American 'HO' Gauge - Los Angeles based

[Sir Ray]

Coincidentally, they're ex ATSF

I'm glad you're coming around to CF7s, in HO scale they're readily available and run well (at least the Athearn I have does).

But - Dude, by definition, any CF7 is going to be ex-Santa Fe - they're the ones who converted the F7 covered wagons (oh, wagon is UKian for frieght car - OK, they were cowl-body cab freight locos, called 'covered wagons' in USian for obvious reasons) for their own use, and later on when the ATSF didn't need them, they sold them off to various shortlines...and that's my next point:

the CF7s were already leaving the roster for shortlines. The first set was sold off in 1984, and the rest were sold in 1987. The CF7 era on the Santa Fe had arrived at its conclusion.

Soooo, the earliest the LAJ could have had CF7s lettered for itself was 1984. If you want 1978, you'll be using the CF7 in Santa Fe Blue & Yellow - BTW, Santa Fe in the 1970s had many other 4-axle road switchers, GP7, GP9s, GP30s, GP38s, possibly some Alco RS-1/RS-3 (not sure, they had them at the start of the 1970s). - but the CF7 does say 1970s Santa Fe very nicely...

BTW, if you are committed to modeling the late 1970s in HO, you'll be in luck - you can purchase Fresh Cherries (example vendor) and Reel Rides die-cast vehicles at not too outrageous prices (at least if you don't need to eBay them).

[Guest jonte]

I'm glad you're coming around to CF7s, in HO scale they're readily available and run well (at least the Athearn I have does).

But - Dude, by definition, any CF7 is going to be ex-Santa Fe - they're the ones who converted the F7 covered wagons (oh, wagon is UKian for frieght car - OK, they were cowl-body cab freight locos, called 'covered wagons' in USian for obvious reasons) for their own use, and later on when the ATSF didn't need them, they sold them off to various shortlines...and that's my next point:

Soooo, the earliest the LAJ could have had CF7s lettered for itself was 1984. If you want 1978, you'll be using the CF7 in Santa Fe Blue & Yellow - BTW, Santa Fe in the 1970s had many other 4-axle road switchers, GP7, GP9s, GP30s, GP38s, possibly some Alco RS-1/RS-3 (not sure, they had them at the start of the 1970s). - but the CF7 does say 1970s Santa Fe very nicely...

BTW, if you are committed to modeling the late 1970s in HO, you'll be in luck - you can purchase Fresh Cherries (example vendor) and Reel Rides die-cast vehicles at not too outrageous prices (at least if you don't need to eBay them).

 

Hi Sir Ray

 

Thanks for responding to my rather inane queries of a previous post - or so they would appear in the cold light of day (that's what happens when you get carried away and end up on here until the early hours of the morning - and further thanks for translating the 'USian' terms.

 

With regards to the era in which I'm portraying this prospective piece of fiction, I may yet have to exercise some flexibility.

 

And here's why...........

 

1. Having discovered - courtesy of Bing maps (please see aerial views of intended location in previous posts) - that this line, in part, is still used, it can no longer be considered beyond the realms of fantasy to set it in a present day setting with all the advantages that brings - stock, street furniture, a litany of photographs and other valuable sources of reference, all ready available.

 

2. My decision to set it in the 70s was heavily influenced by the picture on Keith Jordan's site of the CF7 negotiating the tight curve inside that brick lined cavern adjacent to Industrial Street, plus, what I thought at the time anyway, a tenuous excuse to use my one and only loco in Chessie livery on the downtown streets of LA - you put me right on that one!! However, as I'm no longer intent on depicting the Patch, setting it during this period is no longer an issue, thus, I can exercise a little more flexibility.

 

3. Now, here's the 'main' reason.............. I'm aware from other modellers on this site, who've kindly shared their experiences with me, that even in 'HO' there is a balance to be struck between the choice of proprietary track and motive/rolling stock to ensure 'smooth running'. Those who've followed this drivel of mine will know that I've an issue with and even an aversion to the rolling/pitching/tripping of locos and freight across points (turnouts in 'USian').I've already had problems with one popular brand causing me to take drastic action by making my own. However, even though I've managed to obtain satisfactory results from my humble offerings - especially with my lone Bachmann loco - not all my items of freight will negotiate satisfactorily - my Bachmann Blue doesn't want to know. So, herein lies my quandary: what if I purchase said Athearn offering and like the Bachmann Blue it doesn't want to know? I'm afraid it would just fly in the face of everything I'm trying to achieve. Loathed though I am after all the effort that went into building them - especially the laminated sleepers - I'm already considering looking for an alternative. I'm mighty impressed with Mal's (Alcanman)smooth running in his videos achieved with good old Peco Code 100 - I'm intending to use my Peco Code 75 rail on PCB for plain rail and Peco provide rail joiners to join 75 to 100, plus this trackage is dead easy to get hold of in the UK. On the downside, it has chairs instead of spikes although most of the rail can be 'buried' in earth/tarmacadam surfacing.

