A significant portion of my layout is devoted to passenger train operations. While, I would agree that the majority of modelers devote much of their layouts to freight train operations, I have a gut feeling that passenger train modelers are a bit more than “few and far between”.
Rich
I agree, Rich. Over the years, I’ve had just over 100 passenger and head-end cars, and while many have been sold-off, I’m currently working on another 20-or-so…some for me and a few for a couple of friends, too.
Some are semi-freelanced, while others are built to match particular prototypes, using photos of the real ones.
Wayne
Trains as in the hobby of model trains, so yes, the layout.
Sheldon
I suppose it depends on how you define “few.” Lots of people have some passenger equipment. In fact, my layout is specifically designed to accomodate a 2 locomotive/11 car Amtrak Capitol Limited, despite being the only passenger train that it will ever see. Walthers definitely sells those name train sets. Seemingly every Santa Fe layout set in California seems to require an A-B-B-A set leading bi-level cars across the high desert.
But when you page through MR, how many passenger layouts do you see? Very, very few. And those tend to be skewed to the aforementioned Southern California desert or the North East Corridor. Those guys aren’t buying generic. Neither are the collector-types that go for the full-up sets or the dyed-in-the-wool “I need an Empire Builder set for my Marias Pass layout.” Passenger facilities are monsters that few have the space for, so it doesn’t surprise me that few seem to have terminals on their layouts.
Not really. Most of them are in boxes, I am not sure why I don’t get rid of them until I have a replacement, I just don’t. The amount left is not that large anyways. However, at this point in my life, I will not buy anything if it is not accurate. If someone doesn’t make it, so be it.
ahh, OK, I had wondered if you were referring to mixed trains.
Rich
Oh, the opposite then.
You don’t run anything unless it is accurate.
And under this present method, you’ve accumulated enough equipment to run an accurate train with no significant gaps. Not a train that didn’t exist in your prototype. Not a fantasy train.
Or do you build a “what if” train with only the accurate equipment you’ve presently accumulated?
Nevermind. I think I’ll always be confused.
I have found it is, in a strange sence is easier to order from them.
While they did charge me shipping for my preorde from there HQ/Warehouse in Tennessee, to canada, I am suprised I was not charged duty or border tax? Maybe thats one reason?
[quote user=“Doughless”]
n012944
Doughless
Ok, so simply put, you still play with trains that you’ve collected in the past, but “upgrade” as the more detailed and accurate models are launched.
Its not like you’re sitting at home for years with nothing at all until an RTR version of exactly what you want is built.
Not really. Most of them are in boxes, I am not sure why I don’t get rid of them until I have a replacement, I just don’t. The amount left is not that large anyways. However, at this point in my life, I will not buy anything if it is not accurate. If someone doesn’t make it, so be it.
Correct.
Correct.
It is 100% accurate as far as my knowledge.
[quote user=“Doughless”]
Ne
[quote user=“NittanyLion”]
richhotrain
NittanyLion
I suspect the real hurdle is that passenger modelers tend to be few and far between, and the ones that do exist are rather meticulous in their demands.
A significant portion of my layout is devoted to passenger train operations. While, I would agree that the majority of modelers devote much of their layouts to freight train operations, I have a gut feeling that passenger train modelers are a bit more than “few and far between”.
Rich
I suppose it depends on how you define “few.” Lots of people have some passenger equipment. In fact, my layout is specifically designed to accomodate a 2 locomotive/11 car Amtrak Capitol Limited, despite being the only passenger train that it will ever see. Walthers definitely sells those name train sets. Seemingly every Santa Fe layout set in California seems to require an A-B-B-A set leading bi-level cars across the high desert.
But when you page through MR, how many passenger layouts do you see? Very, very few. And those tend to be skewed to the aforementioned Southern California desert or the North East Corridor. Those guys aren’t buying generic. Neither are the collector-types that go for the full-up sets or the dyed-in-the-wool “I need an Empire Builder set for my Marias Pass layout.” Passenger facilities are monsters that few have the space for, so it do
It’s amusing the extent these forums go off topic, but Sheldon manages to top himself everytime.
After skimming through all your forum thread rants over the months Sheldon, I think it’s very clear you’ve figured out your own way of operating your trains to your liking. And I think you’re well aware of how unique your preferences are, I just don’t understand why you constantly try to talk about them. Are you trying to show them off? Are you trying to push your opinions onto others and get people to convert to DC wireless radio throttles and freelance their layout? Why do the same topics seem to get into every one of the forum threads that you take over?
Keep in mind this was about why scale trains products aren’t as common as other manufacs in certain train stores. And now its…well…
I dont mean to be critical, but I hate seeing these threads always being locked up and sometimes even deleted due to the off topic and argumentative nature.
Charles
richhotrain,
Limited runs are not really “discontinued”, they are just run in batches. They are, in a sense, “discontinued” the second they are finished being manufactured.
I assume the high price for a Rapido Monon car is about what they are going for when auctioned. Otherwise, why bother to list it as “Buy it Now” at such a high price? So is it really “gouging”, or just reflecting free market supply & demand?
We also don’t know how many Rapido made in the first place. Perhaps as few as 200 Monon cars were ever made by them (Jason has said in the past that that’s their minimum per paint scheme).
Sheldon,
[:-,] You know neither one of us are normally brief. More like we get paid by the word.
RE: the twin 50’ TOFC; my point is that by the early 1950s, railroads were already going away from twin vans on a 50’ flat. Instead, they were focusing on single vans on 40’ or 50’ cars…until the 75’ F39A’s showed up.
