# USA TRAINS DOES IT AGAIN



## Nicholas Savatgy (Dec 17, 2008)

*After talking to Greg the other day and he told me what he had seen at BTS i waited for him to post it and then i called Charles SR today to confirm it and yes by years end if all goes well we WILL have a 89ft Tri level car carrier car... WA WHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO finally a manufacture that knows that biggger for us main liners sells in 1/29th.. thank you Sir you made a lot of people happy today. i beleive these will be your best selling cars yet. so for you guys with the bigger layouts WITCH IS the futture these cars will fit rite in, because this is ithe future.. bigger really is getting better and better everyday. so who said those dash 9s and bigboys were not the future of mainline model RRing.. out with the old in with the new............







most suburban houses across the USA have yards far bigger than 5 by10ft. 20ft dia curves starting to become the norm WAAAAAAAAAAAAA WHHHHHHHHHHHHHHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO........*


----------



## blackburn49 (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By Nicholas Savatgy on 06/09/2009 7:13 PM
. . . if all goes well we WILL have a 89ft Tri level car carrier car... WA WHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO finally a manufacture that knows that bigger for us main liners sells in 1/29th.. thank you Sir you made a lot of people happy today. i believe these will be your best selling cars yet. so for you guys with the bigger layouts which IS the future these cars will fit right in, because this is is the future.. bigger really is getting better and better everyday. so who said those dash 9s and bigboys were not the future of mainline model RRing.. 

A decent-sized car carrier? Who would have thought? Good news indeed !


----------



## aceinspp (Jan 2, 2008)

These cars will be a welcome sight from the old 40ft cars. I know I'll be looking to add a few to my fleet. Glade someone is listening to what we need. Later RJD


----------



## lathroum (Jan 2, 2008)

Here goes Nicholas kissing USA trains butt again... 
I'm not sure how he let the Aristo Dash-9 slip in there though... 
I'll be sure to add one of these new cars to my layout... NOT... 
as my NOT THE FUTURE OF 1/29th, 6.5' diam curved indoor layout coudn't fit it if I even wanted to... 
Neither can my buddy with his line that runs around his screen porch with 5' diam curves... 
Or my dad with his 4 foot curves around the Christmas tree... 
Or anyone else I know... 'cause no one I know has larger than 8' diam curves... 

I think the car carrier is great... and I don't deny you guys your BIGGER stuff... but there are others out here too... 
And the future can fit us all... 

I'll quietly wait for my LITTLE Aristo consolidation... cause that is the future of my railroad... 

Philip


----------



## W3NZL (Jan 2, 2008)

*Its good that Charlie is willing to make a car with limited market appeal, mainly due to its size, should be *
*in **the **37-38 inch range... It won't be of **much use to the majority of us with our 8 & 10 ft dia track, I'm sure *
*it'd **need min of 20 ft dia track to **look good, but there should be some folks out there with roads big enough*
*to make use of cars that size... Then there is always the people that will put them on small diameter track,*
*even though they look like **** on it... The upshot is that between the two groups, there ought to be **enough *
*of a market to sell a couple of runs... I'll be glad to see 'em, even though I really can't use 'em...*
*Paul R...*


----------



## lownote (Jan 3, 2008)

It would be easy and friendly to just post " for those of you interested in really big, modern rolling stock, here's some good news..." and then describe the cars. It'd be easy, and friendly, and smart. The news doesn't have to come with attacks and put downs. Not from most people anyway.

Good for USAT. I'm not interested, but I'm sure a lot of people will be and I hope they do well with them. More choices in G scale is better all around


----------



## dawinter (Jan 2, 2008)

I think that's great news. It's a tad to big for my indoor mid 70's layout but I really support USAT's effort to move away from early 20th century railroading. Not entirely of course, I'd like something new in a 1/29th outside braced 40 foot boxcar. There were still a few of them hanging around Canadian branch lines during my modelling period.


----------



## vsmith (Jan 2, 2008)

Hey I think its great USA that is trying to fill that niche for the acre-layout guys with 20' diameter curves, but I also think that specific market is smaller than alot of us think. I wonder if this run wont in reality be more of a limited run, if the first batch sells then maybe they'll make some more, but if they dont, then thats all there will be. 

I agree with Lathoum and others, the future is not in 20' diameter curve stuff, it should be targeting the more reasonable 6.5' diameter, yet here we go again with another niche product. but I hope they sell them all.


----------



## Gary Armitstead (Jan 2, 2008)

I'm a narrow gauge guy myself, but I'm glad to see USA put this monster out there. AND in this economy, somebody is STILL willing to take the risk and manufacture this thing. We should order some pom-poms for Nick. He. He.


----------



## russellmc (Mar 6, 2008)

The way I look at it, any new products for large scale is a good thing. I am not interested in the auto carrier or the box car, but the other cars are of interest. Just my 2 cents worth. 


