# Aristocraft F3 A B A ?



## sailbode (Jan 2, 2008)

I'd like to get an F3 ABA with appropriate passenger cars. As I'm not locked in to any particular scale, I'm considering the Aristocraft a B a set for aprox $460. The LGB set would probably be 3 times that. USA $750ish?? Any advise? obviously price is a big considerstion, but I don't want to buy junk either. Smallest diameter would be 8 feet. will be using battery R/C and add sound. Road name?? not to fussy...would be nice to have the old Phoebe snow..Erie Lackawnna as I live close to the Delaware cut off.

Thanks,
Don


----------



## jebouck (Jan 2, 2008)

AristoCraft doesn't make an F3 model.
They make an FA-1.
USA is your F3, if that's the model you want.


----------



## Nicholas Savatgy (Dec 17, 2008)

The newer FA aristo units are plug and play but may need rewiring to disconnect track pickups as there battery switch is as usual aristo junky, these units are fair at best.... USA F-3 's are cheaper than you listed and a much better quality unit than aristos. they will need to be wire for battery power as all others do. LGB prices are out of site and there not very scale looking to me but do come with sound in the B unit but need to be rewired for battery power as well... i have or had all these as listed and find USA the best
OF COURSE







And if you buy the LGB models remember that their out of busness now and parts MAY be an issue in the future


----------



## Scottychaos (Jan 2, 2008)

Don, 
not sure which units you are talking about..because Aristocraft doesnt make a F3.. 

Aristocraft makes the Alco FA (and FB) 
USA Trains makes the EMD F3 (and F3B) 

(LGB and MTH also make EMD F-units) 

If you want to do Erie Lackawanna, (or older DL&W) the Aristocraft FA is not a good choice IMO.. 
because the FA was primarily a freight unit..and DL&W and EL never used FA's in passenger service.. 

However..the real DL&W did in fact use EMD F3's on the Phoebe Snow! 
(DL&W was one of only a few railroads who had EMD F-units equipped for passenger service) 
So the EMD units will give you a much more accurate and better look for Miss Phoebe.. 

not the best photos..but they are pics of F3's in passenger service: 

http://www.rr-fallenflags.org/el/loco/dlw803amf.jpg 

http://www.rr-fallenflags.org/el/loco/dlw8441as.jpg 

(there are lots of better photos in the "DL&W in color" and "EL in color" Morningsun books) 

So in this case..I would definately go with USA Trains..not Aristocraft.. 
or you could with Aristocraft E-units!  (EMD E8)also a great choice for Erie Lackawanna.. 

Scot


----------



## sailbode (Jan 2, 2008)

Ah....So there is a difference between F's...OK looks like USA will get the nod. Now in looking at the USA F3s they offer a Boston Maine in similar colors to the Pheobe snow...yes? or is there a better way to go...like buy the plain grey one and paint it.


----------



## itsmcgee (Jan 4, 2008)

they offer the "minute man" red color. I have an A unit for sale as a matter a fact.


----------



## markoles (Jan 2, 2008)

I would say that the Boston and Maine version is not close to the Erie Lackawanna paint scheme, but to each his own. Why not go with the E8 already painted for the EL?


----------



## Scottychaos (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By sailbode on 28 Oct 2009 04:13 PM 
Ah....So there is a difference between F's...OK looks like USA will get the nod. Now in looking at the USA F3s they offer a Boston Maine in similar colors to the Pheobe snow...yes? or is there a better way to go...like buy the plain grey one and paint it. 


Don,
B&M similar to DL&W-EL?
hmm..I cant think of any B&M scheme that looks anything like a DL&W scheme..
just curious, what B&M scheme are you referring to?

Sadly USA trains has never done the F3 in the DL&W or EL scheme..
but! they have done their Alco PA in the EL scheme! 

And Aristocraft has their E8 in the EL scheme..

both are gorgeous.. 

and both are totally prototypical for the Phoebe Snow train.. 


Both are much longer than the F3's of course..but again, you can be prototypical and run only Two Alco PA's together,
or two EMD E8's together, rather than an A-B-A set of F-units.. 


I would go for those if you want to model EL passenger trains..

(USA Trains Alco PA in the EL scheme..
or Aristocraft EMD E8 in the EL scheme..) 






Scot


----------



## John J (Dec 29, 2007)

The one on the left is a Aristo Craft F... Unit I have a A & B


----------



## altterrain (Jan 2, 2008)

Another stinkin', smoke belching Alco FA/FB shot - 










No F3's here but I have a GP-7 which is nice! 

-Brian


----------



## aceinspp (Jan 2, 2008)

Your out of luck for an undec so you may have to go with your suggestion of a B&M loco. Later RJD


----------



## Jerry Barnes (Jan 2, 2008)

Always can do a re-paint and have decals made.


----------



## Budd (Mar 22, 2008)

Regard scale fidelity, how accurate is the USA F3? Down here in Australia we had a real life kit bashed loco in the form of our GM class for the Commonwealth Railways (other state railways also bought this model), our loading gauge is smaller than US of A and track structure is lighter (well it was in 1950) so our local agent for EMD took the F3, reduced the hieght and width by a few inches and stretched the car body by a few feet to accomodate the 6 wheel bogies they fitted underneath, sort of like a F crossed with an E and left in the rain to shrink!! 
I decided to replicate this unit starting with a USA F3, it was easy to make it lower and I have only saved the cab but will make a new longer body, I thought about making it narrower just like the prototype did, but that was just going to be too much work (and as JB says, life is just to short to take seriously). The issue was the curve of the roof and nose top, the F3 model was a lot flatter than what our GM was, I thought this was a result of the narrowing of the body on the real one, which also made the windscreen shapes a lot different than the F3, but looking at the photo of the EL F3 the roof curve looks very much like the curve of our GM. 
Which is wrong? I don't really care, I am committed to my GM kit bash and will be pleased with the result, the EL F3 photo just got my curiosity going so I thought I would post my observation, for the curious I will be using USA trains E8 power bogies with scratchbuilt side frames (they were different as well), battery power and R/C is my preffered power source and this loco will pull a rake of 5 scratchbuilt smooth side streamlined passenger cars with a round end observation car, locals will recognise this as a Trans Australia Express, the cars have to be scratchbuilt as nothing on the market resembles these German built cars and mine will be scale length, I can't wait. 
Happy modelling 
Wayne H


----------



## Scottychaos (Jan 2, 2008)

We had a discussion about the shape of the nose/cab on the USA trains F3 a few years ago.. 
to me, it looks a bit "off"..the nose looks too short.. 
its a hard shape to do right! I think USA got it a bit off.. 

