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
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.
Rio Grande. The Action Road - Focus 1977-1983
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.
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.
Disclaimer: This post may contain humor, sarcasm, and/or flatulence.
Michael Mornard
Bringing the North Woods to South Dakota!
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.
Buy some 18" and 22" sectional track at a swap meet (usually brass), put it together and test your cars on it.
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.
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
Seen that before, on the home front, tech on way so maybe the day will be better, started out great before the internet thing.
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.
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.
- Douglas
Seen a lot of companys have big issues with variable cost estimates, Airlines are notorius for that.
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.
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.
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.
It would naturally be helpful to know what minimum curves a model will run on; that is a reasonable request.
Elitism is a trap too easy fallen into.
Where does elitism fall into this disussion?
Old Fat Robert Douglas: I, respectfully, have to posit that while semantics may be at work here there is also some room for consumer error. "We" asked for a finely detailed 50 foot box car. We got a finely detailed fifty foot car - that won't properly work on some layouts. Is it really up to the mfg to make sure each car they build will not only work on your layout but also mine and 3 thousand others? And if the mfger sets up those three pieces of track and has somebody test each run of cars will the $50.00+ for that car all of a sudden become $60.00? I think we as end users can do a better job of informing the builders of what we are looking for in RTR products. And clarity in such matters - such as asking for a well detailed fifty foot box car that will operate well on 18 inch curves - would help all parties. Thank you. Old Fat Robert
Douglas: I, respectfully, have to posit that while semantics may be at work here there is also some room for consumer error. "We" asked for a finely detailed 50 foot box car. We got a finely detailed fifty foot car - that won't properly work on some layouts. Is it really up to the mfg to make sure each car they build will not only work on your layout but also mine and 3 thousand others? And if the mfger sets up those three pieces of track and has somebody test each run of cars will the $50.00+ for that car all of a sudden become $60.00? I think we as end users can do a better job of informing the builders of what we are looking for in RTR products. And clarity in such matters - such as asking for a well detailed fifty foot box car that will operate well on 18 inch curves - would help all parties. Thank you.
Old Fat Robert
The thread is running its course, but just to be clear. I don't think every 50 foot car has to run on 18 inch curves. Mfgs can do what they want, but I think they all know what the consumer assumes.
I'm just asking they simply test their designs.....not every car that leaves production, just each prototype should be fine......and then disclose the minimum radius on the box and on their advertisments.
Dorassoc1. On another note, I don't remember seeing any 4x8 layouts featured in MR -
Dorassoc1 I detect the tendency by some respondees in various threads to dismiss them as unworthy of our attention.
"One difference between pessimists and optimists is that while pessimists are more often right, optimists have far more fun."
Hello Dorassoc1
Can't help but wonder if I'd still be in the hobby if not for that 1st 4x6 plywood layout and the friendly proprietor of the long defunct LHS.
Never had the space for a large layout, never will, but of course it's about having fun with what you do have.
Checking out traction modeling showed me what fun can be had and excellence acheived in a small space with tight curves. Seeing 1960s photos of a SNR Steeple cab street running with a string of boxcars churned up far fetched dreams of that "next layout."
As pointed out not being able to operate certain cars on certain parts of a layout is prototypical and can add interest to operations while keeping one on their toes.
Elitism is a trap too easy fallen into. Fortunately it is few whom view other's layouts, work and modeling without respect.
Thanks and regards, Peter
riogrande5761beginning of August and about month later they were woosh, gone.
Wow! but doesn't surprise me considering how nice they are. Motrak Models makes a nice two pack wood chip load for these gons, but not sure if they still do.
Btw, For those with tight curves, the nicely done ExactRail 62' opera window center sill car will make a 18"R. does squeal a bit and does much better on a 20", albeit at slow switching speeds as part of a short cut of 50' cars. Not sayin' it looks real pretty and does require good operating couplers on the connecting cars. Oh, and plenty of room for the overhang.
HO-VeloBut that Gunderson wood chip Gon is a beaut., and glad that a little snip of an obscure detail made the car useable for my layout.
Yes the ER SP wood chip is gorgeous. I'm an SP fan from my years growing up in northern California although I think the wood chip cars were more Oregon runners, I finally sprung for my 1st before the recent run flew out the door at ExactRail. The got thim in around the beginning of August and about month later they were woosh, gone.
Because of underside brake rigging not only do the Athearn Genesis 50' PC&F boxcars not make it thru an 18"R, but also hang up on Blair Line wooden grade Xings. While not in the same league of say Moloco or Exactrail Platinum RTR, they are nice models and I do like those novel little spinning bearing caps and how the roof comes off ez for adding extra weight. Modifying and or removing the offending brake rigging shouldn't be too difficult for most modelers, and these are not near $50.
I like my PC&F Genesis box cars and I think mostly paid between $20 and maybe $30 for them. Exactrail Platinum I have paid $45 from ER direct in some cases and some on sale of much cheaper via Ebay.
