Ok...I'm off to wire in my 4 pole/double throw/ on-off-on toggle swittch so I can run either DC or DCC trains...before someone calls for the complete discontinuation of DC next !!! .
Uh oh, someone let Rick out of his cage and look what happened. (Calls NMRA Ninja elite attack squad.) Nononono, even "elitists" like me modeling mostly mid-century prototypes need the occasional tight curve on a switching layout, maybe where the locos will be NW-2s and the boxcars are all 40 footers. There are pretty tight curves in a lot of 1:1 switching districts. I would not advocate for the removal of all 9 3/4" curves, but at the same time I am not going to plead with manufacturers that they go to great compromises to make sure every 89' auto-rack will make it on 9 3/4" curves. Much as I find myself adapting equipment to get rid of the problems inherent in truck-mounted coupler design, those who insist on running a string of auto-racks on 9 3/4" curves may have to make some of their own mods, too. Now as for Rick - I don't know. We've never been able to control him. We just send the NMRA Ninjas after him every now and then, looking for out of gauge wheelsets and bad ordering his rolling stock. I think the main reason a lot of manufacturers use truck mounted couplers is that the cost of installation is lower (two bolster pins vs. two bolster pins and two screw connections) and the cost of a couple/truck assembly is probably marginally lower than buying the coupler and the truck separately. They certainly don't do it because of running characteristics. Truck-mounted couplers lead to more derailments as they put lateral forces on the truck that would otherwise not be there. Still, if someone wants to run truck-mounts that's their business. I see that you understand my position and that we essentially agree. The only way it becomes my business is if that same person comes to run a bunch of rolling stock on our club layout and has constant derailments, possibly into a neighboring track with one of my trains, but that gets into larger things such as checking couplers, trucks, rolling characteristics, etc. Much as your hackles go up when Rick suggests chucking 9 3/4" curves (and I have to apologize that I missed seeing that earlier, I though you were just pulling it out of the air), my hackles go up when I think someone is suggesting I am an elitist. I certainly spend no effort trying to be an elitist. I try to improve my own skills and help out others when and where I can (if the help is wanted), but I know this hobby is too big for the tastes of an elite few to be enforced on all. I love seeing different interpretations of this hobby, like the tiny layouts that Carl Arendt has on his page, or T-Trak modules with tempera paint scenery and construction paper buildings built by kids. At the same time, I see a lot of the sort of threads where someone is upset because their 4-8-8-4 Big-Boy derails on #4 switches. Hmmm, if you are going to shove your layout into the space of half an ironing board (and I realize there are reasons one might have to do so) then maybe you shouldn't try running Big Boys. For this same reason, I haven't stocked up on Bachmann DD40AX's. They'd look ridiculous switching a lumber mill. Thanks for clearing that up, and yeah, Rick is a total elitist but we still love him. (Just kidding, rick, about the "elitist" bit.) Now, let's get back to the subject of modeling and improving our rolling stock for those of us who have the time and inclination to do so! :thumbs_up::thumbs_up::thumbs_up: Adam
If you can't run 4axle units with 40' box cars on 9 3/4" track with body mounts then you either have some poorly done track or some really bad bodymounts. Seriously though, There is no reason why you couldn't run 4 axle and 40' on that track. None at all. Is that really the worry? If it is it's unfounded. As to why I'm interested, I used to be an N-scaler is why I'm interested, so I take an interest in it, plus this particular argument is intriguing. Most of the concerns of people seem unfounded. Again, while you may hate to hear it, in HO, 4 axle units connected to 40' box cars with body mounts works perfectly on 18" radius. That's a perfectly reasonable thing to do. So why do N-scalers presume it's not possible in N-scale? For that matter, it used to drive me nuts in Nscale that all the new engines had body mount couplers, but the rolling stock didn't. Talk about a stupid way to do things. Body mount engine and truck mount cars? Why don't you stab yourself in the hand with a screw driver? It makes about as much sense. Such a combination is even worse on 9 3/4" as the loco will push out while the car wil try to follow the track. That was the number 1 cause of derailments with my old N-scale pike. I ended up body mounting a lot of cars to avoid it.
And to clarify, i'm not trying to be elitist or say "get rid of them." I just don't understand the argument that they're needed either.
