Interesting videos UncBob!
Never thought that the sound would be so good and loud with that old loco. The loco in your video is an ex Rivarossi/AHM "Genua" of the Virginia & Truckee, right? Do you operate it with DCC? Too bad the engine has no light and smoke! Was it difficult to install the sound? And is that engine also able to pull 6 Overlands up grades? Are you running the 4-4-0 at full speed with these 6 cars?
Sound is not in the train
I run DC with 2 ovals both powered by MRC Sound and Power 7000 power packs
They have sound that you can adjust the volume and rate on and then the rate depends on the throttle position You can actually sync it so that it starts as the train starts to move
They also have whistles and diesel sound with horns
The video is at about 40% speed
Don't know about up grade as the layout is flat
I have the cars weighted --The originals were a lot lighter
I usually only pull 3-4 Overland units and I also have 34 foot Overton cars
I only run the fanfare with the Old 4-4-0s once in a while as I rotate my engines and cars
51% share holder in the ME&O ( Wife owns the other 49% )
ME&O
Modeling pre WWI is possible, it may take a little extra effort. I know this link is has been posted here before but Thom Radice's W&ARR is proof of a spectacular a pre WWI.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9B5A-AgRGxU
What I take away from the video it that a modeler would not need a large fleet of equipment to build a convincing layout. Thus, the time necessary to build/kitbash pre WWI equipment may be the same or slightly longer then it would be to aquire and detail a larger fleet of more common equipment.
Just an observation,
Sean
Well, the good thing I'm learning through this thread is that I'm not alone in my desire to model early American steam. The bad thing that I'm learning is that in order to model such era, one better be a pretty advanced modeler (which I currently am not )
fwrightOf course, you didn't define your era very tightly, either. All through railroading history, there have pretty significant changes over a 20 year period, and that certainly applies to 1870s through 1910.
I guess I don't know my early steam history well enough yet to define exactly what decade I'd like to model. I do know that not only do I love the trains of the late 1800's, I also love the architecture of the buildings from that era. One my degrees is in architectural engineering. My wife and I go on many small trips throughout the state of Wisconsin and "hunt for depots"... which means we try to visit the original, old parts of towns rather than the new, (ugly) urban sprawl areas. The amount of detail that used to be put into buildings was just incredible.
Just look at the incredible detail of the brickwork on this Milwaukee Road depot in Madison (1903?):
"They don't build 'em like that any more, folks."
For me, the Wisconsin Historical Society web site has been a great source of old photos, but many of the photos aren't dated so it's hard for me to know the difference between a train in 1880 vs 1890 vs 1900, etc.
fwrightThe Spectrum 4-4-0 is a model of a 1902 (could be early by 4 years) engine. The basic design was in use by about 1890, so it could be plausible for a 1895-1900 engine, especially if you get the wood cab variant. But even these are technically out of production at present.
For now, I think the Spectrum locos will have to do for me. I'm very sastified with the level of detail they have and I've found a few of them in a price range I can afford. As mentioned by other people in this thread, I think I should get my mind away from the idea that I need this huge fleet of trains. I already have 3 Spectrum locos... it's probably time I just started building the layout!
fwrightThe other reasons we are unlikely (I never give up hope) to ever see mass-produced 4-4-0s of the late 19th Century is the price/performance dilemma. ...
I absolutely agree with your conclusions as to why we aren't seeing more detailed 4-4-0's on the market. My neighbor happens to be a buyer for Walther's trains, I should pick-his-brain a little and see if he has any insite into why there is such 'slim pickins' for those of us interested in early steam. Sometimes it's hard to "talk trains" with him because even though he works for Walther's, he's not into trains at all. This helps him to be a bit more impartial when deciding what to buy, but makes it hard for me to explain to him what I'm referring to when he doesn't know trains to the excruciating level of detail that many of us 'foamers' do ;)
From conversations I've had with him in the past, he's stated the obvious... they won't go through the effort of creating a run of any train if they don't think it'll sell. They can't afford to having inventory sitting around... especially not in this economy.
Sincerely,Todd M. Taylor The Unofficial $oo Line Diesel Roster
For those of you who do model the era in question, what do you use for track? I thought I read somewhere that code 70 was close to the correct size rail, but I can't hardly find any code 70 track online. Do you guys hand-lay all your track or just settle for code 83?
