Greenbrier & Elk River Rail Road, WV

[2996 Victor]

Dear Mark,

 

Before you turn yourself in (k)nots over the Tichy steel VS GERR wood flatcar connundrum,

can I reccomend you just build one Tichy car as-is,

paint it a generic "boxcar red",

and then compare it to the above photos?

 

While your left-brain will be screaming "but it's a steel car and the prototype was a wood car",

let your eyes do the comparing,

(apart from the stake pockets and end-beam<>sidebeam interaction,

there aren't a lot of "visual clue details" to key-off in those images,

use that to your advantage!),

 

Said another way, I know I'm struggling to see the "wood grain" of the car components in the photos above,.. ;-)

(and the Tichy car is a straight-frame like the GERR cars, not a "fishbelly sidesill" which would be a key "It's a steel car, and just-not-right" giveaway issue...)

 

Happy Modelling,

Aim to Improve,

Prof Klyzlr

 

PS was moving some modelling crates and found my "Cass-esque" Tichy Flatcars,

Now I'm grant that I have not installed the full compliment of stakepockets,

because in the later Mower-era they did not have "a full set" on each car sidesill,

and they are missing any letter/numbering at the moment,

 

but IMHO they would certainly pass-muster in a passing-train of "faceless fleet of similar logging flatcars"...

Hi Prof,

 

many thanks for your message!

 

I think you've hit the nail on the head, so-to-speak, as I've definitely been tying myself in knots over the whole "correct-looking flat car" issue! So much so, that I've considered giving up the whole concept (well, perhaps not quite, but if I had any hair I'd have been pulling it out ). Which is all a bit silly, really, considering that this is hobby and it's supposed to be enjoyable! I think this has shown me why I've done so little modelling over the last few years - I've been too busy looking at minute details and saying to myself, "That's not right!". So I think perhaps a vote of thanks is in order for introducing a little perspective!

 

I was going to assemble one of my Tichy flats "as-is" to see how it looked, and perhaps finish in it C&O livery. While I think it would in all truth be impossible to determine wood grain in the structural components of an HO-scale wooden car, its more the structure itself of the car that belies it's method of construction, and as such I was also wondering whether it would be feasible to replace the kit's steel underframe detailing with something more "wood-like". But we'll see how that goes when the time comes.....in the meantime, I'll follow your advice and build one "from the box" and give it a coat of box-car red (red oxide?).

 

In the meantime, I understand what you mean about allowing your eyes to do the comparing. Your logging cars definitely look the part - I particularly like the one with the woodchips! Can I ask which of Tichy's models they are, as they look like they would have 12 stake pockets if all were installed. Are they #4021s? They certainly pass muster! May I ask, what did you use to add the "rails" for the loading crane?

 

The kits I've got are #4040s, which are low-sided gons that can be built as flats, and have ten stake pockets (although extras are included in the kits). I got those as they had an earlier build date. I think on reflection that I need to get some #4021s though.

 

Thanks again!

 

Time to get busy.....

 

Best regards,

 

Mark

Edited October 30, 2017 by 2996 Victor

[Prof Klyzlr]

Dear Mark,

At work, so quickly in order I think of things...

- The cars do build "out of box" with 12 stakepockets per side. I omitted 2x in the middle of the car, and omitted one-each at each end, between the installed end-pocket and the stirrup step. (look carefully for the stakepocket indexing holes in the sidesill parts)...

- The colour of the frame/underrate in this case is Humbrol "Wine Red" (#73?) with a load of dirty wash weathering (isopropyl + black India ink + a drop or two of Tamiya XF52 "Dark Earth"?). The (wood? ;-) ) deck is the kit plastic part, painted with a literal-mess wash of Tamiya Dark Earth and Buff...

- The loads are removable, and are held in place by the actual stripwood stakes + stakepockets

- The "bark refuse" is sawdust from cutting the twigs which made the loads,
(wearing a workshop apron made it easy to catch the "sawdust" from the workbench... ;-) ).

