21 inch passenger car owners...what's your minimum tolerance of overhang?

I run mine with a minimum 072 with some curves 081 or 090.  I have gotten used to the overhang and definitely feel that it is worth it.

 

Art

I tolerate it on O72 at home because I have no other choice. With the modular layouts, we have compound curves that average to O108. Needless to say, that looks much better. I can handle the overhang for the exchange of having the cars in scale proportion to the engine thats pulling them.

I would say 99" diameter (44.5R) is the minimum but even my o-108 have significant overhang.

 

"Aesthetically tolerable" is just about impossible to define.

0-99 atlas is my mainline  min. curve diameter, with most 108 up to144 .to me, 090 would be the tightest curve to use and still look reasonable. people here and in the "magazine" layouts dont realize how much better any trains look and run on wide radius curve.-jim

All my curves are 0-72 (maximum available for tubular track) and my 21" K-Lines passenger cars don't look out of place. Certainly wider would be better, but you have to work with what you got. I would not be intimidated if 0-72 is the best you can do.

My layout has a minimum of 072 curves, and I don't care about the overhang of any/all of my 21" passenger equipment. Sure, if I had had much more space available, then I would have gone 2-Rail SCALE anyway.

Out of curiosity, does anyone know if real railroad passenger cars had any overhang and if so how much? I have K-Lline's 16" passenger cars and they run on a circuit route of O63 and O72 curves. There is a little overhang which I can accept. I would think that 21" would be a bit too much for the O63.

In your opinion, what's the minimum radius curve you need for cars of this length to look okay from an aesthetic standpoint.  In other words, at what point does the overhang become aesthetically tolerable?  Are we talking an 0-84 radius?  Something greater than that?  Any thoughts (and/or visual aids ) ??

 

I think the biggest mistake is thinking that you need large radius curves to be happy.  Obviously the larger the better, but for 3 rail O, 0-72 is fine and I'm pretty sure you can run anything made for 3 rail.  I had a min of 0-72 on a previous layout and was very happy to run 21" cars.  

 

Hot Water has a very high standard for his modeling and I would trust his judgement on this call.

 

 

Forgive me for the lousy pictures. Lighting on the back side of my layout really draws a vacuum. Here are images of 21" Aluminum cars on 0138 curves.

 

 

 

I don't know what it will take to make 21" cars look prototypical, but it's a bunch more than 0138. Maybe 0256?

 

Gilly

I like mine coupled close enough so diaphragms touch - very close to scale separation.  That works on what you call O-144, or 72" radius.  It is very tight for full-width diaphragms, like the SP articulated coach.

When I run my 21" cars around the outer 072 mainline I just catch a glimpse of the center rail as they go thru the curves, what's that, about 5/8"-3/4" overhang?

 

I'm thinking of redoing the track with 096 curves but haven't talked myself into it yet, I JUST got this track finalized and running well

 

Running on 072 does make the train look a little "articulated" but not as bad as one of these:

 

I also have 072 track and they look OK at best going around the curves.  An "S" type curve is just plain ugly in 21" cars.  However in the end the scale cars look so nice I simply overlook the overhang. Their size just looks right when compared to the engine. But given the choice of an 18" vs 21" car on 072 track with the same level of detail, I would choose the 18" every time. In motion they are more pleasing to the eye.  I think Lionel figured this out along time ago. 

I run tubular track with 3 main lines of K Line 096  curves and the new Atlas 21 inch  Cal ZEPHYR and the cars look ok,Lionel 18 inch cars look great on these 09 curves.

Mikey

Taste in passenger car length/engine size per curvature can be very subjective.  I consider 0120/60" radius to be a tight curve and prefer just a few 72' cars and a smaller engine in that range. 

 

IMO, 21" cars going around a 72" radius curve kinda looks like a storage yard movement.  72" radius curves look great in HO.

 

No matter what the equipment & layout.  Smaller cars & shorter trains will make any pike seem larger.

 

Larger cars & longer trains will make any pike seem smaller.

 

Working point to point in 0 scale in most any average residential setting long/big stuff can get out of hand real fast.

