Unfortunately, steamers in N scale are usually even weaker than their HO counterparts.
Take my PRR M1 4-8-2, for example. The unmodified Bachmann Spectrum moutain from which it was built could haul maybe 4-5 boxcars and still slipped on 15" radius curves.
After fiddling with the traction tire driver bearing blocks, "tuning" the valave gear, and adding a bunch of weight inside the Pennsy boiler, I can get her to pull about 12 boxcars or 18 empty hoppers around 15" radius curves with only minimal slipping. But that's still pretty pathetic, all things considered.
I may replace the chassis one day with the new Spectrum Heavy Mountain... I hear it pulls much better. The Spectrum 2-8-0 in N is a good puller though; I turned one into a PRR H-class.
The real puller, however, is the Kato Mike in N scale... Without the traction tire she's a yard queen, but with the traction tire and a heavy cast-pewter GHQ Pennsy L1s boiler, she could pull the bumper off your car.
Nevertheless, I find myself gravitating toward diesels for reliable, consistent operations with minimal tinkering. I don't mind tinkering, but I'm not always in the mood for it!
Modeling the Rio Grande Southern First District circa 1938-1946 in HOn3.
dti406 wrote:~One of my Mikes hauled a 64 car ore train up a 2% uncompensated grade on a 30" radius curve.
From the far, far reaches of the wild, wild west I am: rtpoteet
jfugate wrote:Any steamers I've ever had were lousey pullers, and my friend Charlie Comstock's BLI cab forwards have a very sad pulling capacity.
Joe,
I agree with you in general about steam pulling capacity with the exception of the BLI cabforwards. I've heard negative comments about the pulling power from several posters. Mine will pull 30 cars up a 2% grade (I checked this again last week after the LDSIG postings), not as good as the proto, but not the dismal comments I hear all the time. OTOH, Maybe in some quarters 30 cars is dismal, but that is what fits and looks good on my layout. Certainly better than my P2k 2-8-8-2.
Guy
see stuff at: the Willoughby Line Site
The Middle Division did have more than just a brickyard. In 1956, there were still 2 brickyards in Mount Union, PA, where PRR met the narrow-gauge coal-hauling East Broad Top. 1956, of course, was the year EBT folded.
However, almost without exception, the traffic generated on the Middle Division was in the form of a few cars a week (again, once EBT and the massive coal prep plant at Mount Union folded). A lumberyard in Mifflintown, a freight station in Huntingdon, the American Viscose factory and a connection at Lewistown to Standard Steel Co's Burnham steel mill, to name most of 'em.
Nope, the Middle Division was mostly about through traffic.
The Northern Division, however, is looking better and better.
I found a map in one of my issues of Pennsy Journal of Sunbury and Northumberland in 1946. There were dozens of rail-served industries in Sunbury, including two casket factories (how morbid!). Additionally, via the Selinsgrove and Lewistown branch, a connection was made to the massive PP&L coal-fired power plant at Shamokin Dam, PA, just below Sunbury.
Add the connector to the Wilkes-Barre Division at KASE tower and we have a happenin' prototype!
Hi
I find that since you model the PRR middle division, I model sort of a branch line in the same area but in conrail, now since the middle division is a 4 track main line most of the time, you will have more runner like operations, but since this is coal country, the best way to add a operation to it you should add a mine area with a staging yard that can be loaded on to trains and sent to your yards, and sent the coal to industrys that use it, like power plants in that era, or coke producing plant then sent it to a steel mill. also if you have intermodell service, make several terminal along the tracks to add some way of interchanging trains. Now since you have already finshed your layout, and it way be hard to change the layout, around but every layout is a work in progress, keep that in mind. Dont Get STRESSED, I cant "stress" that enough
Good luck and Happy easter
~Tommy Single
Modeling Pennsylvania in Maryland
Simple, weight, I don't remember the final weight on my brass WP 2-8-2 any more but it is filled with as much cerro-safe as I could put in it allong with a long breakin period (1 hr per axle). I also make sure it is balanced over the centerline of the drivers as all the weight on a couple of drivers and not on the others is worthless to the pulling abilities of a locomotive. The other thing is that these still have the original open frame motors which allow one to put that weight to use without overheating the motor which usually cannot be done with the can motors. Although to use DCC I have to use the decoders with a two amp rating to be sure I don't fry it.
