Some people always ask me do I play with my trains. Depending on whom I'm speaking to, I tell them one of the following...
"Real men don't play with trains"
Or...
"Model railroading is not a hobby. Leave it to the professionals."
Wise choice! Especially in the prioritizing dept!
So building kits isn't "playing with trains for you?" Now I am confused, I thought you enjoyed building kits, which most people would equate with playing with trains - I'm pretty sure my wife would. Makes no difference to her - "bloody trains!" When I was building my last layout, benchwork, laying track etc., stuff I enjoy more than building model kits, I think my wife would have called it playing with trains. Just sayin...
Anyway, we each have our way of having fun with the hobby - Model Railroading is Fun!
Rio Grande. The Action Road - Focus 1977-1983
riogrande5761 Regarding prioritizing, are you saying you have time to play with trains more than me because you are better at prioritizing? If so, would you like to have a little chat with my wife?
Regarding prioritizing, are you saying you have time to play with trains more than me because you are better at prioritizing? If so, would you like to have a little chat with my wife?
Chuck - Modeling in HO scale and anything narrow gauge
Doughless The more attention that's drawn to it on a forum like this, the more likely the Mfgs will receive more comments.
The more attention that's drawn to it on a forum like this, the more likely the Mfgs will receive more comments.
Well, it will be interesting to see if the crusade has a result. Which manufacturers should I start checking packages for changes in labeling?
trwroute riogrande5761 Right, and being the skilled real-modeler you are,
riogrande5761 Right, and being the skilled real-modeler you are,
Right, and being the skilled real-modeler you are,
riogrande5761 Doughless What would additional printing on the box cost? 10 cents? Dunno, thats something which needs to be communicated to the manufacturers in question. Just sayin ...
Doughless What would additional printing on the box cost? 10 cents?
Dunno, thats something which needs to be communicated to the manufacturers in question. Just sayin ...
Sure. The more attention that's drawn to it on a forum like this, the more likely the Mfgs will recieve more comments.
I appreciate the OP for starting the thread.
- Douglas
DoughlessWhat would additional printing on the box cost? 10 cents?
riogrande5761 kasskaboose Defining the term "broad" is somewhat subjective, so thanks for avoiding a heated debate about that topic. Agreed. Using undefined terms such as "broad" without defining what broad is, is problematic because those terms are often relative to ones frame of reference, which varies. For example if a person is used to a 4x8 layout, then it could be anything above 22 inches might be considered broad, or at least what they may consider broad is a lower radius than others with a different layout standard or reference. For another person who is used to 30 inch minimums, they may feel a radius significantly larger than 30 inches to be broad - such as possibly 36, even 40+ inch radius. Even John Armstrong fell into that trap back when he wrote the book Track Planning for Realistic Operation, mainly because he defined broad based on the norms of his time, and norms often change, sometimes change a lot. John Armstrong defined (from memory) 18" as sharp, 24" as conventional, and 30" as Broad. Based on many norms I have observed over the past 25 years, it could be argued that 30" has evolved to become "conventional" and something larger, such as 36 or 40 inches may be considered "broad" In the final analysis, it's likely going to confuse issues by using such relative terms and best to avoid them, or at minimum, define them at the beginning of the discussion.
kasskaboose Defining the term "broad" is somewhat subjective, so thanks for avoiding a heated debate about that topic.
Defining the term "broad" is somewhat subjective, so thanks for avoiding a heated debate about that topic.
Agreed. Using undefined terms such as "broad" without defining what broad is, is problematic because those terms are often relative to ones frame of reference, which varies.
For example if a person is used to a 4x8 layout, then it could be anything above 22 inches might be considered broad, or at least what they may consider broad is a lower radius than others with a different layout standard or reference. For another person who is used to 30 inch minimums, they may feel a radius significantly larger than 30 inches to be broad - such as possibly 36, even 40+ inch radius.
Even John Armstrong fell into that trap back when he wrote the book Track Planning for Realistic Operation, mainly because he defined broad based on the norms of his time, and norms often change, sometimes change a lot.
John Armstrong defined (from memory) 18" as sharp, 24" as conventional, and 30" as Broad.
Based on many norms I have observed over the past 25 years, it could be argued that 30" has evolved to become "conventional" and something larger, such as 36 or 40 inches may be considered "broad"
In the final analysis, it's likely going to confuse issues by using such relative terms and best to avoid them, or at minimum, define them at the beginning of the discussion.
Agreed.