Todd M. TaylorFor those of you who do model the era in question, what do you use for track? I thought I read somewhere that code 70 was close to the correct size rail, but I can't hardly find any code 70 track online. Do you guys hand-lay all your track or just settle for code 83?
Todd M. TaylorDo you guys hand-lay all your track or just settle for code 83?
I use code 83 for my c.1910 layout. The main reason is the wide variety of track components available - everything from curved turnouts to crossings vs code 70 where the choice is limited to flex track and #6 turnouts (yes, there are kits available that's virtually hand-laying track). Second reason is cost - its a lot to pay for an insignificant difference in rail height, especially when its painted and weathered - IMHO.
For others, highly detailed track is part of the fun. Wow... what a hobby!
Jim
hardcoalcaseI use code 83 for my c.1910 layout.
Have any pictures? Seems like a lot of people don't weather their track which always bothers me... I have to see a prototype railroad with solid black ties and rails that are shiny on all sides!
I'm not sure if I've ever seen an HO layout in person done with anything other than code 83... or if I did, I didn't know it. It'd be interesting to see a comparison. However, as you mentioned, the cost, the limited selection, and the likelyhood that I'd have to handlay the track if I went with a gauge smaller than code 83 are three pretty big deterants to me going to that extreme.
Came across this video. It's kinda neat.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pjtYPbUOSdw
Brent
"All of the world's problems are the result of the difference between how we think and how the world works."
I have learned a great deal I didn't know about the era from studying photos that get posted on or linked to on the Early Rail Yahoo Group. Prior to joining the group and buying a couple of used books, most of my knowledge came from a chart in one of John Armstrong's books. At that time, Roundhouse's Old Timer series of locomotives and cars would have been convincing 1890s models for me (just like they still are for probably 90+% of the population). But now I know better....
Especially in the Shorpy photos, it becomes clear that typical 20th Century track standards did not become the norm until steel underframes, superheated steam, and motor vehicles became common - generally after 1910. In just about all the 1900-1906 photos, there is nary a tie plate to be seen. What also struck me in a photo of a commercial/retail district of New York City in 1911 was a total lack of motor vehicles - everything was horse drawn. All women had long skirts, and most men and women wore hats. It became pretty clear that just because something had been invented, didn't mean it was widely used or adopted.
100lb rail was introduced around 1900, but did not see widespread use right away. By 1920 many mainlines had been relaid with 100lb or even 120lb rail, but 80-85 lb was still in widespread use. Backing up to 1880 to 1890, most railroads were initially laid with 60-65lb rail, or the 80-85lb if financing were available.
Model rail equivalences are based on scale height only. But rarely in model railroading do we look at our track from the side, we are normally looking down from the top. And here, model rail varies significantly, with ME rail tending to have the narrowest rail head for a given height, and Atlas the widest. If you are always looking down from the top, the height of the rail doesn't matter. But when you take that photo with the camera sitting on the roadbed, the oversize height is pretty obvious.
Based on all this, an 1890s layout with handlaid code 55 and code 40 track would be the most accurate model. 4 scale spikes per tie (scale spikes from Proto87 Stores) where it shows, spiked at the more common every 4th or 5th tie elsewhere. You can easily have some or most of your ties model hand-hewn (with adzes on the prototype) instead of sawn ties. Bamboo skewers and grape vine twigs have been used successfully to model hand-hewn ties. Handlaid track is certainly no more difficult than the work you will do to get more accurate locomotives.
For myself, the test layout is using just enough Atlas code 83 and ME code 70 (HO) and ME and Shinohara code 70 (HOn3) to get started. Later additions to the test and large layouts will be handlaid with code 70/55/40 for the HO and 55/40 for the HOn3. I am willing to be a little oversize on the standard gauge to emphasize the difference between standard and narrow gauge in 1900.
FWIW, ME makes HO flex track in codes 83, 70, and 55. Occasionally, some code 40 flex can be found. ME and Shinohara make code 70 turnouts. ME flex track all has tie plate detail, as do Central Valley tie strips. Atlas flex just has huge lumps that look like scale water melons.
