4x8 crowed.
Regarding the original complaint; here are things you have control over:
1) make modifications to the rolling stock if you can't build a layout with larger radius curves (which sort of defeats the purpose of buying high fidelity rolling stock to a degree) or,
2) rebuild your layout with larger curves and break free of the 4x8 straight jacket. Even a 5x9 which is still quite small, would allow you to go with 24 and 26.5 inch curves which probably would make significant difference, because at low radiuses, every inch you can increase yields much bigger dividends than every inch at higher radiuses.
riogrande5761 More detail, expect larger radius curves will be needed or mods to the rolling stock. Many in the hobby for years know this already.
Perhaps many, but not most. Highly detailed underside RTR models have not been around a very long time. I'd wager most who bought them let them sit in the box for a long time, displayed them, used them on a switching layout, etc. before they ran them and found out they didn't work as assumed.
Afterall, Atlas has been producing freight cars with underside detail for a long time and they all work on 18 inch curves, IIRC. Why wouldn't the other Mfgs cars work also?
There's a large difference between a car running on a certain radius and it operating well. I commend those who can get a car to operate on an 18" radius despite suggestions to keep the curves broader. Defining the term "broad" is somewhat subjective, so thanks for avoiding a heated debate about that topic.
While fun to play the game of "how tight to make a curve," there are standards for ensuring different car lengths can function on curves. Publishing this information on the boxes of cars might increase the cost of manufacturing. It might also encourage a level of standardization sorely needed to reduce frustration.
doctorwayne ...I make sure that the rods, which would supposedly operate the brakes, are not in any way going to interfere with the wheels or with truck rotation... ...and from the side, if anyone bothers to notice, it still looks as if everything goes to where it should... Wayne
Thanks Wayne. That is the point.
Some Mfgs are advertising how more accurate their models are than others, but fail to disclose the compromise made for that extra fidelity. JMO.
And if they are truly designing their cars to cater to only those operators who have broad curves, they would go bankrupt.
Again, JMO.
EDIT: My experience is that some of those 50 foot boxcars won't run on 24 inch radius curves. Don't know why we're focused on 18 inch radius.
Doughless Afterall, Atlas has been producing freight cars with underside detail for a long time and they all work on 18 inch curves, IIRC. Why wouldn't the other Mfgs cars work also?
If they're the ones I'm thinking about ... the "underbody detail" is
I still can't figure out why some would pay $50 for an HO scale freight car. But, that's for another thread...
Having said that, I did purchase 3 of the high end RTR cars from two of the top manufacturers. None of the three were up to my standards with crooked mounted brake wheels, ladders, etc, so I sold them. I will stick with my kit built stock, then I only have myself to blame if they don't look right. Plus, I will make sure they work the way I want before they are finished.
A 50' car should be able to negotiate an 18" curve...
Chuck - Modeling in HO scale and anything narrow gauge
trwroute I still can't figure out why some would pay $50 for an HO scale freight car. But, that's for another thread...
Since you brought it up, I'll address that comment as "fair game".
If you can't figure it out, then those models are not marketed for you would be my guess, was well as those who do not find value in these models. Obviously they are selling judging by my observations of Moloco, for example, which sell in the $53-$56 range and many of the road names are sold out.
It's a bit like saying, I can't figure out why someone would buy a Mercedes or a BMW, but I see tons of them on the road here where I live. I don't find value in them personally as a means of transportation but it's clear many do find value and/or can afford them. It just depends on what your "poison" is.
Having said that, I did purchase 3 of the high end RTR cars from two of the top manufacturers. None of the three were up to my standards with crooked mounted brake wheels, ladders, etc, so I sold them. I will stick with my kit built stock, then I only have myself to blame if they don't look right. Plus, I will make sure they work the way I want before they are finished. A 50' car should be able to negotiate an 18" curve...
Fair enough. Some would also say an 85' passenger car "should" negotiate a 30" curve, but I found out a set of lovely brass C&NW heavy weight passenger cars could not.
The moral of the story is modelers need to have realistic expectations and reality is some models will not meet them; some models are manufactured with certain hobbyists in mind.
As for you sticking with kits, I would guess Obi Wan would do the Jedi Hand way and say, "these high end models" are not the droids you are looking for". Move along, move along.
NeO6874 Doughless Afterall, Atlas has been producing freight cars with underside detail for a long time and they all work on 18 inch curves, IIRC. Why wouldn't the other Mfgs cars work also? If they're the ones I'm thinking about ... the "underbody detail" is brake reserviour triple valve maybe the major pipes (trainline, feeds to the two above-mentioned parts), while staying away from the trucks.
That's true, but my Fox Valley 50 foot boxcar wouldn't negotiate a 24 inch radius curve due to the trainline (I think) being angled towards the truck. I don't know if fidelity demands that it runs towards the trucks at an angle, or if Atlas chooses to run it down the center to create truck clearance.
My point is not about the choices modelers make. They're all good. Its about what the Mfgs knowingly do. It seems to me the category of customer that buys high fidelity rolling stock falls into a few categories ( maybe more?)
1. Own a large radius railroad and inherently know before purchase that underbody detail makes the car only applicable to large radius layouts.
2. Collector who either displays the car or doesn't open the box.
3. The guy who buys it for the "future" layout, only to discover three years after he accumulating 50 of these cars finds out none of them run on his planned layout.
4. The guy with a small radius layout who buys a few then stops because he has to remove the detail he paid for.
I think customer's #2 and #3 keeps these Mfgs in business. (and helps #1 get what they want at an affordable price)
So a disclaimer on the package and website would seem appropriate.
DoughlessSome Mfgs are advertising how more accurate their models are than others, but fail to disclose the compromise made for that extra fidelity. And if they are truly designing their cars to cater to only those operators who have broad curves, they would go bankrupt.
So far that doesn't seem to be the case.
I sense an ill tone toward some of these manufacturers in this topic; it could be a case that those unhappy with this issue are minority enough that the manufacturers haven't been compelled to lable their products with a minimum radius. Just guessing.
Anyway, it would seem common sense to take this beef straight to the manufacturers, unless the point is to stir up sentiment and get others to find pitchforks and torches and go as a group to the manufactures to get them to change their ways.
Or as an alternative, just buy what works for you.
Because the OP included 18 inch radius in his original complaint?
riogrande5761 Since you brought it up, I'll address that comment as "fair game". If you can't figure it out, then those models are not marketed for you would be my guess, was well as those who do not find value in these models. Obviously they are selling judging by my observations of Moloco, for example, which sell in the $53-$56 range and many of the road names are sold out. It's a bit like saying, I can't figure out why someone would buy a Mercedes or a BMW, but I see tons of them on the road here where I live. I don't find value in them personally as a means of transportation but it's clear many do find value and/or can afford them. It just depends on what your "poison" is. I found out a set of lovely brass C&NW heavy weight passenger cars could not.
Jim, I wouldn't have expected any other reply from you! You've been in this hobby just as long as I have, and building kits has always been a big part of it, at least for me. If I fork out the dough to buy one of the elite RTR cars, it dang sure better do what I want it to do. As was pointed out in an earlier comment, it isn't hard to make a few changes to make sure these cars are truly RTR.
Besides, why worry too much about about having all the brake gear when so much of it is out of scale anyway?
Brass is it's own thing. You would be lucky to find a 40 footer that would make an 18" curve.
kasskaboose Defining the term "broad" is somewhat subjective, so thanks for avoiding a heated debate about that topic.
Defining the term "broad" is somewhat subjective, so thanks for avoiding a heated debate about that topic.
Agreed. Using undefined terms such as "broad" without defining what broad is, is problematic because those terms are often relative to ones frame of reference, which varies.
For example if a person is used to a 4x8 layout, then it could be anything above 22 inches might be considered broad, or at least what they may consider broad is a lower radius than others with a different layout standard or reference. For another person who is used to 30 inch minimums, they may feel a radius significantly larger than 30 inches to be broad - such as possibly 36, even 40+ inch radius.
Even John Armstrong fell into that trap back when he wrote the book Track Planning for Realistic Operation, mainly because he defined broad based on the norms of his time, and norms often change, sometimes change a lot.
John Armstrong defined (from memory) 18" as sharp, 24" as conventional, and 30" as Broad.
Based on many norms I have observed over the past 25 years, it could be argued that 30" has evolved to become "conventional" and something larger, such as 36 or 40 inches may be considered "broad"
In the final analysis, it's likely going to confuse issues by using such relative terms and best to avoid them, or at minimum, define them at the beginning of the discussion.
My layout is low, a compromise to get more layout in a room with angled ceilings.
I built a few Tichy flat cars and put in all the brake lines and components. I never see them, though, unless the cars derail and end up upside down.
MisterBeasley My layout is low, a compromise to get more layout in a room with angled ceilings. I built a few Tichy flat cars and put in all the brake lines and components. I never see them, though, unless the cars derail and end up upside down.
VOLKER LANDWEHRPerhaps these results of the LDSIG help with the selection of the proper cars.
Volker, Thanks for posting the chart, good info.
trwroute Jim, I wouldn't have expected any other reply from you! You've been in this hobby just as long as I have, and building kits has always been a big part of it, at least for me.
Jim, I wouldn't have expected any other reply from you! You've been in this hobby just as long as I have, and building kits has always been a big part of it, at least for me.
Building kits certainly was a big part of the hobby for many years and I might say, out of necessity, as there were few other option. Been there yes. Some may have enjoyed kit building and others did it because you had build kits to have a roster of rolling stock to run.
Then there was a convergence of conditions which were a "perfect storm" as it were, 1) many hobbyiests had less and less personal time due to family, jobs, commutes, honey-do lists, and the like, and 2) disposable income for many was on the rise, and 3) manufacturers realised there was a market for HQ RTR models and have risen to meet the demand.
As evidenced by lots of unbuilt kits hitting the secondary market during the past 10 years, clearly many never did have the time to build many of the kits they bought, which is another indicator of why RTR is popular now.
Of course we have been down this road a few times before so it should be a well established idea.
If I fork out the dough to buy one of the elite RTR cars, it dang sure better do what I want it to do. As was pointed out in an earlier comment, it isn't hard to make a few changes to make sure these cars are truly RTR.
Right, and being the skilled real-modeler you are, then making a detailed 50' box car function on 18 and 20 inch curves the OP mentioned should be no big deal.
In the end, people vote with their wallet and that is what manufacturers will respond to and seem to be continuing to respond to for the time being.
It is, but it was also brought up, rightly so, as an example of the issues which occur when you try to make a model with a high degree of fidelity to the real thing. I would say it's relevent to the disucssion for that reason.
riogrande5761 kasskaboose Defining the term "broad" is somewhat subjective, so thanks for avoiding a heated debate about that topic. Agreed. Using undefined terms such as "broad" without defining what broad is, is problematic because those terms are often relative to ones frame of reference, which varies. For example if a person is used to a 4x8 layout, then it could be anything above 22 inches might be considered broad, or at least what they may consider broad is a lower radius than others with a different layout standard or reference. For another person who is used to 30 inch minimums, they may feel a radius significantly larger than 30 inches to be broad - such as possibly 36, even 40+ inch radius. Even John Armstrong fell into that trap back when he wrote the book Track Planning for Realistic Operation, mainly because he defined broad based on the norms of his time, and norms often change, sometimes change a lot. John Armstrong defined (from memory) 18" as sharp, 24" as conventional, and 30" as Broad. Based on many norms I have observed over the past 25 years, it could be argued that 30" has evolved to become "conventional" and something larger, such as 36 or 40 inches may be considered "broad" In the final analysis, it's likely going to confuse issues by using such relative terms and best to avoid them, or at minimum, define them at the beginning of the discussion.
Agreed.
IIRC, Walthers and some other Mfgs explicitly state on their boxes that certain cars , like centerbeams, will have trouble with radii below 22 inches, making it specific.
Someone mentioned a standard being established. That would make sense. Each Mfg simply stating the minimum radius in which any car could be operated reliably.
What would additional printing on the box cost? 10 cents?
DoughlessWhat would additional printing on the box cost? 10 cents?
Dunno, thats something which needs to be communicated to the manufacturers in question. Just sayin ...
riogrande5761 Right, and being the skilled real-modeler you are,
Right, and being the skilled real-modeler you are,
riogrande5761 Doughless What would additional printing on the box cost? 10 cents? Dunno, thats something which needs to be communicated to the manufacturers in question. Just sayin ...
Doughless What would additional printing on the box cost? 10 cents?
Sure. The more attention that's drawn to it on a forum like this, the more likely the Mfgs will recieve more comments.
I appreciate the OP for starting the thread.
trwroute riogrande5761 Right, and being the skilled real-modeler you are,
Doughless The more attention that's drawn to it on a forum like this, the more likely the Mfgs will receive more comments.
The more attention that's drawn to it on a forum like this, the more likely the Mfgs will receive more comments.
Well, it will be interesting to see if the crusade has a result. Which manufacturers should I start checking packages for changes in labeling?
riogrande5761 Regarding prioritizing, are you saying you have time to play with trains more than me because you are better at prioritizing? If so, would you like to have a little chat with my wife?
Regarding prioritizing, are you saying you have time to play with trains more than me because you are better at prioritizing? If so, would you like to have a little chat with my wife?
Wise choice! Especially in the prioritizing dept!
So building kits isn't "playing with trains for you?" Now I am confused, I thought you enjoyed building kits, which most people would equate with playing with trains - I'm pretty sure my wife would. Makes no difference to her - "bloody trains!" When I was building my last layout, benchwork, laying track etc., stuff I enjoy more than building model kits, I think my wife would have called it playing with trains. Just sayin...
Anyway, we each have our way of having fun with the hobby - Model Railroading is Fun!
Some people always ask me do I play with my trains. Depending on whom I'm speaking to, I tell them one of the following...
"Real men don't play with trains"
Or...
"Model railroading is not a hobby. Leave it to the professionals."
Manufacturers are very open to suggestions as I found out a few years back. I E-mailed one of the biggies with a suggestion on their packaging once and got a response from the big cheese himself that it was a really good idea and would be implemented on future runs of product. We E-mailed back and forth and he asked if he could call me and we chatted a few times about other things I had suggested and he asked my opinion about a few things.
Another time I tried to have something sent to me from a much smaller company and the owner said they didn't ship to Canada because of the metric and French requirement on the packaging. I did a little research on it just for my own curiosity and informed him that for his particular line of products a simple 3" x 5" slip of paper added to the contents of the product would be all it took to be allowed to sell in Canada. I was also told him what I thought the increase in sales for him would be if he did.
Never talked to him again after that except for two years later when he sent me a huge box of a bunch of his companies products as a thank you. His sales to Canada were $80,000.00 that first year. Not huge but well worth it for him to implement.
