So not quite on paper yet but I have ideas bopping around in my head. First off, I'm going to be modeling it on the Northwestern Pacific in the northern part of California from Eureka to Ukiah with the line that runs from Ft. Bragg to Willets. Anyways, I'm planning on setting it in the late 40's, early 50's right around the time they started getting help from diesel but steam was still the dominate power. So I'm trying to figure out first off, what code to go with to be realistic. I'm thinking of code 83 for the main line and code 70 for the branches and spurs. For the mainline, I'm leaning to the 30" curves because most of the rolling stock I'll have is smaller (30 feet to 50 feet) but I will on occasion bring out a couple of sets that aren't anywhere near the time or place. I have a french TGV that I plan on running every now and then and so I want to keep the layout runnable for this train as well.
Another question though. I can't remember why the turnouts are numbered, what the numbers mean and what I should be looking for. So keeping it to the era, what would be better for mainlines and what would be better for branches? Yup yup, a lot of questions but things that are needed to be asked so I can continue with other plans in my head.
I'll see if I can help a bit. Mainline Class 1 running, or will you be strictly short line and spurs? I ask this because if you intend to do the heavier mainline stuff with the articulated and super steam, like the 2-10-4, 4-12-2, cab forwards, mallets, and so on, you'll probably look okay with either Code 83 or Code 70, but the Code 83 would be closest to the heavy rail on which the Big Boys could run. That's my take on it, but really either or.
Turnouts go like this. Small numbers, say 4 and 5, are tighter in their diverging route curves. Not good for the longer 2-10-2 and 2-10-4 steamers. Articulated are probably going to be okay since the HO models let both engines swing...unrealistically, but otherwise everyone would need 60' curves...more really. So, the #4/5, and the common snap-switches with are often between those two at about #4.5, are going to suffice in a yard, or for access onto spurs for most smaller locos and the articulated engines. If you want your big 2-10-2 and similar non-articulated steamers to run into those yards and spurs, then you'll need an honest-to-goodness quality #5, and I would highly recommend not going less than #6 for looks and reliable tracking.
Out on the high speed mains with the heavier rails, try for #7 (curved or straight type turnouts) or higher. I use handlaid #8's, and they work extremely well.
The number designation relates to the ratio of divergence permitted at the frog of each turnout. A #4 means the engine will be leaving the through route's axis at the rate of 1 unit of length in divergence for every 4 units of forward motion relative to the through route's axis. For the longer, narrower #8 that I use, the loco must travel 8 units down the through route's axis in order to get than same 1 unit of length in divergence. I hope that make's sense.
Does that help?
Actually yes that does make quite a bit of sense. No wonder I never got it when I was 12, I don't think I could have ever been smart enough to know. Anyways, as far as running a heavy steam, I'll probably stick with smaller 4-4-0, 2-8-0, 2-8-2. I love Big Boys to death but its not really my thing so I can't see myself running something that big on my layout. Maybe have one for display but not for everyday use. The main reason I ask about turnouts is because I'm thinking about trying my hand at hand laying them instead of buying prebuilt ones except in the staging area unless I get that good, heh.
I'll be running a Mainline Class 1 with a junction where it meets with the line coming from Ft. Bragg to Willits (Willits being the junction for the two) which is basically the halfway point inbetween where I'm modeling (Eureka and Ukiah). So as far as curves are concerned, do you think that will suffice for a decent curve on a mainline or should I go a bit bigger? I know its not going to be the most realistic size for a mainline curve but with the amount of space I have and the idea that I'm brewing up, I can go a bit bigger but I don't think I can go too much.
Another question. If I want to determine the actual size of lets say an HO flatcar without physically holding it with a ruler, and I know its a 30' in real life and the scale is 1:87, whats the equation to get the length of said car?
And finally, about speciality tools. I'm wondering where to get a track gauge and something to help figure out the incline of a track while I'm drawing up my plans. I've been trying to watch ebay as much as I can but I get sidetracked checkin out other stuff.... I'm an ebay junkie. I've got more questions but they'll come as soon as I start figuring out more!
Turnouts are numbered by the rate the diverging route diverges from the straight route. So on a #6 turnout the diverging route will move 1 unit away from the straight route in 6 units of distance. A #4 turnout will move 1 unit away from the straight route in 4 units of distance.
So if you use #6 turnouts and 2" track centers on a lead, the centerline of the 2nd switch on the lead will be 12" from the first switch.
To find the length of something you have to end up in the same units.
The ratio of HO is 1:87.1
Method 1: The car is 30 ft long. Multiply the length by 12 to get inches : 30x12=360 in. then divide that by 87.1 : 360/87.1 = 4.133 in
Method 2: The car is 30 ft long. Divide 30 ft by 87.1 : 30/87.1 = .3444 ft. Then multiply that by 12 to get inches: .3444x12= 4.1333 in.