Jez, another modeller who has kindly advised me and who also enjoys smooth running, although again like Mal has to be selective about his choice of stock, use Peco Code 83, a fine product which is intended for US outline. Unlike the Code 100, this has the correct 'ties' plus 'head' ties. Initially, I would have considered this, however, I was put off by the fact that this is more suited to mainline running than industrial. The only concern here is that Jez enjoyed better running with the 'Insulfrog' variety, but I prefer 'Electrofrog' so do I chance it?

The bonus in both of these cases is that I know what works with what and that in any case, there's a reduced risk of problems with both these types of trackage than with my own stuff - although I could be doing myself a deep injustice? Dunno. As I say, both types of trackage are readily available in the UK which reduces waiting time for products to arrive plus reduced shipping costs.

 

4. This is mad, for a newbie I know, but I'm tempted to go down the P87 route, although the only advantage at present is that wheels and gauges designed for compatability obviate my main worries...............but create a load more: skill deficit, initial high cost of materials including changes of wheelsets for 'everything' at $5 an axle, cost of shipping/taxes, waiting............................. I'm sure you get my drift. Still, the sight of all those individually detailed ties, light rail and real wood ties.......mmmmm!!!

 

Gotta remain realistic though.

 

Here's a compromise though..............Code 70 (peco) rail handlaid with slimmer check rails where it crosses the highway (laid on PCB), with either Code 100 or Code 83 (peco) points - mostly buried as stated - but enhanced with those new 'prototype' rodding switches fixed between the points (switch blades) to add a little authenticity http://www.proto87.com/index.htm

 

So you see, Sir Ray, I can indeed go forwards/backwards.....whatever takes my fancy really; with this in mind, all things considered - CF7 apart of course !! - what loco would you especially like to see?

 

Best wishes and hope you manage to read this.

 

Jonte

[dana]

there used to be a company called rail power and sold shells for updating athern products like f7's to the cf7's heres an example found on ebay

 

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?VISuperSize&item=390229439468

 

prhaps such a shell could be mounted on a uk train chassis that is the same lenght and diameter as the athern blubox f7's

[Guest jonte]

 

Jonte

[Guest jonte]

there used to be a company called rail power and sold shells for updating athern products like f7's to the cf7's heres an example found on ebay

 

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?VISuperSize&item=390229439468

 

prhaps such a shell could be mounted on a uk train chassis that is the same lenght and diameter as the athern blubox f7's

 

Would certainly solve the issue with Peco code 75 points

 

Thanks for the suggestion; I'll look into it.

 

Jonte

[Sir Ray]

Having discovered - courtesy of Bing maps (please see aerial views of intended location in previous posts) - that this line, in part, is still used, it can no longer be considered beyond the realms of fantasy to set it in a present day setting with all the advantages that brings - stock, street furniture, a litany of photographs and other valuable sources of reference, all ready available.

Move it up to the early 1990s then - you still have an independant Santa Fe, some really beat-looking post-merger SP/Rio Grande (there's your rusty beat-up locomotives), now the LAJ has custom-lettered CF7s, you can take advantage of lots of HO scale vehicles from the late 60s - 80s, you have Centerbeam lumber cars, hi-capacity Centerflo covered hoppers, High-side Gondolas, rebuilt and new Refrigerator Cars (reefers, in US Railroadese only) , Hi-cube boxcars, and so on -and it's you call if you want to run a caboose or not. The Santa Fe/Southern Pacfic Kodachrome had thankfully not been applied to everything, so you're still good w/ plenty of Blue/Yellow Santa Fes. And honestly, except for less sidewalk Payphones, and more old-fashioned bishop-crooks street-lamps & brick curbing in downtown improvement districts the street furniture is about the same as today.

 

points (turnouts in 'USian').

'Switch' is actually more common in USian, but 'turnout' is not unheard-of either ...