The Aristo E8 also looks..off..its hard to quantify exactly what doesnt look right..its just a gut feeling that 
something isnt quite right in the nose and window shape..(I have studied all these locos in person at Ridge Road Station!) 

the LGB F7 looks better..but its scale is a mess..lengh, width and height all appear to be different scales! 
cab looks good though.. 

IMO, the best looking Large Scale F-unit is MTH F3! 
everything looks great about it: 

http://www.mth-railking.com/photos/70-2012-1a.jpg 

of course its 1/32 scale, so its a bit smaller than the other models.. 
rolling stock becomes a concern with 1/32 scale.. (you cant use Aristo or USA passenger cars with the MTH units..wont look right)
but someday I would love paint up a A-B-B-A set of Lehigh Valley MTH F3's! 
I doubt I ever will though..because they are unusually expensive.. 
they have all that weird MTH electonics that I dont care about.. 
(if MTH would just release the F3 with only motors, and not all the expensive electronics, for around $200, I would be sold!) 

but apart from that, they LOOK great.. 
IMO the best looking of all Large Scale cab units.. 

Scot


----------



## altterrain (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By Scottychaos on 29 Oct 2009 08:46 PM 

The Aristo E8 also looks..off..its hard to quantify exactly what doesnt look right..its just a gut feeling that 
something isnt quite right in the nose and window shape..(I have studied all these locos in person at Ridge Road Station!) 

Scot 

I'm gonna' disagree on that one







. I have seen a few prototypes and it matches up pretty well!


























































-Brian


----------



## Jerry McColgan (Feb 8, 2008)

Personally I really like the LGB F7s but they are a larger scale than the Aristo-Craft both in locomotives and in rolling stock - especially noticeable in passenger cars. I especially LOVE the LGB sound and the LGB F7B units will provide sound for two locomotives (an AB or two A units).

It should be mentioned that the LGB F7s and LGB passenger coaches are all out of production so any warranty or other repairs (such as from shipping) could pose a problem.

While some do mix LGB F7s and other brand passenger cars, for me the LGB F7s are just too large to look right with anything but LGB coaches. Of course it is up to everyone to decide what they like.

Also worth mentioning is that LGB F7A units have motorized drive wheels but the F7B units do not while all wheels are powered on Aristo-Craft A and B units (I believe this is true of USAT but I am not sure).

There are some really distinct differences between LGB, Aristo-Craft and USAT diesels and passenger cars. It would be a really good idea if you can find a way to see all of them before you spend your money.

Jerry


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

USAT all powered. 

Regards, Greg


----------



## pimanjc (Jan 2, 2008)

Front view: USA F3.










The F3s are good strong pullers.

JimC.


----------



## sailbode (Jan 2, 2008)

Well, I'm starting to appreciate the difference between F1, F3, F7, E8's and PAs. The PAs or E's looked like nice trains but it would appear that these trains require a very large layout with very gentle curves...yes?? For my first outdoor layout I am anticipating 8' diameter curves. Track is not down yet so I could probably push that out to a 10 foot min. What do you folks suggest if I want to run a "Phoebe Snow"? Of course the loco might not be the only problem as it appears to me that the passenger cars (USA) are also very long and require...10 feet RADIUS!! Did I read that right? Perhaps I need to go back to a steam train? 
Thanks, 
Don


----------



## Stan Cedarleaf (Jan 2, 2008)

Don, Just a suggestion... If you have room to do 10 foot or larger diameter curves, you won't regret it. 

I have 10 and 11.5 foot diameter curves and wish I could have larger, but the area where the layout is "planted" 11.5 is the largest I could handle.

If you're considering the USA modern passenger cars, they like much larger diameter curves.


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Go the 10' diameter, it's a quantum jump up in increasing the range of locos you can run.

Here are 3 E8s and a few USAT streamliners on 10' diameter curves, look and run great.




Regards, Greg


----------



## Spule 4 (Jan 2, 2008)

From a friend that was in the business in model development, the only plastic EMD F unit to "get it right" were the HO Highliner shells that Atheran later used for their Genesis units. 

The F unit nose is VERY diffincult to mold and get the contours right. You can see the errors in the models in the thread from Bennett Levin's 1:1 E8 that Brian posted. Square windsheld on the Sante Fe Fs, rake of the windshields and ridge on the model PRR E8s for example just from the smallish photos posted here.


----------



## Jerry McColgan (Feb 8, 2008)

Posted By sailbode on 01 Nov 2009 05:29 AM 
if I want to run a "Phoebe Snow"? Of course the loco might not be the only problem as it appears to me that the passenger cars (USA) are also very long and require...10 feet RADIUS!! Did I read that right? Perhaps I need to go back to a steam train? 
Thanks, 
Don 

Hi Don,

I did not see where someone may have said 10 feet radius (20 feet diameter). Most likely they meant 10 feet diameter (5 feet radius). 

For what it is worth I agree that if possible (and convenient) it is a very good idea to build with 10 foot diameter curves but on the other hand there are many times when it is simply not possible or is extremely limiting to not build anything with wide curves.

On my layouts I run everything from 4' diameter (2' radius) up to much larger curves. With LGB locomotives and rolling stock just about all of it will run on 4 foot diameter curves but most other brands require a published minimum of 8 foot diameter curves and even then some of their locos do not handle those curves well and 10 foot diameter works out well for them.

That does not mean that everything on a layout must have nothing smaller than a 10 foot curve. Sometimes I think this concept drives potential new comers from the hobby before they get started.

Generally speaking I look at three things when I add to my layouts:

1. if it is LGB it will probably run anywhere.

2. if it is a diesel and has no more than 4 axles it may run on smaller curves (such as a EMD GPs or NW-2 or similar locos) but check the literature

3. if it is a 6 axle diesel or non-LGB steam locomotive larger than 6 drivers it will probably need at least 8 foot diameter curves.

