Dale Junction in HO Scale

[benjy14]

Been a little while since my last post... Have not had much of a chance to work on the layout recently as work has been exceptionally busy but given the current sutuation in the country, I consider myself very lucky to have a job. I do also find breaks every once in a while can be useful to avoid burnout... There are, however, two additions to the locomotive roster to report

 

 

Above is Broadway Limited Imports Paragon3 Big Boy #4022. I believe this is an earlier Paragon3 version as the packaging is different to my other examples but no less impressive! This brings the tally of Bog Boys on the layout to six (2 x #4014, #4020, #4022, and 2 x #4023)...(!)  I do have a slightly mad idea to try to collect the entire class but more on that next year if plans I have come to fruition. Two of the models will change identity thanks to the services of Simon Howard at S H Modelmaking (mentioned purely as an exceptionally happy customer of his); my MTH #4014 will become #4012 (my other #4014 is the Rivarossi 60th Anniversary Edition, which requires sound fitting but will otherwise remain unchange) and my older Precision Craft Models (which later became BLI) #4023 is to become #4008, which is the running number of the Dobwalls Big Boy...

 

 

Above is another BLI Paragon3 model, this time Challenger #3954. Whilst Dale Junction will focus on Big Boys. the Challengers are still mightily impressive locomotives. I am hoping the adhesion of the BLI version is better than the MTH version but I am still planning to double-head it, hence fitting the coupler to the front, but it will be interesting to see how it performs.

 

Both locomotives will need running-in and speed calibrating before entering service; I'll do #3954 this weekend but #4022 will have to wait because it is, strictly speaking, a Christmas present from my wonderful wife but it obvioiusly need to be tested to ensure it was working order before being wrapped up...

Edited April 23, 2022 by benjy14
Re-uploaded images

[benjy14]

Having run-in in #3954, it has now entered service and is seen below being piloted by Big Boy #4020 on a westbound manifest freight at Dale Junction.

 

 

Unfortunately, I have am having an issue with the front pony truck of #3954 derailing. I think the problem is that there is too much descrepency between the speed calibration of the two locomotives, which means that #3954 is constantly pushing #4020 because iTrain cannot match their speeds closely enough. I am therefore recalibrating both locomotives using 128 speed steps, which should allow iTrain to control the speed of both locomotives much more precisely...

[benjy14]

Following on from my post yesterday, I have completed recalibrating #4020 and #3954 using 126 speed steps, and this has resulted a huge improvement in the double-heading performance of the locomotives; absolutely no issues with the front pony truck of #3954 now. I'm therefore going to embark on a programme of recalibrating all of my locomotives to 126 speed steps so that I can consistently double-head trains. I will also ensure that they use linear speed curves so that iTrain can speed match as accurately as possible. I have discovered that ESU Loksound 5 chips come with a non-linear speed curve that (annoyingly) cannot be disabled through CV29, so I am using JMRI DecoderPro to apply a linear speed curve to all of my ESU-equipped locomotives. Likewise, I have a number of older Walthers Lifelike models containing QSI Quantum chips and I am lucky to have a QSI Programmer to configure them (they do not seem to work well with the DR5000 on the programming track and QSI now appears to be defunct).

 

I have made a video to show #4020 and #3954 working an eastbound freight over the layout, which is available on YouTube:

 

 

I need to work on my tracking shots (I was just holding the camera in my hand!) and #3954 is much louder than #4020, but it shows how well they now run together. I will likely always double-head this train as it's the longest on the layout, so it will be great to be able to change the front-end power... #844 is now recalibrated, so I might well see how it looks with #3954  

 

[benjy14]

Season's greetings to everyone!

 

Father Christmas has been rather kind to me this year and waiting under the tree was BLI Paragon3 Big Boy #4022   

 

 

Over the past few days, I have managed to complete the woodwork on the main part of layout, so my next job is to start fitting the polystyrene that will form the landscape. As this will be above the storage yard, it was prudent to empty it, so all of the trains were moved on to the main part of the layout and I took the opportunity to take a couple of photos...

 

 

Above, Challenger #3954 is piloting Big Boy #4020 on a westbound manifest freight. They are being held on Track 1 before crossing over to Track 2 because coming the other way...