Russ


----------



## Truthman (Dec 13, 2008)

USA TRAINS doesn't appear to make "batch" runs. They make LOTS of road names in LOTS of different protypes and keep LOTS AND LOTS in stock at all times. I think they are the best in the business at doing that.


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

It seems to me, also, that once they make a road name, generally, that road name stays in the catalog and stays in production. I think that more modern cars is a good thing, although I would also look at 50 and 60 foot cars, so not everyone will need very broad curves. 

The reality is we have new people coming into the hobby, who will most likely be younger and want more modern locos. Also, new layouts are being built with larger curves. Yes, everyone with an "earlier" layout may have sharper curves, but times change. Progress, just like in all the other scales, is inevitable. 

Regards, Greg


----------



## markoles (Jan 2, 2008)

There have been a few folks looking for these huge cars from time to time, so perhaps there will be some happy folks out there. Long trains of autoracks and stack trains behind big boys. I wonder, will they put Corvettes in the autoracks?! No doubt, 20' diameter curves will be minimums, especially if using body mounted couplers. 

The shorter cars are great for the modern folks! Always good to see new product being made.

And yes, we should get Nick some pom-poms!! Maybe some saddle shoes as well?!


----------



## aceinspp (Jan 2, 2008)

Yep you got to think out side box. More and more younger getting into the G scale and they are the ones to want bigger newer. Times change as Greg ssaid so face it folks looks like USAT is taking a peek at it so that is good. Nothing ventured nothing gained. Later RJD


----------



## Nicholas Savatgy (Dec 17, 2008)

*Quote... And yes, we should get Nick some pom-poms!! Maybe some saddle shoes as well?!


Maybe Mark you can match them to your hat?








*


----------



## markoles (Jan 2, 2008)

Nick,

LOL!! I don't know, that hat is loooong gone!!! What happened to it, I don't know, but I am sure it was one **** of a good party!!


----------



## vsmith (Jan 2, 2008)

Times may change true, but I think your missing my point. One thing that has changed, at least out here, is that as average house sizes rised over the last few years, the average backyard lot size is most definetly shrinking. my old house has a yard that can only accomodate an 8' diameter at most, and mine in fairly typical of most older yards here, while most new housing developments I've been to out here make my backyard look huge, and these are on +3K sq ft homes, there basicly big enough for a hot tub and a picnic bench, some of these "yards" would be hard pressed to accomodate R2s...let alone 6.5's or 8's. So while there is a market for these out there, I just dont think its that big a market, but like said, any new product is a good product.


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

I do not want to start an argument, so I will use facts here:


us census results 
If you look at the statistics on "lot size range", you will see that the percentages by lot size have been pretty consistent since about 1982, that is 27 years!


So, your theory that new home lots are shrinking does not seem supported by the United States Census, which I would take on pretty high authority.


Notice that lots under 7,000 square feet account for 1/3 of all homes, so 2/3 are larger. 


http://www.census.gov/const/C25Ann/lotsizesold.pdf

If you further look at the square footage distribution of all houses sold, the only trend is that the numbers of houses under 1400 square feet is dropping rapidly.

http://www.census.gov/const/C25Ann/soldsqft.pdf 


So, I do not agree that houses and yards are shrinking on the whole. I appreciate your space is limited, but we need to look at everyone, not our own particular plight, as I have been accused of many times myself.


I welcome additional data and facts on this, but I'm content with this information, there is a wealth there on that site. 



Greg


----------



## wchasr (Jan 2, 2008)

Vic,
Yard size does have it's limits BUT when we were looking at houses I "shopped" specifically for a yard to accomodate my hobby and desire for large & Long trains and two little girls. I did not count on the dog however. My measley half acre is now not as large as I once thought. Still. If I work it right I CAN accomodate some larger curves to run the modern equipment I crave. I simply cannot afford all that stuff right now. With USAT bringing it out I can count on the likely hood of still being able to get it or buying it piece meal. With Aristo or even LGB finding it years later (in quantity) is tough. I'm trying to put together the LGB Amtrak passenger set now and am having a tough time finding just passnger cars at my price point ($100). I got the loco under $200 which considering the motor blocks alone are going for almost $200 I thought was pretty good. Track is my next hurdle. That one is gonna hurt as track prices have NOT dropped for my chosen track (yup Aristo SS). I will keep collecting a little at a time though. I cna be patient. It's been almost 20 years of collecting now, a few more years isn't gonna bother me. not much anyhow. 

Chas


----------



## Ralph Berg (Jun 2, 2009)

Posted By Greg Elmassian on 06/11/2009 3:25 PM
I do not want to start an argument, so I will use facts here:


us census results 
If you look at the statistics on "lot size range", you will see that the percentages by lot size have been pretty consistent since about 1982, that is 27 years!


