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!
Joe I agree 100% Folks like you, Selector, Spacemouse and Randy Rinker and there are others. Always show class and make a person that reads your posts understand that it is a well thought out post and worth reading. Some others like to just raise heck for whatever reason.
I got my EXPERIENCE when I had to tear out 60 feet of track to increase the radius from 28" to 36". I body mounted all my couplers on the Rivarossi passenger cars and did not like the look of them on a curve that will probably become a focal point on the layout. Did not loose any track or roadbed. All was put down with Latex Caulk and in that area we used WS foam roadbed. Nice when you listen to what people tell you about laying track.
LGBFan123 wrote:<<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.
<<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.
-Dan
Builder of Bowser steam! Railimages Site
We dont live in the big houses and have large spaces devoted entirely to trains.
Usually the people who purchase "Big steam" are well aware of the limitation of radius and will find a way to accomodate it. My first big steam was a Bachmann GS-4 with the inframe pancake motor. Yes it took 18" but looked really bad and did not pull anything worthy of a train. That engine was a lesson if anything on how to run big steam properly with future locomotives.
I recall being told if you got room to run 30+ cars, you already have room to run big steam. You can still run that on a smaller layout but from a camera's point of view you may only have a few feet worth of benchwork and scenery to run that train past.
It is a hobby of compromises and I myself have it both ways... a consist of 4 axle units to handle heavy trains on sharp curves and the big steam to run where there is room to get up and go. I also have a small group of little steam that are very enjoyable as well. Im happy.
Are you?
Safety Valve wrote: We dont live in the big houses and have large spaces devoted entirely to trains. Usually the people who purchase "Big steam" are well aware of the limitation of radius and will find a way to accomodate it. My first big steam was a Bachmann GS-4 with the inframe pancake motor. Yes it took 18" but looked really bad and did not pull anything worthy of a train. That engine was a lesson if anything on how to run big steam properly with future locomotives. I recall being told if you got room to run 30+ cars, you already have room to run big steam. You can still run that on a smaller layout but from a camera's point of view you may only have a few feet worth of benchwork and scenery to run that train past. It is a hobby of compromises and I myself have it both ways... a consist of 4 axle units to handle heavy trains on sharp curves and the big steam to run where there is room to get up and go. I also have a small group of little steam that are very enjoyable as well. Im happy. Are you?
You better belive it. I am doing the same as you. Big steam, got a bunch, running on 36"+ radius and small- 2-8-2 and such on 28" min. Smallest on the layout is 22" for about 3" (curved turnout 22" and 24") changing that out to the biggest I can find!
I like my Camelback pulling 36 ft billboard cars and also like the Big Boy's pulling coal drags and PFE.
I am Happy with what I built and will fix that curved turnout as soom as I find one!
Cudaken
UP is up, the opposite of down, or, look in my signature for another translation.
But, in the RR world, some folks think it stands for Union Pacific. Go figure.
Brad
EMD - Every Model Different
ALCO - Always Leaking Coolant and Oil
CSX - Coal Spilling eXperts
NeO6874 wrote:now, in hopes of not refueling a flame war....Like you said (as have others) sometimes the "appearance" doesn't matter, just that they will negotiate the radius you have available.IMO - this almost causes a double standard to develop - there's the standard of having an authentic representation of some of the greatest pieces of machinery every developed (including, but not limited to K-4's, Atlantics, Challengers, Mallets, Consolidations, Americans, um... <all the rest of the steam loco wheel arrangements>) but on the other hand being able to market this to more people than those who have the space to make the 30"+ radii curves or the 150'+ straightaways to make a coal drag look "good". In order to do this, (as a good portion of other posters have said), we have to cut corners/modify/etc most everything that hits the high iron.Personally, I hope to be able to one day accurately model some part of the PRR or NYC or NKP or some other road. I have high expectations of what I want to do - entirely hand-laid (scale) 39' rail (hey, the REAL Railroads did it this way, so why can't I?) as close to 100% accurate locos, cars, etc (ie all wheels flanged, enough space to put in a prototype yard/engine facility enough space for curves large enough to handle everything reliably, AND look excellent while doing so...Now, my reality will be more along these lines: sectional and/or flex-track locos/cars modified to fit my constraints yard/engine facility scaled WAY back to fit the space i actually have curves that are small enough to fit said available space (hey, that sounds like all of us...)So perhaps it is "cheesy" to have a massive (~130') locomotive be able to track a curve that an ~80' car can't (although said locomotive isn't a rigid 130')... but we have to live with these deviations from reality in order to fit out basement empires IN our basement (and within some form of a budget)...I guess what I'm trying to say is that, after a day's work, as long as you can sit back and watch the trains roll over the high-iron to destinations unknown, then does it really matter if we aren't 100% true to prototype?
