while the DETAILS have gotten better, the mechanics have NOT. Just look at the current crop of articulated locos. They ALL are just 3 axle or 4 axle diesel trucks styled to LOOK like steam engine units but NOT correctly articulated. They CLAIM that its done for "Over-hang" concerns which is BS. They just moved the overhang from the front of the engine to the back, so the cab's swing completely away from the tender deck. The Oriental Ltd "Powerhouse series" 2-8-8-2's track just fine around corners as tight as 22". Same for the older Bowser Big-boys and Challengers. At least those models look better going around corners, and were heavy enough to out pull the modern plastic choo-choo's from BLI, MTH etc. I have 7 of the older Powerhouse N&W Y3's which all still run smoothly after 20 years, while the BLI Y6b's and Bachmann J have started to wear out and have developed some slight quartering issues in less than 5 years.
Sticker Shock
- Thread starter joecatch
- Start date
logandsawman
Well-Known Member
I think buying the stuff is half the fun of the hobby. A lot of the details can be quite inexpensive and this is where the money conscious person needs to concentrate.
As far as signals and upscaling trucks, those don't need to be done right away. I plan on spending money on my railroad just about until I die.
Lately I have been selling off stuff that doesn't really go with my current plan and buying other stuff. In some cases, I have made money, although that is not my goal.
My wife wants to constantly spend money on the house. I want to constantly spend money on the railroad. The railroad stuff actually amounts to a lot less total outlay and is way more fun for me. I guess I win.
Charles Smiley
cspmovies
Here's a bargain. Under a buck-fifty!
This 1950s era kit actually has real sprung trucks too! But I recently paid 20 Dollars for it at a train show in Anaheim. If you buy the better stuff, and take care of it, it will still be worth an hour's pay when your grand children inherit it -- maybe.
This 1950s era kit actually has real sprung trucks too! But I recently paid 20 Dollars for it at a train show in Anaheim. If you buy the better stuff, and take care of it, it will still be worth an hour's pay when your grand children inherit it -- maybe.
All true no doubt, but you are comparing apples to oranges here. Oriental Limited's models were hybrids with cast boilers and the same mechanisms that went under brass models. In fact I remember them being called "poor man's brass". Their price point was considerably above the plastic models of the time, as was both their running and detail quality. They weren't mass produced and never appeared in large numbers. Great models, very high quality, but they belong in the limited run brass category more than the mass produced plastic category.
I love Varney... real quality and crisp casting as the dies were new back then. I am blessed to have most of the detail parts on hand, lots of scale lumber, plastic, chain etc. I just kitbashed a MOW style caboose out of a Bobber caboose, a surplus Train Miniture box car floor and scale lumber, wire and bits. It took me quite awhile to put it together as my hands are only good for 20 minutes an hour. As "rehab" it was a great project. All I need to do is paint it now. Cost.... very little maybe a retail of 3 bucks until I opened the on hand package of Overland caboose trucks..... Model Railroading is my hobby/passion. I don't have much money, I do have desire.
Charles Smiley
cspmovies
These three cars are all "rescue" cars. The flatcar is a upgraded Tyco piece of junk that cost a dollar at a flea market. New trucks, couplers paint and decals plus lots of grab irons bent up from a 10-cents piece of brass wire.
Similar treatment to the other two cars that were wood/metal kits from the 1950s and 60s that I renewed and improved. The tank car is Athearn when they made real craftsman kits of wood and metal. The boxcar is formerly a Silver Streak wood kit. My cost was much less than paying for P2K cars for 30 Dollars each. Even those RTR cars have crummy cheap plastic trucks and couplers that I replace. And I had several weeks of fun fixing them. That is the best part of the hobby for me.
Similar treatment to the other two cars that were wood/metal kits from the 1950s and 60s that I renewed and improved. The tank car is Athearn when they made real craftsman kits of wood and metal. The boxcar is formerly a Silver Streak wood kit. My cost was much less than paying for P2K cars for 30 Dollars each. Even those RTR cars have crummy cheap plastic trucks and couplers that I replace. And I had several weeks of fun fixing them. That is the best part of the hobby for me.
True but the MECHANICS and how they articulate was my point. using Rivorossi's 65 year old 'solution' still makes articulateds look like toys. Bowsers were all over the place and my Challenger will out pull all but their Big boy. THEY were also articulated correctly, its just the modern designers are too intellectually lazy to design it right.
trailrider
Well-Known Member
Well, many HO modellers are restricted to 18" radius curves, yet aren't willing to eliminate some of the bigger rolling stock, including engines, from their roster. If the demand is there, the manufacturers will meet it as best they can. I personally like bigger steam locomotives, but have 18-20" radius curves to contend with. As it happens, the C.B. & Q. was never big on articulateds, but did have a number of 10-coupled steamers. I've been able to kitbash Mantua models into 10-coupled engines that will take 18" curves, and don't look bad doing it! But, with the exception of a few diesels, I stick with B-B motors, or remove the center drivers or flanges to help going around the bend...the locomotives, I mean!
