Disapointed with Model Railroader Special Edition O gauge layout.

[Anonymous]

Thanx Ben... I'll do that.


Thanx again,
Colin

[ben10ben]

Let me explain my feelings a little bit more on the book.

Despite the mentioned errors, it is still first really affordably priced Lionel reference book I have encountered. The Greenburg's books, I'm sure, are excellent, but at $40-60 each, I can't afford to fill my library with all of the ones I'd like to have. David Doyle's book, for $30, describes in detail variations and other information that is more difficult to find, for a price less than one Greenburg's book. He also lists set contents, again something that I find to be very useful. I still say that it's an excellent book to take the place of a set of Greeburg's books(7, I think), at a cost of less than one of those books.

If the Greenburg's books on Lionel trains are as good as the one I have on Erector Sets, I'm sure that they are well worth the money, but, once again, I don't have that kind of money.

[lionelsoni]

http://www.trains.com/community/forum/topic.asp?page=-1&TOPIC_ID=23391&REPLY_ID=229602#229602
I had hoped not to restart this disagreement, but felt I needed to balance Ben's endorsement.

[ben10ben]

Colin,
You might want to try another topic about your 2034 on this forum describing what it does in more detail when you put it on the track. There are several here extremely well versed in postwar repair that I'm sure could get you going in the right direction to get it running. Trains back then were designed so that they could easily be serviced. Getting one running is often a matter of no more than some cleaning and $5 or less in replacement parts. Such work can also often be easily completed in an evening.

[Anonymous]

Yeah... I tried running my 2034 but it would'nt. It would make a noise and go
1 inch down the track then stop...

What a shame.

oh well.

Thanx,

Colin

[Frank53]

QUOTE: Originally posted by lionelsoni

My opinion of Doyle's book can be found elsewhere on this forum.

I just purchased it, do I have to search?

[lionelsoni]

The most straightforward method would be to put about 12 volts from a variable transformer across the smoke unit, let it warm up, and then measure the current. Six volts divided by that current is the resistance that you want.

If you don't have an ac ammeter to do this that can handle as much current as the smoke unit will draw, you can improvise by putting a small known resistance in series with the smoke unit, then measure the voltage across that resistor when you have 12 volts across the smoke unit. Multiply the known resistance by 6 volts and divide by the measured voltage to get the desired resistance.

(If you're lucky enough to have an assortment of power resistors, trial and error also works pretty well. Apply the voltage gradually so that you don't exceed what the smoke unit can stand.)

To get the power rating, divide 36 (6 volts squared) by the resistance that you will use. Then round up to the next power rating that you can get that is at least twice what you calculated.

If you can't find a resistor of the right value, you can put several smaller ones in series. The resistance of the string is the sum of the individual resistances. Likewise, you can put several larger ones in parallel. The resistance of the combination is the reciprocal of the sum of the reciprocals of the individual resistances. If they are all the same resistance value, this is just the individual resistance divided by the number of resistors. In both the series and parallel cases, if they are all the same resistance value, the power rating of the combination is the sum of the individual ratings.

[ChiefEagles]

Please do that Bob. If you want to, you can email me or psot it here for everyone. Thanks

[lionelsoni]

My opinion of Doyle's book can be found elsewhere on this forum.

[ben10ben]

According to David Doyle's Standard Catalog of Lionel Trains(excellent book, by the way), the 2034 does not have magnetraction. Generally speaking, the 203X series of engines had magnetraction, and most were identical to the comparable 202X engines in most respects(i.e. 2035 was a 2025 with Magnetraction and a new trailing truck). The 2034 appears to be an exception to this rule.

[lionelsoni]

Frank, probably the easiest way to solve your problem is with a series resistor. The advantage of the diode trick is that the voltage drop is constant with varying load. However, in your case, the smoke unit's load is constant, so a resistor will work just fine. Do you need advice on how to find the resistance value and power rating?

[Anonymous]

Snell50,

I belive that from an older forum, you mentioned that you had a Postwar 2034. If it was madfe after 1950, it will have magne-traction and will be best for those curves. I tried building a floor version of the layout with 0-42 curves and it worked fine (my friends atlantic was used as well as my trains)

Then we tried it with 0-27. It was great fun (however, torturing to the loco) when we ran it so fast it flew of the curves on the trestle. The wrecks were so realistic too. The atlantic was run with 3 hoppers and a caboose.

But anyway, my aunt also has a 2034 ansd we used that too and iut worked great. People still run stuff from 1910 and up snel50.

Bert and Mary Poppins

[ChiefEagles]

Bob, another subject. I am think about installing a fan driven smoke unit in a big dummy. I will be lighting it and will be adding pickups. Now with DCS/TMCC, I set the transformer at 18V. I want to reduce this voltage to say around 12V or 14 V. That way it will not be over smoking but not low enough to make it not smoke well. Give me your imput. Thanks.

