Truck vs Body Mounted

[Dave V]

Perhaps I should have phrased it that I don't consider my work on par with some of the regulars (Tom, Dave, etc.).  But my very point is that it doesn't prevent me from posting my stuff.  I want and need the feedback if I'm going to improve my skills.  I can handle the lack of tact when it arrises.

I tossed that barb in this thread because it goes to the core of the argument of what makes this forum different than so many others.

[Mark5]

Dave,

There are many different skill sets. Tom for example - does he have a layout?

(then there are people that just talk, like me for example  - not that I have any skill in this)

Mark

[oakcreekco]

I always have used the "good enough for now" rule on all my modeling ventures, including my layout.

I just try and do it as well as I can, based on time, money, what's available, and my skill level.  I have more than enough "stress" in my worklife, and life in general. I model to relieve stress, so I sure as hell don't get my shorts twisted over the hobby.

I will however, voice my opinions on manufacturers, and what they are producing based on buying/operating experiences, but like I said, I don't let my shorts get bunched up.

If someone is selling "crap" for good money (fill in the blanks), I'll speak my peace, and not buy again.

[Mark5]

I always have used the "good enough for now" rule on all my modeling ventures, including my layout.

This is basically my modelling philosohy. I am trying to create an "illusion" of the N&W's Pokey circa 1974. With hundreds of hoppers and other types of equipment, it isn't really constructive for me to expect every piece to be of museum quality (correct hoppers? are you kidding?). I have standards but the focus is on the big picture, not individual models.

[Dave V]

Tom for example - does he have a layout?

Yes, he does, and he owes us some pictures, darn it!!! ;D

[bbussey]

...  I have gone over my posts on this thread and I now request that you show me and the rest of the prople here where I "dismiss" [whatever that means] those who wish to strive for higher standards" [your words].  Show me because I never said anything like that.  All I did was say it was indeed possible to back long trains with truck mounted couplers.  I merely presented another view and "disparaged" no one.  I'm the one who said: "If you want to body mount then fine but like I said I have seen Ntrakkers back entire trains into sidings with truck mounted couplers.  You say its better and easier with body mounts but someone else may say it takes more skill with truck mounted ones.  I say Model Railroad Rule # 1 applies here."

So your accusation is blatantly false.

For years you've disparaged others at one point or another, and it seems to be whenever it is some aspect of the hobby they do differently than what you do or believe in - be it modeling preferences, purchasing preferences, etcetera - whether it's in threads here or threads elsewhere.  I don't know why you can't allow others to model the way they wish to model without criticizing, especially since it doesn't affect how you model in any way.  I stand by my assessment.

[lock4244]

The close enough is good enough philosophy is where I land as well. Some very obvious thing I can't live with, like the Atlas C630's painted for CN and CP... the tri-mount trucks and the wrong rear end and fuel tanks on the CP units kills me, so I didn't buy any. I'm getting some undec units and have the Briggs Dofasco truck kits for them, and I'll tackle some of the glairing differences as well, but I won't get all Robbman on them. I just need to acquire a few things more... like modeling skills, painting skills, decalling skills, patience, etc.

I do admire the work that people do here, and alot of times I find myself amazed at the raw talent that some of you guys have. It's often pretty humbling  :-\

If people didn't try to do better, we'd still be using RTR locomotives with the scale equivalent of 8" pipe for handrails and a look and feel that would humble the makers of chunky soup.

[John]

Perhaps I should have phrased it that I don't consider my work on par with some of the regulars (Tom, Dave, etc.).  But my very point is that it doesn't prevent me from posting my stuff.  I want and need the feedback if I'm going to improve my skills.  I can handle the lack of tact when it arrises.

I tossed that barb in this thread because it goes to the core of the argument of what makes this forum different than so many others.

I understand .. what I meant though was that you don't need to be on a certain skill level to be able to participate here. There are places that are very exclusive, and unless you are accomplished, you might not get in .. then there is the other end of the spectrum .. where anything goes .. I think this place is some where in between, with a core group of like minded folks who want to do better .. or are looking for a certain level .. thats all

[MichaelWinicki]

The close enough is good enough philosophy is where I land as well. Some very obvious thing I can't live with, like the Atlas C630's painted for CN and CP... the tri-mount trucks and the wrong rear end and fuel tanks on the CP units kills me, so I didn't buy any. I'm getting some undec units and have the Briggs Dofasco truck kits for them, and I'll tackle some of the glairing differences as well, but I won't get all Robbman on them.

When I read that I don't the "Close enough is good enough" feeling... I feel that you're far more precise in how you want your loco's to appear than someone in the "CEIGE" crowd– but I think that's perfectly A-OK and like others have said, that's how the whole hobby advances and becomes more precise.

For many of us we may fall into the "CEIGE" for some topics, but on others, we're looking for precision.  And there's nothing wrong with that. 

[wm3798]

A good case in point would be my approach to "off line" rolling stock.  My WM equipment has at least been looked up in a reference book or on line to make sure it's reasonably close to something my railroad has, while the off line stuff just has to look like it comes from the right era.  As time permits, and knowledge broadens, I may raise the eyebrow of concern in the direction of a PRR boxcar or a Santa Fe flat, but other things come first.