And on the topic of track, in North America the most common model layout practice once you get past train-set level is code 83 for most mainline and heavy-usage siding trackage, and code 70 for spurs and lightly used branches. The Cutting-Edge guys are going with code 55 for light-duty sidings - this is dangerously in N-scale territory, being perverted for usage on HO layout! I'm not that brave. On the other end of the scale, code 100 HO has been relegated to extremely heavy mainline (e.g. the Northeast Corridor of the NE US - and since my perpetually-in-planning layout has a section of the North-East corridor crossing it, yay, prototypical! Code 100 is also often used for hidden trackage (storage/helices/return tracks behind building flats or in mountain tunnels, etc), because it is perceived as being less of a derailment problem - I'm not convinced.

So, to sum up; 'current' layout practice:

Code 100 = Very Heavy Mainlines only

Code 83 = Most Mainlines, heavy-duty branches, sidings, etc.

Code 70 = Most other trackage, such as sidings, spurs, and light-duty branches

Code 55 = Really light duty trackage, possible LRT (light rail transit)

Don't 20million people post that they do something different, this is recommended practice only.

 

As far as I can tell, as for Peco switches, you will need to do a bit of modification on Electrofrog types if you are planning to use DCC.

P:87...Hmm, I remember when that burst on the scene a few decades back - I thought we had successfully hunted down and subdued all the true-believers, but I guess a few got away.

 

So you see, Sir Ray, I can indeed go forwards/backwards.....whatever takes my fancy really; with this in mind, all things considered - CF7 apart of course !! - what loco would you especially like to see

Ho-ho, 'tis your railroad dude, and your choices - I can only point out information. If you do move it to the early 1990s, so you can keep the nice Santa Fe livery, and the worn-out Southern Pacific liveries (here's some hints), you have choices I mentioned before of GP9, GP30s (some), GP35, GP38/GP38-2 (lots), SD40-2 (too many), SD28s, and then some GEs - but no real Alcos or Baldwins left at that time. I'm afraid it's up to you to search the web for images (or maybe some nice people here will send in there submissions ), and make your decision...

[Guest jonte]

 

Jonte

[Guest jonte]

Move it up to the early 1990s then - you still have an independant Santa Fe, some really beat-looking post-merger SP/Rio Grande (there's your rusty beat-up locomotives), now the LAJ has custom-lettered CF7s, you can take advantage of lots of HO scale vehicles from the late 60s - 80s, you have Centerbeam lumber cars, hi-capacity Centerflo covered hoppers, High-side Gondolas, rebuilt and new Refrigerator Cars (reefers, in US Railroadese only) , Hi-cube boxcars, and so on -and it's you call if you want to run a caboose or not. The Santa Fe/Southern Pacfic Kodachrome had thankfully not been applied to everything, so you're still good w/ plenty of Blue/Yellow Santa Fes. And honestly, except for less sidewalk Payphones, and more old-fashioned bishop-crooks street-lamps & brick curbing in downtown improvement districts the street furniture is about the same as today.

 

'Switch' is actually more common in USian, but 'turnout' is not unheard-of either ...

And on the topic of track, in North America the most common model layout practice once you get past train-set level is code 83 for most mainline and heavy-usage siding trackage, and code 70 for spurs and lightly used branches. The Cutting-Edge guys are going with code 55 for light-duty sidings - this is dangerously in N-scale territory, being perverted for usage on HO layout! I'm not that brave. On the other end of the scale, code 100 HO has been relegated to extremely heavy mainline (e.g. the Northeast Corridor of the NE US - and since my perpetually-in-planning layout has a section of the North-East corridor crossing it, yay, prototypical! Code 100 is also often used for hidden trackage (storage/helices/return tracks behind building flats or in mountain tunnels, etc), because it is perceived as being less of a derailment problem - I'm not convinced.

So, to sum up; 'current' layout practice:

Code 100 = Very Heavy Mainlines only

Code 83 = Most Mainlines, heavy-duty branches, sidings, etc.

Code 70 = Most other trackage, such as sidings, spurs, and light-duty branches

Code 55 = Really light duty trackage, possible LRT (light rail transit)

Don't 20million people post that they do something different, this is recommended practice only.

 

As far as I can tell, as for Peco switches, you will need to do a bit of modification on Electrofrog types if you are planning to use DCC.

P:87...Hmm, I remember when that burst on the scene a few decades back - I thought we had successfully hunted down and subdued all the true-believers, but I guess a few got away.

