Folks,
I think if life were equal in S modeling we would all have full
length passenger cars in all the window, skirting, and truck variations
that we want. This is not going to happen. I challenge anybody to
build or in my case rebuild a layout so that the long cars look really
good, without compromising someplace else! I have several 45" radii
curves and the cars don't look that good. But because I'm running with
electricity, plastic ties, couplers with little springs, and magnets
under the ties, I can probably compromise a little on that appearance
part. Others would use shorten or shorter cars.
The fact of the matter is that we all model and compromise a little
differently with our layouts, those that don't compromise either are
very rich or just want to talk! My personal feeling is that if your
going to run full length cars you really need broad curves and most
people just don't have the room or don't want to compromise the rest of
their operations to accommodate those curves. On the other hand, I love
to run E units, but I think they look wrong with shortened passenger
cars,( F units look better). Next if you want long cars and want to
pull them into a train shed attached to a union station (aka Kansas
City, Chicago, St. Louis etc.) you will need 20-40 feet on a layout. So
at this point if one were to have a large or medium sized passenger
station and some kind of simple circle around it, we are talking perhaps
40 foot in total length. If one adds freight yards, engine facilities,
industry and some countryside to run in I think most of us will
compromise someplace.
Back to my theory of marketing shortened cars and full length,
using the same basic body, ends, trucks etc. I think starting with a
coach and baggage cars (remember many trains were very heavy on the head
end stuff) would be ideal.
I don't know about the costs of developing the rest of the fleet because
once we get beyond the basics the financials get more than scary! maybe
it's time to pass the collection plate!
Bob Werre
John Degnan wrote:
>Yep, and the "scale modelers" among us would lay out curves that way in the
>first place... simply because we strive for as much accuracy in our track as
>we do in our models. So... "full-length" models (WITH body-mounted couplers)
>are indeed a feasible thing... even in S! Thanks for bringing that point out,
>Dick.
>
>
> John Degnan
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>Richard Karnes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2006 18:39:47 -0500
>From: "Bill Fraley"
>Subject: Passenger Cars
>
>Hi,
>And another thing to remember ...
>Very, very large radiuses for the passenger trains to run on!
>70' - 80' passenger cars will only run well, barely, on my 42" outside
>mainline.
>Bill Fraley
>=======================================
>All --
>
>I have operated full-length passenger cars with body-mounted couplers
>successfully on 33" staging-yard curves. The key to doing this is to use
>spiral easements between your straight and curved tracks. A spiral easement is
>just a variable-radius curve whose radius changes from infinity to the target
>curve radius (i.e., 33"). I have previously described how to do this on this
>e-list. Math is not required. Just lay out your curve with about a half-inch
>offset from the straight track alignment and spike each end of a .125 (or
>larger) rail to the straight and the the curve respectively. Draw a pencil
>line along the rail base and you have it.
>
>Dick Karnes
>
>
>
>
>
>
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/S-Scale/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