For code 55 turnouts, custom turnout builders such as Cream City and Railway Engineering are one source (not as expensive as Peco turnouts at retail). Another is turnout kits like BK and Fast Tracks make. Or lay your own like real model railroaders (being my pot-stirring self ).
Final point in favor of handlaid or custom turnouts: you can adopt narrow flangeways as your standard to allow use of readily available code 88 wheels without wheel drop in the frogs. The overscale width of model wheels is much more visible from the higher ends and the trucks closer to the ends of early rail cars.
As always, my thoughts, your choices
Fred W
Code 70 handlaid with a little code 55 on spurs and yard tracks, code 70 flex on some dump trestle approaches and code 83 in staging.
Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com
What spike detail:
http://www.shorpy.com/node/8149?size=_original
Harold
BATMANhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pjtYPbUOSdw
Very cool! Thanks! Speaking of 4-4-0 videos, have any of you seen the move "The General" staring Buster Keaton? If not, buy (don't rent) the video and watch it a.s.a.p.! It's an incredible combination of stunts, humor, and Civil War trains!
Thanks for the history lesson, Fred W. I don't know how I would've every learned all that information regarding track gauges w/o your help.
hminkyhttp://www.shorpy.com/node/8149?size=_original
Nice photo! The wheels on those old 4-4-0's had flanges on both sides??? That's what it looks like in the photo... at least on the drive wheels.
For those of you using multiple gages, does someone make "transition track" for converting from one size to the other? I think I saw an 83 to 70 track on Walther's web site, but I'd image it's hard to find transition track on gages smaller than that.
Todd M. TaylorThanks for the history lesson, Fred W. I don't know how I would've every learned all that information regarding track gauges w/o your help.
To avoid confusing folks, track gauge is the distance between the rails. Prototype rail size is expressed in pounds per yard. 85lb rail weighs 85 lbs/yard, and has a height of 5 3/16" (Nov 1962 MR Clinic). Model rail size is expressed in thousandths of inches of height. Code 55 rail is 0.055" high. This is 4.79" high in HO scale, which is very close to the height of prototype 75lb rail (4.812").
hminkyhttp://www.shorpy.com/node/8149?size=_original Nice photo! The wheels on those old 4-4-0's had flanges on both sides??? That's what it looks like in the photo... at least on the drive wheels.
After studying the photo, I conclude that what appears to be a groove in the left rear driver is actually a line on the film. And what looks like the flanges on the outside on all the wheels is actually just the overhang of the wheel past the outside edge of the rail. Prototype wheels (and steam locomotive tires - the tires are fitted separately for easy replacement) do wear, and sometimes get grooves worn in the tread, forcing replacement. But I don't see that in this photo.
The overhang of the wheels over the outside edge of the rail is something seldom captured on our model railroads - thanks for pointing it out.
You don't need a transition track, and I don't believe they are made for rail smaller than code 83. You need to have the inside corner of the railheads align both vertically and horizontally. Vertical alignment can be achieved by shimming the low track (over several inches) or sanding material from the bottom of the high track. Others crimp half a rail joiner flat and solder the smaller rail on top of the rail joiner "shim".
Todd M. Taylorhminkyhttp://www.shorpy.com/node/8149?size=_original Nice photo! The wheels on those old 4-4-0's had flanges on both sides??? That's what it looks like in the photo... at least on the drive wheels.
Also of interest in the linked photo:
Study the left track. Some of the ties have rounded, not sawn ends, which indicates hand-hewn ties. The ballast appears to be dirt with a little river rock thrown in. The ballast is highest at the track center, and tapers to the sides, leaving the tie ends exposed. This was typical of 19th Century practice.
The right track, which appears to be more used, has considerably more river rock in the ballast. River rock is obtained from rocky and river stream beds. It can be recognized by its size and round shape, generally without any sharp edges. And the ballast has higher shoulders than on the left track. River rock ballast was quite common in critical areas on isolated Western logging lines - the rest would often be dirt ballast. I hadn't seen river rock used as ballast on Eastern main lines before.
That is why model railroad's should be built from real life not copies of models from MR. Notice all the wonderful textures in the photo. Real life sure doesn't look like the latest MR project railroad.
The simpler question is are there any tunnels that are perfectly flat?
dehusmanThe simpler question is are there any tunnels that are perfectly flat?