Some of my newer brass with can motors seem to haul real well without having to add weight, but they are large articulateds as the H-8 Allegheny and N&W Class A.
By the way the WP 2-8-2 took 3rd place at the 1976 locomotive performance contest the the NMRA convention in Denver.
Rick
Rule 1: This is my railroad.
Rule 2: I make the rules.
Rule 3: Illuminating discussion of prototype history, equipment and operating practices is always welcome, but in the event of visitor-perceived anacronisms, detail descrepancies or operating errors, consult RULE 1!
dti406 wrote:As an aside to Joe Fugate, my steam engines will outpull any diesel you have. One of my Mikes hauled a 64 car ore train up a 2" uncompensated grade on a 30" raidius curve.RegardsRick
Regards
So Rick, what's your secret? Any steamers I've ever had were lousey pullers, and my friend Charlie Comstock's BLI cab forwards have a very sad pulling capacity. And the poor running capability of most brass steamers out of the box is legendary.
So what do you do to your out-of-the-box steamers to get them to perform so well? Or do you have some technique you use to determine which of the steamers on the market*will* pull like a steamer should?
Joe Fugate Modeling the 1980s SP Siskiyou Line in southern Oregon
Dave, your quandry is the same as mine, I like modeling the Pennsy, but I also like dabbling in all the railroads that served my hometown, PRR, NYC, NKP, WAB, DT&I, B&O, C&O, Ann Arbor and D&TSL.
There has been an interesting discussion on Jim Six's group all about this. He even mentions the Middle Division as not having any customers except a brickyard in Altoona, which may have lost rail service by your operating period. In fact Jim, Tony Koester and others suggest modeling the midwest due to all the interchanges with other railroads and all the spurs they had to grain elevators, canning plants, coalyards etc. If modeling on a narrow shelf, this works as scenery is not as necessary as on a mountain layout which does not lend itself to industry and spur tracks.
I have seen many a scenery driven layout where operation was not the main focus, ie Irv Schultz's St. Clair and Northern. The only time I saw a wheel turn on the layout was when it was open for the NNRA Convention back in the 70's and I visited his layout a number of times when before and after the convention.
I also like the ability to run trains around without the operation incentive, for which reason I will have a continuous loop railroad but operate it as a point to point. If you ever have an open house, non model railroaders like to see trains run, so one can have a train running on a continuous loop while switching etc. The club I belonged to in Anchorage had four weekends of open houses during the year, and we eschewed operations to run trains around the layout although we did run trains in both directions and made good use of our passing tracks. One of which was in the main viewing area.
As I mentioned my dabbling in all the railroads in Toledo, the Toledo Terminal is the perfect model railroad as it is a complete loop around the city and interchanges with all the above mentioned railroads as well as giving them trackage rights. It also serviced 10 coal yards, 4 lumber yards, 2 oil refineries, GM transmission plant, Packard Motor Co., Rossford Army depot and many other industries that I can't remember without looking at my map.
As an aside to Joe Fugate, my steam engines will outpull any diesel you have. One of my Mikes hauled a 64 car ore train up a 2" uncompensated grade on a 30" raidius curve.
wm3798 wrote: I've monkeyed around with helpers on my N scale layout, and it's kind of fun, but the grade I have isn't long enough to justify it.The relationship between train length and your scenery is one of the keys. On a small to medium layout like mine, the scenery breaks up the track plan into vignettes, so a 20 car train passing through (the maximum allowed by my passing sidings) looks a lot longer, especially when it's moving at a reasonably slow speed.I will have a longer grade once the rest of the layout gets built, two of them actually, but both involve a length of hidden track, so I don't think I'll be running helpers at the risk of dumping a lot of tonnage on the floor!Lee
I've monkeyed around with helpers on my N scale layout, and it's kind of fun, but the grade I have isn't long enough to justify it.
