Trains.com

Subscriber & Member Login

Login, or register today to interact in our online community, comment on articles, receive our newsletter, manage your account online and more!

operating radius

4873 views
72 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    June 2004
  • From: Pacific Northwest
  • 3,864 posts
Posted by Don Gibson on Monday, September 18, 2006 5:54 PM
 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.

Rather than blame your mistake on Walthers, return it to your seller for refund. Dealers keep the largest portion of your money, + most legit Walthers dealers give return or exchange privileges. So why haven't you?

 

Don Gibson .............. ________ _______ I I__()____||__| ||||| I / I ((|__|----------| | |||||||||| I ______ I // o--O O O O-----o o OO-------OO ###########################
  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Monday, September 18, 2006 6:04 PM
If you are limited to the 4 x8 with no possibility of expansion then you have to live with certain rules of thumb.  In general you will be restricted to 50' or so long freight cars, 4 axle diesels, and shorter steam engines and short passenger cars like the ones Athearn made.  Of course there are exceptions to the above - but once you stray away from the above rules of thumb you are taking a risk that the equipment won't fit.  There is plenty of equipment that will fit on a 4x8 - you just have to be more dilligent. You also should consider - even though you don'y hae the room now- you may have it in the future - so that you can consider purchasing, if not running larger equipment on your home layout - this is why the make club and friend's layouts :)
  • Member since
    May 2004
  • From: Ohio
  • 1,615 posts
Posted by Virginian on Monday, September 18, 2006 6:40 PM

Over the years I have run into the same problem you have at different times.  On one layout (two ago) all my cars and a couple of locomotives would not work in part of the yard.  I modified most of the cars and did not run the locos on that trackage.  I had an under table reversing loop once that I had to modify a bunch of cars to work on, and I had to add another reversing loop on the table to handle some locos after a brass steamer took "the plunge" onto a concrete floor on the under table loop.

Some learnings in this hobby are painful.  Yes, if we thought long and hard enough to ask almost all the right questions first we could save some heartache, but some of us don't.

The only perfect person died about 2000 years ago, and look what they did to Him !!!!

What could have happened.... did.
  • Member since
    October 2004
  • From: Colorful Colorado
  • 8,639 posts
Posted by Texas Zepher on Monday, September 18, 2006 7:51 PM
 lvanhen wrote:
Thanks for the interest, but so far all of the replies miss the point that 1. most of us have 4x8 layouts
Yes I guess I do miss the point.  Because for years and years the hobby industry has been catering to 4x8 layouts and 18" radius curves.  Only recently have manufacturers started making better looking better running equipment for the non-4x8 modeler. 

2. the Walthers box & website do not state min. 24" radius,
Sorry everyone else, normally I don't do rebuttal posts, just take my lumps and move on, but this is basically calling me and others a liar.  I just looked through every Walthers passenger car box I could find.  I own bunches.  Everyone (light weight, heavy weight, special Superchief set) has either one, the other, or BOTH of the markings below:   So unless I have a very bizzare subset of cars, or unless you just purchased your's and they have changed the packaging in the last two months they do state 24" radius.


[size=1][blue]as normal click on the image to enlarge[/blue][/size=1]

3.  I run the equipment I like, even though it may look bad on the curves
From the original post it sounds like this is the philosophy that is giving you the problem.  I was trying to suggest some equipment that looks similar to that which you had, but will run on 18" curves.  If you want to insist on "running what you want" even if it doesn't meet specifications then you can expect the problems you are experiencing.   My other suggestion was to maybe prevent you from doing all the work you described and then still not have them work right.  But if you want to do bunches of work and find out at the end it won't work.  More power to you.  Just don't rag on manuafacturer's that are trying to rise above the 4x8 mentality, there are still plenty out there that that is their focus. 

P.S.  Yes, I do have several 4x8 and smaller layouts.  No, I don't have this problem.
  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Wednesday, September 20, 2006 9:52 PM

 Bill H. wrote:
 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. 


To put that another way, would you buy 17" tires for your car which has 15" wheels? Why not?

A little forethough is advantageous...

Hey now... easy on the man. I have 8 of the critters with 2 more coming. I am setting on 28" but may have to go to 30. My heavyweights have been loosened up and probably can take less than 24, but I would not want to try it.

I may be old school but if I want to run the largest model I own, I must plan for it's minimum needs adequately. Ive seen my BLI J1 squeak and wheeze around 22'ish.. maybe 23 inches or so. Painful. Hence the 28" and 30" minimum. I could go to N scale but it's too small and Im saving O scale for when I lose eyesight in my aging years.

I think for many years we are stuck in a 18" and 22" rut it's time larger radius gets it's due.

  • Member since
    July 2006
  • 134 posts
Posted by SunsetLimited on Wednesday, September 20, 2006 10:33 PM

There really isn't much made today in plastic that can't run on a 4x8, exception being some steamers and heavyweight pass cars/automax car carriers. All the diesels made today in plastic can run on 22" curves and most rolling stock with good trackwork runs fine (i run walthers budd's on 22" track with no issue at all at any speed i wish short of them flying off the rails) I don't have a 4x8 anymore but we have all been there and they do make nice layouts when room is tight, i'll take a 4x8 looper over a point to point shelf anyday.

