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 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.
- Douglas
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.
-Dan
Builder of Bowser steam! Railimages Site
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.
Paul
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
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.
Rio Grande. The Action Road - Focus 1977-1983
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.
John
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........