Again I must exhort you to watch the "Cass and Mower" YT, the proto examples are in there... ;-)

- The "loader rails" are lengths of HO 4x4 stripwood, with graphite burnished by finger into the top surface to give the "Barnhart worn" look...

- Even it comes to log cars, always keep the mantra "...a faceless fleet of common-looking cars..." in mind. As long as the profile and basic truck sideframe looks right as the train rolls-by, it will "pass muster"...

Happy modelling,
Aim to Improve,
Prof Klyzlr

Ps if you Really want, modifying the Tichy centresill to a thinner "straight member" profile, and maybe adding trussrods / Kingposts instead of the supplied gusset members, wouldn't be difficult...

But I know I wouldn't...
(the Tichy cars are close-enough as-is IMHO... ;-) )

Edited October 30, 2017 by Prof Klyzlr

[2996 Victor]

Dear Mark,

 

At work, so quickly in order I think of things...

 

- The cars do build "out of box" with 12 strange pockets per side. I omitted 2x in the middle of the car, and omitted one-each at each end, between the installed end-pocket and the stirrup step. (look carefully for the stakepocket indexing holes in the sidesill parts...

 

- The colour of the frame/underrate in this case is Humbrol "Wine Red" (#73?) with a load of dirty wash weathering (isotropy + black India ink + a drop or two of Tamiya XF52 "Dark Earth"?). The (wood? ;-) ) deck is the kit plastic part, painted with a literal-mess wash of Tamiya Dark Earth and Buff...

 

- The loads are removable, and are held in place by the actual stripwood stakes + stakepockets

 

- The "bark refuse" is sawdust from cutting the twigs which made the loads,

(wearing a workshop apron made it easy to catch the "sawdust" from the workbench... ;-) ).

 

Again I must exhort you to watch the "Cass and Mower" YT, the proto examples are in there... ;-)

 

- The "loader rails" are lengths of HO 4x4 stripwood, with graphite burnished by finger into the top surface to give the "Barnhart worn" look...

 

- Even it comes to log cars, always keep the mantra "...a faceless fleet of common-looking cars..." in mind. As long as the profile and basic truck sideframe looks right as the train rolls-by, it will "pass muster"...

 

Happy modelling,

Aim to Improve,

Prof Klyzlr

 

Ps if you Really want, modifying the Tichy centresill to a thinner "straight member" profile, and maybe adding trussrods / Kingposts instead of the supplied gusset members, wouldn't be difficult...

 

But I know I wouldn't...

(the Tichy cars are close-enough as-is IMHO... ;-) )

 

Dear Prof,

 

once again, many thanks for your thoughts, comments and pointers - they are greatly appreciated!

 

As regards the underframing, I think I may try one of each, so-to-speak, to see how obvious is the difference, and also to see how much time it takes to "retro-modify" a single car. But unfortunately, modelling time will be a bit limited over the next few weeks as I'm tinkering with vintage MG gearboxes!

 

By the way, I have watched the Cass/Mower video, but only once so far. I definitely need to watch it again, making notes on the most pertinent parts, and then watch again paying particular attention to them!

 

Hopefully, before too long, I'll be able to post some photos of my efforts!

 

Best regards,

 

Mark 

Edited October 30, 2017 by 2996 Victor

[2996 Victor]

Question:

 

Which sort of couplers should I go for. I want reliability and as near a scale appearance as possible.

 

Recommendations, please!

[Regularity]

Do you want remote, hands-off uncoupling?

Are you prepared to put in electromagnets, or hinged magnets, in specific locations?

Are you happy to do the back and forth shuttle for delayed uncoupling?

 

The above questions lead to a choice of “delayed action” magnetic couplers, with a “trip pin”.

 

Would you prefer to use some form of manual intervention, such as with a bamboo skewer or TeePee brush, or a small magnet?

 

For this option, you can use scale couplers, or remove the trip pins from other brands.

 

Do you want to go as far as lining up the couplers before making a collection?

 

You will probably have to do this if you use scale couplers (not merely scale sized).

