298

I don't thik it'll be too overgrown, the line didn't seem to get the run-down look until it was well into the Communist era. Plus you wouldn't be able to see the trains...

I thought I’d better briefly introduce my next long term project, now that Pete confirmed a while ago that it is in fact eligible for inclusion in the US & Canadian section. Despite being outside of the usual area for North American modelling, it was built by a well known US company, and mainly used imported stock until the 1960’s when a trend started to import both new and secondhand stock to the Island from all over the world. It is of course Cuba, and the line in question is the Hershey Interurban. Reasons for choosing this line included a desire to start a new project (don’t think I have abandoned modelling the Yakima Valley, if anything this prolongs that interest as I won’t be rushing to finish new stock for shows or wearing out existing favourites). Similarities between the two are obvious, but one of the main differences are the use of pantographs which would allow hands-free switching, the UK public having never really understood trolley poles or the requirement for a crew member to switch the poles or hold the rope when “back-poling” which is nigh on impossible to recreate in HO scale. I did consider a more recent era with rebuilt red steeplecabs and foreign imports, plus a more run-down feel, but the late 1950’s were surprisingly well documented by William D. Middleton and would allow more original equipment before being “altered” by the Hershey Shops, and shiny brand new GE 44 and 70 tonners. But a lot of the more recent information is also suitable, as nothing has drastically changed so the layout could be brought forward with suitable stock. I was surprised to find that there isn’t a big glossy coffee table book on the Hershey and thought I’d have to make do with photos from the web and other books I already have, but eventually found the Cuban Railways Yahoo group, and made contact with a certain Peter Smith, who has built a couple of exhibition layouts, one of which is now looked after in a museum in Havana. Peter was kind enough to lend me a lot of his relevant material for parousal until I get to meet him in person at the High Wycombe show in November, where I am taking Wiley City. Doctor Quinn has also sent a couple of photocopied magazine articles which are helpful. At the moment nothing is set in stone, the layout length will be about 8’ long and consist of an electrified mainline with passing loop and a couple of spurs (Freight on the Hershey was pretty much point-to-point with little wayfreight at intermediate stations), and a junction with an unelectrified branchline for steam hauled sugar cane and a diesel hauled mixed freight. I already have a few items of stock that is spare from other projects such as Bachmann 44 & 70 tonners, and a recent bargain of a broken Sound-Equipped 4-6-0 that was soon fixed with a blob of solder and a decoder reset is a valuable addition to the steam roster. There will also be a couple of GE Steeplecabs along the lines of the models of 298 that I have built, and the Interurban cars will be modified RTR coaches or Labelle kits. I have been busy on the lookout for Roundhouse wooden boxcars and gondolas for bagged sugar, and Proto 2000 8K Tank cars, all of which will be repainted into Hershey or Shell colours. I haven’t got any definite plans with what to do with the Sugar Cane cars, possibly a custom etch on Kadee trucks or rebuilt flat cars. Want to see some photos...? Wiley City has temporarily been hosting some stock and Black 298 has gained a diamond frame pan, so apart from the liveries, this is basically what the trains will look like....: I'm still unsure of a name, although I'm told my family tree can be traced back to an Alonzo Gautrey who lived in Havana about 150 years ago so "Alonzo" might feature, or there's always something based around "Escaleras de Coches" or "Coches Profunda" (Spanish for Carstairs and Deepcar).

Of course, you simply cut the excess off. You could argue that the pins might resemble air hoses, but otherwise they don't have a prototypical use. Since I chose to not fit magnets to my HO layout and rely solely on an uncoupling tool, I don't need the trip pins.

Kadees don't work that way, the knuckles have to be separated (aka the Kadee shuffle) to be in the delayed position. If a train stopped over the magnet and then proceeded in the other direction then they would separate, but there is a school of thinking that says this is less likely as the magnet area is less.

Another alternative to the Kadee permanent magnets are small round Neodymium magnets from eBay, positioned between the sleepers either side of the rails. Their field is much smaller so stopping in the right place is critical, but will have less effect on unwanted uncoupling or affecting exisiting stock with steel weights or wheels & axles.

