lvanhen wrote:I remember reading somewhere that a majority of us modelers that have a layout, have a 4'x8' layout (just happens to be the size of a sheet of plywood!) This restricts us to a 22" radius unless we want to hang half of the track off the edge! I recently bought 3 Walthers heavyweight passenger cars. After installing the lighting kits and about 20 figures in each car, I found out they are designed to run on 24" minimum radius! I've gotten one running on 22" after much work on the center sill & trucks with my Dremel, and am not looking forward to another 2-3 hours to fix the other 2! I have an Athern Challenger, a Lionel veranda turbine, and other large cars & engines that not only run fine on my 22" outer loop, but just fine on my 19" inner loop! Anyone else with the same problem?
Easy to fix IF you have the space..Add a foot on each side that should give you enough room for 24" curves.Can't add a foot on each side? Add 1 foot to a side instead you will still be able to have 24" curves.
Larry
Conductor.
Summerset Ry.
"Stay Alert, Don't get hurt Safety First!"
Not since I went to 30" min!
This is on 38" and a big boy. You can reslice the 4x8 into roadbed. How much right of way do you have? Can you go around the room? The Challenger is just as bad looking on 28" as the big boy looks good on 38"
lvanhen wrote:I recently bought 3 Walthers heavyweight passenger cars. After installing the lighting kits and about 20 figures in each car, I found out they are designed to run on 24" minimum radius!
I've gotten one running on 22" after much work on the center sill & trucks with my Dremel, and am not looking forward to another 2-3 hours to fix the other 2!
I have an Athern Challenger, a Lionel veranda turbine, and other large cars & engines that not only run fine on my 22" outer loop, but just fine on my 19" inner loop!
When I concluded that my 22" radii were too restrictive for my evolution in the hobby, I added an 8" shelf along both sides of my layout and widened my curves up to 26". It didn't improve the looks to a gratifying degree, but it meant that I could increase speed, increase engine size, and run my three new Walthers heavyweights...without hacking and slashing.
As suggested above, even a 5" shelf width added to one side of your layout would offer you room to move up to 24". Not only can you run unaltered heavyweights, but you could run larger non-articulated steamers like a C&O T1 or the PRR J1.
Texas Zepher wrote: lvanhen wrote:I recently bought 3 Walthers heavyweight passenger cars. After installing the lighting kits and about 20 figures in each car, I found out they are designed to run on 24" minimum radius! It does say right on the outside end of the box 24" minimum.The real solution is to purchase equipment that will fit the layout.
From the far, far reaches of the wild, wild west I am: rtpoteet
Not much to add to all of the above comments. This issue is why I plan on a 6 X 10 island layout (would do an around the walls layout, but basement not finished) which will allow me to do 30 and 32" curves on my mainlines (I'm basing it on one of Wescott's 101 trackplans book plans)--these are considered "broad" curves, and thus can handle big steamers/passenger cars if I decide to use them. You're in a tough position, I know, but in HO you're stuck with the above reccs.--add a side extension, or limit length of locos/rolling stock.
Jim
Is it any wonder that this forum is going down the drain.
Yes, Ivanhen made a mistake when he bought the passenger cars. I'm sure we all have at some point especially when buying over the web. He doesn't need ten people essentially calling him an idiot for not reading the fine print.
What does this achieve other than turn people off to a forum whose membership and activity levels have already been dealt heavy blows by a botched web site overhaul?
lvanhen wrote:I must take back my last post - at least Whitman 500 understood the drift of my original post. To some of you critics 1. I have 2 other Walther's heavyweights that do go around 22". 2. I have a 40 year+ collection of mostly UP cars/engines etc, and have no intention of "scrapping" any of it. 3. To paraphrase Whitmann 500 and my parents, "if you don't have something good to say about someone/something, SHUT UP!!
lvanhen wrote:Thanks for the interest, but so far all of the replies miss the point that 1. most of us have 4x8 layouts, 2. the Walthers box & website do not state min. 24" radius, 3. I run the equipment I like, even though it may look bad on the curves, 4. my layout is for my grandson's and my enjoyment, not to count rivets!
I have recently purchased several Walthers Heavyweight Passenger cars and have had problems with them on 24" radii turns. Fortunately I have the space to construct my future layout with minimum 28" mainline Radii.
To me you have two options. 1) modify the cars like you have done or 2) find a way to go with larger radii curves.
