Tangent October: 6 Pack of Greenville Auto Parts Box Cars

[unittrain]

Also looking forward to the C&O double door cars.

[champagnetrail]

Oct 24, 2021 6:44:32 GMT -8 gevohogger said:

Oct 24, 2021 5:17:04 GMT -8 rounder said:

With all the loud EL fans on here, one has to wonder why not a even a single number of the EL boxcars have sold out at Tangent yet. Put your money where your mouth is, guys.

They're all saving up for those EL cabooses....

I was going to say the same thing!  Some of us are operating on a budget, after all.  Maybe if they're still available in another month or two, I might get another EL boxcar.

-pat

[champagnetrail]

Oct 23, 2021 17:44:03 GMT -8 csxt8400 said:

Oct 23, 2021 15:39:09 GMT -8 champagnetrail said:

I don't think Cotton Belt had any 86' Greenville cars.  They aren't on the list on Tangent's site.

-pat

Here's your Greenville.

espee.railfan.net/picindex/freightcars/65096_ssw-b-100-26-ken_perry.jpg

Sweet!  I stand corrected.

That's what I like about this place.  Lots of people with lots of knowledge they are willing to share. 

-pat

[champagnetrail]

Oct 24, 2021 7:30:59 GMT -8 rounder said:

Oct 24, 2021 6:44:32 GMT -8 gevohogger said:

They're all saving up for those EL cabooses....

They might not realize they need any 86’ boxcars. Somebody check the wheel reports!

I already did!

I'm trying to buy 86' boxcars in the right proportion, though. 

The EL wheel report collection has 979 86' High Cube Boxcars going in and out of Ford Mahwah Assembly.  The Ford traffic is one of the most robust parts of the database.  The railroad breakdown is as follows...

N&W	188	19%
MP/TP/C&EI	142	15%
DT&I	130	13%
PC	99	10%
EL	55	6%
GTW	43	4%
C&O/B&O	42	4%
ATSF	39	4%
PRR	36	4%
WP	31	3%
CPAA	30	3%
SOU/C of G	27	3%
All Others	117	12%
Railroad	Number	Percentage

The "All Others" category would include (in order of numbers):  L&N, UP, MILW, NYC, DRGW, RI, SSW, SP, CNA, SOO, BN, SLSF, WAB.

Of course, not all the 86' Boxcars are Greenvilles.  A good number are P-S and some are Thrall (for which we have no model yet).

rounder...

To model the Ford traffic proportionally, for every EL car I buy I should have three N&W, three MP/CEI, two DT&I, and two PC.  That explains why the EL cars have not sold out yet.  Well, that and the EL car looks kind of boring being brown and all. 

-pat

[el3625]

I have purchased 20 86' Greenvilles so far and I did buy all six EL road numbers. If they had more numbers I would have bought them also. If they do EL cabooses, I will buy all numbers of them also. I love being passionate and enthusiastic about my favorite railroad, are not most of us?

Bruce

[slowfreight]

This begs the question of how long until Tangent branches into Thrall and PS. I have my old Quality Craft kit, which turned out well but has certain shortcuts grown-up me wouldn't take.

[rounder]

100 percent serious, non-rhetorical question about these cars:

Why, out of the numerous YouTube review vids on these cars, does nobody address minimum radius in detail, or even show a short train of them going around a typical curve? Sure, the box says 24” radius, but how well do they do it under normal conditions?

[riogrande]

Oct 24, 2021 14:07:01 GMT -8 slowfreight said:

This begs the question of how long until Tangent branches into Thrall and PS. I have my old Quality Craft kit, which turned out well but has certain shortcuts grown-up me wouldn't take.

Since Walthers has been doing PS for quite some time but Thralls haven't been done in HO, Thralls would make the most sense to be done next. Yes, Walthers are not super detailed but at least they are available. I've got probably around 8 or 10 of the PS to mix in for a more prototypical auto parts train.

[Deleted]

Oct 24, 2021 14:10:06 GMT -8 rounder said:

100 percent serious, non-rhetorical question about these cars:

Why, out of the numerous YouTube review vids on these cars, does nobody address minimum radius in detail, or even show a short train of them going around a typical curve? Sure, the box says 24” radius, but how well do they do it under normal conditions?

100 percent serious answer:

Most people in this hobby are accumulating rolling stock for the railroad they someday hope to build, so in many cases these cars are languishing in the closet roundhouse, still in their boxes.