It pays to contribute any way you can.
In response to the mention of the proliferation of ready-to-run engines and cars, I ask the following. Has anyone been to a hobby gathering such as a train show and looked at the hair color of most of those present? Yes. It is overwhelmingly grey in various shades, but still grey. One would believe that most of us have approached the stage where the spirit is willing but the flesh is not. At first I was darned if I was going to let some manufacturer pay somebody in China to do what I enjoyed doing when it came to my hobby, and make me pay for it by raising the prices.
Changes in vision and also manual dexterity and muscle control made it more and more difficult to turn out a model equal to what came out of a box from China. Even the plastic kits had risen to a level far beyond that of the shake-the -box kits we had built our railroads with. Career progression had left us with more disposable income so we moved on beyond the 4X8 in many ways. In other words, most of us are close to or, already retired and experiencing the limitations that seniority entails. That may be one of the reasons RTR is so popular now.
There seems to be a line of thought that NO freight car should cost $50 yet some people have no qualms about paying $250 for the latest sound/dcc equipped SD/ES whatever? Those who decry the 50 foot freight car with rigging that interferes with it running on 18 inch curves makes no mention of these sound/dcc locomotives with three axle trucks having problems with the 18 inch curves. The locomotives must scale out about 70 feet in length. How do they handle the curves a 50 foot boxcar won't?
I run 18" curves and for the most part run 40' stuff, a few flat cars are longer but got rid of most of my 50' stuff, just didn't look right, most all highly detailed.
riogrande5761 Doughless Some Mfgs are advertising how more accurate their models are than others, but fail to disclose the compromise made for that extra fidelity. And if they are truly designing their cars to cater to only those operators who have broad curves, they would go bankrupt. So far that doesn't seem to be the case. I sense an ill tone toward some of these manufacturers in this topic; it could be a case that those unhappy with this issue are minority enough that the manufacturers haven't been compelled to lable their products with a minimum radius. Just guessing. Anyway, it would seem common sense to take this beef straight to the manufacturers, unless the point is to stir up sentiment and get others to find pitchforks and torches and go as a group to the manufactures to get them to change their ways. Or as an alternative, just buy what works for you.
Doughless Some Mfgs are advertising how more accurate their models are than others, but fail to disclose the compromise made for that extra fidelity. And if they are truly designing their cars to cater to only those operators who have broad curves, they would go bankrupt.
I didn't mean to sound militant about it. I don't think advocation is the same thing as a pitchfork.
I'm advocating for a more informed consumer. Why would anybody complain about the cost of a 10 cent label?
It might save the guy who buys 50 cars for his dream layout from buying $2,500 worth of cars that won't run. (Possibly even bought during the "get 'em while you can" limited run window.) The Mfg can stay in business by passing that $2,500, via price increases, over to the guys who know all about the limitations of the cars and still want them.
That's fair.
HO-VeloCan't hurt to pass along feedback to the Mfgs about making minimum radius recommendations available
Received prompt & friendly responses from ExactRail & Moloco today.
ExactRail says that while they aren't able to do testing that would determine minimum radius of all their cars a good rule of thumb across all Mfg. products is that cars 50' and under will negotiate 18-22" R, but cars longer than 50' need a minimum of 22"R. Sounds similar to the LDSIG table that Volker so kindly posted.
Moloco replied that while they don't have minimum radiuses for their cars it is something that might need to be worked on.
Have a good one, regards, Peter
If you look for something illustrating the the pure numbers in the LDSIG table google for "powerful new curve radius insights for any scales"Regards, Volker
HO-Velo HO-Velo Can't hurt to pass along feedback to the Mfgs about making minimum radius recommendations available Received prompt & friendly responses from ExactRail & Moloco today. ExactRail says that while they aren't able to do testing that would determine minimum radius of all their cars a good rule of thumb across all Mfg. products is that cars 50' and under will negotiate 18-22" R, but cars longer than 50' need a minimum of 22"R. Sounds similar to the LDSIG table that Volker so kindly posted. Moloco replied that while they don't have minimum radiuses for their cars it is something that might need to be worked on. Have a good one, regards, Peter
HO-Velo Can't hurt to pass along feedback to the Mfgs about making minimum radius recommendations available
That was nice that they responded, but how in the world do they not have the ability to test the designs? Can't somebody set up 3 pieces of curved sectional track somewhere and simply check for wheel rub.
So they admit that a 50 foot boxcar, from anybody, should negotiate a 18 inch curve.
It reads like a pretty nonspecific response. Hmmm. Maybe some didn't even think about the issue before they decided to design and build their product.
Douglas: I, respectfully, have to posit that while semantics may be at work here there is also some room for consumer error. "We" asked for a finely detailed 50 foot box car. We got a finely detailed fifty foot car - that won't properly work on some layouts. Is it really up to the mfg to make sure each car they build will not only work on your layout but also mine and 3 thousand others? And if the mfger sets up those three pieces of track and has somebody test each run of cars will the $50.00+ for that car all of a sudden become $60.00? I think we as end users can do a better job of informing the builders of what we are looking for in RTR products. And clarity in such matters - such as asking for a well detailed fifty foot box car that will operate well on 18 inch curves - would help all parties. Thank you.
Old Fat Robert
Doughlessadvocating for a more informed consumer
Douglas, Couldn't agree more, hobby products or not.
Seems that ExactRail does some sort of testing as none of the 50' cars of theirs that I own have issue with 18"R. Considering theirs and the LDSIG rule of thumb I was pushing the envelope with the 60 footer. But that Gunderson wood chip Gon is a beaut., and glad that a little snip of an obscure detail made the car useable for my layout.
Because of underside brake rigging not only do the Athearn Genesis 50' PC&F boxcars not make it thru an 18"R, but also hang up on Blair Line wooden grade Xings. While not in the same league of say Moloco or Exactrail Platinum RTR, they are nice models and I do like those novel little spinning bearing caps and how the roof comes off ez for adding extra weight. Modifying and or removing the offending brake rigging shouldn't be too difficult for most modelers, and these are not near $50.
The few and far between mag. & Youtube rolling stock reviews are helpful, some more informative than others. Honest and comprehensive user reviews are always appreciated and of even more importance with the demise of the LHS and expansion of internet sales.
HO-VeloBut that Gunderson wood chip Gon is a beaut., and glad that a little snip of an obscure detail made the car useable for my layout.
Yes the ER SP wood chip is gorgeous. I'm an SP fan from my years growing up in northern California although I think the wood chip cars were more Oregon runners, I finally sprung for my 1st before the recent run flew out the door at ExactRail. The got thim in around the beginning of August and about month later they were woosh, gone.
I like my PC&F Genesis box cars and I think mostly paid between $20 and maybe $30 for them. Exactrail Platinum I have paid $45 from ER direct in some cases and some on sale of much cheaper via Ebay.
riogrande5761beginning of August and about month later they were woosh, gone.
Wow! but doesn't surprise me considering how nice they are. Motrak Models makes a nice two pack wood chip load for these gons, but not sure if they still do.
Btw, For those with tight curves, the nicely done ExactRail 62' opera window center sill car will make a 18"R. does squeal a bit and does much better on a 20", albeit at slow switching speeds as part of a short cut of 50' cars. Not sayin' it looks real pretty and does require good operating couplers on the connecting cars. Oh, and plenty of room for the overhang.
Hello Dorassoc1
Can't help but wonder if I'd still be in the hobby if not for that 1st 4x6 plywood layout and the friendly proprietor of the long defunct LHS.
Never had the space for a large layout, never will, but of course it's about having fun with what you do have.
Checking out traction modeling showed me what fun can be had and excellence acheived in a small space with tight curves. Seeing 1960s photos of a SNR Steeple cab street running with a string of boxcars churned up far fetched dreams of that "next layout."
As pointed out not being able to operate certain cars on certain parts of a layout is prototypical and can add interest to operations while keeping one on their toes.
Elitism is a trap too easy fallen into. Fortunately it is few whom view other's layouts, work and modeling without respect.
Dorassoc1. On another note, I don't remember seeing any 4x8 layouts featured in MR -
Dorassoc1 I detect the tendency by some respondees in various threads to dismiss them as unworthy of our attention.
"One difference between pessimists and optimists is that while pessimists are more often right, optimists have far more fun."
Old Fat Robert Douglas: I, respectfully, have to posit that while semantics may be at work here there is also some room for consumer error. "We" asked for a finely detailed 50 foot box car. We got a finely detailed fifty foot car - that won't properly work on some layouts. Is it really up to the mfg to make sure each car they build will not only work on your layout but also mine and 3 thousand others? And if the mfger sets up those three pieces of track and has somebody test each run of cars will the $50.00+ for that car all of a sudden become $60.00? I think we as end users can do a better job of informing the builders of what we are looking for in RTR products. And clarity in such matters - such as asking for a well detailed fifty foot box car that will operate well on 18 inch curves - would help all parties. Thank you. Old Fat Robert
The thread is running its course, but just to be clear. I don't think every 50 foot car has to run on 18 inch curves. Mfgs can do what they want, but I think they all know what the consumer assumes.
I'm just asking they simply test their designs.....not every car that leaves production, just each prototype should be fine......and then disclose the minimum radius on the box and on their advertisments.
It would naturally be helpful to know what minimum curves a model will run on; that is a reasonable request.
Elitism is a trap too easy fallen into.
Where does elitism fall into this disussion?
Doughless riogrande5761 Doughless Some Mfgs are advertising how more accurate their models are than others, but fail to disclose the compromise made for that extra fidelity. And if they are truly designing their cars to cater to only those operators who have broad curves, they would go bankrupt. So far that doesn't seem to be the case. I sense an ill tone toward some of these manufacturers in this topic; it could be a case that those unhappy with this issue are minority enough that the manufacturers haven't been compelled to lable their products with a minimum radius. Just guessing. Anyway, it would seem common sense to take this beef straight to the manufacturers, unless the point is to stir up sentiment and get others to find pitchforks and torches and go as a group to the manufactures to get them to change their ways. Or as an alternative, just buy what works for you. I didn't mean to sound militant about it. I don't think advocation is the same thing as a pitchfork. I'm advocating for a more informed consumer. Why would anybody complain about the cost of a 10 cent label? It might save the guy who buys 50 cars for his dream layout from buying $2,500 worth of cars that won't run. (Possibly even bought during the "get 'em while you can" limited run window.) The Mfg can stay in business by passing that $2,500, via price increases, over to the guys who know all about the limitations of the cars and still want them. That's fair.
rrebell I'm advocating for a more informed consumer. Why would anybody complain about the cost of a 10 cent label? It might save the guy who buys 50 cars for his dream layout from buying $2,500 worth of cars that won't run. (Possibly even bought during the "get 'em while you can" limited run window.) The Mfg can stay in business by passing that $2,500, via price increases, over to the guys who know all about the limitations of the cars and still want them. That's fair. You don't seem to compehend buisness. The lower the price, the more potenial for sales to a point and when you get on the higher end, a few $ or sometimes a few pennies can make a huge diference. Thats why you see things marked $**.99 or $**.95 in Canada.
I'm advocating for a more informed consumer. Why would anybody complain about the cost of a 10 cent label? It might save the guy who buys 50 cars for his dream layout from buying $2,500 worth of cars that won't run. (Possibly even bought during the "get 'em while you can" limited run window.) The Mfg can stay in business by passing that $2,500, via price increases, over to the guys who know all about the limitations of the cars and still want them. That's fair.
You don't seem to compehend buisness. The lower the price, the more potenial for sales to a point and when you get on the higher end, a few $ or sometimes a few pennies can make a huge diference. Thats why you see things marked $**.99 or $**.95 in Canada.
LOL. As a banking credit analyst for 30 years, I hope I understand business P&L and cash flow.
10c on a 9.95 BB is a big deal. 10c on a $50 item isnt. A buyer might not buy a BB for 10.05. A buyer isn't going to flinch paying $50.10 for the high end car. Cost of the label has no impact on sales. If their cost structure is that precarious to where it does, I doubt they find a lender anyway.
As far as the other example. Break even analysis means that price and volume must always come together to hit, then exceed, BE dollars. If a disclosure means that a lot of buyers stop buying to where the volume trails off, price has to increase on the product to reach BE (assuming variable costs stay reasonable). The remaining market of buyers may not want to pay that extra cost, whatever that increase needs to be, so the product fails.
If only a few buyers stop buying because they realize the car wont work on their layout, it might not matter. If its a lot, then it might.
Be honest. Disclose. And let the chips fall how they may.
A bad reputation is a big risk also.
Sorry, guess I didn't word it right, bad day on internet, got red flashing light on gateway. No what I was talking about is most people in buisness are into the buck, even things like customer service are to obtain more $. It is a numbers game and a bunch of educated guesses. Maybe the solution here is to include a slip of paper saying what to trim to make cars do 18", everybody wins.
Seen a lot of companys have big issues with variable cost estimates, Airlines are notorius for that.
rrebell Sorry, guess I didn't word it right, bad day on internet, got red flashing light on gateway. No what I was talking about is most people in buisness are into the buck, even things like customer service are to obtain more $. It is a numbers game and a bunch of educated guesses. Maybe the solution here is to include a slip of paper saying what to trim to make cars do 18", everybody wins.
No worries. I thought we both had a miscommunication in there.
Yea, what chaps me is when a company says they have to pass the costs on to the consumer, but many times their formula is to automatically price in a mark-up profit to any cost. So a 10c label might raise the MSRP by 75c just because they have to mark up everything.
Seen that before, on the home front, tech on way so maybe the day will be better, started out great before the internet thing.
HO-Velo Athearn Genesis 50' PC&F boxcars
Athearn replied today: They are curious about the issue I'm having as their 50' and shorter freight cars are supposed to clear an 18"R curve with no problems, then asked if I can send them photos so they can identify the issue and correct it.
Fair enough, I'll be sending photos soon. Pulled out a couple more of the Genesis 50' PC&F boxcars that I purchased last year and stored (but didn't test, shame on me), they too will need some underside brake rigging surgery.
HO-Veloboxcars that I purchased last year and stored (but didn't test, shame on me)
I think shame sounds a bit over the top. I know speaking for myself, over the past 20 years, most of it I was living in small apartment, many of them actually too small for a 4x8 layout. However, I wasn't going to just stop buying stuff toward my goal of building a layout and modeling operations of a RR in the future. Point being, I have bought a great deal of rolling stock and haven't been able to test it. Now I don't plan to build a 4x8 layout with 18 and 20 inch curves, so that was factored in but testing isn't only for curve radius.
Buy some 18" and 22" sectional track at a swap meet (usually brass), put it together and test your cars on it.
