Bachmann Online Forum

As many of you know, my passenger car roster consists of smaller vintage models, by preference because I like them and by necessity due to my small layout and vintage locomotives.

After several days of searching availability from 26 manufacturers and every source I could find on Google, it seems the only passenger cars being made are in the 72' to 86' sizes.  Many of these are backordered, discontinued, call, temporarily out of production, don't hold your breath, etc.

Is there that large a demand for these longer cars?  Freight cars abound, in every style, size and era.  What happened to the medium size passenger cars for earlier eras? 

I vote Bachmann produces the B&M 66ft Commuter coaches!
They were used for over 50 years, and MANY have been preserved. Steamtown has several, Strasburg has a bunch, and various shortlines have them, not to mention museums. They could easily be painted into other roads, such as DRGW, UP, ATSF, etc, and not look out of place.
Both combines, and coaches were built.
http://www.thebluecomet.com/bmcoach_mech.jpg
http://www.rr-fallenflags.org/strau/bm-co96afs.jpg
http://www.rr-fallenflags.org/strau/stra-co62afs.jpg
http://www.rr-fallenflags.org/strau/stra-coa-ava.jpg

Nice pictures, any of those could also be easily shortened as needed.

If my research is accurate, around 1942 some coaches were built with round roofs and ventilators mostly for troop transport.  Perhaps Rio Grande obtained some of these for use in short run mixed freight and passenger service, notably the Yampa Valley Mail and other postal runs. I've given up trying to find a 50' RPO, but a 66' combine could be easily modified.


I would like to see Bachmann produce something similar to this, in popular road numbers and colors.  Painting cars is not my cup of tea.

Kinda (koff, koff) pricey, but Wheels Of Time's Harriman coaches appear to be shorter than the 'standard' heavyweights.
http://www.wheelsotime.com/

Bob,

I understand and agree with your interest in shorter passenger cars. The car you picture is a "Harriman" car, built by/for the IC, SP, and UP in the early age of steel cars, teens, twenties.

While they where used extensivily for troop transport, they where not built for that purpose. And yes, they where shorter than the usual 80' length of many other cars.

I fear you are generalizing about passenger car lengths. While Pullman sleepers, diners, and observation cars where typically 80' and longer, many coaches, RPO's, baggage cars and others where built in various lengths from 60' to 86'. Example - the heavy weight coach and combine by Bachmann is not as long as the other cars - because the prototype was not as long - about 78' if I recall.

Roundhouse did produce both the Harriman style cars and other shorter wood cars from before/at the turn of the century. Athearn has reissued some of these and more are sure to be on the way.

Now about Athearn - you seem to do a little Athearn bashing from time to time, mostly based on the topic of availablity. As someone who has been in the hobby and the indusrty for a long time (since 1966+/-) let me give you some historical perspective.

First, none of this is intended to bash Bachmann, they make great stuff now and I buy lots of it. But I also have and buy lots of Athearn and will continue to.

Athearn has a product line that is 20 times larger than Bachmann, and was of as high or higher quality than present Bachmann products before Bachmann ever made an HO loco or car.

The large range of the Athearn line and the limited demand for each seperate item, even in todays expanded market, requires that Athearn use a batch production method. There is not enough demand for every item to be in constant production all the time and todays monitary climate does not allow stock piling inventory like in years past.

While Athearn may not have a large percentage of their product "on hand" at the Horizon warehouse, the fact remains that there is lots of Athearn product out there on the shelves of dealers and any good shopper can find most of it with a few internet searches and a few phone calls - even if the item hasn't been made in a few years, or even 5-10.

Athearn is not alone here, Bachmann does the same thing, it is just easier for a company with a smaller line to keep most items available - AND - what about all the items that Bachmann and other have made for a few years then discontinued? Athearn never used that word until recently - there was always the "promise" that more would be made in the future.

Back to passenger cars. The Athearn cars are freelanced and selectively compressed to 72' for better operation and better looks on small layouts. I use them even with my large curves for this very reason. They will run well on 18" radius and look good on anything in the 24" and above range.

If you look closely at photos of the prototype, you see how little overhang even 80' cars produce on most curves. For these reason I feel 80' cars don't look good until curves reach the extremely large radius of 48" or greater.

