Walthers 85-foot passenger cars on a 4x8 layout

Alright, so what I now plan on doing is getting those longer shank Kadees, to see if they will negotiate my 23.5’’ radius curves. If worse comes to worse, I’ll replace the trucks with Walthers’ Talgo ones (which is fine with me as I do not do switching moves or run my current Rivarossi/IHC cars backwards often). I could always make my layout slightly bigger (say a 8x5) which will allow longer radius curves, around 26’'.

5’ wide is a good idea. Sometimes it is easier then you might think to add enough width to extend the minimum radius. After all, only a small part of the circle needs to be supported out at the edge of what you may already have. Adding short arc shaped shelf sections extending the width at just the right spot are usually feasible.

Hello All,

Eighteen-foot curves!?! I’m guessing you meant 18-inch.

On the “mainline” of my 4’x8’ pike the curves are asymmetrical; 1/4 of the curve is 18-inch and the other 1/4 is 15-inch.

To avoid the “S” made of 4 Atlas Snap Switches I reworked the track plan and added a modified PECO curved turnout with a 5-inch easement to a siding to a crossover made with 2 Snap Switches.

Occasionally I will run the Bachmann Royal Gorge train.

This train consists of an F-7 A-B-B consist with two 85-foot passenger cars and a domed observation car with an F-7 A unit on the end facing backward- -like the prototypical train does for the return run.

Yes, the 85-foot cars will negotiate the sharp curves and the “S” curve before the track rework, but the overhang is comical.

The “Olde Tyme” excursion train that runs on my pike is lead by a USRA 0-6-0 with a Vanderbilt tender pulling a 42-foot RPO car, two 42-foot passenger cars, a converted 28-foot gondola for passenger seating with a bobber caboose.

A 0-4-0 Side Tank Porter is used as a helper up the curved 3% grade then cut loose before the train descends the historic spiral trellis (helix) made of 15-inch curved sectional track.

Due to the constraints of my pike I cannot run 6-axle diesels.

If I could move to a 5’x9’ area it would solve a lot of problems.

However “She Who Must Be Obeyed” has set the limitations of how much space I can have in the spare bed/computer/train room.

Rather than lamenting what I can’t run I enjoy the challenge of making what I can run work.

Hope this helps.

That’s not exactly what I’m getting at. The Bachmann passenger cars can negotiate 18-inch radius curves no problem (not sure about the full dome though). The reason I was asking this is because the Walthers cars I have have a 24’’ minimum radius recommendation. Looking at the cars in person it seems that the main problem would be the diaphragms, so I’m getting long shank couplers to make the gap bigger. While it does not look as good, it will result in better operation.

Weird, I run my 6-axle diesels on my 4x8 all the time. My maximum radius is around 23 1/2 inches, which handles practically everything I have. I have plans to add a sort of removable barrier round the edge as a precaution to prevent derailments. That is, until my plan to increase the width to 5’ goes into action, which means 26-inch radius curves at most. With that and the extended shank couplers my “Mini Builder” will operate very well. In fact, now that the length of my train is 9 cars (and possibly larger in future), my single F7 will not be able to pull it!

Now I need to shift my focus to the cars I need most-the observation, Great Dome, baggage-dormitory, and some more F-units!

Hello All,

With the asymmetrical curves of my 4’x8’ track plan, the mainline radius averages out to 17-1/2-inches.

In theory, 24-inch radii curves are possible on a 48-inch wide space.

Practical…perhaps not, running so close to the edge.

However, in my opinion, a large oval is not a track plan.

A track plan incorporates the challenges of the space given allowing for maximum challenge/entertainment.

John Allen’s Time Saver Switching Puzzle wasn’t large but presented the challenges and entertainment I speak of.

Selective compression is a compromise all modelers face- -whether in track plan, motive power, rolling stock, scenery, or structures.

You, the modeler have to decide which compromises are to be made to achieve the outcome you desire.

As I previously posted, I can run 85-foot cars over the track plan I have chosen. But they look comically unrealistic.

If my goal was to run those cars I would need to make compromises in the track plan to accommodate that goal.

My choice is to make concessions in the motive power and rolling stock to implement my track plan of choice.