  • Member since
    September 2005
  • From: Middle Tennessee
  • 453 posts
Posted by Bill H. on Friday, September 22, 2006 8:01 AM
 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!







  • Member since
    January 2002
  • From: Portland, OR
  • 3,119 posts
Posted by jfugate on Friday, September 22, 2006 12:31 PM
The Layout Design SIG Wiki has a great article about what curve radius is needed to run what. I think this little piece ought to be required reading for all newcomers -- this is some great stuff!

See:
http://ldsig.org/wiki/index.php/Curve_radius_rule-of-thumb

Joe Fugate Modeling the 1980s SP Siskiyou Line in southern Oregon

  • Member since
    May 2002
  • 7 posts
Posted by wejen on Friday, September 22, 2006 2:45 PM
Something no one has mentioned is a point to point layout. Cut that 4 X 8 sheet in half and put the two pieces into an L shaped corner layout. Now you can move those long cars back and forth, as you make up a passanger consist that will, sometime, go out on the line. 
  • Member since
    July 2006
  • 134 posts
Posted by SunsetLimited on Friday, September 22, 2006 3:04 PM
You would have to model an earlier era and not something modern with a shelf layout that small, your not going to be building any large passenger trains on that kind of layout, i guess you could model some pike sized trains as MRR suggests from time to time. You really need a 20x20 or larger if you want to model normal sized passenger trains in a point to point type setup. I have an 18ft looper and my superliner and budd trains take the entire length of one side, we are talking 2-3 engines, a baggage, and at least 10 cars, thats about 15ft long right there, if you run an auto train or any type of mail or reefer service on the same train then you are talking longer. The room involved is what turns most off of modelling passenger, its a shame to because its really a fun thing to model!
  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Friday, September 22, 2006 4:38 PM

Eventually my passenger set will make it onto the internet on video. If I do it right, no one will know that 3 feet away is this wall and 7 feet that a-away is the other wall and the train is likely to be as long as two walls put together.

I already have an extensive mail, milk and express, those run as a extra section.

  • Member since
    June 2004
  • From: Pacific Northwest
  • 3,864 posts
Posted by Don Gibson on Friday, September 22, 2006 8:53 PM
Whitman wrote ...

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?"

But that's not quite what he said

"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! ... Anyone else with this problem?"
NO mention of "room'.

So aside from complaining about other's posts, WHAT would be your "helpful" solution ?

 

Don Gibson .............. ________ _______ I I__()____||__| ||||| I / I ((|__|----------| | |||||||||| I ______ I // o--O O O O-----o o OO-------OO ###########################
  • Member since
    June 2003
  • From: AIKEN S.C. & Orange Park Fl.
  • 2,047 posts
Posted by claycts on Friday, September 22, 2006 10:25 PM

 jfugate wrote:
The Layout Design SIG Wiki has a great article about what curve radius is needed to run what. I think this little piece ought to be required reading for all newcomers -- this is some great stuff!

See:
http://ldsig.org/wiki/index.php/Curve_radius_rule-of-thumb

Joe, NOW YOU TELL ME!!!  I am at 30"min and should have went at LEAST 36". Thank you for the link. (sorry for the brief hyjack)

Take Care George Pavlisko Driving Race cars and working on HO trains More fun than I can stand!!!
  • Member since
    July 2006
  • 137 posts
Posted by rghammill on Friday, September 22, 2006 11:23 PM
I don't have much to add to the suggestions already posted, but I do agree with the companies frequently not giving enough information (not just Walthers).

And it's not just the turn radius. I think that some basic information should be included for all rolling stock:

Curve Radius
Build Date (including rebuild dates)
Era (based on the paint scheme)
Whether there is a prototype in the road name listed.
Etc.

One of the things I have noticed as I've gotten back into the hobby is that you really have to do a lot of your own research ahead of time.

Most of the manufacturers are not particularly strong in regards to web pages, which is too bad. I've seen it mentioned that printing instructions with high quality and clear pictures (even black and white) is too expensive, so they have to settle for the black blobs from poor copying technology. A good scan of the original document posted on their website for download would virutally eliminate printing costs for good instructions and so much more information could be included.

This is just one example. The Walther's cars state a 24" minimum radius (recommended - not required), but I find that even that is pushing it. The Bachmann heavyweights don't have the center sill, and their couplers turn in tandem with the trucks (but are still mounted on the body) so they will handle tighter radius curves. However, most feel that the Walthers are better quality and more realistic. On the other hand, as far as I can tell, a few of the Walther's New Haven heavyweights have no equivelent prototype.

