Gulf, Atlanta & Eastern - into the second decade

[Barry Ten]

1 hour ago, F-UnitMad said:

Very well put, Sir! It does look a very convincing scene, and as I think I've said rather earlier in this Thread, it looks like how an American would build this layout. From a UK viewpoint, it's easy to overlook the fact that everything tends to be much more spaced apart than we're used to here, as they have so much more space available! Capturing that look isn't easy and possibly doesn't come too naturally to us, either.

Yes, leave well alone! I like the new peninsular scene as well - most impressed that you've not shied away from running the grade crossing through the middle of a switch - in N Scale!!  

 

Thanks! I think some areas of the layout could do with being simplified back a bit, which is (hopefully) one of the on-going jobs for the future. As for that grade crossing through a switch, I didn't leave myself a lot of choice... but it just about works, even though I'd hate to be an N scale driver going over those rail gaps!

[Wendell1976]

Barry Ten, you are doing a good job capturing the spirit of the South on your N scale layout. I remember seeing this layout featured in a Model Railroader magazine many years ago.

 

Wendell

Idaho, USA

[Barry Ten]

3 hours ago, Wendell1976 said:

Barry Ten, you are doing a good job capturing the spirit of the South on your N scale layout. I remember seeing this layout featured in a Model Railroader magazine many years ago.

 

Wendell

Idaho, USA

 

Thanks, Wendell - that's very kind! I'm very pleased if the layout doesn't look too incongruous to someone more familiar with the locale.

 

Yes, it was in MR - about 2013 I think. I'd like to see if they'd be interested in a follow-up article at some point as the layout has evolved

and grown quite a bit since then.

[Barry Ten]

Progress on the layout has been sporadic these last twelve months, largely because I got bogged down in a long, boring task and wasn't sufficiently motivated to finish it off. As a result, the yard couldn't be operated and so the layout was restricted to just running the same trains round and round, with no switching. Other than the occasional running session to keep the dust off and stop the mechanisms siezing up, I must admit I hadn't really been enjoying the GA&E.

 

However, thanks to the "Where has everyone gone" thread:

 

https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/151902-where-has-everyone-gone/page/7/#comments

 

I decided to pull my finger out and re-motivate myself!

 

So why the long period of inactivity? Back in 2019 I made some minor alterations to the main yard, mainly to improve the look of it and allow for a road to cross the mainline at one end of the yard. 

 

However, this prompted a re-examination of the usefulness of the yard as a whole, which in turn led to a decision to make some much more extensive changes.

 

Here's how the yard throat stood at the start of 2019:

 

 

Although it allowed trains to be broken up and switched, it did have one disadvantage: it wasn't able to handle the longest trains that are able to run on the layout. Not only that, but it also didn't function as a passing point where two of these trains could run by each other. in fact, there was only one passing siding long enough, in the industrial section. I'd been well aware of such issues when I designed the yard, but given the constraints in place from the existing track arrangements, a small yard was all that was possible and it was still able to handle the typical local trains of 12  cars or so. Much better than no yard at all, basically.

 

However, as mentioned, I decided to look at the yard with fresh eyes and realised that by making some changes elsewhere, I could improve it in a number of ways. Firstly, two long passing loops could be arranged, enabling the longest trains to be passed or switched depending on circumstances. Secondly, the old yard didn't have a switching lead, so any operations resulted in the main being occupied from time to time. The new configuration allows for a long switching lead which leaves the main unobstructed at all times. That means I can leave a train running on the main and just switch to my heart's content.

 

The sacrifices were minor: I got rid of a short-cut which by-passed the peninsula, and I eliminated the reversing loop. The short-cut had rarely been used, put in only as an insurance so I could still run trains even if for some reason I had to remove the peninsula (which never happened). It was also of restricted clearance so no excess height cars could use it. The reversing loop never proved its worth, either. Once I'd got over the initial fun of being able to turn trains around, I found I didn't use it so it was basically just wasted track gathering dust.

 

The new arrangement doesn't look radically different. but the longer passing siding should be clear:

 

 

In order to make it work, all the throat trackage, including the caboose road, had to relocated, as well as several points being uplifted and moved. All of that got a bit boring so by the time I was able to just run trains again, i stalled, with the yard severed and lots of wiring and ballasting needing to be redone. However, things are moving again now and I'm very glad to have been given the impetus to crack on.

 

Here a passenger train and a long freight pass each other - something that was impossible before.

