CVSNE

Hi Kathy, 

I'd be lying if I told you I wasn't disappointed by your layouts pending doom, but I completely understand the whys and wherefores. 

We downsized a few years ago - of course when we downsize it means there's a 15 x 30 single deck layout .... no 60-footers for me!!!

Seriously, while a number of folks immediately honed in on urban switching layouts in HO, NYC waterfront themes are in danger of being done to death, at least over here. 

If I was going to take your approach of very small projects - I had to use a conversion app to figure out how big (small!) 900 mm is - I'd go with something in 1/4" or S scale. A real modeling project that you'd be able to detail to your heart's content and then really see when it's completed. 

In any event, best of luck. And, if you're ever in the Washington DC area be sure to let me know!

Marty

Allow me to clarify:

1. A bunch of us in the Washington DC area, including me, consider Lance a good friend.

2. It's certainly good-natured ribbing... and he gives as good as he gets. But we do engage in "serious" modeling discussions aimed at raising the bar amongst ourselves.*

3. While I don't necessarily agree with everything he says not only is Lance a friend, I'm a fan of his modeling and have been for years.

Clear 'nough?

(*Lance talked about this very thing on "A Modelers Life" podcast episode in which he was interviewed...as well as how exciting his prototype railway engineering work was <not>)

Love it when you guys say things like this...

Gives us ample ammo to give Lance a never-ending stream of "sh$#t !...

Altas is changing the shape and configuration of the exhaust stack on the top of the long hood - has nothing to do with the air filter intakes on the side -

In the photo see the large openings covered with wire grates to the left of the "N" and above and below the "ERN" in the road name?

Those openings are the chief spotting feature of a late model RS-3, which railfans dubbed the "Phase III". Other than some brass imports and a Stewart shell no one has made a Phase III RS-3 in HO scale.

Don't know if you care or not, but you asked.

The RS-3 was the first model that could be considered a "new generation" model when they were released in the early-mid 1980s. After begging for Alcos for years we finally got an out-of-the-box RS-3 from not one, but three manufacturers - Atlas, Stewart, and Model Die Casting.

All three have become somewhat long in the tooth and frankly each of the three of them have some issues - a couple of which don't reveal themselves until you try to decal certain sections of the model. Shouldn't be an issue with N&Ws paint scheme.

If I remember correctly N&W's RS-3s were all Phase III versions of the locomotive - which has a completely different air filter intake arrangement on the sides of the long hood. The only commercial HO model made with that arrangement was the old Stewart shell. I understand there's a "state of the art" RS-3  coming that will hopefully correct all the issues and at long last give us a decent Phase III RS-3.

Marty

N&W is one of those neat railroads that I get tempted to model from time to time.

I had a great time seeing and hearing no. 611 this past weekend - she spent the weekend running excursions on the Norfolk-Southern "B" line between Manassas Junction and Front Royal.

Not that there isn't a million photos of the thing on the internet at this point, but I posted some on my blog (for some reason I'm having trouble uploading pictures here from work) 

Marty

That's what I figured. the East Rail layout was fun to switch. I haven't been over to see the Downtown Spur in a while - it's hard to find time to drive across the river to Maryland - but I need to get over there at some point.

Of course I don't really understand the apparent obsession you Brits on here seem to have with (1) Big western modern railroading and (2) single track spurs. The former is difficult enough to harness in a 2500 square foot layout, let alone a small shelf (though in a space not much different than yours, and much smaller than Lance's Downtown Spur. Pelle manages to capture the essence of UP in the Mojave - no small feat!)

Yes the Downtown Spur has held Lance's interest for a while now, but when he was first designing it he told me he thought of it as a 6-8 year project.  Once he reached that threshold he'd do something else if the mood struck. He's apparently doing just that - building an LAJ layout in a spare bedroom.

Although our layouts are very different form factors they occupy about the same square footage. (I chuckle every time I read about how Lance is a one-trick pony with a small "shunty planks" his only accomplishment. He built a basement filling N scale layout, and then followed that up with a basement filling HO one. But everyone seems to think the Downtown Spur is some sort of SMALL layout - it isn't!)

