2996 Victor

Dear Prof, many thanks for your kind words of welcome and for your replies - I'm really not sure where to begin! Firstly, I think I must confess to my schoolboy error at the outset. You're of course absolutely right - the Greenbrier Branch was Chesapeake & Ohio, not Baltimore & Ohio! Geographical confusion brought about by railroad overload - at least, that's my excuse and I'm sticking to it. I think I'll have to find myself a copy of On Beyond Leatherbark - it sounds like a mine of information and just what I need. I don't expect I'd ever have discovered it if you hadn't mentioned it. From what you've said, OBL seems to discuss in detail the workings of the Cass railroad, and the interaction between it and the adjacent main line companies. Useful to know that their boxcars may have ventured onto the Cass with stores etc. I haven't checked out the rest of your reading list yet, but I will over the next couple of days. I also had a brief flick through the Cass & Mower Logging Trains vid - I'll watch it properly when I've got a bit more spare time. I did see some interesting period footage of the line when it was working, i.e. before restoration, which is fascinating for an Englishman - nothing like it happened this side of the Pond. Especially the loaders! As regards the rolling stock itself, thanks for your pointers. Over here, most of the railway companies built their own rolling stock to their own designs; if they contracted out to private builders, the private builders would still build to the railway company's designs. Seeing box cars that are largely the same in different road's liveries needs a change of mindset - it makes me think of the bad old days in UK modelling, when one (usually fictional!) model could be found in half-a-dozen different railway company liveries. It sounds like my Bobber Caboose could be a case in point - ah well, c'est la vie! Perhaps I could turn it into the obligatory wreck at the bottom of a ravine I do like the idea of the wooden hoppers carrying coal - I've had a look at the Tichy Train Group models - it'd be good to know if they're of a specific prototype - as they look the part, plus the Red Ball kits I've bought look almost too precious to assemble - they're almost antiques! I'm intrigued to know what "hungry boards" are!!! As for the logging flats, again I'd be keen to find something appropriate for my projected timeframe, so if the Tichy 40-footers could be "back-dated" that'd be ideal. I just need some suitable data to work from..... I see that Kadee do skeleton logging cars and disconnected logging cars - any thoughts? Thanks for the clarification on through-running - if I'm understanding you correctly, there would be some through-running of rolling stock to save trans-shipment of cargo, but it wouldn't be trans-continental. So presumably, and assuming my projected high-level track is operated by A N Other main-line company, it would be reasonable even in 1910 to see the odd car from another company in a train formation? With the Bitter Creek rolling stock, my thinking was that some of their later box cars or flats might have survived in increasingly run-down condition into my timeframe. Rio Grande, as you say, are mostly narrow gauge, although they do some standard gauge cars. But given what you were saying about through-running, I think that perhaps their home roads would be too far west. Good to know the Shay is appropriate. Unfortunately, its not new so I'll give it a good check over when it arrives. It looks to be in good condition, so fingers crossed all will be well. Track will be the next thing to think about, I suppose. I'll want to go with something appropriate of course, which would seem to be fairly lightweight. I'm not good with a soldering iron - I can make electrical connections but that's about it. I've had a look at Proto87's track, and today came across Central Valley Models' track also. Thanks again for your excellent pointers - the reading list should keep me quiet for a while! And if I think of anything else to ask, be prepared! Best regards, Mark

Well, already I'm beginning to think that I've taken on more than I thought! I can see that there may be a slight change of focus with the projected layout, with the main line side of things being a little more prominent than I originally thought. As mentioned above, I'm a complete novice when it comes to US-outline rail roads, their working practices and of course rolling stock. It's already looking like I've chosen one of the most difficult eras to model using accurate rolling stock - typical! Maybe its because I'm in the UK, but finding suppliers of accurate models of 1880s-1910 cars is proving surprisingly difficult so far. Many hours of internet smurfing over the last few weeks has thrown up but a handful, so far the most promising of which appear to be these: Bitter Creek Models at http://www.bittercreekmodels.com/index.html and Rio Grande Models at http://www.riograndemodels.com/index.htm Which brings me back to my current lack of knowledge regarding interchange of cars between different roads. Quite simply, did it occur? And did US railroad companies buy their rolling stock from commercial constructors, in which case it would be reasonable to see identical cars in different liveries. Much more research is going to be needed, I know, but any advice would be gratefully received! Cheers, Mark

Hi Neil, many thanks - I'll stick with the kit wheels. I hadn't realised they were Romfords - I guess they'll be fine with the PECO Code 55 N Gauge track I'm thinking of using. Best regards, Mark

