Modelling the ATSF in 1970 in HO

[Keith Addenbrooke]

2 minutes ago, dave1905 said:

Could be, there was no overhead wires in the picture so I didn't think of a tram (as opposed to a trolley).

Our posts just crossed - same question.

[Johann Marsbar]

24 minutes ago, Keith Addenbrooke said:

Our posts just crossed - same question.

 

As its a postcard, they tended to be "doctored" to remove things like overhead wires (tram/telegraph etc) to make the place look better!  There are no clear wires visible anywhere - though there are some faint traces if you look hard , but mounted further down the poles - and there are no telegraph insulators either on the crossarms! . The wooden poles do look conveniently "paired" to take span-wires.

The sky with clouds would invariably have been touched in during production - particularly coloured/tinted cards like this.  I've got ones of my hometown from the 1940/50's where the trolleybus wires have all been erased, with a bus visible with its booms raised to the vanished wires!!

 

Any US Interurban with construction starting in 1905 would have been electric from the start , given the first succesful US electric street railway was introduced in Richmond, VA, in 1888.

Edited December 2, 2020 by Johann Marsbar

[dave1905]

The postcard is at the intersection of Main and Washington.  About 3 blocks from the railroad.  It is just under the "R" in "ricaerials.com" on the left edge of the aerial photo.

 

Wikipedia says it was a trolley line and was built in 1905.  

 

Also reading the Wikipedia entry for Ardmore, another reason for changes in buildings was the previously mentioned 1915 tank car explosion , which evidently leveled many of the downtown buildings.

 

One thing that Wikipedia doesn't mention is that the line the runs east from Ardmore was the former Rock Island.  The depot was a joint facility for both railroads.   The station building has a Rock bearskin on one side and an ATSF cross on the other.  A couple other photos of the industries.

 

Edited December 2, 2020 by dave1905

[mdvle]

4 hours ago, dave1905 said:

 

Sorta, kinda, depending on the era, no.  If you are modeling pre-WW1, the railroad station will be more likely to be at the very center of the town.

 

Thanks, a good reminder that blanket statements rarely apply in North America and location (and geography) matter.

 

I'm more use to an more eastern area where the towns existed prior to the railroad, and the geography frequently dictated a location that wasn't the centre of town (and sometimes not even the edge of town either, but outside of the town).  And that's without getting into the politics of funding.

 

Obviously other places where the geography was easier or the railroad was their first had different patterns.

[mdvle]

On 23/11/2020 at 15:45, Keith Addenbrooke said:

I believe that Stock Car traffic continued until 1972, although on a much reduced scale.  So I can add that into the mix for a rural branch line, which is how I envisage this.

 

The just concluded Hindsight 20/20 5.0 had an interesting presentation on ATSF stock cars.

 

Some highlights from the presentation that may help you if you (or anyone else) wants to try and be accurate.

 

Stock service ran until 1974 on the SF.

 

In terms of models, for your era you have 2 options for accurate cars - Intermountain or Westerfield kits

 

Intermountain makes accurate SK-R and SK-U stock cars (for your era you would want the AB brake version) - they also do 3 other types using the same tooling but they aren't entirely accurate.  In 1970 there were 159 SK-R cars and 188 SK-U cars on the roster.

 

(note the Intermountain was originally a plastic kit, I believe they are now sold assembled, so be careful if buying second hand).

 

The newer SK-2 and SK-3 are available as a resin kit from Westerfield, with 417 and 823 respectively on the roster.

 

There was an article on the (then soon to be released) Intermountain prototypes in the August 2004 Railmodel Journal, now available free thanks to TrainLife at http://magazine.trainlife.com/rmj_2004_8/

[Keith Addenbrooke]

6 hours ago, mdvle said:

 

The just concluded Hindsight 20/20 5.0 had an interesting presentation on ATSF stock cars.

 

Some highlights from the presentation that may help you if you (or anyone else) wants to try and be accurate.

 

Stock service ran until 1974 on the SF.

 

In terms of models, for your era you have 2 options for accurate cars - Intermountain or Westerfield kits

 

Intermountain makes accurate SK-R and SK-U stock cars (for your era you would want the AB brake version) - they also do 3 other types using the same tooling but they aren't entirely accurate.  In 1970 there were 159 SK-R cars and 188 SK-U cars on the roster.

 

(note the Intermountain was originally a plastic kit, I believe they are now sold assembled, so be careful if buying second hand).

 

The newer SK-2 and SK-3 are available as a resin kit from Westerfield, with 417 and 823 respectively on the roster.