That's the next major issue I have with manufacturers. I understand it saves money to simply offer a given model in as many different road names as possible. But I think a lot of folks never even consider that a company might make a model that just didn't exist. If they never get involved with prototype modeling then it's no big deal. But it is something that I think is a cheap way to do business. Offering a 'standard' design (like the Life Like DL-109s) is one approach. At least the roads selected owned the locomotives. But the New Haven ones don't really match the prototype after the first year or so, and they NH owned 60 of the 73 or 74 ever made. on the other hand, there are releases like the IHC New Haven steam locomotives that don't seem to have ever existed on the New Haven at all.

I think a lot of this stems from the fact that for the better part of the population this is not a model railroad, but a toy train. For most people it's probably a passing interest as a kid, and they are selling to parents who have no idea (or no interest) in prototypical modeling. I would guess that the statistics that say a 4x8 is the most common layout is heavily weighted by these types of customers.

On the flip side, I think that the majority of 4x8 toy train customers aren't interested in $40 or $50 passenger cars.

I don't think that the companies are actually trying to trick us into buying whatever they happen to make. But I do get the sense that the industry is a bit behind the times in regards to the information available for the customer.

So I understand his complaints, and for now the only real solution is to do your homework and make sure you are really buying what you think you are.

Randy
  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Tuesday, September 26, 2006 4:53 AM

 Bill H. wrote:
 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. 


To put that another way, would you buy 17" tires for your car which has 15" wheels? Why not?

A little forethough is advantageous...

 

Okay guys....you made your point about forethought and reading the labeling.  But even I am surprised that these heavyweight cars need 24" radius when a Big boy can go thru 17" radius curves!  Give me a break!  Also, a 4 X 8 layout is the "standard" hobby table that many people use for their HO layouts.  You would think the manufacturers of standard passenger cars would make it work for those of us who don't own big houses or lots of real estate for our hobby.

So, as to the original post and poster---I am with you, my friend--it seems cheesy that your biggest engines run thru fine but the damn cars won't stay on the track!  And another major drawback for seducing newcomers to the hobby!

Cheers,


Tom M.

  • Member since
    November 2002
  • From: Colorado
  • 4,074 posts
Posted by fwright on Tuesday, September 26, 2006 9:42 AM
 LGBFan123 wrote:

Okay guys....you made your point about forethought and reading the labeling.  But even I am surprised that these heavyweight cars need 24" radius when a Big boy can go thru 17" radius curves!  Give me a break!  Also, a 4 X 8 layout is the "standard" hobby table that many people use for their HO layouts.  You would think the manufacturers of standard passenger cars would make it work for those of us who don't own big houses or lots of real estate for our hobby.

So, as to the original post and poster---I am with you, my friend--it seems cheesy that your biggest engines run thru fine but the damn cars won't stay on the track!  And another major drawback for seducing newcomers to the hobby!

Cheers,

Tom M.

Tom

I disagree.  There is nothing cheesy about making a more correct to scale model that takes a bigger radius to run.  The imported brass locomotives and cars did this for years, and I haven't heard them called cheesy.

What is cheesy to me is making a Big Boy that will run on 18" radius track, and not letting you know what non-prototypical modifications were necessary to make that happen, and how bad the overhang will be on 18" radius.

But the real cheese award goes to all the 4x8 layout designs that imply you can do modern era modeling in HO in that space.  Atlas finally started printing trains to scale on the same page as the track plan to give some idea how bad things were really going to be, but most folks don't notice.  And the trains Atlas printed don't use modern long rolling stock!

A 4x8 in HO will at best comfortably take transition era freight cars, and "shorty" or other passenger cars specifically made to run on 18" radius.  Even then, the longest reasonable train length is only going to be engine plus 6-7 freight cars or 3-4 passenger cars.  A 4x8 is a starting place for a train set, not a modern-era layout.

Even in N, a modern-era needs more than a 4x8.  In N, the modern-era cars (auto racks, container cars) are just as long as HO transition era cars.  Modern-era N needs the 18" radius curves to look good, but would still be limited to 7-8 modern era long cars on a 4x8.

If you want to make very long cars and/or trains run on very small curves (radius equal to less than 3x car length), then be prepared to buy already modified rolling stock, or make the modifications yourself.  Truck-mounted couplers and removal of some underbody detail, along with testing and tuning of each piece (car and locomotive) are the keys to success with very sharp curves.

My ending thought is that we need to quit implying/advertising that a 4x8 can do anything more than a transition era or earlier short line or branch in HO.

my thoughts, your choices

Fred W

  • Member since
    February 2005
  • From: Vancouver Island, BC
  • 23,326 posts
Posted by selector on Tuesday, September 26, 2006 12:01 PM

I agree with Fred.  And, let's not forget that the cars in question are not $6.99 items.  They are purposefully offered to those who need and can afford them, not to those who merely want them.  Walthers is not going to make a $28.00 (discounted) heavyweight that has paper thin steps so that the trucks can get around 18" curves, nor will they mount the couplers on the trucks like the $6.99 item manufacturers have done.   True, the engine manufacturers have altered their articulated engines, but the fact is that they would sell far fewer, and they would therfore have to raise their individual prices, if they made them too much like their brass counterparts.