[lionelsoni]

If the voltage difference is not very much, the current can be limited to a tolerable level by the source impedance of the transformers. Going from block to block on level track, you would want to match the voltages anyway, which minimizes the problem. I mentioned it here because one would deliberately set the voltages to be different between the level and the grade.

Another way to reduce the voltage is to put back-to-back diode pairs in series with the center rail. Each pair of diodes will drop the voltage by about .7 volts. A bridge rectifier with + and - connected together will drop about 1.5 volts between the ~ terminals. This eliminates the fault current, is probably less expensive than an additional transformer, and gives the same voltage reduction regardless of the current drawn by the locomotive.

[3railguy]

Lionelsoni may very well be right on two seprate transformers. However, I've never experienced this on the crossovers on my layout where I have two loops powered by two transformers. I've always used an old multi post ZW transformer when doing this with grades.

Another idea is to bank the curves. That would be cool to watch. You can do this by adding shims under the ties or trestle feet. Finding the right angle takes some tweaking. Too steep and the trains might topple over at slow speeds. A smooth transition is required too. Otherwise you could derail the train.

[lionelsoni]

Using a resistor to descend a hill is a better idea than using a separate transformer set to a lower voltage. Running from one block to another with different transformers powering the two blocks requires that the two voltages be not only in phase but equal. Any difference in transformer voltage will be the difference at the rail gap that will be shorted by the pickups and could result in a substantial fault current, which, even if it does not trip a circuit breaker, could mess up the pickups.

[Anonymous]

Yeah, I have that issue of CTT.

[3railguy]

IT WASN'T MY FAULT!

OK, you can blame the engineer.

I did the origional trackplan for the Coal Terminal Central and it was published sometime in the fall of 2003. It was called the Indianapolis and Hartford City Railway. It was designed as an inexpensive starter set expansion layout. Yes, the curves are sharp and the trestles are steep. But, that's Lionel 027.

With lighter, higher geared engines, you need to keep your hand on the throttle. That's part of the fun and I think I made mention of this in the origional manuscript. One suggestion I can make is to isolate the downgrade with insulating pins and jumper it with a 25 watt ceramic resistor (the ohm value depends on the amps your engines draw) or use a seperate transformer phased in to the main transformer. This will slow the train down as it decends the grade.

I agree on 042 and fastrack, but again this was designed to be an inexpensive 4 x 8 layout with an interesting twist to it. BTW, Fastrack wasn't on the market when I designed the layout.

[JamesShannon]

I have a Lionel Pennsy GP9 from the late 90's that works on 027 curves even though it is not supposed to. My kids run that on all kinds of crazy temporary layouts and they can't make it derail even if they want to. That loco was $230 new so much cheaper now on ebay or used plus it has TMCC and Railsounds and Magnatraction. I also just picked up the Steel Service Set from 1996 which is a switcher and 3 ore cars < $200 like new used, a wonderful little (TMCC, Magnatraction) set that would fit in with the industrial theme on that layout. Just some thoughts.

Jim

[Anonymous]

Hey Ya'll

Snell50, why not try 0-42 curves on a larger sheet of playwood. Or go with ) gauge tubualr (better any way) and use those curves. The higher rail is supposed to keep the engines on the track better.

Bert and Mary Poppins

[lionelsoni]

Amen on the O34, Gary. My outer main line is O34 for the same reason. However, I have been able to find simple modifications to run everything I want on O27 curves, including a Big Boy, Train Master, 773 Hudson, 16-wheel flatcar, and numerous long passenger cars.

[Anonymous]

The track planning software is called RR-Track. An excellent product for designing layouts with sectional track.

Unfortunately, this expanded plan won't qutie fit a 4x8 table. It's closer to 5 1/2 x 9. Note that this plan uses some 42" curves and turnouts, and a few Marx 34" "wide radius" curves which you can find sometimes on eBay or at train meets. (It's a shame that no modern manufacturer makes this geometry for O27 profile track.) My expanded "mainline" has an outer passing siding that effectively creates an outer loop for running locomotives that cannot handle the tigher curves.

Back to Colin's original issue, I still think cruise control is the answer. But be warned: few modern scale-size locomotives run on 27" curves. At best you can a few scale switching engines that work okay on 27" (the Railking USRA 0-6-0 is one), and some smaller diesels will work. Traditional-size Lionel stuff and Railking items can be found, but not always with cruise control. (The Lionmaster Hudson is one nice semi-scale locomotive that works on this layout despite being rated for a minimum 31" diameter curve.)

If you can be happy with a few well-chosen engines and traditional-sized rolling stock, then this is a great layout for a small space. If not, then you might want to stick to a track plan with 31" or larger curves. You will get less action in a 4x8, but that's the tradeoff you have to make.

[Anonymous]

Originally posted by garyvot

Colin, here is the slighly expanded version of this layout that I built last year:

Hey I like that! Is there a trick to stretching the 4x8 plywood? Maybe a shelving outrigger. I don't mind riding the throttle, keeps you on your toes. I still wonder why my GP-38 derails.

Thanks for the track plan,

Bob

• Reply
• Edit