So, your theory that new home lots are shrinking does not seem supported by the United States Census, which I would take on pretty high authority.


Notice that lots under 7,000 square feet account for 1/3 of all homes, so 2/3 are larger. 


http://www.census.gov/const/C25Ann/lotsizesold.pdf

If you further look at the square footage distribution of all houses sold, the only trend is that the numbers of houses under 1400 square feet is dropping rapidly.

http://www.census.gov/const/C25Ann/soldsqft.pdf 


So, I do not agree that houses and yards are shrinking on the whole. I appreciate your space is limited, but we need to look at everyone, not our own particular plight, as I have been accused of many times myself.


I welcome additional data and facts on this, but I'm content with this information, there is a wealth there on that site. 



Greg 



Vic said the houses are getting bigger.
Therefore, the yard space is shrinking if the lot size remains the same.
Ralph


----------



## aceinspp (Jan 2, 2008)

One hing i always did was when shopping for a house it would meet my train needs and have a big yard. Some folks did not want a big yard but then they found Garden RR and now they are stuck. Live and learn and plan for the future. Later RJD


----------



## bruce a m (Jan 2, 2008)

Any news on the Center Cupola Caboose ?


----------



## Nicholas Savatgy (Dec 17, 2008)

Posted By bruce a m on 06/11/2009 4:36 PM
Any news on the Center Cupola Caboose ?




None as of yet...


----------



## Gary Armitstead (Jan 2, 2008)

We live in Burbank in the Verdugo mountains. Our lot from side to side rises about three feet and from the street line to the rear property line drops about four feet. The lot is 75 ft. wide and 180 ft. deep. According to the specs on record with L.A. County, we have approx. 11,000 sq. ft. Even with the little area I have to work with, I'm able to have 90 inch radiii and about 200 ft. of mainline point to point. I DO have a 15X30 pool on a 35X50 deck-the remainder is grass and planters-I can't "touch" those areas per orders from "higher up". This is just the back yard. The house is small at 1700 sq. ft. and it is set-back from the street 48 ft. This is considered average in our side of the street. The house across the street is 50X166, which is average on that side. These are old neighborhoods-1930 to 1953. The majority of the homes in the entire city of Burbank, sit on lots averaging 8000-9000 sq. ft. 

There are homes in the hills above us with 4000 sq.ft. on 8000-9000 sq. ft. lots. All new homes in the $1.5M to $2.5M range. Plenty of house-no yard! 

There is no real concensus as to lot sizes and home sizes in Los Angeles.


----------



## Nicholas Savatgy (Dec 17, 2008)

You cant have a yard that big in Cal. Victor says its impossable..... out wear you guys live.... heres a photo of part of my back yard were my 85ft long bridge will go. no 6.5 dia here...







also been doing some work on my cheers i will post some on the other thread soon.... he he he


----------



## Nicholas Savatgy (Dec 17, 2008)

Posted By lownote on 06/11/2009 4:39 AM
It would be easy and friendly to just post " for those of you interested in really big, modern rolling stock, here's some good news..." and then describe the cars. It'd be easy, and friendly, and smart. The news doesn't have to come with attacks and put downs. Not from most people anyway.

Good for USAT. I'm not interested, but I'm sure a lot of people will be and I hope they do well with them. More choices in G scale is better all around







I LOVE YOU MIKE







You my 2nd hero



HOWS THAT FOR FREINDLY


----------



## Gary Armitstead (Jan 2, 2008)

Boy did this thing get hijacked!


----------



## Nicholas Savatgy (Dec 17, 2008)

Posted By gary Armitstead on 06/11/2009 5:20 PM
Boy did this thing get hijacked!












The one thing you cant say is we dont have fun here..................HE HE HE


----------



## aceinspp (Jan 2, 2008)

If a thread dose not get hijacked once in a while we are not having fun.







Later RJD


----------



## Chucks_Trains (Jan 2, 2008)

That's great news Nick and I'll order about 50 of those cars!!


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

To the lot size: go on that census site, house sizes not getting larger in general, lot sizes staying consistent. That said, lots seem to be more expensive in CA, side yards seem to be narrower... oh well, my point is you can find a way to make larger curves, I had to work at it in my lot which is smaller than most... but I did get 10' min diameter and can run 45 car trains... 

Regards, Greg


----------



## Ted Doskaris (Oct 7, 2008)

I noticed whilst travel - even in a place like the California Central Valley via AMTRAK - that the new housing developments (typically surrounded by sound or exclusivity walls) had fairly large 2 story homes, but so close together with very minimal yards! So in these developments, the lots were dwarfed by the homes built on them. 

