# Running Passenger Cars on 4x8 Layout



## smarcus3 (Feb 15, 2016)

I'm in the process of building my 4x8 layout and since the largest loop is 22" and the smaller one is 18" should I run passenger cars on the outer only or just not at all until the layout can be larger. 

Thanks.


----------



## thedoc (Oct 15, 2015)

How long are the passenger cars? At one time there were some very short passenger cars that would operate OK on even the 18" radius. The longer scale length cars will look odd and might give trouble on the smaller radius, they might not work well on the 22" radius. I believe the Athearn cars are about a scale 72' but there were some that were as short as 60 scale feet. The old Varney steel SL cars are a scale 65.25 feet long but they used body mounted couplers, which might cause problems on a tight radius without easements.


----------



## smarcus3 (Feb 15, 2016)

Don't have any yet so anything is on the table. Found some BLI that say they run on 22" radius but then they would be stuck on the outer loop.


----------



## Brakeman Jake (Mar 8, 2009)

I suggest that you stick to the short types.Even if they don't derail,the eighty footers look silly on tight curves.


----------



## smarcus3 (Feb 15, 2016)

Thanks for all the input. Keep it coming.


----------



## thedoc (Oct 15, 2015)

Mantua/TYCO made some shorty cars like these,

http://www.ebay.com/itm/HO-simulate...157207?hash=item33b1abc817:g:XNQAAOSwWTRWwMoZ

Also years ago Lifelike, Varney and Pennline made short cars that show up on EBay. 

http://www.ebay.com/itm/HO-PENN-LIN...212866?hash=item43e9f8e982:g:Tm4AAOSwe7BWxjBp

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Four-Varney...536301?hash=item33b1a24ead:g:nYIAAOSwWTRWv8y7

http://www.ebay.com/itm/VERY-RARE-H...889851?hash=item51e01602bb:g:U-cAAOSwKtVWvNuz

Of course the 1800's style cars are very short and the European cars are usually shorter than the US style cars.


----------



## smarcus3 (Feb 15, 2016)

Cool. Thanks!

Thoughts on using an E8 for passenger or freight service?


----------



## Brakeman Jake (Mar 8, 2009)

E type locos are large and require large curves to run and look good,F type are more suitable for your tight curves.


----------



## dsertdog56 (Oct 26, 2014)

You should be able to run 85' cars with truck mounted couplers on 18 inch radius tracks...if they are properly weighted and run at slow speeds.

As mentioned it looks ugly. Your passengers may freak as most of the car is not over the track. It doesn't look much better on 22 inch radii track either. Even the shorty cars look bad. But if you're ok with that I say go for it.

Body mounted couplers ...forget it! < that was mentioned already!

Same with E-8 diesels or any large steamers. But again its all on perception. My Mehano Mountain will go through an 18 inch radii that binds the drivers on an older 4-4-2 Atlantic.


----------



## smarcus3 (Feb 15, 2016)

Gotcha. I'm really liking the look of these:

http://www.modeltrainstuff.com/Broadway-Limited-HO-E8A-CBQ-DCC-p/bli-2356.htm

http://www.modeltrainstuff.com/Broadway-Limited-HO-CZ-Dome-Car-CBQ-p/bli-1494.htm

but maybe running them on this layout is just dumb ....


----------



## dsertdog56 (Oct 26, 2014)

Here's a pic of some IHC/AHM/Rivarossi cars on an approx 24-26 radius track. They have body mounted couplers because the last track they could be ran on had 30+ radius curves.

They might not bind so much if the diaphragms were removed. Adding about 6 ounces of weight helped. They will derail spectacularly if I try to take them through the interchange area...they simply won't handle the 18 inch throats on atlas switches.

000_0006 by desertguy56, on Flickr

I tried to find some photos of my C&NW passenger cars....they have truck mounted couplers, are (as of now) unweighted, and go through the interchange tracks fine, albeit at a slow speed.

EDIT: It's your layout so run what you want. If you're a super rivet counter though, you won't be happy with how things look when they operate.


----------



## smarcus3 (Feb 15, 2016)

Gotcha. Thanks. Guess I should hold off on passenger service for now.


----------



## CTValleyRR (Jul 26, 2014)

I have a set of Bachmann Spectrum Heavyweight passenger cars with pivoting body mounted couplers. By replacing the stock Accumate couplers with with Kadee long shank couplers and giving up on using the diaphragms between cars, I was able to get them to run on 18" curves at moderate speeds.

But they don't look very realistic doing it (especially with a scale 6' gap between the cars).


----------



## ED-RRR (Jun 4, 2015)

*"Passenger" or "Freight" Rail Service..*

Go to my new "Forum"..
This will help you decide on what layout you may want..__

http://www.modeltrainforum.com/showthread.php?t=72794
......


----------



## smarcus3 (Feb 15, 2016)

ED-RRR said:


> Go to my new "Forum"..
> This will help you decide on what layout you may want..__
> 
> http://www.modeltrainforum.com/showthread.php?t=72794
> ......


Just went there. Good info


----------



## dave2744 (Dec 18, 2014)

smarcus3, If you really want to have passenger service on your layout, buy some cheap "heavy weight" type cars, 30 - 50's era. Cut out section of car body, and splice back together. About a 50 - 55ft lgth would be about right. Yes, it's not prototypical, but if done neatly, can be very effective. Lionel used shorties like this, even more extreme, and nobody complained. Obviously this is not for "rivet counters". If the cars you buy have the truck mounted couples, definetly try to convert to Kaydee couplers. I have done this on several cars, and they look pretty darned good. Dave

As for locos, F7 or F9, also GP7 or GP9 would be good choices.