 

 

Ho-ho, 'tis your railroad dude, and your choices - I can only point out information. If you do move it to the early 1990s, so you can keep the nice Santa Fe livery, and the worn-out Southern Pacific liveries (here's some hints), you have choices I mentioned before of GP9, GP30s (some), GP35, GP38/GP38-2 (lots), SD40-2 (too many), SD28s, and then some GEs - but no real Alcos or Baldwins left at that time. I'm afraid it's up to you to search the web for images (or maybe some nice people here will send in there submissions ), and make your decision...

 

Hi, Sir Ray.

 

You never fail to boost my morale and your generosity and breadth of knowledge provides me with hours of interest, delving into other forums and 'youtube' videos. I simply can't go wrong. I shouldn't worry about running the risk of being corrected: your concise style is educational and entertaining and right up my street. Anything more academical woud be wasted on me I'm afraid In any case, you've certainly a keen interest in the subject which is infectious!!

 

Thanks for the suggestion about the '90s. Sounds what I'm looking for. Since we last posted, I've cooled off with regards to the CF7; great looking and a ubiquitous bit of kit for this area. However, I've heard from several sources that the Athearn model is electrically temperamental and general concensus of opinion is to either remotor - with can and flywheels - or retruck (Kato). Apart from bumping up the price, I believe that I've a way to go yet in the hobby before I reach for the wire cutters and silicon sealant (and as for sloppy bearings - pardon?). Perhaps in the not too distant future.

 

Anyway, another reason why I was glad to read your last post was because I found this as an alternative and wondered whether it could be considered:

 

http://www.modeljunction.info/estore/product_info.php?cPath=25_27_72&products_id=1617

 

 

It's got dual flywheels and in the right colours!! I believe 'Trainman' is produced by 'Atlas' who in turn were highly recommended by a highly respected railroad modeller - so if it's good enough for him.............

 

I'm relieved now you've sanctioned it - not too badly priced either for my first victim to go under the airbrush. Although I'm being guided by Mr. Soeborg's 'Done in a Day', in my case it could end up as 'Gone in a Day' . As you say, there's always a Rio Grande to beat up if that fails; in fact, I'll go and have a look at the options that are available, just out of interest.

 

Best wishes and please feel free to haul me back in if I end up going off at a tangent at any point. My railroad, it might be, but I'd like it to be of interest to others.

 

Jonte

[Bagpuss]

If you're concerned about wheels dropping into the crossings, take a look at the Peco code 83 range. They appear to have infilled the flangeways slightly so that an RP25 profile wheel will run on its flange rather than drop in. A very cunning use of the NMRA standards.

 

They also look much better than the Peco code 75 and 100 range on US layouts as the ties are sized and spaced according to US practice and the turnouts conform to NMRA standard geometry. We've been very happy with their appearance and performance on Menasha.

[Guest jonte]

If you're concerned about wheels dropping into the crossings, take a look at the Peco code 83 range. They appear to have infilled the flangeways slightly so that an RP25 profile wheel will run on its flange rather than drop in. A very cunning use of the NMRA standards.

 

They also look much better than the Peco code 75 and 100 range on US layouts as the ties are sized and spaced according to US practice and the turnouts conform to NMRA standard geometry. We've been very happy with their appearance and performance on Menasha.

 

Thanks, Bagpuss.

 

That's most reassuring. Looks great too!

 

Thanks for getting in touch. I appreciate it.

 

Jonte

[Sir Ray]

Not much to add today, but I second Bagpuss on code 83 peco track - I have some tacked down as a test track, no problems so far, looks Good (the track looks great, but it's on bare wood, so not very scenic), the pieces I have are in gauge, and the switches work well - I am buying plenty more to use for the eventual layout (this is code 83 peco, which is branded as following US practice - my Code 70 is MicroEngineering, I have only one small section of that tacked down as a test track, the rest I don't wish to waste). Remember, if you use Peco Electrofrog Switches (which is very nice), and DCC, then you will need to modify the switch a bit - see here (there are other websites describing the required modification around, too). For the record, I will be using Latex Caulk to secure the track on the real layout, with perhaps nails one per section (segments to be soldered together, at least on curves) - but that is layout building, and I will leave that to your local UK experts to help you.