First take a good look at the space you have available and if you have the space, bigger is better. If your space is limited then see what you can build in the space you have available and size your layout and your rolling stock accordingly. One reason I like the LGB F7 and LGB coaches is that they run on my crawl space layout with 8', 5' and even 4' diameter curves. I also run some USA NW-2s GP-38 and Aristo-Craft FA/B-1s on the sharper curves and many non-LGB freight cars on the sharp curves but I limit the Heavyweights and Streamliners to the 8' diameter curves on the layout.

The real railroads did the same. Often they had to adjust their track and trains to fit in the space available. I don't advocate small diameter curves but I do not limit myself to just those spaces where wide curves will fit.

Jerry


----------



## Bill Swindell (Jan 2, 2008)

I'm sure that there are many variations of the EMD nose. The most important thing is not how accurate it is to the fraction of an inch but how pleasing it is to you, the biuyer. If it looks good to you then buy it. None of the 1:29 models are accurate anyway. There too big and I, personally, don't care. All of my stuff is 1:29 including my set of F-3's from USA.


----------



## Scottychaos (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By Bill Swindell on 01 Nov 2009 09:59 AM 
I'm sure that there are many variations of the EMD nose. 



Surprisingly no, there isnt..
the classic EMD "Bulldog" nose had virtually no variation at all..
from the first EMD FT in 1939 to the last FL9 in 1960..
models with the same nose:

FT 

F3
F5
F7
FP7 

F9
FP9
FL9 

E7
E8
E9 


and probably a few more im missing..
the nose is the same on all..there were variations in numberboards, lights and pilots,
but the overall nose/windshield shape is the same on all of them..there is much more variation among models (not having the nose quite right in model form)
than there ever was in the prototypes.. 


there was the one earlier design, the "shovelnose" E3 and E6:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...ve_630.jpg
but thats obviously not the nose we are talking about here.. 


Scot 










http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/41/Rock_Island_locomotive_630.jpg


----------



## Bill Swindell (Jan 2, 2008)

Sorry for the confusion, I was talking about the different versions in models.

I heard somewhere that the EMD noses were all hand built. If that is the case, are they all really exactly the same?


----------



## Scottychaos (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By Bill Swindell on 01 Nov 2009 04:14 PM Sorry for the confusion, I was talking about the different versions in models.

oh! sorry..I didnt catch that, I thought you were talking about prototypes.. 



I heard somewhere that the EMD noses were all hand built. If that is the case, are they all really exactly the same?

yes they were..hand built and hand-pounded sheet metal..but all built with the same patterns..
maybe minor differences in "fit and finish"..but no major differences in the blueprint/plan/design.. 

so realistically, they are still the same, even if "hand built", because they were all hand built using the same pattern.. 


I think there was some kind of mold..the sheet metal was hand pounded into the form to make the curves, then assembled..
I read about it in a magazine years ago..I tried googling it just now, but cant come up with anything good.. 


Scot


----------



## Jerry McColgan (Feb 8, 2008)

Posted By Scottychaos on 01 Nov 2009 04:21 PM 

I think there was some kind of mold..the sheet metal was hand pounded into the form to make the curves, then assembled..
I read about it in a magazine years ago..I tried googling it just now, but cant come up with anything good.. 


Scot 



Hi Scot,

I read recently that the curves around the EMD headlights were too complex for machinery of the period and that portion of the nose was hand formed out of Bondo or a similar material.

Jerry


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Posted By sailbode on 28 Oct 2009 03:34 PM 
I'd like to get an F3 ABA with appropriate passenger cars. As I'm not locked in to any particular scale, I'm considering the Aristocraft a B a set for aprox $460. The LGB set would probably be 3 times that. USA $750ish?? Any advise? obviously price is a big considerstion, but I don't want to buy junk either. Smallest diameter would be 8 feet. will be using battery R/C and add sound. Road name?? not to fussy...would be nice to have the old Phoebe snow..Erie Lackawnna as I live close to the Delaware cut off.

Thanks,
Don 


Jerry: The original poster says he was looking at 8 feet and passenger cars, and "appropriate" ones at that.

So, I appreciate your advice that there are trains that will run on very small curves, but it's not what this thread is about. Going from 8 feet to 10 feet for what he wants is best for him.

Also, nowadays, if you have the space, there is no good reason to go 4' diameter. I know MANY people that wish they had been advised to go to larger curves. I have found many more "sorry" individuals with 4' curves than 10' curves. 

I advise ALL newcomers to go as large as they possibly can. Then when they fall in love with a -9 or Mikado, they CAN run it! There will be exceptions where there is no room of course.


Regards, Greg


----------



## blueregal (Jan 3, 2008)

I agree with Greg on this, when I got into this g-scale hobby in the middle 90's The retail shop I purchase from told me to get 10ft curves and never buy anything less, I would be sorry if I did. I wish I had some 20 fter's now!! The Regal


----------



## sailbode (Jan 2, 2008)

I suspects it's a typo but here is a copy of the add on "Wholesale trains" regarding the USA passenger cars: 


Avoid Dissappointment, You Should Know before You Buy - 

-Aluminum cars are heavy - these weigh about 12 pounds each. 
-Do you have locomotives with the power and tractive force to pull this much weight? 
-Will your bridges and trackwork support a 12 pound vertical load over 33 inches? 
-Do you have sweeping wide radius curves to handle long cars? Longer trains require even wider radius curves to prevent "stringlining" derailments. 
-Consider a 10 foot or larger radius curve minimum for operation. 
-The long coupler overhang of a "scale" passenger will require wide radius switches. 
-Will your power supply handle lighting the interior of each car and power your locomotives? 

Take note of the 10 foot radius


----------



## Jerry McColgan (Feb 8, 2008)

Posted By Greg Elmassian on 02 Nov 2009 09:00 AM

Jerry: The original poster says he was looking at 8 feet and passenger cars, and "appropriate" ones at that.

So, I appreciate your advice that there are trains that will run on very small curves, but it's not what this thread is about. Going from 8 feet to 10 feet for what he wants is best for him.

Also, nowadays, if you have the space, there is no good reason to go 4' diameter. I know MANY people that wish they had been advised to go to larger curves. I have found many more "sorry" individuals with 4' curves than 10' curves. 

I advise ALL newcomers to go as large as they possibly can. Then when they fall in love with a -9 or Mikado, they CAN run it! There will be exceptions where there is no room of course.


