RMweb Gold Barry Ten Posted January 13, 2015 Author RMweb Gold Share Posted January 13, 2015 Your progress is inspiring, Al. I really need to crack on with my layout, but with Mansfield exhibition on the horizon, I need to ensure my micro is ready on time. It's progress but by no means quick progress. The layout's now in its eighth year, given that I started making the baseboards in 2007, and had already drawn up the trackplan. That bridge scene in the background is seven years old now ... and yet I thought this whole project would take no more than a couple of years to bring to completion. It's amazing how time flies! 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold PaulRhB Posted January 13, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted January 13, 2015 The progress rate makes me smile, my layouts have taken from two months to ten years to build to near completion! The ten year one was similarly 'bumpy' scenery Looks great. 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Barry Ten Posted January 21, 2015 Author RMweb Gold Share Posted January 21, 2015 Latest additions to the roster are a pair of sound-equipped Alco PAs courtesy of Broadway Limited. The Southern rostered six PA-3s, of which these two running numbers - 6900 and 6904 - were part of the sequence, but I don't know enough about PAs to say how closely these models correspond to the prototypes. My reference books only turn up two photos of the PA-3s, one of which is duplicated between two different volumes. The real things were not terribly successful on the Southern and confined to one part of the network, but with dashing looks like this, who cares? The sound is impressive, very much on a par with the BLI E8s, but they do demand spotlessly clean track. I'd be interested to know whether they worked passenger duties exclusively, or also worked fast freight. 7 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adrian Wintle Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 (edited) Based on the photos in Diesels of the Southern Railway 1939-1982 (Withers), they are pretty close. It would appear that they should have a 5-chime horn cluster though. Also, the grill shouldn't have the curved panel line behind the cab, as that was a PA-1 feature and these were PA-3s (or PA-2s, according to the captions in the book below). They were bought in 1953 as replacements for the DL109/DL110s (which appear to have been traded in to Alco) and were traded to EMD in 1965. They were technically owned by the CNO&TP, and as such were intended primarily for use on the Ponce de Leon. In The Southern Railway in Color (Morning Sun) there is a photo of a pair (plus a GP7) on the front of a freight. From the caption "...This is the only slide we have uncovered showing PA's in freight service. Their high speed gear ratio, 62:21, made them a little slippery for freight service on a regular basis..." (punctuation is as in the caption). Another of the photos shows 6901 in what appears to be black livery in 1959, but this must be a trick of the light/dirt as there are a pair of photos of 6901 on the Ponce de Leon in 1961 in green. There are also three photos of 6902/6900 on the Ponce de Leon in 1960, with an REA express reefer as the first car. Note that the Ponce de Leon was an all-heavyweight train and often had a lot of head-end baggage/express cars. There is also a photo of 6904 and an E7, also on the PdL in 1960. Based on yet another photo, 6904 got black paint and large SOUTHERN lettering by late 1961. Adrian Edited January 22, 2015 by Adrian Wintle 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dwyaneward Posted June 28, 2015 Share Posted June 28, 2015 Any updates, Barry Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Barry Ten Posted June 28, 2015 Author RMweb Gold Share Posted June 28, 2015 Hi Dwayne No, not much happening here. I've been waiting to get a new lighting fixture installed over the peninsula. That was done last week, but other than running a few trains, I've still been messing around with the 4mm stuff rather than the N scale. However, I do need to show some progress! Thanks for asking. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Barry Ten Posted August 25, 2015 Author RMweb Gold Share Posted August 25, 2015 (edited) Some more snail-like progress on the GA&E. Nothing too thrilling, mind... I add a sign to the roof of this freight house, using a Blair Line laser-cut kit. These are pretty nice to work with, but they are very vulnerable to damage once installed, so I'll need to be careful when working around the freight house. The kit included a selection of railroad symbols which handily included one for Southern. I had a dilemma about which way to have the sign pointing. From the layout point of view, it's nice to have the sign the right way around, facing the viewer on this side of the peninsula. But presumably the function of the sign would have been to advertise the freight house to prospective customers arriving by road, not rail, so it really ought to face away from the tracks. In the end, I settled for having it at one end of the building, which I hope is an acceptable compromise. While I was about it, I also added some weathering and a few figures around the platform. I've been fiddling around with bits of the yard area generally, but nothing really worth photographing. The main thing holding up recent progress has been the wait for a new ceiling light over the peninsula, which I needed my electrician to help install since he needed to poke around in the ceiling rose and that's where I draw the line. The new fitting sheds a bit more light on this