Why the Greenbrier & Elk River Rail Road in HO? I really don't know! Having grown up with Swindon and the Great Western Railway, this project is going to be a huge departure for me! And it couldn't be much more different to my other current project, based on Derbyshire's Ashover Light Railway. Inspiration comes from unlikely sources. Over the years, I've bought the odd copy of Model Railroader, and a recent visit sans children to PECO found me staring at their Coldfoot Creek O-scale narrow gauge layout. I'm not sure how I arrived at the G&ERR, but it was probably via a google search of logging railroads. Videos of the Cass Scenic RR and their amazing Shays were a huge catalyst. So, how far have I progressed? Not far, it must be said. Only a vague desire for a Shay. And a trestle. And a line passing under said trestle. I've sketched up what seems to be a decent enough track layout, it includes a locomotive shed and basic facilities and a "junk" siding, three sidings for sorting log cars which will be a 5,3,3 Inglenook for some shunting fun, and a "through" line ostensibly from logging camp to lumber mill. It has an elevated line crossing the "through" line and a river on the trestle. I haven't decided yet whether the elevated line is part of the same route gaining height via a switchback or a different through-running road such as the Western Maryland. I've tentatively set the time period at around 1910,when the G&ERR became the Greenbrier, Cheat and Elk Rail Road. As I'm a complete novice as far as American rail roads are concerned, this is a huge learning curve. My biggest issue at this early stage is getting an understanding of operational practices. The G&ERR/GC&ERR was a logging railroad, so although G&ERR/GC&ERR connected to the [edit] Chesapeake & Ohio's Greenbrier branch, I need to understand whether other types of car (i.e. not logging cars) from other rail roads would have found their way onto it's metals, for example taking supplies to the logging camps/towns like Spruce. And if so, whose cars they were and what they looked like! Not easy, I fear! If through working didn't occur, then the elevated line will belong to the Western Maryland (which it may anyway!), which will give me the opportunity to run "normal" freight and passenger trains for a bit of variety. I also need to get an understanding of US freight car design practices up to my 1910 time frame. For instance, did US rail road companies primarily buy rolling stock from private companies, or did they build their own? I've taken the plunge and bought a couple of items of stock, firstly a Bachmann G&ERR bobber caboose, and secondly a vintage Red Ball Models kit for two wooden hoppers. I'd like to know how accurate the Bachmann caboose is, and whether the hoppers are in any way appropriate. And I'm going to need a whole lot of logging cars, so I need to know whether the commercially available items are appropriate or could be modified to suit. There should also be a Bachmann 3-truck Shay crossing the Atlantic soon.....I hope its an accurate model! Anyway, that's all for now. More updates to follow when something actually happens..... Cheers, Mark

Superb work! Great inspiration as I'm just starting planning a US-outline railroad, myself, even though it'll be a different era and locale. Hope the health is improving! Cheers, Mark

A little more progress: Both wagon bodies are now sprayed, interiors painted, and one repaired plank painted in a slightly different shade. When your entire fleet of goods stock consists of basically the same type of wagon (there will be one Class E!), a few small touches add a little bit of welcome variety..... Ironwork and solebars are still to picked out in black (read: dark grey), and weathering will follow transfers. These two will probably have loads of crushed stone, but the real things seem to have carried almost anything, so again there's some scope for a bit of variation in how the finished fleet will look. Cheers for now!

A few photos of the first Dundas WD Class D bogie wagon in progress, with the 3D-printed version alongside for comparison: It's slightly unfair on the 3D-printed version as it's unpainted, but details such as bolt-heads are very vague compared to the injection moulded kit. I'm not really sure what I was expecting, but other 3D-printed models I've seen (such as Coastline Models) seem really crisp in comparison. A quick measure also shows some issues. The ALR's ex-WD bogie wagons measure 17' 8-1/2" by 4' 9-1/2" internally, which scales at 70.833mm by 19.166mm. The models, which were measured with a scale rule so this won't be terribly accurate, are: Dundas kit: 68.5mm by 19.0mm. 3D-print: 69.0mm by 16.0mm. Of course I realise that at 4mm/1ft scale that you're not going to manage dead-scale thickness of the body-work planking, so I think that the lengths are acceptable. However, the width of the 3D-printed model is a scale nine inches too narrow. Onward and upward! Cheers for now, Mark

Can anyone recommend some "finescale" OO9 rolling stock wheel sets?

Having had an excellent weekend away with my better half in Lynton, I spent this afternoon starting assembly of two Dundas WD Class D bogie wagon kits. The first one is pretty advanced, having assembled the body and the bogies and added a little extra detail to the brake operating gear. The body has had a several mist coats of light grey automotive cellulose paint. The second has got as far as having the body assembled. These kits have excellent detail and are crisply moulded, the only downside is there is quite a bit of flash on the bogie mouldings, but it cleans up quite nicely with a little patience. Comparing the Dundas kits to the 3D-printed versions shows that the kits are far, far superior. I knew they'd be better, but overall I was frankly a little disappointed by the level of detail on the 3D-printed models. I'll use them, but I'll be sticking with the Dundas kits from now on. I'll try and get a couple of photos tomorrow. Oh, and we spent a very pleasant couple of hours at the Lynton & Barnstaple Railway! Cheers, Mark

