Doing a small US layout

[JZ]

I have decided to do a small US outline layout in N. A shortline using s/h loco's and stock. 1st question is, should I use code 80 track to represent the heavier rail used, or will 55 suffice.

 

 

More questions to come as the project continues.

[298]

Unless you have a specific prototype in mind, a shortline will probably still use lighter rail so i'd go for code 55.

[Patrick]

Micro Engineering also do code 40 rail if you wanted something even lighter for sidings, etc.

[JZ]

OK. I think I will use code 55. I don't have a specific prototype in mind, just a sprinkling of ideas from some pictures I saw. Period will be '60s/'70s. Loco's will have the old road name painted out but still retain the old livery. I might have a small steam loco heavily weathered, but still available if needed. Setting will probably be somewhere in the midwest, so main trade will be grain and general freight. Was there much livestock still transported by rail in this period?

[298]

Is Micro Engineering code 40 easily available over here...? I'd had a quick look at the Model Junction website and only seen Peco code 55 listed, nothing lighter.

 

BTW, welcome to the dark side...!!

[BR60103]

Was there much livestock still transported by rail in this period?

 

In the 70s and even the 80s there was a cattle destination in downtown Toronto by the tracks. I think the major facility was cleared out in the 70s.

[Barry Ten]

I'd go for nothing heavier than Code 55 and would suggest investigating the Atlas range as well as the Peco variety. The Atlas stuff looks a bit better, I think, and the geometry of the points is more accurate for American trackage. Gaugemaster stock some of the range, although I'm not sure if they do the whole lot.

[DavidB-AU]

As has been pointed out numerous times, Peco code 55 is not real code 55. Atlas and Micro Engineering code 55 are the real deal and well suited to American prototype.

 

Cheers

David

[Glorious NSE]

Setting will probably be somewhere in the midwest, so main trade will be grain and general freight. Was there much livestock still transported by rail in this period?

 

At the start of the 60s quite a bit (to the extent that some railroads were building new or rebuilding old freightcars to handle the traffic, Northern Pacific had some awesome 86' high cube stock cars!) - but the amount of livestock traffic plummeted during the late 60s and early 70s and there was virtually none on most US railroads by the mid 70s.

 

As with most things though you can find exceptions to prove the rule, the UP had what seems to have been a regular block train well into the 80s, maybe later.

 

And you can certainly assume that the infrastructure related to it would not dissapear overnight, especially at rural locations, the change seems to have been a fading away of the traffic not a cessation so the facilities would have been left either until they were sure there was no more traffic, or until something more important needed the site.

[JZ]

I'd go for nothing heavier than Code 55 and would suggest investigating the Atlas range as well as the Peco variety. The Atlas stuff looks a bit better, I think, and the geometry of the points is more accurate for American trackage. Gaugemaster stock some of the range, although I'm not sure if they do the whole lot.

 

Thanks for that Al. TBH it was your GA&E that inspired me to do it.

[Barry Ten]

Thanks for that Al. TBH it was your GA&E that inspired me to do it.

 

Cheers! I'm happy enough with the Peco track but if was starting afresh, I'd probably go Atlas. At

least Peco is easy to get hold, and pretty user-friendly.

[JZ]

Bearing in mind the period(1960-70) and type of line (run down,with hand-me-down loco's). What motive power should I be looking for. I have in mind a Fairbanks-Morse loco of some description, an F-A and something else. I may well have a steam loco that has been kept for when one of the diesels is u/s.

Also what are the better brands when it comes to looking for these. Not worried about DCC compatability, though I may end up going down that route.

[Adrian Wintle]

By the '60s to '70s, most shortlines would likely be running first-gen hood units (think GP7/9 or RS2/3) or switchers (SW900/1200). Unlikely to be any steam due to maintenance/crewing/infrastructure costs (you can fuel a diesel from a small tank truck - even the majors did this).

 

For brands, Atlas and Kato are the best bets, LifeLike (Walthers) is decent, but not so likely to be DCC ready if you choose to go that route.

 

I'd suggest looking at Spookshow's locomotive encyclopedia for reviews of just about everything ever made for NA N-scale:

http://www.visi.com/~spookshow/trainstuff.html

 

Another thing to keep in mind is that a lot of older locos (and rolling stock, but it is relatively easy to deal with) won't run on Atlas C55 due to the flange depth.

 

Adrian

[JZ]

By the '60s to '70s, most shortlines would likely be running first-gen hood units (think GP7/9 or RS2/3) or switchers (SW900/1200). Unlikely to be any steam due to maintenance/crewing/infrastructure costs (you can fuel a diesel from a small tank truck - even the majors did this).