I'm laughing so hard my ribs hurt.Modelers have been yodeling for "more prototypical equipment" since I started reading MR as a lad back in the 60s. Now that it's here, people complain.Also, I knew that an 18" curve scaled up to the prototype would be too sharp even for some freight cars by the time I was 15.Also also, this thread is why I would not be a model railroad equipment manufacturer even if it were guaranteed I'd make a trillion dollars. It's not worth the aggravation.
Disclaimer: This post may contain humor, sarcasm, and/or flatulence.
Michael Mornard
Bringing the North Woods to South Dakota!
Doughless LOL. As a banking credit analyst for 30 years, I hope I understand business P&L and cash flow. 10c on a 9.95 BB is a big deal. 10c on a $50 item isnt. A buyer might not buy a BB for 10.05. A buyer isn't going to flinch paying $50.10 for the high end car. Cost of the label has no impact on sales. If their cost structure is that precarious to where it does, I doubt they find a lender anyway. As far as the other example. Break even analysis means that price and volume must always come together to hit, then exceed, BE dollars. If a disclosure means that a lot of buyers stop buying to where the volume trails off, price has to increase on the product to reach BE (assuming variable costs stay reasonable). The remaining market of buyers may not want to pay that extra cost, whatever that increase needs to be, so the product fails. If only a few buyers stop buying because they realize the car wont work on their layout, it might not matter. If its a lot, then it might. Be honest. Disclose. And let the chips fall how they may. A bad reputation is a big risk also.
Excellent post. Most modelers have no idea of how this all works.
Bayfield Transfer Railway I'm laughing so hard my ribs hurt.
I'm laughing so hard my ribs hurt.
Glad someone is enjoying themself.
Also also, this thread is why I would not be a model railroad equipment manufacturer even if it were guaranteed I'd make a trillion dollars. It's not worth the aggravation.
Thankfully some have the fortitude like Shane of ScaleTrains and Blaine of Arrowhead and Matthew of Wheels if Time and Pat of Trainworx and David of Tangent and Nick of Moloco etc. It has to be a passion for sure. I am thankful they do.
Wow, ok, where to start:
I read a number of replies but I have a number of serious issues with posts on this thread.
Many manufacturers actually do state a minimum radius for the high dollar rolling stock of today--but some people just ignore the minimum radius requirements and buy them anyway--and some, perhaps a smaller sample, of those people then seem to enjoy complaining about why the rolling stock won't work for them. If you have EVER read Armstrong's book "Track Planning for Realistic Operation" then it would become apparent that using mainline radii less than 22" should be at least strongly discouraged.
It is extremely disingenuous to even begin to suggest that something designed for real world radii, and subsequently modeled in HO to even reasonable standards of modeling excellence should then be "expected" to negotiate curves far--tremendously tighter--than the prototype EVER could. It's so ridiculous, I'm having a hard time grasping 3 pages of discussion on this matter. It's not "modeling" to force that kind of a standard on the products. Just admit you want toy trains, and go buy some Tyco rolling stock. I bet the Tyco 50' cars will have no trouble at all...
Just plain build a train layout that actually works, with curves of 26" or larger radii, or else go out and buy the Kato wide radius track and build your own Carpet Central railroad.
John
The real trouble is 18"r is all that many have room for, for me it was an option of choise but then I go for mainly 40' stuff. Yes we would all like 36"r but for most it just will not happen but I want the highly detailed stuff and if I only have to modify something that will not be seen, fine.
Reading this thread reminds me of how much an RTR hobby this has become.
There are some tricks for getting rolling stock around sharp curves.
In addition to cutting away under body details you can move the trucks closer to the ends.
You can raise the body with a few washers.
Add weight to the cars to help them track better.
Use talgo trucks - extra weight can help here.
Hand lay your curves and spread the gauge a little.
Use long shank couplers. And maybe widen the coupler box.
If you can find them, use deeper flange wheels.
There was a time when folks ran 80' passenger cars on 18" curves. So it can be done.
rrebell The real trouble is 18"r is all that many have room for, for me it was an option of choise but then I go for mainly 40' stuff.
The real trouble is 18"r is all that many have room for, for me it was an option of choise but then I go for mainly 40' stuff.
It is a conundrum for sure. I tend to be of the same mind as John Mock above, a 4x8 layout with 18 and 22 inch curves is, for all intense purposes, a toy train layout like a parent might set up for their kids in terms of format. My dad set up a 4x6 Lionel layout for me at age 4 and it was good for me for a few years.
As an teen and adult, I have some how found HO in a 4x8' space something that just never would work for me. I am speaking for myself please understand. So for many many years of being transient, in college and later after my separation/divorce my standard of living was so low in most places I didn't have room for a 4x8 or it would have been very difficult. So during many years, I simply had no layout - I just personally wouldn't be happy with a 4x8 with no where for trains to go.
If I was faced with only a small space for the rest of my life, I might seriously consider switching to N scale - not sure.
Yes we would all like 36"r but for most it just will not happen but I want the highly detailed stuff and if I only have to modify something that will not be seen, fine.
I would like to point out that there may often be a happy medium for curve radius if space is limited - something in the 24 to 28 inch radius range which would likely allow detailed 50 or 60 foot freight cars to reliably operate.
For some reason the 4x8 layout has become what seems to be a locked-in-stone format for small spaces, but I'd guess that in many cases, a layout slightly larger could be fit in to small spaces and and might allow 24 and 26 1/2 inch radius which may be just big enough to open up reliable running for significantly more rolling stock. Food for thought anyway.
IRONROOSTER Reading this thread reminds me of how much an RTR hobby this has become.
Supply and demand, or demand and supply; the truth is out there. But let me just say, the companies that make most of the RTR stuff do a far better job than I could, so I'm sure that's one of the main reasons for what we can buy.
Also regarding how RTR the hobby has become, John pointed out above, the 4x8 layout format for many years was THE domain for RTR trains, however they were of the Tyco, Lifelike etc. variety, and were manufactured to work on those tight curves.
There is some truth that one has to have realistic expectations when operating on a highly compressed model train environment. That said, I think the OP was looking for "truth in advertising" such that manufacturers list on the box, what the minimum radius is. Some do, some don't. It helps to have information when making buying decisions.
There are some tricks for getting rolling stock around sharp curves. In addition to cutting away under body details you can move the trucks closer to the ends. You can raise the body with a few washers. Add weight to the cars to help them track better. Use talgo trucks - extra weight can help here. Hand lay your curves and spread the gauge a little. Use long shank couplers. And maybe widen the coupler box. If you can find them, use deeper flange wheels. There was a time when folks ran 80' passenger cars on 18" curves. So it can be done. Paul
The above are the tools of the trade for tricking full sized trains scaled down to 1/87 to fit around curves they would never make it on if our HO curves were scaled up to full size!
As for passenger cars on 18" curves, Athearn and Concor still make those passenger cars so that time still exists if you use the trains that used to run back when there was a time folks ran 80' passenger cars on 18" curves.
This has become a really weird thread.
Anybody who has been in the hobby understands that 50 foot cars negotiate 18 inch radius curves. Even the Mfgs who replied strongly implied that its a known standard. We're not talking about 89 foot flat cars.
If that standard is changing, maybe other standards are too.
Does 18 inch radius mean a toy train layout. Why 18 and not 36? Because some guy taken as an authority on the subject wrote a book about it decades ago?
Prototype fidelity suggests that any layout with a turnaround blob of any thing less than 48 inch radius, if even that, is also a toy train layout.
Switching layouts have tight turns, and they can be well detailed layouts.
Again, when these Mfgs design their product, I wonder if turning radius is even thought of? Maybe they are simply really proud of themselves for getting the brake rigging right that they don't even think about turning radius.
Perhaps they purposefully do it. Since elitism is a commodity that can be marketed and sold to those who desire it, maybe Mfgs think if they build their cars to run on 18 inch radius curves, it will turn off those buyers who are proud their cars won't run on the layouts of the great unwashed.
Markets are full of different customers with different desires and priorities.
I say simply disclose.
Doughless This has become a really weird thread.
Welcome to ModelRailroader forums!
Anybody who has been in the hobby understands that 50 foot cars negotiate 18 inch radius curves.
Well, at least before the more recent trend for some manufacturers to move closer and closer to high fidelity, closer to scale models, I agree, that has been true.
Based on this discussion, I'd say things, they are a-changin.
Not 36" simply because toy train sets, as a rule, don't come with 36" curves, logically. Toy trains sets (Tyco, LL, or sets using Atlas sectional track) are provided in a format that typically uses 18 and/or 22" curves.
If it makes you happy to call any layout with less than 48" (an arbitrary number) curves, a toy train layout, go ahead. By convention, most probably won't agree with you, noting what John said above. It is what it is. I wouldn't get too hung up on labels anyway.
In some cases, manufacturers are pushing the envelope with some of their models in terms of scale fidelity of some details. In some cases the few concessions left to out-of-scale features are trucks, wheels and couplers, and most else is done to scale as much as possible.
That suggests that some manufacturers are prioritizing scale details over things like minimum curves, much like has been the case with brass models for many years. Those manufacturers are probably aiming those models at customers who are, shall I say, less likely to be operating on small layouts with tight curves - I'm guessing.
Well, if the shoe fits. Whatever. It's a simple fact that there is a wide variety of products and they may be aimed at different market segments. Like I said, brass is manufactured to more scale standards and it does limit operation potential in many cases. Does that mean they are being elitist? Does that mean those who can't use them are "unwashed?" As my wife would say, now your simply taking the mickey, or having a laugh. Enjoy yourself.
Markets are full of different customers with different desires and priorities. I say simply disclose.
That is probably the most reasonable and constructive comment to which this topic could have been boiled down to. A lot of the "editorial" commentary IMO is why this thread has become "really wierd". Again, welcome to ModelRailroader forums! Where wierd is the new normal.
riogrande5761 Doughless This has become a really weird thread. Welcome to ModelRailroader forums! Anybody who has been in the hobby understands that 50 foot cars negotiate 18 inch radius curves. Well, at least before the more recent trend for some manufacturers to move closer and closer to high fidelity, closer to scale models, I agree, that has been true. If that standard is changing, maybe other standards are too. Based on this discussion, I'd say things, they are a-changin. Does 18 inch radius mean a toy train layout. Why 18 and not 36? Because some guy taken as an authority on the subject wrote a book about it decades ago? Not 36" simply because toy train sets, as a rule, don't come with 36" curves, logically. Toy trains sets (Tyco, LL, or sets using Atlas sectional track) are provided in a format that typically uses 18 and/or 22" curves. Prototype fidelity suggests that any layout with a turnaround blob of any thing less than 48 inch radius, if even that, is also a toy train layout. If it makes you happy to call any layout with less than 48" curves (an arbitrary number), go ahead. But my guess is by convention, most won't be in that same boat with you on that label. Why? Because by traditional convention, most associate the term toy train layout with trainset out-of-the-box type curves (as mentioned by John in the above post which was based on the "traditional" idea of what toy train sets are typically set up as in a temporary or more permanent and typical 4x8 format.) It is what it is. I wouldn't get too hung up on labels. Again, when these Mfgs design their product, I wonder if turning radius is even thought of? Maybe they are simply really proud of themselves for getting the brake rigging right that they don't even think about turning radius. In some cases, manufacturers are pushing the envelope with some of their models in terms of scale fidelity of some details. In some cases the few concessions left to out-of-scale features are trucks, wheels and couplers, and most else is done to scale as much as possible. That suggests that some manufacturers are prioritizing scale details over things like minimum curves, much like has been the case with brass models for many years. Those manufacturers are probably aiming those models at customers who are, shall I say, less likely to be operating on small layouts with tight curves - I'm guessing. Perhaps they purposefully do it. Since elitism is a commodity that can be marketed and sold to those who desire it, maybe Mfgs think if they build their cars to run on 18 inch radius curves, it will turn off those buyers who are proud their cars won't run on the layouts of the great unwashed. Well, if the shoe fits. Whatever. It's a simple fact that there is a wide variety of products and they may be aimed at different market segments. Like I said, brass is manufactured to more scale standards and it does limit operation potential in many cases. Does that mean they are being elitist? Does that mean those who can't use them are "unwashed?" As my wife would say, now your simply taking the mickey, or having a laugh. Enjoy yourself. Markets are full of different customers with different desires and priorities. I say simply disclose. That is probably the most reasonable and constructive comment to which this topic could have been boiled down to. A lot of the "editorial" commentary IMO is why this thread has become "really wierd". Again, welcome to ModelRailroader forums! Where wierd is the new normal.
If it makes you happy to call any layout with less than 48" curves (an arbitrary number), go ahead. But my guess is by convention, most won't be in that same boat with you on that label. Why? Because by traditional convention, most associate the term toy train layout with trainset out-of-the-box type curves (as mentioned by John in the above post which was based on the "traditional" idea of what toy train sets are typically set up as in a temporary or more permanent and typical 4x8 format.) It is what it is. I wouldn't get too hung up on labels.
There have been some very narrow, short sighted comments in this thread about layouts and turning radius.
Fact is, broad curves take up more wall space when connecting two shelves in an L shape, or 4 in a square.
If you're modeling 10 miles of flat midwestern territory, or Florida coastal plain, you would want as much straight track as possible. If we went with 96 inch radius curves to maintain fidelity, the square layout would look like a circle.
To get as much straight track as possible, as much fidelity as possible, tucking 18 to 24 inch radius curves into a corner does that. The corners become a scenic wasteland of inaccuracy, but its better than having less straight track.
Can use the same concept for a center peninsula. Disguise the end.
Not sure how John Armstrong would approach the issue. Don't care either.
50 foot boxcars should be able to negotiate these curves, as should even 60 footers.
Lance Mindheim, Tom Johnson, Tom Klimoski.
Doughless....Prototype fidelity suggests that any layout with a turnaround blob of any thing less than 48 inch radius, if even that, is also a toy train layout....
riogrande5761...If it makes you happy to call that kind of layout, go ahead. But my guess is by convention, most won't be in that same boat with you. Most will, by traditional convention, understand that the term toy train layout (mentioned by John in the above post), was based on the "traditional" idea of what toy train sets typically set up in a temporary or more permanent and typical 4x8 format....
I think that the point which Douglas is trying to make, is that even layouts with "large" radii aren't in a ratio of scale comparable to those of the prototype, while the highly detailed cars are (to a greater degree, at least).
If one wishes to really consider highly-detailed rolling stock, you need only look at the trucks and wheels on those items to realise that they're grossly out-of-scale, especially in relation to the otherwise "fine" details on the rest of the car. That, in itself, is a concession to operational reliability, and if one really wished to address that, they would be modelling in Proto87 (or the Proto version of their chosen scale).