Just like BLI locomotives, the heavyweights are more accurate, more costly, and intended for a specific market.

Finally, I feel that everyone in this hobby has a duty to come away with a hard lesson learned now and then.  I learned about track planning that way, and it looks like our friend has learned about matching commercial products for operational choices he intends to keep for himself.

  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Wednesday, September 27, 2006 2:23 AM

I WROTE:

Okay guys....you made your point about forethought and reading the labeling.  But even I am surprised that these heavyweight cars need 24" radius when a Big boy can go thru 17" radius curves!  Give me a break!  Also, a 4 X 8 layout is the "standard" hobby table that many people use for their HO layouts.  You would think the manufacturers of standard passenger cars would make it work for those of us who don't own big houses or lots of real estate for our hobby.

So, as to the original post and poster---I am with you, my friend--it seems cheesy that your biggest engines run thru fine but the damn cars won't stay on the track!  And another major drawback for seducing newcomers to the hobby!

Cheers,

Tom M

--------------------------------------------------------------------

YOUR REPLY

QUOTE:

<<Tom

I disagree.  There is nothing cheesy about making a more correct to scale model that takes a bigger radius to run.  The imported brass locomotives and cars did this for years, and I haven't heard them called cheesy.>>

 

Hmmmm...I have heard brass models called "cheesy" as far as running qualities.  Actually, I have talked to many people in HO railroad clubs and they used terms far more vulgar than "cheesy" to describe their expensive brass locos.  They sure look good, but if they don't run who wants them.  I would be surprised to hear that the HO brass loco market is in a healthy state right now. 

 

<<What is cheesy to me is making a Big Boy that will run on 18" radius track, and not letting you know what non-prototypical modifications were necessary to make that happen, and how bad the overhang will be on 18" radius.>>

Hmmmm...that would be cheesy, but I have not seen this happen with either the Trix model or the new Genesis Big Boy.  Both models clearly state in advertising and specifications that they negotiate tight raidus and this is due to both drives pivoting (which is apparently unprototypical).  Manufacturers , if the loco can manage it, will say "will run on 18" but 22" recommended".  That is good enough for me , from that I can deduce that a Big Boy will have a big overhang on curves.  So what?  I rather have a big boy with overhang than none at all.

Matter of fact, even if you have not been into HO for some time, without that information putting a HO Big Boy on a tight curve would seem to have much over-hang.  This is no-brainer.  I am glad a Big Boy can negotiate such curves and I applaud the manufacturers for this....and I plan to purchase them because of it.

 

<<<But the real cheese award goes to all the 4x8 layout designs that imply you can do modern era modeling in HO in that space.  Atlas finally started printing trains to scale on the same page as the track plan to give some idea how bad things were really going to be, but most folks don't notice.  And the trains Atlas printed don't use modern long rolling stock!>>>

Well, I don't consider Big Boys and heavyweight passenger cars (the original thread, btw) "modern era" railroading.  Modern era railroading, at best, is relative to the hobbyist.  But to me that is container-piggy backs and MAC diesels of the 1990s and beyond.

<<A 4x8 in HO will at best comfortably take transition era freight cars, and "shorty" or other passenger cars specifically made to run on 18" radius.  Even then, the longest reasonable train length is only going to be engine plus 6-7 freight cars or 3-4 passenger cars.  A 4x8 is a starting place for a train set, not a modern-era layout.>>

6 or 7 freight cars max on a 4x8 layout?  Guess again.  It can take a lot more than that.  Especially when you are talking UP 1940s fruit reefers.  Also passenger consists I am comfortable at about 6 cars on the pike.

<<Even in N, a modern-era needs more than a 4x8.  In N, the modern-era cars (auto racks, container cars) are just as long as HO transition era cars.  Modern-era N needs the 18" radius curves to look good, but would still be limited to 7-8 modern era long cars on a 4x8.>>

I am not interested in modern era piggy backs.  I like 1950s steam and diesel.  If the Big Boys and Diesels of the Golden Age can handle the 22" or less, why not the passenger cars?

<<If you want to make very long cars and/or trains run on very small curves (radius equal to less than 3x car length), then be prepared to buy already modified rolling stock, or make the modifications yourself.  Truck-mounted couplers and removal of some underbody detail, along with testing and tuning of each piece (car and locomotive) are the keys to success with very sharp curves.>>

I rather buy RTR stuff that will negotiate a 22" radius.  My time is more precious than my hobby money.  If it can be done (as you have shown without shortening car length) a manufacturer should offer it.

<<My ending thought is that we need to quit implying/advertising that a 4x8 can do anything more than a transition era or earlier short line or branch in HO.

Fred W>>

When a 4 x 8 is plenty big to run a Big Boy and a nice freight consist, as well as a Diesel consist, all controlled by DCC, why stick with a  branch line?  

My ending thought is that like you said, getting prototypical length cars around tight radius can be done---so why can't you buy ready-made-ready-to-run versions and save lots of hassles, lots of frustrations, and be able to seduce more people with small layouts to buying such cars.

Regards,

Tom M.