The relationship between train length and your scenery is one of the keys. On a small to medium layout like mine, the scenery breaks up the track plan into vignettes, so a 20 car train passing through (the maximum allowed by my passing sidings) looks a lot longer, especially when it's moving at a reasonably slow speed.
I will have a longer grade once the rest of the layout gets built, two of them actually, but both involve a length of hidden track, so I don't think I'll be running helpers at the risk of dumping a lot of tonnage on the floor!
Lee
I have one long grade on my HO layout. I have a divided main with an uphill grade of 1.5% while the downhill side is at 1.75%. Part of this grade is around a curve and most of my locos will stall when pulling a 20+ car train around that curve. I model the transition era so helper duties fall to one of the steamers, usually my 2-10-2 which has lost its job a long distance freight hauler to the F-units. I put my helpers at the front end and I love the sight of double headed steam or a steamer assisting the diesels that put it out of a job. Generally, my AB sets of F-units don't really need a boost but I do it for operating interest.
I have been working on my 3x5 since August when I changed gears realizing if I wanted running trains before the baby was born, I needed to dramatically reduce my project scope. As I creep along I have figured that it is going to take me until August (best case) to finish. Hmm.. 15 sq ft in 1 year.. so.. using that and deciding I wanted to finish my next layout before my kid goes to school (in case we decide to move to another town for better schools) I will have about 5 years. So.. that lead me to 75 sq ft which will be about right for a 10x10 layout with an aisle..
Just a perspective on one way to look and approach how much "scope" you want to take on..
As for not building another layout on a GI's budget.. there is a guy on the web you may have visited (here) who is on his 5th n-scale layout. Like you he seems to like to build more then run. He sells the complete layouts and folds the money back into the next layout. Something to consider if you get REALLY bored waiting around for 2016.. and maybe a chance to try out something a little different before you build the big one to help narrow down what you are going to want to do.
I have enjoyed your model a great deal.. its an inspiration to space challenged n-scalers.. I would love to see you create more layout.. I dont want to wait until 2016!
Chris
True...
I have often considered and reconsidered ripping the code 80 out to replace it with 55... But then the old saw "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" pops into my head.
Truth be told, the code 80 looks fine to me in person. When painted, ballasted, and weathered, it stands up to the one foot rule quite well. And it runs like a dream.
It's the high-res digital photos that make the code 80 stand up and say "train set track!!!"
But, as has been said, you can't operate at all without solid, reliable trackwork.
Another difference between my current layout and past ones is that this time I left the track unpainted and unballasted until I had worked all the bugs out. I tested and tweaked it again after painting, and yet again after ballasting. Even then I had a turnout freeze up; glue seeped into the throwbar. It was little trouble to unsolder the turnout, lift it out, and replace it.
I solder almost every joint and drop feeders every 3-5 feet. Some have told me it's overkill, but I have never head a dead spot on the current layout.
To restate the key point that has emerged from this bubbling cauldron, successful operation of trains requires bulletproof trackwork, whether you run in circles or operate your steam-era peddler with a five man crew and actually send out flagmen while switching rural grain elevators on your N-scale empire. (Okay - slight exaggeration.) OTOH, building bulletproof trackwork isn't rocket science! All it takes is patience, attention to detail and an NMRA gauge in the hand that isn't holding the spiking pliers.
Dave, I've fabricated hand-laid turnouts in HOn3 (10.5mm gauge) with Code 70 rail, and won't hesitate for a heartbeat to do the same with Code 55 (I might need to find some smaller-diameter wire for point-to-throwbar hinges...) If I go crazy and build some Nn3 track to simulate the mine car gauge at the larger of my two collieries, I would expect to hand-fabricate the necessary turnouts with Code 40 rail. I DO expect to take the time to do it right, run-test everything IMMEDIATELY and correct any problems as soon as they are detected. I also expect to discard any piece of filed rail that is less than perfect (or as close as I can come to it.) I already do that with Code 83 and Code 100 rail, and I expect the smaller sizes to have a higher percentage of unsalvageable rejects.