IIRC, Walthers and some other Mfgs explicitly state on their boxes that certain cars , like centerbeams, will have trouble with radii below 22 inches, making it specific.
Someone mentioned a standard being established. That would make sense. Each Mfg simply stating the minimum radius in which any car could be operated reliably.
What would additional printing on the box cost? 10 cents?
trwroute Jim, I wouldn't have expected any other reply from you! You've been in this hobby just as long as I have, and building kits has always been a big part of it, at least for me.
Jim, I wouldn't have expected any other reply from you! You've been in this hobby just as long as I have, and building kits has always been a big part of it, at least for me.
Building kits certainly was a big part of the hobby for many years and I might say, out of necessity, as there were few other option. Been there yes. Some may have enjoyed kit building and others did it because you had build kits to have a roster of rolling stock to run.
Then there was a convergence of conditions which were a "perfect storm" as it were, 1) many hobbyiests had less and less personal time due to family, jobs, commutes, honey-do lists, and the like, and 2) disposable income for many was on the rise, and 3) manufacturers realised there was a market for HQ RTR models and have risen to meet the demand.
As evidenced by lots of unbuilt kits hitting the secondary market during the past 10 years, clearly many never did have the time to build many of the kits they bought, which is another indicator of why RTR is popular now.
Of course we have been down this road a few times before so it should be a well established idea.
If I fork out the dough to buy one of the elite RTR cars, it dang sure better do what I want it to do. As was pointed out in an earlier comment, it isn't hard to make a few changes to make sure these cars are truly RTR.
Right, and being the skilled real-modeler you are, then making a detailed 50' box car function on 18 and 20 inch curves the OP mentioned should be no big deal.
In the end, people vote with their wallet and that is what manufacturers will respond to and seem to be continuing to respond to for the time being.
Brass is it's own thing. You would be lucky to find a 40 footer that would make an 18" curve.
It is, but it was also brought up, rightly so, as an example of the issues which occur when you try to make a model with a high degree of fidelity to the real thing. I would say it's relevent to the disucssion for that reason.
VOLKER LANDWEHRPerhaps these results of the LDSIG help with the selection of the proper cars.
Volker, Thanks for posting the chart, good info.
Regards, Peter
MisterBeasley My layout is low, a compromise to get more layout in a room with angled ceilings. I built a few Tichy flat cars and put in all the brake lines and components. I never see them, though, unless the cars derail and end up upside down.
My layout is low, a compromise to get more layout in a room with angled ceilings.
I built a few Tichy flat cars and put in all the brake lines and components. I never see them, though, unless the cars derail and end up upside down.
It takes an iron man to play with a toy iron horse.
riogrande5761 Since you brought it up, I'll address that comment as "fair game". If you can't figure it out, then those models are not marketed for you would be my guess, was well as those who do not find value in these models. Obviously they are selling judging by my observations of Moloco, for example, which sell in the $53-$56 range and many of the road names are sold out. It's a bit like saying, I can't figure out why someone would buy a Mercedes or a BMW, but I see tons of them on the road here where I live. I don't find value in them personally as a means of transportation but it's clear many do find value and/or can afford them. It just depends on what your "poison" is. I found out a set of lovely brass C&NW heavy weight passenger cars could not.
Since you brought it up, I'll address that comment as "fair game".
If you can't figure it out, then those models are not marketed for you would be my guess, was well as those who do not find value in these models. Obviously they are selling judging by my observations of Moloco, for example, which sell in the $53-$56 range and many of the road names are sold out.
It's a bit like saying, I can't figure out why someone would buy a Mercedes or a BMW, but I see tons of them on the road here where I live. I don't find value in them personally as a means of transportation but it's clear many do find value and/or can afford them. It just depends on what your "poison" is.
Jim, I wouldn't have expected any other reply from you! You've been in this hobby just as long as I have, and building kits has always been a big part of it, at least for me. If I fork out the dough to buy one of the elite RTR cars, it dang sure better do what I want it to do. As was pointed out in an earlier comment, it isn't hard to make a few changes to make sure these cars are truly RTR.
Besides, why worry too much about about having all the brake gear when so much of it is out of scale anyway?
DoughlessSome 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.
EDIT: My experience is that some of those 50 foot boxcars won't run on 24 inch radius curves. Don't know why we're focused on 18 inch radius.
Because the OP included 18 inch radius in his original complaint?