area and with that solved, I've felt a renewed burst of enthusiasm. Over on the older part of the layout, I added a culvert from one of the Woodland Scenics castings - one of those fun, five minute jobs that has a much bigger visual payoff than you'd expect. It adds a note of interest to an otherwise boring area. Those SD35s passing over the mainline are another story. I've been generally happy with the shift to DCC operation on the layout, but it's not been without its snags. One of the main pains, as far as my experience goes, has been with consisting, which isn't always as straightforward as it's cracked up to be. Both these SD35s have Digitrax decoders in them that ought to support advanced consisting, but try as I might, I could never get them to run together. For about the last four years I've just gone through the minor hassle of using old-style consisting to run them together, but that means that the consist has to be set up at the start of each operating session. It bugged me, though, that I didn't understand why they wouldn't work. Cue 2015 and an entirely different set of engines giving problems. I'd been struggling to get good consisting with a pair of H16-44s, also fitted with Digitrax decoders. They had good speed characteristics when running out of consist, but as soon as I consisted them, one of the two would always run much too slowly. What the hell's all that about? Eventually I found out that there's a particular quirk of Digitrax decoders to do with the way BEMF (Back EMF) is handled when consisting: https://sites.google.com/site/markgurries/home/dcc-problems/decoder-problems/advanced-consisting-digitrax The fix is to set CV57 to 85. Other settings may work, but I tried this one and it immediately solved the issue with the H16-44s. I then wondered if it might magically cure the SD35s, and indeed it did, so now they can both be run using advanced consisting. Frustrating, perhaps, because there's no really clear reason why the quirk should be implemented the way it is, but such is life. Incidentally I keep a notebox of this type of stuff because it's the kind of thing you can easily run into a year or two down the line and forget which CV needs adjusting. Anyway, hopefully this will be of help to someone else if they come across the same problem. Cheers, and thanks for reading. ps - looks like one of those fuel tanks needs clicking back into place on the SD35s... Edited August 25, 2015 by Barry Ten 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adrian Wintle Posted August 25, 2015 Share Posted August 25, 2015 . Cue 2015 and an entirely different set of engines giving problems. I'd been struggling to get good consisting with a pair of H16-44s, also fitted with Digitrax decoders. They had good speed characteristics when running out of consist, but as soon as I consisted them, one of the two would always run much too slowly. What the hell's all that about? Eventually I found out that there's a particular quirk of Digitrax decoders to do with the way BEMF (Back EMF) is handled when consisting: https://sites.google.com/site/markgurries/home/dcc-problems/decoder-problems/advanced-consisting-digitrax The fix is to set CV57 to 85. Other settings may work, but I tried this one and it immediately solved the issue with the H16-44s. I then wondered if it might magically cure the SD35s, and indeed it did, so now they can both be run using advanced consisting. Frustrating, perhaps, because there's no really clear reason why the quirk should be implemented the way it is, but such is life. Incidentally I keep a notebox of this type of stuff because it's the kind of thing you can easily run into a year or two down the line and forget which CV needs adjusting. Anyway, hopefully this will be of help to someone else if they come across the same problem. Yes, that disabling of BEMF by default when consisting can catch you out. I presume it was originally to prevent the two decoders fighting one another. The other way to handle is is to disable BEMF completely and speed-match locos without it. Then they should consist together with no problems. Adrian 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Barry Ten Posted August 27, 2015 Author RMweb Gold Share Posted August 27, 2015 I've had this little beauty on pre-order for 2 1/2 years ... It's the Atlas model of the Alco S-2, with DCC sound, and it arrived today. As far as I'm aware, it's the first Atlas N scale model with on-board sound, and as such, it's a bit of a courageous choice, being such a small prototype to being with. The sound is pretty impressive given the size of the loco. It's not going to blow you away with volume or bass response, even compared to some other N scale models, but it sounds convincing and so far - provided the track's reasonably clean - it's pretty reliable, and other than a tendency for the sound to falter over dirty spots, it doesn't stall. It's a nicely heavy model, too, and I'd imagine it will easily cope with typical switching duties. Mine had no trouble shifting an 11-car freight in and out of the yard, and that's the longest I need to move at one time, but there was plenty of traction in reserve. If Atlas can squeeze sound into an S-2, then it really opens up the scope for many other prototypes. Who'd have thought it, a few years ago? 5 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanielB Posted August 27, 2015 Share Posted August 27, 2015 Dangit Al, you aren't helping me resist the urge to get one of the Non-sound versions! 