 

 

...above is FEF-3 #844 with an eastbound reefer train, which would have priority as it would be loaded transporting perishable goods to the East Coast.

 

As well as doing the woodwork, I've also been playing trains over the festive period and I became a little despondent because I was having all sorts of running problems... I don't want to dwell on them but at one point, I did wonder if I had bitten off more than I could chew. Of course, any layout of this size is going to have problems and maintenence will be an on-going task. I have therefore tweaked track, replaced couplers and looked at locomotive performance, and I think I've turned a corner. With regards to the locomotives, I have started the process of recalibrating them to use 126 speed steps, which gives iTrain much finer control and means their speed [in the consist] can be much more accurately matched, resulting in much better performance. 

 

The final outcome of this work is that that #3964 and #4020 have been swapped round. I don't know why but they seem to run much better like this. Fortunately, looking at many of my books, it is prototypical for the smaller(!) of the locomotives to lead the consist i.e. you would normally find the Big Boy as the train engine. With the recalibration work, it should be possible to assign any locomotive to pilot a Big Boy and the combination to work reliably. Indeed, very occasionally, you even got double-headed Big Boys...(!)

[mdvle]

Not sure what you have done to deal with your running problems, so this is perhaps more for those looking for ideas, but most of the larger layout owners seem to stress the importance of maintaining standards to minimize trouble.

 

This includes inspecting every item before it goes on the layout (and going through existing stuff as necessary) - things to check/watch for are metal wheels, coupler height (height gauge is useful, and remember to also check that the trip pin if using Kadees) isn't too low), checking wheels to make sure they meet the NMRA standards, consistent weight for rolling stock (don't necessarily have to go NMRA for this, some think the NMRA is too heavy, just try to have a consistent fleet).

 

Some will also standardize on one brand or type of coupler - for example Kadee or just metal couplers.  Some find the plastic Kadee clones work fine, others find they fail as the plastic stresses.

 

For trackwork, make sure all the parts of any switches/turnouts also meet the standards - mass produced turnouts sometimes don't.

 

A search online will likely find these and other ideas for more reliable operation.

 

 

[benjy14]

2 minutes ago, mdvle said:

Not sure what you have done to deal with your running problems, so this is perhaps more for those looking for ideas, but most of the larger layout owners seem to stress the importance of maintaining standards to minimize trouble.

 

This includes inspecting every item before it goes on the layout (and going through existing stuff as necessary) - things to check/watch for are metal wheels, coupler height (height gauge is useful, and remember to also check that the trip pin if using Kadees) isn't too low), checking wheels to make sure they meet the NMRA standards, consistent weight for rolling stock (don't necessarily have to go NMRA for this, some think the NMRA is too heavy, just try to have a consistent fleet).

 

Some will also standardize on one brand or type of coupler - for example Kadee or just metal couplers.  Some find the plastic Kadee clones work fine, others find they fail as the plastic stresses.

 

For trackwork, make sure all the parts of any switches/turnouts also meet the standards - mass produced turnouts sometimes don't.

 

A search online will likely find these and other ideas for more reliable operation.

 

Thanks for your reply and advice, much appreciated.

 

With regards to couplers, I am standardising on Kadees throughout; I have a height gauge and trip pin adjuster for consistency. The uncoupling issue was down to cheap, non-Kadee couplers and have now been replaced. I am also improving the ride quality using the car stabilizer system from Proto87:

 

http://www.proto87.com/HO_Proto87_car_stabilizer_help.html

 

Weight is definitely another thing to look at. I know the NMRA publish standards, so I need to ensure I follow them accurately. I also need a good way of adding weight to cars that are too light; I'd welcome any suggestions for a good and simple way to do this.

 

The track issues are all in the helix and, I think, related to twist faults. I am using thin strips of plasticard to provide a small amount of superelevation on the outer edge of the track and this has improved running.

 

The double-heading issues were down to the speed calibration not being fine enough to allow iTrain to accurately match the speed of the locomotives in the consist; one would always be running slightly faster than the other. Switching to 126 speed steps has cured this, although I don't know why #3954 does not like being the train engine (the front unit visible hunts and ultimately derails)...

 

But I completely agree with what you write... The key to reliable running is going to be ensuring that the track and stock are up to standard, and I clearly still have a little way to go to accomplish this.