  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Wednesday, September 27, 2006 2:48 AM
 selector wrote:

I agree with Fred.  And, let's not forget that the cars in question are not $6.99 items.  They are purposefully offered to those who need and can afford them, not to those who merely want them.  Walthers is not going to make a $28.00 (discounted) heavyweight that has paper thin steps so that the trucks can get around 18" curves, nor will they mount the couplers on the trucks like the $6.99 item manufacturers have done.   True, the engine manufacturers have altered their articulated engines, but the fact is that they would sell far fewer, and they would therfore have to raise their individual prices, if they made them too much like their brass counterparts.

Just like BLI locomotives, the heavyweights are more accurate, more costly, and intended for a specific market.

Finally, I feel that everyone in this hobby has a duty to come away with a hard lesson learned now and then.  I learned about track planning that way, and it looks like our friend has learned about matching commercial products for operational choices he intends to keep for himself.

You last comment is very insinuating.  I totally disagree.  I don't think its everyone's duty who is in this hobby to buy an expensive product only to learn that it will not run on his layout (especially knowing the typical hobby store return policies!).  Just because you got burned doesn't mean that its good that others get burned as well.  And we talk about spreading the word about the fun of model railroading!  Sheesh....with attitudes like this, no wonder many young people find other things to spend their time with.

But choices are important in any hobby, especially in the niche HO model rail market.  Many people that love trains, love railroading, and have a passion for modeling do not live in big houses where they can dedicate a whole room or basement to the hobby.   Its a good thing that I can buy a BIG BOY that will run on a small layout.  I think era-specific cars costing $40 should come in a version that will also run on the same layout.  If these cars have "unprototypical" features to make them run , I don't care, as long as they are quality runners. Big layouts should have proto cars ....but the little layouts should also have the option of running semi-proto as well.  Besides, it means more hobbyists will be spending their money and it will be better for the model railroad industry.  WIN-WIN.

 In the particular case of the Walther's cars, Walther's did say 24" radius, so at least they are telling the consumer what the deal is.  I will take a look at the Bachmann cars, hopefully they are good enough runners.  I was also ready to buy the Walther's units.

 

Regards,

Tom M.

  • Member since
    November 2002
  • From: Colorado
  • 4,074 posts
Posted by fwright on Wednesday, September 27, 2006 12:05 PM
 LGBFan123 wrote:

Hmmmm...I have heard brass models called "cheesy" as far as running qualities.  Actually, I have talked to many people in HO railroad clubs and they used terms far more vulgar than "cheesy" to describe their expensive brass locos.  They sure look good, but if they don't run who wants them.  I would be surprised to hear that the HO brass loco market is in a healthy state right now.

You and I obviously have different interests in the hobby.  I have never expected any locomotive to run smooth as silk right out of the box.  Some brass did (and does), especially compared to the competition of the time.  I enjoy tinkering, detailing, and painting a locomotive to make it look and run the way I want it to.  You prefer to take them out of the box, and watch them run on your 4x8.  That's OK by me, but why so hard on manufacturers that cater to my niche?  As for the HO brass market, it's healthy enough that any models on eBay that appeal to me are priced out of my range.

That is good enough for me , from that I can deduce that a Big Boy will have a big overhang on curves.  So what?  I rather have a big boy with overhang than none at all.

Again, a matter of personal preference.  My preference is the opposite.  I do not want to run a Big Boy on my small layouts (I've never had bigger than 4x8), even if it can make the turns, because I just can't make it look "right" enough.  There isn't room for enough cars, nor is the gross overhang acceptable to me.  Please continue to purchase such items (seriously) because it keeps the manufacturers in business and hopefully someday they will make something I want (a well-detailed, smooth running, low speed 1890s Mogul with sound for $250?) 

Well, I don't consider Big Boys and heavyweight passenger cars (the original thread, btw) "modern era" railroading.  Modern era railroading, at best, is relative to the hobbyist.  But to me that is container-piggy backs and MAC diesels of the 1990s and beyond.

You are right.  But running Big Boys and heavyweight passenger cars on a 4x8 is basically the same as trying to run modern era. 

<<A 4x8 in HO will at best comfortably take transition era freight cars, and "shorty" or other passenger cars specifically made to run on 18" radius.  Even then, the longest reasonable train length is only going to be engine plus 6-7 freight cars or 3-4 passenger cars.  A 4x8 is a starting place for a train set, not a modern-era layout.>>

6 or 7 freight cars max on a 4x8 layout?  Guess again.  It can take a lot more than that.  Especially when you are talking UP 1940s fruit reefers.  Also passenger consists I am comfortable at about 6 cars on the pike.

The essence of our disagreement.  Operation of the trains you suggest is pretty much limited to making circuits on the main line.  While I enjoy "railfan" operations in small doses - 10 minutes is usually good for me - having a train that is on both end turns of a 4x8 at the same time loses its railfan appeal to me.  I also do not like the train to be in 2 "towns" at once.  I much prefer the "engineer" style of operation.  While I enjoy long trains as much as anybody, if the train is too long to fit on the passing sidings so I can make run-around switching moves, then the train is too long.  A passing siding on a 4x8 is physically constrained to about the lengths I suggested, and are often even shorter depending on the track system used.