Unreliable trackwork ends up taking more maintenance and more stomach acid than the bulletproof variety. As for smooth, reliable operation over track you don't even have to think about - priceless!
Chuck (modeling Central Japan in September, 1964)
wm3798 wrote: Only one foot? If you are rising at 2% over 1 foot, and the crest of the hill is at the same point, then a two foot run would produce a grade of 1%...Think of it this way... 8 lineal feet is 96", or almost 100" If your grade rises 2" over an 8' run, then you've created a grade a hair steeper than 2% (2" in 100")In N scale, if your intention is to raise the track high enough to cross over itself, two inches is typical.Lee
Only one foot? If you are rising at 2% over 1 foot, and the crest of the hill is at the same point, then a two foot run would produce a grade of 1%...
Think of it this way... 8 lineal feet is 96", or almost 100" If your grade rises 2" over an 8' run, then you've created a grade a hair steeper than 2% (2" in 100")
In N scale, if your intention is to raise the track high enough to cross over itself, two inches is typical.
The issue here is not crossing over another track, it's getting clearance for bridges over a highway and a large river...basically I need about a 1/4" more clearance than I have with just cutting away the foam on top my door. Woodland Scenics 2% Incline Starters rise 1/2" in 2 foot length. Using the full 2 foot lengths would add a bit more of an elevated look on the approaches to the bridges, which fits the image I have in my mind...but I could get by with shortening the Incline Starters to 1 foot length, and get the minimum under the bridge clearance I need. <shrug>
Reality...an interesting concept with no successful applications, that should always be accompanied by a "Do not try this at home" warning.
Hundreds of years from now, it will not matter what my bank account was, the sort of house I lived in, or the kind of car I drove...But the world may be different because I did something so bafflingly crazy that my ruins become a tourist attraction.
"Oooh...ahhhh...that's how this all starts...but then there's running...and screaming..."
Joe brings up a whole other issue for me over which I have boiled much stomach acid...
My trackwork is currently flawless. That's not a boast; it works all the time every time. This is the first layout I've ever build that I can say that about. Every other layout I built I spent insufficient time checking the track and I took shortcuts. This time I said if nothing else, my track will be bullet-proof.
So why the stomach acid?
Because I used Atlas code 80 with Peco #8 switches. Rugged and indestructable. But also not very realistic. Case in point:
The track screams "I'm N scale!!!" So do the oversized signal heads, but I recently purchased true-scale Alkem LED Pennsy signal kits; they're awaiting installation. As for the track, though...
Atlas code 55 looks fantastic but has mixed results varying by user. I know Lee loves his and has no trouble, but others have reported terrible problems, especially with the turnouts. I don't know how to distinguish product flaws from user error simply by ranting forum posts.
The perfect answer is perfect trackwork that looks great too... but in N that's a bit more difficult than in HO. I'm actually considering FastTracks turnouts in N.
jfugate wrote:TRACKWORKThe major component of trackwork that creates maintenance issues is turnouts. Turnouts are also the single most expensive trackwork component -- either in cost (if you buy them) or in time (if you build them).One thing I didn't mention is that multideck designs are more complex and will add some to the cost and maintenance burden. Most of the cost and maintenance burden of multideck layouts come from the extra trackwork they make room for, and hence the dramatic increase in the number of turnouts.
TRACKWORKThe major component of trackwork that creates maintenance issues is turnouts. Turnouts are also the single most expensive trackwork component -- either in cost (if you buy them) or in time (if you build them).
One thing I didn't mention is that multideck designs are more complex and will add some to the cost and maintenance burden. Most of the cost and maintenance burden of multideck layouts come from the extra trackwork they make room for, and hence the dramatic increase in the number of turnouts.
Dave, this is one of the reasons that this thread has had unexpected legs.
Joe brings in some excellent retrospection that applies to every one of us. So, you're in good company.