What's all this mean? Perhaps, just perhaps an American "switching layout" or spur or whatever you guys call these things is just not right for your interests? Are you attempting to swallow the magic "model railroad nirvana" pill, and find it's taking more than a spoon full of sugar (or glass of something else entirely) to choke it down?

As others have said, determine whatever it is that fires you up about railroading -every continent/railway/region/era offers something appealing - identify what those things are for you. From what I can tell from this and other threads you've authored the "micro-modeling" doesn't fire you up much. The challenge you face is to identify what that is.

Of course, you could also just have a case of a modeling disease known around these parts as "The blahs." I had them for a while this winter - instead I built a sailing ship model for the family room.

Good luck!

Marty

I sometimes think that a point is reached where inspiration is triggered by starting over and going right back to basics, cutting everything down to the absolute minimum of track and starting over - big complicated layouts are wonderful in theory, but become a millstone in practice, and that is where the loss of mojo is triggered - ask yourself why the Great Lord Mindheim has started over with a much more simple design - expandable, but initially simple( r ) Currently considering something based around Jack Hills New Castle layout, in HO but in Florida with minimum pointwork

Whoa, did I miss something?

Last time I saw Lance his Miami based switching layout was still filling his basement. He was talking about a LAJ west coast thing in a spare bedroom. Or did I miss something?

Layout is looking great!

I think rail soldered directly to PCB ties would be an ideal solution.

If you're even remotely interested in this era/region (US, 1855-75, South) I highly recommend you visit Bernie Kempinski's excellent US Military RR blog -

http://usmrr.blogspot.com

Bernie looked extensively at modeling the railroad in HO scale, but found the equipment availability and the like was actually worse in HO than in N scale or O scale. The Mantua General is almost unsalvagable if the goal is a reasonable scale model, and the AHM/IHC etc... 4-4-0s are actually too large - they're closer to S scale in many proportions.

He ended settling on O scale 2-rail (which in the US is five-foot gauge). He chose this primarily to utilize SMR Trains brass locomotives - which are pricey, but spectacular models.

Although I've played some small role in helping with the layout -  laying some track, making some trees and the like - the majority of the layout is his work. Other than the locomotives, and some of the figures, virtually everything is scratchbuilt. The blog is well worth a visit, and it will answer a lot of questions about North American railroading in that era.

And if anyone is in the Washington DC area and would like a visit to Bernie's (or my) layouts, please don't hesitate to ask. We host visitors all the time - the only price is you might end up posed in front of the layout on the blog.

Following a number of visits to the Atlanta area, I have been developing an interest in the local railroad network, particularly in its early days. Most railroads in the southern states were originally were built to a gauge of 5', with rail that, by today's standards, is very lightweight. Indeed, bridge rail was often used (U section) and there was a fair amount of  strap rail (metal strip secured to wooden longitudinals) still around at the time of the civil war.

As an experiment, and to try out some techniques,I have built a short section of track to see whether I could replicate the appropriate appearance. Using standard HO proportions, track should come out at 17.5mm gauge. The Confederate Railroads site

http://www.csa-railroads.com/

gives quite a lot of information on track standards and there are a number of photos which give a flavour of the way the prototype looked. 

04a n_a.jpg

At the recent Wells show, I was able to get a couple of lengths of code 40 rail (thanks to the guys on the 2mm FS stand) and Technohand of this parish kindly provided a roller gauge made to 17.5mm. The ties came from some EMGS ply and rivet material that I had in stock.  The spare track at the left hand end is to EM guage for comparison.

P1010022.JPG

P1010037.JPG

Comparing the end result to the contemporary pictures, the length of the sleepers is far too regular – and I suspect that many of the originals would have been rough hewn. The prototype also lacked neat round rivets, as the rail would have been spiked directly to the sleepers (I must remember to call them ties). Narrowing the ply strip to the correct width and hand drilling all the rivet holes was not habit forming: any more ambitious model would be better to use something like copper clad strip (or something similar), cut to the right width (about 2.6mm) and then cut roughly to the appropriate length. I am prepared to forego the spikes, which I suspect would limit the clearance of flanges on the code 40 rail.

P1010034.JPG

P1010024.JPG

The bogie (or should I say truck) in the pictures is off a Mantua General, but with replacement wheelsets. These seem to run quite happily on the code 40 rail and this answered my first question about the feasibility of this kind of track. The treads still look a little large, but the flanges of these (and some other reasonably fine US wheels) seem to come out at a thickness of about 0.5mm. Given a further 0.5mm rattle space between flange face and rail, this suggests a back to back dimension of around 16mm – in other words a sort of EM standards approach, rather than P4. My research on P87 standard wheels suggests that anything suitable for the General is going to be rather hard to find, so I suspect that, if I take this exploration any further, it will adopt this kind of “EM like” compromise. I will have to give this some thought before embarking on conversion of the rest of the loco.

If anyone else has been here, done it and already owns the T shirt, I should be delighted to hear from them. Also any suggestions (other than in questioning my sanity for wishing to do this in the first place) would be most welcome.  

Best wishes

Eric

 

Eric,

Stepping away from the linguistic issues for a moment and looking at your photos of you trackwork experiment I'm not sure what exactly the rail is sitting on but it doesn't really capture the appearance of the prototype (sorry). The rails should be sitting directly on the wood ties - no tie plates or any other type of fitting.

I've laid a bunch of five-foot gauge circa 1863 rail on Bernie Kempinski's Aquia Harbor - it's O scale so we can use spikes without an issue of the flanges bumping the ties.

Marty

I can't think of any instance were I, or someone else, would use "broad" as a synonym for "wide." We'd say the "river is wide," but not "the river is broad." Perhaps because "broad" is usually reserved to describe a woman?

But what do I know? I grew up learning to sail on the ThAmes River, (prounouced exactly how it's spelled, without a silent "h"!) which is pretty wide in spots - much wider than the "Tems" River in London.

Then I found this site (I don't know how authoritative it is) which seems to make a clear distinction between "wide" and "broad".  It uses "wide" to describe those lines laid to gauges between 4' 8.5" and 4' 10", which were designed to accommodate standard gauge wheels, but providing a degree of easement to avoid stressing track laid with strap rail. 4' 10" seems to have been about the limit to which you could widen the gauge and still have a reasonable probablilty of "standard" gauge wheels remaining on the track.       

The Pacific Rail Act of March 3, 1863 was, in part:

Since two foot and three foot railroads are described as "narrow gauge" it makes sense that any gauge exceeding 4'-81/2" after March of 1863 would be wider than the standard gauge and would therefore be known simply as "wide" gauge.

One of the reason this was chosen as the national standard in 1863 had more to do with who was, and wasn't, present in Congress at the time than anything else!

Please don't read my comments as criticism.

I for one, think the layout is kind of neat. Considering you're half a century and a ocean away from your prototype I think you're doing great with it. It's certainly recognizable to anyone familiar with the prototype.

I know it's far more legit looking than say, a British outline layout that I'd build.

Marty

that's weird.

of course, go back a little further and it's a ball signal there...

Thank you everyone for your kind comments.  The only other signal we have spotted on photos was on the southern approach about half a mile or so from the depot.  Not seen any other order boards at all although I have wondered how orders were passed to trains from the south that were continuing farther north.  Perhaps they just HAD to stop at Woodsville before proceeding to Wells River or St Johnsbury.  There may also have been signals for the junction of the Berlin Branch which in reality was a mile or two south of the station.  However, as we have the branch diverging directly from the station area then this isn't really of concern to us.

 

Thanks for the commment and for the offer Andy - but I think I've seen enough TO signals for the time being!