I think 24’-26’ vans in TOFC service were getting pretty rare on the East Coast in the early 1950s. Things were quickly going to 32’ and 35’ vans.
BTW, interchange of TOFC before TrailerTrain were almost unheard of. Deck heights, apron plates, rub-rail dimensions, tie-downs, etc. all varied. All NH TOFCs before 1957 were in captive service, for example. Not that it was impossible for a TOFC to end up on another road, but they probably never took the trailer off the flat car when they did so (and not in unit trains, that’s for sure). Side door trailers were probably the way to go for such single-car moves. We have photo evidence that the REA sent such trailers to South Station in Boston on flats (and South Station certainly had no TOFC ramps).
The Athearn caboose in NH colors, they sold that thing for decades. Someone was buying them. One of t
PM sent.
It’s a long and well established very oft repeated (ad nauseum) pattern; PM sent
I for one would be very interested to hear more about your modeling goals, your choices and compromises, and the reasons behind them. Your layout construction always looks top notch, but it would be interesting to know what your end goal is and why.
And yes, you are correct, most everybody, for now, likely knows what mine are.
Sheldon
Personally, I find every post in this thread relevant. Scale Trains makes a specific type of product, and generally sells it in a somewhat different way than others.
Obviously they see something with their market that makes their product standards and selling methods work.
Knowing what others look for, how they approach the hobby, is extremely relevant to a Scale Trains thread, IMO. If the thread talks about the specificities of passenger cars, which ST doesn’t make AFAIK, that doesn’t mean the thread went OT, IMO.
Also, there was a recent thread about what articles we want to see in MR, and many mentioned articles that speak to the reasons behind certain goals, choices, and compromises.
If a person doesn’t compromise, I’d like to see exactly how much equipment they have and how often they actually run trains, if that is even a goal. And its fine if it isn’t. That would be part of the discussion. And that would be part of the reasons behind choices.
I run a shortline. One train at a time. About 8 cars max. I could accumulate all the equipment I need in about 2 months if I was strictly disciplined. Yet I keep buying.
Sincerity is a big part of a well functioning forum. Some responses seem to only want to let readers see the part they want others to see.
While repetitive, at least the repetitive responses seem sincere and open.
I remain puzzled why critiques are offered for posts one might disagree with. It is quite feasible to just ignore anything of no interest. I for one find all posts potentially of interest. It doesn’t take long to discover whether a particular post is or is not interesting. Since this forum doesn’t use stickies repetitive posts have value. At least some do. I do not get tired of Sheldon’s repeating himself, I move on if there’s nothing new to read but often there’s a fresh rendition of the “themes”.
For example, you’d think DCC is the “only way to go” but Sheldon describes an alternative using DC equipment. Surely it’s of value to have that information. Possibly thousands of hobbyists and potential hobbyists access this site. Who knows what they might find useful.
[quote user=“Lastspikemike”]
I remain puzzled why critiques are offered for posts one might disagree with. It is quite feasible to just ignore anything of no interest. I for one find all posts potentially of interest. It doesn’t take long to discover whether a particular post is or is not interesting. Since this forum doesn’t use stickies repetitive posts have value. At least some do. I do not get tired of Sheldon’s
Hmmm.
Here’s my take on this thread:
This entire thread is a really good reading justification of exactly why I no longer have any passenger equipment, or even steam locomotives, on my layout. The whole good enough versus not so argument. (Last steamer is being sent out for sale because I decided plastic diesels were more fun to actually play with, especially with dcc control of class lights and numberboards, but mostly for their reliability).
I changed to ALL freight, say post-2000 modern era, and literally every single diesel unit and every single freight car is a correct model of its prototype (excepting one old Athearn blue box 50’ box car that remains for the cat to attack–he occasionally bats the last car of a train off the track). Oh, wait, I do have one Athearn “too fat” PS 5344 Illinois Terminal boxcar. I’d replace it with the Exactrail totally correct car, but they never offered the yellow IT paint scheme.
Now, I don’t have as big a roster as some folks, only about 75 freight cars and 10 diesels, but I’ve been able to purchase (rather than build) models that are as correct as reasonably possible, especially for rtr. This includes the Intermountain see-through autoracks, etc. etc.
There’s one MTH Christmas gondola and one foobie Athearn 52’ Santa Fe gondola with incorrect lettering. That’s it for foobies.
And NO I’m not inferring that others should do what I do, ONLY stating that this was my means to “correct” models on the layout. Others like Howard Zane are still having a ball constructing high end kits and older wooden freight car kits. That is just not for me; with kids sports and demanding job, I lack time and desire for that kind of approach. Yet I acknowledge Howard’s trains look simply outstanding and the massive numbers of built kits can be overwhelming to see.
John
“collector of fine models”
Since I freelance, highly plausable free lance, near proto-lance, the details on any particular locomotive cannot be TOO prototype specific…or else I’d be modeling that prototype.
It does me no good to pay for a particular model of a specific loco, or rail car, like you might find pictures of on the internet.
If I ran passenger trains, generic cars would be more desireable than proto specific cars.
I guess I’m running against the grain of what the manufacturers emphasize, which I suppose also means what most consumers are emphasizing.
As an example, I wanted to buy a new Rapido SW1200. They are all proto specific, and pretty era specific. Great if you’re modeling a specific railroad in a specific era.
A modern shortline would likely not be running an (ex)-SP SW1200 that still had its 1970’s light package and angled numberboards intact and functional (and I’m not going to pay for their installation just to then remove them)
So the I consider the generic Walthers Mainline version of an NW2 a “better” model than the Rapido for my goals, mainly because they do NOT have proto specific details.