I approve of your methods for running in, although I do use a mix of temporary setrack and Baycrus rollers. But taking a general view of points made throughout this thread, I doubt Kadee's are a fiddle and certainly aren't unreliable, providing they are used within their tolerances. Any issues that occur are different to those that happen and are attempted to be engineered out in their home market- certain Kadee clones are even advertised for their ability to hold a long train together and their abilities to align vertically to prevent uncoupling through height abnormalities. I've seen Kadee's on their limit on a US HO layout, and that was when the drag from the train must have been in excess of anything a 4mm scale modeller would call a realistic train length. I can only conclude that alot of issues are caused by those damn NEM boxes and a "That'll do" atitude that often prevails in the hobby in an attempt to make things look easy by brushing issues under the carpet, a bit like assuming you can wire a layout for DCC by simply disconnecting the old controller and wiring the new one in, because if something worked fine before then it'll still be OK. I can only see "waddle" as an issue where sharp or "S" curves have already limited the coupler's sideways travel, although other issues may occur due to the vehicle dynamics because of shorter and more varied stock lengths, and unfeasable changes in vertical transition on a gradient.

You'd get a better idea of use on UK layouts by discretely surveying exhibition layouts at shows, asking Kadee how many they sell will include figures for US layouts where they are considered to be the standard.

Trust me, RTR manufacturers OO wheels aren't a patch on HO. "Good enough" just doesn't cut it, it's only recently Hornby have supplied something round with their stock. It's true that aftermarket wheels are alot better but we're talking about quick "out of the box and onto the layout" modifications here, right...? You've raised an interesting cornundrum with vehicle weights here, obviously a pair of Kadee's require a certain buffing force to engage, which means the stationary vehicle has to have a certain rolling resistance, given by it's own mass and friction in the wheelsets. Comparing a typical UK wagon to a US one shows the two are completely different, two fixed axles Vs two bogies with closely spaced wheelsets, lightweight but unknown weight Vs agreed standard based on the length of the vehicle, the list goes on. You can therefore conclude that if you were designing a UK spec Kadee coupler, it'd probably be alot different to the US standard.

Some 08's, EWS 66* or 67, 33/1, 73, 89, 90/0, or 91...? All would use their buckeye couplings to couple to stock. Just to prove the real railway has the same issue, there have been instances where modern wagons have been designated non-revenue and run as coupling conversion vehicles where the loco and stock were incompatable. There was even an instance where a pair of 73's were dragged up to Scotland to be used as converters....!! Getting back to a modelling point of view, how can you couple to something like the Bachmann EWS HTA hopper when there are no outer vehicles available, and the scale height coupling on the wagon is higher than the Kadee in the loco's NEM pocket...? (* except 66001 and 66002)

Exactly why or how did UK manufacturers decide to fit NEM boxes to RTR stock anyway...? There is an obvious case on the continent where there are a number of types available, but over here it's just the tension lock. There aren't even packs of larger couplings to retro-fit into the pockets of newer releases in order to retain compatability with existing vehicles, just the smaller type. I dare say part of it is the result of clever marketing, where you can be persuaded to pay for something you don't really need. If we're looking at prototypical accuracy, the NEM pocket does allow owners of the 5-plank wagon in the first photo to quickly remove the coupling and fit 3-links, but you're still left with more work to remove the box when screwing the coupling to the underside (as Mainline used to do) is alot less obtrusive, and less work...!

I clicked the second option, I was itching towards the first with my current layout but had to make too many compromises to call it exact scale. The full results will be interesting, I'd say you're going to find an accurate depiction amongst exhibition layouts but taking an average count from a number of show guides (as I've been doing for a long time now), and you'll find just 15% of entries don't start with "imaginary" or "ficticious". You'd think this figure might have improved over the years, but I have a theory that a more artistic and eye-catching layout can be created by using the modeller's own artistic skills, instead of studiously following a prototype.

I was merely offering an alternative solution based on past experience of myself and others, and must claim that I have no knowledge of the adopted heights that other modellers generally use. Once again it seems that the 4mm scale world has been railroaded into somebody else's standard when the "starting with a clean sheet of paper" wouldn't have ended up with the result that seems to be most acceptable to some. The only reason for accepting the HO standard would be for coupling compatability between the two scales, which really isn't a necessity. Considering the advances made in other world markets, I think the only solution would be for a proper UK spec buckeye coupling, instead of the wrongly-handed US overscale knuckle mounted in a HO European coupling mechanism. Anyone who thinks one isn't necessary is ignoring all nationalisation coaches, modern freight vehicles, Gresley coaches, EMU's, etc....

