Re-starting in American HO

[Rich_F]

On 13/01/2023 at 10:05, Keith Addenbrooke said:

One for the ‘prototype for everything’ department - a screen grab from a “Delay in Block” video showing St John’s Catholic Church and Johns Manville Defiance Plant 2 in Defiance, Ohio:

 

 

The tight curve is too close to the Church Building, and there are two very short spurs (not one longer one) going into the plant, which is itself just across a road from the Church.  Would just not look right on a model!
 

The railroad is the Napoleon, Defiance and Western now run by Pioneer Rail.  Oh, and the loco in the video is an old GP-20 still in Santa Fe colours (yellow freightbonnet livery).  Keith.

 

I love watching videos of the Napoleon Railroad. Especially with the track condition & the old GP-20s. Having said that I believe they're starting to relay the track as the line undergoes reinvestment. 

[Keith Addenbrooke]

It’s been a couple of months since I updated this thread, so I should start with the good news:

• I‘ve moved my modelling ‘stuff’ into the spare room I can use (noted in my Narrow Gauge thread)
• The quiet doesn’t mean I’ve changed my mind, direction / scale or sold anything shared here.  We’re still good.

And the other news…?

• I’ve been building station kits for my existing freelance Narrow Gauge HOn30 mini-layout and my Continental interest (both have progressed nicely and modelling time has not been wasted, I’m happy to say).
• But…I didn’t settle on a track plan: while I could easily fit a switching layout into the space I’d still rather have a continuous run.

I’ve been doing some measuring up, using HO stock from this project and from my small Continental collection.  While it’s not easy to capture in a photo, I’ve been testing a theory I read about in the Layout & Track Design Forum.  Apparently, close up the human eye has a ‘bandwidth’ of around four feet.  Above and beyond this an HO train extends beyond the field of vision*. If I can find a way to increase train length to around 70” then a train of seven 50’ boxcars is possible:

 

 

It’s still only half what I’d really want as a minimum, but at eye level the locomotive starts to look further away:

 

 

Why 70” ?  Two reasons:

1. The room is just over 10’ long, so a simple continuous run could theoretically fit with 2’ end curves and 6’ sides, if a cantilever over the bed could be arranged and access to the far side of the layout doesn’t become impossible.
2. It’s also the length of a five coach Continental train - full length 1:87 scale 26.4m passenger cars are 303.4mm long:

 

(Note: This Austrian consist isn’t prototypical - the orange Eurofima livery was phased out a decade before the first Taurus locomotives entered service, although the red and black livery of the final coach did span the gap and ran with both).

 

While four or five coach regional trains are seen, a typical international train often has a dozen or more passenger cars.  As with the American freight train, this is again about half the length it should be.  If I apply my ‘eye level’ test, it looks like this:

 

 

 

Having dabbled in the different scales over the past couple of years, I’m not minded to change yet again (just to save anyone asking - it’d be a valid question, but there are other reasons why HO works for me, especially for American modelling, so train length has to compromise).

 

It’s given me more food for thought, so I thought it might be worth sharing.  One thing I need to weigh up which I can’t show in a photo is how this looks in a room less than two train lengths long (there are other things, not mine, in the room still).

 

I’ll give it some more thought.  With other projects I’m working on in parallel, there’s no rush.  Until next time, Keith.

 

(* I’m afraid I don’t know if this works in smaller scales, where there is more of a helicopter view at the same distance, sorry)

 

Edited April 12, 2023 by Keith Addenbrooke

[BR60103]

From what I remember of the article, the train length was a function of how far the eyeball was from the track. The result was linear and independent of scale.  I think layout-end curves also had an effect. The idea was that if you couldn't see both ends of the train at the same time, it seemed longer.

 

Something I observed, but haven't really checked.  Curves look sharper viewed from the outside than inside.  A layout around the room will seem more spacious than one on a table.  