Hi all, A small update in that there arrived yesterday via a large brown van a small cardboard box containing two 3D-printed War Department bogie wagons and some extra bogies. Being about to set off for a weekend away, I did no more than briefly look at them in their plastic bags. Although encouraging, closer examination will be undertaken upon our return! Cheers, Mark

Hi Colin, many thanks for your post! I think you're probably right about sticking with PECO track. I know PECO quality is good - my Dad and I used Streamline OO track years ago - my "wavering" stems from simply wanting things to look more "right". Of course, I realise that OO9 "scales" at 2'3" gauge, which is already wrong for the Ashover Light Railway, but I'd like the rails to look as light-weight as possible. That's why I initially planned to use Streamline Code 55 and disguise the sleepering under ballast. The alternative is their OO9 "mainline" track, which has better sleepering but the rail is heavier and of course the range doesn't include the tandem 3-way point. So, to be practical and hope to have something running before I'm too much older, I think PECO track is the route I'll take. As with everything, there are compromises to be made! The N gauge layout, which will be a joint project with Number Two Son, will be a separate project, and that's going to be PECO N Streamline anyway! Cheers, Mark

Sadly, no actual progress to report as my imagination has been tugged in several different directions recently, and a couple of other schemes are forming which may or may not come to fruition alongside "Ashover"! I have, however, decided to supplement my selection of wagon kits (2!) with a couple of 3D printed examples which are currently on order. I really need to get the kits built so that I can make a comparison between the two media. Should be interesting! I'm also having second thoughts about my track. PECO is the obvious selection for ease of use, and the N Gauge Code 55 I had intended to use is of a reasonable rail profile. The sleepers are the issue, of course, although I'd intended to disguise them under ballast. On the real ALR track the sleepers are ballast-deep but the tops are visible. If only PECO had decided to make their 009 "main line" track with Code 55 rail.....Plus, of course, the point blades are bit, somehow obvious. Ho hum! Which has led me to wonder if there are any other options available, i.e. a fine rail (Code 55 or lower) with prototypical-looking sleepers, which won't be too time-consuming to build and lay. I suspect not.....

Can't remember what livery she was carrying in 1988 when I visited the Tal-y-llyn, but I remember being thrilled that Dolgoch was our locomotive! I'm certain it wasn't "Mushy Pea Green" though! Oh dear, oh dear! Why would you? Sorry if that's a trifle controversial......

Apologies for hijacking this thread, at least in part! I'm just embarking on an 009 layout and, as it will be primarily an Inglenook puzzle, I'm thinking about couplings. I've always had an abhorrance for those enormous tension-lock monstrosities, so something as unobtrusive as possible has always been a key factor in all my plans and failed projects. However, in a layout where shunting is the key, I'm going to need an automatic rather than the good old three link (frustratingly ever-lengthening sight doesn't help, either!). I have to say that the Greenwich couplings seem like an excellent compromise, so I'm going to give them a shot, even though it'll be a while before I can report back! Thanks, everyone, for the suggestions! Cheers, Mark

Hi Keith, Yes, absolutely! And in crimson! But just the one, I think - need to save some pennies, now Cheers, Mark

Having been a forum member for a couple of years, I'm almost ashamed to say this my first post! I've been interested in railways and model-making for as long as I can remember. Any number of ideas and paper schemes have come and gone between juvenile part-built layouts and the here-and-now, but it was my young Number 2 Son's recent request for an N Gauge layout at my house has been the necessary catalyst to actually get some worthwhile modelling done. But what, you may ask, has N Gauge got to do with the ALR in 009? Well, my fiancee lives in Derbyshire, not far from the ALR, and it struck a chord with me. I find narrow gauge fascinating, but, and with all due respect for those who follow the freelance path, I prefer schemes which spring off prototype lines in the way that many branch-line termini are fictional spurs off of main-line companies. So here is my nascent scheme for the terminus of a fictional twig off of the Ashover Light Railway, as yet un-named: The planning process, as with all my layout ideas, started with a pencil sketch. This time, I progressed to Peco point templates and rectangular outlines of the ALR's ex-WD bogie wagons. It won't be too hard to recognise it as basically an Inglenook puzzle. The addition of a kick-back siding and a small platform and shelter are there to add a bit of variety to movements. There isn't a loop, I'm assuming that instead there's a triangular junction just off-stage to the left like the one at the real Ashover Butts. The track work will all be Peco code 55 as I want it to look as light as possible, but will be heavily ballasted to disguise its origins. The 2D plan/mock-up is basically three sheets of A4 taped together. The baseboard is probably going to be 1m long x 0.3m (or 0.4m) wide to allow for some scenery at the end and along the front and back, and there will be a simple detachable fiddle yard at the left hand end. Just for comparison purposes, the photo below shows a standard gauge 4mm scale Cambrian Railways two-plank drop-side wagon: I suppose if nothing else, it proves that 009 isn't necessarily smaller than OO/EM/P4!!! So that's it so far. Don't hold your breath, as progress will be erratic, but hopefully not too slow! And I've got two Dundas 009 WD bogie wagons to be getting on with..... Cheers for now! Mark