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.
Rio Grande. The Action Road - Focus 1977-1983
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.
It takes an iron man to play with a toy iron horse.
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.
Chuck - Modeling in HO scale and anything narrow gauge
VOLKER LANDWEHRPerhaps these results of the LDSIG help with the selection of the proper cars.
Volker, Thanks for posting the chart, good info.
Regards, Peter
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.
Brass is it's own thing. You would be lucky to find a 40 footer that would make an 18" curve.
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?
- Douglas
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.
Brent
"All of the world's problems are the result of the difference between how we think and how the world works."
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.
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.
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.
Thanks and regards, Peter
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?