The same is true, for the same reasons, for brass models of steam locomotives: wider drivers with unprototypically-deep (not-to-scale) flanges skew either the driver diameters and/or the driver wheelbase, and any wheels on such models can throw-off the prototypical placement of major components or added-on detail parts.The whole hobby has compromises which we, as individuals, can accept or deny.Were I a younger man, I might have consider Proto87, but I'm not certain if I would have remained with it. I don't know whether I'd be too fussy or not fussy enough.
DoughlessThere have been some very narrow, short sighted comments in this thread about layouts and turning radius.
I don't think those comments were meant to be narrow or short sighted. The way I see it, there is tension in this topic because hobbyists have differing philosophies about how to deal with certain realities and limitations in the hobby.
From the very start of this topic, the beef is with the manufacturers so best thing is to go to the source of the problem and get them to label their box so you will know their model will or won't work on your layout (unless modified). Thats the bottom line /topic
One point that everyone here seems to forget is that a lot of cars are made for the collectors market. Ertl cars were never really made to run, they were for collectors and they didn't start selling till Ertl backed out and the price fell. Then everyone seemed to notice and started going for the collector but had the runner also untill now that the detailing is taking over. Some company now offer two versions, super fidelity and runners with the super ones able to run, just not neccisarly on 18"r.
And now we have Arrowhead trains, talk about supper detailed but the price is a bit more.
rrebell One point that everyone here seems to forget is that a lot of cars are made for the collectors market. Ertl cars were never really made to run, they were for collectors and they didn't start selling till Ertl backed out and the price fell. Then everyone seemed to notice and started going for the collector but had the runner also untill now that the detailing is taking over. Some company now offer two versions, super fidelity and runners with the super ones able to run, just not neccisarly on 18"r.
True about Ertl, I have absolutely no clue about those trains; but the ones I've seen appeared to be way early for my modeling time frame.
rrebell And now we have Arrowhead trains, talk about supper detailed but the price is a bit more.
Now Arrowhead is a different story; those are good for my plans - 1966 built and D&RGW had a lot of them. I've got 16 so far and eventually hope to have all 24 numbers.
Long as you got the $1000 plus for them.
rrebell $1000 plus for them.
Russell
You can add a 52' mill gon and 53' boxcar to the list of cars that can go around a 18" curve.
A word to the wise though would be modern freight cars demands large curves.
Larry
Conductor.
Summerset Ry.
"Stay Alert, Don't get hurt Safety First!"
rrebell Long as you got the $1000 plus for them.
Not all at once. Sold some models I don't need to cover part if the cost of 16 so far.
I really didn't have anything to contribute to this thread until today.
I was curious about the Trix line of Märklin HO models and I found a deal that included a Trix B&O Timesaver Boxcar. It arrived today and I would equate the detail-level to at least Proto-2000 / Intermountain, maybe almost Kadee PS-1 quality.
Trix_PS1e by Edmund, on Flickr
Separate grabs and ladders, full brake rigging and piping. I'll have to measure those wheel treads, though. They look pretty wide.
So, when I flipped the car over I was surprised to see that the NEM coupler was mounted on a wish-bone type extendable draft gear Trix calls the "close coupling system".
Trix_PS1x by Edmund, on Flickr
Now at first glance you would never notice this but it sure allows for some pretty tight radius running as is popular (necessary) in Europe.
Trix_PS1b by Edmund, on Flickr
You can see where one of the floor braces is notched out for wheel clearance as well. For some folks this might be a good compromise if you want a detailed model that can run on tighter curves.
Trix_PS1 by Edmund, on Flickr
For MY particular use I'm going to fill in the floor and install Kadee draft gear and couplers but for some modelers these cars might fit the bill.
https://www.trixtrains.com/american_freight.html
I have been systematically purging my freight car roster and weeding out some of the "blue-box" era cars in favor of the higher detailed models.
Good Luck, Ed
riogrande5761 Doughless There have been some very narrow, short sighted comments in this thread about layouts and turning radius. I don't think those comments were meant to be narrow or short sighted. The way I see it, there is tension in this topic because hobbyists have differing philosophies about how to deal with certain realities and limitations in the hobby. From the very start of this topic, the beef is with the manufacturers so best thing is to go to the source of the problem and get them to label their box so you will know their model will or won't work on your layout (unless modified). Thats the bottom line /topic
Doughless There have been some very narrow, short sighted comments in this thread about layouts and turning radius.
I think I was one of the first in this thread to suggest mfgs test and disclose.
In addition to a solution, IMO, a bigger aspect is why do they not run correctly in the first place.
The intended pejorative comment towards those with small layouts was so quickly conceived that it was too narrow to consider sharp radii being used in larger layouts with concealed trackage, like the inside curve of a multiple track curved staging loop for example.
DoughlessNo doubt about it. 50 and 60 foot cars that cost $50 should be able to run on sharp radii.
Not necessarily, though according to at least one response from a manufacturer - their cars should negotiate 18" curves; and as such, issues may be caused by something the mfg has no control over - such as your track having a kink (was always my problem ), or maybe yes, they goofed placement of something.
DoughlessFact is, broad curves take up more wall space when connecting two shelves in an L shape, or 4 in a square. If you're modeling 10 miles of flat midwestern territory, or Florida coastal plain, you would want as much straight track as possible. If we went with 96 inch radius curves to maintain fidelity, the square layout would look like a circle. To get as much straight track as possible, as much fidelity as possible, tucking 18 to 24 inch radius curves into a corner does that. The corners become a scenic wasteland of inaccuracy, but its better than having less straight track. Can use the same concept for a center peninsula. Disguise the end. Not sure how John Armstrong would approach the issue. Don't care either.
John Armstrong discusses this point in his book Track Planning for Realistic Operation. It is still the best book on the subject.
I have stayed out of this up to now because I have no dog in this fight, and I am a confessed radius snob with room for 36" and larger curves, with most on my new layout being more like 42".
But I will offer some thoughts now after the info on the TRIX car posted above.
The close coupling yoke they use is not a new idea, Bachmann has used the same science to couple the tender on their N&W Class J for decades. Others have used similar systems on passenger cars, etc.
My problem with such systems are:
How well do they interact with other designs? Often not well. How well do they back up? How well do they work in long trains?
NEM coupler mounts are ugly and unprototypical in a time when some complain about the width of freight cars wheels being ugly, these couplers are a much more obvious short comming.
TRIX is Marklin, it comes from that "closed" system thinking where it only has to work with its sister products, not those manufactured by others.
On to other points:
Yes, it sure would be fair and reasonable for manufacturers to label equipment with realistic minimum radius requirments - BUT, this will still be open to interpretation and to the quality and engineering of each modelers trackwork.........
If you really want to understand why sharp curves are a problem, read this:
http://webspace.webring.com/people/ib/budb3/arts/tech/curv.html
and this:
http://webspace.webring.com/people/ib/budb3/arts/tech/cupcls.html
Now, knowing that most of you will not read the info linked above, simply know this:
YOU CAN NOT HAVE YOUR CAKE AND EAT IT TOO!
You can't have finescale models and run them on toy train track.
I'm not being judgemental about who has how much space, time or money. I'm just pointing out the realities of physics.
John Armstrong - great guy, did a lot for the hobby, I have his books, including a one he wrote most of you have never seen.
But he is not the last word in layout design or trackwork engineering.
Most of his plans are influenced by the fact that he was an O scale modeler, always looking for ways to squeeze big models into small spaces.
Read up on Paul Mallery, he had other opinions, as did others.......
Sheldon
Not the money but the logistics of buying 16, I was trying to buy the day after they hit MBKliens and they were gone already (only wanted the pre ww2 ones).
NeO6874 Doughless No doubt about it. 50 and 60 foot cars that cost $50 should be able to run on sharp radii. Not necessarily, though according to at least one response from a manufacturer - their cars should negotiate 18" curves; and as such, issues may be caused by something the mfg has no control over - such as your track having a kink (was always my problem ), or maybe yes, they goofed placement of something.
Doughless No doubt about it. 50 and 60 foot cars that cost $50 should be able to run on sharp radii.
You're quick. I edited my post shortly after submitting.
I think I made my point. Many times. Time for me to move on.
Okay. Moving on after one more thought.
We're not lumping all high end detailed cars into one category. We're talking about detail that is barely seen in most circumstances, not roof walkways, grabirons, etc.
I strongly suspect that what's going on is that many may not even care about the specific detail. They simply like the general comforting idea that the car is as well detailed as it could be. That's a very narrow market in terms of those who have layouts, but it might be a big market for collectors and those who compete with other collectors over the quality of their collection.
A legitmate buyer and aspect of the hobby, but it would be nice if we knew who the manufacturers were that targeted this market over layout owners.
Perhaps Scaletrains attempts to do this with their Rivet Counter and Operator series'.
ATLANTIC CENTRALRead up on Paul Mallery, he had other opinions
I have several of his books, but sadly like Armstrong, some are not currently in print.
IRONROOSTER ATLANTIC CENTRAL Read up on Paul Mallery, he had other opinions I have several of his books, but sadly like Armstrong, some are not currently in print. Paul
ATLANTIC CENTRAL Read up on Paul Mallery, he had other opinions
Agreed, not always easy to find some of this older info.
I have a copy of Armstrong's hard cover book on track planning published by TAB books. He goes into much more detail about a lot of stuff then he does in the Kalmbach books.
But again, his work, good as it was, was colored, at least some, by his modeling scale of choice.
Mallery on the other hand was an HO modeler who saw the great potential of HO in a large space to get closer to the proprotions of real life.
As to another aspect of this issue, I understand not everyone has 1000, or 1500, or more sq ft for a model layout. And some don't want to build that large a layout even if space and money was no object.
But based on my own circle of friends and acquaintances in the hobby, I reject the idea that MOST modelers are bulding layouts that only fill a bedroom size space.
MOST of the modelers I know have layouts in spaces about 700 sq ft or larger. And many have spaces larger than my 1600 sq ft.
At least around here, basement filling empires are common. So again, around here, there is plenty of market for high detail rolling stock that requires 30" radius or larger.
Having never lived in any other part of the country, I have no first hand knowledge of what others in others areas do.
But nearly every "average" single home around here comes with a 1200 to 2000 sq foot basement..........
Oh good, it's not just me that thinks this thread has become eerie at times. A couple times it felt like I created Frankenstein's monster and the village mob is coming after it. I can see the horror film heading now; "The Terrifying Thread That Wouldn't Die.
Okay, I'll cut the comedy, stinks anyway.
Not all the lessons in this thread were served up the way I like em', but have learned a lot.
I'll refrain from shouting it out in capitals with exclamation point, but yes, you can have your cake and eat it too, provided that fine scale RTR car rounding the 18"R curve is 50' long or shorter, with no underside brake rigging in the way, good couplers and track work and part of a short string of similar length cars moving at slow speed. As always, "different strokes for different folks."
As the good Doctor so aptly showed; some mighty fine underside brake detail can be designed and installed without interfering with truck movement. Which reminds me, I need to get photos taken of the offending brake rigging on the Genesis 50' boxcars and sent to Athearn so they can as said, "identify the issue and correct it."
As for that gorgeous Moloco FGER 50' boxcar, instead of eating the two way shipping charges for a refund I can likely modify the brake rigging. To me it's sure to look good being slowly pushed by the NW2 down the spur towards the fish cannery loading dock, even though traversing that dreaded "toy train" curve.
Happy Halloween and Dia de Muertos, Adios Amigos, Peter
ATLANTIC CENTRAL IRONROOSTER ATLANTIC CENTRAL Read up on Paul Mallery, he had other opinions I have several of his books, but sadly like Armstrong, some are not currently in print. Paul Agreed, not always easy to find some of this older info. I have a copy of Armstrong's hard cover book on track planning published by TAB books. He goes into much more detail about a lot of stuff then he does in the Kalmbach books. But again, his work, good as it was, was colored, at least some, by his modeling scale of choice. Mallery on the other hand was an HO modeler who saw the great potential of HO in a large space to get closer to the proprotions of real life. As to another aspect of this issue, I understand not everyone has 1000, or 1500, or more sq ft for a model layout. And some don't want to build that large a layout even if space and money was no object. But based on my own circle of friends and acquaintances in the hobby, I reject the idea that MOST modelers are bulding layouts that only fill a bedroom size space. MOST of the modelers I know have layouts in spaces about 700 sq ft or larger. And many have spaces larger than my 1600 sq ft. At least around here, basement filling empires are common. So again, around here, there is plenty of market for high detail rolling stock that requires 30" radius or larger. Having never lived in any other part of the country, I have no first hand knowledge of what others in others areas do. But nearly every "average" single home around here comes with a 1200 to 2000 sq foot basement.......... Sheldon
HO-Velo Oh good, it's not just me that thinks this thread has become eerie at times. A couple times it felt like I created Frankenstein's monster and the village mob is coming after it. I can see the horror film heading now; "The Terrifying Thread That Wouldn't Die. Okay, I'll cut the comedy, stinks anyway. Not all the lessons in this thread were served up the way I like em', but have learned a lot. I'll refrain from shouting it out in capitals with exclamation point, but yes, you can have your cake and eat it too, provided that fine scale RTR car rounding the 18"R curve is 50' long or shorter, with no underside brake rigging in the way, good couplers and track work and part of a short string of similar length cars moving at slow speed. As always, "different strokes for different folks." As the good Doctor so aptly showed; some mighty fine underside brake detail can be designed and installed without interfering with truck movement. Which reminds me, I need to get photos taken of the offending brake rigging on the Genesis 50' boxcars and sent to Athearn so they can as said, "identify the issue and correct it." As for that gorgeous Moloco FGER 50' boxcar, instead of eating the two way shipping charges for a refund I can likely modify the brake rigging. To me it's sure to look good being slowly pushed by the NW2 down the spur towards the fish cannery loading dock, even though traversing that dreaded "toy train" curve. Happy Halloween and Dia de Muertos, Adios Amigos, Peter
As was pointed out at the beginning of this thread by others, this hobby is full of compromise.
And if your list of compromises works for you, go for it. If you are only building an industrial switching layout, where speeds are slow and trains short, yes you can get away with a lot sharper curves, with a few restrictions.
So in your opening post you asked a question, are you wrong to expect these cars to work on 18" radius without modifications?
Well, wrong might be a strong word in this case.
But why not just modify the car some and call it done?
I'm old, and old school about the hobby. This hobby was once about building stuff, not just taking stuff out of boxes.......
I buy a lot RTR, but I still build a lot of stuff. But honestly, very little if any RTR makes it to my layout without some "adjustments" to my operational standards.....
And that seems to hold true for me be it a $50 car or a $20 car.