Regards, Greg 



Hi Greg,

I was responding to his comments where he had said: *it appears to me that the passenger cars (USA) are also very long and require...10 feet RADIUS!! Did I read that right? Perhaps I need to go back to a steam train? * 

My response was *:I did not see where someone may have said 10 feet radius (20 feet diameter). Most likely they meant 10 feet diameter (5 feet radius). *

I then added: For what it is worth* I agree that if possible (and convenient) it is a very good idea to build with 10 foot diameter curves* but on the other hand there are many times when it is simply not possible or is extremely limiting to not build anything with wide curves.

*First take a good look at the space you have available and **if you have the space, bigger is better**. If your space is limited then see what you can build in the space you have available and size your layout and your rolling stock accordingly.* 

*I don't advocate small diameter curves but I do not limit myself to just those spaces where wide curves will fit. 
The real point of what I was saying was: That does not mean that everything on a layout must have nothing smaller than a 10 foot curve. Sometimes I think this concept drives potential new comers from the hobby before they get started.
*

Regards,

Jerry


----------



## Nicholas Savatgy (Dec 17, 2008)

Posted By altterrain on 29 Oct 2009 05:36 PM 
Another stinkin', smoke belching Alco FA/FB shot - 










No F3's here but I have a GP-7 which is nice! 

-Brian Ok Brian your my hero??????????????????????? HE HE HE Nice pictures DUDE


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Understand Jerry, it was your point I was addressing: 

"The real point of what I was saying was: That does not mean that everything on a layout must have nothing smaller than a 10 foot curve. Sometimes I think this concept drives potential new comers from the hobby before they get started." 

I don't think it drives people from the hobby, almost everyone who recommends 10' minimum tells the newcomer that things run better and if they want larger locos later they can run them. 

It's funny, but about half the newcomers seem to want the large impressive locos, and I hear all the time "gee if I had just built it with larger curves". 

Regards, Greg


----------



## Nicholas Savatgy (Dec 17, 2008)

20FT dia AND BETTER rules my train brothers..............


----------



## Jerry McColgan (Feb 8, 2008)

Posted By Greg Elmassian on 02 Nov 2009 07:37 PM 
Understand Jerry, it was your point I was addressing: 

It's funny, but about half the newcomers seem to want the large impressive locos, and I hear all the time "gee if I had just built it with larger curves". 

Regards, Greg 

Hi Greg,

I think that you have put your finger on the situation very well.

It is normal for newcomers to want the large impressive locos and equally large passenger cars which by their size dictate large sweeping curves which also look very impressive. Anyone who has been to Marty's (including me) is impressed on how great those trains look on his large layout. If a person has the room and funds to build a large layout with wide sweeping curves I would be one of the first to encourage him or her to do it.

If about half the newcomers want large impressive locos that leaves about half who may not want the large impressive locos - or who may simply not have the space or money to build a large layout with wide sweeping curves. 

Sometimes I think that we tend to overlook those who may not want or be able to build those large layouts.

I do not suggest that my layouts are normal but just for comparison there are 82 of the R1 four foot diameter turnouts, 80 of the R3 eight foot diameter turnouts and only 4 of the R5 fifteen foot turnouts. Part the reason for all the small curves and turnouts is because of the physical dimensions available. Another big part is that the cost of a freight yard with R1 turnouts is about half the cost of the same yard with R3 turnouts and the other factor is that I can simply do a lot more in a given space with smaller curves, smaller trains and with less money.

Since I prefer steam locos to diesels and a freight train or passenger train with Moguls and Jackson Sharpe cars is about half the cost of a similar train with Mikados and mainline coaches the smaller curves and smaller trains allow me to afford greater variety.

Yes it is good to recommend wide curves but I suspect there are far more layouts with smaller curves and smaller trains than with big curves and large impressive locos. 

More and more I hear of other large scalers building elevated layouts as they get older (like me) and an elevated layout gets VERY expensive as the curves get wider which is why there are not and probably will not be any 6 axle diesels on my layouts. At some point on every layout there is at least one 8 foot diameter curve that my trains have to negotiate and even some of the 4 axle diesels (other than LGB F7s, Aristo FA-1s, USA GPs and NW-2s) have a problem with them.

I just have a different perspective regarding curves because I prefer a lot of activity within compact spaces.

Regards,

Jerry


----------



## Jerry McColgan (Feb 8, 2008)

Posted By sailbode on 02 Nov 2009 05:03 PM 
I suspects it's a typo but here is a copy of the add on "Wholesale trains" regarding the USA passenger cars: 


Avoid Dissappointment, You Should Know before You Buy - 

-Aluminum cars are heavy - these weigh about 12 pounds each. 
-Do you have locomotives with the power and tractive force to pull this much weight? 
-Will your bridges and trackwork support a 12 pound vertical load over 33 inches? 
-Do you have sweeping wide radius curves to handle long cars? Longer trains require even wider radius curves to prevent "stringlining" derailments. 
-Consider a 10 foot or larger radius curve minimum for operation. 
-The long coupler overhang of a "scale" passenger will require wide radius switches. 
-Will your power supply handle lighting the interior of each car and power your locomotives? 

Take note of the 10 foot radius 

Hi Don,

On page 48 of the USA Catalog the Ultimate Series coaches listed as "Minimum Track Diameter 8'

http://www.usatrains.com/catalog/index.html










It may be a good idea to play it safe and bump it up to 10'

I do not have any of these cars so all I know is what the catalog says.

Jerry


----------



## Totalwrecker (Feb 26, 2009)

Minimum radius/diameter is just that the bare minimum, no where does it say it will look good doing it. 
What that usually means is slow speed and ugly overhang... as we push the tolerances of the equipment! 
Advertisers do it so they can sell more stuff. 

Economics played a huge part when I was picking diameters...12 sections of 10' makes a circle, whereas 20+ sections of 20'd to make a circle. Sticker shock determined my diameters! I do have an inner S-curve spur of 8'd that requires slower running. I like the look of a train snaking along the track to the dead end, but I'll not buy anymore 8'. 
I've got the bug to tear out the roundy round layout and go linear, should that happen the 8's will be rebent to a wider curve and transition curves will erase the sectional look... 