 

GP38-2 locomotive were very common on US roads, generally in local and transfer service, short-line service, etc - not too much in heavy drag freights (that would be SD40-2s most likely in the early 1990s, or high speed intermodal - that would be GP50s most likely). They were used mostly for freight, but ended up on some commuter passenger lines (including our very own Long Island RR). I would guess that your BR Class 47 engines would be the closest analog, if all the discussions on this board ring thru (and if the Wiki article is accurate) - one thing, GP38s only had 2000HP, so they couldn't really pull long trains singularly. BTW, remember that Atlas has different levels of quality; Trainman, Classic, Master-Silver, and Master-Gold - I think the consensus is that Silver is DCC ready, and Gold has .DCC, and if a Master then it has DCC & Sound, but then again that was last month, so who knows...whatever you do, DON'T GET HIGH HOODS - those were used mostly by South Eastern roads such as Norfolk & Western & The Southern. Finally, I was going to suggest some SW1500 (which I really like, I have 2 of them), BUT apparently Santa Fe itself did not have SW1500s - it seems all end Cab switchers, such as SW7s, SW900 etc were retired by the late 1980s, and Santa Fe didn't own any SW1500 in the first place - but when it merged with Burlington Northern, then the combined BNSF had a decent number of SW1500s. So - 1990s, no end-cab Santa Fe switchers (and no CF7s either - those were sold off too, 4 to the LAJ as was mentioned before)

Speaking of which, what seems to be the problem w/ the Athearn CF7? My runs fine, and it's not even that loud (like the old school Athearn Blue Box locos were)

 

 

[CraigZ]

there used to be a company called rail power and sold shells for updating athern products like f7's to the cf7's heres an example found on ebay

 

http://cgi.ebay.com/...em=390229439468

 

prhaps such a shell could be mounted on a uk train chassis that is the same lenght and diameter as the athern blubox f7's

 

Rail Power Products was bought by Athearn quite a few years ago. RPP's shells were never terribly great (RPP = Rough Plastic Parts as some wag noted) but were the only game in town for things like a CF7 or SD60 or scale hood GP35s. When Athearn bought them, they have made pretty impressive improvements to the tooling...sometimes all that's really left are the sides and the walkway.

 

As for RP25 not getting along with NEM spec turnouts, a common trick over here was to add shims to the guardrails...about .010" styrene was enough to do the job. The Peco code 100 three way was the best game in town for that kind of trackwork so we learned that shimming trick...

[Guest jonte]

 

Jonte

[Guest jonte]

Not much to add today, but I second Bagpuss on code 83 peco track - I have some tacked down as a test track, no problems so far, looks Good (the track looks great, but it's on bare wood, so not very scenic), the pieces I have are in gauge, and the switches work well - I am buying plenty more to use for the eventual layout (this is code 83 peco, which is branded as following US practice - my Code 70 is MicroEngineering, I have only one small section of that tacked down as a test track, the rest I don't wish to waste). Remember, if you use Peco Electrofrog Switches (which is very nice), and DCC, then you will need to modify the switch a bit - see here (there are other websites describing the required modification around, too). For the record, I will be using Latex Caulk to secure the track on the real layout, with perhaps nails one per section (segments to be soldered together, at least on curves) - but that is layout building, and I will leave that to your local UK experts to help you.

 

GP38-2 locomotive were very common on US roads, generally in local and transfer service, short-line service, etc - not too much in heavy drag freights (that would be SD40-2s most likely in the early 1990s, or high speed intermodal - that would be GP50s most likely). They were used mostly for freight, but ended up on some commuter passenger lines (including our very own Long Island RR). I would guess that your BR Class 47 engines would be the closest analog, if all the discussions on this board ring thru (and if the Wiki article is accurate) - one thing, GP38s only had 2000HP, so they couldn't really pull long trains singularly. BTW, remember that Atlas has different levels of quality; Trainman, Classic, Master-Silver, and Master-Gold - I think the consensus is that Silver is DCC ready, and Gold has .DCC, and if a Master then it has DCC & Sound, but then again that was last month, so who knows...whatever you do, DON'T GET HIGH HOODS - those were used mostly by South Eastern roads such as Norfolk & Western & The Southern. Finally, I was going to suggest some SW1500 (which I really like, I have 2 of them), BUT apparently Santa Fe itself did not have SW1500s - it seems all end Cab switchers, such as SW7s, SW900 etc were retired by the late 1980s, and Santa Fe didn't own any SW1500 in the first place - but when it merged with Burlington Northern, then the combined BNSF had a decent number of SW1500s. So - 1990s, no end-cab Santa Fe switchers (and no CF7s either - those were sold off too, 4 to the LAJ as was mentioned before)

Speaking of which, what seems to be the problem w/ the Athearn CF7? My runs fine, and it's not even that loud (like the old school Athearn Blue Box locos were)

Hi again, Sir Ray.