As for the particular cars you mentioned, I have no first hand experiance, nor am I likely to. While I suspect they would run fine on my 42" radius curves, they are well outside the 1954 era I model.
So I will repeat what I said before about the manufacturers and minimm radius labels. While it might seem like a nice idea, what happens when they test it at 18" radius and it works fine, then some guy with the worst trackwork in the hobby buys the thing and it will not work on his poorly layed track?
But they said it would. Now they have set themselves up for a whole new level of liability - probably not a good idea.
Bachmann Spectrum 4-8-2 locos came with little slips of paper in the box that simply said "22" minimum recommended radius". They did not say what radius it would or would not work on, they just implyed that your results would likely be better at 22" or larger....
ATLANTIC CENTRALBut nearly every "average" single home around here comes with a 1200 to 2000 sq foot basement..........
Which in my case is full of the kiddo's toys, and other "actual living space" type things.
Although, in good news, my 2x 18" x 3' tables and 3x3' table went back together well, after being stored for ages. Hooray for small layout spaces!
Having never lived in any other part of the country, I have no first hand knowledge of what others in others areas do. But nearly every "average" single home around here comes with a 1200 to 2000 sq foot basement.......... Sheldon
It helps to be exposed to other places and find out that not everyone lives in model train basement heaven for various reason, geographic conventions (no basements) or cost of living etc. My wife looked hard to find a home in my area with a model train friendly basement in our budget, and all I can guess is those 1200 to 2000 sq foot basements must simply be out of our price range as we looked at quite a few houses.
HO-Velo Oh good, it's not just me that thinks this thread has become eerie at times. A couple times it felt like I created Frankenstein's monster and the village mob is coming after it. I can see the horror film heading now; "The Terrifying Thread That Wouldn't Die.
Hah hah. This kind of topic is totally typical after being on this forum for some years now. The topics frequently get rather unhinged but when you consider the hobby is full of old guys who are a bit like the characters in the Grumpy Old Men films, it makes good sense!
you can have your cake and eat it too, provided that fine scale RTR car rounding the 18"R curve is 50' long or shorter, with no underside brake rigging in the way, good couplers and track work and part of a short string of similar length cars moving at slow speed.
Problem solved!
Moloco FGER 50' boxcar ... To me it's sure to look good being slowly pushed by the NW2 down the spur towards the fish cannery loading dock, even though traversing that dreaded "toy train" curve. Happy Halloween and Dia de Muertos, Adios Amigos, Peter
Moloco box cars do look good and Nick markets them well too by feeding us what clients they served and where, and destinctive features of how they replicate real box cars with accompanying photo's. Yeah, the 18" curves are dreaded by some of use very much, but for some, a "necessary evil".
Cheers, and adios, and Al vieder sehen. Tchuss.
Another company I never heard of but way too modern for me too.
riogrande5761 Having never lived in any other part of the country, I have no first hand knowledge of what others in others areas do. But nearly every "average" single home around here comes with a 1200 to 2000 sq foot basement.......... Sheldon It helps to be exposed to other places and find out that not everyone lives in model train basement heaven for various reason, geographic conventions (no basements) or cost of living etc. My wife looked hard to find a home in my area with a model train friendly basement in our budget, and all I can guess is those 1200 to 2000 sq foot basements must simply be out of our price range as we looked at quite a few houses.
Well, I don't know what your price range was, but I live close enough to you to know that Real Estate is noticeably more expensive where you are compared to up here just an hour and a half away.
Around here $300,000 will buy a modest rancher with a nice model railroad basement. And $400,000 will buy a really nice rancher or colonial with great basement.
I know other parts of the country are not basement heaven, and I know why, I do after all design houses for a living.
Here is the thing, I have just never been one to complain about the effects and outcomes of my life choices. Life has been good to me in some ways, not always good in others. I accept it or change it.
We paid $375,000 for our new retirement spot, 2200 sq ft rancher, 1600 sq ft basement, two car garage, 2.3 quiet acres on which I will build an additional garage/shop. The 1600 sq ft basement is 100% my space and the new garage will be about 1000 sq ft.
I suspect where you are a place like this might be more like $550,000. We looked around northern VA about 8 years ago, too pricey.
I just love the "elitist" comments.
And the ones about having your own cake and being able to eat it too, sure.
In my job, I know that it's not always possible to get everything you want. Some things are mutually exclusive. You can have one OR the other, but not both.
Sure you can get 50' boxcars to negotiate 18" radii--but what then happens when someone wants to back up a train? Or better, back up a consist through an 18" radius reverse curve? Good luck. Then talk to me about having your cake and eating it, too. I've been there enough to know that it won't always work. Maybe sometimes it will work, maybe...
As far as elitism is concerned, I am selling nearly all my high dollar, expensive Chinese plastic diesels and replacing them with new old stock Stewart/Kato F units, when I can find them. The detail, paint, fit and finish are reasonable enough for me and they run well.
It was interesting to me yesterday, at Timonium, that the high dollar modern stuff was...in pretty good inventory, while myself and my friend were buying the older, cheap stuff, some of which was hard to find. I got the one WP F-3 in the whole place that wasn't Genesis.
So who's elitist? Am I elitist because I have 26" min radius curves on a folded dogbone running along the walls? Or because I have owned some Tangent/Moloco/Exactrail cars?
For my next layout I'd be perfectly happy with a long true point to point along one basement wall in a ranch house. Then curves won't matter at all.
PRR8259As far as elitism is concerned, I am selling nearly all my high dollar, expensive Chinese plastic diesels and replacing them with new old stock Stewart/Kato F units, when I can find them.
I still have a number of Stewart/KATO F7's and while they don't fit my late 1970's interests, they are nice smooth runners and are keepers.
I've been trying for the past 2 years to sell my Stewart/KATO WP F3 ABB engines and never get even a nibble and asking considerably less than what I paid.
riogrande5761--
Dang it. Wish I'd known. I'm not "flush" right now, after that show, but maybe in the months to come I could take them off your hands...if not weathered or beat up too much. Maybe start a private conversation with me, and when I get some cash again, I could take them off your hands?
I just bought F-3: PRR hi fans, SP black widow low fans, and the one WP unit.
My dad just died...back in the day I had a PRR hi fans F-3 for awhile. He'd probably remember that one...So I kinda got it to remember running the trains with him. I unloaded the Stewart Kato F units off the trucks when they came in at Toy Train Heaven years ago...Somebody actually stole one ATSF unit of each model the one time. Each case was short one, three or four different item numbers, when we opened them.
Before becoming the perfectionistic elitist some say.
rrebell ATLANTIC CENTRAL IRONROOSTER ATLANTIC CENTRAL Read up on Paul Mallery, he had other opinions I have several of his books, but sadly like Armstrong, some are not currently in print. Paul Agreed, not always easy to find some of this older info. I have a copy of Armstrong's hard cover book on track planning published by TAB books. He goes into much more detail about a lot of stuff then he does in the Kalmbach books. But again, his work, good as it was, was colored, at least some, by his modeling scale of choice. Mallery on the other hand was an HO modeler who saw the great potential of HO in a large space to get closer to the proprotions of real life. As to another aspect of this issue, I understand not everyone has 1000, or 1500, or more sq ft for a model layout. And some don't want to build that large a layout even if space and money was no object. But based on my own circle of friends and acquaintances in the hobby, I reject the idea that MOST modelers are bulding layouts that only fill a bedroom size space. MOST of the modelers I know have layouts in spaces about 700 sq ft or larger. And many have spaces larger than my 1600 sq ft. At least around here, basement filling empires are common. So again, around here, there is plenty of market for high detail rolling stock that requires 30" radius or larger. Having never lived in any other part of the country, I have no first hand knowledge of what others in others areas do. But nearly every "average" single home around here comes with a 1200 to 2000 sq foot basement.......... Sheldon Out west, basements are few and far between, same with Florida and a bunch of other southern states, not to say that there are none, just not common.
Out west, basements are few and far between, same with Florida and a bunch of other southern states, not to say that there are none, just not common.
I know and understand all that, what I don't have any real knowledge of is how and where in those homes most people build model trains?
Many houses in those "non basement" parts of the world are simply different in layout and function compared to houses here. Call me spoiled, but, model trains aside, I have a hard time understanding how people even live in some of what I have seen from places like Florida or California.
Then again, I don't really understand how people live in apartment complexes either..........
And I know that housing costs, and the general cost of living, are different all over.
But here is the thing, I'm not rich. I have worked hard and smart to earn what I have. Don't blame me because I made choices that gave me a 1600 sq ft train room and you made choices that did not. I know nothing about the situation of the OP, and he knows little about what I might have done without or given up to have what I have.
It's not personal, it's just an opinion based on 50 years of building model trains and some knowledge of engineering and physics - I would not build a layout and try to run 50' modern cars on 18" radius.
But my modeling goals are also broader than short trains on an ISL.
That is not a criticism of ISL's, I like them, I just want to model more than that.
So is he an Elitest because he wants high detail RTR rolling stock? Or am I one because I require 36-42" radius curves?
While I have my share of high end RTR, I also still run lots of blue box Athearn that will easily operate on 18" radius - now there is an irony for you, as my old Varney and Athearn metals cars, and MDC and Athearn plastic cars make there way around 800' of mainline with 36-42" radius curves........we all have different goals, which all require different compromises.
My second layout, over 45 years ago had 36" radius curves. I knew at age 16 that 18" radius was trouble......I'm 61 now.
But what do I know?
PRR8259 riogrande5761-- Dang it. Wish I'd known. I'm not "flush" right now, after that show, but maybe in the months to come I could take them off your hands...if not weathered or beat up too much. Maybe start a private conversation with me, and when I get some cash again, I could take them off your hands? I just bought F-3: PRR hi fans, SP black widow low fans, and the one WP unit. My dad just died...back in the day I had a PRR hi fans F-3 for awhile. He'd probably remember that one...So I kinda got it to remember running the trains with him. I unloaded the Stewart Kato F units off the trucks when they came in at Toy Train Heaven years ago...Somebody actually stole one ATSF unit of each model the one time. Each case was short one, three or four different item numbers, when we opened them. Before becoming the perfectionistic elitist some say. John
John,
Just to be clear, I for one have never felt you were being "elitist", I simply will never understand how you never seem "satisfied" with anything you buy?
Be it brass or plastic, I will never understand the constant buying and selling.
Sheldon--
My comments were specifically not directed at you. There was another poster who had used that remark. Since you and I see so very differently, I specifically avoid trying to get into any discussions or disputes with you...less stress. On a personal note, my sister is killing me with obsessing over my parents health care and everything about cleaning out the house and nothing I do is good enough (I'm paying a very reputable person to do that--but yet her husband was quick to put him down as a being a crook without ever having met, talked to, or any contact at all with the 67 year old gentleman, who is doing us a valuable service). One parent dead and buried...Everyone in the family seems to think I'm stupid and it's always been that way, when in fact, as an engineer, well, stupid is not the correct adjective to describe me. I don't like being bs'd: items are worth what a willing buyer will pay today and nothing more than that. Most of you folks know that very well. Not my family.
Back to trains:
I'm perfectly happy going back to "vintage" older motive power. When I'm paying only $45 to $60 an engine, I can be much more forgiving of any QA/QC fit and finish issues. If the model isn't detailed enough, I can conceivably get off my lazy rear end, buy the detail kit, and detail it out to suit. Or for F units, I can bend the handrails myself with piano wire--they are not nearly as difficult to bend as the handrails for hood units. Grills warped, sloppily glued, or popping loose? Simply not going to happen. Plastic brittle handrails for the cat to break--not going to happen.
After trying motive power from many manufacturers, and liking some of it, there were still nagging QA/QC issues that I find unacceptable for the price point (and yes, that does even include some brass diesels - some things never did etch well into brass sheet and can be more readily rendered in plastic today).
As the price point approaches $300 in today's 500-part count (or higher) diesels, my tolerance for issues resulted in myself not being happy with basically any of them. That's why I changed my mind and sold so much.
I'm much much happier with old Kato's, despite the more limited selection. Roadname? I don't care--there are relatively few I do not care for.
I'm also asking myself "do I really need all those highly detailed rtr cars?". That is the closely related question, for me.
Now Kadee boxcars are relatively "cheap" and I got a Fox Valley WC 50' plug door boxcar yesterday for $17 that compares far too favorably to the latest $50 boxcars from the other guys. At that price point, I need more of the $17 boxcars, and the others can simply go away. I don't need them anymore.
All of this is driven by the looming college costs and $400 per month just on baseball lessons, for me to pay.
Without mentioning specific names, there are some recently new diesel and freight car manufacturers on the scene whose average product quality is not really any better than Genesis. There's nothing they make that I will need, ever.
Respectfully submitted--and no venom directed at Sheldon--
John, sorry to hear about your dad and the typical family problems when those things happen.
When my grandmother passed, I just stayed out of the way and let my parents and sisters do what they wanted with everything. My grandmother had promised me the family silver, being the only male heir, but after my father passed, my mother drove me crazy asking why the silver was not on display in my house and accused me of selling it - I gave it back to her, I can buy my own silver.
Most of my locos have been purchased for $100 or less. Most of my diesels are Proto2000, Intermoutain and Genesis. Most bought in the days when DC undecorated versions were readily available.
Most of my steam is Bachmann Spectrum, Proto2000, a little Broadway Limited/PCM and two older brass models. Again, my dollar cost average is very low, maybe $200 each.
I do not see myself buying many more locos, except maybe a few older brass models or NOS similar to what I have. But I have most of what I need and want for the layout theme. Todays prices and my lack of interest in DCC and sound leave me unwilling to consider most new offerings.
As you by now know, my interests are very fixed, and not likely to change.
All of these models run well and are detailed to a level I am comfortable with.
And while I own some "high end RTR", much of my 800 freight car fleet is simple Blue Box level cars, sometimes with some added details.
I can be a perfectionist if I allow myself, but I soon found it to be not so fun. So I became more pragmatic and the hobby became more fun.
Sounds like you might be getting there yourself.
Relax and have fun, there is no holly grail to find.....
PS - did you see my thread a while back about my new layout space which explores my layout concept? You might find it interesting, I will bump it to the top.
That's were I was 8 or 10 years ago. My daughter finished her bachelor's in biomedical engineering and the lifting of that financial burden allowed me to sort of get out of the slums in this high COL area. Even with that, I still shake my head at $500 for 2 Genesis sound WP F7s now available from Athearn. I expect they will sell.
Exactly.
At Timonium yesterday there were plenty of Genesis models, including the WP F Units, at more than one table.