(hey, that sounds like all of us...)So perhaps it is "cheesy" to have a massive (~130') locomotive be able to track a curve that an ~80' car can't (although said locomotive isn't a rigid 130')... but we have to live with these deviations from reality in order to fit out basement empires IN our basement (and within some form of a budget)...I guess what I'm trying to say is that, after a day's work, as long as you can sit back and watch the trains roll over the high-iron to destinations unknown, then does it really matter if we aren't 100% true to prototype?
If you agree that everyone compromises in some way....I am 100% behind you. Some of us, because we lack the real estate, compromise in the size of our layouts.
But who is to say users of 18" or 22" curves are LESS PROTOTYPICAL than those who are using scale radius BUT so-called "steam engines" that don't run off of REAL coal and water? Diesel engines that do not run off of petroleum products, I hate to say it, are NOT BEING PROTOTYPICAL...and you are compromising just as much as putting a heavyweight coach around 22" radius.
Face it, if you make a face for those who run big stock around tight curves---unless you got HO live-steam engines and real diesel fuel intoxicating your hobby room, you are compromising BIG TIME.
Thus, a "model steam locomotive" that does not run off REAL STEAM is at best a TOY. So all you pesky types shouting to others "your layout isn't prototypical...." must get a grip...you are at best, playing with neato looking toys yourself.
LGBFan123 wrote: NeO6874 wrote:now, in hopes of not refueling a flame war....Like you said (as have others) sometimes the "appearance" doesn't matter, just that they will negotiate the radius you have available.IMO - this almost causes a double standard to develop - there's the standard of having an authentic representation of some of the greatest pieces of machinery every developed (including, but not limited to K-4's, Atlantics, Challengers, Mallets, Consolidations, Americans, um... <all the rest of the steam loco wheel arrangements>) but on the other hand being able to market this to more people than those who have the space to make the 30"+ radii curves or the 150'+ straightaways to make a coal drag look "good". In order to do this, (as a good portion of other posters have said), we have to cut corners/modify/etc most everything that hits the high iron.Personally, I hope to be able to one day accurately model some part of the PRR or NYC or NKP or some other road. I have high expectations of what I want to do - entirely hand-laid (scale) 39' rail (hey, the REAL Railroads did it this way, so why can't I?) as close to 100% accurate locos, cars, etc (ie all wheels flanged, enough space to put in a prototype yard/engine facility enough space for curves large enough to handle everything reliably, AND look excellent while doing so...Now, my reality will be more along these lines: sectional and/or flex-track locos/cars modified to fit my constraints yard/engine facility scaled WAY back to fit the space i actually have curves that are small enough to fit said available space (hey, that sounds like all of us...)So perhaps it is "cheesy" to have a massive (~130') locomotive be able to track a curve that an ~80' car can't (although said locomotive isn't a rigid 130')... but we have to live with these deviations from reality in order to fit out basement empires IN our basement (and within some form of a budget)...I guess what I'm trying to say is that, after a day's work, as long as you can sit back and watch the trains roll over the high-iron to destinations unknown, then does it really matter if we aren't 100% true to prototype? If you agree that everyone compromises in some way....I am 100% behind you. Some of us, because we lack the real estate, compromise in the size of our layouts. But who is to say users of 18" or 22" curves are LESS PROTOTYPICAL than those who are using scale radius BUT so-called "steam engines" that don't run off of REAL coal and water? Diesel engines that do not run off of petroleum products, I hate to say it, are NOT BEING PROTOTYPICAL...and you are compromising just as much as putting a heavyweight coach around 22" radius. Face it, if you make a face for those who run big stock around tight curves---unless you got HO live-steam engines and real diesel fuel intoxicating your hobby room, you are compromising BIG TIME. Thus, a "model steam locomotive" that does not run off REAL STEAM is at best a TOY. So all you pesky types shouting to others "your layout isn't prototypical...." must get a grip...you are at best, playing with neato looking toys yourself.
Well, I wasn't going so far as to say that about the locomotives...
I was just making the point that we all have high hopes/dreams for our own basement (or bedroom/office/garage/wherever) empires... (as in the list I made of things that I would eventually want to do)... but also was making the point, that when I actually have the time, money, and space to build said dream layout, I will more than likely have to compromise - so as to fit the available space, budget, etc.
Joe Fugate Modeling the 1980s SP Siskiyou Line in southern Oregon
THANK YOU IRON ROOSTER - YOUR LINK TO NMRA WAS MOST HELPFULL AND I CAN GIVE IT TO GIFT BUYING FAMILY MEMBERS. I AM BUILDING A LAYOUT WITH 18" RADIUS DUE TO SPACE LIMITATIONS AND USING ROUNDHOUSE 34' MAX. LENGHT CARS FOR APPEARANCE.