To make my curves look bigger, I've settled on small olde tyme trains and 1:24 scale. They fit my budget better too! 

John


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Yes Jerry, it's definitely fair to say that half of the people may not want large locomotives.

But, I think on the tightness of the curves, it's a different story, ALL operations of locomotives and cars will be better on broader curves and switches. I went to a layout recently with R1 switches, and my Aristo RS3 would not go through them, the only thing I had that would was a Shay!


I think that the people giving advice to newcomers have been doing a very good job of advising newbies on track type, battery vs. track power, etc.

I just know how many people I have talked to that have regrets that they did not go just a little bit bigger on curves, and will not now due to the cost.

So, I will continue to make sure newbies get the perspective of what limitations they may run into with tighter curves, and then they can make an informed decision for themselves.

By the way I DO have the USAT streamliners, and they really do run much better on 10' curves. Just like certain locos that can just "handle" and 8' curve, at the bare minimum radius, anything wrong with the track geometry will cause derailments and poor running.



Regards, Greg


----------



## Jerry McColgan (Feb 8, 2008)

Posted By Greg Elmassian on 03 Nov 2009 09:05 AM 


So, I will continue to make sure newbies get the perspective of what limitations they may run into with tighter curves, and then they can make an informed decision for themselves.

By the way I DO have the USAT streamliners, and they really do run much better on 10' curves. Just like certain locos that can just "handle" and 8' curve, at the bare minimum radius, anything wrong with the track geometry will cause derailments and poor running.

Regards, Greg 



Hi Greg,

Don's concern was that the Wholesale site called for 10' radius (20' diameter) minimum. What I was telling Don is that he may need 10' diameter but I did not think he would need 10' radius curves. The USAT catalog called for 8' DIAMETER not RADIUS curves.

We have no disagreement when it comes to recommending wide curves to newbies. My layout is anything but typical and I would never suggest that newbies do things the way that I do except if they happen to run into space limitations such as I have had to live with.

My layout actually developed backward from most in that most of my O Gauge locomotives are large and extra large mainline steam locomotives so my first G Gauge train was a Pacific pulling Heavyweights. As you pointed out* "anything wrong with the track geometry will cause derailments and poor running." *That was my situation with an elevated track built on a hill with a 25% grade.

It was not long before the Pacific and Heavyweights were replaced with diesels (lower center of gravity) and my first LGB Mogul - which promptly fell into the dirt. That was followed by LGB 0-4-0 Starter Sets which ran anywhere without problems or fear of derailments.

Even today the humps and dips of my ramps and steep curves (dictated by the space available in my garage and the brick walls to get trains outside) assure that anything that cannot run on 8' or smaller diameter curves will not run here because I would have to carry them outside and back inside every time I ran them.

If folks have the space, by all means they should build with wide curves but unless someone happens to have a large perfectly flat back yard those wide curves can demand a lot of work. Anyone who (like me) lives on a hill with a 25% grade may have a different perspective.









Regards,

Jerry


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Agreed Jerry. 

Many retail sites do a poor job of even copying the manufacturer's information! 

Also, coming from the smaller scales, it's easy to slip and say radius! 

Regards, Greg


----------



## markoles (Jan 2, 2008)

Since this thread has drifted a bit, I thought I would share this one with the class:

When I decided to have a railroad for kids to operate at my recent open house, I built it with 8' diameter (technically, they are LGB 1600 curves). Mostly because I expect high speed operation, and the big curves help the 0-4-0 and small equipment to remain on the tracks. But, I guess somewhere in the back of my mind, I also built it with these curves so that I could operate even my biggest locomotives! To that end, that layout is currently set up indoors, where 8' diameter is monstrous. 

I also built my 'storage' yard with track I had on hand, mostly old aristo 10' diameter curves and LGB 1600 curves. But when I consider making this temporary addition a fully functioning route, I envision it with minimum 12.5' diamter curves (space and $ are limiting factors here). I do not plan to replace 8' diameter brass track with 8' diameter stainless steel. I guess it is all perspective. Having used 12.5' diameter curves as a minimum makes the 8 and 10 foot diameter curves look like R1's to me now. But, when I need storage the 8 and 10' dia curves looked like track to me. 

So I guess my point is what are we willing to tolerate in the name of Fun? For me, I can tolerate trains running temporarily on 8' diameter curves, but if I am going to spend the time and money, I want wider, more graceful curves so I can run longer trains. In my original version of my current railroad, I was using R1 turnouts in a yard with the expected results! And even thought I know that my LGB Mikado will go around a R1 (4' diameter) curve, the few times I have done that, I was not too pleased with the result. 

Oh, and to bring it back, we have stored USA streamliners coupled with Aristo heavyweights on those side tracks with 8' diameter curves laid not very well. The cars did manage to stay upright and on the tracks so long as the movements were slow and carefully made! Having followed the saga of the now gone Bethlehem Central's S curves with USA trains streamliners, I avoided that geometry even in temporary yard service. 

I believe that several of the original modular railroads were constructed with the inner loops at 8' diameter. Seems like several of these have recently been modified with larger curves, but I know that the USA streamliners have been around for about 8 or 9 years now, right? So at some point, those 8' diameter curves may have handled full speed passenger trains. 

I totally agree with making railroads with curves as large as reasonable. Now that I think about it, my original garden railroad was built with those old LGB 1600 curves and aristo 10' diameter curves. If memory serves, the 10' diameter curves did make a difference and trains tended to run better on them versus the 1600. But then again, the biggest engine on the line was a LGB mogul and a LGB DL535 diesel, both handling R1's with ease.


----------



## Jerry McColgan (Feb 8, 2008)

Two other comments worth making are that while locomotives and rolling stock may run very well when moving forward on a specific curve diameter the situation can change drastically when that same train is reversed into a siding or when a grade is involved.

I can back LGB Moguls along with LGB and other brands of freight cars and LGB passenger cars into sidings with R1 turnouts all day with never a problem but even though the LGB Mikados and Aristo Heavyweights will easily handle 8' (R3) curves I have derailments fairly often when I back them into sidings with R3 turnouts. I have no room for wider turnouts or if I did I would have fewer sidings so I live with and anticipate the occasional derailment. The LGB coaches never derail when backing into those same sidings with the LGB Mikados. There are some significant differences in how the LGB coaches were engineered so sometimes the extra cost of LGB pays significant dividends.

