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.
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.
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.
- Douglas
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.
Regards, Peter
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.
Rio Grande. The Action Road - Focus 1977-1983
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.
Paul
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.
Wayne
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.