With Bachmann's recent announcement of upcoming Siemens S70 LRV's, I have started considering the possibility of incorporating a bit of modern light rail into a future free-mo layout. I have rode on the S70s on UTA's TRAX system quite a few times and see them nearly everday in my commute, so its a prototype I am familiar with. However, while I have seen modular railroads incorporate overhead wire before, I have never really seen any explination of how to do it. I don't need it to be functional overhead wire, but something that would be believable between module to module of were the S70's would be running. Any tips on how to make overhead wire fit into a free-mo set up?
My layout isn't free-mo but, I do plan to have removable catenary, 'PRR style' so I can take some believeable photos.
IMG_5578 by Edmund, on Flickr
My thought is to sink some hi-strength neodium magnets into the sub roadbed and cement flat steel* onto the bases of the catenary so they can be removable or they can be bumped into without damage.
*I had 'deconstructed' an old transformer and saved the iron core plates. Handy for car weights and loads plus other RR uses.
IMG_5517 by Edmund, on Flickr
I thought about threading some Berkshire Junction EZ-line onto them, they make a green color that looks like oxidized copper. Not enough to get tangled in but just enough to look convincing.
IF you were careful enough you could string the catenary wire and set the poles in sequence. Remember the "pre-strung" Rapido telephone poles? Kind of like that.
IMG_5507 by Edmund, on Flickr
My catenary poles came from a Shapeways designer.
Good luck, Ed
How big a Free-Mo module are you building? You can probably get away with simple cosmetic catenary, or you could actually wire it easily enough to the same track bus as the track connection.
The only difficulty might be trolley connection, which might be harder to keep continuous between modules.
It takes an iron man to play with a toy iron horse.
MisterBeasley How big a Free-Mo module are you building? You can probably get away with simple cosmetic catenary, or you could actually wire it easily enough to the same track bus as the track connection. The only difficulty might be trolley connection, which might be harden to keep continuous between modules.
The only difficulty might be trolley connection, which might be harden to keep continuous between modules.
No idea yet, its still very much in the planning stages right now. I don't know what the Free-Mo standards would think of live wiring the catenary to the track power, but it could be a cool thing to do considering some locomotives are built for taking overhead wiring. For simplicities sake, I think cosmetic wire would be better than functional wire. Of course... with the Bachmann S70 I really have no idea what that product's specs will be, not even a render yet. All I know its been announced! So no clue if it will support overhead wiring or just traditional track wiring.
It sounds to me like you are going to go with dead wire. Makes sense to me, that will allow you to focus on making it look good.
I think the easiest way would be to permanently attach the wires to catenary poles, and make the poles removable. Alternatively you could attach a magnet to the wires and attach magnets to the poles. A lot of people just leave out the wires, and add them in photoshop when they want a realistic photo.
One problem with catenary poles is they will restrict the clearance and will not allow others to run some equipment (i.e. double stacks).
Regards, Isaac
I model my railroad and you model yours! I model my way and you model yours!
I have seen portable/segmental layouts with live overhead wire. I never really studied the points of intersection between modules but it appears that if the models were traction with trolley poles some fairly finicky transition areas had to be wired up when the layout pieces were put together. However if the layouts featured catenary and locomotives or interurbans with pantographs then some simple and non-obstrusive slight overlaps of the catenary kept the pantograph in constant contact with the juice.
Dave Nelson
gmpullman My thought is to sink some hi-strength neodium magnets into the sub roadbed and cement flat steel* onto the bases of the catenary so they can be removable or they can be bumped into without damage.
SPSOT fan One problem with catenary poles is they will restrict the clearance and will not allow others to run some equipment (i.e. double stacks).
If I am going off prototype, it wouldn't be an issue since the only freight to use UTA TRAX is typical stuff like boxcars, hoppers and lumber loads that travel the line in the dark after hours. But... for Free-Mo I can understand that might cause some issues if a double stack train that clears the other modules reaches the catenary equipped module and is unable to clear it due to the wires. Might be a good idea to build a junction of sorts that seperates the street car tracks from the main Free-Mo loop to ensure the street cars and their wire don't interfere with the mainline trains. And while my module prototype is UTA TRAX in my plan right now... what's not to say that other people might someday bring other electric trains to the layout? I for one am a sucker for nearly everything Stadler pumps out and if anyone picks up the rights to start making HO scale KISS cars I would also be buying those in a heart beat... although judging by their size it wouldn't surprise me if they require more clearance from the wire than the Siemens LRV's do. It might be a good idea for me to research different wiring set ups before I pick the one that fits.
I would think that a light rail set up like this would be completely seperate from any freight rail.
You could have your Free-Mo set up with a seperate R.O.W. for regular rail traffic, making sure the easement follows what other Free-Mo modulars use for freight rail.