To run the cars you wish a concession you might have to make is to remove the diaphragms.

Compromise is the bane of all modelers no matter the size of the space presented.

Hope this helps.

We elected to attach “plexiglass” strips to edges of our tabletop layout wherever a derailment might have resulted in contact with the floor. We find a 2" wide strip is sufficient. We use the 1/10" thick acrylic sheet. It’s easy to bend with a heat gun. Cuts with the special knife you can buy for it. Drills easily especially with a brad point bit. We affix using steel cup washers with short screws into the edge of the 3/4" ply. That gives you a deflecting barrier about 1 1/2" high. We also fit these derailment deflectors in the edges of the access holes used to reach derailments inside our big tunnel.

Works well and is fairly unobtrusive.

We can then run our return curves very close to the layout edge achieving maximum radius in the available space. We also use the add on arc shelves for the same reason. The derailment deflectors screw into the edge of these layout surface extensions.

Yes, an excellent idea. I’d probably run mine around 2-3 inches above, a good height to prevent derailments but easy enough to reach over.

[quote user=“jjdamnit”

With the asymmetrical curves of my 4’x8’ track plan, the mainline radius averages out to 17-1/2-inches.

In theory, 24-inch radii curves are possible on a 48-inch wide space. Practical…perhaps not running so close to the edge.

However, in my opinion, a large oval is not a track plan.

A track plan incorporates the challenges of the space given allowing for maximum challenge/entertainment.

Selective compression is a compromise all modelers face- -whether in track plan, motive power, rolling stock, scenery, or structures.

You, the modeler have to decide which compromises are to be made.

As I previously posted, I can run 85-foot cars over the track plan I have chosen. But they look comically unrealistic.

If my goal was to run those cars I would need to make compromises in the track plan to accommodate that goal.

My choice is to make concessions in the motive power and rolling stock to implement my track plan of choice.

To run the cars you wish a concession you might have to make is to remove the diaphragms.

Compromise is the bane of all modelers no matter the size of the space presented.

Hope this helps.

[/quote]

I am trying to find a balance between ease of use, simplicity, and operation. My layout I am working on right now is probably not going to be permanent, and while I’ll still scenic it up and such once we move out of our rental house I will have more space to work, and accomodate such large cars. I’ve thought about making it a 5x8, to make the curves broader and add more space inside for industries and switching possibilities.

Hello All,

As you move through this great hobby and seek advice you will encounter a full spectrum of opinions.

From the “Rivet Counter- -‘Not on my railroad!’” to the “I just want to run trains no matter what”.

All are valid perspectives.

Many accomplished modelers have that same outlook.

Please understand I don’t want to be a “Bobby Bummer” and dissuade you from what you hope to accomplish.

Sort through all our opinions and prejudices to find the answer(s) that lead to the solutions and goals you seek (see my signature/disclaimer).

Keep the questions coming, and…

Hope this helps.

Thank you very much for that explanation, I understood where you were getting at now :slight_smile:

As an update, I just received my 4 passenger cars from Walthers. They seem to roll fine on their own and with my Rivarossi cars through quite tight curves. I’ve got them through an 18’’ radius curve but I’m planning to stick with at least 24 inches so they look good. However, the diaphragms and coupler length is the problem, as the couplers are short in length and so the diaphragms rub against each other. Long shank couplers should fix the problem, and I still plan to add a foot of width to my layout to make the cars perform nicer.

Adding just that foot will make a huge difference to your enjoyment of your layout.

The relatively small encroachment into the available space will be a wise investment.

I wish I could dig my passenger cars out and show pictures of what I did. I used flexible diaphragms on only one of the two 85 foot cars, and I can run them on 22 inch radius curves. The cars just all need to be coupled together in the right order now.

Going from 4 feet to 5 feet introduces all kinds of unexpected problems with access and maintenance unless the layout is an island.

If you are going to do this, mock it all up out of cardboard first and be sure you can live with it.

-Kevin

Here we go again.

For clarity, adding one foot in width adds half a foot to each side of that part of the layout.

If you don’t have room to add those extensions then don’t try it.

If you have room to do it, you will never, ever regret it.

I have room, and it is an island one.