Is it done, yet?
Steve Featherkile said:
Is it done, yet?
Well you can shut up (http://largescalecentral.com/externals/tinymce/plugins/emoticons/img/smiley-tongue-out.gif)its your fault for introducing me to John.
(https://www.largescalecentral.com/externals/tinymce/plugins/emoticons/img/smiley-surprised.gif)(https://www.largescalecentral.com/externals/tinymce/plugins/emoticons/img/smiley-tongue-out.gif)(https://www.largescalecentral.com/externals/tinymce/plugins/emoticons/img/smiley-innocent.gif)Moi?
Okay guys I need/want an honest opinion. I am not loving my ore hopper. I received my trucks from Shapeways for the log car. And I like the look of them under that car and it looks decently proportionate.
While I am going to use a different truck for the Ore hopper it will be the same general size. And to me the Ore car looks to big for the trucks. Now I realize On30 is only 30" gauge and so trucks will look narrow under them. But to my eye the car dwarfs the truck and doesn't look right. But is that because I have a larger 30' or larger standard gauge car in mind and not a 20' narrow gauge? Or should I make the car shorter (height), narrower, and maybe even a tad longer?
I cant move the trucks out more or they will interfere with the Kadee couplers. This is why I only made one of these cars, its a prototype to see if I like it. To me it would look better as a standard O 4 wheel car.
What do you guys think? It won't break my heart to scrap it or give it to someone with a standard O. But if it looks right to others I'll run with it. I am not using any sort of prototype I winged it off pictures.
The hopper seems tall and short…
Devon:
Take this with a giant grain of salt because I’m no expert. The thing that seems wrong to me is the size of the end platforms. When I do image search for various wood hoppers, I find things like this:
And here’s the one I made (sorry you can’t see the truck placement. I can take a better picture in 2020 if you want it):
I do note that it seems like the space you are leaving for the couplers seems unusually ample to me. Those are unique trucks (to my eye) and seem to have “wings” that make them longer than I’m used to.
So, like I said, take all this with a grain of sale. Maybe a bag…
What Jim said, exactly.
John Caughey said:
The hopper seems tall and short…
Tall and short, how can it be both at the same time. . .actually I know exactly what you mean. . .tall=height. . .short=length. . .and I agree 110%. Thats exactly what I see as well as maybe a tad too wide. Basically wrong in all dimension, (http://largescalecentral.com/externals/tinymce/plugins/emoticons/img/smiley-surprised.gif).
Jim Rowson said:
Devon:
Take this with a giant grain of salt because I’m no expert.
Jim,
Thats why I asked because it doesn’t look right to me either. To address some of your points. I had a vision with the big end platforms, one of uniqueness. I agree it didn’t have the desired effect. But even running the bin all the way out to the ends, or nearly so, I think it will still have the “too big for the trucks look” and would need to be longer in length and shorter in height with the bin coming all the way.
Now as for trucks/couplers. These have the brakes hon on the outside of the wheels instead of inside.
and on the log car I like them. As I mention they are not the truck that will be used for the hopper they were bought for the log cars and were just to get a feel for it. The hoppers will have inside hung brakes like these
I am using Kadee couplers and they are 1" long and 1/2" wide. I have the trucks positioned so that the wheels ( not that extended frame)are 1" from the sill. So the wheels on the above style truck would just miss the coupler box. So really don’t want them any closer to the sill as I want these cars to run on tight curves and don’t want the wheels hitting. But I think part of the optical disillusion is how short the car is which just draws even more attention to the ends. I think by lengthening the car it will make that look mo’ betta’.
But both John and you have touched on all the things I see as glaring as well. Its just proportionately all wrong. No two ways about it. You all confirmed what I was already thinking. The whole entire car needs to be longer, shorter, and I think narrower.
These cars look good to me. They have the end platforms I wanted, are longer and not as tall and the trucks are not tucked as far under although they re under there a ways. I will be using these on round 2
Devin: If you want some measurements I can do that… and better pictures so you can see the placement of the trucks and couplers.
Jim Rowson said:
Devin: If you want some measurements I can do that… and better pictures so you can see the placement of the trucks and couplers.
Thanks,
I have excellent pictures of Pete Thorton’s cars I was eyeballing as I did mine. The main problem here was two fold. I have never modeled On30 so don’t have a feel for what looks right as I am building it. I was not using any sort of plans (like I did with the log cars) I was just winging it and obviously my wing needs calibrating. That’s problem #1. Problem #2 was really wanting a shorty car. So even with my un-calibrated wing I was still aiming for shorter than normal. But I really don’t need to go that short. I am not being radical with my curve radius and while I would say I have shot for a minimum radius on my layout design those minimums are for longish locomotives, not standard freight cars. So I think I can safely add an inch or two to the entire length of the car and get it around my layout. The ore car is 5" long or 20 scale feet. I could add 2 more inches to it making it still only a 28’ car. Not long by any standard and 7" cars will go around my proposed layout with zero issue. All main line curves are 18" min radius and branch lines 15". I do not think for one second a 7" car will work just fine.