As for grade, a quick and dirty way to remember grade is that the number of inches you rise in 8 ft of run is the percent of grade. 8 ft is 96 in, close to 100. So if the track rises 1" in 8 ft its a 1% grade. By working backwards, if the track rises 1/2" in 4 ft its a 1% grade or if the track rises 1/4" in a 2 ft distance its a 1% grade. Since 2 ft levels are very common, What I do is make a "stairs" of pieces of 1/8" thick material. I cut a piece about 3" long, then stack a 2.5" piece on that, then a 2" piece on that, and so on. Each step is a 1/2% grade. So if a 2 ft level is level on the 3rd step, its a 1.5% grade.
Dave H.
Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com
You haven't really stated what radius you'll be using, so I can't answer your question. I don't know how much space you have, but more importantly, I don't have a diagram of your track plan, so I can only suggest to you that you should have a mix of tight and wide curves for the triple sakes of conservation of scenicking and structure placement space, interest, and smooth and relatively faster mainline running. For example, you will have fast freight, but surely a passenger train moving people at a fairly fast clip? That would probably be your 2-8-2 Mikado. You also want interesting little settings and spurs with tight curves that your 2-6-2 or 4-4-0 will slowly trundle up pushing a couple of gondolas. Tight curves there will be enjoyable and conserve space for log cabin, abandoned mine, sawmill, ravine with short tresle, and any number of other little odds 'n sods.
As a general rule, from my experience, 22" should be the lower limit for a layout that will probably want to welcome and trial a larger steamer before too long. We all hanker after a new loco at least once a year (some photos of inventory and some claims to inventory suggest more like one a week for some of us ), and the hankering is almost always strongest for a test of your curves with something a wee bit larger...a 4-8-4 maybe. If you can make your loop, assuming that is what your main really is, with 24" curves and not bust a gut, then please do it. You will almost certainly do a tap dance when that 4-8-4 sails around them and looks decent doing it.
To convert your 30'er flat to 1/87, just multiply the 30' by 12 to convert it from feet to inches...since your model will only be inches long. So, 30 X 12 = 360". Next, we have to convert the full scale 360" into the 1/87th that the model is. You can do it two ways: divide 87 into 1 (which is what 1/87 means in arithmetic) and get a decimal. You can do this on a calculator right away and simply. The answer will be long, but we'll take only the first four figures after the decimal point, or 01149. We keep the decimal, though. So, next step is to multiply the 360" that we need to scale down by this decimal number we got in the previous step, and that comes to 4.14 (rounded), and that is in inches since we already converted the 30' to inches in the very first step.
Take a deep breath. There is an easier and quicker way. Take calculator in hand, enter 360, and divide it by 87. You'll get the same answer.
I can't help with the ebay thing...sorry. I stay away. Try any of the hobby shops on line, such as standard hobby, toytrainheaven, modeltrainstuff, internethobbies, caboose hobbies, discounttrains, internettrains, trainworld, traintrack.net, blueridge hobbies, and a host of others for things that you'd just as soon were in the mail by 0800 tomorrow morning.
I can talk you through figuring out a grade in another post or thread if you wish.
I spent a couple years researching those lines and even designed a couple model railroads.
The passenger train for the CW would have been the Skunk, a MACK Diesel, which I believe by the 50's was strictly tourist, as it is today. Later they added a 2-8-2 and called it the Super Skunk. My research was done on the year 1917 though.
The run between Eureka and Ukiah was pretty straight, but the CW compared to the Horseshoe Curve and Tehachapi looked like a pretzel, curving around and back on itself to make the grade to Willits.
Chip
Building the Rock Ridge Railroad with the slowest construction crew west of the Pecos.
Actually, the NWP from about Scotia south to Willits and then Hopland to Cloverdale was some of the most difficult railroading ever constructed in the US. It had to follow the Russian and Eel Rivers to find a way through the moutains and these two section of the route were the source of never ending washouts, landslides, and derailments. Modeling these two section would be a real challenge because the railroad spent most of its time hugging the sides of cliffs with numerous tunnels and bridges. Island Mountain was a particular problem and SP finally threw up its hands and filed for abandonment in 1982 after the bridge and tunnel there were destroyed by flooding for the umpteenth time. Cloverdale south was pretty flat and easy compared to the rest of the road.
The California Western at least just had one mountain range to cross to get to Ft. Bragg but it did take a lot of twists, turns, and switchbacks to do it. Even with the operating difficulties, the engineers that constructed the line wisely avoided trying to follow the Noyo River too closely and stayed high enough to avoid the flooding and washouts that were the downfall of the NWP.
Either railroad would be fun to model but this is one of those layouts that are meant for guys who like scenery more than trains. Both roads were a tiny part of a vast forest. I can remember trying to follow the NWP from Cloverdale to Ukiah and there were many times when I couldn't see the tracks even when I knew where they were. I wish I could find some of my slides from those times - the SP SD-9's taken across the river from the road looked just like an HO model.
Jim,
You're right. I forgot about that section of track. I even have a 1914 video of the trip along the Russian River and all the tunnels that were needed.
At least earlier, there was a good amount of lumber being run on those roads. The Union Lumber Company, which owned the CW, was huge.
Here's a photo that might help. Notice the wye.