<<If you want to make very long cars and/or trains run on very small curves (radius equal to less than 3x car length), then be prepared to buy already modified rolling stock, or make the modifications yourself.  Truck-mounted couplers and removal of some underbody detail, along with testing and tuning of each piece (car and locomotive) are the keys to success with very sharp curves.>>

I rather buy RTR stuff that will negotiate a 22" radius.  My time is more precious than my hobby money.  If it can be done (as you have shown without shortening car length) a manufacturer should offer it.

My ending thought is that like you said, getting prototypical length cars around tight radius can be done---so why can't you buy ready-made-ready-to-run versions and save lots of hassles, lots of frustrations, and be able to seduce more people with small layouts to buying such cars.

Regards,

Tom M.

You can buy the heavyweight passenger cars you desire - just not from Walters and other manufacturers who put more effort into prototypical accuracy.  I have a display set of nice looking, full-length Bachmann Spectrum PRR heavyweight cars that would meet your requirements, so I know they are made.  If I had a layout that had the 36" radius that is desirable for such cars, I would prefer not to buy the ones that have the underframes modified and truck mounted couplers to go around 22" radius curves.  But since I don't have such a layout, and am not likely to get one, my choice is to limit myself to 50ft and shorter passenger cars.  In HO, at least there are choices to fullfill both of our desires and needs (not as many for me as for you, but that's OK - I'm thankful for what there is).

My real point is that the sacred 4x8 has been touted as all one needs to build a reasonably complete layout in HO.  It's not, especially if one combines long rolling stock with a desire for more operation than watching a train flash through a scenery element.

Again my thoughts, your choices.  But please don't disparage manufacturers who choose not to meet your needs/desires.

Fred W

  • Member since
    November 2004
  • From: NYC
  • 385 posts
Posted by whitman500 on Wednesday, September 27, 2006 1:03 PM
 Don Gibson wrote:
Whitman wrote ...

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?"

But that's not quite what he said

"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! ... Anyone else with this problem?"
NO mention of "room'.

So aside from complaining about other's posts, WHAT would be your "helpful" solution ?

 

Go back and read the thread from the beginning.  You will SEE that he responded as follows in the fourth post of the thread:

"thanks, but if I had the space available I would not have a 4x8!"

This was right at the beginning of the discussion and yet, as I mentioned, many people kept telling him to expand either to beat a dead horse or because they, LIKE YOU, didn't bother to read the thread before responding.

As for a solution, the author was not looking for a solution (he had already found one: modifying the cars).  He was wondering whether others had had the same problem with the cars and to complain about the fact that Walthers, at least on its web site, had not mentioned the minimum operating radius (I went and looked after reading this thread and verified that this is the case).

And as for my argument, you've gone ahead and proved it since, like lots of other people on this thread, your goal was to give someone a hard time when you didn't even have the facts straight.  The very fact that people are still trading insults on this thread long after the original question has been forgotten just shows what a cantakerous, petty place this forum has become.

  • Member since
    June 2006
  • From: Maryville IL
  • 9,577 posts
Posted by cudaken on Wednesday, September 27, 2006 1:09 PM

  lvanhen, what part of the truck or coupler is causing the problem? I have one engine that is a 12 wheeler and hated my 18" turns. I pulled the center axles and does fine now. Did the same on my 12 wheel passanger cars and helped.

 Are you using flex track? If I did the math right you should be able to get a 22" turn on a 48" wide but not much room to spare, say 2" either side. I made most of my 18" turns into 20" and that helped me with string effect.

 More than likely you will not want to changed the board if you have done nices detail work. I am lucky there I guess, mine is ruff so not lossing anything when I move the rails around.

 As far as gettting "we told you so, it won't work and why did you buy thay" boy I have got more than my share of it. Seems I like to buy used stuff of E-stupid and when I have a problem it is throwen up in my faces. But, the people that are doing that in there own way have helped me and are trying to help.

 By the way, being new to this hobby, wwhat doe's UP stand for?

 

                     Cuda Ken

I hate Rust

  • Member since
    January 2002
  • From: Portland, OR
  • 3,119 posts
Posted by jfugate on Wednesday, September 27, 2006 1:11 PM
 Whitman 500 wrote:
... The very fact that people are still trading insults on this thread long after the original question has been forgotten just shows what a cantakerous, petty place this forum has become.


That's a pretty broad brush you're using there. While your observation may apply to some who responded to this thread, I don't agree it applies to the entire forum.

Fortunately, the negative tones that have developed on this thread don't apply to 99% of the other threads on this forum. It's very easy to misconstrue things when all you have is some text on your computer screen to go by, so my advice is to lighten up and give folks the benefit of the doubt ... and to move on to other more important hobby issues.