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allegheny1600 Posted August 27, 2015 Share Posted August 27, 2015 Hi Barry(?), That is an absolute little cracker of a loco! I have an Atlas H0 scale version (albeit in PRR livery) and I believe I'd be hard pushed to tell the difference between the two if I held mine up to my screen. Nice one! John E. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Barry Ten Posted September 8, 2015 Author RMweb Gold Share Posted September 8, 2015 Is that ominous enough? Yes folks, we're well and truly in cock-up territory here. For the full and grisly details, read on... Let's wind the clock back almost two years, to when I put in the large expanse of scenery and tracks running to the rear of the locomotive terminal: One of the key features here is that the main running line skirts around the back of the layout, mostly concealed, with the branch line crossing over it at a higher level. There's lots of scope for problems here, what with so much track being hidden or difficult to access, and I was fully prepared for the worst ... and yet, to my surprise, it's been totally reliable and there hasn't been a single derailment or stall in this area at all. Suitably vindicated, I've felt quite happy to push on with the surrounding scenery, and in this shot you can see the start of the twin-track tunnel portal which will eventually be properly bedded in to a hill. One thing I've been rigorous about - and I mean rigorous - is checking clearances, especially with regard to tunnel mouths. All the normal transition-era trains are straightforward enough, provided you allow for the swing of passenger cars on curves, but as I've mentioned before, I like to be able to run modern stuff occasionally, especially double-stack intermodal trains. To that end, ever since I started the layout in 2008, I've made sure all clearances are acceptable for double-stacks, car carriers and so on. Over the last year I've added another couple of tunnels, and again I've been meticulous in checking clearances. After all, I want to be able to run my intermodal stuff, right? This weekend I started work on that tunnel mouth featured in the shot above, and again I made sure I tested a Kato intermodal unit under it, as well as an auto-rack. To ensure that no problems were encountered, I raised the height of the tunnel slightly with card spacers. One of the tracks that passes through this tunnel mouth then goes under the aforementioned branch line, but that will be fine, right, because I already validated the clearances when I put that whole section in at the end of 2013? Er, no. The long and short of it is that I must have had a few too many whiskies when I worked on that part, as the intermodal stuff won't go through! The irony is that it would have been relatively simple (if annoying) to fix it there and then ... but with all that scenery built around the interlaced tracks, it would now be a total nightmare. So much for my "rigorous" checking. This whole area behind the coaling tower would need to be totally rebuilt: But you know what? I can't be bothered. If I'd run the intermodal trains more frequently, I'd have stumbled on the problem more recently than this weekend ... and done something about it. Frankly, I just haven't got the will to rip out four feet of finished scenery just to be able run an out-of-period train. So it's not happening. Rather than go back, I'd rather keep pushing on - even if that means I don't have anywhere to run the intermodal stock. For now. And on that bombshell.... 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Barry Ten Posted September 8, 2015 Author RMweb Gold Share Posted September 8, 2015 Bummer, but as you say, the occasional intermodal train would be out of period, and not enough to justify the (entirely authentic, when you think about it) increases to clearance for a larger loading gauge. What's worse, there is an uncanny resemblance there to a certain captain of this parish... Is that how he motivates his team? As long as it's not the Bishop of Bath & Wells, we're OK. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanielB Posted September 9, 2015 Share Posted September 9, 2015 Ah well, you'll just have to stick to the much, much cooler looking TOFC trains then, eh? Still no word from Intermountain regarding those SD40-2's, by the way. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold roundhouse Posted September 9, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted September 9, 2015 (edited) Will single stack containers fit? I know it doesn't look as impressive but there are or were a few routes in the East that had this Edited September 9, 2015 by roundhouse 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adrian Wintle Posted September 9, 2015 Share Posted September 9, 2015 Will single stack containers fit? I know it doesn't look as impressive but there are or were a few routes in the East that had this Actually, until recently most of the east didn't have the clearances to support double-stacks (or Superliner passenger cars). Sets of wells with single containers, combined with spine cars, is quite prototypical. There are still a fair number of lines with height limitations. Adrian 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Barry Ten Posted September 9, 2015 Author RMweb Gold Share Posted September 9, 2015 Will single stack containers fit? I know it doesn't look as impressive but there are or were a few routes in the East that had this Yeah, they'll easily fit; the maddening thing is that the clearance is only about a mm too low for double-stacks! In the long run, I am thinking about a portable/exhibitable modular layout somewhere along the lines of your Santa Barbara, which would have slightly more generous radii at the return loops, compared to the GA&E. The modern stuff will go around the 11" curves but it is definitely the case that it would be happier if the radii were relaxed a bit more, even though still concealed. Perhaps it is all a blessing in disguise as I can finally narrow the focus on the GA&E to the transition era, rather than having half an eye to running more modern stock. There is also the small collection of Chicago Metra equipment I've been acquiring for a future project... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adrian Wintle Posted September 9, 2015 Share Posted September 9, 2015 Yeah, they'll easily fit; the maddening thing is that the clearance is only about a mm too low for double-stacks! Build a custom car with a slightly angled, sprung sandpaper roof and run it around behind a five-loco consist until you have the necessary clearance. Adrian 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold roundhouse Posted September 9, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted September 9, 2015 (edited) Yeah, they'll easily fit; the maddening thing is that the clearance is only about a mm too low for double-stacks! In the long run, I am thinking about a portable/exhibitable modular layout somewhere along the lines of your Santa Barbara, which would have slightly more generous radii at the return loops, compared to the GA&E. The modern stuff will go around the 11" curves but it is definitely the case that it would be happier if the radii were relaxed a bit more, even though still concealed. Perhaps it is all a blessing in disguise as I can finally narrow the focus on the GA&E to the transition era, rather than having half an eye to running more modern stock. There is also the small collection of Chicago Metra equipment I've been acquiring for a future project... I also have some Metra equipment including a 3D printed winabego body to finish off. Those along with numerous NS locos ready for something based around Chicago to drop in place of Santa Barbara in the next year or two. Edited September 9, 2015 by roundhouse Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Barry Ten Posted September 9, 2015 Author RMweb Gold Share Posted September 9, 2015 I also have some Metra equipment including a 3D printed winabego body to finish off. Those along with numerous NS locos ready for something based around Chicago to drop in place of Santa Barbara in the next year or two. I think we've touched on this before, and I get the impression we are thinking along similar lines. I've got that Kato Metra suburban station kit to build as well. Incidentally, I've seen that someone is developing the parts to model Chicago transit authority cars: http://www.nscale.net/forums/showthread.php?37947-Chicago-Transit-Authority-1-50-Series-Rapid-Transit-Car 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adrian Wintle Posted September 9, 2015 Share Posted September 9, 2015 Chicago would allow you to run pretty much anything Amtrak, Superliners on the western routes and on the Washington run, Amfleets (I and II), Viewliners, and Horizon cars on the rest of the eastern routes. Judicious choice of location would allow for locos from all the Class 1s as well. Adrian 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold John B Posted September 10, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted September 10, 2015 Illinois has a lot to offer! Chicagoland aside, I spent a fascinating day at the Illinois Railroad Museum in Union, IL last year (Best RR museum in the USA, by a country mile!). Peoria, where I spent a few months last year / earlier this year, is an amazing place for varied action. UP, BNSF, CN and NS all appear, along with a number of shortlines / class B railroads - IAIS, TP&W, and Keokuk Junction (who regularly use an A-B-A set of FP9s on freight!). Lots of unit variety too - even some green and whiteface BN to be seen.. 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Barry Ten Posted September 15, 2015 Author RMweb Gold Share Posted September 15, 2015 Modelling time's been tight the last few weeks, so I've been using the odd half hour here and there to progress on some of those less exciting tasks, but which can be done in short bursts (unlike say, painting a coach or building a loco chassis). Ballasting's a good one as you never want to do too much of it one go anyway. As I've mentioned before, I don't find this too much of a chore especially when I'm in the right mindset. With its six parallel tracks, the yard has been a big ballasting project and it's not quite done yet, but at last there are only a few small areas still to be done. I used different colours of ballast and made the ballasting neater on the mainline tracks and more untidy on the yard tracks, which also include a fair measure of weeds. Eventually I might airbrush it to tone down the differences between the grey and the brown areas of ballast. I wasn't too sure how this tunnel scene was going to work out, with its relatively sharp exit curves, but I don't think it's ended up too badly. Still a lot to be done in terms of scenery and detailing, though, but as ever there's no rush. That's about it for now - cheers for reading. 11 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dwyaneward Posted September 17, 2015 Share Posted September 17, 2015 Ballasting looks great to me, Barry 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanielB Posted September 17, 2015 Share Posted September 17, 2015 I do so love this layout. What I wouldn't give to run some trains on it! 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now