Find a Walthers catalog from about 8-10 years ago and turn to the Roundhouse section under passenger cars. You will find hundreds of items, 34', 50', and 60' long - different roofs, roadnames, car types, etc.

Many of these can still be found on dealer shelves all over this country. And, I am sure Athearn is working on plans to reissue more of them as time goes on.

Sheldon

PS - finally got a break in the work load and will get a drawing off to you soon.

MDC has some RTR 50' and 36' Harrimans.

The MDC Harrimans were easy to splice if you wanted longer ones. I had a short train - three cars and an express reefer that I pulled behind an International Wabash mogul. (I know, the mogul was a freight engine but it went well with the MDC cars)

The MDC cars had rather large windows. They were short on detail and, if you were into adding detail, there was little cast on detail to remove. I remember sanding huge rivets off the roof casting. I had CV trucks mounted and I always coupled my passeneger  cars close together using either dummy couplers or drawbars. I always ran the train as a unit.

Today's modeller would probably expect more for their money.

Incidentally, I loved the MDC express reefer. At the club where I belonged we ran an express train of express cars and passenger head end equipment. I remember seeing long trains of Railway Express express cars being switched into their facility near Yankee Stadium in the Bronx.

Labelle still produces wooden passenger car kits similiar to the B&M cars, 58 + 60 footers. the kits are about $30+ but good lookers
http://www.labellemodels.com/dhop.htm#top (http://www.labellemodels.com/dhop.htm#top)

Woody. it's my understanding that despite the single axle pony truck, both the Mogul and the Prairie were dual service locos.
Gene

Sheldon
No hurry on the drawing, I'm behind in my ranch work anyway.  We got a late start due to heavier snows this year.

I understand there is not much demand for smaller cars at the present. I don't mind waiting a few weeks for an item.  However I had one set on backorder for almost a year, and finally cancelled the order. 

I forgot to mention that I have acquired most of the vintage cars I need by searching out small shops around the country.  One small store had about 100 old MDC kits gathering dust and the dealer was happy to be rid of most of them.  The original price tags were still on the box, as low as $1.98. I also found some 50' Overlands that look nice on my small layout.

Overall, I am quite content with my roster, but always looking for "bashables".

My July MR arrived today and there is a nice article about a short SP train - a Ge70 tonner and two Harriman cars. It says that one car was MDC and the other was Model Power.

Thinking back at my years in HO, I remember someone using Athearn round roof heavyweight coaches as the basis for Harriman cars. At 72 feet they were a good compromise as long as you don't start counting windows and rivets. The Athearn shorty heavyweights were the standard until AHM brought out there line of full length cars. My first AHM heavyweight was a PRR baggage/RPO - it was very nice; a generation past the Athearn detailing.

The Harrimans were used on a good number of lines - IC had a bunch as well as SP and UP, so there are lots of variations. The Sp had 85 foot long Harriman commuter coaches.

I just went into Ebay to look for Harriman cars. There are several up for auction if you enter "MDC" in your search. Even if you are not interested, take alook at the pictures and see for yourself the few parts that came with the kits.

I have purchased a few of the 60' riverossi coach sets off e-bay.

There is one currently listed.

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&rd=1&item=150252625049&ssPageName=STRK:MEWA:IT&ih=005

These coach sets are ideal for the smaller layouts.  The coaches come with detailed interiors, metal wheels and kaydee style couplers.

The coaches track well right out of the box. With smaller engines they go through an Atlas #4 switch with no problems.

You can also find the coaches packaged as Trainline in the Walthers train sets.

http://walthers.com/exec/productinfo/931-46

Another note about Athearn and MDC passenger cars:

Woody commented that the AHM (Rivarossi) cars are more detailed than the Athearn cars - well admittedly, as I said before, the Athearn cars are freelanced, but the body detail of the Athearn cars is just as good as the AHM cars. The AHM cars do have better/more underbody detail, but the Athearn cars can be easily super detailed in that area, without having to first remove a bunch of molded on stuff.

Same is true of the MDC cars, they are great freelance starting points for well detailed kitbashing and super detailing.

