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.
"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?
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 !!!!
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
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...
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.
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!
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.
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.
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!
Joe Fugate Modeling the 1980s SP Siskiyou Line in southern Oregon
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.
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?"
So aside from complaining about other's posts, WHAT would be your "helpful" solution ?
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)
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.
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
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.
I WROTE:
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,
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.
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?)
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.
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.
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
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.
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 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.
Ray Seneca Lake, Ontario, and Western R.R. (S.L.O.&W.) in HO
We'll get there sooner or later!
fwright wrote:...hopefully someday they will make something I want (a well-detailed, smooth running, low speed 1890s Mogul with sound for $250?) ...
hopefully someday they will make something I want (a well-detailed, smooth running, low speed 1890s Mogul with sound for $250?)
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.
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.
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!
...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).