-Ted


----------



## lownote (Jan 3, 2008)

I have no idea whether the overall future of the market is in larger rolling stock or not, or how large the average yard is. But the argument that younger people will want to model more modern stuff is probably a little doubtful. As far as I can tell from shows and from GR magazine, a lot of people seem to operate in pre-WWI narrow gage, modeling stuff that was retired long before they were born. How may eople who wn K-27s remember K-27s in revenue servce? I tend to model the late steam era, but by the time I was born the steam era was over. I've only ever seen operating 1:1 steam engines once or twice in my life


----------



## jmill24 (Jan 11, 2008)

It is not the "today" trains that draw me to the hobby but the history...................Jim


----------



## wchasr (Jan 2, 2008)

Jim,
Honestly for me it is a bit of both. Fortunately I'm young enough that I can appreciate the steamers and the diesels (first & second gen).

Chas


----------



## aceinspp (Jan 2, 2008)

A lot of the young folks I know prefer the new era diesels and newer type cars. I grew up at the end of the steam era and tend to go with the newer style trains. Yep do have steam but the diesels will be run more than the steam. One of the clubs I belong to runs all diesels. When i go to show the smaller scale layouts are totally modern trains. Later RJD


----------



## Dougald (Jan 2, 2008)

There is room in the hobby for all eras and sizes. Those with small spaces normally turn to older eras or smaller prototypes (or smaller scales!). Those with acreages can run what they like ... and frankly, the mix of folks with their constraints drives the diversity which is part of the appeal.

Large scale has a huge contingent of narrow gaugers compared to other scales, probably due to the roots of the hobby being with LGB's initial offerings which were narrow gauge in nature. Surveys have suggested that perhaps up to 30-40% consider themselbes narrow gaugers (with typically tight curves and steep grades) ... placing their era generally 1880-1920.

Among standard gaugers, thye transition era of the 1950s is very well represented. A few large super power steamers combined with lots of 1st gen diesels and a load of 40 foot boxcars ... This is the favoured era in the smaller scales as well and perhaps reflects on the average age of the hobbyist and their nostalgic view of their youth.

The most modern era is not well represented in either cars or locos. A scattering of models is available but for those focussing on post 1980s railroading models rtr are decidedly scarce. In that sense any new modern cars are very welcome.

I am a narrow gauger but I still applaud the manufacturers who bring us highly detailed models taking a chance in these difficult times. Whether it be the Accucraft ng drop bottom gon or the USAT sg auto rack, all new models are very welcome.

Regards ... Doug


----------



## dawinter (Jan 2, 2008)

The lot size in our town has a regulated minimum dimensions but houses seem to be getting bigger and bigger and bigger. When we built ours in 2002 we had the smallest place under construction at 1450 sqft. All the rest were 2500+. And not a kid in sight. What do these people do with all that space? We raised three kids from K thru high school in under 1100 sqft and had lots of space. Even got my N scale room and a small shop in the basement.

Oh well, off topic again.


----------



## afinegan (Jan 2, 2008)

HIJACKED... Processing new topic.... run bckyrd_track("afinegan"){


I live in South Florida and consider that I have a small backyard (zero lot line) and I fit a nice track in my 50' X 16' backyard lol.
I bought this house cause it was newer and was in a good neighborhood, South Florida doesn't have much space, they cram us in down here (and charge a lot of money).








The curves are around 13' diameter, Runs a K28 fine.









}


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

My house and lot is like Gary's, except my lot is smaller. It took some doing but I fit my layout in that space. 
The mostly rectangular box in the center is the house, and the track runs to the property lines.

Almost every person I talk to now that is planning a layout is planning 8 foot minimum or 10 foot minimum diameter. I have not met anyone starting a new outdoor layout using less.


The small loop on the upper right is 10 foot diameter.


Regards, Greg


----------



## Pete Thornton (Jan 2, 2008)

the future is not in 20' diameter curve stuff, it should be targeting the more reasonable 6.5' diameter,


Apologies - I'm a 1:20.3 NG fan and my last railroad had 20' diameter curves. But I have to ask: why would anyone modelling modern standard gauge railroading want 6.5' diameter (3' 3" radius) curves? 

I'll quietly wait for my LITTLE Aristo consolidation... cause that is the future of my railroad 


Even a little consolidation is going to look seriously convoluted on a 6.5' diameter curve. 

Yes, we all have space constraints - my (condo) garage only has 10' between the walls so that's going to be my next problem. But come on guys - let's make it look a bit prototypical and less like a toy! _ [Ducks and runs for cover.] _


----------



## lownote (Jan 3, 2008)

Pete's right. I have eight foot curves as the minimum on mine, and the big steamers look pretty lousy on that. I'm always looking for smaller standard gage stuff. I'm not sure how that aristo consol will look. I'm looking for a lionel Atlantic for cheap.


----------



## tacfoley (Jan 3, 2008)

Well, Sir, I hafta admit to having 24 and 25 foot diameter curves on MY track.

Mind you, that's all there is.

Two circles, one inside the other in my 28 foot square backyard space.

