operating radius

[rghammill]

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

[claycts]

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)

[Don Gibson]

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 ?

 

[Anonymous]

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.

[SunsetLimited]

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!

[wejen]

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. 

[jfugate]

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

[Bill H.]

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!

[SunsetLimited]

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.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Texas Zepher]

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.

[Virginian]

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 !!!!

[Anonymous]

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 :)

[Don Gibson]

 "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]

 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).

[Soo Line fan]

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.

 

Jim

[frisco kid]

Ivanhen. You are the employee, the mgmt., and the owner of your railroad. If you like it - run it. If you don't like it modify it the best way possible. Don't let all the idiot replies bother you!!

[jxtrrx]

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".

[Bill H.]

  My complaint on this, is their website & box do not state min. radius - all manufacturers should do so.

Well, all righty then:

http://www.walthers.com/exec/page/contact

[Anonymous]

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

[fwright]

 "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

[whitman500]

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.

 

[selector]

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...?

[BRAKIE]

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

 

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.

[lvanhen]

 "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]

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!

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. 

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

[IRONROOSTER]

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!! 

Your original complaint was not well stated.   Most people thought you wanted help in solving your problem, hence the suggestion to add 6" - 12" to the side of your layout.  Apparently you only wanted to rant against Walthers. 

Personally, I use the NMRA's RP-11 http://www.nmra.org/standards/rp-11.html as a guide for what will run on any given radius, especially when the manufacturer hasn't stated otherwise. If you want to run on a tighter radius, then you should expect modifications may be necessary.

Enjoy
Paul

[johncolley]

By definition a Forum is a place for the exchange of ideas and opinions for consideration. It is not a place to slam your mind shut if you don't like the ideas and opinions offered, eh? It's for happy railroading! jc5729

[lvanhen]

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]

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!