Oh no, don't listen to him George. John is the biggest elitist of them all, sort of the Godfather of Elitist Model RRers. :tb-wink: Besides Rick, I don't think anyone says that 9 3/4" curves don't work, but at the same time I see statements now and then such as "I hate Athearn and MTL and everyone else because my Big Boy backing up a string of 89' auto-racks on my 9 3/4" radius helix experienced a derailment." Hmmm. We all have to make compromises. So do the 1:1 roads. I am not running Shinkansen bullet trains, for example, because the darn things would lap my layout in less than thirty seconds, and that just wouldn't do it for me as far as enjoyment of trains. Similarly, I do not like truck-mounted couplers because, I believe, they are nearly a guarantee that excessive derailments will occur. If you think about it, every force acting on that coupler is also shoving the truck around, and that impacts the ability of the trucks to follow the tracks, and we all know what happens when trucks do not follow the tracks. Often, I will simply cut off the coupler from the truck and mount it to the body of the car with some modfications. I can't always do this, so I sometimes throw them in the parts drawer and get a stock MTL and install that instead. Back to the previous point, I think that the type of layout and rolling stock and power has to be considered when one is dealing with a tight space. I know all about tight spaces. I had to wait until I was nearly 33 years old to no longer have severe space restrictions on a model railroad pike. Now I have a room that is almost 10 feet wide which I can occupy to about 12' out as long as I stay clear of the door. It's in the basement, and I have to make provision for the drain pipes, but this is just an amazing amount of space compared to what I had before, which was essentially table top and easily moved or nothing. Adam
For some layouts a 9 3/4 in curve is a luxury. Just because you can't find a purpose on you middle of nowhere layout doesn't mean that someone else can't use them. On two of my layouts I use four inch and five and a half inch radius curves. Not everyone wants to run the UP's freaks.
Welcome to TrainBoard, ChicagoNW. That's one of my favorite midwest roads. Also, thanks for not complaining that your Big Boy, DD40AX consists derailed on your four inch radius curves. What sort of equipment do you run on these tight radius curves?
It's true, I only do operating sessions with the Finest Bordeaux in hand and people who use the word Turnout are shot with my Derringer. I am from Chicago though, so the Godfather part should come as no surprise.) Seriously though, the club has a section of 15" radius HO on the dual gauge line which will be for a logging line. The Traction section is even tighter (I wash my hands of that one). So I'm all for tight radius where appropriate.
Oh my gosh, did I go and stir up the hornets nest....AGAIN? Hey, now you guys and gals are having entirely to much fun here. Darn those NMRA Ninja's. Bad ordered all my equipment and pulled the plug on my DCC. I wish they'd leave my DPDT toggles alone, now I don't know which block they control. And that realistic yellow river they left on the layout. Now that's not nice. You guys and gals are on some bad learning curve. What with defending and working with 9 3/4" radius curves. That is just sad, sad, bad. Grin! I did outlaw them on my layout. Well, sort of... You won't find them on my main line. Confesson here. Yep, they were outlawed until I tried to put in a short mine track. So, much for outlawing them. Then a friend of mine showed up with a 7 1/2" radius curves on a trolley line and wanted me to take his city scape, including the trolley line off his hands. Yep, it's here, apart of my layout and it works well for short trolleys. Darn, I can't even live by my own rules. LOL I think, if I could get you tight radius hounds to climb up this mountain for a visit, you would see what all the hurrah and hurrumph is about. I'm so pleased and proud of my 15" and 24" radius curves on my main line, I could bust all my buttons. There's nothing like it. My El Capitan, Super Chief, Grand Canyon Limited, San Francisco Chief, SP San Joaquin Daylight, the Morning Daylight, California Zephyr, HP's Business Train, Chippewa Chief and other commute trains looks good running through these curves. I think I could easily convert you into being big, wide curved kids. Not overweight...I'm talking about the advantages and benefits that N Scale affords us. I ask you, why not take full advantage of it? NMRA control me? You guys control me? Heck, I've got the staff here at TrainBoard on edge and watching every move I make. Grin! Rick you just gotta delete that. Yep, I did...grrr! They go on "Rick Alert" every time I log in. LOL What, I'm going to listen to a bunch of inexperienced beginners who want a 3x3 layout in the corner of their dorm room? Or a bunch of engineering types that doesn't know the first thing about railroading. Well, now wait a minute. Backing up to the 3x3 layout...I could help you with that and have hours of fun. Grin! What do you mean this has nothing to do with HO. It sure does in my estimation. However, to find those wide radius curves that make me happy, I've joined a club, that goes down to the San Diego Museum once a month to run on one of the display layouts. Talk about fun, wide curves and realistic looking trains. Gosh, that is nice. Be patient with yourselves, it takes time to learn these lessons. I know, because I had to learn the hard way. You need to attend the University of Hark Knocks and Bad Decisions...First. I did! I've built N scale layouts with 9 3/4" curves, which is actually larger then HO's 18" radius curves or so I rationalized. The train cars with body mounted couplers had issues backing through them...derailing almost every time. My track work was right on and properly gauged. So, don't be knocking or implying my track work is bad...grrr! In a reverse move...the stress applied to the trucks and wheel sets in the curve would cause them to climb up and out of the track derailing. With body mounted couplers they'd do a little better