Bill
"Apparently you only wanted to rant against Walthers"
Wrong IronRooster - I just wish they and all other manufacturers would be more clear in stating operating limits on their products. We see many products, including Atherns' Challenger, that state they will run on 18" radius, so when something that is simple compared to an articulated engine doesn't state 24" or larger, you figure it will work on 20 or 22". I have probably over 100 Walthers products, from engines to cars to buildings, and have been very happy with almost all of them. My complaint on this, is their website & box do not state min. radius - all manufacturers should do so.
Bill54 wrote: From what I've been reading on this website seems to contradict the statement that most modelers have 4x8 layouts. I tend to believe that layouts are getting larger therefore the radii is larger. Bill
From what I've been reading on this website seems to contradict the statement that most modelers have 4x8 layouts. I tend to believe that layouts are getting larger therefore the radii is larger.
Bill,I am inclined to disagree with that..The reason being forums ISN'T the best place to gather data from due to the smoke and mirror replies..You see we have no way of knowing if a person is blowing smoke or on the up and up and this doesn't include the follow the leader type reply or the flip flop reply...
IMHO if any thing the 4x8 seems to be the average size layout for the more common modeler after all not everybody has the space,funds or knowledge to build and maintain a king size layout even a modest size bedroom layout isn't cheap to build or maintain.
whitman500 wrote: Is it any wonder that this forum is going down the drain. Yes, Ivanhen made a mistake when he bought the passenger cars. I'm sure we all have at some point especially when buying over the web. He doesn't need ten people essentially calling him an idiot for not reading the fine print. What does this achieve other than turn people off to a forum whose membership and activity levels have already been dealt heavy blows by a botched web site overhaul?
A forum, by definition, is a place where information is exchanged. Views are stated and refuted or supported. Our originator's opening remark seemed clear to me; his question, after a preamble, was open ended. That means it seeks an affirmative or a negative response...i.e., "yes" or "no." Contrary to your opinion, which I do not share, that this forum is going down hill, several people took the time to offer much more than "yes" or "no", I among them. Some were terse, I agree, and that is not my style...usually. The majority related their own solutions as a gesture of good will.
If that is what makes this forum lamentable to you, I don't know what would make it laudable. However, chipping at the contributions of others in a churlish manner does, in my opinion, contribute to the reduction in appeal here. I am sorry that you feel you must contribute to this degradation of our forum. Perhaps you would be happier elsewhere...?
selector wrote: whitman500 wrote: Is it any wonder that this forum is going down the drain. Yes, Ivanhen made a mistake when he bought the passenger cars. I'm sure we all have at some point especially when buying over the web. He doesn't need ten people essentially calling him an idiot for not reading the fine print. What does this achieve other than turn people off to a forum whose membership and activity levels have already been dealt heavy blows by a botched web site overhaul? A forum, by definition, is a place where information is exchanged. Views are stated and refuted or supported. Our originator's opening remark seemed clear to me; his question, after a preamble, was open ended. That means it seeks an affirmative or a negative response...i.e., "yes" or "no." Contrary to your opinion, which I do not share, that this forum is going down hill, several people took the time to offer much more than "yes" or "no", I among them. Some were terse, I agree, and that is not my style...usually. The majority related their own solutions as a gesture of good will. If that is what makes this forum lamentable to you, I don't know what would make it laudable. However, chipping at the contributions of others in a churlish manner does, in my opinion, contribute to the reduction in appeal here. I am sorry that you feel you must contribute to this degradation of our forum. Perhaps you would be happier elsewhere...?
My comment was in reference to the several people whose replies were basically: "read the side of the box next time you idiot." What makes this worse is that as eventually came out, the information was not on the side of the box or the web site and so Ivanhen's mistake was perfectly legitimate. However, none of these people bothered to find this out before jumping all over him.
As for the "helpful" comments that several people supposedly made, Ivanhen specifically said at the beginning of this post that he did not have room to expand. Yet people, including you, just kept saying build a bigger layout. Were these helpful solutions?
If you don't think that approach is turning people off to this forum, read how he felt about the responses that were made in his post.
I have been a reasonably frequent visitor to this forum for about two years and what I have found, increasingly, is that when I post a question a substantial minority of the responses are cheap shots or attempted cheap shots. This is not about debate or an open exchange of ideas. It's just a game of gotcha played at other people's expense. It has made me less likely to ask questions or visit the site.