 

Some modellers will always opt for Kadee couplers, some will use othe brands, some will mix them indiscriminately, some will use Sergent couplers. (Dead scale, use a steel ball to lock the coupler, and a magnet on a stick to raise the ball for uncoupling: http://www.sergentengineering.com .)

 

But first, how do you want them to operate?

 

Edit: to add link.

Edited November 3, 2017 by Regularity

[2996 Victor]

Do you want remote, hands-off uncoupling?

Are you prepared to put in electromagnets, or hinged magnets, in specific locations?

Are you happy to do the back and forth shuttle for delayed uncoupling?

 

The above questions lead to a choice of “delayed action” magnetic couplers, with a “trip pin”.

 

Would you prefer to use some form of manual intervention, such as with a bamboo skewer or TeePee brush, or a small magnet?

 

For this option, you can use scale couplers, or remove the trip pins from other brands.

 

Do you want to go as far as lining up the couplers before making a collection?

 

You will probably have to do this if you use scale couplers (not merely scale sized).

 

Some modellers will always opt for Kadee couplers, some will use othe brands, some will mix them indiscriminately, some will use Sergent couplers. (Dead scale, use a steel ball to lock the coupler, and a magnet on a stick to raise the ball for uncoupling: http://www.sergentengineering.com .)

 

But first, how do you want them to operate?

 

Edit: to add link.

 

Hi,

 

thanks for your reply and apologies for not responding sooner.

 

I expect to do quite a lot of switching, and the current draft of the track layout has a fan of three spurs for that purpose. So I'll want remote, hands-off (as far as possible!) uncoupling. Obviously, shuffling back-and-forth to get a delayed action coupler to uncouple isn't ideal, but it really amounts to just how much is involved before it starts to look ridiculously unprototypical - admittedly, something that's pretty much unquantifiable at this stage. I'm happy to spot magnets under the track at suitable locations.

 

The Sergent couplers certainly look good. However, as I'm looking for a scale-ish appearance with hands-off operation, unless I'm missing something I think that one of Kadee's magnetic delayed-action coupler might be better-suited for my purposes. #5 or #58? Might I experience issues with bogie rolling stock? And are the "whisker" self-centring versions worthwhile?

 

Any further thoughts would be appreciated!

 

Cheers,

 

Mark

[2996 Victor]

Does anyone have any experience of and thoughts/comments on the Keystone Locomotive Works Barnhart Loader kit?

[Regularity]

I don’t model in H0, so cannot comment on specifics, but Kadees work fine for me, albeit using a jeweller’s cross-point screwdrivers as my uncoupling till. I have some Sergents to try out, but haven’t as yet.

 

It sounds like you have pretty well made your decision.

[Prof Klyzlr]

Dear Mark,

The Keystone Barnhart is a white metal kit which can build up into an amazingly detailed model...

 

However, all that white metal makes for a lot of weight, which rides top-heavy on a flatcar, and makes for painful operations. (ask me how I know this).

Scratchbuilding a Barnhart in styrene/stripwood is not difficult
(esp if you have the "Barnhart series" of build articles + drawings from the 1994 issues of Narrow Gauge & Shortline Gazette),
and is a good fun project for the lateral-thinking kitbash-minded modeller...

...or if you'd prefer to take the middle-road, grab an IHC RTR plastic Barnhart loader

 

 

and add detail to-taste...

 

Happy Modelling,
Aim to Improve,
Prof Klyzlr

 

EDIT For furthur reading:
http://www.msrlha.org/barnhart.pdf

Edited January 15, 2018 by Prof Klyzlr

[Prof Klyzlr]

Dear Mark,

 

Kadee are most typically used with bogie cars, I would not expect any issues teaming whisker-centring #158, flat-spring #58, or original flat-spring #5 couplers with typical US outline HO cars...