[Keith Addenbrooke]

Hi Ben, and seasons greetings to your good self as well.  As you note in the first post in this sequence, “any layout of this size” will face challenges - although the footprint of the layout isn’t huge (compared to US basement empires) I think you’re right to treat it as a large layout when it comes to planning, maintenance and operation, so there are bound to be moments when it feels just that: big.  @mdvle’s advice is good for all of us, but especially so perhaps with a large layout I think, so it’s good to hear you’ve made progress - I hope the rewards and the enjoyment can continue to be big too.Keith

[mdvle]

15 hours ago, benjy14 said:

Weight is definitely another thing to look at. I know the NMRA publish standards, so I need to ensure I follow them accurately.

 

As I said, while everyone agrees it is best to put weight in the rolling stock, there is a lot of disagreement about how much - many consider the NMRA standards excessive.

 

So you may want to do some research before embarking on a project of adding weight as one side effect is that your trains get heavier, which given you use helix's might cause issues with how long your trains can get (and steam locos are already notorious for less pulling capability than diesels).

 

The only consensus is that consistency works - whether it is full NRMA, half NMRA, etc.

 

15 hours ago, benjy14 said:

The track issues are all in the helix and, I think, related to twist faults. I am using thin strips of plasticard to provide a small amount of superelevation on the outer edge of the track and this has improved running.

 

I would suspect you have other issue(s) in the helix - most people using a helix successfully don't use superelevation (largely because it is a cosmetic improvement in model trains, it has little/no actual use, and people aren't adding scenery to their helix).

 

Perhaps prop up a cell phone / video camera with a good view of the helix where the troubles occur, trying different angles, to try and see what is actually happening?  Or perhaps a track gauge to make sure everything remains the proper spacing?

 

[benjy14]

14 hours ago, Keith Addenbrooke said:

Hi Ben, and seasons greetings to your good self as well.  As you note in the first post in this sequence, “any layout of this size” will face challenges - although the footprint of the layout isn’t huge (compared to US basement empires) I think you’re right to treat it as a large layout when it comes to planning, maintenance and operation, so there are bound to be moments when it feels just that: big.  @mdvle’s advice is good for all of us, but especially so perhaps with a large layout I think, so it’s good to hear you’ve made progress - I hope the rewards and the enjoyment can continue to be big too.Keith

 

Thanks for your message Keith. Agreed, it's not a massive layout by US standards but definitely a lot for a single person to manage. I am certainly learning and making improvements all the time.

 

8 hours ago, mdvle said:

As I said, while everyone agrees it is best to put weight in the rolling stock, there is a lot of disagreement about how much - many consider the NMRA standards excessive.

 

So you may want to do some research before embarking on a project of adding weight as one side effect is that your trains get heavier, which given you use helix's might cause issues with how long your trains can get (and steam locos are already notorious for less pulling capability than diesels).

 

The only consensus is that consistency works - whether it is full NRMA, half NMRA, etc.

 

I had a read of the NMRA standards and their recommendations did seem quite heavy, especially for a layout like mind with the climbs in the helixes. As an experiment, I weighed a number of my freights cars and they ranged from about 1oz to nearly 4oz, so clearly anything but consistent. I run fixed formations on my layout, so my target is going to be consistency within each train. On that basis, I have ordered some lead weights with self-adhesive backing for the box cars and some Deluxe Materials Liquid Gravity for the hoppers and gondolas.

 

8 hours ago, mdvle said:

I would suspect you have other issue(s) in the helix - most people using a helix successfully don't use superelevation (largely because it is a cosmetic improvement in model trains, it has little/no actual use, and people aren't adding scenery to their helix).

 

Perhaps prop up a cell phone / video camera with a good view of the helix where the troubles occur, trying different angles, to try and see what is actually happening?  Or perhaps a track gauge to make sure everything remains the proper spacing?

 

I think the helixes are fine now; it was actually just one locomotive that was causing the problem, so it's going back to the manufacturer for a warranty repair as it has developed a number of faults. However, I really appreciate your ongoing advice and tips; I have track gauages (including an NMRA standards one) and it is generally the joints where I have the problems, so if I get any more issues, I'll know where to start...

[PaulRhB]

18 hours ago, mdvle said:

most people using a helix successfully don't use superelevation (largely because it is a cosmetic improvement in model trains

Any sharp corner, which the helixes tend to be to save space, can cause problems due to how stock moves under load and that can cause a wheel to ride up randomly on level track so superelevation can help by already adding a fraction more load on it to keep it on. We found years ago on a sharpish curve that long trains derailed because the extra drag changed how the loco angled in the corner causing a pony truck to ride up as it was being forced sideways by the pivot spring. Adding a little superelevation just overcame that tiny extra force so it can work. 
One advantage of your fixed rakes is that you could probably weight the front quarter or third to NMRA standards, or whatever is enough for reliable running, and then reduce weight in the rear two thirds to save straining mechanisms. The NMRA standard assumes you’ll be pushing big cuts of cars and down to very sharp curves so it can be a bit excessive. I found the Lifelike/Roco Y1’s so light on their feet that I didn’t add any weight to my 30+ Accurail hoppers and never had any problems. 

[Allegheny1600]

Hi Ben,

It sounds like you’re well on your way to getting smooth running but if you do have trouble, there a vehicle advertised on Model Railroaders website that features a car with a Perspex body so you can actually see where problems are occurring, maybe that might help? Sorry I’m in a rush and can’t recall it’s name but it should become apparent quickly enough.

Good luck and all the best,

John.

[benjy14]

2 hours ago, Allegheny1600 said:

Hi Ben,

It sounds like you’re well on your way to getting smooth running but if you do have trouble, there a vehicle advertised on Model Railroaders website that features a car with a Perspex body so you can actually see where problems are occurring, maybe that might help? Sorry I’m in a rush and can’t recall it’s name but it should become apparent quickly enough.

Good luck and all the best,

John.

 

Thank you for the advice John. I know precisely the device you mean, so I might well order one the next time I see the advert.

 

I do think I've turned the corner in terms of running reliability, which will improve as I sort out the weighting of my freight cars and continue the programme of installing Kadee couplers on all stock. The work for the past few days has focussed on progressing the scenery and I hope to have an update to share in the next couple of days.

 

There is also a new addition to the locomotive fleet to report on...

 

 

This is a second BLI Paragon3 Challenger, #3942, which was an unexpected find on eBay as a very good price. Currently running in but will take charge of the reefer train to give #844 a well-earned rest!

 

Cheers,

Ben

[benjy14]

On 30/12/2020 at 09:05, PaulRhB said:

Any sharp corner, which the helixes tend to be to save space, can cause problems due to how stock moves under load and that can cause a wheel to ride up randomly on level track so superelevation can help by already adding a fraction more load on it to keep it on. We found years ago on a sharpish curve that long trains derailed because the extra drag changed how the loco angled in the corner causing a pony truck to ride up as it was being forced sideways by the pivot spring. Adding a little superelevation just overcame that tiny extra force so it can work. 
One advantage of your fixed rakes is that you could probably weight the front quarter or third to NMRA standards, or whatever is enough for reliable running, and then reduce weight in the rear two thirds to save straining mechanisms. The NMRA standard assumes you’ll be pushing big cuts of cars and down to very sharp curves so it can be a bit excessive. I found the Lifelike/Roco Y1’s so light on their feet that I didn’t add any weight to my 30+ Accurail hoppers and never had any problems. 

 

Thanks for the advice Paul.

 

Now that I've added the superelevation, it seems pointless to remove it, so it'll stay for the time being. That being said, I only had one locomotive that was causing an issue and it is being returned to the manufacturer for a warranty repair.

 

I was thinking the same thing myself about the weight distribution in the fixed rakes. One of the things I wish to model, based on a photo I've seen in the Kalmbach's book about the Big Boys, is to marshall some empty hoppers at the head end of a consist that are being returned to Granite. I have a couple and tried them out, but they are (currently) very light and derailed in the helix almost immediately thanks to the twist force being exerted on them. I therefore plan to weight them to the NRMA standard, which (I hope) will resolve this problem. All part of the learning curve!

