Re-starting in American HO

[BR60103]

There was an article some years ago in an American magazine about train lengths. (I've lost it...)

I think it said that a train looked long if both ends of it were out of sight. This then comes down to where your eye is and what your width of vision is.  So stand in your viewing spot, close one eye, and see what distance it covers. 

This means that you need twice as much train in N as HO and half as much in O.

 

[Keith Addenbrooke]

5 hours ago, BR60103 said:

There was an article some years ago in an American magazine about train lengths. (I've lost it...)

I think it said that a train looked long if both ends of it were out of sight. This then comes down to where your eye is and what your width of vision is.  So stand in your viewing spot, close one eye, and see what distance it covers. 

This means that you need twice as much train in N as HO and half as much in O.

 

Agreed - we also covered this when the thread re-started back in April (page 3).  As you noted then, this is about the range of the human eye, which is why it’s not scale specific.

 

My recollection (I’ve also lost the source) is that the cut-off point is around four feet - so finding space for a five car train makes quite a difference from a four car train, which I measured at 45”.  
 

A good point worth mentioning now, thank you.  Keith.

[AndyB]

Another thing I've heard one exhibitor do is to get people to count how many coaches or wagons there are in a particular train. People got it consistently wrong, and over estimated the number. 

How did this happen?

Well, he'd placed a view blocker in their line of sight so only part of train could be seen at any one time. 

I think there's a lot of scope here for only providing glimpses of trains between buildings, lineside industry, or even stands of trees?

Cheers. Andy

[Keith Addenbrooke]

While my practical modelling has shifted back to Narrow Gauge as planned, I’ve had time to try a more layout design ideas here too.  Working with the actual baseboards, stock and structures (where built) is definitely helping me frame my ideas.  I had a quick count and I’ve already taken more than 80 photos from different angles or of different arrangements - I’m not going to post them all here of course, but just wanted to show a flavour of what I’m learning in case it’s helpful.

 

Perhaps most significantly, I’ve not started with the main boards - but with the other parts of the layout.

 

I looked at the centre module first.  As there are curved rail joints crossing the baseboard at each end, I think it makes sense to limit these to just one entry / exit point on each side:

 

 

I did consider the suggestion made by @AndyB of using a lineside industry as a view blocker, with a curved switch for access to the spur, but I couldn’t get it to quite look right for me.  As all the coupling / uncoupling on the through line would need to take place on a curve, my thinking at present is to keep this as a scenic baseboard.

 

I then moved to the staging board on the left.  I have three basic alternatives to the conventional 3-track staging yard I scoped out when measuring the baseboard for construction.  The simplest is this one, based on an earlier mock up:

 

 

A second one adds a switchback spur into the corner - which would add to the switching moves needed when operating:

 

 

There is enough space for the switchback to operated without everything else getting clogged up as well.

 

Finally, a run-round could be included in the same space if desired:

 

 

As you can see from the photos, I’ve also tried various combinations of different industries.  The card flat is for the Bud’s Trucking Kit I’ve bought.  

 

Personally, at the moment, my favourite is the simplest one with a single staging track and a single stub end spur.  Before I consider my approach to the main boards, I think it’ll be useful to know what my thinking is for the staging side, so I can build in some balance to the design.

 

I’ve already looked at ideas that use either more or less track and turnouts.  There’s a trade off between operation and simplicity, and my current thinking is leaning towards simplicity - not cramming in all the track I can.  It fits my current preferences when it comes to looking at other layouts and clearly scores well when it comes to achievability (so it could actually happen), but would I get bored?  That pendulum is still swinging to be honest - the younger me would undoubtedly have gone for the maximum operation capability, but the older (wiser? - I doubt it) me is more interested in the simple approach and spending modelling time making things, not just running trains.

 

One possible main line profile looks like this:

 

 

Visually however, I’m thinking I’d prefer to have the Station building / Depot on the other side of the tracks, shown here in an earlier iteration:

 

 

Some I know would decide much faster than me, and have something built already (many times over by now!), while others would call out my use of Peco Code 100 (UK / European) Flextrack as an obvious anomaly (fair point), but I am enjoying this phase of layout design - and with several narrow gauge models to complete am in no rush.  Have a good week, Keith.

[AndyB]

Hi Keith.

Looks like good progress! 

I'd personally go for mk2 of your fiddle yard as it'd allow a shunting loco to sit in the spur and for it to cut up incoming trains, and assemble outbound ones?

 

In respect of the intermediary board I was actually thinking of lineside industries, but not really rail-seved ones. Basically dotting some buildings to prevent a view of the whole train. Something like this...

 

 

Of course, trees would do the same.

 

At the weekend I was at the Farnham show and Copper Wort, an exquisite "man in the middle"  layout shows how a basically circular track can be broken up with similar view blockers. Here's one small section where the viewer gets a glimpse of a passing goods train. But not all of it.

 

 

 

 

Keep the posts coming as it's interesting to watch your progress.

Cheers for now. Andy

 

 

[Keith Addenbrooke]

Thanks @AndyB, some useful thoughts as always.  I’d not thought of including a loco tie-up point in the staging yard area, but I can think of several examples now that you mention it, perhaps with a small (portable) office and roadside access for a fuel tanker - and not only on shortline railroads.  An interesting idea, thank you, Keith.

[AndyB]

Happy to throw little ideas in Keith.

The way I'd look at it is to imagine Min@rie$ without the little loco spur for the station pilot. Less fun and maybe it'd only really eork when using EMUs/DMUs.

Throw in the loco spur,  et voila! 

I think you'd get the same result here.