 

Edited April 13, 2023 by BR60103

[F-UnitMad]

5 hours ago, BR60103 said:

Something I observed, but haven't really checked.  Curves look sharper viewed from the outside than inside. 

From my experience, they don't look so bad from the inside, as you see the gap between stock close up as it goes through, rather than widen out to impossible angles as it does on the outside of the curve.

Getting as close as possible to eye level also helps, as demonstrated on the 3ft curves of my US O Scale layout. From above, the 72ft Centerbeam car looks utterly ridiculous, but from the side, not so bad at all.....

 

[Keith Addenbrooke]

Thank you to @BR60103 and @F-UnitMad for the additional information - very helpful.

 

Totally agree on the inside / outside of the curve view: makes a big difference.  It wasn’t such an issue when I was looking at GWR Branch Lines with shorter coaches and 0-6-0 Pannier Tank engines, but is an important factor now.

 

I’d also say that transition curves are helpful too - I had some free time yesterday evening so mocked up some more photos of the same length train (note: I’m not after a table top layout - I just have some tables I could use).

 

This is with a 3rd radius Setrack curve (505mm or 19 7/8”) and no transition:

 

 

Quite frightening for the passengers!  I then inserted a Peco Streamline Curved Point to create a simple transition effect (the inner curve radius is 30”):

 

 

Much improved (sorry, I didn’t take any photos with my American freight cars - the Continental stock box was on top).

 

One reason I think my simple HOn30 mini-layout works is that I included transitions at the end and centre of each end curve:

 

 

 

All good stuff - thanks for the extra information, which will be very helpful as my ideas develop, Keith.

[Keith Addenbrooke]

Noting that the centrepiece of any U.S. ideas I have is the Walthers Concrete Grain Elevator kit (933-3022) it makes sense to have this as my next build: it will help me visualise my possible layout space better than 2-D drawings, added to which I have more room for building big kits at the moment as I’ve not yet made any baseboards for my current space.  So, here goes:

 

 

Perhaps best described as large for a kit, while admittedly small in prototype terms.  Should be fun to tackle.  First step is to paint the parts on their sprues.  Blue is recommended for some bits.  Keith.

 

Edited April 16, 2023 by Keith Addenbrooke

[Oldddudders]

ISTR the glazing is the dodgy bit. The window-bars are cast into the "glass", so a steady hand is needed. I didn't make a great job of it - and that was 30 years ago, when my hands were steadier!

[Keith Addenbrooke]

4 hours ago, Oldddudders said:

ISTR the glazing is the dodgy bit. The window-bars are cast into the "glass", so a steady hand is needed. I didn't make a great job of it - and that was 30 years ago, when my hands were steadier!

That is exactly what I was just thinking about - well remembered, Keith.

 

[Keith Addenbrooke]

One advantage of not having built any baseboards for my latest project yet is that I have more workbench space for tackling my kit stash and I’m progressing the grain elevator slowly.  Meanwhile, this Walthers’ Depot kit has queue jumped:

 

 

 

Post-assembly touching up of the paintwork, weathering the roof and adding decals is still to be done.  As I don’t have a specific roadname in mind I could choose any colour scheme.  The kit came moulded in white, but I find overpainting white plastic white almost impossible - I just can’t see what I’ve done!  In a small joke to myself I therefore used colours I keep in stock for painting UK GWR models light stone and dark stone instead.  
 

A straightforward build which would be quite expensive for what you get at full price, but I picked it up factory sealed for no more than half-price (this particular kit is no longer avaialable in HO).  Lots of scope for detailing, but as it stands I’d say it is an adequate ‘layout building’ rather than a showcase structure.  Compared to the small Santa Fe Combination Depot I scratchbuilt in 2021 that took me three months, this has been a nice Bank Holiday project.  Enjoying the sunshine, Keith.

[Traintresta]

I am currently tracklaying on my HO layout (North American) and have included a 30" radius curve with transitions to negotiate corner at the exit to the staging.  It looks much smoother than hitting the full radius curve from the straight but I always find that I'm never satisfied with my curves, I always want a larger radius!