Turnouts have just become a larger layout planning concern for me from this discussion, as well as, a mandate to stay under 2% grades for the Pennsy portion of the CR&T layout.
The cost of turnouts reminds me of building the home, where the single most expensive item, apx. 25% to get all under roof, were the glass windows, and; they still became the biggest area of "non-insulated" heating loss.
Thus, a layout planning emphasis on a minimum amount of turnouts will result in over-all layout operations simplicity.
Conemaugh Road & Traction circa 1956
Route of the Alpha Jets www.wmrywesternlines.net
Dave Vollmer wrote: Some folks might disagree with me here, but my experience with N scale has told me that grades in N scale are very frustrating. I had 3% grades on my last layout - yech! Never again.N scale locos are usually not spectacular pullers. I have some exceptions (like the Kato Mike with a traction tire and a metal PRR boiler, my E-R Sharks, and my Spectrum 2-8-0 PRR H10sb kitbash), but for the most part N scale locos have enough challenge moving tonnage on the flat. My newer Atlas locos with DCC are sweet runners, but they really do need to be MU'd in order to pull a 20+ car train.My preference is to avoid all but maybe a 1% grade on a branchline.
Some folks might disagree with me here, but my experience with N scale has told me that grades in N scale are very frustrating. I had 3% grades on my last layout - yech! Never again.
N scale locos are usually not spectacular pullers. I have some exceptions (like the Kato Mike with a traction tire and a metal PRR boiler, my E-R Sharks, and my Spectrum 2-8-0 PRR H10sb kitbash), but for the most part N scale locos have enough challenge moving tonnage on the flat. My newer Atlas locos with DCC are sweet runners, but they really do need to be MU'd in order to pull a 20+ car train.
My preference is to avoid all but maybe a 1% grade on a branchline.
Dave, I'm glad you mentioned that. It is something that I've been worried about. I am going to need at the minimum 1 foot of 2% grade, mostly on a curve that will be 15" minimum radius...Unitrack with a 28-1/4"r pseudo easement section at the top of the grade. 2 feet of that 2% grade would look better. Is the detrimental effect of going with the 2 foot section going to be enough that I'd be better off sticking to the single foot?
Speaking as someone who has a larger home layout, layout size by itself is not necessarily a direct indicator of maintenance burden. Nor is layout size by itself necessarily an indicator of layout cost (ignoring for the moment, the cost of the space itself).
There are three major layout maintenance/cost burdens:
If you have a large basement sized layout with only 5 turnouts, its maintenance burden could be less than a 4x8 with 20 turnouts. The trackwork may even cost less for the large layout!
So the real indicator of trackwork cost and maintenance burden will not be layout size but the number of turnouts!
A lazy branch line design and a metropolitan Pennsy layout with dense trackwork could both be the same size but have a far different maintenance load and cost. The branchline will probably be much cheaper to build and take far less maintenance than the layout with dense trackwork.
EQUIPMENTThe most expensive and time consuming equipment will obviously be locomotives, with model steam locos being more expensive and more of a maintenance burden than model diesels.
Modeling an all-steam era is going to cost you much more than modeling an all-diesel era layout. And steamers will take more maintenance, don't pull as well as diesels, are often tougher to install decoders into, and so on.
If you have regular operating sessions, expect equipment to break. It's just the way it works. If you run it, accidents will happen and damage will occur. The prototype knows this and that's why they have maintenance crews on duty all the time roaming the yards looking for equipment that needs repair.
Ironically, model railroading mirrors the prototype in this area!
ELECTRICALElectrical is also part of the layout that makes things move and stuff will burn out, get old and malfunction, and so on. Fortunately, if you build the electrical side of your layout robustly, the day-to-day maintenance issues in this area will be small, but over time, things will still happen.
The more complex your trackwork, the more complex your layout wiring will need to be (more turnout controls, more chances for shorts, etc). Again, a large simple layout may actually be less of a maintenance burden than a small complex layout with lots of turnouts.