I had one Genesis WP F unit previously, as well as Santa Fe units. If you touch them on plated areas, you scratch them. The clearcoat is actually that delicate. It also flakes off leaving way too shiny splotches (too blingin' even for me). No thanks...no more for me. Tried many Genesis engines. One Reading GP-7 was amazing, but the rest...not so much.
The Proto 2000 F units--those can be handled without scratching the plated finish. I've played with them a lot. Their clearcoat is much much better than Genesis and withstood repeated handling without issues. Not everybody likes the Proto series as much as most seem to like Genesis, for oft stated reasons like parts availability, road specific details, etc. etc.
I can no longer justify paying those prices. I took home a nos Stewart WP F unit for $60 instead, and feel that I got the steal of the show.
Others are entitled to see things completely differently for their layouts. I'm not saying anybody should do as I do.
ATLANTIC CENTRAL riogrande5761 Having never lived in any other part of the country, I have no first hand knowledge of what others in others areas do. But nearly every "average" single home around here comes with a 1200 to 2000 sq foot basement.......... Sheldon It helps to be exposed to other places and find out that not everyone lives in model train basement heaven for various reason, geographic conventions (no basements) or cost of living etc. My wife looked hard to find a home in my area with a model train friendly basement in our budget, and all I can guess is those 1200 to 2000 sq foot basements must simply be out of our price range as we looked at quite a few houses. Well, I don't know what your price range was, but I live close enough to you to know that Real Estate is noticeably more expensive where you are compared to up here just an hour and a half away. Around here $300,000 will buy a modest rancher with a nice model railroad basement. And $400,000 will buy a really nice rancher or colonial with great basement. I know other parts of the country are not basement heaven, and I know why, I do after all design houses for a living. Here is the thing, I have just never been one to complain about the effects and outcomes of my life choices. Life has been good to me in some ways, not always good in others. I accept it or change it. We paid $375,000 for our new retirement spot, 2200 sq ft rancher, 1600 sq ft basement, two car garage, 2.3 quiet acres on which I will build an additional garage/shop. The 1600 sq ft basement is 100% my space and the new garage will be about 1000 sq ft. I suspect where you are a place like this might be more like $550,000. We looked around northern VA about 8 years ago, too pricey. Sheldon
We were able to contract for a new built home here in central PA, 10 minutes from downtown Harrisburg, for $160,000 when my oldest son was born about 17 years ago. That's about 1900 sf living area, with a (not counted in living area) basement of about 800 sf suitable for around the wall train layout. Our cost of living is less here, but then so are salaries. Current home value is about $215,000, on a 0.22 acre lot in a quiet neighborhood (small town of 6,000).
Railfanning opportunities galore in this area. I'm a mile or less as the crow flies from west end of the Rockville Bridge, and for those who like trains and lots of them, the ghosts of the PRR Middle Division still loom large though all position light signals recently faded away.
rrebell ATLANTIC CENTRAL riogrande5761 Having never lived in any other part of the country, I have no first hand knowledge of what others in others areas do. But nearly every "average" single home around here comes with a 1200 to 2000 sq foot basement.......... Sheldon It helps to be exposed to other places and find out that not everyone lives in model train basement heaven for various reason, geographic conventions (no basements) or cost of living etc. My wife looked hard to find a home in my area with a model train friendly basement in our budget, and all I can guess is those 1200 to 2000 sq foot basements must simply be out of our price range as we looked at quite a few houses. Well, I don't know what your price range was, but I live close enough to you to know that Real Estate is noticeably more expensive where you are compared to up here just an hour and a half away. Around here $300,000 will buy a modest rancher with a nice model railroad basement. And $400,000 will buy a really nice rancher or colonial with great basement. I know other parts of the country are not basement heaven, and I know why, I do after all design houses for a living. Here is the thing, I have just never been one to complain about the effects and outcomes of my life choices. Life has been good to me in some ways, not always good in others. I accept it or change it. We paid $375,000 for our new retirement spot, 2200 sq ft rancher, 1600 sq ft basement, two car garage, 2.3 quiet acres on which I will build an additional garage/shop. The 1600 sq ft basement is 100% my space and the new garage will be about 1000 sq ft. I suspect where you are a place like this might be more like $550,000. We looked around northern VA about 8 years ago, too pricey. Sheldon Out here a modest house can bring $2,000,000.00 or more on one side of the bay and upwards of $800,000.00 on the other (remember I said modest).
Out here a modest house can bring $2,000,000.00 or more on one side of the bay and upwards of $800,000.00 on the other (remember I said modest).
A fact that just continues to amaze me. There is nothing about California that would ever prompt me to live there, let alone pay that kind of money for housing.
Here, $1,200,000 will buy you something like this:
https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/2621-Bailey-Rd-Forest-Hill-MD-21050/36975903_zpid/
This is just up the road from our Queen Anne that we will be putting on the market soon:
4,000 sq ft on 1 acre, built in 1901, fully restored and mechanically updated 20 years ago, original slate roof, original millwork, pocket doors, 10'ceilings, 5/6 bedrooms, 2-1/2 baths, multi room master suite with large walk-in closet, built in heated pool with covered pavilion and changing and storge rm, 400 sq ft deck w/hot tub, 32 x 40 garage/shop with the former train room above, we expect to get something over $600,000.
Higher wages mean nothing if you spend it all on your house........
Since I build 99% of my frieght cars from kits, I can make sure all the details do not rub when I add them. All my cars must negotiate an 18" radius S Curve to make it past production. That way I know there will never be problems.
.
Any details that interfere get left off or modified.
-Kevin
Living the dream.
Its because for years a small but vocal group of elitist modelers kept labeling companies who didn't make RTR products as accurate as possible as fraudsters.
Essentially, they bought a boxcar, then LATER found out the prototype may have had different ends and a different road number, or the boxcar red a bit too brown to be accurate, then complain the manufacturer was trying to charge $50 for a foobie.
They didn't even know about the correct details BEFORE they bought the car. They bought it because they simply thought it was the most accurate car on the market, even though they had little idea as to what made it accurate.
IOW, they cared about owning the most accurate model.
Which is the opposite of your situation. You are buying an accurate car and making assumptions that it meets a common standard. A standard that is important to you and a standard you have known for decades.
Doughless HO-Velo Oh good, it's not just me that thinks this thread has become eerie at times. A couple times it felt like I created Frankenstein's monster and the village mob is coming after it. I can see the horror film heading now; "The Terrifying Thread That Wouldn't Die. Its because for years a small but vocal group of elitist modelers kept labeling companies who didn't make RTR products as accurate as possible as fraudsters.
References please or calling shens!
Essentially, they bought a boxcar, then LATER found out the prototype may have had different ends and a different road number, then complain the manufacturer was trying to charge $50 for a foobie. They didn't even know about the correct details BEFORE they bought the car. They bought it because they simply thought it was the most accurate car on the market, even though they had little idea as to what made it accurate. IOW, they cared about owning the most accurate car, not really caring about the details themselves.
They didn't even know about the correct details BEFORE they bought the car. They bought it because they simply thought it was the most accurate car on the market, even though they had little idea as to what made it accurate. IOW, they cared about owning the most accurate car, not really caring about the details themselves.
And of course you know this will go on until global thermo nuclear war destroys the planet and the hobby along with it.
In all the hew and cry, people seem to forget we have more high fidelity (close to the real thing) models than ever before. So rather than feel blessed and happy about being in the golden age of the hobby with the most cool stuff ever, people just complain all the more. *sigh* Human nature isn't it. The more nice things people have, the less happy they are.
riogrande5761 Doughless HO-Velo Oh good, it's not just me that thinks this thread has become eerie at times. A couple times it felt like I created Frankenstein's monster and the village mob is coming after it. I can see the horror film heading now; "The Terrifying Thread That Wouldn't Die. Its because for years a small but vocal group of elitist modelers kept labeling companies who didn't make RTR products as accurate as possible as fraudsters. References please or calling shens! Essentially, they bought a boxcar, then LATER found out the prototype may have had different ends and a different road number, then complain the manufacturer was trying to charge $50 for a foobie. They didn't even know about the correct details BEFORE they bought the car. They bought it because they simply thought it was the most accurate car on the market, even though they had little idea as to what made it accurate. IOW, they cared about owning the most accurate car, not really caring about the details themselves. And of course you know this will go on until global thermo nuclear war destroys the planet and the hobby along with it. In all the hew and cry, people seem to forget we have more high fidelity (close to the real thing) models than ever before. So rather than feel blessed and happy about being in the golden age of the hobby with the most cool stuff ever, people just complain all the more. *sigh* Human nature isn't it. The more nice things people have, the less happy they are.
I was simply defining the mark of an elitist. The guy who cares about having the best wine collection even though they know little themselves about what makes a good wine. Then later when they do know, calling out the vineyard as being below par.
Past forums and threads over the years were dripping with those types of comments. I think Atlas got tired of a bunch of elitist complaining know-littles infesting their forum so they shut it down.
What if comments were written this way: If all you want to do is run 30 car trains around a few big loops of track, you probably don't care about cars operating very precisely. I liked watching long trains run continously when I was a kid.
Doughless I was simply defining the mark of an elitist. The guy who cares about having the best wine collection even though they know little themselves about what makes a good wine. Then later when they do know, calling out the vineyard as being below par.
Right... obligatory inclusion then? I guess we know they are out their lurking so we need to be sure to put them on notice! I suppose because we are discussing high fidelity freight cars then we have to be sure to thow the dirty bathwater in with the good looking baby.
That was then, this is now. The past is the past - no need to keep re-living it unless things are boring and we need a little drama to spice things up?
Lots of that at train shows. It's fun to watch for a few minutes and then interest is lost. This is why we like to build layouts and get into other aspects of the hobby like detailing scenes or operations etc, to keep interest up. Or in forums, a little drama now and then.
riogrande5761 Doughless I was simply defining the mark of an elitist. The guy who cares about having the best wine collection even though they know little themselves about what makes a good wine. Then later when they do know, calling out the vineyard as being below par. Right... obligatory inclusion then? I guess we know they are out their lurking so we need to be sure to put them on notice! I suppose because we are discussing high fidelity freight cars then we have to be sure to thow the dirty bathwater in with the good looking baby. Past forums and threads over the years were dripping with those types of comments. I think Atlas got tired of a bunch of elitist complaining know-littles infesting their forum so they shut it down. That was then, this is now. The past is the past - no need to keep re-living it unless things are boring and we need a little drama to spice things up? What if comments were written this way: If all you want to do is run 30 car trains around a few big loops of track, you probably don't care about cars operating very precisely. I liked watching long trains run continously when I was a kid. Lots of that at train shows. It's fun to watch for a few minutes and then interest is lost. This is why we like to build layouts and get into other aspects of the hobby like detailing scenes or operations etc, to keep interest up. Or in forums, a little drama now and then.
Back to the overall topic. The emergence of highly detailed RTR cars was, in part, due to a bunch of complainers suggesting that producers were fraudsters producing foobies when they should be producing accurate products.
I try to refrain from discussing business on a train forum, but just because high end products sell, doesn't mean they are in high demand, or were in more demand than the lower end products.
Product laddering means that a company does not want its cheaper product cannibalizing sales of its higher end product, so they don't want to make the cheaper product "too desireable", so they intentionally make it inferior when they could actually make it better with little extra cost.
And measuring a product line by total dollar sales means little. If 100 people bought a product for $50, that's $5,000 of revenue. Compared to 300 people paying $15, or $4,500. If variable costs on the $50 item stay reasonable, a company would much rather cater its product to the 100 people than the 300 people.....even though the people who desire the cheaper model outnumber the elite 3 to 1.
So if we say that Athearn Genesis took off and put Athean BB out of business because the "market" ( defined as more modelers) demanded it, think again.
I like watching long trains run around my long single track railroad. It is relaxing. My friend who has no layout is always welcome to come in and run his trains.
Even as a student financially strapped modeler I just always built the biggest curves I could...5x9 instead of 4x8 has many more possibilities. I always have wanted to run the big stuff, and hacking it up to do 18" was just not something we did around here, and not even at the Penn State Model Railroading Club.
It is true that whenever I have passed along the occasional comment from my friends at Bowser that with some exceptions they are building freight cars for the "other 90%" of hobbyists that the 10% people tend to get very upset, to the point of angry name calling.
I do believe that a small but highly vocal group has influenced the manufacturers to go too far to the expensive side.
A little more about product laddering. I've been car shopping and checked out the Nissan Sentra. Wonderful car in every aspect except its grossly underpowered by my standards. It comes only with the 1.8L 4cyl. Even though Nissan makes a robust 2.5L, it isn't offered in this car. If you want more power for the Sentra, you need the splurge on the turbo model that costs at least $5 grand more.
And, if Nissan put the 2.5L into the Sentra, it would cannibalize sales from the more expensive Nissan Altima, which has the 2.5L as its base motor. (if you want more power from the Altima, that will require an upgrade to the premium model with the 3.5L 6cyl).
You see, many people would love the Sentra with the 2.5, (since the consensus of reviews says its only fault is undepowered), which would cost very little, but Nissan doesn't allow that minimum upgrade to the masses as it would cut sales of the "niche" turbo model and from another more expensive model.
Doughless The emergence of highly detailed RTR cars was, in part, due to a bunch of complainers suggesting that producers were fraudsters producing foobies when they should be producing accurate products.
The emergence of highly detailed RTR cars was, in part, due to a bunch of complainers suggesting that producers were fraudsters producing foobies when they should be producing accurate products.
Damn thats a cynical angle on the topic. Could it actually be that manufacturers realized there was a demand for higher fidelity models and are doing what good companies do? Meet the demand? If anything, I would think the manufacturers would not be happy about accusations of fraud and foobies. I mean, who would want to make a living at trying to please people who are impossible to please?
I guess Blaine Hadfield for one, who left ExactRail to start his own company because hey, abuse is fun! Passion about making model trains has nothing to do with it, how could it? Same for Shane of Athearn who started ScaleTrains. Does he do it because he likes all the vitreol that comes from people with nothing better to do but be unhappy about ever better models?
... just because high end products sell, doesn't mean they are in high demand, or were in more demand than the lower end products.
Lets look at that supposition. Why the heck would a manufacturer not respond to the market demand? Looking at the last 20 years production of higher detail models on the market have steadily risen while the production of lower end products has declined, and in the case of Athearn blue box, were discontinued entirely in Oct 2009 per the Athearn wiki. I don't know but actions seem to tell the story.
I'm not saying there isn't demand for lower end products, but I am saying the proportion has gone through a fundemental shift simply by observing what has been made vs what is being made.
So if we say that Athearn Genesis took off and put Athean BB out of business because the "market" (defined as more modelers) demanded it, think again.
