I'm excited about the style of the new old-time passenger cars. The cars with the "duck-tail" roofs that have been available for decades are nice, and they're good for the late 1860s and 1870s, and no doubt many remained in service for years after (witness the Virginia & Truckee passenger equipment that survived to make it to Hollywood), but the new cars will be better for later in the 19th century and into the early 20th century. I'm assuming they will be the same length as the older cars, which will make them good for small layouts. I'm also excited that there will be a full baggage car, as well as a coach and combine.

Thank you, Bach-man!

Good to know!

JBJ

I'm confused by the images I'm seeing for the new old-time boxcars (I haven't yet seen any "in person"). Do only some of these cars have truss rods, or do all of them? Even here on the Bachmann website, the images of the UP and B&A cars show truss rods, those of the CP, C&NW, and PRR cars do not. Anybody know? Bach-mann? Thanks!

Quote from: Johnson Bar Jeff on December 11, 2013, 03:52:29 PM

Quote from: hhartman on December 11, 2013, 11:27:29 AM

Quote from: Johnson Bar Jeff on December 11, 2013, 11:03:03 AM
So there are two plans from the 1950s that originally used 15-inch-radius curves. Were 15-R curves more commonly used "back then"?  

Yes, and sometimes as small as 13"R.  Most modelers didn't have the extra room for large train layouts back then so most layout designs were small (the 4x8 being very common).  In fact, Atlas's 22"R was considered a luxury back then.  Of course, we didn't run (nor were they commonly available back then anyway) UP Big Boys or Challengers on 4x8 layouts but the popular little 0-4-0 "Docksides", "Little Hustler" diesels, and 40ft freight cars operated just fine on the tighter curves.

Harvey

Thanks! That's interesting to know. (Some of us don't have room for large layouts today, either.  ) That probably explains a couple of things: I'm sure I read somewhere that the minimum radius for Mantua's "General" is 12 inches, and also why the instruction sheet that came with my old Atlas pier set mentioned how to use the piers if you were using 15-inch-radius curves (would have made an awfully steep grade, I would think).

JBJ

Last night I was browsing through my collection of old Mantua/Tyco catalogs, and I actually took time to read the catalog from 1957, the oldest catalog in my collection. I was surprised to notice that in that catalog Tyco was pushing its new 12"-radius sectional track. That's right: 12-inch radius. The 12-inch curves were touted as advantageous for people with very little space but who still wanted a layout.

Tyco claimed that all the engines in the catalog, except the 4-6-2 and the 2-8-2, would actually run on the 12-inch curves. (I have to imagine that even a 41-foot car would not have looked too good going around a 12-inch curve.)

Three other things interested me in that catalog. One, some of the train sets actually came packaged with 15"-radius curve track sections. Two, this was apparently the time that Mantua/Tyco was transitioning from its own, older-style hook-and-loop couplers to the then-new horn-hook couplers. Three, apparently the "General," in a ready-to-run train set with a combine and a coach, was new that year.

Quote from: wiley209 on January 23, 2014, 11:01:38 PM
Here is a video I shot of some of the layout in action...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Ws7mH6AiY4

Cool! Your operating accessories still work! 

Quote from: Doneldon on January 18, 2014, 07:49:00 AM
J2-

Not true. I started with HO in 1959 and there was plenty of RTR merchandise. My brother and I did build many kits but not because there was no alternative; building kits was cheaper than buying RTR models, and more fun. Most manufacturers sold both RTR and kit items but there were others which only sold kits. Athearn sold pretty much everything both ways, for example, while Tru-Scale and LaBelle's sold only kits. Varney, Tyco, MDC, Bowser, Penn Line and others split their stock. Central Valley sold rolling stock in kit form only but their still-best-in-show trucks were all factory assembled. Cal-Scale sold a huge line of lost wax brass castings for scratch building or super detailing RTR models.
                                                                                                                                                                             -- D

Those were the days. ... 

Quote from: Doneldon on January 10, 2014, 08:05:33 PM

Quote from: Johnson Bar Jeff on January 10, 2014, 12:02:17 PM
Has anybody ever set a "General" next to the Bachmann "Jupiter" or "No. 119"? How do they compare in size? Which is actually scaled more accurately?

Suddenly occurred to me to wonder. ...