My friend who is buying a train store has over 2000 freight cars and at least 300 engines.  The only time they ever get run is when they come to my house.

I have been operating mine and I have posted on other forums regarding their tracking characteristics.  My tightest radius is Kato 26.375" (equivalent American radius).  They do that just fine.  However, more than ANY other car I have ever purchased, these do not like ANY reverse curvature at all.  That means a short 2" or so tangent between 30"+ radius curves in the opposite direction will cause these cars to derail.  Since I have that condition in one place on my layout and I can't get rid of it (tunnel approach), I am forced to place other cars of 50' or greater length between 86' boxcars.  I cannot couple the 86' boxcars together or they will derail.

Also, I find that Intermountain 89' autoracks cannot be backed up on radii tighter than 30" or their corners hit each other causing ladders to break loose.  However, the autoracks negotiate my little reverse curve situation just fine.

The issue with the reverse curve is the amount of lurch or sway when one of these 86' boxcars passes through the curve.  It is enough such that the second 86' boxcar will violently derail--yet an ordinary 50' boxcar or just about any modern hopper will not derail when coupled behind the 86' boxcar.

If your layout does not have any reverse curves, or any little kink (horizontal or vertical) then you should be fine.

With the 86' boxcars I have to loosen the screws just a little bit to make sure there is enough lateral and vertical truck motion so that they don't derail on minor kinks.

[rounder]

Thanks for the reply. I have a 25-ish hidden radius turnback curve where the mainline had to duck into a repurposed closet. it was unavoidable, unfortunately, but I have been able to maintain a 32 inch minimum everywhere else. I’ve been avoiding these cars so far, explicitly for that reason, even though the SOU, CR and NS versions are VERY tempting and would look great behind my C39-8’s.

Not sure I want to shell out the bucks for these if they may end up being shelf queens. But they look sooooo good!

[slowfreight]

Presumably, normal rules of track/train dynamics would apply, in that if your reverse curves are separated by at least one carlength of Tangent track, I would think the cars would have no problem.

My quick rule of thumb is 12" of Tangent track, as I have many 85, 86, and 89 foot cars. HO being 1/87, a foot equals 87 scale feet.

[riogrande]

I have a 36 inch curve going to a 33 inch curve via a #8 turnout and probably about a 10 inches of tangent between the points and the end of the 36 inch curve. I haven't tested it yet but I'm hoping the 86' Greenvilles will make it through ok. If not, they can take the main route which is a 36 in curve curve into a 36 curve with about 20 inches of tangent between which should be fine.

[lvrr325]

I would expect the longer tangent will solve the reverse curve issue.

They will probably run fine pulled right down to that 24" radius, I have some other brands of long cars that will handle that, although I had to rebuild a couple of curves to get that minimum back. All you can do is run some slow speed test trains and see what happens.

I lined all my hidden track with some low edge guards in case of a derailment, wanted to eliminate any chance of something heading to the floor through the benchwork.

[rounder]

One other concern I have is #6 crossovers. Got a couple of those, too. No fudging those, they are what they are.

[Deleted]

Jim and all--

I would think that if you have 10" or 12" of tangent between reverse curves, things should go better for you. I know that 5" to 6" is not enough for these as I had that condition but eliminated it.

I was trying to fix another problem and didn't realize even at 30"+ radius that I was creating yet another problem with the short 2" tangent between curves.

Typically I do slow speed tests first to see how rolling stock performs...

[riogrande]

The only thing I'm not sure of is if adding easements, which extends the curve technically will change anything or keep conditions essentially the same.

Here you can see coming in from the right a 36" curve. The tangent to that curve is marked with a black line. The #8 Peco turnout is to the left and there is a about 10 inches from the curve tangent to where the points of the #8 turnout begins to diverge. I haven't tested it yet.

Worse case scenario is the train with the 86' Greenville's takes the main route rather than the diverging route. That route had probably a good 20 inches or more and then curves into a 35 1/2 inch outside curve.

[12bridge]

Oct 25, 2021 12:42:34 GMT -8 @mec567 said:

Oct 24, 2021 14:10:06 GMT -8 rounder said:

100 percent serious, non-rhetorical question about these cars:

Why, out of the numerous YouTube review vids on these cars, does nobody address minimum radius in detail, or even show a short train of them going around a typical curve? Sure, the box says 24” radius, but how well do they do it under normal conditions?