I wonder how Athearn defines market? Here is the excerpt:
"Effective immediately, we here at Athearn have made the difficult decision to discontinue the production of our Blue Box line of kits. There were several factors that contributed to this extremely challenging decision however, the primary issue revolved around affordability and ensuring that our Blue Box kit pricing remain aligned with what the market can bear. Unfortunately, due to increased manufacturing and labor costs it has been determined that we are no longer able to continue offering kits at competitive price points as compared to our already assembled products."
It sounds like Athearn did not think the market could bear them selling blue box kits at the price they deemed they would have to sell them at to still make a profit. If you disagree, tell me what you think they meant.
Regardless of how you dissect it, we have what we have and it's a good thing, lots of choice. Personally I think thats a good thing and everyone should be happy, but for some reason we have to dredge up the same old bad feelings and accusations ad nauseum. There will never be a rest until ol Putin puts us all out of our misery apparently.
deleted
riogrande5761 ... just because high end products sell, doesn't mean they are in high demand, or were in more demand than the lower end products. Lets look at that supposition. Why the heck would a manufacturer not respond to the market demand? Looking at the last 20 years production of higher detail models on the market have steadily risen while the production of lower end products has declined, and in the case of Athearn blue box, were discontinued entirely in Oct 2009 per the Athearn wiki. I don't know but actions seem to tell the story. I'm not saying there isn't demand for lower end products, but I am saying the proportion has gone through a fundemental shift simply by observing what has been made vs what is being made. So if we say that Athearn Genesis took off and put Athean BB out of business because the "market" (defined as more modelers) demanded it, think again. I wonder how Athearn defines market? Here is the excerpt: "Effective immediately, we here at Athearn have made the difficult decision to discontinue the production of our Blue Box line of kits. There were several factors that contributed to this extremely challenging decision however, the primary issue revolved around affordability and ensuring that our Blue Box kit pricing remain aligned with what the market can bear. Unfortunately, due to increased manufacturing and labor costs it has been determined that we are no longer able to continue offering kits at competitive price points as compared to our already assembled products." It sounds like Athearn did not think the market could bear them selling blue box kits at the price they deemed they would have to sell them at to still make a profit. If you disagree, tell me what you think they meant.
Jim, I deleted my previous post to respond to this excerpt more clearly. Here is what I think they meant.
Athearn launched the Genesis line and needed to invest in new tooling, wire detail supply chains, metal wheel supply chains, better painting equipment, and labor to assemble the Genesis products. Because these items are coming on line, they could spread out the costs of these expensive investments by also using these resources to assemble the BB kits, aka RTR.
Essentially, the cost of the RTR cars became subsidized relative to what those costs would have been if RTR was produced without a Genesis line. There is no way that Athearn could make those investments just to add details and assemble the BB kits and have them remotely be in the same price point as the BB.
When they say Unfortunately, due to increased manufacturing and labor costs it has been determined that we are no longer able to continue offering kits at competitive price points as compared to our already assembled products."
That means they can offer the RTR products for nearly the cost of the BB kit, and they determined that hardly anybody would choose BB over RTR given the price points. And the market will not bear both products being sold concurrently.
That does not mean that customers no longer desired BB kits at their prices.
It means that given the option of a competing product on the shelves at that (subsidized) RTR price point, BB kits would not be chosen. Not to mention the fewer BB kits there are to compete with RTR, the more RTR items they can sell to help recoup that heavy investment in the materials that were essentially purchased for the Genesis line, which is more of a strategic decision.
The demise of BB kits is more due to the introduction of the Genesis line and Athearn's new cost structure needing to be spread out, not due to lack of demand for BB kits at their prices, per se.
Hi Douglas--
Not saying that I totally agree with everything, but the logic of your above post does read as being plausible.
As far as the basic kits vs ready-to-run issue, I believe one manufacturer indicated that any savings due to not having to assemble the kit at the point of manufacture was eaten up by extra costs in ensuring that all the parts were included in the box. The most certain way to ensure completeness is to ship it fully assembled.
Douglas,
I have to agree with your analysis of the demise of the Blue Box kit.
I will add a few thoughts:
First, over the last 10-15 years, the price structure of the RTR line is roughly equal to the inflation adjusted price structure of the Blue box kits if you use the 1970's as your base line.
Athearn expanded the Blue Box line considerably in the 1970's, and raised prices to cover the costs. From there on out, Blue Box kit prices did not keep pace with inflation. Athearn was in a strong position and used that to dominate the market with lower prices than the other easy to build plastic freight cars on the market.
So when RTR came along, Blue Box kit prices were artificially low. That sitiuation was not going to work much longer.
Next point - a large percentage of the original 1990's/early 2000's RTR line was nothing more than assembled Blue Box kits with metal wheels and better paint jobs.
Those items are now being rebranded into the Roundhouse line, but the fact remains that Athearn still produces almost all of the Blue Box line as RTR under one label or the other.
Many other RTR items are Model Die Casting tooling from the late 80's and early 90's.
Only a portion of the RTR line is relatively new tooling developed for that line, most came in some form from previous products.
To those who model more modern eras this is less obvious because most of the Blue Box line represented prototypes from the 30's thru the 70's.
So it was going to be very market painful to sell both kits and RTR of the same items for the same price, as you suggest.
My dealer has been telling me for the past decade that if he has one kit, and 10 RTRs of the same identical car, he will sell out of the RTR before he sells the kit. People on these boards very often say they never have any time for modeling -- possibly because they are spending their time on these boards. Possibly because they never developed the skills to build a kit.
Graham LinePeople on these boards very often say they never have any time for modeling -- possibly because they are spending their time on these boards. Possibly because they never developed the skills to build a kit.
@Graham Line
I can only speak for myself, but since moving into our home late last year, my wife (who does support my train hobby) is pretty much dictating little to no hobby time while we are doing major projects on our fixer upper home. I can't speak for others, but have you considered that maybe they like building kits almost as much as they like going to the dentist?
I have built many of the kits available (Athearn bb, MDC, Accurail, E&C, Walthers, and also Proto 2000, Intermountain hight detail kits, and flat part Eel River. Even as recently as last couple years I have built a few more high detail kits (IMRC and Proto2000). I never really enjoyed it that much but it was necessary before RTR and even after RTR has been around and well established, I've built more. Am I worthy?
But looking at the bigger picture of kits and skills, where is it written "thou shalt be a kit builder and enjoy it"? It seems there are a number of those who disapprove if hobbyist's don't embrace kit building happily. Some like it, some do not and others have dexterity issues like shaking hands, or poor dexterity.
Sure, we can all improve to one degree or another but is it so wrong to enjoy the hobby in a way we choose, which may not be rolling stock kit building? Maybe others are better at operations, or layout building, track laying, scenery or other things.
Geez, I thought the hobby was supposed to be fun. It's not feeling very fun right now. One thing I like about my wife is she really has no patience for people who feel it's ok to be condescending to her. Here is her solution: Here is my cat, and here is my cats back side.
cx500 As far as the basic kits vs ready-to-run issue, I believe one manufacturer indicated that any savings due to not having to assemble the kit at the point of manufacture was eaten up by extra costs in ensuring that all the parts were included in the box. The most certain way to ensure completeness is to ship it fully assembled.
Yes. There was a short period of time where BB kits were essentially unassembled RTR products. The shells were reworked slightly to remove the molded on details to allow for separately applied detail parts, like wire grab irons, which were included in that little manilla envelope. They also came with metal wheelsets.
That was also about the time Athearn introduced the Genesis line, so those parts had an ample supply chain. I assume Athearn planned for the upgrades to the BB kits when they introduced Genesis, but then probably figured out that it was more cost effective for them to just assemble and sell the RTR cars.
Again, that does not mean that people did not want BB kits at the prices being sold. It means Athearn could make a different product more competitive due to having the parts and labor already in the chain.
Atlas Trainman and Walthers Trainline are two prodcut lines that have molded on details, like BB used to have. So there still was/is a market for those types of products. Since they have the labor on hand to assemble their premium lines, it doesn't take much cost at all to assemble the cheaper products. That's not the same thing as hiring labor specifically and only to assemble a kit and sell it RTR, which would be a very big leap in price, IMO.
ATLANTIC CENTRAL Douglas, I have to agree with your analysis of the demise of the Blue Box kit. I will add a few thoughts: First, over the last 10-15 years, the price structure of the RTR line is roughly equal to the inflation adjusted price structure of the Blue box kits if you use the 1970's as your base line. Athearn expanded the Blue Box line considerably in the 1970's, and raised prices to cover the costs. From there on out, Blue Box kit prices did not keep pace with inflation. Athearn was in a strong position and used that to dominate the market with lower prices than the other easy to build plastic freight cars on the market. So when RTR came along, Blue Box kit prices were artificially low. That sitiuation was not going to work much longer. Next point - a large percentage of the original 1990's/early 2000's RTR line was nothing more than assembled Blue Box kits with metal wheels and better paint jobs. Those items are now being rebranded into the Roundhouse line, but the fact remains that Athearn still produces almost all of the Blue Box line as RTR under one label or the other. Many other RTR items are Model Die Casting tooling from the late 80's and early 90's. Only a portion of the RTR line is relatively new tooling developed for that line, most came in some form from previous products. To those who model more modern eras this is less obvious because most of the Blue Box line represented prototypes from the 30's thru the 70's. So it was going to be very market painful to sell both kits and RTR of the same items for the same price, as you suggest. Sheldon
Thanks for the details. 100% Agree. Many cars with vintage tooling are still being produced and sold. They have been upgraded to the degree it makes economic sense, which happens because the higher end product lines allow for the better materials and labor. The lower end products in their current form sell because that's what's offered, not necessarily because the market for lower detailed products diminished.
Accurail, who does not have a higher end product and has made no investment in better materials, hasn't changed their kits in decades and seem to be doing fine. A small foray into RTR (merely assembled kits) seems to have not mattered either way.
You can get alot of MDC's early kit stuff on e-bay from river city, have no idea where he gets his parts but he seems to have an endless supply.
riogrande5761 If anything, I would think the manufacturers would not be happy about accusations of fraud and foobies. I mean, who would want to make a living at trying to please people who are impossible to please?
If anything, I would think the manufacturers would not be happy about accusations of fraud and foobies. I mean, who would want to make a living at trying to please people who are impossible to please?
I remember a lively discussion on one of the other forums that you participated in, about the new (at the time) BLMA Tropicana reefer. It was trashed because it was a "foobie". I guess your view on the matter has changed?
In my world, there is no such thing as a foobie. It just needs to LOOK right.
Also, the golden age, as you put it, for the hobby was in the 80's and 90's. We had a lot of kit builders and a small amount of rtr. You could pick and choose. It really was a hobby for everyone.
trwroute I remember a lively discussion on one of the other forums about the new (at the time) BLMA Tropicana reefer. It was trashed because it was a "foobie". In my world, there is no such thing as a foobie. It just needs to LOOK right.
I remember a lively discussion on one of the other forums about the new (at the time) BLMA Tropicana reefer. It was trashed because it was a "foobie".
Interesting about foobs. InterMountain released at least two of their wonderfully accurate, highly detailed, expensive U18Bs ..... in paint schemes that never existed. They did it on purpose and even advertise them as such. Central Vermont and Southern Pacific are the Famous Image Collector Series.
Maybe foobishness doesn't matter. It might even be desirable if you're a freelancer.
trwroute riogrande5761 If anything, I would think the manufacturers would not be happy about accusations of fraud and foobies. I mean, who would want to make a living at trying to please people who are impossible to please? I remember a lively discussion on one of the other forums that you participated in, about the new (at the time) BLMA Tropicana reefer. It was trashed because it was a "foobie". I guess your view on the matter has changed?
What view would I have in the matter? Tropicana reefers are of no interest to me, never were. As for bitter complainers, there will always be some, what would you like me to do about it? I don't have a magic wand, but it would be nice if people did less of it.
Trust me, thats a good thing because it keeps the model train industry more financially healthy!
So tell me why today is not a hobby for everyone? Today, model trains of a MUCH wider variety are available and accessible than in the 80's and 90's. Why? Today we have all the stuff that was made in the 1980's and 1990's on Ebay and at train shows by the boat load PLUS we have all the really cool newer stuff made in the last 20 years as well. THIS is why today is the golden age of the hobby clearly. We have much more now than ever. What's not to like?
As for picking and choosing, we have a MUCH bigger variety to pick and choose from in the present. What baffles me is why people are unhappy with this situation. Friggen everyone should be a winner but still people are unhappy. I don't get it.
Doughless Interesting about foobs. InterMountain released at least two run of their wonderfully accurate, highly detailed, expensive U18Bs ..... in paint schemes that never existed. They did it on purpose and even advertise them as such. Central Vermont and Southern Pacific are the Famous Image Collector Series. Maybe foobishness doesn't matter. It might even be desirable if you're a freelancer.
Interesting about foobs. InterMountain released at least two run of their wonderfully accurate, highly detailed, expensive U18Bs ..... in paint schemes that never existed. They did it on purpose and even advertise them as such. Central Vermont and Southern Pacific are the Famous Image Collector Series.
Yes, it's true that some people want foobies. David Lehlbach of Tangent Scale Models, who generally strives toward high fidelity to the prototype has made foobies and reported it was because customer wanted them - specifically 4-bay coal cars. Sometimes it's simply supply and demand.
Historically the vast majority of model freight cars have been foobies and models which actually matched a prototype were few. Try to match the Athearn blue box (also RTR) 40' plug door hi-cube appliance box car to real freight cars. I think I was only able to match it to a class of Union Pacific cars, while most if not all of the other paint schemes were foobies. But model train companies had to do this to recover the tooling costs. Things have changed and a much higher percentage of models made now actually match real freight cars than ever.
Speaking of freelance, Tangent made a gondola based on the freelance model RR Allagash. They all sold out.
As one person put it, the model RR hobby is like a salad bar.
riogrande5761 So tell me why today is not a hobby for everyone? Today, model trains of a MUCH wider variety are available and accessible than in the 80's and 90's. Why? Today we have all the stuff that was made in the 1980's and 1990's on Ebay and at train shows by the boat load PLUS we have all the really cool newer stuff made in the last 20 years as well. THIS is why today is the golden age of the hobby clearly. We have much more now than ever. What's not to like? As for picking and choosing, we have a MUCH bigger variety to pick and choose from in the present. What baffles me is why people are unhappy with this situation. Friggen everyone should be a winner but still people are unhappy. I don't get it. As for having a lot more kit builders in the 80's and 90's - of course we did, it was out of necessity. Pretty much the only RTR stuff was Life Like and Tyco train set trains which were toy like compared to Athearn and MDC and other models.