Sheldon

The kits I purchased were definitely "shake the box" models, which suited me just fine.  I don't really enjoy spending much time building intricate kits, nor do I have the visual capacity and patience to do so at my age.

I am fully aware of the production problems companies are facing these days, but I have to be honest and say I am not sympathetic about their problems.  I have money to spend so if they can't produce it's their loss not mine. Since I retired I have become totally consumer oriented, not to mention extremely independent.

To paraphrase a commercial: "It's my money and I want it (the product) now." 

Thanks for the links, I will check them out.

DONT HOLD YOUR BREATH BACHMANN WILL NEVER PRODUCE THEM

Quote from: hobo1 on June 02, 2008, 03:52:00 PM
DONT HOLD YOUR BREATH BACHMANN WILL NEVER PRODUCE THEM

We'd be good friends! Positive + Negative charges always seem to attract!

have you thought of shortening a backmann car to see hit looks? If you did, switch to a 4 wheel truck, it would look better on the shorter car. cutting out 2 or 4 windows would give you a 70' or 60' car  right here    l       l
(http://www.bachmanntrains.com/home-usa/products/images/uploads/89205-N.Havencoach.jpg)
doing it there along the edge of the raised part of the siding will keep you from cutting into that bottom detail and give you a smoother appearance

I thought about it....for about 3 seconds.  I'm not spending $25 for a car to chop it up.  I like buying those cheap things for about $7, much less at yard sales. 

Like I said, I really don't need any more cars, just received a shipment last week of Overtons and Overlands.  It was just an observation of the current trend.

Anyway, I won't put any car over 50' on my layout.  See, I can be just as stubborn as others LOL.

Yampa Bob, not even the 52' gondolas?

Not even.  With the exception of 2 nicely detailed 50' box cars given me by a friend, all my freight cars are in the 40' to 46' range.  Another friend sent me a box of older 70 ton coal hoppers and 40' gondolas, so I have an over abundance of freighters in just the right size. 

I think Bob has the right idea based on the size of his layout.  His equipment does not overpower his track, yet he can make a decent looking train.  Were he to throw a couple of articulated double stacks on his track, he's have his motive power stiffing his FRED.   Not good.
Gene

Thanks Gene.  It's all a matter of perspective, and I am very pleased with the appearance.  You can get away with running short cars on a large layout, but not large cars on a small layout.  

My first question in the opening post never received an answer.  I don't think anyone reads my entire posts.  :D 

If the answer is "yes", then as Gene says, there are a lot of hippos on balance beams, because I think the percentage of small layouts like mine is pretty high.

I think that, out of desperation, people buy what's available, whether it looks good or not. How many people buy big boys or something else that big. Yes hippos are on balance beams. small layouts are in the majority and I bet that a lot of them have locos and cars designed for club layouts. I also have a 4' x 8' type layout and my biggest loco is a connie and largest car is 40'. Look at some of the videos posted in you tube and you'll see those hippos.

Bob,

OK to answer your first question - yes, there is a big demand for long, true to scale cars. People with my view are in the minority, most modelers I know have bought into the hype that everything must be as acurate as possible, and, if you model any time period past 1910 or so, most passenger cars where at least 75' long and longer.

The model press has worked hard to make the selective compression of passenger cars an unacceptable modeling choice - curves be damned!

Just go back and read passenger car articles in MR especially over the last 10 years or more - products from Athearn, Con Cor and other selectively compressed/freelanced cars are either not mentioned at all or outright condemed for their non scale length.

But then in the same issue there we be an ariticle about the "need" to selectively compress some structure - go figure. The "click" at MR has decided what is acceptable modeling and what is not and just like political correctness they work hard at promoting their agenda - DCC, sound, walk around control, only scale length paasenger cars, prototype modeling, foam scenery, semi scale wheels and couplers, just to name a few.

These are all fine and valid modeling choices, but they are not the only choices and the opposing views to these items also have merrit - merrit never given any press time in MR.