but it almost always turned into an operators night mare. With wider curves or should I say the minimum of 11 1/2" radius curves the problems seemed to...all but, disappear. Yep, time to outlaw 9 3/4" radius curves. There I go stirring the pot again. Oh, they have their application but not on a mainline. I love to watch George aka Mtntrainman, jump to, alerting everyone on TB. I can imagine his nostrils flare out his eyes bug out... as big as saucers when I throw out comments like, "Outlaw 9 3/4" radius curves", "They aren't Turnouts they are Switches" "Body mount not truck mounted couplers". He's so predictable and fun to harrass. Oh, he rattles my cage...tooooo. And, it's all done in good fun. If you get a chance check out his layout. Hint, think and look for some wide radius curves. Grin! What George, did you really think you could influence or persuade me? Or I you? LOL It's called individualism. Go have some fun and learn some lessons on your own. We need more students enrolling in the University of Hard Knocks, Bad Decisions and Lessons Learned....the hard way. Why listen to an old fat man, grey beard, with way to many years of experience and plenty of wisdom to share. Who identifies with some of the best of the best who are unfortunately identified as elitist. In reality we are just good old boys and average modelers. Yep, I can see it...naw, you don't need that. mad:
WElllllllllllllllll...I got my 4 pole/double throw/on-off-on all wired in. DC to the left...DCC to the right. It's great that the decoders will let the DCC locos run on DC too :tb-cool:. NOW...I can run everything again. George is a happy camper. :tb-tongue:. It just dawned on me that some modelers believe that the guys who HAVE to run 9 3/4 radii are gonna complain that they cant run THE BIG STUFF through them. I dont think thats where anyone was going with the debate. It's just the constarints of space that may dictate radii...even down to 9 3/4 :tb-wink:. If someone with that small of radii complained that BIG BOYS wont negotiate em...even I would grab a bag of popcorn and stay tuned to that thread...LOL. Yea...Rich and I bug each other alot...but we have fun doing it. A couple of "Grumpy Old Men" I tell ya !! YoHo...I am to old to be scared by anyone from Chicago or that mentions "Mafia"...I grew up in Cleveland in a polish neighborhood...LOL. As long as we all part a thread friends...its all good. Oh almost forgot...I gotta call Fifers an order me some "Turnouts".....hehehehe. .
But, George, you've probably seen those threads here, will someone will say, "I can't back my Big Boy pushing a long string of 89' autoracks with truck mount couplers through my ladder of #4 turnouts with random 9 3/4" S-curves without derailments so I think everything N scale stinks and if you disagree I AM GOING TO TPYE IN ALLLL CAPS AND MAKE SPELING ERROSR!!!"
This has turned into the same silly folley as the track debate. So much effort on coupler posts, it seems like there is something more constructive to do with this time.
Guys,If I may.. I believe what you are witnessing is another long overdue growth step brought forth by N Scalers and not just the "elitist" factor-unless those of us that has howled for years for body mounted couplers are "elitist"..I think not since many I know that whats mounted mounts are average joe modelers. I fear this will be a painful step for some but,progress can not be stopped nor should it be.Progress should never be feared simply because one fears changes to what once was. Of course there will be ways to hold to the old truck mounts for those that perfer them. For those that worry this change will cost extra $$$ you're 100% correct can't sugar coat that cold fact.. However,the prices will go up anyway so way not have the improvements to justify the higher price?
The answer is simple, though many may not like it. Look to your prototype railroads and follow their example. You don't see Class I railroads running stack trains and auto racks through 20 degree curves, they know the rolling stock will just fall off the rails. If you have the equivalent (9 3/4"), don't expect your stuff to fare any better, no matter where your couplers are mounted. Would I like more rolling stock to have body mounts from the factory? Yes. If it is at least as reliable as the current offerings of truck mounts. I will not expect my 89' auto racks to make it through tight curves because that is not what the prototype is intended to do. If I have anything longer than 50', I would not expect it to make it through 9 3/4" curves, and neither should anybody else. 9 3/4" is the realm of 4-4-0 steamers, 0-6-0 switchers, GP18's (at most) and 36'-40' freight cars, no matter what couplers are on them or where they are mounted.
Right on Terry, I couldn't of said it better myself. I have noted some improvement with body mounted couplers on the 9 3/4" radius curves on reverse moves. You can pull all day long and not notice to many glitches. It's when you back your train up that the truth comes out. The real test of train equipment and track work is the result of what happens, when you back your train up.
Excuse me. "Silly" you said. Well, we might get a little silly in our discussions. Seriously. It's time for body mounted couplers. I've been switching my equipment over for sometime now. I recently received some equipment with the original Micro-Trains couplers...body mounted. Perhaps 15 to 20 years old. The owner of the equipment saw the value...years ago. Mark my word, this will become the turning point for better N-Scale operations. HO arrived at this conclusion back when I was a kid. So, what took us N Scalers so long? See if this answers the question. The fact that we didn't have prototype equipment but toy like equipment. The market is changing and manufacturers are hearing the demands from the more technically skilled in our ranks...which is growing rapidly, daily. You'd be surprised how many of us HO types are now a part of the N Scale picture. That's a fact.eek: AND, our demands for quality equipment hasn't slacked off. Hat's off to Micro-Trains for leading the way and setting the standard.biggrin:
