Firelock,
yes it was recovered by the Illinois Railway Museum in 1991 and restored.
My father remembers riding the interurban from Peru to Fort Wayne. He said the Wabash RR tracks were separate, so they did not use the same tracks. That seems wasteful to me but that was becore boom and bust cycles led to regulation.
No. That was a road/mill name that Bachmann used to offer.
Trains, trains, wonderful trains. The more you get, the more you toot!
Penny, did you do the Pocohantas lettering yourself on the little porter? It looks perfect.
That interurban car is just spectacular! Where is it? I suspect it's at the Illinois Railroad Museum?
Hoosier interurbans should be an interesting field of study. As I understand it Indiana was the interurban capital of the US at one time.
I just remembered, the "Classic Trains" summer 2013 issue was the BIG interurban issue and was absolutely fascinating. It's still available as a back-issue.
If I'm not mistaken, and as Wikipedia says, "Most interurbans were built to standard gauge..." The Fort Wayne and Wabash Valley in particular seems to have been standard gauge. The exceptions tended to use even wider gauges, as the interurbans preferred to use the local streetcar tracks rather than lay their own, and those were sometimes broad gauge.
Bob Nelson
That was an interesting discussion. Clearly, the wide cars on the narrow tracks were not ideal.
my new focus in the Hoosier interurbans. Those cars were made for narrow gauge. The Fort Wayne and Wabash Valley RR (my RR) must have carried some freight as well as running the trolleys. They could have ordered narrower cars if they wanted to. Presumably they would have wanted to do that.
But the old ones were wooden and a head on collision was bad.
Remember now, in the real railroad world in some places it wasn't unusual for cars to be interchanged between standard gauged and narrow gauged roads by lifting the carbodies off the standard gauge trucks and lowering them onto narrow gauge trucks. Typically they were 40 foot boxcars.
Go to the "Trains" magazine website, then their Forum, look for the topic "Transferring Freight Between Standard and Narrow Gauge..." for a discussion of the same.
Browsing forums today, I learned that Bachmann often uses 6’ as the width for freight cars, which i think is sensible. Presumably narrow gauge trains way back when would want their cars to not be so fat that they would waddle down the track. Presumably narrow gauge trains would not be next to full size trains because they ride on different tracks. So side by side comparisons are not necessary. It needs to look ok by itself.
Anyway it seems the main difference between ho and on30 is height. Today, as an experiment, I cut the top off of an ho freight car. My goal for tomorrow, wife permitting, is to grab some styrene from the hobby store and glue one extra inch around the top of the car, putting the lid back on and painting. Maybe all those steps cannot be completed before we leave town for the holiday. But the goal is to see how it looks.
However, i am struggling with the height of the gondola. Apparently they were not all the same height, especially in 1900. Does this mean an ho gondola can be used without modification? I could just call it a shorty. The cherry red gondola has already been painted black. I threw some wood in it to serve as freight and it looks ok to me. But realism has never been my thing.
Yeah, I'd tend to agree. It would look very odd to see this porter pulling the car it's riding on:
Even with smaller non-scale Lionel locos like this one, a modified 2026:
I did consider using On30 coaches retrofitted with standard Lionel trucks for Disneyland service at one time. But they would have looked way too small behind a Lionel General. K-Line had a line of cars made from Marx molds that were fitted with S gauge AF-compatable trucks and in my opinion they didn't look right either.
Palallin, those pctures prove your point. I will have to look at S scale. Hopefully changing the wheels would not be too difficult.
Neither one is really a good idea. Narrow Gauge equipment and rolling stock was a great deal smaller than standard gauge. Even the small O27 cars Firelock 76 recommends tend to be huge compared to On30 cars.
Check out these comparison pics of two engines with teh same wheel arrangement. One is standard gauge, the other narrow. And the NG engine is a very large example on a 3 foot gauge engine while the SG engine is of moderate size.
https://ogrforum.ogaugerr.com/topic/big-mike-andamp-little-mike?reply=21280719150342701
I have seen very good results from putting On30 trucks under S scale cars, though, particualrly the old American Flyer Postwar kind.