 

 

Now onto a question: ideally, I'd like to be able to have two passenger trains pass each other, with one or both stopping at the depot. But does the track spacing look like it would be sufficient to allow a paved area between them? I've been looking at various prototype photos and can't quite make my mind up. I suspect the answer's no but I'd be interested to know whether there's a specified minimum track spacing for such situations. It's easy enough to look up standards for UK platform widths, but I don't know anything about the track-level arrangements at your typical smalltown depot in the States.

[mullie]

Good to see an update, doesn't look to me as if there is enough space, would it look cramped and unrealistic if you did squeeze it in?

Edited March 19, 2020 by mullie

[Barry Ten]

41 minutes ago, mullie said:

Good to see an update, doesn't look to me as if there is enough space, would it look cramped and unrealistic if you did squeeze it in?

 

Yes I think so, it's just wishful thinking really.

[DanielB]

Would such a small town depot see two passenger trains stopping at the same time? I'd suspect one would be stopped "in the hole" to allow another to pass and/or use the depot facilities, were two trains to meet.

 

Yard looks much better, excellent work.

[Barry Ten]

 

Still quite pleased with the look of this overgrown siding in the industrial section:

 

[Allegheny1600]

Hi Al,

That looks great and I'm really pleased that my topic has helped get you (and others) moving again.

I agree with Mullie and DanielB - not enough space for two passenger trains to "board!" but how about holding one further out?

Not the same as seeing them both in the station area, of course but operationally interesting, perhaps?

Cheers,

John.

[F-UnitMad]

20 hours ago, Barry Ten said:

 

Still quite pleased with the look of this overgrown siding in the industrial section:

 

Yet again another photo from your layout where if I didn't already know the scale, I'd have said it was at least HO. great stuff!!

[Andy Reichert]

On 19/03/2020 at 11:07, Barry Ten said:

Progress on the layout has been sporadic these last twelve months, . . . .

 

Now onto a question: ideally, I'd like to be able to have two passenger trains pass each other, with one or both stopping at the depot. But does the track spacing look like it would be sufficient to allow a paved area between them? I've been looking at various prototype photos and can't quite make my mind up. I suspect the answer's no but I'd be interested to know whether there's a specified minimum track spacing for such situations. It's easy enough to look up standards for UK platform widths, but I don't know anything about the track-level arrangements at your typical smalltown depot in the States.

 

San Luis Obispo in CA ( single track main line, but three tracks thru the station itself ) has two daily (N & S) stopping Amtrak trains that are timetabled an hour apart, but have often arrived at the same time.  Since the passenger facilities are only on one side of the tracks, this causes an access problem, to the further away track, so is avoided whenever possible. There is a second low-level "platform" between the two passing tracks, but it is a decent width. A flat surface for pedestrian passengers to regularly  access a second track is I think a given. 

 

I suspect there are pictures on the web, but I can rake some up if not.  Also check out the Pacific Electric as I suspect they had that problem in many places.

 

Andy

[Barry Ten]

Thanks all. On due consideration, I think it's clear that it would be unrealistic to squeeze in an extra platform between those tracks, so from now on passenger trains will only call at the stop one at a time. The other train could either be held in staging, or held at the passing point in the industrial section. I easily have enough cars to run another train so it would be nice to have an "up" and "down" train, rather than just the one as it is at the moment.

 

I did some digging to see if I could find some official numbers for the platform width between two tracks. I didn't succeed, but I did find a document specifying light rail provisions which gave a minimum width of 20 feet. Presumably that's to the edge of the platform, rather than between the rails, so if anything it would need to be a little wider for a ground-level surface.

 

Thanks, Andy, for mentioning San Luis Obispo. I had a look at some pictures to see the arrangement you mention.

[PaulRhB]

If you look at old depot photos it’s certainly not 20 feet but they do seem wide enough to take a four wheel luggage cart with access to the sides, so possibly 8-10ft minimum? I agree one at a time seems most likely for your depot. 

[Talltim]

Of course, to actually get the passenger cars to the platform, the loco/s would be over the switch anyway

 

[Barry Ten]

3 hours ago, Talltim said:

Of course, to actually get the passenger cars to the platform, the loco/s would be over the switch anyway

 

 

Very true - it means that they'd have needed to arrive in a set order.  As it happens, by the time you've got a B unit, some baggage cars,, etc, the loco has its nose well into the tunnel!

 

There is scope for extending the existing platform back along the side of the train a few more cars.

[Barry Ten]

Couple of shots of an Atlanta-bound passenger train pulled by a DL-109.

 

 

 

The loco is a very non-DCC friendly Lifelike model which was fitted with a decoder by Streamlined Backshop in the States. It runs really nicely and pulls well.

