dehusmanThe simpler question is are there any tunnels that are perfectly flat?
The simpler question is are there any tunnels that are perfectly flat?
Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com
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.
Harold
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.
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.
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.
Fred W
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.
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.
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.
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.
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".
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!
Sincerely,Todd M. Taylor The Unofficial $oo Line Diesel Roster
What spike detail:
http://www.shorpy.com/node/8149?size=_original
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.
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?
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?
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
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."
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.
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
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.
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
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
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?
Pulling 6 Overlands weighted to 5.5 ounces
Here is a short video of one in operation
Closer look
Todd
As CNJ stated, there just aren't very many of us actually modeling any pre-WW1 era. I am one of those few. Of 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.
From the photo you provide, I would hazard a guess that the caboose is at least 10 years newer than the locomotive. The "fluted" domes but square counterweights say 1880s to me. I don't remember cupolas being common on a caboose until pretty close to 1900.
The 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.
At least one poster mentioned that the Bachmann 1870s 4-4-0s were oversize. I don't believe that to be the case. The Rivarossi (AHM) 4-4-0s are definitely oversize, as are the Tyco/Mantua 1890s 4-6-0 and 4-8-0. But the Bachmann 4-4-0 and Tyco/Mantua General are pretty close to scale, although somewhat crude and lacking detail.
Cary (now Bowser) made a Pittsburgh boiler casting to fit the General drive. The cylinder size of the General is too small for the larger, more modern boiler, but it can make a passable model. Don't know if Bowser still has any in stock, though.
The 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. Very, very few modelers are willing to pay the same price for a 4-4-0 as they will pay for a 4-8-4, yet the 4-4-0 is actually more costly to engineer and produce. An example: motor location is a no-win situation. There are modelers who will refuse to buy an engine with a tender-mounted motor, no matter how well it is done. The low cost location of the traditional firebox/cab leaves no space for a flywheel, a tail-heavy 4-4-0, and lost traction and tracking. Putting the motor in the boiler takes the space of weight required for traction, and requires some kind of reduction drive from the motor shaft to the parallel, but lower, worm shaft. Bachmann cogged belts are not an acceptable solution to all, but spur gears tend to be a noisy alternative.
To cut all new tooling will force a retail price of at least $200 in today's market, and $300 might be more realistic. If "cute" enough, an 1880s 4-4-0 would probably sell single copies to a lot of modelers of other eras. Especially if paired with some reasonably accurate open platform passenger cars. But there aren't enough of us who would buy several to a half dozen to fill out a normal roster of the period. And at $300 per, you are in the price range of used brass. So your detail has to be equal to, and the performance better than used brass to garner the necessary sales. Not impossible requirements, but it would be a risky investment.
Of course, if you know of suitable investors I will be happy to accept a commission from them to design and have a good 1880s 4-4-0 produced.
my thoughts, your choices
....modeling foggy coastal Oregon, where it's always 1900....
Actually, Bachmann can be easily modified to almost any configuration.
HOGTRAINZ.COM
If you are willing to assemble models, early freight cars are not underrepresented in HO.Keep in mind that today's resin and laser kits are not all that difficult to assemble, particularly those for the much simpler early rolling stock. Of course, they aren't produced by the big import companies that sell mass, ready-to-run stock. They are made by small, largely home-based, US firms that do so as much out of love of the hobby as interest in profit. These firms generally can't afford to advertise in major media or offer their products through standard distribution channels. So you have to locate and deal with them directly, usually over the Internet. For an up-to-date list of what's available in this regard, see:
http://www.earlyrail.org/freight-cars.html
Frank
Hello,
I´m also a BIG lover of the 1860-1890 era, and I also suffer from the lack of such models in HO scale. I´m a big western films fan, and those classy trains are my favorite ones! What I really didn´t know was that the Bachmann 4-4-0´s are 10% overscaled/too big! I actually thought that they are too small! Because when looking at pictures or videos of an Bachmann 4-4-0 in front of Old Time passenger cars, the 4-4-0 always seems to be much too small in my eyes, since the roofs of the passenger cars are clearly higher than the roof of the locomotive cab. In my eyes that doesn´t look well, I think that the cab-roof of the locomotive should be as high as the roofs of the passenger cars to form a straight line. So bad that only Bachmann and AHM/Rivarossi offer/offered these locos. By the way, I think that the AHM/Rivarossi 4-4-0´s look way better than the Bachmann engine, both in detail and colors and somehow material. I also miss the 2-6-0 Mogul engines, because what the 4-4-0´s were for passenger trains, the 2-6-0´s were for freight trains between 1850 and 1900. My dream for HO scale would be a nicely detailed typical western film-like 4-4-0 and 2-6-0 featuring DCC, Sound, Smoke and Lighting (as for road names, SP, T&P, AT&SF, D&RGW are very welcomed). Also they should have strong (maybe 5 pole?) motors and traction tires, so that they can pull 9 open-platform passenger or 20 freight cars on 2-3% grades without problems, because when you look at the Bachmann/AHM/Rivarossi locos, they hardly handle more than 5 cars. When it comes to passenger cars, certain types are missing as well. Roundhouse, LaBelle and others do some open-platform mail cars, baggages, combines, coaches and business cars, but open-platform sleepers and diners are totally missing, although they have definetly been in service since the 1860´s. And I also miss the fact that there are absolutely no open-platform Old Time ready to run passenger cars available in HO scale that offer car interiors and the possibility to install interior lighting as well. Freight cars are as well underrepresented. Roundhouse does some Old Time box cars, stock cars and reefers, but there are still no good ready to run flat cars, gondolas and tank cars from that era. Hope MTH, BLI, Athearn, Roundhouse or Walthers will one day do something (more) about it.
Regards, Daniel