 

Plenty more food for thought.

 

Thanks for the encouragement BTW re the Code 83 and for pointing me in the right direction with regards to DCC wiring - an avenue I'd be keen to explore eventually.

 

With regards to the CF7: I've had a couple of conversations with accomplished modellers who've both, quite independently, commented on their lacklustre experiences with the Athearn Model - in one case, the trucks were replaced with Kato units and in the other, the motor swapped with a 'can' and flywheels (A-Line units). To be fair, I've read elsewhere that others have experienced similar problems with poor running, which is a shame as all agree that they're superb looking models.

 

Pleased to hear that you've had a positive experience with the model.

 

In fact, having slept on it, I've decided that if I'm going for authenticity, I've just got to have one in my fleet - and in LAJ livery. So, I'm ordering one Probably from the States as I can't find one available in the UK.

And when it arrives, if it gives poor running, I'll just have to bite the bullet and upgrade; there's plenty of advice on the web about doing it and perhaps then I can consider myself a 'proper' modeller ?

 

There again, I might be as lucky as you.......

 

Best wishes,

 

Jonte

[Guest jonte]

Rail Power Products was bought by Athearn quite a few years ago. RPP's shells were never terribly great (RPP = Rough Plastic Parts as some wag noted) but were the only game in town for things like a CF7 or SD60 or scale hood GP35s. When Athearn bought them, they have made pretty impressive improvements to the tooling...sometimes all that's really left are the sides and the walkway.

 

As for RP25 not getting along with NEM spec turnouts, a common trick over here was to add shims to the guardrails...about .010" styrene was enough to do the job. The Peco code 100 three way was the best game in town for that kind of trackwork so we learned that shimming trick...

Hi CraigZ

 

Thanks for your contribution.

 

Actually, I'm familiar with this solution, having been advised by Jack (Shortliner) who's implemented the same trick on his previous layouts - even provided the name and phone number of the supplier!!

 

Good ol' Jack.

 

Best wishes,

 

Jonte

[CraigZ]

Hi again, Sir Ray.

 

Plenty more food for thought.

 

Thanks for the encouragement BTW re the Code 83 and for pointing me in the right direction with regards to DCC wiring - an avenue I'd be keen to explore eventually.

 

With regards to the CF7: I've had a couple of conversations with accomplished modellers who've both, quite independently, commented on their lacklustre experiences with the Athearn Model - in one case, the trucks were replaced with Kato units and in the other, the motor swapped with a 'can' and flywheels (A-Line units). To be fair, I've read elsewhere that others have experienced similar problems with poor running, which is a shame as all agree that they're superb looking models.

 

Pleased to hear that you've had a positive experience with the model.

 

In fact, having slept on it, I've decided that if I'm going for authenticity, I've just got to have one in my fleet - and in LAJ livery. So, I'm ordering one Probably from the States as I can't find one available in the UK.

And when it arrives, if it gives poor running, I'll just have to bite the bullet and upgrade; there's plenty of advice on the web about doing it and perhaps then I can consider myself a 'proper' modeller ?

 

There again, I might be as lucky as you.......

 

Best wishes,

 

Jonte

 

The Athearn trucks are smooth runners...I've never replaced a pair in anger. Some are convinced that their current collection is inferior but I've not had that problem. But the motors can be dodgy...there's a couple of things that can be done to tune one if it's not smooth. You'll have to remove it from the frame - do this slowly as there's phosphor-bronze clips on the top and bottom of the motor. Those clips also hold the motor brushes...if a clip is loose you may launch the brush spring and/or clip. When you get the motor out make certain that it's clipped together well. Those clips hold the end bells on...the end bells have the shaft bearings. If the bells are not parallel to each other due to a clip being loose, the shaft binds. Give the flywheels a spin - if it's dragging badly check the clips and end bells. The second trick I've learned is that the motor brushes press on the armature with too much force. Some shorten the springs; I prefer to shorten the brushes by about 25%. On the ends there's notches that the Athearn motor doesn't use - I use flush cutters to trim the brush down by the depth of the notches. Reassemble and it will run much smoother...surprisingly so in most cases. Once or twice I've found a bent motor shaft - those motors got replaced. Over the years I've swapped in Mashima motors or Sagami motors; Kato's motor with flywheels is now an easy swap with Athearn using the hex end driveshaft that happily fits the Kato flywheels. But to be honest those were all old blue box Athearn; all the more recent stuff either runs great or responds nicely to the tune up.