[Keith Addenbrooke]

4 hours ago, Traintresta said:

I am currently tracklaying on my HO layout (North American) and have included a 30" radius curve with transitions to negotiate corner at the exit to the staging.  It looks much smoother than hitting the full radius curve from the straight but I always find that I'm never satisfied with my curves, I always want a larger radius!

Good to hear track laying is progressing - I’m presuming this is your “Lance Mindheim-style” switching layout?
 

Have to agree on curves: I think my ideal for HO would be 4’ radius (posed here with some European coaches) but there’s no way I could actually achieve that in my space:

 

 

Thanks for the post, Keith.

[hoady02]

Hello Keith,

 

An observation I would make is that whilst a simple oval track layout may appear to be too 'toy train' like the reality can be far different. I recollect spending a full day operating a simple small oval and enjoying the experience immensely. My current Santa Fe layout in fact is a big circle around the walls of a double garage. I am fortunate that I have the space to do all the things Lance Mindheim talks about in terms of creating scenes and I think you have a similar opportunity as well. Two immediate features of a depot on the main and the grain silo on a siding creates a simple yet very prototypical scene. That affords you the opportunity of mainline running and switching as well. What's not to like? 

 

Every layout contains compromises and curves can be one of them. We are always going to be constrained by the space we have and the limitations the are imposed on us. But at the end of the day it is what it is. The only question we have to ask ourselves is that a deal breaker? Is the opportunity of a longer run compromised by tight curves? If it is then a point to point design is the alternative. Note I did not say solution! Compromises again.

 

Good luck with the final decision.

 

Regards,

 

Geoff

[Keith Addenbrooke]

2 hours ago, hoady02 said:

Hello Keith,

 

An observation I would make is that whilst a simple oval track layout may appear to be too 'toy train' like the reality can be far different. I recollect spending a full day operating a simple small oval and enjoying the experience immensely. My current Santa Fe layout in fact is a big circle around the walls of a double garage. I am fortunate that I have the space to do all the things Lance Mindheim talks about in terms of creating scenes and I think you have a similar opportunity as well. Two immediate features of a depot on the main and the grain silo on a siding creates a simple yet very prototypical scene. That affords you the opportunity of mainline running and switching as well. What's not to like? 

 

Every layout contains compromises and curves can be one of them. We are always going to be constrained by the space we have and the limitations the are imposed on us. But at the end of the day it is what it is. The only question we have to ask ourselves is that a deal breaker? Is the opportunity of a longer run compromised by tight curves? If it is then a point to point design is the alternative. Note I did not say solution! Compromises again.

 

Good luck with the final decision.

 

Regards,

 

Geoff

Thank you - a wise observation.  I’m in no rush, I have my Narrow Gauge and European interests as well and several part-built structure kits to finish, so I’m having plenty of fun while I ponder my options.  Thanks, Keith.

[Keith Addenbrooke]

This is one of those “lessons learned” posts, to be honest.  I think I’ve reached the point where I’m experiencing a degree of frustration as well as a lot of embarrassment about not having progressed very far with any layout plans.  Putting off layout planning may mean I can avoid committing to any particular track plan or design, but obviously doesn’t get me anywhere!

 

So when I had some spare time at the start of the month, I headed out to the outhouse to see what was lying around spare, just to do something!  It didn’t take long to knock up a pair of baseboards for a simple “Inglenook style” switching mini-layout:

 

 

 

 

 

 

Total length = one standard @Alcanman (i.e: 9’):

 

 

Knowing most of my 12mm ply pieces had previously been cut down for possible use in lightweight narrow gauge layouts, I knew that I’d be tight on width, but working with micro-layout planning constraints, I could fit in some of my structure kits:

 

 

 

At this point I realised my mistake - splitting the boards at the mid-point and placing the switching lead at the front of the baseboard had introduced track planning constraints that basically led to the switching lead at the right being too short.  I know from earlier measurements that two 50’ cars and the SD7 need 29”, but to avoid getting easily logjammed, I think I ought to have a 44” switching lead (loco, 4 cars and caboose).