 

http://www.sbs4dcc.com/

[Barry Ten]

In lieu of a proper update. here's a bit of shaky-cam fun with an 18 unit intermodal train on the layout:

 

 

[Mikkel]

Very nice Al, I always look out for the scenery on your layouts as you do it so well, and noticed here in particular the rock faces and trees (yes I did also notice the trains ).

 

The trees led me down a rabbit hole as I could have sworn those were Eucalyptus trees at 0:30, and thought you might have modelled them as such - but it turns out they are mostly in California. (Can you tell I'm procastinating to avoid getting on with the ballasting?).

 

Edited February 7, 2021 by Mikkel

[Neil]

Liked that lots; the layout has a rather lovely finished, well established look. It's made me realise I need to work a bit harder in this department with my own layouts.

[Barry Ten]

Off out shortly but will reply properly later!

[Barry Ten]

On 07/02/2021 at 07:20, Mikkel said:

Very nice Al, I always look out for the scenery on your layouts as you do it so well, and noticed here in particular the rock faces and trees (yes I did also notice the trains ).

 

The trees led me down a rabbit hole as I could have sworn those were Eucalyptus trees at 0:30, and thought you might have modelled them as such - but it turns out they are mostly in California. (Can you tell I'm procastinating to avoid getting on with the ballasting?).

 

 

Thanks, Mikkel. Now you mention it, they do look like Eucalyptuses (Eucalypti?)! I must admit they're not anything in particular, just some attempts to use a tree-making kit which didn't work as well as I was hoping. I've still got most of the twigs and scatter material in a tub so I ought to revisit it.

 

I'm in two minds about the height of those trees, as well, They are nicely tall but when I've planted shorter, probably underscale RTR trees elsewhere, I think they worked a bit better. I think it's an area where selective compression might be beneficial.

 

The rock faces, though, I'm pretty happy with. They're a mixture of castings and hand-carved Sculptamould, stained with pigments.

[Barry Ten]

On 07/02/2021 at 08:06, Neil said:

Liked that lots; the layout has a rather lovely finished, well established look. It's made me realise I need to work a bit harder in this department with my own layouts.

 

Thanks, Neil. You'd probably recognise a lot of it as being relatively unchanged from when you visited - and a return is long overdue!

 

I think getting a fascia in place early on helps with the finished look, even when it isn't. There was a nice article in MR recently about making a layout look finished even when it isn't, and it basically boiled down to just paint everything green, even bare plywood and polystyrene. It was surprisingly effective in not drawing the eye to the unfinished bits.

[Barry Ten]

Here are a few snippets of progress (or in some cases, backwards progress) on the GA&E over the last few months.

 

To begin with, I've finally eliminated the short cut that used to allow trains to by-pass the peninsula. Here's a shot from a few years ago:

 

 

Although there's a lot going on here, the short cut in question is the tunnel mouth on the extteme left, where the track basically follows the course of the old layout before I added the peninsula. I kept this in a safety measure in case I wanted to remove the peninsula, and it also allowed trains to keep running while I was building the addition.

 

However, it rarely got used, and was height-restricted so excess height cars were unable to go through it. With the reworking of the yard last year it got eliminated, but the severed track and tunnel mouths remained.

 

Here's the revised arrangement:

 

 

There;'s still some tidying up, reballasting and scenic work to be done but it should give the idea. There's now no short-cut and as a consequence, the town scene on the upper level has a little more room to breathe.

 

Similar work has been done at the other end of the short cut. Here's a shot taken just after the peninsula was first put in:

 

 

Just behind the two RS-3s but below the one on the branch is the short cut from the other side. This has also now

been removed, and the resulting void filled in with landscaping and rock castings.

 

 

 

Unfortunately I made work for myself with the point in the above shot, on the branch (the one that diverges to a short siding which crosses the yard, as seen in earlier pics). It developed a fault this summer. leading to a short circuit if I selected the branch. Being a bear of very little brain, I didn't think things through sufficiently and ended up tearing out the point, scenery and several inches of track to the rear of it, convinced that something must have gone wrong with the micro-switch. That's why there's now an area of unballasted track on the branch. But, it turned out that the fault was nothing to do with the point at all! It was all due to some work I'd done a few months ago on the next point along (out of shot) where I'd inadvertently set myself up for a classic Electrofrog short circuit. I didn't realise it at the time, because I very rarely select that siding. The real pain was that the fix would have been simplicity itself, just cutting an insulation break in one rail. 