And as for you, can you not see your own hypocrisy? You lecture me on being more open-minded to people's opinions and then tell me in your last line that if I don't agree with you I should leave the forum and never come back. It's people like you that are driving new members away and destroying the hobby.
lvanhen wrote: "Apparently you only wanted to rant against Walthers" Wrong IronRooster - I just wish they and all other manufacturers would be more clear in stating operating limits on their products. We see many products, including Atherns' Challenger, that state they will run on 18" radius, so when something that is simple compared to an articulated engine doesn't state 24" or larger, you figure it will work on 20 or 22". I have probably over 100 Walthers products, from engines to cars to buildings, and have been very happy with almost all of them. My complaint on this, is their website & box do not state min. radius - all manufacturers should do so.
Since we MRs are always operating on non-scale curves, it stands to reason that compromises have to be made to get scale equipment to operate on our non-scale curves. The NMRA RP quoted by another poster gives some good guidelines that will keep couplers inside the outer rail on a curve, and keep overhang reasonable.
Mnaufacturers tend to be loath to post a minimum radius (except when it is a selling feature), and I don't blame them. A posted minimum radius automatically loses sales to anybody with smaller radius curves, even though modelers such as yourself can modify the piece to work on a smaller curve. This results in folks in your situation proclaiming that the posted minimum is wrong, but neglecting to mention it took truck-mounted couplers and under-frame modifications to get there. Gets the manufacturer in trouble. On the other hand, experienced modelers realize that they may not want the compromises made to the under-body detailing, and truck and coupler mountings to achieve an abnormally small minimum radius. Again, lost sales and bad press (example the IHC full length passenger cars).
You cite articulated locomotives as an example. The prototype deliberately used articulation to enable large locomotives to get around reasonable to sharp curves. Even so, models of articulated engines deliberately do not follow the prototype in the front engine hinging to achieve an even small minimum radius. In the mass market locomotive world, not being able to run on 4x8 curves is a sure way to kill sales, even though it means non-protoypical accommodations and ugly overhangs. But brass models of large steam with their limited runs were able to ignore the 4x8 curves to achieve a more accurate look.
Walters chose to make more accurate models of passenger cars than previous competition, which meant a higher minimum radius. Would you have purchased the cars in question anyway had you known in advance the minimum radius was 24"? If your answer is yes, then Walters has no reason to publish the minimum radius. If your answer is no, then by publishing the radius Walters may have lost a sale that would have worked out anyway. I say that because you were willing to spend several hours modifying the car to run on your layout instead of returning it.
my thoughts, your choices
Fred W
Actually, Whitman, his original post only states he has a 4x8 layout and his question was has anybody had same problems with too small radius-too large car problems, To which he received both answers to expand and smug remarks about read first, etc.
Then, he stated he has space limitations and must stick with 4x8. Then, went off on remarks being made.
Then, he states he's just upset that makers don't put radius limitations on packaging. Which, is rightly so, I personally wish they'd put built/repaint, etc dates on packaging and catalogs to help when ordering specific prototype cars.
So, maybe had he said last remark first, people wouldn't be disagreeing over what this forums for. thanks, Mike
lvanhen wrote: My complaint on this, is their website & box do not state min. radius - all manufacturers should do so.
Ivanhen,
To directly answer your question... Yes I've had the exact same problem. I ordered the passenger cars in question from Walthers over the Internet. There was no mention on the website or in their catalogue of the 24" requirement. The box (which I saw only after receiving the cars) DID mention the 24" requirement (too late for me). The cars, of course, wouldn't stay on the track. I returned all six. I lost. Walthers lost.
As far as the Walthers "tell us what you think" link above... I mentioned to the customer service rep when I was arranging the return, that it would have been helpful if the website or the catalogue had mentioned the requirement. He said, "Yes, we should do that." This was two years ago. At that time I didn't know an NMRA RP or an 85-foot likely radius from a gorilla. I was just starting out, and just wanted some really nice passenger cars for my 4X8 -- bult with Atlas sectional Code 100 track: largest curve: 22".
I agree it would have been nice to state the minimum radius. It sounds like you did the only thing possible and modify the cars. The next one will probably go much faster and easier.
CHOICES:
SELL / TRADE eqipment for smaller 4X8 size HO engines & cars.
ADD 1'X8' board to one side and rebuild curves up to 28"r. One adds more expense; the other adds more work. Your choice.
(3rd choice: 'N' scale).