----------



## DonR (Oct 18, 2012)

I have a train set of Athearn Silver Side passenger cars. They are HO 70 ft
and able to look good on tighter radius curves. I have body mount Kadee 
couplers and even on my one less than 22" curve they perform smoothly.

https://images.search.yahoo.com/yhs...=yhs-mozilla-001&hspart=mozilla&hsimp=yhs-001

Don


----------



## smarcus3 (Feb 15, 2016)

Good info. Thanks. Decided to run freight starting off and will move to passenger in the future. 

Thanks!!!


----------



## traction fan (Oct 5, 2014)

*Beautiful, expensive BIG locos and cars on tight curves*



smarcus3 said:


> Gotcha. I'm really liking the look of these:
> 
> http://www.modeltrainstuff.com/Broadway-Limited-HO-E8A-CBQ-DCC-p/bli-2356.htm
> 
> ...


 smarcus3;

I think you may be spending a lot of money,(not unwisely, they are excellent quality) for equipment that may not run reliably on the tight curves you are planing to use. These beautiful locomotives, and cars, deserve bigger curves. They will look better, and derail less.
Assuming that 4'x8' is all the space you have*, it comes down to two alternatives.

1) Increase the minimum curve radius to 22", or much better yet, more than 22". 
That would mean not having loops; but rather a point-to-point railroad.
This,* in turn, suggests that a 4'x8' rectangle is not the best shape for such a railroad. Real railroads are practically all point-to-point. They exist to haul freight, or passengers, from one place to another, not run them around in circles.
A real railroad's "right of way"(layout shape to we modelers) is seldom more than 100' wide(except for yards & terminals) Their length, though is measured in miles, or hundreds of miles. In short, what we are trying to model is way longer than it is wide. We tend to use 4'x8' plywood because it lets us run in ovals, and because plywood comes in that shape; and we tend to think in that shape. We'd be better off having the plywood cut into two 2'x8' sections at the store, and then mounting these along two walls at home. This shape table would accommodate very large radius curves, and it doesn't take up most of the room. It also allows easy access to any part of the railroad. If the common 4x8 is butted up against one, or worse two,. walls; then reaching the rear of the layout becomes a serious problem.

2) If you can't live without ovals(and there's nothing wrong with that) then we can't go to bigger curves; in HO-Scale. If we decrease the size of the trains to N-Scale, things improve drastically.
That same 18" radius curve that was so limiting in HO; becomes a wide, generous, curve in N. Such a curve will easily handle those big E-8's with their 6-wheel trucks, and the long passenger cars with body mounted couplers(that's what they appear to be in the linked photo). Broadway limited does not make N-Scale trains to my knowledge; but Kato does. Kato has many absolutely gorgeous Passenger cars and E-8 locos in N-Scale. They run perfectly too. Many of the famous passenger trains of the past are made as sets.
So, now you have some choices to make. Good luck with whatever you decide to do.

Traction Fan


----------



## smarcus3 (Feb 15, 2016)

traction fan said:


> smarcus3;
> 
> I think you may be spending a lot of money,(not unwisely, they are excellent quality) for equipment that may not run reliably on the tight curves you are planing to use. These beautiful locomotives, and cars, deserve bigger curves. They will look better, and derail less.
> Assuming that 4'x8' is all the space you have*, it comes down to two alternatives.
> ...


Good feedback. I don't want to move to multiple sheets as I rent a house and will have to move in the future and want to increase chances it will survive. I've decided to stay away from passenger cars for now and run freight to start with. 

I know loops aren't realistic, but do like to watch the trains go by


----------



## CTValleyRR (Jul 26, 2014)

smarcus3 said:


> Good feedback. I don't want to move to multiple sheets as I rent a house and will have to move in the future and want to increase chances it will survive. I've decided to stay away from passenger cars for now and run freight to start with.
> 
> I know loops aren't realistic, but do like to watch the trains go by


Nothing wrong with that. Your layout only has to be realistic if you want it to be.

One alternative to consider: In the same space that you have that 4x8 sheet of plywood with a 2' aisle all around (8x12 feet), you can put a donut shaped 2' wide layout that will have twice the space, and plenty of room for broader curves. Make a series of 2x4 modules, each with it's own legs to support it and attach them with carriage bolts and wing nuts. You will be able to separate them fairly easily when it come time for the big move, and can reassemble them, or use them as a basis for a bigger layout when you get settled.

If you don't feel up to building them, and you can afford it, there are commercial modules available.


----------



## traction fan (Oct 5, 2014)

*Whatever makes you happy*



smarcus3 said:


> Good feedback. I don't want to move to multiple sheets as I rent a house and will have to move in the future and want to increase chances it will survive. I've decided to stay away from passenger cars for now and run freight to start with.
> 
> I know loops aren't realistic, but do like to watch the trains go by


smarcus3;

Enjoy watching those trains roll! 
If you think you might move, that might be another reason for "multiple sheets" or sections. 
You could still have your 4x8, with loops. The 4x8 though could be divided into Four 2'x4' sections. You can even buy the plywood already cut to that size. The sections would have a simple frame of 1x3 lumber under each one. These frames would be bolted together in a 4'x8' overall shape, set on legs. Or you could use the doughnut shape that CT suggests. Why bother doing either? A one piece 4'x8' layout is not an easy thing to get through doorways, around corners, along narrow hallways, or up and down stairs. Moving something that shape ranges from difficult to impossible depending on the dimensions of your current, and future, home. In my opinion, moving the one large piece, rather than four small ones; is MORE likely to damage something on the layout, and maybe the wall/s of the house, not less. Your choice of course. Just something to consider.

Traction Fan


----------