 

Happy modelling,

Aim to Improve,

Prof Klyzlr

[2996 Victor]

I don’t model in H0, so cannot comment on specifics, but Kadees work fine for me, albeit using a jeweller’s cross-point screwdrivers as my uncoupling till. I have some Sergents to try out, but haven’t as yet.

 

It sounds like you have pretty well made your decision.

 

Many thanks for that! I'm not sure that I have entirely made my decision regarding couplers but, even though I'm new to US-outline modelling, Kadee is a name I'm familiar with. I know they're well-thought-of, but its always good to hear the opinions of others.

 

Cheers,

 

Mark

[2996 Victor]

Dear Mark,

 

The Keystone Barnhart is a white metal kit which can build up into an amazingly detailed model...

 

However, all that white metal makes for a lot of weight, which rides top-heavy on a flatcar, and makes for painful operations. (ask me how I know this).

 

Scratchbuilding a Barnhart in styrene/stripwood is not difficult (esp if you have the "Barnhart series" of build articles from Narrow Gauge & Shortlines Gazette), and is a good fun project for the lateral-thinking kitbash-minded modeller...

 

...or if you'd prefer to take the middle-road, grab an IHC RTR plastic Barnhart loader and add detail to-taste...

 

Happy Modelling,

Aim to Improve,

Prof Klyzlr

 

 

Dear Mark,

 

Kadee are most typically used with bogie cars, I would not expect any issues teaming whisker-centring #158, flat-spring #58, or original flat-spring #5 couplers with typical US outline HO cars...

 

Happy modelling,

Aim to Improve,

Prof Klyzlr

 

Dear Prof,

 

many thanks for your answers!

 

Good to know the Keystone Barnhart is a good representation.....do tell about the issue of its weight when atop a flat car! I wouldn't mind scratch-building one, to be honest, but will see how I'm fixed for time as things progress. I'll see if I can hunt down the article(s) you mentioned.

 

I think that, from what you and Regularity have said vis-a-vis the Kadees, I'll give them a go and see how I get on. There seem to be at least a couple of UK model shops that stock them, so if for any reason it should prove an abortive experiment (and I can't see why it should), at least it won't have been an expensive blind alley!

 

Onward and upward!

 

Cheers,

 

Mark

[Prof Klyzlr]

Dear Mark,

 

RE "weight of a Keystone Barnhart"

 

see the pics above, A completed Keystone whitemetal Barnhart is quite a heavy animal. Putting it on a HO gauge car, likely with "3-point" tuned truck mounting screws
(read : one truck only just loose enough to allow the truck to turn, the other looser so the truck can rock to follow the track)

 

means that even the "jiggle" of tracking over a Shinohara turnout or around a 24" radii curve can cause enough sideways lean to derail the car, 
and possibly likely dump the Barnhart off...

 

Replace the Keystone Barnhart with a IHC or scratchbuilt (styrene + wood) unit, and the much-reduced weight makes for a much more stable and reliably-operating train,
(Keep the Keystone unit for display purposes on a RIP or MOW spur, or parked near the blacksmiths shop for repairs, close to the aisle so viewers can appreciate it's details...)

 

Happy Modelling,
Aim to Improve,
Prof Klyzlr

[Max Legroom]

Dear Mark,

 

The Keystone Barnhart is a white metal kit which can build up into an amazingly detailed model...

 

 

However, all that white metal makes for a lot of weight, which rides top-heavy on a flatcar, and makes for painful operations. (ask me how I know this).

 

Scratchbuilding a Barnhart in styrene/stripwood is not difficult

(esp if you have the "Barnhart series" of build articles + drawings from the 1994 issues of Narrow Gauge & Shortline Gazette),

and is a good fun project for the lateral-thinking kitbash-minded modeller...

 

...or if you'd prefer to take the middle-road, grab an IHC RTR plastic Barnhart loader

 

 

and add detail to-taste...

 

 

Happy Modelling,

Aim to Improve,

Prof Klyzlr

Now that is a nice bit of kit!

[2996 Victor]

Now that is a nice bit of kit!