CONCLUSIONAt a glance, it's the number of turnouts that determine a lot of a layout's cost and maintenance burden. Because of this, it's also worthwhile to focus your efforts on getting reliable and maintenance-free turnouts. This is why the new "fast handlaid" turnouts methods (Fast Tracks, Central Valley tie kits) are very worth considering if you're building a layout that has more than a few turnouts.
Spending some time up front to get bullet proof and low maintenance turnouts will dramatically reduce your layout's maintenance burden.
Avoiding the use of sound locomotives is another way to greatly reduce the electrical complexities on your layout. Most of the electrical - locomotive headaches these days are with sound locos.
If I were starting over with my HO Siskiyou Line, I would want to build it in a larger space, but I would prefer to single-deck it and to use any extra space to add distance between towns. The larger layout would have about the same number of turnouts, and hence the cost and maintenance burden of the new layout would be roughly the same as my current layout -- which is about as much as I can handle and still have a life!
This is the kind of insight I wish the hobby press would talk more about, since it gives people a better sense of what they may be getting themselves into when embarking on a layout project.
My previous HO layout was domino/shelf around the walls (25' x 50') of a clean and dry basement. I am not sure what all this talk of maintenance problems with a large layout is that people are speaking about.
I think that if you do it right the first time, you can avoid a lot of headaches. I used Atlas code 83 NS flex track, Atlas & Shinnohara turnouts, cork roadbed on a plywood sub roadbed. I think wiring for DCC reduces potential electrical problems. I soldered two sections of 3' flex track together, to make a 6 foot section, with an 18 ga jumper wire attached to a 12 ga buss under the layout. The connections between the six foot track sections were by rail joiner only to provide for movement in the rail over the seasons. My basement was clean and dry with good HVAC. (In constructing my new home the HVAC in the house and basement has an electronic air cleaner. Not just for the trains, but my allergies to dust! Wife also had a central vac installed. The guy that sold her the central vac talked her into putting extra outletts in the basement. I thought these were a waste, but it works a lot better than my shop vac in keeping the basement clean.)
Layout maintenance consisted of running a track cleaning train over the layout about once per week. I am primarilay a lone wolf, so I have to keep it manageable.
Jim, Modeling the Kansas City Southern Lines in HO scale.
My thought on manageable would be something of order 16x20 scenicked, single-deck. I would consider a completely around-the-basement type layout if the stairs descended in the center, with much of the track (like in the crew lounge area and the utility area) on narrow shelf simply to provide a run-through connection to ease re-staging after an op session. If segments of these shelves were to remain unscenicked I'd simply use straight code 80, well soldered.
But of course, the bigger the layout, the bigger the maintenance... to say nothing of the cost.
In part to keep in manageable, in part to avoid grades, and in part to ease consruction I'm pretty confident I want a single-decked layout. Besides, I want the sweeping vistas of the Susquehanna Valley or the Bald Eagle Valley to be unencumbered by an upper deck.
Dave Vollmer wrote: Helper grade? That's one I'm not real interested in... mainly because as much fun as that is during a full-up op session, it becomes difficult to manage on those lone wolf days.
Dave, I'm not sure about N scale, but on my previous HO scale layout (and to be part of the new layout under construction) I had a long 2.5% helper grade. I ran 35-45 long trains on the grade with three SD units PWR-DMY-PWR up front and two SD units PWR-PWR on the back as helpers. When I wanted to run lone wolf, I just put four powered SD units on the front of the train. These were Athearn BB SD40-2. My heplers were a set of KATO SD40s. I now have some of the new Athearn SD50 and some PK2 SD60. (The SD-60 were an impulse buy as they are too new for my layout era, but couldn't resist the KCS units!). Three or four of the newer powered SD units can easily manage that grade.
I now use all KDs, but still have some McHenrys. A long train like this on a 2.5% garade will quickly find the remaining McHenry couplers!
Due to the pulling power of the newer locomotives, you can run a helper grade as a lone wolf, without the heplers.
Charlie,
Thanks for all of the comments! Very insightful. I like hearing success stories like yours; it makes me feel as if having it all is possible.