Joe Fugate Modeling the 1980s SP Siskiyou Line in southern Oregon

  • Member since
    November 2004
  • From: NYC
  • 385 posts
Posted by whitman500 on Wednesday, September 27, 2006 2:40 PM

Joe:

My comments aren't meant to knock this forum or the vast majority of participants and I apologize if in the heat of the moment I've overstated my criticisms. 

What bothers me is that there is a small but active minority of people on this forum who go out of their way to ridicule posters that because of haste or inexperience ask questions or make statements that can be attacked.  The victims in these attacks are usually young and/or new hobbyists, the type of people that model railroading desperately needs and the type of people who can be easily turned off to the hobby by being called an idiot the first time they post a question.

What also bothers me is that this behaviour seems to be on the rise.  It is certainly worse now than when I joined a couple of years ago.  This is not Kalmbach's fault or the fault of 90% of the members of this forum, and I don't expect Model Railroader to take direct action (censorship, etc.).  But what I would like to see is more instances where forum members stick up for each other when getting attacked by some of the bullies that lurk on this site. 

If there was a justification for some of my negative comments about the forum, it was to prod other members to be more proactive about setting the right tone of discussion on the site and not letting the bullies run the show.  Things feel like they are headed in the wrong direction right now, and it would be shame to see a great site deteriorate into more threads like this one.

  • Member since
    December 2004
  • From: Finger Lakes
  • 10,198 posts
Posted by howmus on Wednesday, September 27, 2006 3:12 PM
 whitman500 wrote:

Joe:

My comments aren't meant to knock this forum or the vast majority of participants and I apologize if in the heat of the moment I've overstated my criticisms. 

What bothers me is that there is a small but active minority of people on this forum who go out of their way to ridicule posters that because of haste or inexperience ask questions or make statements that can be attacked.  The victims in these attacks are usually young and/or new hobbyists, the type of people that model railroading desperately needs and the type of people who can be easily turned off to the hobby by being called an idiot the first time they post a question.

What also bothers me is that this behaviour seems to be on the rise.  It is certainly worse now than when I joined a couple of years ago.  This is not Kalmbach's fault or the fault of 90% of the members of this forum, and I don't expect Model Railroader to take direct action (censorship, etc.).  But what I would like to see is more instances where forum members stick up for each other when getting attacked by some of the bullies that lurk on this site. 

If there was a justification for some of my negative comments about the forum, it was to prod other members to be more proactive about setting the right tone of discussion on the site and not letting the bullies run the show.  Things feel like they are headed in the wrong direction right now, and it would be shame to see a great site deteriorate into more threads like this one.



whitman500, I have to agree with you.  I just came over from another thread where there is put down after put down of other peoples opinions.  I was going to post to this thread my experiences with the 83' passenger cars from walthers and another company and how I am going to handle my 22' radius curves on my mainline (not a 4' x 8' BTW) but frankly, I don't need the hastle that it would create.  There are several threads that I have posted to here and have gotten called all kinds of things (one poster actually called me a .... Republican.  Oh the horror!  I'm not BTW.).  So I spend more time across the street at another forum now.  We have lost several great, fun, frequent posters here due to this stuff (anyone seen SpaceMouse lately?). 

To all of you out there.  It is possible to disagree without being snide, sarcastic, and rude.  There are many ways of doing most everything in this hobby, no one way is the best, and to quote a gentleman from the Central NY chapter of the NMRA, "The only person you have to please is you!"  Let's try to be helpful and cut out the rude comebacks when you don't agree with a poster.

Ray Seneca Lake, Ontario, and Western R.R. (S.L.O.&W.) in HO

We'll get there sooner or later! 

  • Member since
    June 2003
  • From: Culpeper, Va
  • 8,202 posts
Posted by IRONROOSTER on Wednesday, September 27, 2006 3:24 PM
 fwright wrote:


...

hopefully someday they will make something I want (a well-detailed, smooth running, low speed 1890s Mogul with sound for $250?) 

...


Sign - Ditto [#ditto] in S scale
Enjoy
Paul
If you're having fun, you're doing it the right way.
  • Member since
    April 2005
  • From: Colorado Springs, CO
  • 3,590 posts
Posted by csmith9474 on Wednesday, September 27, 2006 4:00 PM

 SunsetLimited wrote:
You would have to model an earlier era and not something modern with a shelf layout that small, your not going to be building any large passenger trains on that kind of layout, i guess you could model some pike sized trains as MRR suggests from time to time. You really need a 20x20 or larger if you want to model normal sized passenger trains in a point to point type setup. I have an 18ft looper and my superliner and budd trains take the entire length of one side, we are talking 2-3 engines, a baggage, and at least 10 cars, thats about 15ft long right there, if you run an auto train or any type of mail or reefer service on the same train then you are talking longer. The room involved is what turns most off of modelling passenger, its a shame to because its really a fun thing to model!

I love modeling passenger trains as well, but they can get long quick. I am about to finish a late 50's Super Chief/El Capitan and it is 18 cars long (including a business car), with an ABBBA consist of F7s on the point. I am about to start a late 50's Sunset Limited, and that will be 14 cars long (one of the advantages of the Sunset is that it gave me an excuse to order a PA/PB/PA set from Precision Craft, dressed up in Daylight paint).