[Guest jonte]

The Athearn trucks are smooth runners...I've never replaced a pair in anger. Some are convinced that their current collection is inferior but I've not had that problem. But the motors can be dodgy...there's a couple of things that can be done to tune one if it's not smooth. You'll have to remove it from the frame - do this slowly as there's phosphor-bronze clips on the top and bottom of the motor. Those clips also hold the motor brushes...if a clip is loose you may launch the brush spring and/or clip. When you get the motor out make certain that it's clipped together well. Those clips hold the end bells on...the end bells have the shaft bearings. If the bells are not parallel to each other due to a clip being loose, the shaft binds. Give the flywheels a spin - if it's dragging badly check the clips and end bells. The second trick I've learned is that the motor brushes press on the armature with too much force. Some shorten the springs; I prefer to shorten the brushes by about 25%. On the ends there's notches that the Athearn motor doesn't use - I use flush cutters to trim the brush down by the depth of the notches. Reassemble and it will run much smoother...surprisingly so in most cases. Once or twice I've found a bent motor shaft - those motors got replaced. Over the years I've swapped in Mashima motors or Sagami motors; Kato's motor with flywheels is now an easy swap with Athearn using the hex end driveshaft that happily fits the Kato flywheels. But to be honest those were all old blue box Athearn; all the more recent stuff either runs great or responds nicely to the tune up.

 

A most comprehensive and informative post, CraigZ. Thank you. Following your experienced reassurance, I feel I can now buy with confidence; and if I buy a lame duck, I certainly know how to put it right

 

Thanks once again.

 

Jonte.

[Oldddudders]

I'm glad you're coming around to CF7s, in HO scale they're readily available and run well (at least the Athearn I have does).

But - Dude, by definition, any CF7 is going to be ex-Santa Fe - they're the ones who converted the F7 covered wagons

Indeed - doesn't the "C" in CF7 stand for Cleburne, TX, the ATSF shops where the conversion was done?

[Guest jonte]

A service hatch produced from scraps:

 

 

 

 

Now for the other two...........

 

Jonte

[Sir Ray]

Indeed - doesn't the "C" in CF7 stand for Cleburne, TX, the ATSF shops where the conversion was done?

Apparently there's some disagreement about this (but of course), although it's not 'relligioius war' level (that level's reserved for indenting style and naming converntions in computer programming). The official line seems to be that it stood for Converted F7, so take that as you wish.

 

Jonte, I will give you props for literal back of the envelope designing , but looking at your layout design, are you planning on getting one of these for your traverser? And while I recall you mentioning it will be more of a display diorama than a operational-orientated layout, that big oval expanse with very little trackage makes me nervous as a native North American modeler (unless you plan to shoe-horn in a huge industrial complex or a typical Los Angeles oil refinery, then it's all good)

[Guest jonte]

Apparently there's some disagreement about this (but of course), although it's not 'relligioius war' level (that level's reserved for indenting style and naming converntions in computer programming). The official line seems to be that it stood for Converted F7, so take that as you wish.

 

Jonte, I will give you props for literal back of the envelope designing , but looking at your layout design, are you planning on getting one of these for your traverser? And while I recall you mentioning it will be more of a display diorama than a operational-orientated layout, that big oval expanse with very little trackage makes me nervous as a native North American modeler (unless you plan to shoe-horn in a huge industrial complex or a typical Los Angeles oil refinery, then it's all good)

 

 

Actually, I'm an exponent of Xtrak, and thought I'd use their latest programme: "A traditional approach to model rail design", to produce a plan.

I'm amazed at the authenticity; it actually looks like a back of an envelope drawing. Astonishing

 

As regards my choice of traverser, nothing so extravagant I'm afraid. This is my version, again knocked up from scraps of wood utilising an old sliding drawer unit that was hanging round the garage since my new kitchen was installed several years ago. Here's a reminder:

 

With regards the generous amount of 'real estate': although I've developed a keen interest in USA railroads, essentially, I remain a 'space-starved' Brit with a keen interest in USA Railroads, and Brits (generally) exercise a little more restraint than our American cousins when it comes to filling in a space devoid of track and railroad buildings. In fact, you'll find several layouts on this forum that are only interested in what goes on within the boundary fence......anything else is surplus to requirements and is ignored. In my case, I've always favoured layouts which employ the old adage 'less is more'and as newbie, I've adopted it as my motto. Perhaps it'll bore me to the back teeth and it will be a hard lesson learned; perhaps it won't and It'll fulfil my every wish. Time will tell.