These musings of mine are really not geared toward my current layout; it's a neat little crowd pleaser at best, but it won't ever amount to much more than that. Even if I were to incorporate it into some larger layout some day, it would need so much surgery to operate more realistically that it might be more trouble than simply starting over.
No, I'm thinking too danged far ahead... ...to that dream basement. For the 12 years I've been in the Air Force the basement has eluded me. And for the remaining 8 I feel as if I want to use the time to plan and build models for "the big one," even if "the big one" is still years down the road.
As I eluded to earlier, knowing in advance what segment of the Pennsy I'll be modeling will help guide my future purchases and scratchbuilding projects. So, if I had all of my structures built and ready to go, and all of my rolling stock purchased, weathered, and tunes, and all of my paperwork squared away I could operate from the first day my track was spiked down.
Choice of Pennsy division or branch would dictate whether I buy more hoppers, more intermodal, or more passenger equipment, and whether I build CASE towar, YORK tower, or LOCK HAVEN tower.
You nailed it with DIVERSITY. I want "options." I want enough variety not only for my own interests, but so that other operators can find jobs they're interested in.
So, big yard, check. Long mainline? Here's hoping. Helper grade? That's one I'm not real interested in... mainly because as much fun as that is during a full-up op session, it becomes difficult to manage on those lone wolf days. Oh, and I do want to signal my layout since nothing says PRR quite like PL signals!
Hey Dave,
Oh boy.... you ain't saking for much... just everything!
When I set out to design the third Bear Creek and South Jackson I had a few goals in mind.
* I wanted a mainline long enough to get a sense of going somewhere
* I wanted a largish yard that would have some real work to do building and breaking down trains and keeps cuts of cars sorted and available for block swaps with passing trains. I also wanted to be able to handle 'empty requests' from the 'business' department when an industry 'orders' some.
* I wanted a helper grade because concentrating on keeping a train with multiple crews moving on a steep hill is a lot of fun (once you get past the terror of stringlining the train or shoving it over the outside of a curve)
* I wanted local switching (another source/sink of cars in the yards)
* I wanted mostly freight ops with some passenger trains
* I wanted a single track mainline with opposing trains
* I wanted a 'dark' (unsignalled) railroad - partly because I'm cheap and didn't want to spend the bucks required to fully signal/control the railroad and partly because following a bunch of traffic lights around a layout isn't much fun (to me anyway)
* I wanted to be able to have the 'boyz' over to run it because the social aspect of an op session is one of the most important factors of running (I strongly agree with Joe Fugate on this)
I'm blessed with a fairly large basement that's allowing me to do most of this but lets look at what all those 'wants' I listed really mean...
D I V E R S I T Y
There are lots of different jobs on the BB&SJ III - let me list 'em:
Dispatcher - Yard Master - Yard Crew - Local switcher crew in Redland - mainline crew men - local turn crew - crew caller (under tt&to add Operator)
If I don't feel like switching there are through trains.
If I do there are a three trains doing a lot of switching.
If I want to sort cars there's the yard crew job.
If I want to plan what's gonna happen in the yard there's the Yard Master job.
If I want to tell everyone where to go there's the dispatcher job.
It's the diversity that keeps it all fresh and interesting.
Now is this ALL possible on a small layout. Sadly I'd say no. This makes it important to pick and choose the ops features you're going to install.
One casualty of a small layout is a long mainline. On a 4x8 even a twice around design will have a max mainline length of around 40'. At a scale 60 mph (HO) thats a lap in 40 seconds (N scale is more polite taking around 80 seconds to do that. If you want the run to last you'll need to reduce the speed of the trains. Significantly.
If you're trains all run the layout in 2 minutes it can get a little boring/trivial to run them. So Dave, I'd not worry too much about having 50 trains set to run your layout.
That leaves an emphasis on yard ops or switching (but having the occaisional through train coming through town forcing the local's crew to dodge it is good for interest too).