Rich-

They are pretty much the same size, given the reality that the dimensions are often fudged a little on these small locomotives. Remember that Promontory Point was just four years after the Civil War when the General had its moment in the spotlight. The General and one of the Golden pike locos (#119) were both built in the Rogers shops; The Jupiter was erected by the Schenectady shops. The General was older (1855) than the other two (both 1868) but all had long careers after their stardom. The General was scrapped in 1891, the Jupiter in 1909 and the 119 in 1903.
                                                                                                                                                                       -- D

Thanks. I knew the "General" had a long postwar career, but it amazes me how long these other engines lasted after their moment of glory.

JBJ

One would hope Bachmann would be interested in correcting this flaw ASAP. Look at how Mryan began his first post: "I am new to the whole model train hobby." Had he not found this message board and the experienced model railroaders who were able to help him solve the problem with his train, he might have been turned off to the hobby--and Bachmann would have lost a potential repeat customer.

Just sayin'. ...

Quote from: richg on January 07, 2014, 09:04:10 PM
as for the civil war trains, keep in mind that you don't have to have a civil war theme to use these trains. the equipment, with a change in road name, would be appropriate for the transcontinental railroad, or any railroad from the time period.

The Mantua Civil War General, 4-4-0 would be to old for transcontinental.

Rich

Has anybody ever set a "General" next to the Bachmann "Jupiter" or "No. 119"? How do they compare in size? Which is actually scaled more acurately?

Suddenly occurred to me to wonder. ...

This I cannot believe.

Somebody has a listing on eBay right now that includes three--THREE!--of the Lincoln funeral cars.

(I would post a link, but whenever I try, it keeps "linking" to my own "Watch List," which I don't think I want to do. I'm "watching" because I'm curious to see the final selling price for the batch of five cars that includes the three Lincoln cars. I don't intend to bid. I don't sell on eBay, and I have two Lincoln cars already. I don't need three more. The listing appears under Toys & Hobbies > Model Railroads & Trains > HO Scale > AHM/Rivarossi.)

Quote from: Doneldon on December 10, 2013, 10:15:03 PM
J-J

Not exactly. It's more like a less severe change than when a curved
track is connected to a straight one. Trains should track just fine as
long as each track joint is straight and tight.
                                                                       -- J

Thanks, D. Interesting and useful to know!

Quote from: Joe Satnik on December 12, 2013, 01:23:18 AM
A few of Armstrong's sectional track semi-circle recipes from a 1950's layout book:

Thanks, Joe. (I like your use of the word recipe.  )

Quote from: hhartman on December 11, 2013, 11:27:29 AM

Quote from: Johnson Bar Jeff on December 11, 2013, 11:03:03 AM
So there are two plans from the 1950s that originally used 15-inch-radius curves. Were 15-R curves more commonly used "back then"?  

Yes, and sometimes as small as 13"R.  Most modelers didn't have the extra room for large train layouts back then so most layout designs were small (the 4x8 being very common).  In fact, Atlas's 22"R was considered a luxury back then.  Of course, we didn't run (nor were they commonly available back then anyway) UP Big Boys or Challengers on 4x8 layouts but the popular little 0-4-0 "Docksides", "Little Hustler" diesels, and 40ft freight cars operated just fine on the tighter curves.

Harvey

Thanks! That's interesting to know. (Some of us don't have room for large layouts today, either.  ) That probably explains a couple of things: I'm sure I read somewhere that the minimum radius for Mantua's "General" is 12 inches, and also why the instruction sheet that came with my old Atlas pier set mentioned how to use the piers if you were using 15-inch-radius curves (would have made an awfully steep grade, I would think).

JBJ

So there are two plans from the 1950s that originally used 15-inch-radius curves. Were 15-R curves more commonly used "back then"? 

Quote from: Desertdweller on December 10, 2013, 12:09:50 PM
 I can personally recommend Caboose Hobbies in Denver and Fifer Hobbies in Las Cruces, NM.  These places will not insult you or your equipment.

Caboose Hobbies is a wonderful place! Well worth the visit if you ever get to Denver. I've been teased that I go to Denver to visit Caboose Hobbies and only incidentally to visit my buddy who lives in the area. 

Quote from: dheaton on December 10, 2013, 12:16:20 PM
Thanks Jeff for the reply.  I was looking here hoping somone would have a few suggestions as I do not live any where near a hobby shop.

I wrote my response suggesting a hobby shop before I read about your horrible experience at that shop in Salt Lake City. Sorry about that!

I can think of a lot of names for that store owner, none of them polite.

You might try looking for plan books on line, at Amazon or eBay.

I hope somebody else chimes in here. There must be sources of track plans on the Internet. I'm just not familiar with them.