As I wrote on another forum, I want the train to punctuate the overall scene; in other words, I don't want it on show all the time. I want it to tantalise the observer: where's it gone? Where will it reappear? I'll have to crane my neck to see where it's gone! That sort of thing. I've only gone for two points as I feel that anymore will make it more operationally fulfilling but, I believe, at the expense of the overall scene - those USA rolling stock aren't half big!!! More sidings equals more stock and more stock will only serve to clutter the scene. Hopefully, the traverser and sector plate will increase its operational potential for the operator and permit stock to enter from the left or right and ALWAYS with the loco ahead - even though I'm aware that the protoype could be seen pushing or pulling its train. Anyway (in danger of going off at a tangent here), to answer your question, Sir Ray, I've yet to decide which and what positions the chosen buildings will occupy - as you know by now, I make everything up as I go along!! - but I'm going to try and keep the flavour of the S. Santa Fe district by only employing small (single storey) commercial units; nothing sprawling, nothing high. This way, nothing will stand out or detract from the trains, just hopefully, frame or perhaps enhance the overall scene. I'll shut up now, but finish by reassuring you that buildings, whichever I eventually choose, will be purposefully sited. If it doesn't help the scene, it's not included. As simple as that. Time to get off my soap box

 

Finally, do you remember during our last conversation that I made mention of going off to order a CF7? Well, just afterwards, I came across this:

 

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?VISuperSize&item=200609758291

 

Well, I'm pleased to report that it's now mine. Can't wait.

 

Told you I'm whimsical!!

 

Thanks for posting,

 

Jonte

[Guest jonte]

Re my previous:

 

Seems to be a problem with the picture of my recent purchase.

 

Never mind, it's an Atlas Alco S-2 Burlington Route switcher.

 

Hope you approve.

 

Jonte

[Sir Ray]

Re my previous:

 

Seems to be a problem with the picture of my recent purchase.

 

Never mind, it's an Atlas Alco S-2 Burlington Route switcher.

 

Hope you approve.

 

Jonte

Well, of course, you do not need my approval of anything - 'tis your layout. I just relate info to extent that I know what's real and what's not (not always successfully, I'm afraid).

However, as you probably already know, the CB&Q (Burlington Route) did NOT have any trackage in the Southwest US, and BN (the successor to CB&Q, along with NP and Great Northern) didn't have any such trackage either (wiki-map). If you plan to strip and repaint (I assume your locomotive looks like this), then all is well, but a CB&Q switcher running around Los Angeles in that paint scheme, no matter what the era, is very unlikely (a GP9 or a SD9 or some equivalent...maybe, just maybe - but BN was pretty efficent in converting everything to it's Green & Black scheme by the early 1980s)

[Guest jonte]

Well, of course, you do not need my approval of anything - 'tis your layout. I just relate info to extent that I know what's real and what's not (not always successfully, I'm afraid).

However, as you probably already know, the CB&Q (Burlington Route) did NOT have any trackage in the Southwest US, and BN (the successor to CB&Q, along with NP and Great Northern) didn't have any such trackage either (wiki-map). If you plan to strip and repaint (I assume your locomotive looks like this), then all is well, but a CB&Q switcher running around Los Angeles in that paint scheme, no matter what the era, is very unlikely (a GP9 or a SD9 or some equivalent...maybe, just maybe - but BN was pretty efficent in converting everything to it's Green & Black scheme by the early 1980s)

 

Hi, Sir Ray.

 

Right again; it does look like that apart from one or two little details.

 

And yes again, I'm going to have to repaint it to make it look something like this:

 

http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/showPicture.aspx?id=2330478

 

or this:

 

http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/showPicture.aspx?id=1459319

 

or this:

 

http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/showPicture.aspx?id=2330480

 

etc.

 

So, it's LAJ, afterall......even perhaps in to the early 90s?

 

We'll see.

 

Thanks for sharing your knowledge.

 

Best wishes,

 

Jonte

 

PS Do you know where I can get hold of the decals for LAJ? Suspect I may have to customise.

[Guest jonte]

 

 

Just one more to do.

 

Jonte