I can easily break it down like this: There are the kit builders (example, me) and there are the guys that buy pretty much everything rtr (example, you). For me, these aren't the golden years of the hobby. For you, they are. I'm still waiting for the days to come back when I could go to the Lhs and get whatever car or locomotive kit I wanted off the shelf! Like that will ever happen again...
Please keep in mind that buying off eBay or waiting for the one trainshow to come around, is NOT the same as touching and buying that impulse item from your local hobby shop so he can keep the doors open.
I'm still waiting for the days to come back when I could go to the Lhs and get whatever car or locomotive kit I wanted off the shelf! Like that will ever happen again... Please keep in mind that buying off eBay or waiting for the one trainshow to come around, is NOT the same as touching and buying that impulse item from your local hobby shop so he can keep the doors open.
It sounds to me a big part of why you are unhappy is due to how we find and buy stuff, not that we have a different mix of products being made; there is definitely a paradigm shift in how we buy things, with a major shift away from B&M stores to online sales.
BTW, I often have to troll Ebay to find what I want too so in that regard, thats part of the game.
riogrande5761 It sounds to me a big part of why you are unhappy is due to how we find and buy stuff, not that we have a different mix of products being made; there is definitely a paradigm shift in how we buy things, with a major shift away from B&M stores to online sales. BTW, I often have to troll Ebay to find what I want too so in that regard, thats part of the game.
I never said that I wasn't happy. I'm just the type that would rather visit a hobby shop than order something and hope the post office delivers it to the right house.
Believe me, I play the eBay game. I have to since there's really no other place to go and buy anything within 40 miles.
Now, if I could go to my lhs, that closed, and buy a kit, that's no longer available, I would be a happy camper!
trwrouteI never said that I wasn't happy. I'm just the type that would rather visit a hobby shop than order something and hope the post office delivers it to the right house. Believe me, I play the eBay game. I have to since there's really no other place to go and buy anything within 40 miles.
Sorry yes, you said the 80's and 90's were the golden age vs. the present.
But it sounds like the lack of an LHS part of why you miss the olden days, not so much was is available.
It's true, time have changed in the way we get our toys. But I have noticed there is an aweful lot of older stuff, stuff in the category you favor, that is availalbe when I browse the tables at the big Timonium train show, and yes, on Ebay. It's more a matter of finding particular models.
I still argue, that in shear terms of variety, there are more choices today then ever.
trwroute riogrande5761 So tell me why today is not a hobby for everyone? Today, model trains of a MUCH wider variety are available and accessible than in the 80's and 90's. Why? Today we have all the stuff that was made in the 1980's and 1990's on Ebay and at train shows by the boat load PLUS we have all the really cool newer stuff made in the last 20 years as well. THIS is why today is the golden age of the hobby clearly. We have much more now than ever. What's not to like? As for picking and choosing, we have a MUCH bigger variety to pick and choose from in the present. What baffles me is why people are unhappy with this situation. Friggen everyone should be a winner but still people are unhappy. I don't get it. As for having a lot more kit builders in the 80's and 90's - of course we did, it was out of necessity. Pretty much the only RTR stuff was Life Like and Tyco train set trains which were toy like compared to Athearn and MDC and other models. I can easily break it down like this: There are the kit builders (example, me) and there are the guys that buy pretty much everything rtr (example, you). For me, these aren't the golden years of the hobby. For you, they are. I'm still waiting for the days to come back when I could go to the Lhs and get whatever car or locomotive kit I wanted off the shelf! Like that will ever happen again... Please keep in mind that buying off eBay or waiting for the one trainshow to come around, is NOT the same as touching and buying that impulse item from your local hobby shop so he can keep the doors open.
trwrouteAlso, the golden age, as you put it, for the hobby was in the 80's and 90's. We had a lot of kit builders and a small amount of rtr. You could pick and choose. It really was a hobby for everyone.
That Golden Age is dead. Why, because it wasn't the golden age for most. Kits are dying because most people in the hobby want RTR. Locomotive kits are gone. BB and Roundhouse/MDC are at train shows for $5 - $10 because over 10 years after production stopped most people still don't want them.
Most folks who like kits want better, more correctly detailed (and thus more complicated) kits. They're around, but they cost more and are usually small runs for a small market.
I hope Accurail lasts a long time because it represents a low cost line I think the hobby needs. But it does so with plastic wheels and cheap couplers along with the molded on details.
But why should Athearn make more kits - there's still a life time supply.
Personally, I buy some of everything. But RTR rules because getting a layout built is what I want more than building kits. Once that happens, I will start building kits (and scratch building) - but that's me, building kits is my second hobby.
IRONROOSTERThat Golden Age is dead. Why, because it wasn't the golden age for most. Kits are dying because most people in the hobby want RTR. Locomotive kits are gone.
I think you nailed it. 30 years ago I remember an article about adding a speed recorder to a loco truck. At the time I was thinking, "What is a speed recorder and why do I need add it to a loco with molded on grab irons?"
Now the speed recorder, added grab irons and fan detail is there, along with uncoupling levers and MU hoses. The cost is a lot more, which is a big deal for some but not all.
The upside of all the detail is it looks really cool and we don't have to have any craftsmans skills to own it. The downside is that when we go to caboose heaven, the extra cost is lost and our loved trains go to the dumpster.
Henry
COB Potomac & Northern
Shenandoah Valley
IRONROOSTERThat Golden Age is dead. Why, because it wasn't the golden age for most. Kits are dying because most people in the hobby want RTR. Locomotive kits are gone. BB and Roundhouse/MDC are at train shows for $5 - $10 because over 10 years after production stopped most people still don't want them.
Apparently it depends on how one defines golden age. I define it in terms of what if available to us and in the present, as Paul pointed out, many BB and MDC kits, and others for that matter, are at train shows for good prices. We also have the newer high detail stuff too.
Now if one defines golden age as when there were no RTR and it was all "do-it-yourself" kit building etc. then thats your golden age, gone many years ago. Of course if you adapt methods of finding those items, they are out there and you can still satisfy that need as Paul mentioned, lots of it out there.
I even break down now and then and buy a kit because it's something I need; just last weekend I picked up a Lonestar 40' flat bed trailer kit as those were common on D&RGW TOFC.
I have bought a number of Accurail kits in the last year, kits which fit my last gasp of 40' box car time frame. While I like details, with a little weathering the molded on grab irons don't stand out terribly.
That seems to be the case from what I see, and probably part of the reason Athearn stopped making them - there is a glut of BB kits out there on the secondary market.
Personally, I buy some of everything. But RTR rules because getting a layout built is what I want more than building kits. Once that happens, I will start building kits (and scratch building) - but that's me, building kits is my second hobby. Paul
Thats exactly true for me; I still buy kits but mostly RTR because building a layout is a pretty consuming task. While building my last layout, I did take some breaks and built some P2K kits and a few others. I still have a few stashed away for when I get the urge.
riogrande5761 Doughless Interesting about foobs. InterMountain released at least two run of their wonderfully accurate, highly detailed, expensive U18Bs ..... in paint schemes that never existed. They did it on purpose and even advertise them as such. Central Vermont and Southern Pacific are the Famous Image Collector Series. Maybe foobishness doesn't matter. It might even be desirable if you're a freelancer. Yes, it's true that some people want foobies. David Lehlbach of Tangent Scale Models, who generally strives toward high fidelity to the prototype has made foobies and reported it was because customer wanted them - specifically 4-bay coal cars. Sometimes it's simply supply and demand. Historically the vast majority of model freight cars have been foobies and models which actually matched a prototype were few. Try to match the Athearn blue box (also RTR) 40' plug door hi-cube appliance box car to real freight cars. I think I was only able to match it to a class of Union Pacific cars, while most if not all of the other paint schemes were foobies. But model train companies had to do this to recover the tooling costs. Things have changed and a much higher percentage of models made now actually match real freight cars than ever. Speaking of freelance, Tangent made a gondola based on the freelance model RR Allagash. They all sold out. As one person put it, the model RR hobby is like a salad bar.
If true, and I don't disagree, then it was always narrow and short sighted for those others guys on other forums to criticize any particular product as being a foob, as well as accusing the mfg of trying to fool the buyer.
I would wager that the vast majority of the hobby is supported by foobs, and people who don't care that they are. Not that it matters how many of each group of modelers there are.
I can see layouts that operate a variety of railroad locos on the same layout from geeps, to SD90Macs, to 4-6-6-4 challengers and the owner could care less if one steam loco, diesel loco, or boxcar is more like another railroads equipment than the railroad its painted for.
But I do think they make assumptions about car length and turning radii.
is it realy that more expencive or is that inflation?
Doughless it was always narrow and short sighted for those others guys on other forums to criticize any particular product as being a foob, as well as accusing the mfg of trying to fool the buyer.
Perhaps it is narrow and short sited. Maybe a good way for you to deal with it is to realize those people are at a different point in their "journey" in the hobby and be patient or feel sorry for them or whatever helps you not get upset.
The way I see it, some people deal with the "awakening" (the sudden realization that the models they have been buying don't match real train cars), with shock and anger. Others maybe with disappointment, still others don't care at all.
Think of it maybe like an adult version of what some children may go through when they learn that people have been lying to them for years about Santa Clause. Some modelers often feel bitter and lied to by manufacturers about the models they are being sold.
But eventually they learn that it isn't an evil conspiracy to foist some false product on them, but rather an economic reality. Either they do it that way, and a lot of foobies are made, or they don't make models at all cause they can't sustain production financially.
Many of us probably went through, at minimum, a version of surprise and disappointment when we learned of foobies. I bought one of the Rio Grande Color Guide books from Morning Sun Books and began comparing my D&RGW models to the photo's and began selling off the foobies because I wanted models that matched real D&RGW freight cars. The good news is I also found there are many models that do match real D&RGW freight cars and while I had no layout, I enjoyed the research of trying to find models that match real freight cars.
Anyway, I'm long past being bitter and mad about the"narrow and short sightedness of those other guys who criticize products as being foobs yada yada". I don't see the point in rehashing all it all.
At some point we realize how the industry works, and we enjoy the hobby in what way works best for us. There is room for people of all stripes I'd like to think.
riogrande5761 Doughless it was always narrow and short sighted for those others guys on other forums to criticize any particular product as being a foob, as well as accusing the mfg of trying to fool the buyer. Perhaps it is narrow and short sited. Maybe a good way for you to deal with it is to realize those people are at a different point in their "journey" in the hobby and be patient or feel sorry for them or whatever helps you not get upset. The way I see it, some people deal with the "awakening" (the sudden realization that the models they have been buying don't match real train cars), with shock and anger. Others maybe with disappointment, still others don't care at all. Think of it maybe like an adult version of what some children may go through when they learn that people have been lying to them for years about Santa Clause. Some modelers often feel bitter and lied to by manufacturers about the models they are being sold. But eventually they learn that it isn't an evil conspiracy to foist some false product on them, but rather an economic reality. Either they do it that way, and a lot of foobies are made, or they don't make models at all cause they can't sustain production financially. Many of us probably went through, at minimum, a version of surprise and disappointment when we learned of foobies. I bought one of the Rio Grande Color Guide books from Morning Sun Books and began comparing my D&RGW models to the photo's and began selling off the foobies because I wanted models that matched real D&RGW freight cars. The good news is I also found there are many models that do match real D&RGW freight cars and while I had no layout, I enjoyed the research of trying to find models that match real freight cars. Anyway, I'm long past being bitter and mad about the"narrow and short sightedness of those other guys who criticize products as being foobs yada yada". I don't see the point in rehashing all it all. At some point we realize how the industry works, and we enjoy the hobby in what way works best for us. There is room for people of all stripes I'd like to think.
Well, this part of the conversation has gone too long for me since other people aren't generally the topic of my comments.
But complaining (not merely informing) that a producer made a car that is "inaccurate", by their narrow standards, immbeds the expectation that a producer should make a car that is "accurate" by their narrow standards.
It fails to see or care that producers have a bunch of other customers to worry about too. Its also a form of bullying producers, frankly.
Well if someone is bullying, tell the to take a hike. What's the line from the old aesops fables? "If you try to please everyone, you lose your donkey (insert other name for donkey)! The nicer the models we get, the harder it is to please people.
PRR8259 deleted
rrebell PRR8259 deleted Why did you delete it, you are right on but then the manufactures don't even say they match every proto type.
Why did you delete it, you are right on but then the manufactures don't even say they match every proto type.
An interesting point that gets to the heart of the thread, IMO.
The OP is complaining about a mfg deviating from a well-known standard that hobbyists have known for decades. The assumption that it will negotiate a 22 or 18 inch radius is baked in.
Complaining about a $50 car not matching the prototype is making a new assumption that it should, despite history saying that mfgs have never matched each prototype in a typical mass produced release.
Oh I wouldn't say that exactly, a few have made (as well as could be done) exact copies of one car and added lots of diferent car numbers and pain schemes, at least they matched one car (remember one that they used as a prototype but did not accually have one painted and available in that road name).
rrebell Oh I wouldn't say that exactly, a few have made (as well as could be done) exact copies of one car and added lots of diferent car numbers and pain schemes, at least they matched one car (remember one that they used as a prototype but did not accually have one painted and available in that road name).
Right, that's what I meant. IMO, a mfg designs a car with one prototype in mind and from that comes cars painted with different roads, but oftentimes its not possible to add or delete other details to match each prototype. So all of the other variants are called foobies by some, at least to a degree.
I deleted it because I thought it showed too much information about one particular model train manufacturer, and I've been burned in the past and do not want to upset my long time (45 years) friends and also my former employer. Things I said have been taken the wrong way in the past, resulting in nasty phone calls from some people on internet train forums, who may not completely grasp the whole story, to the manufacturer--calls the manufacturer should not ever have to deal with.
The one point to make is this: In real world prototype railroading, very very few models at any scale capture the prototype 100% in all its glory, because real world freight car and loco manufacturers have all kinds of running product changes within even the same model, and sometimes even within orders for a single railroad or freight car owner/lessor.
It is practically impossible to model every single variation of just an Alco C-628, and nobody in brass ever did it either, not for all roads and variations. So then which one road's engine do you decide to make "correct"?
Many are now asking for a new from ground up eastern road, Bethlehem Steel Car 100-ton open hopper. But many do not know the variations might not be doable. Reading for instance used a different end slope sheet angle on their cars that makes the Reading 100-ton open hopper different from all others...and I bet there are even more variations I don't know about. Also BSC sold freight car kits that prototype owners could then build out to suit...ie more variations.
100% may only be achievable for one specific order of a prototype.
Best Regards to all. Have a great weekend!
There was or is a person on this forum that accually copied every single prototype of an engine there were only about 12, but still quite a task. Seen in a freight car once but forget which forum.