And as you say, add in servicing facilities and you've elevated the interest even further. 

 

[Keith Addenbrooke]

45 minutes ago, AndyB said:

Happy to throw little ideas in Keith.

The way I'd look at it is to imagine Min@rie$ without the little loco spur for the station pilot. Less fun and maybe it'd only really eork when using EMUs/DMUs.

Throw in the loco spur,  et voila! 

I think you'd get the same result here.

And as you say, add in servicing facilities and you've elevated the interest even further. 

 

 

Thanks Andy.  I've been thinking of manually changing stock on the scenic staging track between operating sessions.  I only really need a single track for staging (except when running passenger trains as well as freight), as by the period I'm looking at many US Branch Lines / Industrial Spurs would only run a single train per day at most, and for short lines it can be far less than that - down to an 'on demand' only service.  It's something I explored in my previous American thread focused on the Santa Fe and is a difference between US and UK branch line modelling (over here we tend to stretch the imagination and run a more varied service than would be realistic - served by a multi-track fiddle yard).

 

Your idea adds character to that side of the layout.  Perhaps the best (model) example I can think of is on Tom Johnson's Cass County HO model RR, an amazingly inspiring simple room-sized shelf layout.  He has a blog on the American MRH forum - here is a link to his post about the loco tie up point:  Tom Johnson's Cass County (on the MRH Forum)

 

Thanks, Keith.

 

Edited October 16, 2023 by Keith Addenbrooke

[Keith Addenbrooke]

 

Time for a pause. 

When I began this thread almost a year ago, I wanted to move on from my earlier research oriented thread, Modelling the ATSF in 1970 in HO .  I hoped to progress to layout building and am grateful to all who've contributed to this new thread, especially for patience when progress has been minimal (or even slower).  I'm one of the least practical people you'll ever meet, so I was never likely to get much done quickly, even before various 'off-field' events slowed me down further (such as the damp walls on page 1).  My grand ambitions and ideas haven't changed, but modelling for me primarily takes place between February and October, due simply to busyness in the run up to Christmas.  So now is time for a pause. 

 

There is another reason.  While I'm not changing jobs, we may be re-housed due to various issues with this property (not just the damp).  Until it becomes clearer whether that can happen, it makes sense for me to focus on my other, smaller projects (that are less space-dependent).  It may therefore be a while before I next update this thread.  Obviously I'd hoped to get further than I have this year, but I've had fun and learnt a lot, which I hope may be of interest to others thinking about starting out.  Thanks, Keith.

[AndyB]

Hi Keith.

Whilst you claim to not be very practical I think you've shown great progress, given all your other commitments. We've seen good quality baseboards manufactured and lots of ideas mapped out. 

 

I'm hoping you stick with the overall concept and maybe use what time you do have available to make buildings that'll fit in with the layout. 

 

And fingers crossed you get an early decision on the new house. Who knows, it may come with a new space for your layout ambitions. But if it doesn't I'm sure we'll all be there to pitch in with suggestions for whatever space it may give you! 

Cheers. Andy

 

[Keith Addenbrooke]

Update

When I paused this thread at the end of October, I'd already been happily meandering for almost a year looking at different ideas and plans.  What stood out for me from the final photo I posted above however was the width of the Code 100 railhead on the track I've been using - and once seen it was something that couldn't be unseen!  Peco's Code 70 looks much better, something I reviewed in a separate thread here:

 

 

I bought a few pieces with a view to trying them out in a straightforward Inglenook (so I'd actually build something!), a plan aided by the arrival on my birthday of a long-desired 'Bud's Trucking' Low Relief structure kit:

 

 

That proved to be the final roll of this particular dice.  I also mentioned when I paused the thread that we may move house.  We need a more accessible home, and one has been identified which should also meet the requirements for the working property it also needs to be.  Moving will be complicated, and in practical terms we now know it will require us to downsize significantly.  This includes my modelling collections and space (both for storage and layout building).  While I've already slimmed down my US HO rolling stock, to me it still looked quite a lot when I laid it all out together:

 

 

Even discounting some of my larger buildings, there's no getting round the large size of the locomotives and freight cars (after all, that's what makes them so impressive!).  Boxed up, they need room to be stored too.

 

Looking back through the mock-up photos I've taken over the past year, there are a couple of shots that really work for me, though interestingly not necessarily those based on the Santa Fe:

 

 

 

So what's my next step to be?  To save space, I'm planning to focus my US modelling on Narrow Gauge again, and have started a new project over in the Narrow Gauge Forum for this: The Carrabassett and Atlantic Lines: US modelling in HOn30.  Some of the building kits that have appeared in this thread will find a home there.

 

I'd like to finish the Grain Elevator kit, and am thinking of taking up a suggestion made in my blog thread by @AndyB to do this as a diorama - I've kept hold of the ATSF and UP covered hoppers I kit built:

 

 

(Edit 3rd March 2024 - photos of the completed grain elevator are shown here)

 

The rest, including the GP35, has been sold on, with the funds raised being concentrated on my other, more compact interests (I still have too many).  It means I'll have ideas ready to try out when the move happens.  Some of my other buildings may be suitable for a European layout (see here).  I'll cover my other plans in the new year in my next blog post. 

 

It just remains for me to say thank you once again for all the help and advice - it may not look like I got far, but that would be to underestimate the value of what I've learned: I'd not actually changed a Kadee coupling or kit-built an Athearn HO freight car before.  My US modelling will continue, albeit at a more leisurely pace, and on narrow gauge tracks.  Thanks again to all, Keith.

 

Edited March 3 by Keith Addenbrooke