NeO6874 Doughless Afterall, Atlas has been producing freight cars with underside detail for a long time and they all work on 18 inch curves, IIRC. Why wouldn't the other Mfgs cars work also? If they're the ones I'm thinking about ... the "underbody detail" is brake reserviour triple valve maybe the major pipes (trainline, feeds to the two above-mentioned parts), while staying away from the trucks.
Doughless Afterall, Atlas has been producing freight cars with underside detail for a long time and they all work on 18 inch curves, IIRC. Why wouldn't the other Mfgs cars work also?
Afterall, Atlas has been producing freight cars with underside detail for a long time and they all work on 18 inch curves, IIRC. Why wouldn't the other Mfgs cars work also?
If they're the ones I'm thinking about ... the "underbody detail" is
That's true, but my Fox Valley 50 foot boxcar wouldn't negotiate a 24 inch radius curve due to the trainline (I think) being angled towards the truck. I don't know if fidelity demands that it runs towards the trucks at an angle, or if Atlas chooses to run it down the center to create truck clearance.
My point is not about the choices modelers make. They're all good. Its about what the Mfgs knowingly do. It seems to me the category of customer that buys high fidelity rolling stock falls into a few categories ( maybe more?)
1. Own a large radius railroad and inherently know before purchase that underbody detail makes the car only applicable to large radius layouts.
2. Collector who either displays the car or doesn't open the box.
3. The guy who buys it for the "future" layout, only to discover three years after he accumulating 50 of these cars finds out none of them run on his planned layout.
4. The guy with a small radius layout who buys a few then stops because he has to remove the detail he paid for.
I think customer's #2 and #3 keeps these Mfgs in business. (and helps #1 get what they want at an affordable price)
So a disclaimer on the package and website would seem appropriate.
trwroute I still can't figure out why some would pay $50 for an HO scale freight car. But, that's for another thread...
I still can't figure out why some would pay $50 for an HO scale freight car. But, that's for another thread...
Having said that, I did purchase 3 of the high end RTR cars from two of the top manufacturers. None of the three were up to my standards with crooked mounted brake wheels, ladders, etc, so I sold them. I will stick with my kit built stock, then I only have myself to blame if they don't look right. Plus, I will make sure they work the way I want before they are finished. A 50' car should be able to negotiate an 18" curve...
A 50' car should be able to negotiate an 18" curve...
Fair enough. Some would also say an 85' passenger car "should" negotiate a 30" curve, but I found out a set of lovely brass C&NW heavy weight passenger cars could not.
The moral of the story is modelers need to have realistic expectations and reality is some models will not meet them; some models are manufactured with certain hobbyists in mind.
As for you sticking with kits, I would guess Obi Wan would do the Jedi Hand way and say, "these high end models" are not the droids you are looking for". Move along, move along.
Having said that, I did purchase 3 of the high end RTR cars from two of the top manufacturers. None of the three were up to my standards with crooked mounted brake wheels, ladders, etc, so I sold them. I will stick with my kit built stock, then I only have myself to blame if they don't look right. Plus, I will make sure they work the way I want before they are finished.
-Dan
Builder of Bowser steam! Railimages Site
doctorwayne ...I make sure that the rods, which would supposedly operate the brakes, are not in any way going to interfere with the wheels or with truck rotation... ...and from the side, if anyone bothers to notice, it still looks as if everything goes to where it should... Wayne
...I make sure that the rods, which would supposedly operate the brakes, are not in any way going to interfere with the wheels or with truck rotation...
...and from the side, if anyone bothers to notice, it still looks as if everything goes to where it should...
Wayne
Thanks Wayne. That is the point.
Some Mfgs are advertising how more accurate their models are than others, but fail to disclose the compromise made for that extra fidelity. JMO.
Again, JMO.
There's a large difference between a car running on a certain radius and it operating well. I commend those who can get a car to operate on an 18" radius despite suggestions to keep the curves broader. Defining the term "broad" is somewhat subjective, so thanks for avoiding a heated debate about that topic.
While fun to play the game of "how tight to make a curve," there are standards for ensuring different car lengths can function on curves. Publishing this information on the boxes of cars might increase the cost of manufacturing. It might also encourage a level of standardization sorely needed to reduce frustration.
riogrande5761 More detail, expect larger radius curves will be needed or mods to the rolling stock. Many in the hobby for years know this already.
More detail, expect larger radius curves will be needed or mods to the rolling stock. Many in the hobby for years know this already.