Perhaps i should show pictures.
The original actually had the stations listed on the right front.
https://www.shutterfly.com/picturepicker/viewTabletPicturePicker.sfly?fid=c29a0566c64505636cbbd47cbb382743
The Peru-Wabash was a different company, purchased later by the Wabash RR. I do not know whether they used the same track.
It might be a lot easier for you to convert an O gauge car to On30 by switching trucks. On30 is supposed to be O scale but in a narrow-gauge form.
Full-size O scale cars may look a little strange on those smaller trucks though, you may want to stick with the classic post-war cars that were 027 and 031 compatible.
And check her avatar, it's MS Penny Trains!
And trust me, she knows all about scratchbuilding! You'd be amazed, as we all are.
The feedback from this group got my mental gears turning and as a result the gnomes went back in their box. The new theme is the line between Peru and Wabash Indiana in 1904. The Wabash-Peru interurban was formed in 1901. The Fort Wayne and Wabash Valley RR was launched in 1904. Presumably the interurban line was narrow gauge. It could have been a traction line but may not have been. Most likely they used wooden excursion cars.
The FWWV would have been carrying agricultural products, so I will need a grain hopper and a stock car.
the Wabash railroad owned the interurban at one time. I think I can go with Wabash train cars. My shopping list is starting to take shape.
the layout will have the two towns at opposite ends. The center should be rural Indiana, tree-lined country roads, fields and of course the Wabash River. The tracks follow the river, i think.
the layout will remain small in size.
Palallin,
based on your experience, which is better:
convert an ho car to on30 by rebuilding to make it taller, or
convert a O car to on30 by switching out the trucks and wheels?
The term "Postwar" is beginning to slip in its application. Consider: the end of the MPC era is about the same distance from us as the beginning of the MPC era is from the end of the PREwar era.
I would certainly consider the B-mann 2-6-0 (and the accompanying sets) a classic: not only does it have age on it, it is now being "reissued" in updated format with DCC & sound installed. It gave birth to the On30 surge that changed the landscape for many model RRs and for Bachamnn Industries. Designed for under-the-tree trains for the Dept 56 crowd, it caught the eye of MANY model RRs and gave an obscure scale/gauge combination such a boost that it occupies a bigger niche than O 2 rail standard gauge and displaced a goodly fraction of the ever-popular HO dominance. In fact, mauch of the current O Scale produciton is aimed directly at the On30 slice of the pie, and all the other slices of O benefit from it.
My 3 rail Hi-rail O layout includes an On30 loop and sidings, and they play very well together.
Mr Penny Trains,
my structures are scratch built. Very crude but i am more fond of them then i would be of plasticville stuff.
regarding the classic toy trains designation, i will argue the narrow gauge trainsPp are from a classic era, even if the Bachmann Porters are not antiques. That might be as close as i am going to get to being classic.
Aboard!
The Gnomeeven if Bachmann is not a classic maker
Well, they are, to their own degree. Bachmann has been making the Plasticville line of structure kits to augment O and S gauge trains since the 1950's. In recent years they also bought Williams Trains which started out as "Williams Reproductions" producing copies of Lioenl standard gauge trains from the 1920's. Later on they started making versions of postwar trains that also had been out of production for many years. In a way, Williams made it possible for many a toy train lover to get their hands on locomotives they could run on their layouts that otherwise had become cost prohibitive due to their rarity and collector value. So, Bachmann has a more than legitimate claim to the title "classic maker".
Toy trains, Plasticville buildings and the Christmas tree. A classic holiday scene!
Becky
What makes a "classic" automobile? That's easy!
If it was around when my father was a kid it's a classic. If it was around when I was a kid, it's a bomb!
With a few exceptions. like George Barris' Batmobile. And the "Superman" cars from the 50's, I'll allow that.