100 percent serious answer:

Most people in this hobby are accumulating rolling stock for the railroad they someday hope to build, so in many cases these cars are languishing in the closet roundhouse, still in their boxes.

My friend who is buying a train store has over 2000 freight cars and at least 300 engines.  The only time they ever get run is when they come to my house.

I have been operating mine and I have posted on other forums regarding their tracking characteristics.  My tightest radius is Kato 26.375" (equivalent American radius).  They do that just fine.  However, more than ANY other car I have ever purchased, these do not like ANY reverse curvature at all.  That means a short 2" or so tangent between 30"+ radius curves in the opposite direction will cause these cars to derail.  Since I have that condition in one place on my layout and I can't get rid of it (tunnel approach), I am forced to place other cars of 50' or greater length between 86' boxcars.  I cannot couple the 86' boxcars together or they will derail.

Also, I find that Intermountain 89' autoracks cannot be backed up on radii tighter than 30" or their corners hit each other causing ladders to break loose.  However, the autoracks negotiate my little reverse curve situation just fine.

The issue with the reverse curve is the amount of lurch or sway when one of these 86' boxcars passes through the curve.  It is enough such that the second 86' boxcar will violently derail--yet an ordinary 50' boxcar or just about any modern hopper will not derail when coupled behind the 86' boxcar.

If your layout does not have any reverse curves, or any little kink (horizontal or vertical) then you should be fine.

With the 86' boxcars I have to loosen the screws just a little bit to make sure there is enough lateral and vertical truck motion so that they don't derail on minor kinks.

This really sums it up pretty well.   Some cars seem to do better then others with the reverse curves (There is what, 3 different draft gear styles on them?) - but for the most part, don't even try it.  

I have a #5 crossover in my yard, and they seem to do OK with it.  

[riogrande]

The issue with the reverse curve is the amount of lurch or sway when one of these 86' boxcars passes through the curve. It is enough such that the second 86' boxcar will violently derail

So theoretically, at least according to John Armstrong, building in easements into curves should reduce the lurch for whatever that is worth.

I have a #5 crossover in my yard, and they seem to do OK with it.

So you can run coupled Tangent 86' Greenville boxcars though a #5 crossover and they are ok? I would have thought that was not going to work. I haven't laid track in my main yard yet but I'm planning on a #8 crossover to allow long 85 and 89' models to negotiate through ok.

[Deleted]

I would want to do a test first on a table top if you can.

I suspect this may be the rare instance when an easement will not help much.

The lurch is due to more than merely the length of the car. Some of the coupler pockets on these cars allow more lateral motion of the coupler than others--but generally speaking the long autoracks have better lateral motion of the couplers. I think, based upon what I am seeing with mine, that it is more important to maximize the length of tangent between curves than to ease them with larger radii. I thought using larger radii would help me, but with these maybe not.

[riogrande]

In John Armstrong's case, he demonstrates in his chapter Operating Reliability Through Standards that the amount of displacement at the end of a car is reduced when easements are used. I'd think that will directly affect the ability of these long models with limited coupler swing.

I expect a larger radius would help, but it depends on how large.

[Deleted]

I am familiar with Armstrong's book, having read it several times (though I no longer actually have a copy).

This might be one of the rare instances when an easement is actually less important than tangent length between the curves. I went greater than 30" radius for the last curve sections, to effectively provide the easement effect, and for me, on my particular layout, I ended up still having to relay to completely eliminate one reverse curve in its entirety, because the larger radii were not a sufficient improvement.

So I have one slight reverse curve left, with about 2" of tangent, and the two curves are both Kato 31"+ radius. It works fine for all the autoracks now, but again, not for these particular 86' boxcars. If I couple an 86' boxcar to a PS 4750 covered hopper, or a Bethgon, or an Arrowhead Railgon (despite it being lightweight if emply), or any other nominally 50' car, the 86' boxcar will traverse the reverse curve without incident, without throwing any of those off the track. I tried two 86' boxcars the other day, and even at slow speed the sway or lurch was enough to completely derail the entire (both ends) following 86' car, while the first car remained on the track.  The 86' boxcar directly coupled behind some diesels will also derail at that location.

That is why I am suggesting to maximize the tangent between curves and not be so concerned about larger radius.  I have no idea how large the radius would have to get, but a couple inches is not enough.

It's your railroad and ymmv.  There is no substitute for test running.

Respectfully submitted...