Sheldon

Sheldon is correct.  I've reviewed quite a few MR layout articles using an editor's eye, and they have a boilerplate in mind.  My old club wants to get into MR, but the way the layout is currently configured, it won't for several reasons.  A new editorial staff might change that. 
I may wind up selling my Walther's 80' C&O passenger cars just because of their overhang on my curves.  I have Con-Cor full length which does not have that overhang. 
But, to each his own.  On the VT&P I am the buck stopper.  On the Great Eastern, I'm an admiring observer. 
Gene

Quote from: Atlantic Central on June 03, 2008, 07:13:23 AM
Bob,

OK to answer your first question - yes, there is a big demand for long, true to scale cars. People with my view are in the minority, most modelers I know have bought into the hype that everything must be as acurate as possible, and, if you model any time period past 1910 or so, most passenger cars where at least 75' long and longer.

The model press has worked hard to make the selective compression of passenger cars an unacceptable modeling choice - curves be damned!

Just go back and read passenger car articles in MR especially over the last 10 years or more - products from Athearn, Con Cor and other selectively compressed/freelanced cars are either not mentioned at all or outright condemed for their non scale length.

But then in the same issue there we be an ariticle about the "need" to selectively compress some structure - go figure. The "click" at MR has decided what is acceptable modeling and what is not and just like political correctness they work hard at promoting their agenda - DCC, sound, walk around control, only scale length paasenger cars, prototype modeling, foam scenery, semi scale wheels and couplers, just to name a few.

These are all fine and valid modeling choices, but they are not the only choices and the opposing views to these items also have merrit - merrit never given any press time in MR.

Sheldon

Sheldon,

I agree with most of what you said. However, there definately is a case for running scale-length passenger cars, even on narrow curves. For example, if I'm running Amfleet cars behind an E60CH (length:70'), anything less than full length would look pretty out of place. Likewise if you are running your cars behind an E8 or E9. Shorty passenger cars are great if your locomotive is an GP7 or you are running an RDC, but big locomotives need big passenger cars for balance, even if there is an overhange problem. Of course, I solved both of these problems by downsizing to N scale, where I can run 85' passenger cars on 19" radius without too much overhang, but unless you have a huge amount of space, an HO scaler has to decide whether overhang or unprototypicality is the lesser of the two evils. However, like you said, MR and company have already made that decision for us.

Timothy

Timothy,

In theory I agree, but in practice it doesn't really seem to matter. I have had people visit my layout and remark on the detail of my passenger cars never even realizing they are Athearn and Con Cor shorties.

I close couple them with working American Limited diaphragms and ad lots of other details, especially to the underframe of Athearn heavyweights. In addition I kitbash a number of car types Athearn never made.

I do agree such "trickery" is more difficult with modern equipment, but heavyweights came in lots of different lengths and many modelers don't really know or notice - until some rivet counter points it out.

With modern era modeling, freight cars are much longer too, so you either get larger curves or live with the appearance.

My passenger trains are pulled by all sorts of power, steam, diesel, big and small. I think it all looks just fine. We have PA's, E's, F's and FP's and we pull some long passenger trains, 9 to 12 cars is not uncommon on my schedule. This is another place shorter cars build a better "illusion" of realizm in my opinon. Long train of 85' cars can overwhelm the scenes of even a large layout. Shorter cars, in greater quanity, give that big train feel without dominating the scene as much. Just like the perspective of a photo.

Sheldon

Quote from: Yampa Bob on June 02, 2008, 08:01:24 PM
I thought about it....for about 3 seconds.  I'm not spending $25 for a car to chop it up. 

Bob.

If you don't like chopping up $25.00 cars, then guys like me that chop up $250.00 steam locomotives must make you cringe.  :)

Whoever complains about radii too sharp, will join the Sipping & Switching Society Club in the South. 80" radii curves, HO+HOn3, modular.
http://s-ss4.home.mindspring.com/id3.html

Sheldon

Your last 2 posts gave me a lot of inspiration.  It may take me several posts to sort it all out.  

It is our very nature to want our efforts to be accepted in any activity.  On one hand, I can just claim "Rule Number One" and not worry about it.  On the other hand, I have this fear that some rivet counter may view my layout and roster as not very realistic or prototypical.  My thoughts for now are only general, but I will relate specifics if you will bear with me for a few posts.