Perhaps many, but not most. Highly detailed underside RTR models have not been around a very long time. I'd wager most who bought them let them sit in the box for a long time, displayed them, used them on a switching layout, etc. before they ran them and found out they didn't work as assumed.
HO-Velo Can't hurt to pass along feedback to the Mfgs about making minimum radius recommendations available, at least on their website car descriptions. A reasonable thing to know before deciding which car to bust out another $50+ on, regardless of model railroading experience, layout size, or era modeled. Thanks and regards, Peter
Can't hurt to pass along feedback to the Mfgs about making minimum radius recommendations available, at least on their website car descriptions. A reasonable thing to know before deciding which car to bust out another $50+ on, regardless of model railroading experience, layout size, or era modeled.
Thanks and regards, Peter
So rather than complain to fellow modelers, why don't you give feedback directly to the manufacturers? Afterall, it's them you want to feed the customer with more detailed specs about how tight a curve you can get away with.
NHTX The modeler that is disappointedwhen his true-to-scale, $50+ freight car won't negotiate a train set curve, should realize that although all prototype equipment was made to the same "scale", there were places certain equipment could not be used. ... The manufacturers are producing prototypically accurate models that do not compromise anything EXCEPT the trucks and in some cases, couplers and draft gear boxes. When a person lays out $50 for one of these masterpieces, it is expected to replicate the real thing. If the manufacturer brought out a line of three deck enclosed auto racks 40 feet long, how many would you buy? How about 40 foot streamlined passenger cars? They would be modified to be totally compatible with 18 inch radius curves. Reflection of the prototype? No. The problem is, the prototype and thus the models have surpassed the 18 inch radius curve and sadly the trusty old 4X8 sheet of plywood.
The modeler that is disappointedwhen his true-to-scale, $50+ freight car won't negotiate a train set curve, should realize that although all prototype equipment was made to the same "scale", there were places certain equipment could not be used. ...
The manufacturers are producing prototypically accurate models that do not compromise anything EXCEPT the trucks and in some cases, couplers and draft gear boxes. When a person lays out $50 for one of these masterpieces, it is expected to replicate the real thing. If the manufacturer brought out a line of three deck enclosed auto racks 40 feet long, how many would you buy? How about 40 foot streamlined passenger cars? They would be modified to be totally compatible with 18 inch radius curves. Reflection of the prototype? No.
The problem is, the prototype and thus the models have surpassed the 18 inch radius curve and sadly the trusty old 4X8 sheet of plywood.
This ^^^ x 1000
It's a often a nasty surprise when hobbyists are still following the 4x8 sheet of plywood format and find out a toy trainset style layout is best for running toy trainset type rolling stock - as mentioned by NHTX the compromises made in other scales to shoehorn those trains around extremely tight curves.
IMO, customers expect manufacturers to warn them about everything but when you buy $50 freight cars, generally at that price point you are getting a scale masterpiece which, for most of us at least, it's common sense that a 4x8 absolute minimum curve format layout isn't going to play nicely with high fidelity scale models.
Sure, most have always expected 50' box car to operate on a 4x8 with tight curves (and 18" curves ARE very sharp in HO), but traditionally the rolling stock operated on those layouts has had comprises engineered into them, even some of the better detailed RTR cars. But then when you get into the high end like Moloco, Tangent etc. where there are less and less compromises because people who pay those prices are expecting high fidelity.
And the OP also mentioned 60' rolling stock; quite frankly 60' freight cars on an 18" curve, even omitting the high fidelity cars, is pushing it, so I'm definitely not surprised those are not user friendly.
As mentioned, about the only compromises still there are the wheels (usually standard 0.110 profile or sometimes semi-scale 0.088 profile and Kadee couplers. The only things left to go even closer to fidelity would be Proto 87 with correct to scale wheels and couplers (Seargents?) and there you have to have Proto 87 track or things aren't going to go well.
http://www.proto87.com/What_is_Proto87.html
So to the OP, rather than complain to forum folks, go directly to the manufacturers. I'm not sure they will add verbage to the packaging or advertising but you never know. I wouldn't be surprised if manufacturers were forced to list minimum radius for a 60' box car that it would be 22 inches, and the OP listed 18 and 20 inch curves, to there you go, no sale. But frankly, the high fidelity manufacturers probably wouldn't lose many sales because they aren't aiming at the 4x8 crowed.