Just to chuck in my two' penneth (after discussing Kadee's earlier), I've never quite understood why 4mm/ft modellers would wish to adopt another standard from 3.5mm/ft modellers. Dangling the coupler that low can create mounting issues if you want to use the standard draft boxes as supplied, and I've never been too keen on the irregular mounting of NEM pockets and associated mechanism used to mount a kadee coupling into one. The solution we came up with "back in the day" involved mounting a no.5 coupling box directly to the floor of a Lima coach, which resulted in a standard height of 10.0mm from the top of the rail height to the bottom of the knuckle head. Some trimming of the area around the bufferbeam and corridor connector might have been needed depending on the length of shank used, but the result looked quite acceptable with the knuckle at a scale height. The trip pin could also be used with track magnets, once adjusted.

The July & August 1981 RM articles are very good, I also seem to recall at least one photo from your era and the 1977 stock list in Rail Express no.4, I've just tried looking for it but must have given my copy away. I modelled a more contemporary rake a few years ago (must dig it out and ebay it), although the earlier period would have been more interesting as it allowed quite a mix of coach types. I used Halfords "Ford Dark Aubergine" from a rattlecan and Hurst models transfers, with little scope for weathering you really have to get the finish right so there's little point using the RTR coaches from Hornby.

I'd have put money on the later full yellow front end preceeding the change from the earlier type of TDM dummy socket to the more common one as modelled by Heljan, but there's the photo as proof.

Such are the joys of producing locos for other people- you put your name to a repaint to the client's specification (they might not have asked for certain details to be removed as this would add to the time involved), then if the model is sold on or displayed, it's you that gets the bad name for not following the exact prototype. You also have a choice of colour for the rear of the cab roof, either light or dark grey (to match the roof), yellow, or more commonly- dirt.

I'd say they were more likely to be Rail Grey, although this was the transition period to Falcon Grey. The transformer oil header tank was usually a good indication of the roof colour, as long as it was clean enough. There are some translucent glass fibre panels towards the ends, I used Executive Light Grey for these, with a hint of yellow. It's the first time I've seen a Heljan loco done as an 86/1, mind you, I haven't seen many done as an 86 at all. Are you planning to change the bogie sideframes...?

Interesting to note that there was little duplication in Frank's original stock list, was this just a factor of his chosen prototype operation or because of the amount of effort needed to kit or scratchbuild a loco, he wanted variety amongst the fleet...? From what I saw of the operation at Nottingham, the team were doing a great job considering the age of the layout and operating it under exhibition conditions. Your efforts to continue to exhibit it are appreciated.

Thankfully someone seems to have the same point of view as me- the 84's were probably the first to gain a cult following but somehow North British interpreted the design brief to produce a right munter of a loco, the 81's and 83's were much better looking. 84001 currently isn't doing itself any favours by continuing to shed whatever paint is applied to it, and it's owners don't seem to have a plan for it in the short or long term. I can see it being a viable model once one of the more deserving types is covered, there are over 200 other AC's in a wide variety of liveries that need to be updated to modern standards and there's no reason why they wouldn't sell as long as they were as good as the Bachmann 85 (and that's acknowledging it's errors).

Some interesting photos at: http://www.traintesting.com/IVA_88.htm 142049 went to Expo86 in Vancouver, but it didn't lead to any export sales as a RDC replacement. Also of that era were trips involving early prototype railcars to the USA and Thailand, again without any firm orders but it did pave the way for a later order of class 158 clones to Thailand.

FWIW, I was also stewarding on both days and generally found the public to be understanding of the situation and thankful for additional help and advice when offered. There were one or two who seemed overly "wound up" and unable to appreciate that us volunteers were working hard to make the best of a bad situation. I'm not sure if these are the same people who manage to have a gripe at the show every year or at life in general when their Bus is late or Tesco's have moved the tins of Beans to a different aisle, but I didn't witness anything of an extreme nature. My first impression of the sports hall was the lighting was set to "dim", which would have been fantastic to enhance well lit layouts or those with theatrical effects, but obviously less so for traders. Whether it was intentional or not, the tubes certainly didn't seem to be on their brightest output levels. Issues like this remind us that sometimes show organisers have no control over the venue, so what is considered the norm during the week such as dim lighting, lack of signage to toilets or even broken locks on the doors and non-working wheelchair lifts, is suddenly an issue. Regards, Another Andy.

How odd...? If it hasn't been lost through scanning, might the original have been shot with a coloured filter that removed that particular tone...? It's certainly an unexplained mystery...