Lee

[inkaneer]

For years you've disparaged others at one point or another, and it seems to be whenever it is some aspect of the hobby they do differently than what you do or believe in - be it modeling preferences, purchasing preferences, etcetera - whether it's in threads here or threads elsewhere.  I don't know why you can't allow others to model the way they wish to model without criticizing, especially since it doesn't affect how you model in any way.  I stand by my assessment.

I do believe that you have a penchant for misstating my position, be it here or elsewhere.  I urge everyone to review this thread and go over what I posted but at the same time review what you and one or two others  [whom I referred to as a mutual admiration society] have alleged that I said.  I have disparaged no one nor have I "dissed" anyone's modeling ability.  On the contrary I have been a moderating voice advocating consistency, meaning you can't just change one aspect and automatically expect improved results.  For instance going to body mount couplers and maintaining 9 3/4 inch radius curves is just as incompatible as switching to Atlas C55 track and keeping Hi profile wheel flanges.  And above it all I have constantly maintained that Model Railroading Rule #1 applies.  Read my posts with an open mind rather than a jaundiced eye and that fact comes through.  For instance, show me and everyone else here where I said that truck mounted couplers were better than body mounts or that body mounts were inferior to truck mounts.  I made no such statement.  What I stated in my first post on 9/15/09 was this:

"I have heard that body mounts are better than truck mounts for backing cars.  I am not too sure about that as I have seen Ntrak clubs back an entire train of 40-60 cars equipped with truck mounted couplers into a siding.  Other things come into play here such as rolling characteristics of the cars and how sharp the turnouts or curves are.  Body mounts are not a cure all even on the prototype as experiments on the PRR with an electric engine nicknamed "Big Liz" showed.  

Instead it was you who stated that body mounts were better for backing trains. You wrote:

 "Body mounts are better than truck mounts for pushing a train.  This doesn't mean it's impossible to push a truck-mounted-coupler-equipped consist - it just means it's better and easier to do with body-mounted couplers."

Did you take into account sharp curves or turnouts as I did?  No, instead you became very defensive because you "got a dog in this fight" as you produce a product with body mounted couplers.  But I can see your logic in that defensive stance since you obviously have a financial investment to protect.  But it was what you wrote next I cannot condone.  You wrote:

"Disadvantages of truck-mounted couplers (aside from pushing consists) include equipment standing ridiculously high over the rails as well as compromised detail on the ends of the car to allow for unprototypical coupler swing."

In writing that you disparaged every person who operates truck mounted couplers because their equipment stands "ridiculously high over the rails".  And those are your words, not mine.  Yet you falsely accuse me of disparaging others.  Never, absolutely never, have I ever said that some one else's efforts were ridiculous.    

[csolivais1979]

In writing that you disparaged every person who operates truck mounted couplers because their equipment stands "ridiculously high over the rails".  And those are your words, not mine.  Yet you falsely accuse me of disparaging others.  Never, absolutely never, have I ever said that some one else's efforts were ridiculous.    

I could be wrong, just ask my wife, but I don't think his intent was to disparage anyone.  When I read that post, what I took from it was that, according to HIS standards, incorrect ride hight is ridiculous, not that you or I am are ridiculous for having models with incorrect ride height, truck mounted couplers, or any other difference in modeling standards that two diferent people may have.  

[One of One-Sixty]

How does truck mounted couplers make a car ride higher?..........

it should not matter where the couplers are, it should be the wheels or trucks themselves not the couplers.

To me its like a car that has regular 17" tires & rims w/OEM shocks compared to the next guy who has aftermarket lowering springs and shocks with regular 17" tires and rims.

[bbussey]

How does truck mounted couplers make a car ride higher?..........

it should not matter where the couplers are, it should be the wheels or trucks themselves not the couplers.

To me its like a car that has regular 17" tires & rims w/OEM shocks compared to the next guy who has aftermarket lowering springs and shocks with regular 17" tires and rims.

Overwhelmingly, most N scale cars are higher than the prototype because they have to allow for coupler swing without compromising the ends.  It is not synonymous with customizing a car into a "lowrider."  The N scale car was never "built to OEM specifications" to begin with.  Those that are close to scale height are missing a significant portion of bottom of the ends.  In fact, most models are the "worst of both worlds"  - with the car raised higher so as to not totally destroy the end detail, but not raised entirely to clear the ends because the car would sit blatantly too high and therefore still have compromised end detail.

I will say however - there is at least one general car model on the market that has truck-mounts and sits at the correct height: the Atlas USRA wood sheathed boxcars (and the steel rebuilts) that run on the Andrews trucks.  But there is more detail (and substance) missing from the lower ends from what is on the prototype.  The Athearn 65' mill gon, Athearn (ex-MDC) 50' Railbox gon and Con-Cor 50' gon also sit at the right height, but 1/3 of the ends are missing and the floor sits way too high.  Same scenario with the Athearn wood milk reefers, with the end buffers way too high on the ends being blatantly obvious.  All of the Athearn (ex-MDC) modern boxcars have a good height, with the trucks slightly tucked under the side sills, but again the ends are compromised to allow for coupler swing.

That's one reason you're starting to see more and more manufacturers go to body-mounted couplers on non-caboose releases, and eventually it will be the standard rather than the exception.

[Mark5]

That's one reason you're starting to see more and more manufacturers go to body-mounted couplers on non-caboose releases, and eventually it will be the standard rather than the exception.

Sorta like what happened in HO.