Derailments can also occur when backing trains into curves going uphill when the same curves are no problem when flat. As locomotives and rolling stock get larger they can become more tempermental when it comes to the track and sidings they can negotiate both forward and especially in reverse. Grades tend to emphasize all potential problems.

As someone had mentioned, manufacturers recommendations tend to be best case scenarios and when the curve involves a grade or backing into a siding the minimum curve may become significantly different.

Jerry


----------



## sailbode (Jan 2, 2008)

I sure do appreciate all the input guys. As we have discussed this topic, and you folks have shown me some cool pics & vids of your layouts, it is becoming to be clear to me that my first garden layout with approx 80 feet of track might be on the small side to try and run a large loco with large "heavies". I currently have 3 relatively small steam engines and really would like to get a diesel for my outdoor layout. Perhaps I should forget the EL "Phoebe Snow" and just run an F3 with smaller passenger cars? Incidently, I want to run passenger cars couse they look cool lit up at night


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

They surely do. 

The size of the layout is only controlled by your imagination. Running slow makes it magically bigger. You would be surprised at the fact that many contributors may have a "small" layout even though they may have dash-9 (large) diesels or mallets. 

I hate buying stuff as a compromise. I worked hard to squeeze 10' diameter curves in, it was not easy, but now that it's done and I can run cars that are really full length, I love it, it was really worth the effort. 

Regards, Greg


----------



## Jerry McColgan (Feb 8, 2008)

Posted By sailbode on 03 Nov 2009 05:36 PM 
my first garden layout with approx 80 feet of track might be on the small side to try and run a large loco with large "heavies".

Perhaps I should forget the EL "Phoebe Snow" and just run an F3 with smaller passenger cars? Incidently, I want to run passenger cars couse they look cool lit up at night  


Hi Don,

If you want the EL "Phoebe Snow" then I would discourage you from settling for less. 

This layout is 40' x 12' and the outer loop is only 88' total length. At times I run an Aristo E8 or FA-1/FB-1 with six lighted Aristo Streamliners on one track and a GP40 with twelve 53' Evans Boxcars and a caboose on the inside loop. The trains are almost as long as the straight sections but so what? I and others enjoy running them.











If you buy smaller passenger cars than what you really want you will have virtually the same situation as if you bought smaller curves than you want - eventually you will probably regret it and replace them with what you wanted in the first place.

One thing you have probably thought of is that lighted coaches take a lot of battery power which is one reason I use track power. I too love lighted trains at night.

An alternative which you may also have thought of would be to run your locos on battery power and use track power to illuminate your coaches.

Jerry


----------



## Jerry McColgan (Feb 8, 2008)

Posted By sailbode on 03 Nov 2009 05:36 PM 
I want to run passenger cars couse they look cool lit up at night  

Hi Don,

With regard to running trains at night you might enjoy this video.

http://1stclass.mylargescale.com/je.../F7ST2.wmv

My primary layout runs mainly in the crawl space under our house which gives me the ability to run in the dark or any level of light at any time. My favorite "time" of running trains is semi-darkness when I can see just enough to make everything visible simulating late evening or early morning.

Trains do not have to be logical to be fun. It is whatever you like doing that is important. The "train" running is a LGB See-Thru F7-ABBBBBBA "Interurban" with sound coming from all 8 locomotives.









Regards,

Jerry


----------



## markoles (Jan 2, 2008)

Don,

Going back to your original idea, I still think you'd be better off with an Aristo EL E8 (if you like EMD diesels) or the USA Alco PA (if you like Alcos) and USA EL streamliners. No compromise needed, just build your train slowly. The USA streamliners are excellent, probably one of my favorite pieces of rolling stock available!! A single A unit and a couple of coaches is probably how the Phoebe Snow ended her days. You can go back in time as you add more cars!


----------



## Dougald (Jan 2, 2008)

the Phoebe Snow, as Lackawanna's flagship, was a beautiful streamlined train in the late 40s and 50s but it did fall on darker days after the merger of the Erie and the Lackawanna. Its route was changed to no longer terminate in Buffalo but instead run all the way to Chicago on the Erie's main line. By the mid 60s it was just a shadow of its former self but it was never a really small shadow as it carried head end cars and an RPO plus mail storage cars plus coaches and a diner ... often pulled by Geeps ... and looking very down at the heels.

The mail contract was lost in 1966 and the train was terminated in November of that year.

Regards ... Doug


----------



## Scottychaos (Jan 2, 2008)

Doug, 
im not sure about the "often pulled by geeps" part.. 
DL&W had some passenger GP7's, but I believe they were primarily used in NJ commuter service.. 
After the 1960 merger the train was almost exclusively pulled by the E-units, much less commonly the Alco PA's, 
and I have never seen any photos of DL&W or EL passenger geeps "out on the road" on any long distance trains.. 
it could have happened!  
but if it did, it was a very rare occurance.. 


To model the EL version of the Phoebe Snow (locos and cars letterd EL, rather than DL&W) I would personally go with a full USA trains set..
the Alco PA's and the USA trains cars..train would be gorgeous! (passenger cars perhaps not totally accurate..but IMO thats not a big deal) 
Or..go with the Aristo E8's and the USA trains cars..cant go wrong either way!  

Just make you sure you get two Alco PA's or two E8A units!
(only A units..no B units!)
because EL never had any Alco PB's or EMD E8B's..
even though USA Trains and Aristo both offer EL B-units, the B-units arent prototypical..

Always two A-units for Phoebe..

Scot


----------



## markoles (Jan 2, 2008)

Scot and Doug,

Thanks for that info! For this new beginner, he could build up to the Phoebe Snow by starting small, with one A unit and a coach and diner (or whatever). Then slowly build it up. I need to write this here so that I can start to get in to that mindset as well. To date, I have lusted and drooled over the New Haven streamliners Chris brings here (see the other thread about USA and Aristocraft coaches). But, whenever I get ready to make a purchase, the price tag for the 5 car set becomes an issue. But if I were to pick the cars up one at a time and spread it out, that wouldn't be as much of a shock to my train budget...