Tim has a good point. However in my situation, the first priority is that the locomotives fit the layout, which is small by necessity.  My largest locomotives are 2-8-0 connies and GP40 diesel and I have no desire for anything larger. With that established, the cars must be matched to the locomotives.

I have a very acute sense of "proportion",  it has to have a balanced appearance. Whether it is a framed painting on a wall, or the size of buildings on our ranch, it has to look like it belongs.  I have another observation regarding proportion, but will save it for later. 

You mentioned people with your view are in the minority.  I would be very interested if you would explain your view specifically, as I think it coincides in some respects with my view.

rule number one should have the following added, that it is your way to have fun.
if the hobby wasn't fun, who would be in it? People have different likes, dislikes and skills. They also have different wants and money to fulfill those wants. I, for one, don't have the money to fulfill those wants so I stay on the cheap side, doing what I can with what I have. If someone else doesn't like it, to bad, they can take a long walk off the nearest short pier. I'm enjoying the hobby, if you don't like it that way, too bad. It's my railroad and I'll do it my way.

Bob,

The best way for me to explain is a series of statements - each a stand alone idea - but you will see the pattern.

Model scenes are more realistic if they represent the ordinary well, as opposed to any representation of the extra ordinary.

Selective compression is necessary not only because of our sharper curves, but to give the scene photo like perspective and depth of field.

Apparent train length is increased by more shorter cars and scenes that block the whole train of view at any given point - think about how few oportunities there are to see an intire train of any length in the real world.

Are we modeling the individual pieces of equipment or the whole railroad? If the answer is the whole railroad (or our small piece of it) than it is more about visual impression than scale accuracy of each car.

Exact scale models look good up close, but sometimes look out of place if other elements of the scene are compressed - example related directly to passenger car lengths - If you try to model a large passenger station, but you platforms are too short and building too small, the station will look out of proportion. Real passenger terminals of any size dwarf the railroad equipment that operates through them. It takes eight feet of platform to park 8 - 80' passenger cars - most big stations I have been in have platforms easily that long and much longer - how many 8' long model station platforms do you see on layouts? Shorter cars help keep the railroad equipment in proportion to selectively compressed stations.

A 70-75' passenger car, close coupled with working diaphragms, looks very realistic going around a large curve - 36" radius or larger. There is little overhang, the diaphragms stay in a normal relationship to each other and can stay touching, etc.

Larger cars require some sort of gap between the diaphragms and have lots of overhang, very unrealistic to my eye.

Turnout sizes - we often settle for sizes like #5 or #6, or we use #8's if we have lots of room. On the prototype a high speed mainline crossover may well be a #20 or larger! 80' cars squeaking through a #5 crossover looks like a derailment waiting to happen. 70' cars going through a #6 or #8 looks much better and is more believable. So again, shorter cars help hide our selective compressed track elements and make them look better.

Another factor often overlooked is viewing distance - at 3 actual feet from an HO model, I am effectively 261 feet away, how do the things look at the other end of the football field?  How clearly can most of us see details at that distance? In the old days details like grab irons where often oversized and could be seen clearly from a great distance, not always to the benefit of the models overall appearance. Sometimes no detail (or less anyway) is better detail that is poorly proportioned or over emphasized detail. And, does and 80' passenger car really look 80' long from 261' away?

How loud are noises at that distance? This is my big objection to sound in small scales. In addition to being of very poor sound quality, it is way out of proportion to the model in terms of volume and distance in almost all cases with the smaller scales. By the time you get to O scale it gets somewhat better, at G scale it is very effective - but in HO, well its just too squawlky and tinny and too loud - even turned down low.

And then there is operational reliablity - shorter cars are more reliable on our selectively compressed track elements making the trains run better and increasing the "fun" level.

Sheldon

Sheldon.

That all makes sense.

There is one thing that prevents a proper prospective. We can scale down the track, although compressed, we can scale down the cars, and use buildings and scenery to keep things in proportion.

However, we can't scale down our bodies to match the layout.  If my layout is 3' high, and I'm standing,  I am viewing the scene at a scale distance of about  250 feet, as from the top of a 20 story building.  If I bring my sight level down to 3', and one foot away, that's 87 feet just to the edge, and 435' to the other side.