 

For brands, Atlas and Kato are the best bets, LifeLike (Walthers) is decent, but not so likely to be DCC ready if you choose to go that route.

 

I'd suggest looking at Spookshow's locomotive encyclopedia for reviews of just about everything ever made for NA N-scale:

http://www.visi.com/...trainstuff.html

 

Another thing to keep in mind is that a lot of older locos (and rolling stock, but it is relatively easy to deal with) won't run on Atlas C55 due to the flange depth.

 

Adrian

 

Thanks for that link Adrian. I can keep an eye on getting the right stock for the period now. Looks like I may well leave the steam and get a fourth diesel.

[Barry Ten]

As Adrian says, Lifelike (now under Walthers branding) is not always the easiest to convert to DCC. The models

themselves are generally very good, in fact my Lifelike stuff runs as well as anything I've owned, especially impressive

considering they are at the cheaper end of the market.

 

If you like Fairbanks Morse stuff, I'm a particular fan of the Atlas H16-44s. These are great running models,

very compact and available in a variety of road names. As with all recent Atlas stuff, if you decide to go DCC

later, drop-in decoder conversion is very simple.

 

Personally I wish I'd opted for DCC from the outset. I am now in the expensive business of retro-fitting my

entire fleet. However, if you're fairly certain of just doing a small layout, there's no real drawback in DC; the

stuff runs very well on both.

[Glorious NSE]

I think the first thing to get settled is are you talking a shortline (if you like an independantly operated branch line) or a branch line owned by a larger company, obviously if the latter then you can research what the real company would have operated, there's lots of resources out there for most of them.

 

If the answer is a shortline then at the start of your period that might mean a line that's always been independant and will have bought it's own new diesels as it saw fit, probably not all in one go!

 

Towards the end of that period there were lots of "new" shortlines formed as the big railroads sold (or rented) lines they saw as unprofitable, power wise these railroads could have anything from "cast offs" from the former owner thrown in with the sale (most likely to be the loco's the divesting railroad didn't really want however!) or on some lines maybe something nice, shiny and factory fresh from EMD like an SW1500, MP15 or a GP38.

 

The character of the two could be quite different in terms of presentation, the "new" shortlines had no real history so bright brash 1970s paintschemes for loco's (or a quick patch out of the former owners colours!) were all the rage. The older ones could be somewhat more subdued looks wise having an established identity that's existed for years.

 

Even the big railroads had "quirky" power well into the 70s, so no reason why yours (whether it's a big railroad or small) couldn't have the FM (some class 1s such as Milwaukee and CNW were running FMs well into the 70s) - although the inevitable standardisation of bits leant towards standardising on power over this timescale, as Adrian says you shouldn't go far wrong basing almost any fleet on early geeps, alcos or switchers!

 

Some shortlines did keep the occasional steamer about although increasingly rare through the period you're talking of modelling, there was a shortline in Southern Illinois that ran revenue earning steam freights into the 80s (including piggyback traffic!) although my impression is it was increasingly for the novelty value. Some shortlines ran excursions to boost income which might be a good excuse for one. Class 1 steam lingered till 1960 in a few places so a few years later for smaller railroads isn't that much of a stretch, but no steam has to be the more credible situation.

 

Having said that one of the best things about US railroads is that you can justify most things if you look hard enough for a prototype! There's another Illinois based shortline that's running it's trains with a beautiful matching set of F units....in 2010! You couldn't make it up really.

http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=318098&nseq=9

 

 

[JZ]

Next question and before I ask it, I would like to thank all that have contributed so far.

 

Couplings. Now I have picked up a few items of rolling stock from ebay. The Atlas stuff has Accumate couplers, while the Life-Like and AHM has standard Rapido couplings. I have never liked the Rapido, so it looks like either Micro-Trains or Atlas Accumate. What have others found that suited them. And, how easy is it to convert ?

 

And one more thing. I do like the look of the Polybulk style grain cars, but am I right in saying that these didn't appear until the '70s ?

[Nile]

ACF center flow cars (cylindrical bodied covered hoppers) first appeared in 1962.The first ones looked more like tank cars than hoppers.By 1964 they where less cylindrical and looked like the curve sided covered hoppers you see today.

I assume that's what you meant.

[JZ]

ACF center flow cars (cylindrical bodied covered hoppers) first appeared in 1962.The first ones looked more like tank cars than hoppers.By 1964 they where less cylindrical and looked like the curve sided covered hoppers you see today.

I assume that's what you meant.