[rounder]

Oct 26, 2021 8:40:10 GMT -8 riogrande said:

In John Armstrong's case, he demonstrates in his chapter Operating Reliability Through Standards that the amount of displacement at the end of a car is reduced when easements are used. I'd think that will directly affect the ability of these long models with limited coupler swing.

I expect a larger radius would help, but it depends on how large.

I also recall in the chapter of the book that, in context with the subject of easements, Armstrong listed a 30” inch radius as “broad” and didn’t list anything larger. A 24” was listed as “conventional” and 18” considered “tight”.

36” is about as large a radius as anyone can aspire to have unless you live in a large ranch-style home with a full basement. Or can afford an abandoned Walmart. Or are content with nothing but a large around-the-walls oval. I personally fit into none of these three categories.

Point being, if you can’t get these cars to work with your radii, the rest of us likely don’t stand a chance. I believe you’ll be fine.

[riogrande]

Yes, and what we call broad, conventional and tight has changed over time some might argue. But when it comes to home layouts, many are still constrained to radii not too far off from those figures. I've managed to limit my minimum radius to 32 inches on two curves, 33 inches on another and the rest are mostly in the 36 inch and higher range. Reason being I plan to run passenger trains, 89' TOFC flat cars and autoracks. But these Tangent 86' Greenville boxcars are probably going to be the most particular on track standards it appears.

It appears that 24 inch curves really will work with the Greenvilles. It's the S curves we have to be careful of. The example I gave earlier is my worst S curve but until I get track down, I won't know if the Greenvilles will pass through to the siding or whether they will have to go straight on the turnout.

Here are some more S curves but I believe I made sure there was at least 12 inches of straight in the middle of them so should be ok hopefully.

[Deleted]

I feel confident that for normal curves in the SAME direction, ie not reverse curves, at the 24" radius advertised, that these cars will do just fine.

My minimum is Kato 26.38" radius, and there are no issues with them when curves are in the same direction, without a reverse curve. It is only the reverse curves that may be a problem where there is insufficient tangent between curves. These cars really like a longer tangent between reverse curves--and I would not go less than 12" if I could because these cars are longer than that tangent.

My layout was designed more than 15 years ago and I never conceived of owning glorious big monster box cars like these (there are many cheats possible to get Athearn and or Walthers autoparts boxcars to operate on ordinary curves).  In some areas curves were relaid 2 or 3 times through the years:  to better accommodate MTH 4-8-4's and similar engines, then to accommodate some brass steam, and finally to accommodate longer freight cars.  I have no brass locos remaining.

I currently own 4 of these 86' boxcars, having sold some to my buddy, who actually has 50 of them.

[Deleted]

My son who has a DDA40X coming wanted a UP boxcar. Really the 1969 Greenville car is the perfect car behind a fresh DDA40X...so I've now ordered more of these than we really need...another ATSF and ICG

[el3625]

Just went on Tangents website and saw there is 1 number of SP 86' boxcars that is available for purchase. So I placed an order for the SP and another and is being shipped. I do not know how many more are available but it is better than paying BIG money if you missed out and want one.

Bruce

[el3625]

Two more numbers of Southern Pacific 86' high cube boxcars just became available. They show up as being in stock. Snooze and you loose at regular price, who wants to pay inflated prices for one if you want one. I got mine yesterday.

Bruce

[riogrande]

Tempting as it is, the two I have are sufficient for me.

Of the six new road names, only one of the has a number sold out and there are 5 of the previous run roads basically the same. Looks like demand for these roads is lower.

[rounder]

Nov 3, 2021 11:31:39 GMT -8 el3625 said:

Two more numbers of Southern Pacific 86' high cube boxcars just became available. They show up as being in stock. Snooze and you loose at regular price, who wants to pay inflated prices for one if you want one. I got mine yesterday.

Bruce

Coming soon, to an ebay speculator near you!

[Deleted]

Demand for these is lower?

Ok if you think so. Maybe they actually made more this time. My buddy has placed two orders for these latest run cars, and I ended up with only 6 so far. I'd buy more but space for all the freight cars does start to become an issue for me, lol. I do not have the storage space of some folks nor the desire and funds to have a truly massive fleet of equipment.  As it is some great motive power and other freight cars will have to go.

The UP, ATSF and ICG schemes are just fantastic. So glad they finally got made. I have left a little space in my roster for future ATSF and IC/ICG variants plus one or two others.

Tangent redid the same road numbers of Conrail, and they are just pretty much gone.