----------



## Scottychaos (Jan 2, 2008)

Mark, 
im doing the same with my Lehigh Valley "Black Diamond Express" trainset.. 
I bought the two USA Trains Alco PA's a few years ago..I have two second hand (used-ebay) Aristo heavyweights that I picked up fairly cheap, 
awaiting stripping of paint and re-painting..I plan to buy one USA Trains coach in the LV scheme that matches the Alcos, 
and im planning to convert another Aristo heavyweight into the LV solarium observation car.. 

(mixing heavyweights (aristo) with smoothsides (USA trains) is prototypical for the LV!  
the LV never bought a modern 'matching trainset" in the diesel era..they had a motley mix of cars..) 

So eventually I will get my complete LV train..might take 10 years from start to finish! 
which is fine..considering I have owned the Alco's about 5 years and still dont have a place to run them!  

Scot


----------



## markoles (Jan 2, 2008)

Scot,

That sounds a lot like my heavyweight train I seem to be building. Due to the generosity of a friend, I ended up with two heavyweight observation cars. I also have a Napa Valley observation car that I guess I should convert to a lounge car. All I need is about $25 worth of parts from aristo. 

Mixing heavyweight and lightweight equipment seems to be more common than not. 

Mark


----------



## sailbode (Jan 2, 2008)

Thanks guys, Got my box of track today and I'm staring at that darn hill planning my attack. Too bad winter is coming on fast. here in jersey November is about the last month we can think of outdoor trains until end of March. I could be wrongh but it seems to me one of my last rides on the Phoebe Snow was around 1968ish? Are you guys familiar with the Paulinskill Viaduct? (otherwise known as the Hainesburg Viaduct) a very high concrete bridge on the EL route out of Jersey into Pennsilvania, happens to be a few miles down the road from my place of business. 
http://www.bridgemeister.com/imgddm/ddnjpaulinskill1.jpg


----------



## markoles (Jan 2, 2008)

Hey, the winter is one of the best times to run trains, especially with lights. We run here all winter, but mostly when it snows. 

This is my plow train getting ready for a call to duty. 









Below is a snowplow, RS-3 diesel, and a mallet after plowing snow. This was the only place you could really see the train, so I took a picture!










This is a front view of the snowplow on the bridge.










For building, you are probably right. Building season outside is pretty much done!! Maybe a few more weeks..


----------



## sailbode (Jan 2, 2008)

WOW Mark! You're a wild man! You actually run that train with all that snow on it?? Amazing 
Incidently, can you tell me...is there an easy way to put pictures here as you have done? 
Thanks, 
Don


----------



## Jerry McColgan (Feb 8, 2008)

Posted By Scottychaos on 04 Nov 2009 11:33 AM 

Or..go with the Aristo E8's and the USA trains cars..cant go wrong either way!  

Just make you sure you get two Alco PA's or two E8A units!
(only A units..no B units!)
because EL never had any Alco PB's or EMD E8B's..
even though USA Trains and Aristo both offer EL B-units, the B-units arent prototypical..

Always two A-units for Phoebe..

Scot 


Hi Scot and Don,

If the choice is to go with E8's Aristo-Craft only makes E8A units. The E8B units occasionally seen were home made.

Jerry


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

If the real Phoebe Snow train was originally pulled by an F3 "ABA" set, and later by an E8 "AA" set, why are there recommendations for the PA units? 

Regards, Greg


----------



## Dougald (Jan 2, 2008)

The original Phoene Snow, a Lackawanna creation on the late 40s, was originally pulled by an F3 A-B-A set regeared for passenger service and with steam gennies and passenger lines installed. By the mid 50s these early F3s had been replaced by a pair of E8As. They remained the normal power even after the merger with Erie and pulled the train from Hoboken to Chicago on its new routing. but no PA's in any pics I have ever seen of the Phoebe Snow.

As time wore on and the passenger business declined, the mail contract and other head end traffic became paramount though a semblance of past glory was maintained into the mid 60s. The mail contract was lost in 1966 leading to the train's demise in November 1966. In its last year of existence a grubby run down Phoebe Snow was pulled by a grabbag of whatever power EL could assemble ... often using GP7s.

Regards ... Doug


----------



## Scottychaos (Jan 2, 2008)

The Alco PA's were used on the Phoebe Snow..(I have seen photos) but rarely.. 

Only the Erie had the Alco PA's, not the DL&W..so Alco PA's could not have been used on the DL&W version of the train.. 
they could have been used only after the merger in 1960, when Erie and DL&W combined their locomotives into one EL fleet.. 
but by 1960, the Alcos were getting quite old, and so were seldom used on long distance trains across the system.. 

I have seen a few photos of PA's on the Phoebe Snow..usually a E8 leading and a PA trailing.. 
I dont think I have actually seen a photo of the Phoebe Snow with a matched set of Alco PA's pulling the train.. 
but its likely it happened.. 
the PA's were running up to the 1966 end of the Phoebe Snow, (and a year or two after that in freight service), 
so its plausable, if very uncommon, to find the Alcos on the train.. 

its hard to guess, but I would estimate that after 1960 the Phoebe Snow was pulled by the E-units 95% of the time.. 
but im quite confidant the PA's could be prototypical for the train as well..just very rare.. 

Scot


----------



## markoles (Jan 2, 2008)

Don,

I am a first class member and on the button bar above, there are some buttons for inserting pictures. When I click the button to the left of the 'smiley' face, it opens a new window where I have a variety of options for inserting pictures. If you have photos hosted on another site you can post them using that window. 

I wouldn't say I am a wild man, but I do draw some funny looks from the neighbors when we run the plow extras!


----------



## Bills (Feb 20, 2008)

Jerry, 
Did you add additional lighting to your clear body F7?


----------



## Jerry McColgan (Feb 8, 2008)

Posted By Bills on 05 Nov 2009 01:17 PM 
Jerry, 
Did you add additional lighting to your clear body F7? 

Hi Bill,

No. The flashing lights were standard with the LGB F7 See-Thru.

http://1stclass.mylargescale.com/je.../22578.pdf

The main thing I did was to add decals which gave the locos color. My original plan had been to paint them but knowing my lack of painting skills I changed my mind and created my version of Interurban trains with them. I ended up making two F7-ABBBBA sets and I love running them no matter how illogical they may be.

I think I read somehere that some B locos had been converted to a sort of passenger car but even if that never happened it is OK with me. It is somewhat hard toexplain the atrtraction but once you see them running and hear the sound from every unit it is hard not to be impressed by them. I am glad that I never tried to paint them.










Jerry


----------



## Scottychaos (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By Jerry McColgan on 05 Nov 2009 04:11 PM 
I ended up making two F7-ABBBBA sets and I love running them no matter how illogical they may be.


Jerry


Here you go Jerry! 


http://www.railpictures.net/viewpho...amp;nseq=4

http://www.railpictures.net/articles/article.php?id=5

Scot


----------



## Jerry McColgan (Feb 8, 2008)

Posted By Scottychaos on 05 Nov 2009 04:29 PM 
Posted By Jerry McColgan on 05 Nov 2009 04:11 PM 
I ended up making two F7-ABBBBA sets and I love running them no matter how illogical they may be.


Jerry


Here you go Jerry! 


http://www.railpictures.net/viewpho...amp;nseq=4

http://www.railpictures.net/articles/article.php?id=5

Scot 



Hi Scot,

Great Photos!

Thanks,

Jerry


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

I have a picture somewhere of an Fe AABBBA going up Raton pass with a 2-8-2 Mikado on the front as a helper. 

(not so coincidentally, I have 3 "A" units, 3 "B" units and a Mikado!) 

Look far enough and you can find a prototype! 

Regards, Greg


----------



## Bills (Feb 20, 2008)

Jerry, 
After see the lighting I understand why you like Clear bodies, they just look fun. I may have to find one now! I don't think anyone will find a prototype for a transparent Engine.


----------



## Jerry McColgan (Feb 8, 2008)

Posted By Bills on 05 Nov 2009 09:32 PM 
Jerry, 
After see the lighting I understand why you like Clear bodies, they just look fun. I may have to find one now! I don't think anyone will find a prototype for a transparent Engine. 

Hi Bill,

If you are interested Michael Tollett may have a pair available (the F7A provides the power and the F7B provides the sound) as he has not been very active with large scale lately. Michael lives locally so I can put you in touch with him if desired.

While no one is likely to come up with a transparent prototype I believe that somewhere there was a prototype of using a gutted F*B to transport passengers. I don't recall where I saw it but I am pretty sure that I did see a picture somewhere.

Jerry


----------



## markoles (Jan 2, 2008)

Jerry,

Are you thinking about the Amtrak F-40's that were gutted, except the cab and controls and converted to be cab and baggage cars? They got a nice nickname: Cabbages!

http://chicago.railfan.net/cgi/phot...AMTK_90221


----------



## Jerry McColgan (Feb 8, 2008)

Posted By markoles on 06 Nov 2009 08:12 AM 
Jerry,

Are you thinking about the Amtrak F-40's that were gutted, except the cab and controls and converted to be cab and baggage cars? They got a nice nickname: Cabbages!

http://chicago.railfan.net/cgi/phot...AMTK_90221




Hi Wild man (I mean Mark) ; )

I think the locomotives I recall were EMD F series but I really don't remember (someone had sent me a link back when I was building the F7-ABBBBAs). It was a similar concept but I think it predated Amtrak.

Speaking of your wild man history you may want to show Don some pictures of your "Wedding Train." I looked in the archives but could not find it.

Jerry


----------



## markoles (Jan 2, 2008)

Jerry,

I think that we might both be 'winners' of a title "Wild MAn". Me for plowing a foot of snow. You for having an entire train consisting of A and B units!! Love it! 

Don, below is a photo of my wedding train running just prior to our first anniversary!! My, oh my! How the railroad has changed since this photo was taken! By the way, I had people tell me I could NOT run the steam engine with the streamliners because they were the WRONG ERA. I guess some people take this very seriously. Sure, it is UNLIKELY that a 1918 mikado would haul two domes and an observation but who cares?


----------



## sailbode (Jan 2, 2008)

I appreciate those who take "scale" very seriously, but also admire those who feel "free" to color outside the lines







. Not sure where I will fall....probably somewhere in the middle, like most of us. Just became a "member" so hopefully you'll see some photos from me soon.
Don


----------



## Bills (Feb 20, 2008)

Jerry, 
Do you use the sound system in each of your FB units at the same time? That would be loud!


----------



## AzRob (Sep 14, 2009)

Mike with domes isn't implausible. Until last year (grumble grumble) it happened on the Grand Canyon Railway fairly often (though usually they ran No. 29, not their Mike).


----------



## Jerry McColgan (Feb 8, 2008)

Posted By Bills on 07 Nov 2009 12:31 PM 
Jerry, 
Do you use the sound system in each of your FB units at the same time? That would be loud! 

Hi Bill,

Yes. With the F7-ABBBBBBA in the video there are EIGHT sound systems going at full volume!!!










I also have the crawl space wired for stereo and at times I just turn the lights totally off and play a CD of real steam locomotives while I run the trains. I cannot even hear the model trains unless they are right in front of me when I do that.

The crawl space trains run right in front of me at desk height (when I am sitting) which gives a MUCH better appreciation (in my opinion) of both the trains and of the sound systems.

Fortunately my nearest neighbors are 1/4 mile away so I never get any complaints even when shooting in the back yard. I LOVE ARKANSAS!

Jerry


----------



## aceinspp (Jan 2, 2008)

There for a while I was like some folks and thought the clear F units with all the flashing lights was not to my liking but the more i saw them the more the wife and I fell in love with the set. So we bought one or I should say the wife bought it for me for a Christmas present. Sure looked cool under the tree and the sound is awesome. I like the clear see through so the only thing I did was and my RR name and a engine number being that I got the units in 2001 that is the number they got. Every once in a while I will run them at night what a site. I even converted the set to DCC love it. Later RJD


----------



## chuck n (Jan 2, 2008)

When LGB came out with the clear cars with the flashing lights, I said "NO WAY". The more I saw them the more I liked them. Several years ago Nancy and I were at a meeting in Philadelphia and we stopped by at Nicholas Smiths. That was a BIG MISTAKE. They had a great price on the clear A and B units. 

Several of us run trains at a Fairfax County Park (Virginia) one weekend in December. For several years, I have been running the Clear diesels with the flashing lights. They are a big hit with everyone. Not quite as big as Thomas and James, but almost. 

For a novelty train, I'm glad that I got them.




Chuck N


----------