 

Max: superb modelling isn't it? That's what I shall aspire to emulate when I build my Barnhart (the one that I haven't bought yet.....).

 

Prof: excellent idea - a Keystone Locomotive Works model on a siding ostensibly awaiting attention would make a nice cameo scene. I think I've arrived at a more-or-less finalised layout, which includes a spur that, in the UK, would known as a "mileage siding" - effectively a dumping ground for equipment in need of repair or ultimately, scrapping.

 

I'll try to scan the plan at work tomorrow, and then post here for general ridicule/amusement/constructive criticism 

 

Watch this space! (Or not!)

 

Mark

[2996 Victor]

Now that is a nice bit of kit!

 

Max: I've just noticed you're in Somerset - small world!

[Prof Klyzlr]

Dear Mark,

 

Just unboxing and reloading some of the library, and (re)found some more Cass reference material.

 

"The Lima Shays on the Greenbrier, Cheat & Elk Railroad company"
https://www.amazon.com/shays-Greenbrier-Cheat-Railroad-Company/dp/B0007F1A02

 

"The Cass Collection : Part 1 and 2" by John P Killoran
https://www.amazon.com/Cass-Collection-Vols-John-Killoran/dp/B00BKNYRBY

 

FWIW...

 

Happy Modelling,
Aim to Improve,
Prof Klyzlr

[HEATH STATION]

Dear Mark,

 

Just unboxing and reloading some of the library, and (re)found some more Cass reference material.

 

"The Lima Shays on the Greenbrier, Cheat & Elk Railroad company"

https://www.amazon.com/shays-Greenbrier-Cheat-Railroad-Company/dp/B0007F1A02

 

"The Cass Collection : Part 1 and 2" by John P Killoran

https://www.amazon.com/Cass-Collection-Vols-John-Killoran/dp/B00BKNYRBY

 

FWIW...

 

Happy Modelling,

Aim to Improve,

Prof Klyzlr

 

Mark,

I have a large A4 binder with lots of resource material on logging, including the  BARNHART article and others from the Gazette referred to above. I can dig these out and send them on to you if you want them. I was interested in West Va logging and gathered these items up over a number years. Currently abandoned in favour of the GC line in Derbyshire. Let me know if interested.

best regards

Dave.

[2996 Victor]

Dear Mark,

 

Just unboxing and reloading some of the library, and (re)found some more Cass reference material.

 

"The Lima Shays on the Greenbrier, Cheat & Elk Railroad company"

https://www.amazon.com/shays-Greenbrier-Cheat-Railroad-Company/dp/B0007F1A02

 

"The Cass Collection : Part 1 and 2" by John P Killoran

https://www.amazon.com/Cass-Collection-Vols-John-Killoran/dp/B00BKNYRBY

 

FWIW...

 

Happy Modelling,

Aim to Improve,

Prof Klyzlr

 

Prof: thanks for the info and links. I was looking at a nice copy of the Shays book last month, but ran out of budget! The Cass Collection sounds very useful, especially Vol.2.

 

Mark,

I have a large A4 binder with lots of resource material on logging, including the  BARNHART article and others from the Gazette referred to above. I can dig these out and send them on to you if you want them. I was interested in West Va logging and gathered these items up over a number years. Currently abandoned in favour of the GC line in Derbyshire. Let me know if interested.

best regards

Dave.

 

Dave: that's very kind of you - I'm definitely interested! I'll send you a PM, if that's okay?

 

Cheers,

 

Mark

[2996 Victor]

So, at long last, here is the proposed track layout for my G&ERRR project:

 

 

I'm looking on this as the semi-finished draft! In other words, it's not yet written in stone so of course I'll be interested in any thoughts and comments about the layout.

 

To give some more detail, there are effectively two through lines, one belonging to the G&ERRR of course, and one belonging to the Chesapeake & Ohio, with interchange of lumber products and stores taking place. Looking at these lines, the C&O runs on the level from left back to right back, where the line effectively just disappears into the landscape. The G&ERRR runs at a down-grade from front left, where the logging camps are situated, to front right alongside the river which is the road to the lumber mill. Felled trees are transported from the logging camps to the mill for processing, and board lumber, woodchips and pulp etc are brought back to the interchange yard where the C&O lifts the finished products and transports them out onto the main rail network.