 

There was an article on the (then soon to be released) Intermountain prototypes in the August 2004 Railmodel Journal, now available free thanks to TrainLife at http://magazine.trainlife.com/rmj_2004_8/

Thank you - I had a look at the article: very helpful: stock cars aren’t covered by a reference book I’ve bought for post-1960 freight cars, presumably as they weren’t building any more by then.  I’ve been very generously donated three surplus ones to get me started (two ATSF from one source, one in a freelance livery that needs a coupler swap from another).

 

I’m also working on iteration 3 for my ‘starter layout’ track plan, which is nearly there.  I’ve been flip-flopping between a Rural and an Urban setting: I may land in the middle this time and try a line running through - rather than alongside - a small incorporated city (I think that’s the correct term for what we’d call a town in the UK).  Thanks again - useful stuff, Keith.

[Keith Addenbrooke]

3rd Iteration Track Plan

I've had another look at my track plan for the 'starter layout' element of this project, to remove a switchback from the original Don Mitchell MR plan I used.  The idea of relaxing my 24" radius was discussed in the 'Track Plans for North American Layouts' thread, and that reminded me of another MR track plan I liked: the "Wildcat Central" by Jim Kelly, reprinted in "Basic Model Railroad Track Plans" (2002).  That plan keeps the 24" radius - and while this version now looks like my previous iterations that's down to the switches and space I have:

 

 

I had to add an 8" extension to the right of the top board, picking up @Regularity's earlier suggestion of a cassette extension.  I do have "air rights" as it overhangs a bed.  How to support an overhang was discussed while planning a UK layout for this space over the summer, as the bed can't move.  Lockdown means I've not bought the pieces I need for the benchwork yet, so I can stretch the overhang a bit: the diagonal reach to the rear corner remains less than 2' (I could curve in the rear siding to make it even less).

 

The other key question is setting - the Wildcat Central is a rural plan, and I think the more generous spacing of the spurs suggests space around the tracks: to me it looks more like a rural branch line than an urban one?  While that may sound like planning in reverse, I want to settle on a workable track layout so I can price up the sub-frame and benchwork: getting something (anything?) built is really my top priority for this practice layout.  Generous donations of surplus rolling stock also mean I'll soon have all I need to get going: there are just some couplers to sort.

 

The only real weakness I can see in my drawing is that the tailtrack for the run-round will only take one locomotive, rather than a pair, but I think I'd rather keep the longer run-round.  I think I might be there now?  

 

Keith.

Edited September 23, 2022 by Keith Addenbrooke
Reinstating picture

[long island jack]

Your plan is a tight fit for the space, i've drawn it in Anyrail, changed the two long points for medium and moved the curved point and added medium where the grain spur is, curved track is Atlas 24" curves all code 100, the second plan is the same but with Peco  22" Setrack curves, the grey triangles are a option.

 I've added a link for Anyrail, the free download gives you 50 pieces to play with if you want more, you have to pay for the licence.

https://www.anyrail.com/en

 

 

[F-UnitMad]

To make the loop/siding longer I'd move the curved point on top left board further back around the curve, & replce the lower straight point with another curved point. OR - to keep the loop the same length but extend the switch lead at the other end, do the same with the curved points on the left top board but shuffle the crossover points on the r/h board to the left.

Hope that makes sense & hopefully someone can draw it!!

Edited December 6, 2020 by F-UnitMad

[Keith Addenbrooke]

Hi Jack, thanks for taking the time to do this, it’s really kind, and you’re quite correct: it is a tight fit (my first ‘published’ track plans were micro-layouts on Carl Arendt’s website years ago).

 

I’d not realised Atlas do 24” curves, which is very useful to know.  You’ve got my geometry spot on: even down to the short straight ‘filler’ on the left hand side before the medium switch.  I particularly like the corner triangles - I’d not thought of them for this layout but it would only take a single cut across a plywood square to make them both: they’d need to be removable but would protect those two tight corners: excellent idea.

 

I agree Anyrail is great - very easy to pick up.  I used it planning my UK project earlier this year but started to feel a bit guilty I wasn’t paying for a licence so thought I ought to stop using it for a bit when I’d finished.  I would certainly recommend checking everything, and I’ve recently learned that XtrakCAD is a fully free program for anyone on a tight budget, though I’ve not tried it myself.

 

Thanks again, Keith.

Edited December 6, 2020 by Keith Addenbrooke

[Keith Addenbrooke]

10 hours ago, F-UnitMad said:

To make the loop/siding longer I'd move the curved point on top left board further back around the curve, & replce the lower straight point with another curved point. OR - to keep the loop the same length but extend the switch lead at the other end, do the same with the curved points on the left top board but shuffle the crossover points on the r/h board to the left.

