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!
-Dan
Builder of Bowser steam! Railimages Site
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
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
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....
Sheldon
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
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
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..........
ATLANTIC CENTRALRead up on Paul Mallery, he had other opinions
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'.
- Douglas
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.
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.
You're quick. I edited my post shortly after submitting.
I think I made my point. Many times. Time for me to move on.
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).
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.......
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.
DoughlessNo doubt about it. 50 and 60 foot cars that cost $50 should be able to run on sharp radii.
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 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
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.
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
rrebell Long as you got the $1000 plus for them.
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.
Rio Grande. The Action Road - Focus 1977-1983
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 $1000 plus for them.
Russell
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.
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.
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.
DoughlessThere have been some very narrow, short sighted comments in this thread about layouts and turning radius.
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
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.
Doughless This has become a really weird thread.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Switching layouts have tight turns, and they can be well detailed layouts.
Markets are full of different customers with different desires and priorities.
IRONROOSTER Reading this thread reminds me of how much an RTR hobby this has become.
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
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.
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.
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.
There are some tricks for getting rolling stock around sharp curves.
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.