 

Thanks again,

Ben

[benjy14]

Over the last few days of the Christmas holidays, I have been concentrating on progressing the scenery and have accomplished a fair amount:

 

• Ballasting completed on the middle level and the track weathered. There is a bit of tidying up to do and I may try to add further shading using an airbrush, but it's sufficient for now.
• Formed the land contours around the front sections of the middle level using polystyrene and coated with plaster to form a hard shell. I then painted the shell using home-made textured paint made by mixing cheap, tan-coloured paint with sand I dried in the cooker; this will provide a base on which to build up the finished scenery.
• Undercoated all fascias and applied a first coat of black to the middle two sections.
• Undercoated the backscenes on the middle level ready for painting. 
• Installed the Hermosa Tunnel portals.

 

Here are some photos to show the work...

 

 

Above is the eastern portal of the Hermosa Tunnel. This is not an exact model by any means... The portals themselves were left-over from a previous layout, and the real tunnel is approached in a much shallower cutting and is about a mile away from Dale Junction itself. However, the idea was to give a representation of the real place and the most distinctive feature is the twin portals.

 

This photo was taken from the corner of the railway room and is accessed via a duck-under; tuning to the left, you get the view below:

 

 

This is a view looking east over Dale Junction. The undercoated backscenes are very evident.

 

 

Back in the middle of the room, the view above shows Track 3 in the foreground, with Tracks 1 and 2 behind. This shows the textured paint to good effect; it was much easier and faster than trying to colour the plaster, which is what I've done previously. The photo below shows a wider shot of the same scene:

 

 

This demonstrates the effect that I really wanted to achieve with the fascias; that is, the layout is framed and your eye is drawn into the layout. I can't wait to get the backscene painted and the basic landform behind the junction in place; that will really bring the scene to life!  Lots still to do of course but really pleased with what I've accomplished and scenery has never been a great skill of mine; indeed, it's the first time I have built scenery below the track level!

 

On the running front, I have received the self-adhesive lead weights and Liquid Gravity to begin the process of adding weight to the freight cars. However, I will take my time over this, as I have already some improvements to the running as discussed in previous posts. 

Edited April 23, 2022 by benjy14
Re-uploaded images

[benjy14]

Work has been progressing on Dale Junction over the past couple of weeks, concentrating on two areas. The first is painting the fascias, which are finished on all levels, and the backseces, which are finished on the middle level. The photo below is an overview of the layout.

 

 

It really is starting to look like a proper model railway, rather than an ocean of wood, and it's looking exactly had how I had anticipated

 

The other thing I have been working on is improving the running qualities of the stock, which has been something that's been discussed over the previous few posts. I am continuing the process of updating all stock to Kadee couplers and adding weight to certain cars. My aim is to setup the trains with the heavier cars towards the front and lighter ones towards the rear, as per @PaulRhB's suggestion. as well as recalibrating further locomotives to 126 speed steps in iTrain. So time for some more photos, starting off with some diesel action...

 

 

Above and below shows GP9ii #252 leading a westbound manifest freight through Dale Junction, approaching on Track 1 and then crossing on to Track 2.

 

 

I've not taken many photos of my passenger trains, so below is a shot of the westbound City of Los Angeles, heading by an E9A and E9B set, sweeping through the junction.

 

 

I have reached RMweb's post size limit, so some the next post will feature some steam action...

[benjy14]

Some photos of heavy steam at Dale Junction...

 

BLI Challenger #3942 has been running-in on a light consist.

 

 

Above sees #3942 heading eastbound on Track 3 and below, a bit further along Track 3.

 

 

Below shows Challenger #3954 leading Big Boy #4020 on a westbound manifest freight.

 

 

Immediately behind the locomotives are three hopper cars loaded with ballast from Granite, the UP's ballast pit. This idea was inspired by a photo in Kalmbach's recent book about the Big Boys. I had wanted to model the cars empty as per the original photo but they were simply far too light (even using Liquid Gravity), so I have instead modelled them loaded, allowing me to install plenty of lead weight. So far, the train seems to run very nicely and there is plenty of power pulling it  

 

The photo below is possibly my favourite photo of the layout that I've taken to date...

 

 

One of the main things I wanted to accomplish with the layout was scenery below the track, which is something that I've never managed before. Of course, it's completely correct for the prototype location but it also allows for really stunning photos of the trains to be captured. I am really looking forward to developing the scenery in this area but the textured paint to give some basic ground cover works very well.