Hope that makes sense & hopefully someone can draw it!!

Hi Jordan - makes sense: in my first two iterations I had the curved point part way round the curve (but still before the side baseboard joint).  It gave me a compound curve as follows (starting top centre and heading anti-clockwise):

 

Left hand Medium switch 12 Deg. 36” Radius (nominal).

Flextrack curve 22 Deg. 24” Radius.

Peco Curved switch (outer leg) 8 Deg. 60” Radius (nominal).

Flextrack curve 48 Deg. 24” Radius.

 

Total curve 90 Deg.

 

(I’d marked the 48 Deg. curve on my drawing - page 5 of this thread, but not the 22 Deg. curve).

 

I was concerned about my track laying ability to get the 22 Deg. filler right, and how rolling stock would respond to the changes in radius on the bit between the switches, so was happy to do away with it for this iteration to be honest - it also makes fitting in the switch for the long curved spur possible as it comes off a straight track: I couldn’t quite get it to fit with another curved point because the top centre baseboard joint was too close for two of the longer curved points.*

 

When I can mark out the actual track on boards I’ll play around with the exact spacing at the right hand end to optimise the relationship between loop length and tail track: as drawn I have a 12” straight between the tail track switch and the spur track switch on the lower leg of the run round loop to play with, and each inch I bring it in adds an inch to the top right spur.

 

The final determinant of loop length will be the number of cars I can clear - I didn’t have time to check that today.

 

(* The top centre baseboard joint isn’t in the middle - it’s 38” in from the left, due to the extra 8” extension only being added on the right. Clarification following overnight reflection: with the curved point for the loop moved to the left, there is room for a second curved point, my problem was I couldn’t get all the connecting bits of Flextrack to fit with the correct track spacing as well.  Apologies for any confusion).

Edited December 7, 2020 by Keith Addenbrooke
(Clarification)

[mdvle]

2 hours ago, Keith Addenbrooke said:

I agree Anyrail is great - very easy to pick up.  I used it planning my UK project earlier this year but started to feel a bit guilty I wasn’t paying for a licence so thought I ought to stop using it for a bit when I’d finished. 

 

No need for guilt.

 

From the front page of the Anyrail website:

 

Quote

Try for free for as long as you like!

 

[Keith Addenbrooke]

8 hours ago, mdvle said:

 

No need for guilt.

 

From the front page of the Anyrail website:

 

 

Thank you - as @long island jack has shown above, and as has been noted elsewhere on RMweb, programs like Anyrail are really useful tools, both for planning and for sharing ideas.  
 

My biggest problem has been finalising ideas and converting them into layouts.  From the feedback so far, it looks like the schematic / basic arrangement for this iteration is OK: just a few helpful ‘tweaks’ to consider when I’m checking it all.

 

I do now have an extra curved track across a baseboard joint, but there are still only six tracks across joints in total (including the staging extension), and any minor misalignments between the boards (prior to tracklaying) should be OK, as they don’t have to meet up again as with a continuous run layout.

 

I had a good look at a Freemo meet video posted on this Forum by @PaulRhB last year to try and see how best to support narrow, portable baseboards.  From what I could tell, the legs used looked ‘home made’ rather than commercial, but everything looked very stable.  Winter isn’t the best time for woodwork (which is why my other projects paused), but that’s the hurdle I need to get over now I think.

Edited December 7, 2020 by Keith Addenbrooke

[PaulRhB]

Yes the legs we use on Freemo are very home made  either 2x2 or 2x1timber with adjustable screw feet on the bottom. 

[Joseph_Pestell]

I was looking at a video on YouTube yesterday of a super-sized Freemo meet in the US. The presenter made the point that even in high-end venues such as the huge exhibition centre they were using, the floors are not as level as you would think. They use a laser level to set up the modules.

[PaulRhB]

We have a stick set at the height and that works well, some rolling grades just add to the fun as long as it’s not too sudden. 

[F-UnitMad]

11 hours ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

I was looking at a video on YouTube yesterday of a super-sized Freemo meet in the US. .......They use a laser level to set up the modules.

 

10 hours ago, PaulRhB said:

We have a stick set at the height and that works well, ....

Reminds me of the (probably untrue) tale from the Space Race; the Americans spent millions of dollars developing a pen that could write in zero-g.  The Russians used pencils....

[Keith Addenbrooke]

27 minutes ago, F-UnitMad said:

 

Reminds me of the (probably untrue) tale from the Space Race; the Americans spent millions of dollars developing a pen that could write in zero-g.  The Russians used pencils....

 

Please can I plead “Monday” for not spotting the potential humour behind @PaulRhB’s post* earlier (apologies Paul).