I just don't see a light rail intermingling with regular rail.
Mike.
My You Tube
mbinsewi I would think that a light rail set up like this would be completely seperate from any freight rail. You could have your Free-Mo set up with a seperate R.O.W. for regular rail traffic, making sure the easement follows what other Free-Mo modulars use for freight rail. I just don't see a light rail intermingling with regular rail. Mike.
Nor do I, clearance is a major issue, and so is the appearance. A modern double stack intermodal just won't look right on street car tracks.
You (the OP) seem to get this. I think it’s best to have a separate street car track with a connection to the main if you want that. I am not sure how Freemo works with streetcars but I’m sure you can figure that out.
After going back and rereading some of this, does the TRAX use the same rail as regular rail? And regular freight traffic runs on the same track as TRAX, and vise-versa?
Milwaukee just installed this:
https://thehopmke.com/about/#hop-vehicles
It does not interact with regular rail, strickly a street thing.
I didn't think the rail was the same.
I'd still keep your TRAX seperate from the rest, as I mentioned before.
I have seen displays at Trainfest, in Milwaukee, but I never paid attention to the overhead part, and how they seperated the modulars. I think there might have been a couple lay outs that use live wire.
When Bachmann released the Acela, I wanted one so bad, but I don't use anything with OH wire, even if it's just for show, and the track is powered.
Well, the prices went down, and I ended up with a set, it sits in it's box, unused.
Yea, one of those moments.
Hello All,
SPSOT fanOne problem with catenary poles is they will restrict the clearance and will not allow others to run some equipment (i.e. double stacks).
I just returned from a vacation in Europe; Germany, Belgium, France, Netherlands and U.K.
Most of our travel was by train- -either by high-speed rail; TGV or ICE, or regional trains.
What I noticed was that all the container traffic was single-stacked. This was to clear the catenary lines that powered the freight locomotives.
Many of the switchers were diesel and could move freely under the catenary.
Back to the topic...
Using magnets to hold the catenary poles sounds like the way to go.
As far as the power lines themselves I can see problems of tangling if the lines are pre-strung.
You could consider using small eye-bolts under the catenary and thread the lines each time you setup your modules.
This would avoid gaps between the modules in the lines but would take more time.
Sewing thread could be used and it is easily replaced when worn out.
Hope this helps.
"Uhh...I didn’t know it was 'impossible' I just made it work...sorry"
mbinsewi After going back and rereading some of this, does the TRAX use the same rail as regular rail? And regular freight traffic runs on the same track as TRAX, and vise-versa?
Yes, TRAX is built for freight rail access. The core of the system is the former Union Pacific Provo Subdivision which still retains a small handful of active freight customers. Another branch of TRAX runs on the former DRGW Bingham Branch, which has several active customers and interchanges with the still freight only Garfield Branch at Welby.
Two railroads are contracted to run freight on the TRAX lines. Utah Railway (via its Salt Lake Southern subsidiary) and the Savage Bingham and Garfield. Both of these freight railroads share space in the Midvale Yard. At the end of the wye at Midvale is were the freight trains enter the TRAX system: https://goo.gl/maps/K9gLGvfRhUfFcste6The second access point for freight is coming out of the TRAX Redline and onto the Garfield Branch further west at Welby: https://goo.gl/maps/1rSeo7nZC9BbeNyj8 Of course there is a key safety caveat for this operation... All freight trains run at night after TRAX has fully shut down passenger operations for the day. So no, there aren't freight trains trying to shuffle around active light rail cars; since the freight trains aren't given authority to enter TRAX until the last LRV's have been stored away for the day. But once on the TRAX system, the entire operation is a freight operation until just before sunrise when the light rail trains begin running again. So for the purposes of a modular layout, of course it makes sense to keep the light rail a seperate line from the main through route. But having at least one module that transitions from the main line and onto the light rail system is prototypical, and would allow to simulate such a freight on light rail operation via running freight locals after the light rail has stopped running.
Trying to string catenary on a modular layout? That sounds a few steps short of insane. Catenary -poles-, I can see, but ... wires?
It was hard enough keeping the wires strung up under the real trains. Broke a few pantographs in my time, but always "got the train in" (others weren't so lucky!)...
I've got a Bachmann Peter Witt trolley. It has a switch on the bottom to select either the trolley pole or the wheels.
I don't use wires, but I would hope they would put the same feature in other electric engines.
MisterBeasley I've got a Bachmann Peter Witt trolley. It has a switch on the bottom to select either the trolley pole or the wheels. I don't use wires, but I would hope they would put the same feature in other electric engines.
Yes, I think I have heard Atlas locos do the same. This should provide some flexibility when running electric equipment.
I have to dig out my Bachmann Acela. I think it has the same feature, to switch from over head to track.