 

However, you ive and learn and I tried to make a positive out of it by adding those castings and generally doing a better job of the scenic contours the second time around.

 

Finally, for this update, there's been a bit more of a push with the scenery around the engine terminal:

 

 

Those who've been reading this account may remember that much of the scenery to the left of that caboose had to be ripped out and re-done when I discovered a clearance issue with the main line running underneath it, which would have prevented me from running those lovely double-stacks. I suppose the price was worth paying as watching that 18-unit intermodal train creep around the layout is very satisfying. At least now we are pushing forward, rather than moving back.

 

cheers, all.

[Barry Ten]

As always with the GA&E, spurts of progress seem to be balanced by moments of frustration!

 

Last night I thought I'd have a go at another decoder installation in an N loco. I used to farm these out to a DCC

specialist but after a few years, they said they weren't keen to do any more. Perhaps, after this evening's debacle,

I should try them again.

 

The loco I wanted to convert was an Atlas GP7 from 1996. It's not DCC-ready but a TCS CN-GP decoder should

work with it, according to all the info I could find. I've used these, or had them used for me, in a number of Atlas

and Lifelike locos, so they work well when installed properly.

 

I did everything properly. I cleaned up my workbench and dismantled the loco methodically, then soldered the

orange and grey wires to the motor tags. I then insulated the tags so they're no longer touching the frames. I

reassembled the loco, completed the soldering and put the loco on the programming track. Again, trying to

do it properly, I fired up the SPROG and the laptop, so I'm doing all the testing off the layout.

 

I couldn't get the loco to program. I took it apart, cleaned all the contacts, and made doubly-sure the decoder

contact pads were making good contact with with the frames, by soldering on a little extra dab. At that point,

if the loco was detected at all, it kept giving a short on the programming track. I took everything apart again,

added more insulation, and tried again. But I kept getting the same result. The SPROG was struggling to read

or write CV values and the motor was turning when it shouldn't. I took the f****r apart one more time, and

added even more insulation - although at this point I can't begin to understand how any current could be reaching

the motor. Ar 12.45, I called it quits as the loco was still shorting. Unfortunately because of the nature of these

TCS decoders, there's no easy way to test them independently.

 

I'm afraid this has been a very common experience with N loco decoders, even the more straightforward plug and

play type that go into more modern Atlas frames. Nothing's caused me more frustration and disillusionment than

getting these things to work. I've never had any problems with 4mm decoders, other than a few entirely self-inflicted

incidents, and I've hardwired dozens of locos in that scale, including some tricky cases.

 

 

 

 

[Barry Ten]

Onto something more productive - weathering!

 

I have a couple of Conrail-liveried Kato models which are ripe for treatment. I'd never found Conrail blue to be particularly interesting, but an encounter with the real thing, in faded, weathered condition, changed my mind. Like BR blue, I find it's one of those paint schemes that just looks better - or at least more interesting - when it's a bit faded and weatherworn.

 

These shots were taken on a bitterly cold 2008 day in Minneapolis-St Paul, in the fine company of RMwebber Ian Holmes. In fact, these are NS units already absorbed into the fleet from Conrail, so in addition to the general effects of winter, it must have been quite a few years since they were last painted.

 

 

 

 

 

Although these shots are of a GE unit, the weathering cues should be applicable to  GM locomotives as well. I love the way the blue has faded in some areas and not so much in others, and the general muck around the lower part of the cab, where the blue is particularly light.

 

Below are the two models that will be getting the treatment: an SD70MAC and SD80MAC. Both were identical in colour and markings out of the box, but I've already started trying to fade the SD70, the nearer loco. I didn't want to just start weathering as I thought that would tend to darken, rather than lighten, the overall effect.

 

 

There must be any number of ways one could approach fading, including misting on a pale coat of white with an airbrush. Rather than that, though, I'm using LifeColor Tensocrom weathering agents applied by brush:

 

 

I've had these products in my kit for a while, but they appear to be still available. They act as a glaze which can be put on in gradual layers, and I've found them quite handy to have around. There's a blue-ish shade in one of the other sets which is good for adding an oily sheen to black boilers, suggesting a hint of sky reflection. From this

set, though, I'm using "medium" which is a white glaze.

 

 

Two coats have gone onto the nearer unit. Although the effect is subtle, hopefully you'll agree that there is already a hint of fading compared with the other one. I'll keep adding layers until I'm happy. concentrating on certain areas more than others, and then I'll look at adding some of the other weathering tones.

Edited February 10, 2021 by Barry Ten
typo