 

Unfortunately the Victorians who built our house may not have used any known method for lining things up, which doesn’t help with my nervousness about tackling benchwork.

___________

(* unintentional - spotted that one after typing).

Edited December 7, 2020 by Keith Addenbrooke

[friscopete]

41 minutes ago, F-UnitMad said:

 

Reminds me of the (probably untrue) tale from the Space Race; the Americans spent millions of dollars developing a pen that could write in zero-g.  The Russians used pencils....

That so they could erase the evidence before the KGB came round.

[Regularity]

Actually, it isn’t true, and for very important reasons.

1) ball-point pens work by capillary action, so would probably work better in a zero-G environment where there are no external forces to fight against;

2) pencils can break, and require sharpening. Graphite (“pencil lead”) is a very good conductor of electricity, so the last thing you want in a space ship is small particles of it floating around and getting into switches etc and causing short circuits.

 

When the USA and USSR had their memorable docking in space, the Americans were really worried about how low the orbit was - lower than they thought safe. The reason it was that low, was because it was the highest the USSR could achieve.

[Keith Addenbrooke]

10 hours ago, Regularity said:

 

2) pencils can break, and require sharpening. Graphite (“pencil lead”) is a very good conductor of electricity, so the last thing you want in a space ship is small particles of it floating around and getting into switches etc and causing short circuits.

 

Hence the idea I’ve read about of rubbing graphite pencils on model railroad wheels / track for better conductivity (to reduce track cleaning)?  It’s all relevant.

Edited December 8, 2020 by Keith Addenbrooke
Spelling

[F-UnitMad]

1 hour ago, Keith Addenbrooke said:

 

Hence the idea I’ve read about of rubbing graphic pencils on model railroad wheels / track for better conductivity (to reduce track cleaning)?  It’s all relevant.

I use an artist's graphite stick (2B grade) rather than just a pencil, and it does work, despite the vociferous nay-sayings of one particular member on a recent thread about it, who tried to 'prove' in theory that putting graphite on the rails was like painting them with superglue!!      

[Regularity]

2 hours ago, Keith Addenbrooke said:

 

Hence the idea I’ve read about of rubbing graphite pencils on model railroad wheels / track for better conductivity (to reduce track cleaning)?  It’s all relevant.

You don’t need to rub it on the wheels, just the rails.

[alastairq]

1 hour ago, Regularity said:

You don’t need to rub it on the wheels, just the rails.

 Well.....That makes life easier.....

[Keith Addenbrooke]

We’ve kind of leapt ahead a bit to talk of track cleaning (important though it is) - my fault: I mentioned it first.  Looking at the diary, I don’t expect to get much done for the next couple of weeks, so here’s a bit of a stocktake as to where I’m at now. I am much further on than I’d anticipated, thanks to all the encouragement and help I’ve had from everybody:

 

The basic track plan for the ‘starter layout’ is sorted - I have all the track and switches I need, subject to trying out @long island jack’s variations (but supplies of track are now gradually becoming available again).  This is good news.  I still need to finalise the setting, but I do keep coming back to @dave1905’s photos of Ardmore.  I haven’t thought much about buildings, but the more rural I go the less I’ll need, and kit building is mainly a ‘windows open’ summer activity in our house.

 

In terms of rolling stock, I’ve been greatly blessed by a couple of generous donations, and with some second hand purchases (on their way), I have enough to get me up and running.  From a standing start just a few weeks back this is really exciting.  I’ll need to sort some of the couplers, including on the GP7 (which has run beautifully in tests).  All the cars looks to be of similar vintage, so should look OK together.  My post-Christmas search list will be quite short: a couple of covered hoppers in suitable liveries top the list, along with a second powered loco if I see one I like, and perhaps a Combine, but that’s about it and there’s no rush.

 

I have some baseboards available (I’ve made and remade a batch this year), but just need to add the extension I need and modify one of the others to avoid an extra joint.  I’ve ordered some DCC concepts alignment dowels.  As I need to be able to lay three curved tracks across joints, good alignment is vital, and good woodwork is not one of my strong points.  I need to sort the underframe benchwork, which is where my other projects also paused for the winter, but this project doesn’t need anything too complex.  I need to make the Staging board, but I have some spare 48” lengths of 12mm ply I can use.

 

I also have books to read on modelling towns and cities, and on freight cars, amongst other things.  I get passed Model Railroader magazines a year at a time from a subscriber, and I’ve just received the 2020 set.

 

It’s very early days still but it’s looking great, and - best of all - I’m really enjoying it.  Keith.

Edited September 30, 2022 by Keith Addenbrooke