I figured out that I COULD run a string of eighteen of thes new monster cars behind three Dash-9 locos, but there would only be a couple of feet between the front of the loco and the EDOT.

tac
www.ovgrs.org


----------



## lownote (Jan 3, 2008)

It's not just a question of physical space, it's a question of the overall look and feel of the thing. We have a train snaking through a garden--we wanted a RR in our garden. Some people want operational realism. Some people would rather see a few broad sweeping curves. Some people like to have a lot of animation in the garden, some people want a rattle-trap narrow gage line. They're all good


----------



## Ralph Berg (Jun 2, 2009)

Posted By lownote on 06/12/2009 8:00 AM
It's not just a question of physical space, it's a question of the overall look and feel of the thing. We have a train snaking through a garden--we wanted a RR in our garden. Some people want operational realism. Some people would rather see a few broad sweeping curves. Some people like to have a lot of animation in the garden, some people want a rattle-trap narrow gage line. They're all good

I agree, Mike.
I am one of those "nut jobs" that puts "S " curves in long straights to keep things more visually interesting. Never had a problem.
And as I make improvements, I plan on doing some operations too.
Ralph


----------



## Totalwrecker (Feb 26, 2009)

I've got no USA trains... this must be the right spot! 
HO taught me to see the beauty of gradual curves and trains that fit between the rails 

G $cale has it's roots in the Toy industries..... big trains on unrealistic track; curves tighter than a B&O dock... 

Follow this simple review: G = 1:24, O =1:48, HO (1:87) or rounded to 1:96... 10' dia. = 5'r =60", divide that by 2 for O =30"r divide again for HO rounded up=15" r 

SO my 10' diameter curves are 15"r in HO, even the starter sets had 18"r Can I begin to think I run on realistic track? 

After a couple of years I decided on 1:24 scale as my scale and back dated for smaller equipment that looks better to me. The Aristo stock car is too big... for my tastes, even in 1"29 and the 20' cars w/4 wheels are too toy like, for me... probably future kitbashes should I find reasonable trucks to put under them... Delton sized cars look more realistic... again to me. Yet the choices are limited. 

My point is we all make concessions in large scale; Space, time and money all contribtue to the cost of the hobby. We satisfy ourselves by going after the look we want vs. the effort we wish to devote to our RR's. 
There is no right and wrong way! 

Greg, is that circle next to the yard a helix? Nice layout btw. 

John


----------



## eheading (Jan 5, 2008)

That looks like an awesome railroad, Greg. How about sharing some pictures of the actual railroad with us??? I know I've seen shots of the yard and a couple other areas, but I'd love to see the backyard with the big runs.

Thanks,
Ed


----------



## Nicholas Savatgy (Dec 17, 2008)

Quote[ But the argument that younger people will want to model more modern stuff is probably a little doubtful.[ by Mikie.


*I would disagree, choices in this hobby have been limited, so you had to run what you could get. i feel now that theres plenty more to choose from , i think you will see a shift from older stuff to more modern stuff with the younger guys cause now they can get it.. i enjoy steam and deisal so makes no differance to me, it just great to have a choice and our hobby... in my opionion it is moving toward larger layouts. the smaller ones i have visited are great but to me they are small for my taste. just look at all the new guys that post here and what there building, i think it shows that there trying to go with the rule fit the biggest curves you can the 1st time. i do shows all year long and when you have trains sitting on top of tables waiting to be run if you ask children what they what to run they almost always have asked for the desiels, not always but alot... ALL trains are cool







and to each there own but i think the next 5 years should be exciting............*


----------



## vsmith (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By Pete Thornton on 06/12/2009 7:20 AM
the future is not in 20' diameter curve stuff, it should be targeting the more reasonable 6.5' diameter,


Apologies - I'm a 1:20.3 NG fan and my last railroad had 20' diameter curves. But I have to ask: why would anyone modelling modern standard gauge railroading want 6.5' diameter (3' 3" radius) curves? 

I'll quietly wait for my LITTLE Aristo consolidation... cause that is the future of my railroad 


Even a little consolidation is going to look seriously convoluted on a 6.5' diameter curve. 

Yes, we all have space constraints - my (condo) garage only has 10' between the walls so that's going to be my next problem. But come on guys - let's make it look a bit prototypical and less like a toy! _[Ducks and runs for cover.] _


All I am saying is that theres a much larger potential market in urban/suburban areas where yards happen to be tighter and must use 5, 6.5 to 8' diameter curves, than the potential market of suburban/rural guys with the larger lots that can accomodate these larger 20' diameter curves. I'm not saying not to build these uber-cars, but that manufacturers should also rememeber that focusing on items that can operate on 6.5 to 8' diameter curves makes alot more market sense than providing uber-stock to what is really a small sect of the hobby and not flood the market with uber-stock that only a few will ever buy. \ Its not about adherence to scale, its just simple numbers, thats all I'm trying to say...Maybe as time goes on we'll see which will win out, the uber layouts or the mini-layouts. I suspect it will become a rift though, like to rift in HO between round-the-roomers and 4x8ers.