I hope to have my final layout 12' long, so if I view it from one end,  it's almost 1/4 mile to the other end.  Now this may sound silly, but I have actually put my nose right down to the edge of the layout to visualize the proportions, it doesn't work. The only way I could get the proper perspective is to be scale size myself, about 3/4" tall.   Then if I looked down a line of 4 Overtons behind a Connie, it would be 1/8 mile to the caboose, and look about right.

Does any of this make sense?  Well, it drives me nuts. LOL   I took some low angle macro pictures with my digital camera, that gives me a better overall view of the perspective. But to be accurate, the lens would have to be about one inch from the train and pointing down the line.

Your first comment is the most important to us  We are attempting to represent a 160 acre ranch style homestead, initially on a 4 X 8 layout. The layout should be 30' X 30' for scale, so we're scrunching it.  Scenery will be sparse, buildings and trees will be a little smaller than scale so that nothing overwhelms or dominates the scene. 

Bob,

Obviously you get it!

Now for another twist - many modelers, who may or maynot understand or agree with what we are saying, have little interest in this aspect of the hobby.

One group is collectors, and even if they build a layout, it is only a backdrop for their model collection.

Another group are operators and for them scenery is again just a backdrop to add a little more realism to their live action board game of rail barron.

Tha't what's great about this hobby, its impossible to do it wrong and impossible to do it perfect.

Sheldon

I am a bit of an operator, but most of all I enjoy scenery, creating something that resembles the outside world. I am more of an arm chair modeler, due to space constraints, and mostly do superdetailing or similar projects.
Yay, I  just spent my last 2 pennies!

I have had many hobbies in my 66 years and they all had to satisfy my needs to be a collector ; to be creative and to satisfy my interest in things mechanical .There is nothing more mechanical than a steam engine .To watch a steam engine moving cars in a yard or thundering across the open prairie with a string of a hundred cars never leaves your memory.When I had to give up my hobby of collecting and restoring antique outboard motors ( I had 70 ) the logical step was to model railways.I collect ,I create and I satisfy my interest in things mechanical.
Boy do I wish I could afford a real live steamer. :)
Don

Don,
Me too.  We have a private road that goes around the entire ranch, would make a great railroad.  There are a couple of 3% grades that might be sticky.

Yesterday I received a 4 car set of 50' Overlands, they really look great behind a Connie.  I also received a set of Overtons, after a six month backorder. I was so impressed with them I ordered another set.

My roster is now complete, after 1-1/2 years of researching and finding the elusive cars.  It was very frustrating, I'm glad I don't have to go through that again. 

I think Sheldon's last comment says it all for me, so I'll quote him in bold.

"It's impossible to do it wrong and impossible to do it perfect."

From now on, if someone says I'm wrong, I will tie them to my "ugly" Code 100 tracks and run over them with my "non-prototypical" trains.

Thanks Sheldon, Paul and others who reminded me there is only one "right way" for me, and that is "my way". 

Quote from: Yampa Bob on June 07, 2008, 01:00:46 AM

Yesterday I received a 4 car set of 50' Overlands, they really look great behind a Connie.  I also received a set of Overtons, after a six month backorder. I was so impressed with them I ordered another set.

Yampa Bob

Have you had time to run your 50' set sufficiently to be able to judge its running capability.

Another thread I recently read concerned MDC/Roundhouse coach sets needing truck replacement, otherwise derailments galore.

Unfortunately it was unclear as to which set the poster was referring to.

It may have been the Hariman 60' set or the recently 50' re-released coach
sets.

Would you recommend your 50' Overland coach set to others?
.

As I mentioned in another thread, I am always hesitant to recommend any company's products on a public forum. However, I don't mind commenting on the running performance. Please don't consider this a review, just my personal observations.

I didn't weigh the cars, they felt a bit light but I don't add weight unless it's absolutely necessary.  I ran them at varied speed for 30 minutes, then full throttle in reverse while I ate lunch.  Very smooth, with no oscillations or derails.