 

Nothing goes to waste however, and the practice at remodelling scrap into useable baseboards is now proving useful in looking at a new Narrow Gauge idea - it’ll appear in my NG thread instead, but the first step was trying this idea here.

 

Have a good weekend, Keith.

 

Edited June 24, 2023 by Keith Addenbrooke

[Alcanman]

Thanks for the mention in your last post. Amazing how much switching fun can be achieved with 9ft in HO scale.

 

I noticed you seem to like Austrian Railways (OBB) judging by the Eurofima coaches in one of your earlier posts. Here is an OBB shunting layout I built a few years ago and, of course, it was 9ft long!

Edited June 23, 2023 by Alcanman
error

[F-UnitMad]

I like the new Measurement Standard - 9ft = 1 'Alcanman'....!! 🤣🤣👍

[Alcanman]

13 hours ago, F-UnitMad said:

I like the new Measurement Standard - 9ft = 1 'Alcanman'....!! 🤣🤣👍

I love it!  

[Traintresta]

On 20/06/2023 at 16:49, Keith Addenbrooke said:

Good to hear track laying is progressing - I’m presuming this is your “Lance Mindheim-style” switching layout?
 

Have to agree on curves: I think my ideal for HO would be 4’ radius (posed here with some European coaches) but there’s no way I could actually achieve that in my space:

 

 

Thanks for the post, Keith.

It’s a different layout. The Lance mindhiem style layout didn’t really get off the ground for various reasons. 
 

I agree on 4’ curves but likewise don’t have that sort of space. 

[Keith Addenbrooke]

I spotted this on sale at what looked like a good price for a unit described as in excellent condition - and as a fan of passenger operations I have to say I’m delighted with it:

 

 

It’s a Life-Like Proto 1000 model that weighs in at 22.5oz (640gm).  In a crawl test, running on DC, it took 2 minutes to travel three feet.

 

The packaging is also complete but I’m left with two questions: 

 

First, does anyone know the minimum radius for these models (my test track where I’m now modelling is two straight yards of track)?  The instructions and packaging don’t seem to say?

 

Second, is the bronze colour a bit too polished?  Looking at photos of the prototype B&O unit (#1951) on display at Gaithersburg, MD, it seems more silver (polished stainless steel), but to Sam here it looks almost golden:

 

 

Not sure I’ll be brave enough to weather it!  It is also exactly the right length for my Depot platform:

 

 

I hadn’t planned to buy an RDC - I’d been thinking more of a Combine for occasional mixed trains, but this caught my eye and is a happy addition to my collection, Keith.

 

Edited July 27, 2023 by Keith Addenbrooke

[Rich_F]

4 hours ago, Keith Addenbrooke said:

I spotted this on sale at what looked like a good price for a unit described as in excellent condition - and as a fan of passenger operations I have to say I’m delighted with it:

 

 

It’s a Life-Like Proto 1000 model that weighs in at 22.5oz (640gm).  In a crawl test, running on DC, it took 2 minutes to travel three feet.

 

The packaging is also complete but I’m left with two questions: 

 

First, does anyone know the minimum radius for these models (my test track where I’m now modelling is two straight yards of track)?  The instructions and packaging don’t seem to say?

 

Second, is the bronze colour a bit too polished?  Looking at photos of the prototype B&O unit (#1951) on display at Gaithersburg, MD, it seems more silver (polished stainless steel), but to Sam here it looks almost golden:

 

 

Not sure I’ll be brave enough to weather it!  It is also exactly the right length for my Depot platform:

 

 

I hadn’t planned to buy an RDC - I’d been thinking more of a Combine for occasional mixed trains, but this caught my eye and is a happy addition to my collection, Keith.