 

The switchstands are based on photos in the Morning Sun B&M book that covers the Woodsville area.  Geoff made a guesstimation of the heights etc. relative to people standing nearby etc.  We're not sure if these are a dedicated B&M design but they are different to the ones at Wells River which are CV (I think ?).

Wells River wouldn't have been CV - they could have been CP or (more likely) Barre & Chelsea (previously the Montpelier & Wells River.)

I was referring to the other blade in the lower quadrant train order board - they're were usually two blades - one for each direction of travel.

see this for an O scale model of a B&M lower quad.

http://www.crowriverproducts.com/AA-LowerQuadrantO30.htm

Very nice job scratchbuilding something as delicate and complicated as a lower quadrant train order board!

Are you going to be adding the other boards? (they may have been gone from the prototype at the time you're modeling, I'm not sure)

Marty

Last time a bunch of fellows in redcoats showed up to collect taxes it didn't end well .... for anybody!

Reminds me of Paul Dolkos old layout.

What are you using for the shingle material on the station walls? I think Paul ended up using something he sourced from the UK, but it may have been Holgate & Reynolds.

Marty

Wow, that certainly is a lot of track.

You've definitely captured the "spirit" of the G&D...although having lived on the Front Range I'm having trouble equating the "mighty" Platte River with "river port!"

nav

That all makes perfect sense, and it's definitely worth considering. Another thing that counts against the backscene in my situation is that it would hinder access to the storage yards, in that it would have to cut across them at ninety degrees, since they run along the top of the "T" formed by the peninsula and the main layout. That's not necessarily a deal breaker, but I think I'll go with the tall ridge for now and then maybe come back to the backscene idea at some point in the future. If nothing else, this recent bout of work has cured me of any fear of ripping up and redoing areas of the layout - which is good!

Barry,

Your post inspired a blog post - complete with the photos from my old layout -

http://centralvermontrailway.blogspot.com/2014/02/does-backdrop-make-scene-seem-larger.html

Jeff:

Micro-Mark is now offering Vallejo paints custom matched to the old Floquil/Polly Scale standby colors -

jsp:

I have no idea what you're chances are with matching British colors, but certainly somewhere in the vast Vallejo line there are colors that are close?

I considered a backscene, but reckoned it would make the room feel a bit too cramped as it would effectively block my view of one half of the room from the other. My plan is to have a high ridge down the middle of the peninsula instead, but not as high as a backscene would have done. I thought about an open-plan town but decided against it. As you can probably tell from the main picture, the mainline loops back to within inches of itself on the neck of the peninsula but I want it to feel as if it's several miles away.

 I've found the backscene almost makes the layout look larger. I realize that seems somewhat counterintuitive!

One thing you try for fun is to take an overall picture of the room from a typical vantage point and then "paint" in a sky blue divider on the computer to get a sense of what it would look like. I was toying with not including a backdrop on a peninsula on my previous layout, and instead relying on the "tall ridge" approach.  I did the computer backdrop thing (and with my abysmal Photoshop skills - if I could do it, anyone could!). The finished image, which I would post here if I could figure out how to post pictures from this computer!) was nothing to look at, but did convince me the backdrop would make the scene seem larger. I can confirm that was indeed the case once I built it.

For working in a small area with a few cars the magnets (aside from the aesthetic issues) work fine. The delayed action feature might be entertaining for Joe Q Public but it certainly has nothing to do with the way the prototype functions.

Probably bordering on thread hijacking but one of the reasons I don't use uncoupling magnets on my layout is I got sick of watching a nice long freight wind its way through the scene only to mysteriously break in two....or to work a track in a yard grab the cut, and have it break apart when a car at the other side of the cut passed over the magnet on the yard lead. Just a little bit of slack on a long cut of cars and they'll uncouple.

Some people use electromagnet uncoupling ramps - I've seen others put the magnets under the track and jury rig a hinge arrangement with a rod or string running to a knob in the fascia that allows you to flip the magnet in position to uncouple, and lower it out of the way to prevent accidental uncoupling.