Regarding the original complaint; here are things you have control over:
1) make modifications to the rolling stock if you can't build a layout with larger radius curves (which sort of defeats the purpose of buying high fidelity rolling stock to a degree) or,
2) rebuild your layout with larger curves and break free of the 4x8 straight jacket. Even a 5x9 which is still quite small, would allow you to go with 24 and 26.5 inch curves which probably would make significant difference, because at low radiuses, every inch you can increase yields much bigger dividends than every inch at higher radiuses.
The Layout Design Special Interest Group published rule of thumbs for the ratio of radius to car length over couplers and the consequences: http://www.ldsig.org/ldsigwiki/hints-tips/curve_radius_rule-of-thumb
Here is the table from the link. The website contains additionally some examples.
Ratio Description2X - Some model equipment may be able to track reliably on 2X their length, but this is generally considered pushing it.
3X - Making your curve radius at least 3X the length of your longest cars gets reliable tracking around curves, but looks toylike.
4X - If you make your curve radius at least 4X, your longest cars will look much better on curves.
5X - If you make your curve radius at least 5X, your longest cars will couple easily with minimal manual fiddling of the couplers.
This measurement is based on the length of your longest car (coupler to coupler).
In another publication two more ratios were given:
3.5 x - Equipment will look less toy-like when viewed from inside the curve
Perhaps these results of the LDSIG help with the selection of the proper cars.Regards, Volker
The modeler that is disappointedwhen his true-to-scale, $50+ freight car won't negotiate a train set curve, should realize that although all prototype equipment was made to the same "scale", there were places certain equipment could not be used. Look at tinplate curves. What was the solution of Lionel and American Flyer? Shorter than prototype cars, on Talgo trucks! Back in the days when everybody in HO was relying on Varney Docksides to power their short strings of 40 foot cars, talgo trucks were the "standard" for a lot of ready to run equipment. Curves as sharp as 15 inches were available in snap-track and 22 inches was considered broad radius. Code 100 brass rail, fiber tie strips, pizza cutter flanges, horn-hook couplers were the "standard" of that era.
Fast forward to today. Find any of the former "standard" items for sale new, today? No. Instead, just like any other human endeavor, progress has long since passed them by. Who today lays their code 100 brass rail on compressed paper tie strips? How many 40 foot boxcars were in the last prototype freight train you saw? Why do the real railroads still have four axle locomotives, instead of everything being six axled? Because not all equipment can go everywhere. There are curves and other track issues that prohibit it.
The manufacturers are producing prototypically accurate models that do not compromise anything EXCEPT the trucks and in some cases, couplers and draft gear boxes. When a person lays out $50 for one of these masterpieces, it is expected to replicate the real thing. If the manufacturer brought out a line of three deck enclosed auto racks 40 feet long, how many would you buy? How about 40 foot streamlined passenger cars? They would be modified to be totally compatible with 18 inch radius curves. Reflection of the prototype? No. The problem is, the prototype and thus the models have surpassed the 18 inch radius curve and sadly the trusty old 4X8 sheet of plywood.
While I only occasionally bother adding fairly well-detailed brake gear to a freight car, like on this scratchbuilt model of a Seaboard 1932 ARA recommended design...
kasskaboosecars from the modern era
Yes these are modern era cars, and yeah, RTR doesn't mean full-proof.
Does seem ironic that the brake rigging on these recently purchased cars make them unrealiable where such details are more noticeable, like a few spurs on my small switching layout.
Though any highly detailed 50' car with underside brake detail might be suspect in negotiating an 18"R curve, there are many that do so right out of the box.
Everything I have runs on 18 inch curves. That's mostly 40 foot freight cars, some 50 footers. I don't press my luck with long well cars or giant tankers which are beyond my era anyway.
I've got some longer Rivarossi coaches I've tinkered with, but I relented and re-did the track to a true 18 inch curves.
In general, the more detail, the more likely tight curves may cause problems. Curves in the 18 to 20 inch radius range are basically train set curves and are extremely sharp by today's standards. Using such tight curves is going to inherently going to force compromises in 1/87 scale versions of trains. I always strongly recommend increasing radius as much as possible; every bit helps. Otherwise expect limitations to be a fact.
It reminds me of my computer gaming days when people would they to run games with all the "eye candy" on a minimum spec computer and be disappointed with the results.
Years ago I built a layout in my garage 16x19 ft with 30 inch minimum curves, which I though we're reasonably broad. A friend brought his brass heavy weight CNW heavy weight passenger cars over. Couldn't run them as the truck side frames shorted out against the frame. Surprised and disappointed.