 

 

VIA Rail in Canada still run RDCs in pairs with one passenger RDC & one baggage RDC together to Sudbury. 

 

If you manage to spot another there's a perfect prototypical train. 

 

 

I avoid anything lower than 2nd radius for HO scale locos as anything smaller they derail on. 

 

If it were me I'd add a TINY bit of exhaust dirt to the fans & grilles but very little. 

 

 

[long island jack]

https://www.trains.com/mrr/news-reviews/reviews/staff-reviews/life-like-releases-limited-edition-ho-scale-budd-rail-diesel-car-rdc/#:~:text=Minimum,radius%3A 18″

[Keith Addenbrooke]

Thank you @Weeny Works and @long island jack.  My SD7 doesn’t like 2nd radius (c.18”) curves any more than I do, so a minimum 3rd radius (20”) is the smallest I’ll look at for US HO (though I’d prefer much larger, of course).

 

Doing a bit of Googling on the prototype reveals the B&O fitted out two RDC-2 units as a rather unusual combined baggage / dining car / coach.  The B&O ran their RDC’s in multiple sets for the Daylight Speedliner service for the 7 hours + run from Baltimore to Pittsburgh, so converted two RDC-2s to include a kitchen and tables to offer a full dining service.   From what I can see however, I don’t think this car was one of them (the B&O bought four RDC-2 units but only two were converted).  It would appear that #1951 originally carried #6551.

 

A Boston and Maine variant would have been ideal - and they did have quite a large fleet of RDC units - but this model was too good to pass on.  Have a good weekend, Keith.

[Keith Addenbrooke]

New question: I’ve acquired an Exactrail boxcar with a loose weight inside it.  I can’t see how to open it up to sort it out.  Any ideas?  Any additional information that might be helpful - let me know.  Removing a truck didn’t seem to make any difference (so I put it back before losing the screw!).

 

I can’t see the join.*

 

Thanks, Keith.

 

(* cue Morecambe and Wise memories amongst our UK readers)

 

 

[stivesnick]

Hi Keith 

 

I found this review for an Exactrail box car - which suggests the roof is glued on. 

 

https://www.trains.com/mrr/news-reviews/reviews/staff-reviews/exactrail-ho-scale-berwick-7440-boxcar/

 

Regards 

 

Nick 

Edited August 17, 2023 by stivesnick
spelling error

[Keith Addenbrooke]

Summer hasn’t seen the usual modelling progress this year, due to family commitments.  I have however continued my occasional experiments with train lengths and viewing angles.  
 

My ‘big’ European idea has fallen foul of my space constraint (the story is in my blog - my fault for liking mainline European trains).  This means the pendulum is swinging back towards shorter trains - three fifty foot boxcars plus engine and caboose for example measure in at just over 3’.  With a four-axle diesel I do quite like the look of this:

 

 

I now have a range of photos of three, four and seven car consists to compare, which is helpful.

 

The loco incidentally is a Kato GP-35.  I found myself with some funds to spend, which is always dangerous, and unsurprisingly found I was spending far too much time on eBay (which I finally gave in and started using this summer).

 

To spring the trap I decided to play safe and picked up two Kato GP35 models (bought separately) - #3364 was preowned but brand new.  No marks or dirt on the wheels, perfect box and all the detail parts incl. handrails and horns still factory sealed:

 

 

 

Although the GP35s were built in the mid-1960s, the livery is a bit modern for my preferred 1970 reference point.  It is also after the class were re numbered (not sure when that was).  There is however a picture dated April 12th 1980 on rrpicturearchives.net of #3364 having already been repainted in this yellow freightbonnet livery though, so not too far out (and for Kato quality at the price I paid, a bit of a no-brainier to stop me dithering, being honest).  A happy customer.

 

I realise it’d be good for me to stop grabbing the horns by the bull and actually report some modelling progress in my next post, so until then, have fun.  Keith.

 

Edited September 6, 2023 by Keith Addenbrooke