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

The circle is part of the house, there is a turret like structure in the front entry... I have to mock in the rest of the front, there is a small covered structure you walk though to get to an inner courtyard and then you get to the front door. Most of the time, I use the loop to keep all the track out of sight. 

Ed, I am trying to get more panoramic views of the layout, but it is pretty curvy and shoe-horned into the back yard. My point in sharing the layout diagram is that even with a big house (4,000 sq feet) and a small lot, you CAN get 10' diameter curves and a reasonable run distance if you apply yourself. in my opinion. My yard seemed to fit the "problem yard" that was described. 

Regards, Greg


----------



## aceinspp (Jan 2, 2008)

Ya with a little help







Later RJD


----------



## lathroum (Jan 2, 2008)

I run indoor... I like to be inside, as I run/work on the layout at night when the kids are asleep, and the wife is at work. (she's a nurse) 
So I can play trains until I drop... When we bought our house... I looked for a spot for the trains to go... 
and I got an area in the basement that is approx 24x13 or so... not too bad for inside trains if you ask me... 

I probably could have fit 8' diam curves... but then I would just have Big looping curves with no straights... 

as to the consolidation, Some consolidations had flangless drivers to work the yards... s 
o they looked ugly on the track in real life too... 

I run a Pacific on my track, and I don't think it looks too bad... 

I keep my rolling stock to the 40' variety... though I do have a few Aristo 100 ton open hoppers, and some Evans Box cars... 

I run a transition type railroad... with no real time period... its anwhere from 1950 - 1980 in my world... so just about anything that looks good can run... 

I have 2-4-0, 0-4-0, Pacific, critter, FA, RS3, U25, GP7, GP38 for my motive power... I think it all looks fine... 
I'll post a few pics for ya when I get a chance... 

to make you even more crazy... my inner line is 5' diam curves, and my yard and switches are all 4'... 

and I can back a Pacific through them just fine... 

Philip


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

When I started in HO scale in the late 70s/early 80s, 18" radius was the norn, and there were still a good number of railroads built with 15" radius. (Incidentally, 15" x 3 is 45", equal to LGB's R3, so a 1:29 train running on R3 curves is essentially the same as HO on 15" radius.) The "serious" model railroads all used 24" minimum radius, and don't even think of using something as passe as sectional track. One could have put forth a convincing argument that sectional track would go the way of the dodo in the next decade. Yet, a walk down the aisles of the HO aisle of the hobby shop clearly shows just how wrong that argument would have been. Sectional track in such small radii are still very much an integral part of the HO scale hobby. 

I see the same trend in large scale. Large "fill the back yard" railroads are the "fill the basement"railroads of HO scale. The sky's the limit in terms of curve diameter, etc. in that regard--so long as you've got the ability to fill the space. (i.e., no kids, dogs, bocce ball courts, soccer fields, etc. to compete for the space.) Otherwise, the garden railroads can usually be equated to the "fill the spare bedroom" type of HO railroads--where space is a bit confined, but one can still accomodate most of the features we'd like to. That's where my railroad fits in. I cant take up the whole back yard, but I've designed it such that I can still use 10' minimum diameter curves, and still have room for typical backyard activities. 

Like HO scale, however, there will always be those with even more space limits. These would be akin to the shelf railroads or tabletop railroads in HO. There's a distinct reason those small-space-trackplan books based on sectional track still sell--there's a need for them. Large scale is no different. There will always be those with small spaces and a love of big trains. Maybe a shelf railroad will work, maybe the answer is tight curves and shorter trains. No, you'll never fit a dash-9 and twenty cars on a ping-pong table railroad, but that doesn't keep anyone from having fun trying if they want to. Sure, the aesthetics might be a bit unnerving to the "purist," but what's that mean? Nothing to the person running the trains. I had a lot of fun pulling a string of 40' box cars behind a DD-40 on my old HO line (while a British intercity express made its rounds on the other track). That segment of the hobby is arguably the most important segment; the quintessential, basic "fun" crowd who just likes to see trains in motion. Take that away, and the hobby becomes too segmented to stand on its own. The special interest pursuits need that fundamental foundation. 