 

I'm pretty sure we are talking about the same thing.

[highpeak]

I'm assuming your layout would be loading grain rather than receiving it. Bear in mind that in your chosen time period, especially the earlier part of it, an awful lot of grain moved in boxcars. Even as the covered hopper made inroads into grain traffic, box cars were still commonly used. There's an interesting discussion in this thread http://www.modelgeeks.com/Uwe/Forum.aspx/rail/2044/grain-elevators

[Mike Boucher]

Next question and before I ask it, I would like to thank all that have contributed so far.

 

Couplings. Now I have picked up a few items of rolling stock from ebay. The Atlas stuff has Accumate couplers, while the Life-Like and AHM has standard Rapido couplings. I have never liked the Rapido, so it looks like either Micro-Trains or Atlas Accumate. What have others found that suited them. And, how easy is it to convert ?

 

And one more thing. I do like the look of the Polybulk style grain cars, but am I right in saying that these didn't appear until the '70s ?

 

Personally, I try to put Micro-Trains couplers on everything, but that's been the case since before Atlas introduced their stuff, so those few cars I have which accumate I've just kept them on it and they seem to work OK together.

 

As for "how easy to convert", that's a hard question to answer. On some cars, easy, on others, not so much... But, that's because when I convert from Rapido to M-T, I switch from truck mounted to body mounted. That involves cutting the rapido coupler off the truck, and drilling/tapping a 00-90 hole in the bottom of the car. Then you've got the challenge of assembling the couplers themselves, which can be a pain getting that little spring in the appropriate place and not having it fly off to parts unknown. (Make a simple jig out of styrene to help there). I also use an old soldering iron tip to "weld" the coupler together, as I've never found a good glue for the plastic the coupler body is made out of, and I would be worried about accidentally gluing the coupler itself to the body.

 

As for getting them mounted, some cars have metal frames, which makes it a little harder. Some cars (like the hoppers you mention) are harder since the ends are open, so there's not a lot of material there to hold the screw, and you've got to cut the screw short so it isn't brutally obvious. In this case, a little ACC on the top of the coupler body helps.

 

But, if you don't want to body mount, then I would suggest you just spend some extra cash and buy M-T trucks with the couplers already assembled on them.

 

BTW - M-T used to have something on their site which showed the approriate couplers for various locos/cars etc. Is that still there?

[Nile]

A suggestion for a loco for a short line (maybe as backup power) - a GE 44 ton.

44ton

Or something a bit bigger,an ALCO RS1.

RS1

[Barry Ten]

Personally, I try to put Micro-Trains couplers on everything, but that's been the case since before Atlas introduced their stuff, so those few cars I have which accumate I've just kept them on it and they seem to work OK together.

 

 

I don't really get on with the Accumates and am slowly replacing all Atlas stuff with MTL couplers. Apart from the fact that only the MTL ones seem to work reliably with under-track magnets, I get far more derailments and random uncoupling incidents with Atlas trucks than I do with MTL. Whether that's due to the couplings, or some other factor, I don't know. The derailments often seem to be due to trip pins being too low, catching on point frogs.

 

One thing that's dawning on me is that not many American modellers seem to be that bothered about the hands-off uncoupling and delayed action features of the MTL couplers, whereas I'm still quite keen to have hands-off operation wherever possible.

 

Forgot to say: I don't generally try and convert just the coupler, unless it's a tender or something where a truck swap isn't easy. Generally I get rid of Rapidos by swapping the entire truck, using the MTL bulk-packs. Sometimes a little fiddling is necessary to get the ride height correct, or go from one mounting system to another, but it's nothing a few minutes with a drill and file won't fix.

[k-59]

Covered Hopper like this one (Intermountain) were common by the late 60's but many 40ft boxcars still were used in grain traffic

 

Motive power could be any first gen diesel, bought new or second hand. Cab units for the most part wouldn't show up on this kind of work but there are notable exceptions such as the D&H and WAG.

 

Track go with Atlas code 55, i model much the same setting as you are thinking of and the atlas track looks great for it.

 

Couplers i use Accumates and MTL's together with no problem, however i do not use magnetic uncoupling. It should be noted the Bachman 44 tonner which is on the whole a great locomotive does not come with magnetic couplers.

[BR60103]

To keep the spring from disappearing, run a foot or so of thread down the middle. When the coupling is assembled it can be drawn out.

The trip pins need to be adjusted. Kadee make a gauge, but a little bit of thin brass will do. I often just look at it from the side and make sure there's daylight above the rails. The coupling has to be set to the right height first!