I originally wanted to model two seperate trains (a Super Chief and El Cap), but the consolidated train allowed me to remain prototypical, and at the same time lessen the space two full consists would have taken up.

Smitty
  • Member since
    February 2005
  • From: Vancouver Island, BC
  • 23,326 posts
Posted by selector on Wednesday, September 27, 2006 6:18 PM
 LGBFan123 wrote:
 selector wrote:

I agree with Fred.  And, let's not forget that the cars in question are not $6.99 items.  They are purposefully offered to those who need and can afford them, not to those who merely want them.  Walthers is not going to make a $28.00 (discounted) heavyweight that has paper thin steps so that the trucks can get around 18" curves, nor will they mount the couplers on the trucks like the $6.99 item manufacturers have done.   True, the engine manufacturers have altered their articulated engines, but the fact is that they would sell far fewer, and they would therfore have to raise their individual prices, if they made them too much like their brass counterparts.

Just like BLI locomotives, the heavyweights are more accurate, more costly, and intended for a specific market.

Finally, I feel that everyone in this hobby has a duty to come away with a hard lesson learned now and then.  I learned about track planning that way, and it looks like our friend has learned about matching commercial products for operational choices he intends to keep for himself.

You last comment is very insinuating.  I totally disagree.  I don't think its everyone's duty who is in this hobby to buy an expensive product only to learn that it will not run on his layout (especially knowing the typical hobby store return policies!).  Just because you got burned doesn't mean that its good that others get burned as well.  And we talk about spreading the word about the fun of model railroading!  Sheesh....with attitudes like this, no wonder many young people find other things to spend their time with.

But choices are important in any hobby, especially in the niche HO model rail market.  Many people that love trains, love railroading, and have a passion for modeling do not live in big houses where they can dedicate a whole room or basement to the hobby.   Its a good thing that I can buy a BIG BOY that will run on a small layout.  I think era-specific cars costing $40 should come in a version that will also run on the same layout.  If these cars have "unprototypical" features to make them run , I don't care, as long as they are quality runners. Big layouts should have proto cars ....but the little layouts should also have the option of running semi-proto as well.  Besides, it means more hobbyists will be spending their money and it will be better for the model railroad industry.  WIN-WIN.

 In the particular case of the Walther's cars, Walther's did say 24" radius, so at least they are telling the consumer what the deal is.  I will take a look at the Bachmann cars, hopefully they are good enough runners.  I was also ready to buy the Walther's units.

 

Regards,

Tom M.

Tom, all I meant was that if we want all that the hobby can offer us, we have a responsibility to learn some lessons, and it seems that we must learn a few the hard way.  I gave my own example of a hard knock type of lesson as a form of commiseration.  I was not passing judgement, and wanted you to know that I had gone down that path.  Perhaps my use of the third person could have been left out.

Sorry for my artless composition.

  • Member since
    January 2002
  • From: Portland, OR
  • 3,119 posts
Posted by jfugate on Wednesday, September 27, 2006 6:29 PM
Selector:

I think most of us knew what you meant, and you are the last person on here I would think is trying to talk down to the rest of us.

I took your comment to mean that we all get to learn things the hard way now and then, and it's in comparing the "hobby scars" that we can all see everyone has their share of boo-boos and wished-I-had-done-it-different stories. That's nothing to be ashamed of nor is it a put-down. It's called experience, and is something highly sought in our culture.

So the next time you pull a moaner of a boo-boo, just remind yourself you are getting experience!
Smile,Wink, & Grin [swg]

Joe Fugate Modeling the 1980s SP Siskiyou Line in southern Oregon

  • Member since
    February 2005
  • From: Vancouver Island, BC
  • 23,326 posts
Posted by selector on Wednesday, September 27, 2006 6:37 PM

 jfugate wrote:
Selector:

I think most of us knew what you meant, and you are the last person on here I would think is trying to talk down to the rest of us.

I took your comment to mean that we all get to learn things the hard way now and then, and it's in comparing the "hobby scars" that we can all see everyone has their share of boo-boos and wished-I-had-done-it-different stories. That's nothing to be ashamed of nor is it a put-down. It's called experience, and is something highly sought in our culture.

So the next time you pull a moaner of a boo-boo, just remind yourself you are getting experience!
Smile,Wink, & Grin [swg]

...and, oooohhh, how I am getting experience.  I have learned that I detest using cloth under my hardshell because it has no rigidity.  But it sure makes some great and varied topography.  So, when I want to move along, I use aluminum window screen, but when I want great scenery, I have to do it the way I like least.

Thank-you for your kind words, Joe. (sniff).

Subscriber & Member Login

Login, or register today to interact in our online community, comment on articles, receive our newsletter, manage your account online and more!

Users Online

There are no community member online

Search the Community

ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
Model Railroader Newsletter See all
Sign up for our FREE e-newsletter and get model railroad news in your inbox!