I was thinking similar to what RT said. The term "Classic" is usually relative to time. I never thought of my 1983 Z28 as a "Classic", but it technically qualifies as one. I can even get heritage plates for it. When CTT released it's first issue in 1987, the Postwar period had ended just 18 years prior. Fast forward to now and MTH is 25 years since releasing their first catalog and TMCC is approaching 25 years. Do these qualify as classic? I think Banks did sum it up best - It's whatever you like!
rtraincollector,
i am guessing from your name that you seek out and buy trains that actually were made prior to 1940, instead of more recently manufactured trains that are based on the same prototypes. That would mean your collection is composed of train cars and locos that are about eighty years old.
If you use the term of automobiles classic is usually 25 years I think. so in that case anything from 1993 or before would be a classic train. To me like some of the others in here Classic trains are mainly 1969 and before ( 1969 was the last year for post war ( 1945 - 1969 ) and prewar is 1900 - 1942. I have trains from all era's but would have to say now that probably my largest collection is Prewar, then Postwar items.
Life's hard, even harder if your stupid John Wayne
http://rtssite.shutterfly.com/
For the purpose of the magazine it is, broadly speaking, Standard gauge, O, and S gauge trains in the pre and postwar eras.
Bob,
your explanation is official, so i have been pondering it. My analysis is this: when people write about the classic eras, they might mean one of the following.
1. The era when the toy train was manufactured (Perhaps vintage or antique would be more precise words).
2. The era being modeled.
3. The age of the modeler (i.e., old guys like me).
perhaps some people are running trains manufactured in the prewar era, but not many. Many no doubt are nostalgically modeling trains extant in their youth or a time they regard fondly, such as when their parents or grandparents were working. These trains would have been originally sold more recently than the postwar era, for the most part.
these are just speculations..
Mr Banks, i can see that this group is the opposite of rigid. Your willingness to mix ho and O on the same layout boggled my mind. If you can do that, then anything goes, even my little unicorn. Those ho cars that are off to the side may have to get on my track.
For the purpose of the magazine it is, broadly speaking, Standard gauge, O, and S gauge trains in the pre and postwar eras. That was our founding focus. Modern Standard gauge, O and S gauge trains are now part of the coverage. We have dabbled in vintage Lionel, Flyer, and Marx HO but our audience generally views HO distantly.
We used to include Large scale trains, but that shifted after we bought Garden Railways magazine.
The term pretty much means something different to everyone – we get calls about kids pull toy trains, where to find parts for no-brand plastic Christmas trains, and anythng else that is a train that may be played with (such as Auburn's rubber trains). But as Banks says, it is whatever you want it to be.
Bob Keller
Welcome Gnome.
Thats a nice little layout you have there.
To me a Classic Toy Train is whatever you like.
I've been with the forum 10 years. My main I interest in Gilbert HO that was made by American Flyer. Last few years I've been dabbling with Prewar started with the set dad and his brother got from Santa in 1929.
Since I recently retired the layout I've been planning for 30 years will soon start. Primarily HO with a loop of O. Planned to be what could have been under a Christmas tree of the late 50s.
Come over to the Coffee Pot and join us.
Banks, Proud member of the OTTS TCA 12-67310
Paul,
your feedback is reassuring. My interests and skills do not lend themselves toward perfect realism and the style is definitely along the lines of a Toy. Perhaps what i lack is the classic element. On the other hand, a Bachmann Porter seems like a classic loco to me, even if Bachmann is not a classic maker and on30 is not a classic gauge.
To me, it's not the equipment, but the spirit. There is a toy train look, and the treatment of the scenery that is different. When I first started reading CTT, I remember adapting the Toy train look to an HO layout. Bright colors, blue skies, and just an overall "Happy" feel, not so much going for realism.
So, you belong here with us, welcome!!
Paul
That was a cool gnome engine, Firelock. Heck, i thought the first rotary engine was the Wankel. Shows how weak my knowledge of history really is.
today i discovered FIMO and as an experiment made a little unicorn, so now my gnomes have livestock.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.
Get the Classic Toy Trains newsletter delivered to your inbox twice a month