 

There is a small locomotive facility with a shed - probably open-sided - and a coaling bank and water tower. The spur at front is a sort of dumping ground for allsorts, what we'd call a mileage siding in the UK.

 

The plan is obviously not to scale, but I'd envisage the shortest spur in the fan to be capable of holding five 40' flats, which should hopefully give a sense of proportion.

 

Anyway, there it is! (Awaits flak!!!)

 

Cheers for now,

 

Mark

Edited April 29, 2018 by 2996 Victor

[Regularity]

What space do you have available?

What track are you intending to use?

What will be your minimum turnout size?

What is your desirable minimum radius?

[2996 Victor]

What space do you have available?

What track are you intending to use?

What will be your minimum turnout size?

What is your desirable minimum radius?

 

All good questions!

• Space available: the maximum is determined by my lounge - 25' x 12', although I expect it will be slightly less than that with the scenic area somewhere in the region of 15' x 2'6", although the final dimensions will depend on an accurate plan;
• Track: I haven't decided yet whether to use MicroEngineering track or to build my own - I want something that looks relatively lightweight;
• Minimum turnouts: #6 will be the minimum;
• Minimum radius: 24"

I've decided that in the case of this project, I'm going to be constrained by squeezing the layout into a pre-determined space. Rather, I'm going to see how big it is and build the boards accordingly. Of course, I shall keep a close watch on its size, as I don't want it to be like Topsy!

 

Cheers,

 

Mark

[Regularity]

The longest “run” of turnouts you have is five, so positioning them will determine how long the various spurs will be. Sounds like you will have enough space, though. You probably have enough space to use #8 turnouts, which will look and flow much, much better - if you can also increase your minimum radius, then so much the better, too.

 

As to the specifics of the arrangement of the tracks, I cannot comment - presumably you have taken some prototype locations as your reference points, and drawn inspiration from that. There are two important factors in a layout design: does it look believable, and can you operate it without too much complication. The real thing had no desire to make shunting difficult, as this increased costs, and doing things properly at the right pace is perfectly enjoyable.

[2996 Victor]

The longest “run” of turnouts you have is five, so positioning them will determine how long the various spurs will be. Sounds like you will have enough space, though. You probably have enough space to use #8 turnouts, which will look and flow much, much better - if you can also increase your minimum radius, then so much the better, too.

 

As to the specifics of the arrangement of the tracks, I cannot comment - presumably you have taken some prototype locations as your reference points, and drawn inspiration from that. There are two important factors in a layout design: does it look believable, and can you operate it without too much complication. The real thing had no desire to make shunting difficult, as this increased costs, and doing things properly at the right pace is perfectly enjoyable.

 

Thanks for that - I've tried to introduce inspiration from prototypical references into what is most definitely a fiction, for instance a hint of Whittaker in the spurs (although at Whittaker they fan out rather than being parallel).

 

However, I think in my haste I've overlooked one aspect, which is the likelihood of the G&ERRR and the C&O sharing a section of running line. In the UK, the industrial and common carrier lines would usually be parallel with a (trailing) cross-over connection. I think in the US, the obsession with trailing cross-overs is not so prevalent, but nonetheless I suspect there'd be complete separation of running lines with a connecting link for interchange of stock.

 

Thoughts, please!

 

Cheers,

 

Mark

[2996 Victor]

So I'm not entirely convinced that my track layout meets with general approval? Even with my suggested improvement with two separate running lines and a link between?

 

I'm working on a revised version of the drawing appended above, but the lack of a (working!) home scanner is a slight issue when it comes to posting images.....

 

I do wonder if perhaps I'm thinking too big/too specific, although I happen to think the general premise offers good operational potential.

 

I would value thoughts.....

 

Best regards,

 

Mark