[PaulRhB]

It’s capturing the look of the photos very well, it should make some nice videos linesiding  

[benjy14]

Work over the past couple of weeks has focussed on the scenery on the middle level (Dale Junction), as the following sequence of photos hopefully show...

 

 

Above and below shows 4-8-2 Mountain #7028 hauling a westbound mixed local train through Dale Junction, heading off Track 1 and onto Track 2. There is very little evidence that such trains actually ran on Sherman Hill but there was a timestabled service that ran south from Cheyenne. I am therefore supposing that this train is running as an extra and is calling at all stations across the Hill.

 

 

 

Above shows Big Boy #4022 approaching Dale Junction on the last part of Track 3 with a westbound manifest freight. The ground cover in this area is largely complete; it is supposed to be very barren!  Turning the camera to point the other below shows #4022 coming off Track 3 as Challenger #3954 leads Big Boy #4020 on an eastbound manifest freight crossing from Track 1 to Track 2 to complete the climb to Sherman.

 

 

To show what I've been doing, the wider view below shows the rocky hillside I've constructed on the north side of the junction:

 

 

The hillside used to exist in real life but has been removed in recent years. It was much "rockier" but this is my first attempt a building a rock face and I'm happy with the impression that it gives.

 

 

Finally, the photo above shows a wider view of the scenic window on the lower level directly underneath where Track 3 emerges from the helix showing that I now have two levels of (nearly) finished scenery!  One day, there will be three levels of scenery in this spot! 

Edited April 23, 2022 by benjy14
Re-uploaded images

[St Enodoc]

4 hours ago, benjy14 said:

 

Finally, the photo above shows a wider view of the scenic window on the lower level directly underneath where Track 3 emerges from the helix showing that I now have two levels of (nearly) finished scenery!  One day, there will be three levels of scenery in this spot! 

Is that the same train?

[benjy14]

10 hours ago, St Enodoc said:

Is that the same train?

 

No, although I can see why it may look like that!

[benjy14]

Work has been progressing on applying ground cover on the middle level. This evening, I got most of the way to the junction itself, so decided to reinstate the signals. The photo below was taken with the layout lights in night time mode and shows the signals to good effect, together with the progress on the scenery.

 

 

I had started to bed the signals in but I've realised that I've been premature in the reinstating the signals because I still have a lot of work to do on the level above and, given how fragile they are, I cannot risk doing that work with them in situ. So I'll leave them in place for the time being but they will have to come out again...

Edited April 23, 2022 by benjy14
Re-uploaded image

[benjy14]

Today I have been doing more work on the rockface behind Dale Junction. I was not happy with it but after looking at for a while, I realised what was wrong... Not enough rocks!  It was neither a hillside nor a rockface, and nothing like the actual location. The only resolution was to add more rocks... So I cast about two dozen new rocks from Lightweight Hydracol using Woodland Scenics moulds and set about filling in the gaps. Below shows the first stage of fitting the new casts, which I secured in place using more Hydracol:

 

 

I then set about colour washing the rocks to blend them in with the existing rocks, below:

 

 

After casting more rocks and more colour washing, the final result is shown below:

 

 

I may add a few more rocks to the right-hand edge but the overall effect is so much better than before. A final photo below showing GP9 #252 passing  the rockface working an eastbound freight:

 

 

Edited April 23, 2022 by benjy14
Re-uploaded images

[mdvle]

The advantage of modelling the south-west, as opposed to the north-east - when your scenery is lacking something it is a (relatively) quick and cheap matter of adding more rocks - in the north-east the answer is usually a *lot* more trees...

[Keith Addenbrooke]

14 hours ago, mdvle said:

The advantage of modelling the south-west, as opposed to the north-east - when your scenery is lacking something it is a (relatively) quick and cheap matter of adding more rocks - in the north-east the answer is usually a *lot* more trees...

I must admit, I was looking at an old track plan for a model railroad set in Vermont yesterday evening, and the thought of modelling all those trees was the one that jumped out at me from the photos: I might want to borrow some of the track layout for my proposed Santa Fe Southern Mid-West layout, but I wouldn’t want to swap the location.

[JackB95]

As you know Ben, I've been following the layout's progress on another mode of social media. But seeing it on RMweb adds a bit more depth, so thanks for the link.

 

Excellent progress, and despite being a tad different to my take on the railways, inspirational. That rockface is just WOW.