This thread is mostly about the current trend to longer cars.  After seeing this set on the layout, I am convinced that 50' is the maximum length for my 18" curves.  My wife is even more critical, she said they looked "just right" behind the Connie.

I'm satisfied with them, they are solid runners. However, I like the 34' Overtons better as they are "Bumble Bee" colors and make the layout appear larger.

So what's next?  I'm chopping a couple 1921 Harrimans a friend gave me to 46' for my Yampa Valley Mail setup.  Check out my threads "Yampa Valley Railroad" and "120 Years of Progress" later this week for pictures.   

Overall in the hobby the trend is to more prototypically accurate models.  In passenger cars this means they're getting away from "generic" cars, which may not be of any specific prototype, nor of the correct length.  We are seeing not only specific cars, put cars that are specific for those in particular trains. 

Back in the forties and fifties "shorties" were 60 foot cars.  Really looked bad. Athearn came up with a "compromise length" of about 70 ft that looked better, but still are not scale length.  ConCor, Rivarossi, and Bachmann went with full scale length cars that look better. Most may be modeled on specific cars but get popular paint jobs.  Many have modified truck pivots and other tricks to look better on model curves.

Walthers and a few others are modeling cars for specific trains--a bit pricey, but beautiful. 

It pays to check small shops that are off the beaten path. I found a bunch of old MDC passenger car kits in Southern Pacific, Rio Grande and Santa Fe.     

I'm happier than Bugs Bunny in a carrot patch.   :D

Earlier in this thread I said that perhaps smaller cars are not in demand. I'm going to retract that statement.  I was momentarily caught up in the very trap being set by the magazines, as mentioned by Sheldon and Gene.

I just talked to my favorite sales person at Caboose Hobbies.  They are ordering all the 34' Overtons, 50' Overlands, and vintage locos they can get.  They are going off the shelves faster than they can get them in.  They have tremendous buying power, call it "clout" if you will.  Model railroading is big in Denver, and the vast majority of newcomers are setting up small layouts.

Who sets the trends today?  Not the consumers, they just fall in the trap of peer pressure and what is available.  Clothing, cars, you name it.  We are bombarded by TV and magazine ads telling us "what we want".  Trends are set on Madison Avenue.

I'm not knocking those that want everything scale and prototypical. I am fascinated by those huge layouts and long trains.  I hope they will continue to find what they want to build their railroad empire. 

Of course longer cars are "in demand".  Modelers want cars, and most of them don't even know what a car is supposed to look like on their layout. Few modelers care about the history of trains. 

I now have all the smaller cars I need, probably too many.  I saw this "trend" coming a year ago, and began buying up everything I could find.

Bob,
You've matched your layout to your cars and motive power.  That's as it should be.  I'm afraid there are too many people trying to run equipment that is just too big for their layout.  A 4x8 is, after all, a 4x8.  MR shows one can make a beautiful layout in that space - but a modern double stack with three modern diesels on the point is going to overwhelm the track.  Likewise trying to run the new Olympia Hi - same deal. 
Let us not forget that most buildings are not to size - but much smaller than in reality.  My two coal tipples dominate their surroundings, but my DuPont plant probably really couldn't produce toothpaste tubes! 
Gene

Perhaps someday I can make room for a larger layout, then will I want the longer cars?  Probably not, I'll just add on some more shorter ones.

Coal trains usually consist of 100+ cars.  I presently only have 15.  Oh my, better buy some more cars while I can afford them.

We have the same problem with buildings.  We found a great looking red barn, but it's huge, compared to our layout that is.  Lately we've been browsing toy stores, found some buildings, horses and farm equipment a little smaller than HO, a lot cheaper too.  A little paint and weathering they'll be fine.

As a rule of thumb, we figure a scale ratio of 1:100 is about right.

you could even use N scale buildings in the back to force the perspective. The Ma & Pa railroad was a real railroad on a 4' x 8'. Small locos, cars, everything.

Good idea, I imagine some N scale are a bit oversize for a small N layout, so might look good in the background areas.  Trees and stuff like that can be cut down to look "just right".

Planning a small layout is a challenge, but it's slowly coming together. Hopefully I can one day take a picture that will look a little like a real railroad.   

Thanks
Bob