# Rivarossi passenger cars



## flyerrich (Feb 17, 2014)

I have some Rivarossi HO passenger cars that measure approx. 10 1/2" and 11" long. Can someone tell me what length they would be in real size 60 feet etc.?
I am looking for some cars that would be more in the 1940 to 1960 era. What size would I be looking for i.e. 40 foot 50 foot? What would the size be in approx. inches when I go to a train show so I know what I should be looking for.? Thanks


----------



## DonR (Oct 18, 2012)

My trusty HO scale tells me that a 10-1/2" car would be HO 75 feet
An 11" would be HO 80 feet.

The familiar big old heavy weight cars would be around 80 plus feet.

There were many trains that were still using these
in the 40s. The streamlined cars were about the
same length and continued to be used into the 60s
and later.

Don't think there were any passenger cars that were as short as 40 or 50 feet
since the 1800's and early 20th century days of railroading. 

Now if you were talking about electric interurbans, you would find the shorter
cars as required since they had to turn corners in city streets. 

Don


----------



## fcwilt (Sep 27, 2013)

I would rather teach you to fish then give you a fish.

HO scale is 1:87.

So you would take the HO car length in inches, multiply by 87, then divided by 12 to convert inches into feet.

11 inches x 87 = 957 inches

957 inches / 12 = 79.75 feet


Simple, yes?


----------



## jesteck (Apr 15, 2014)

Now that fcwilt has explained it to you, if you don't want to do the math a down and very dirty conversion would be length of scale car in inches times 7 (actually 7 1/4, but we're looking for a guesstimate here) gives approximate prototype length in feet.


----------



## fcwilt (Sep 27, 2013)

jesteck said:


> ...a down and very dirty conversion would be length of scale car in inches times 7 (actually 7 1/4, but we're looking for a guesstimate here) gives approximate prototype length in feet.


This is a very useful piece of information.

In case you are wondering where the 7-1/4 comes from it is 87 / 12 - essentially combining two of the steps I listed into one.


----------



## flyerrich (Feb 17, 2014)

thanks for the info I appreciate it.
I didn't think the older passenger cars were that long. I guess I was making comparisons to older box cars thinking the passenger cars were shorter as well.
Thanks again.


----------



## fcwilt (Sep 27, 2013)

Well farther back in history cars were shorter. Around the turn of the century (1900) 60 foot cars were common. Before that you could find 40-45 foot cars.


----------



## Chet (Aug 15, 2014)

I stumbled on a Con Cor heavy weight combine on ebay which I was lucky enough to win. I would guess that it is a 65 footer and also has interior lighting. Don't have a picture available now, but can post one later. I don't know if they are still being made, but a search would probably turn some up. The detail is excellent. I wasn't looking for this particular car, but being that it was painted for the Northern Pacific, I bought it at a real good price. I was pleasantly suprised.


----------



## Old_Hobo (Feb 20, 2014)

I always thought a (real) standard heavyweight passenger car was 85 ft long.....of course, there were variations (baggage cars, RPO's, etc).....?


----------



## DonR (Oct 18, 2012)

The old Heavyweight passenger cars were 80 plus feet long.
Every passenger railroad in the US used them.

Here are some pics of the originals.

https://www.google.com/search?q=Hea...VOmDMc6JNuWGgtAP&ved=0CDsQ7Ak&biw=853&bih=406

Don


----------



## Chet (Aug 15, 2014)

Here's a picture of the Northern Pacific combine I picked up on ebay for $22. It does measure out at 65 feet. I have no idea if it is prototypical, but I like it. Passenger service is hit and miss on the Logan Valley. Sometimes this car will be tacked on the end of a through train instead of a caboose for passenger service. Wish I could find a coach or two this size.


----------



## flyerrich (Feb 17, 2014)

Given the old "Heavy Weight" cars were 80 feet long what was the typical size steam loco normally used to pull them?


----------



## MtRR75 (Nov 27, 2013)

Steamers for passenger cars usually had larger drivers -- which makes for higher speeds, but less pulling power. Despite the heavyweight cars, passenger trains weighed less than freight trains, partly because they were much shorter. And passengers were more in a hurry to get somewhere. Pacifics (4-6-2s) were commonly used as passenger haulers.


----------



## flyerrich (Feb 17, 2014)

given that most passenger steamers used where 4-6-2's what layout radius would be the minimal to use.
Is there a chart to reference for track layout radii size verses driver/wheel configuration that works best?


----------



## Chet (Aug 15, 2014)

As big a radius as you can. I'm not concerned with the locomotive, but with the way passenger cars look. The smaller the radius, the more comical they look. My minimum radius is 32" and for me it seems a bit tight.


----------



## DonR (Oct 18, 2012)

Yes as Chet says, if you are going to be running 80 foot passenger cars,
you want the train to look smooth like a slithering snake, as it rounds
curves, not angular like a chain. 
So go as wide in radius as you possibly can.

On a small radius curve the car ends jut out and sometimes the
inside edges of the bodies can hit. The car bodies will also
hang over the inside of curve track, sometimes hitting scenery.
They can also pull each other off the track.

If you don't have the space for plus 22" radius curves, go with
shorter cars. They are out there.

You can get by with tight radius when running relatively
short freights, but you pay the price when you try it with
the long passenger cars.

Don


----------



## Chet (Aug 15, 2014)

I agree with you completely. This picture is of a train leaving my yard with 85 foot Walthers cars and although it does not show the entire train, at least the middle of the cars aren't hanging over the tracks and the angle isn't too severe. This particular curve is broader than 32 inches, closer to 38 inches. 











I don't want to sound like a snob, but I got away from sectional track years ago. When I was growing up I had a pretty decent size HO layout that I build with track that my uncles came up with from shops in larger towns during their travels as engineers on the NP and Milwaukee Road. When I got out of the service I ended up in south Florida for a few years and was in "train withdrawal". I was stuck living in an apartment and didn't have much room so I ended up building an N scale layout that could be slid under a bed. The people at Orange Blossom hobbies introduced me to flex track and I never looked back. It was great to get away from the constraints of a set radius curve. 

When I started my HO layout I started hand laying code 70 rail and turnouts and loved how you could get free flowing track work. After my Kadee spike gun died, I started using Shinohara code 70 turnouts and flex track to complete the layout. 

Once you get the hang of working with flex track, it's so much easier than trying to get sectional track to mate up and not have kinks and gaps due to the set lengths and radius. 

I would advise anyone new to to hobby to look into the use of flex track over sectional track. Also there will be fewer joints and possible less electrical problems.


----------



## DonR (Oct 18, 2012)

That snake can slither on my layout any time it wants.

Always a treat to see a pic from your layout Chet.

Don


----------



## broox (Apr 13, 2012)

flyerrich said:


> given that most passenger steamers used where 4-6-2's what layout radius would be the minimal to use.
> Is there a chart to reference for track layout radii size verses driver/wheel configuration that works best?


With the radius about 2-2.5x the length of the longest car you should be able to run without derailments (pending coupler attachment) but it will probably look very toylike.
At 3x, it starts to look and run better. 
4-5x looks much nicer, but its a lot harder to find that sort of realestate on most layouts! on the plus side (pending coupler attachment) you may be able to couple and de-couple cars on the curve.


----------