By extending the car two inches I think it will put that large looking end area in better perspective. It jut looks funny I think because the trucks are two close together so that gap is the same size as the ones in the ends. We are used to seeing a wide spacing between trucks. I really do not want the trucks closer to the sills. even if its odd looking the O scale draft gear box on a Kadee is 1" and I do not want them closer. On my MIK crane car last year it was so short and by the time I got the couplers on and had the trucks where the looked right the coupler box ended up actually between the wheel and I solved my turn radius problem by cutting the corners off the coupler box. It works but is ugly underneath. And with ON30 the coupler box is wider or about the same as the inside spacing of the wheels. So regardless of whether it looks right or not I want the wheels and coupler box to have separation which they will have now. So that will HAVE to be solved by lengthening the entire car and thereby have another 2" between trucks.
Ya know, Devon, you don’t have to be having all these truck problems in On30, there is another way …
(https://largescalecentral.com/externals/tinymce/plugins/emoticons/img/smiley-laughing.gif)
Devon,
Good to see you thinking through this project. I think Forrest is on the “right track.” 4 wheeled hopper cars would look great. Enjoying your build log and experimentation.
Doc Tom
I’m a little late to the game here, but I do think Forrest and Doc are on to something. From a visual aspect, there is just too much going on on the underside of the car. The two sets of trucks are disproportionate to the overall size of the car. Changing to a two axle (4 wheel) design would go a long way to eliminating the disproportionality. What it doesn’t do is solve the issue with the axles being so far a way from the end of the car due to the coupler box. Have you thought about using link and pin couplers or using a sill mounted coupler?
Forrest Scott Wood said:
Ya know, Devon, you don’t have to be having all these truck problems in On30, there is another way …
(https://largescalecentral.com/externals/tinymce/plugins/emoticons/img/smiley-laughing.gif)
Gag(http://largescalecentral.com/externals/tinymce/plugins/emoticons/img/smiley-wink.gif)
I have no problem with 4 wheeled cars. . .for other people. I know its a real thing with real advantages. But I just have this aversion to it that kinda makes me throw up in my mouth a little. Hey God made women in all shapes sizes and colors and he made men just as varied so that each of them would be loved. Each to their own and I am not critical. But my pikes run trucks. It just has to be that way.
Dan Hilyer said:
I’m a little late to the game here, but I do think Forrest and Doc are on to something. From a visual aspect, there is just too much going on on the underside of the car. The two sets of trucks are disproportionate to the overall size of the car. Changing to a two axle (4 wheel) design would go a long way to eliminating the disproportionality. What it doesn’t do is solve the issue with the axles being so far a way from the end of the car due to the coupler box. Have you thought about using link and pin couplers or using a sill mounted coupler?
Dan, see above about 4 wheel cars. Yes I did get some G scale single journals from you and I will let the ugly girl into the dance on occasion, she has a right to have fun too. But I just won’t at all be happy with a string of circus wagons going around my pike. Yes, that’s what every single 4 wheel car looks like to me. Call me weird, it wouldn’t be the first time.
And unlike Kadee in Large scale, O scale couplers are limited and all have the draft gear box and no sill mounted couplers. But what I just noticed is that they make a short version.
and they are half the lentgh at 17/32 long. I will use those and move the trucks outward a half an inch. These would be better for all my cars since they are all going to be short. So good call. As for Link & Pin thats what I really like but I want to match up with my buddies rolling stock and I plan to do operations and knuckle couplers are way easier than link and pin.
ok, I’ll come out of the closet and… admit… that I don’t like 4 wheeled cars either. Sob. Great that you have some shorty Kadee couplers. Will help a lot.
[edited to fix a typo]
Glad y’all enjoyed my post (https://largescalecentral.com/externals/tinymce/plugins/emoticons/img/smiley-laughing.gif)I actually do have a number of trucked On30 cars. Most are quite small compared to commercial models based on 3ft equipment. Mine are built to fit the “loading gauge” of the tackle box inserts they are kept in.
Therefore my On30 most likely has a rather different look from what you are going for, Devin.
Most have Kadee HO arch bar trucks with 36 inch passenger car wheels & some of the larger cars do indeed have Bachmann On30 trucks, sometimes with other-than-stock wheels.
For couplers on cars the old out of production Kadee HO scale #4 had been used, & without centering springs. That makes them a bit floppy, makes them have lots of slack action, and makes them able to go around the couple of streetcar radius curves, after all, this outfit was originally a narrow gauge traction line.
Other cars and locomotives have various long shank HO couplers, again without the centering springs.
Most of the trucked boxcars have Athearn HO car frames as their core, some AHM.
Using the HO couplers makes it so you can you can move the wheels out further that’s for sure because they fit nicely between the wheels. I am going to mess with the O scale shorties but if that still doesn’t work then maybe go the HO route.
As to picking on your post. Sorry man, what can I say, I just can’t get into 4 wheel cars. Again no judgement if its your thing. Someone has to dance with the ugly girls. . .(http://largescalecentral.com/externals/tinymce/plugins/emoticons/img/smiley-tongue-out.gif). Please take this in the good natured ribbing its meant in. I really have no judgement for what others do. I am sure 99% of what I do people look at me like I have a thumb growing out of my forehead. We all have to do what makes us happy, we re the ones playing with our trains, that kinda makes us all a little odd. . .grown men obsessed with toys.