Here's a site with light rail modeling info:
http://www.customtraxx.com/
This is a group that sets standards for building modular traction layouts:
http://www.eastpenn.org/
Hope these help!
Eric
Southern California Traction Club has a 6-module light rail layout that includes live catenary on straight sections (and single trolley wire on curves). Here's a 2015 video of 3D-print San Diego S70 LRVs circling it: https://youtu.be/YxebGCN5Qww
mbinsewi I have to dig out my Bachmann Acela. I think it has the same feature, to switch from over head to track. Mike.
yes it does have that option
A pessimist sees a dark tunnel
An optimist sees the light at the end of the tunnel
A realist sees a frieght train
An engineer sees three idiots standing on the tracks stairing blankly in space
On the topic of overhead ("live") wire at the gaps between modules, I was reading a very old (1949) MR yesterday and there was an article by HO pioneer Eric La Nal (pen name for Allan Lake Rice). He had overhead wire at a "lift bridge" that was needed for access to his layout interior, versus a duck-under. He was stumped by how to have the wire be seamless at the gap, which would be very like the situation at a modular traction layout.
The solution was to do what the prototype traction/trolley systems did in some situations: the wire ends in an inverted V channel which would hold the trolley in place and supply current until it could meet its counterpart V channel to supply power and hold the trolley wheel in place until it met wire again.
It would be difficult to have two ends of wires so precisely formed that a trolley pole could bridge the gap and still have the wheel under the wire. But the V channel would provide power and force the pole's wheel (more often just a shoe, in HO) to be under the wire where the channel ends.
The prototype would use these similar V channels to force trolley poles down yet still supply power when a street car or other traction equipment with a trolley would enter a car barn or other low clearance, where the interior wire was at a lower level than outside.
If you are not going to run wires, the solution could be to simply build the catenary to clear the double stack traffic. In the real world, it's unworkable simply because you'd need a ridiculously high pickup. I assume that is why I don't see any double stack under wire in the Northeast Corridor. There when you get to a lift or draw bridge, the wire stops and the momentum of the train carries it across the dead zone.
On the subject of electrics, I thought the NYC electric zone was clever as they use a low mount third rail accessed with a shoe off the locomotive truck to provide power. It is well insulated from casual contact and well marked as to it's danger though Darwin still wins on occassion (hey watch this!). I think in fact that many of the early (prewar) O scale layouts used the same concept to get away from a third rail in the middle of the tracks ala Lionel). But now I'm getting J.R.
GMT wrote: "If you are not going to run wires, the solution could be to simply build the catenary to clear the double stack traffic. In the real world, it's unworkable simply because you'd need a ridiculously high pickup. I assume that is why I don't see any double stack under wire in the Northeast Corridor."
I don't believe double stack will FIT under the NEC catenary -- trail vans, yes, but DS is higher.
When double stack first started, the only route possible into northern Jersey was via the old Erie Southern Tier Line. As the Erie was the former "high and wide" route (a legacy of its early days with 6' gauge), nothing had to be "raised" -- the trains just ran. Got to run at least one myself, as I worked Pt. Jervis to North Jersey now and then.
Later on, they got clearances opened up on the River Line and the Mohawk, so the stacks started coming in that way...
I don't think I've seen Superliners on the NEC. In NY Penn Station I've seen Viewliner cars, but that's about it. There's freight at times on the NEC, just never seen any type of intermodal action.
nealknows I don't think I've seen Superliners on the NEC. In NY Penn Station I've seen Viewliner cars, but that's about it. There's freight at times on the NEC, just never seen any type of intermodal action.
Superliners can’t fit in the NEC. In addition to wires there are also tunnels that block max height cars from entering the NEC. That’s why only viewliners and amfleet cars are used by Amtrak there, and all intermodal stuff runs single stack through the NEC.
Cheers, Ed
So it appears Superliners can fit under wires! I will then conclude that the reason they aren’t used on most NEC trains is because of clearance issues coming in to New York City. The Lake Short Limited and Silver Star/Meteor for sure use single level stuff for that reason.
The video may be deceiving. Trains have to back into the station and I don't think all tracks have catenary. Hopefully someone can confirm?
nealknows The video may be deceiving. Trains have to back into the station and I don't think all tracks have catenary. Hopefully someone can confirm?
It’s looks like there is at least wires to hold up catenary on the other track, but I can’t tell if the catenary is also over the Superliners. It’s really hard to tell!
SPSOT wrote: "So it appears Superliners can fit under wires!"
The catenary on the NEC isn't the same height everywhere. The clearance underneath varies, it becomes much tighter under bridges and in tunnels.
Down around DC, there's enough clearance for the SuperLiners, as seen in the video.
You wouldn't want to try to fit them into NY Penn Station, though !