Later, 

K


----------



## chaingun (Jan 4, 2008)

Well I have been accused of being OCD due to the fact I have only been in this hobby for a little over 4 years and have acquired around 1200 feet of track & 80 some locos at last count and then there is the rolling stock. I started with one acre and I am now in the process of moving to a 2 acre place to accommodate my RR. 
I will be buying several of these new cars as I am planning 40’ dia. curves on the new layout to facilitate long freights & high speed passenger traffic. I have no opinion on lot/yard size but I know I love this hobby and rejoice when any new product is offered regardless if it is something I would perchance or not. 
Best, Ted


----------



## spodwo (Jan 2, 2008)

Any new tooling and train models is a good thing - especially in this economy and the overall status of Large Scale. Personally - too big and generally USA trains rolling stock has too many bits and pieces that wind up broken off. When I saw the details on the container carriers when the first came out - I proceeded to sell the one I bought. I now have a 75 yard walk to my layout plus dragging them up from the basement so less is more for me. And at maximum curves of 20 foot plus 10 foot switches - it is a no brainer for me not to purchase them... 

USA trains does it right though. They just do it without any Pre Promise fanfare.


----------



## Engineercub (Oct 18, 2008)

That is great news Nicholas! I can't wait. CSX often mixes Double Stacks and Autoracks on Intermodal trains and it doesn't drop our maximum authorized speed at all since they are both considered Intermodal quips. Mixing those two would make for some hellacious sized trains! I wonder how many Dennis Sirrine will buy hehe. 

-Will


----------



## Totalwrecker (Feb 26, 2009)

I think USA has a sizable market for the bigger stuff. Those who can afford it will buy in volume for the right look. So it doesn't matter to them what those of us who won't be buying, think. 

Greg, thanks for the answer regarding the 'helix' doorway. I know those Calif. developer's lots all too well; elbow to elbow with a postage stamp out back. I'm a native of San Diego. 

I want USA to do well with these cars, a healthy company can make more for all of us. As stated above I have none, but I'm happy for those that do and will. 

I live near the UP line through Tucson, they run mostly either stack trains or autoracks as they have different destinations. I enjoy stopping for the mixed locals at crossings because they offer in visual what I try to model. A variety of cars and details, vs. 3 or so types of well cars and different names on the boxes ('tainers) and racks, after 80 or so of those I'm ready for the train to be gone. 

You can't please all the people all the time...... some are going to be mighty happy with this! 
I hope they buy millions, the stronger the hobby the better for all of us. 

John


----------



## Totalwrecker (Feb 26, 2009)

Posted By Pete Thornton on 06/12/2009 7:20 AM
the future is not in 20' diameter curve stuff, it should be targeting the more reasonable 6.5' diameter,


Apologies - I'm a 1:20.3 NG fan and my last railroad had 20' diameter curves. But I have to ask: why would anyone modelling modern standard gauge railroading want 6.5' diameter (3' 3" radius) curves? 

I'll quietly wait for my LITTLE Aristo consolidation... cause that is the future of my railroad 


Even a little consolidation is going to look seriously convoluted on a 6.5' diameter curve. 

Yes, we all have space constraints - my (condo) garage only has 10' between the walls so that's going to be my next problem. But come on guys - let's make it look a bit prototypical and less like a toy! _[Ducks and runs for cover.] _


Bang! Bang.... Bang! ......Bang! 

Dang that duck can run!

Pete, Pete, Pete,

Fer sum part of the charm is that convoluted look! Oh how quickly some forget, this was a toy train market for the masses, only hobbiests moved to scale.
The dang size forces compromises, who are you to arbitrate that?

Who sez they want what? If that's the only thing that fits, then yeah according to you, they want it, but perhaps they want a toy train vs. reality.
Many are quite content to see anything run...brings out the kid in us... y'know?

A 10' garage... hmm how about one full size transfer table and repair shop. That should fit! lol No nasty curves at all!

I hope you realise this is all in good taste! And fun, if you don't spoil it for others. It's one thing to state your likes and another to decree it right for all.

You do know now don't you that we expect to see great things in your garage and no compromises allowed! Good luck buddy!

John


----------



## CSG (Jun 13, 2009)

Golly guys, What's the problem? If you want it, you get it. If you don't want it, ignore it. Goodness, there's plenty to choose from.


----------



## Engineercub (Oct 18, 2008)

Also Nicholas I just got a guy into G-scale big time after seeing my USA Trains collection hehe. He has already put down 500ish feet of track , tightest curves will be 16' but mostly 20' and #6 switches (as per him buying a USA BigBoy after seeing mine). He is selling all his O-scale stuff worth about $7,000 and buying a crap ton of USA stuff. I told him about the Autorack today and he is excited. He is also an Engineer and works with me. He used to be into 6" guage live diesel but moved on to O-scale and now is obsessed with G-scale. People can't really say that Large Scale is dying lol. Also, the Center Cupola Cab is set for release on July 25th coming straight from Charles Jr. 

-Will


----------



## Nicholas Savatgy (Dec 17, 2008)

Posted By Engineercub on 06/14/2009 9:01 AM
That is great news Nicholas! I can't wait. CSX often mixes Double Stacks and Autoracks on Intermodal trains and it doesn't drop our maximum authorized speed at all since they are both considered Intermodal quips. Mixing those two would make for some hellacious sized trains! I wonder how many Dennis Sirrine will buy hehe. 