Doughlessadvocating for a more informed consumer
Douglas, Couldn't agree more, hobby products or not.
Seems that ExactRail does some sort of testing as none of the 50' cars of theirs that I own have issue with 18"R. Considering theirs and the LDSIG rule of thumb I was pushing the envelope with the 60 footer. But that Gunderson wood chip Gon is a beaut., and glad that a little snip of an obscure detail made the car useable for my layout.
The few and far between mag. & Youtube rolling stock reviews are helpful, some more informative than others. Honest and comprehensive user reviews are always appreciated and of even more importance with the demise of the LHS and expansion of internet sales.
HO-Velo HO-Velo Can't hurt to pass along feedback to the Mfgs about making minimum radius recommendations available Received prompt & friendly responses from ExactRail & Moloco today. ExactRail says that while they aren't able to do testing that would determine minimum radius of all their cars a good rule of thumb across all Mfg. products is that cars 50' and under will negotiate 18-22" R, but cars longer than 50' need a minimum of 22"R. Sounds similar to the LDSIG table that Volker so kindly posted. Moloco replied that while they don't have minimum radiuses for their cars it is something that might need to be worked on. Have a good one, regards, Peter
HO-Velo Can't hurt to pass along feedback to the Mfgs about making minimum radius recommendations available
Received prompt & friendly responses from ExactRail & Moloco today.
ExactRail says that while they aren't able to do testing that would determine minimum radius of all their cars a good rule of thumb across all Mfg. products is that cars 50' and under will negotiate 18-22" R, but cars longer than 50' need a minimum of 22"R. Sounds similar to the LDSIG table that Volker so kindly posted.
Moloco replied that while they don't have minimum radiuses for their cars it is something that might need to be worked on.
Have a good one, regards, Peter
That was nice that they responded, but how in the world do they not have the ability to test the designs? Can't somebody set up 3 pieces of curved sectional track somewhere and simply check for wheel rub.
So they admit that a 50 foot boxcar, from anybody, should negotiate a 18 inch curve.
It reads like a pretty nonspecific response. Hmmm. Maybe some didn't even think about the issue before they decided to design and build their product.
If you look for something illustrating the the pure numbers in the LDSIG table google for "powerful new curve radius insights for any scales"Regards, Volker
HO-VeloCan't hurt to pass along feedback to the Mfgs about making minimum radius recommendations available
I run 18" curves and for the most part run 40' stuff, a few flat cars are longer but got rid of most of my 50' stuff, just didn't look right, most all highly detailed.
In response to the mention of the proliferation of ready-to-run engines and cars, I ask the following. Has anyone been to a hobby gathering such as a train show and looked at the hair color of most of those present? Yes. It is overwhelmingly grey in various shades, but still grey. One would believe that most of us have approached the stage where the spirit is willing but the flesh is not. At first I was darned if I was going to let some manufacturer pay somebody in China to do what I enjoyed doing when it came to my hobby, and make me pay for it by raising the prices.
Changes in vision and also manual dexterity and muscle control made it more and more difficult to turn out a model equal to what came out of a box from China. Even the plastic kits had risen to a level far beyond that of the shake-the -box kits we had built our railroads with. Career progression had left us with more disposable income so we moved on beyond the 4X8 in many ways. In other words, most of us are close to or, already retired and experiencing the limitations that seniority entails. That may be one of the reasons RTR is so popular now.
There seems to be a line of thought that NO freight car should cost $50 yet some people have no qualms about paying $250 for the latest sound/dcc equipped SD/ES whatever? Those who decry the 50 foot freight car with rigging that interferes with it running on 18 inch curves makes no mention of these sound/dcc locomotives with three axle trucks having problems with the 18 inch curves. The locomotives must scale out about 70 feet in length. How do they handle the curves a 50 foot boxcar won't?
Manufacturers are very open to suggestions as I found out a few years back. I E-mailed one of the biggies with a suggestion on their packaging once and got a response from the big cheese himself that it was a really good idea and would be implemented on future runs of product. We E-mailed back and forth and he asked if he could call me and we chatted a few times about other things I had suggested and he asked my opinion about a few things.
Another time I tried to have something sent to me from a much smaller company and the owner said they didn't ship to Canada because of the metric and French requirement on the packaging. I did a little research on it just for my own curiosity and informed him that for his particular line of products a simple 3" x 5" slip of paper added to the contents of the product would be all it took to be allowed to sell in Canada. I was also told him what I thought the increase in sales for him would be if he did.
Never talked to him again after that except for two years later when he sent me a huge box of a bunch of his companies products as a thank you. His sales to Canada were $80,000.00 that first year. Not huge but well worth it for him to implement.
It pays to contribute any way you can.
Brent
"All of the world's problems are the result of the difference between how we think and how the world works."