Iron Horseman
Well-Known Member
That is just not true. It would be much easier to design it like the prototype. Check out the old threads where one of the big locos was more prototypical (had to have something like 30" radius curve to operate) and read all the peoples posts griping because the loco would go around an 18" corner. If a manufacturer cannot make it go around a tight corner, it won't sell to the masses and they won't make any money. It takes much more engineering skill to re-imagine the drive so the majority of the 18" radius people will buy it.
Cjcrescent
Master Mechanic
I think that the point that Y3a was trying to make was that these "newer" articulateds that don't have the rear engine attached as it is on the prototype, become something that is not quite right, prototypically that is. I feel the same way. Any other system of articulation is, no matter how you want to describe it, is still non prototypical, Period.
Last edited by a moderator:
Even the Powerhouse 2-8-8-2 will go around the 18" (actually about 16 1/2" curves). Even before the crop of modern plastic choo-choo's were around, Bowsers locos were right there, correctly articulated and going around tight curves. The "won't sell unless it will go around tight corners" is a strawman argument. If you have limited space but JUST HAVE TO HAVE that 4-12-2, its problem created by the model railroader. My minimum radius is 26", so I run mostly 4-8-0's, 2-8-0's, and a few 4-8-2's. I have a 2-6-6-2 (All Norfolk & Western pre-WWII) that I run sometimes as well. The Powerhouse engines also go around the curves but the area I model would have hardly seen the larger power. The problem with correct articulation is that the front engine would have to be powered via a drive shaft connected to a gearbox in the front engine.
I think the market disagrees with you here.
I most wholeheartedly agree. Many modelers (just search threads here on the forum) talk about six axle power and large steamers on 18" radii. For your minimum radius you made the right picks. I generally advise four axle power, 0-6-0, 2-6-0, 4-6-0, 2-8-0, and at most light mikes (2-8-2's) for 24" and under, but lots of guys just can't live without a Big Boy or a large drivered 4-8-4. A self inflicted problem!
Yes, and that's how brass importers did it, but you're forgetting economics. Manufacturers will generally implement the most cost effective solution to a problem. They know what price point they have to hit for a model to sell, and this is an area that is basically "low hanging fruit" for them. There is a significant share of modelers who don't have the space, want the big power anyway, and don't care about the mechanics of getting it around their curves as long as it works. Look at that disaster of a 4-12-2 MTH did. Arrrggghhhhh!!! Not everybody is as prototypically conscious as we are!
Charles Smiley
cspmovies
Well, I went on ebay and won a brand new Bachmann CSX SD-40 (#60910) with DCC for $62. Probably not the best price around but I didn't think I was going to win so I didn't pay much attention to the pricing.
Anyway, I will soon have my first engine. And that is all I have so far! No DCC controller, no track, no rolling stock, nothing. Like I said, I was not expecting to win. Now I have to starting buy everything else!
Anyway, I will soon have my first engine. And that is all I have so far! No DCC controller, no track, no rolling stock, nothing. Like I said, I was not expecting to win. Now I have to starting buy everything else!
Iron Horseman
Well-Known Member
One of the manufacturers does exactly that. The problem is that the compromises to the design inorder to articulate the rear drivers are still present whether it articulates or not.
Iron Horseman
Well-Known Member
Again, the modeller is the problem, with unrealistic expectations. Most all articulated models go around tighter curves than the prototype in the first place. Understanding what suitable engines should be used is part of model railroading. Threatening manufacturers? Their are blow-hards in every hobby. You should read audiophile threads( can you hear the 'sound' of speaker cables), or even the Science Fiction modellers(Did it have panel lines, etc). For a model articulated to swivel correctly, the front engine swivels at the back of the frame, attached to the front of the rear one which is rigid. Having the cab completely skewed from the front of the tender as it goes around curves (Like the Plastic N&W "A") looks horrid enough that I don't even photograph it from those angles. the wrong articulation also takes away from the appearance of the front engine swinging out like the prototype. Perhaps I just work to a higher standard, but thats my problem.
malletman
Alcohaulic
Glad to see someone back into the hobby despite the percieved high costs. I have stayed (by choice) in the older era of model railroading, buying older kits, craftsman kits ect. I use 2 old MRC Golden Throttle packs for power. 'I have but only a small 55" by 33" layout but have a shelf extension planned shortly. I have 3 engines, 2 geared logging engines and 1 consolidation for mainline interchange work. All 3 are older PFM/United brass imports, none cost me over $250. My 2 truck Shay was $100 and just needed some minor TLC and a can motor, the 2 truck Climax was just over $200 and only needed TLC and I just bought a nice pro painted ATSF 2-8-0 to handle my main line work. I covet the estate sales tables at shows for older items that many times are steals compared to new items. When my Climax was brand new in 1959 it cost $47.50, which was a lot of money back then. One has to remember the average wage when looking at older prices. I to remember the days of $20 and under Athearn F units and 3-5 doller freight car kits. Those are still out there at shows for the most part. Welcome back Mikie
