MikeHohn

Differences largely in horsepower with subtle body differences as mentioned. GP7 1,500hp; GP9 1,750hp; GP18 1,800hp.

Did you know that many of our fellow-modellers in the U.S. think the GP30's rather ugly? Because of that cowl over the cab. People are funny, aren't they? I find them interesting and easily identified. At least I don't have to consult some authority like when distinguishing between a GP7 and GP9. Mike

Every few years an article appears in the hobby press illustrating hypothetical models of crossings, but they seem rather contrived in most cases. The geometry of fully functional crossings makes them impractical for reasons of space and operational aspect unless they cross at a very acute angle, and even then I'm not so sure.

What an interesting question!! A very small minority of US railroads ran 'left-handed' such as the Chigago and North Western: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_and_North_Western_Transportation_Company The C&NW was also famous for its "pink lady" ballast, a pink quartzite. N.A. railroads varied in the signal systems they used, but that's not track plan, of course. Multitrack mainlines were more characteristic of the northeastern US than western lines because of the heavy traffic. More sophisticated signaling changed that as the 20th century progressed. Much of what distinguishes the individual railroads was the architecture, reflecting the region, era, and purposeful design of standard depots and other structures. For instance, the pagoda style depots of the Delaware, Lackawanna and western: http://gold.mylargescale.com/scottychaos/DLW-Pagoda/index.html Or the southwest style of the Santa Fe: http://bartlesvillelocomotive.org/45-2/ Mike

Very effective photography. I especially like the head-on photo. Railroad cops were probably not very happy about your blatant trespassing. Mike

I hear ya!

I have an MDC Alco RS-3 that I've been running on our club layout for a couple of decades. It has an Athearn drive, but I replaced the wheel sets and installed a decoder. It runs nice and slow on almost any condition of track. Old reliable. But it makes so much noise with all that knashing of gears that one member asked if it had a sound unit. I should have replied in the affirmative, that he was hearing authentic Alco sound. I'm a truthful guy though. Mike

1. Better without the roundy-round, unless you really need it. Would have really compromised the appearance of an actual rr. I know one modeller who liked to run a train around as he worked on projects; I guess it put him in the right mood. But he had a large layout in a basement. Some feel a continuous loop is useful during an open house so that trains can run while the owner give full attention to visitors. One solution there is to thrust a throttle in the hand of a trusted visitor and let them run for a while. 2. Your view-block industry at the end of staging appears to hide more active track than staging. Why not shove the main building to the left, open the back to leave room for staging tracks to enter, and hide it with building parallel to staging tracks?

Remember, though, diamonds are forever. Once you spike it down, there's no tearing it up!

Good use of space indeed. You could change that last switch before going into staging from a LH to RH to avoid the mainline taking the divergent route through a switch. Although, I am not sure how important that issue is in an urban switching setting where running is slow in any case. Mike

I obviously spent too much time today reading a paper about optimizing a fleet of driverless on-demand cars in cities. Encountered some math symbols I was not taught in school. Interesting nevertheless. Anyway, Andy is right about the main route through a turnout was usually the straight path. In those situations where the main route was the diverging path, track engineers had a way of tucking the diverging route point into the stock rail to 'protect it.' If I recall, there would be a little kink worked in, basically a subtle curve in the 'straight' stock rail before the diverging point to transition into the curve. Hard to describe. Mike

Here's an equation for model rail satisfaction: R = L / (S + T + U) where: R = how railroady things look L = average length of sidings S = number of turnouts T = number of three-way turnouts U = number of fancy non-prototypical trackwork spots

Truly a great job on the coal stage, and in fact on the whole scene. Looking forward to seeing more. Even in an incomplete stage it's very evocative due to careful work and the eye of an artist.

Impressive. I think whole magazine articles have been written from what you did and posted within an hour's time. Perhaps a slight exaggeration, but you get the point. M

I am thinking now about how you are going to operate on your layout. I assume you will have a track dedicated to interchange with the outside world. Perhaps the one that runs under the overpass? For some reason--maybe the 'locomotive service' arrow that points to nothing on the new plan--I am reminded of a short line in the northeast that stores its locomotive in a a building on one of its customer's property. Meanwhile, the number 8s look great. Mike

As a friend of mine would say, the new arrangement "looks more railroady."

You might have already removed some track , but to me the problem seems in part to be that you shortened the whole yard compared to the track plan you posted on May 11. The whole arrangement looks foreshortened, but that could be the effect of the photos. Can you move the yard throat to lengthen the tracks? Mike

I like the nice neat work on the baseboards. They will be less distracting than a rough job. Mike

Trade the inertia of staying with HO for the momentum of O-scale equipment moving slowly down the track? Mike

Thank you. Once I actually read what was in front of me, I figured out how to search this thread. Indeed, lots of information over recent months. Now the only excuse I have is the danger of being diverted from my current efforts in teaching myself resin casting. I'd take a break but all the materials have a shelf life of a few months and I hate waste! Meanwhile, the fire cement will give me a good option from my usual practice of casting slabs of plaster and carving stones. Mike

My English-English dictionary tells me that 'fire cement' in the UK is probably 'furnace cement' in the US, so I might give this a try. I assume you make a new master and mold for each wall of a structure. The name of the product sounds like it is hard and brittle when set up, although you wrote about it possibly deteriorating over time under some conditions. Is that because it is being formed into thin sheets? Can it be worked at all? Mike

You've answered my question how to model these: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/ba/Seneca_Glass_Company_Factory_ovens.jpg Not sure doing it course-by-course or several courses at a time is not the answer I was hoping for, but at least now I know. Mike

Had lots of those 'window-opening-cut-out' bits in a box, many twenty years old. Used some under little puddles of glue, but how many does one need? Couple of weeks ago, finally threw them out; defenestration?

Gorgeous photography with shadows and all.