I don't like the look of the over hang at all, and I don't think you could have a big enough curve to eliminate all of the overhang. I accept it because I would rather have the overhang than short cars.

I totally agree that the overhang is easier to live with than the cars that are too short.  I had originally decided that I would limit my passenger cars to 18", but I weakened and got the K-Line 21' California Zephyr and have been a huge fan of 21" every since.

 

Art

I would limit my passenger cars to 18", but I weakened and got the K-Line 21' California Zephyr and have been a huge fan of 21" every since.

 

There it is.  For all the naysayers that inhibit the purchase of 21" cars, once you try it, it just looks right.

 

(This morning I swore to myself I wasn't going to comment on this again.)  

 

quote:

If you are powering passenger trains with scale sized EMD E units or Alco PA's, they don't look right with shortened passenger cars.  Your fooling yourself if you won't buy 21" cars but run 18" cars.

 

You think an E or PA is bad, try a GG-1 or a Genesis. Even a tiny AEM-7 doesnt look right unless its dwarfed by the cars behind it. 

 

I agree though...once you get one, its all over. I'll only buy 18's if I cant get 21's... mostly amfleets. Hopefully someone fixes that problem soon.

 

The part I really dont get is spending all that money on these huge scale engines (and overhang!) but the 21" cars then become the problem. 

 

I may have a different approach than most. While I really like 85' passenger cars I personally don't like the look of 21" cars on anything less than 72"r (O-144 in 3R). Since I don't have anywhere near that kind of space I prefer to use smaller prototype cars like 60'ers or even 36-50' narrow gauge cars.

 

The HO modelers that I have seen that are into lots of passenger cars seem to prefer 40-45"r. 40" in HO = 72" in O.

I use a minimum of O-72.  They don't look good on these curves but it is the best that my space allows.

 

Joe

I have run a set of Atlas 21 inch Amtrak passenger cars on Gargraves 042 curves and the overhang is tremendous. Also found out that the longer passenger cars need a larger engine to pull them as the coupler swing issue pops up if not coupled to a proper size engine. Don't use a GP-38 or similar engine, use an SD-45 or larger engine for longer passenger cars.

 

Lee Fritz

I have a few, when I wasl at AGHR we ran the widest radius we could and the trains looked great, my new module layout will be the wides possible radius also, they just look much better and that is the name of the game, make it look good the best you can.

I don't like the overhang of 85' cars, even on my largest curves, so I stick to running freight trains with 40' and 50' cars. I know this probably isn't a popular solution, but I'm happy with the result, which is a train that "flows" nicely around my 2-rail layout. I'm not sure I've ever seen an O-scale curve big enough for 85' cars to really look good, but I know it would take far more room than I have.

I am with Chugman on this one. My first taste of 21" passenger cars was with the K-Line Milwaukee Road and Chicago & Northwestern sets many years ago. I have loved them ever since. Both Art and I have the same CZ set and they sure look good on the layout.

Guys,

 

Below is a video of 84' cars on 64" radius. If the trains are more at eye level then the overhang is less noticeable on tighter curves. I run these trains on 60" and 56". You gotta do what you gotta do.

Thanks for all who chimed in.  I guess my biggest surprise out of the whole thing was hearing that even with 0-138 curves there's still some, albeit tiny, overhang.  But it sounds as though there are plenty of you who can live with running them on 0-72.   My problem , as long as I have this existing layout, is that the tunnel portals are placed over curved track, so 21 inchers wouldn't clear the sides of the portals.  Next time I'll know better!!  

I was running a 3-car train the other night and what stands out more than the overhang is the angle (gap) between the ends of two cars on a curve.

 

When on a straight piece of track the gap between cars is at it's minimum, but on a curve the outer corners of the ends of each car have more gap between them than the inner corners and really noticeable.

 

On 072 curves, the inner corners of my 21" cars are about 3/8" apart, the outer corners are almost 2" apart!!!  I have PSC diaphragms on each car and use Kadee long shank couplers.  I tried using the standard Kadees and found the diaphragm striker plates would catch on one another on the curves (but the good thing is that on straight track the gap was minimal).

 

I'm plan on sticking with 21" cars in the future.  If I have to I'll go with larger curves.