This says to me that the smaller the layout, the more important the plan for switching industries or doing some sort of yard operations becomes (theorizing that running on the short mainline won't be satisfying -except when you wear your railfan/foamer/photographer hat)
So now there's a trade off for double tracked mainline. With a double track main you can easily have the local doing its thing on one track while a through train orbits on the other (and this is probably a good thing for the lone wolf operator). But if you'll be having a friend or three over to run, the guys who aren't doing the switching won't have much to do and it greatly reduces the interactions between crews.
I define interactions as times/places where the crew of one train has to either wait for another train to pass/meet or when two or more trains have to collaborate to get the work done (for instance - a through train hands some cars to a yard crew or a local). Another interaction is a yard crew building a train and giving it to a road crew or the road crew giving their train to the yard crew when they tie up.
Another form of interaction occurs on the BC&SJ when a crew calls the dispatcher for a track warrant.
The more interactions you can arrange (within limits!) the more fun I think the layout becomes to operate. If each engineer has their own track so they can run laps without interfering with other trains there is no interaction (other than railfanning) and (to me) it gets old quickly. But an extreme case where a crew can't get anything done without another train being in their face will become frustrating rather than interesting.
I really like having the boyz come and run trains. It's the real reason for having a largish layout. And you don't need to have a layout finished to 'operate'. For that all you need is enough trackwork so trains can operate with a purpose.
I hope all this blather was worth reading.
Regards,
Charlie Comstock
loathar wrote: tattooguy67 wrote: i guess it's lucky you don't talk to your little scale people, you don't do you Dave? How do we know he doesn't?
tattooguy67 wrote: i guess it's lucky you don't talk to your little scale people, you don't do you Dave?
How do we know he doesn't?
Groan. It gets worse than that. Sometimes I have to interview them for newpaper stories...
The South Jackson Gazette
and the Horace Fithers sometimes just goes on and on and on. I can't get him to shut up!
One thing that keeps coming up as I search for that perfect prototype...
No one part of the PRR is a perfect match for my druthers. I love the Pennsy so I don't plan on changing railroads. But my druthers are somewhat strict:
1. Must be east of Pittsburgh... Mainly for familiarity but also because I prefer the scenery east of the Burgh.
2. Passenger service (but not too much!).
3. Decent mix of through freights and locals.
4. Decent selection of online industry.
5. Mostly double-tracked.
If I had a million dollars, I'd do the 4-tracked PRR Middle Division. But I don't have the staging, the loco roster, or the stomach for the 150+ trains a day.
I keep coming back to 3 possibilities. The Bald Eagle Branch between Tyrone and Lock Haven had lots of traffic and was near my alma mater of Penn State. But it had no passenger traffic after 1950 and most of the "online" industry came in the form of branchlines that connected to it (i.e., the Clearfield, Snowshoe, and Montandon Secondaries). The Northern Central from Baltimore to York, PA offers plenty of passenger service (almost too much) but almost no through freights (except after 1963, TrucTrain service between Baltimore and York).
That leaves the Northern Division between Harrisburg and Northumberland. Again, many folks have done this already, so I'm not breaking any new ground by doing it. But one passenger train a day each way, plus a good mix of locals and through trains, several branches, and the Reading interchange give this line lots of possibilities.
The trick is to keep the action at Norry under control; Northumberland yard, while smaller than Enola to the south, was still huge and could easily become overwhelming. Staging for this segment would also be a heck of a trick; on the north end (Norry/Sunbury) I'd theoretically need to stage for Buffalo, Erie, Wilkes-Barre, and Shamokin. On the south end I'd need to stage for Harrisburg and Enola.
Run-through staging, forming a continuous run, starts to sound pretty good. This makes pre-staging much easier. I think offering a small section of Norry to classify southbound locals (both for the Northern Division and for the Lewistown and Selinsgrove Secondary) and to tear-down freights up from Harrisburg/Enola (hopefully pre-blocked for their respective desitnations) would be the way to go.
I think David Popp's Waterbury yard would make a great representative classification yard for Norry. The rest of the yard would be in staging. Again, pre-blocking would help keep things manageable.