-Will




*Will, If you ever get a chance to snap some photos of these trains, could you forward them to me as i would like to see that train. Gives me a lot of ideals.. thanks*


----------



## Engineercub (Oct 18, 2008)

Sure thing Nick, I can send people pics from work I just have to be careful posting them. I'll get you some shots next time I catch a pig. 

-Will


----------



## Nicholas Savatgy (Dec 17, 2008)




----------



## Chucks_Trains (Jan 2, 2008)

It's July!! 
Just maybe a few more weeks until the new cabooses!!!!


----------



## lownote (Jan 3, 2008)

I just this morning sent them an email about the center cupola caboose. Not exactly a polite or talkative bunch. I mean, they could say "thanks for your interest" or "we're working on it," or 
"we appreciate your patience" or something more specific than "the fall," which could mean anywhere between September and December. Shouldn't this count as part of customer service? Common politeness? Really makes me want to cancel the order


Anyway, here is their reply: 


"From: [email protected]
Subject: RE: Center cupola caboose?
Date: July 2, 2009 9:50:43 AM EDT
To: 


The fall

USA TRAINS
P.O. Box 100
Malden, MA 02148
781-322-6084

-----Original Message-----


Dear USAT:

Any idea when that center cupola caboose will appear? I've got two 
pre-ordered.

Thanks"


----------



## blueregal (Jan 3, 2008)

Write em back and tell em to "Watch Out" for the fall!!!! Don't let it hit em in the head. Cornfuse the you know what out of em!! 

As a salesman we were trained to "Dazzle em with Brilliance, and Baffle em with Bullshit!!" Hah LOL The Regal pardon my french!


----------



## vsmith (Jan 2, 2008)

The FALL? of what? 


the Roman Empire? 


the 3rd reich? 


Reginald Perrin?


----------



## Semper Vaporo (Jan 2, 2008)

Pride goeth before a fall.


----------



## markoles (Jan 2, 2008)

Mike,

That's hilarious!! I had similar experiences when waiting for the GP-7 to be released. I ordered one after they indicated on the phone that they'd be in the warehouse 'in a couple of weeks'. That was early January 1998. By mid April, with no arrival and no more info, the answer was the same, 'in a few weeks'. So I canceled that order and got something that was available. They got kind of pissy about that but hey, it was my money and I was spending more than my original order! Some things don't change, so it would seem. 

Mark


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

You are kind of damned if you do and damned if you don't.... 

Announce early, like Aristo, and then you get burned if you are late or do not ever make it (like the SD7/9, or the new passenger cars advertised in color in the GR) 

Accounce late, or do not announce until it is shipping, and when people pester you for a date and you say "the Fall", you get burned too. 

Problem is, the Chinese really control the production schedules, no matter what we think. 

Regards, Greg


----------



## lownote (Jan 3, 2008)

You could say this:

_"Dear MR. X:_

_Thank you for your interest. USA Trains values your business, and we would like to be able to provide as accurate an estimate as possible. Unfortunately, production schedules in China are often hard to pin down. We hope to have the [insert product here] in stores by [insert date], but we cannot guarantee it." _

_
_
_Thanks again for your inquiry and for your business."_

I mean really, how hard is that? It's really basic stuff. All I'm asking for is that the customer get something other than a brusque, half-#ss answer. You could just cut and paste most of it. If they don't know, they could just say "we don't now." 


Here's something USAT could do that would be almost as easy: "If you like, we can add you name to an email list, and notify you the product ships." That would take a bit of work on USAT's part, but not much. 

But then I'm only the customer, the guy spending money, the guy paying their bills. What do I know?


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

I agree, your terse response, especially in this market, is not smart business relations. 

Regards, Greg


----------



## aceinspp (Jan 2, 2008)

The time to worry is when it does not show up period. I'll buy it when it show up and not pre order. That way I'm not out of anything. Later RJD


----------



## jdm (Jul 19, 2009)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YnDf9yrwhmE


----------



## aceinspp (Jan 2, 2008)

Looks like plenty of motive power for the train. Wonder who built the Auto racks. Later RJD


----------



## xtcbct (Jul 15, 2008)

These auto racks will look good. But I don't expect them on the market until another year or so. Those center cupola cabooses have been on their website for a long time!


----------



## chuck n (Jan 2, 2008)

JDM:

This is a little off topic, but!!! 


Nice looking train and track. It looks very nice on the crushed granite base. I had thought about putting up my train on a similar base in Sun City when we are there in the winter. So far I have put it on the Astroturff covering our patio.

























Perhaps we can meet next Winter.

Chuck N


----------



## Torby (Jan 2, 2008)

Nice, Chuck. I'll be right over


----------

