Hey John. Orange and white you say. I was looking at Illinois Central Gulf number 8088 the other day. That loco looks like a moose. ICG GP7 was my brother's favorite.
Cheers, the Bear.
"One difference between pessimists and optimists is that while pessimists are more often right, optimists have far more fun."
I like your way of thinking bear. Sounds good to me.
I rebuilt a Pergola today damaged by a storm last summer. I guess I somewhat used the good enough approach. I wasn't about to worry about a little 1/8 inch here 1/16 inch there way up high like that.
The good enough philosophy as you say where it fits many areas in model railroading is good enough for me as well
Take care
Track Fiddler
ATLANTIC CENTRALwe like automatic coupling and use NMRA track standards - gathering range is an issue - operation takes priority over appearance.
Operation does take priority. In my case, prototypical operation. Sergents dont have any issues with NMRA track standards; in fact, they work where Kadees fail. I can couple on most curve radii that the rolling stock will work on (I have not tested less than 18"), with no intevention from me other than positioning the couplers, just like a brakeman or conductor (depending on era).
Automatic coupling is accomplished by opening the knuckle prior to backing up to the car (like the professionals do). Aligning couplers does take some practice.
The gathering range is small. While it isnt an issue for me, I can see how it could be an issue for some.
ATLANTIC CENTRALWheelsets - only code 110 here, because code 88 wheelsets just look silly with that big gap between the wheel and the side frame, and code 110 likes the NMRA track work better.
I dont disagree that the gap is a little large, but the same could be said about 110's width.
I have never had an issue with code 88, that having been said, I have only used them with Peco code 100, Peco Code 83 and Micro Engineering Code 83, possibly Shinohara.
Ive never tested them on other brands (as far as I know).
And by the way, this is also NMRA track work....
https://www.nmra.org/sites/default/files/standards/sandrp/pdf/S-3.1%202006.01.pdf
BMMECNYC ATLANTIC CENTRAL we like automatic coupling and use NMRA track standards - gathering range is an issue - operation takes priority over appearance. Operation does take priority. In my case, prototypical operation. Sergents dont have any issues with NMRA track standards; in fact, they work where Kadees fail. I can couple on most curve radii that the rolling stock will work on (I have not tested less than 18"), with no intevention from me other than positioning the couplers, just like a brakeman or conductor (depending on era). Automatic coupling is accomplished by opening the knuckle prior to backing up to the car (like the professionals do). Aligning couplers does take some practice. The gathering range is small. While it isnt an issue for me, I can see how it could be an issue for some. ATLANTIC CENTRAL Wheelsets - only code 110 here, because code 88 wheelsets just look silly with that big gap between the wheel and the side frame, and code 110 likes the NMRA track work better. I dont disagree that the gap is a little large, but the same could be said about 110's width. I have never had an issue with code 88, that having been said, I have only used them with Peco code 100, Peco Code 83 and Micro Engineering Code 83, possibly Shinohara. Ive never tested them on other brands (as far as I know). And by the way, this is also NMRA track work.... https://www.nmra.org/sites/default/files/standards/sandrp/pdf/S-3.1%202006.01.pdf
ATLANTIC CENTRAL we like automatic coupling and use NMRA track standards - gathering range is an issue - operation takes priority over appearance.
ATLANTIC CENTRAL Wheelsets - only code 110 here, because code 88 wheelsets just look silly with that big gap between the wheel and the side frame, and code 110 likes the NMRA track work better.
Here is the real thing about this for me.
I don't want to be in that kind of nitty gritty hands on relationship with a 1/87 scale model. In fact, on my old layout I had lots of ground throws for trackage that would have been grown throws in real life. I may stay with that formula for the switching area of the new layout if access works out, but I am reconcidering that choice a little.
If I wanted to play brakeman or engineer to the degree of aligning couplers, I would model in a larger scale, like 1/4" two rail or larger.
While I like every aspect of operation, I am more of a big picture, mainline operation, CTC and signals, kind of guy.
I get the Sergent coupler thing, I've been in this hobby long enough to remember MDC mechanical knuckle couplers and scale dummy couplers - my very first layout was scale dummy couplers until I converted to Kadee.
But I am building a layout that will stage 30 trains, many 50 cars long, with 140 powered loco "units", many scale miles of track - I'm really not into the idea of fine scale standards for 1500 freight cars and 250 passenger cars.
It is more about conveying the "immensity" of the prototype.
Powerful locomotives pulling long trains on complex schedules with lots of action.
Four mainline crews, a dispatcher, and....a complete ISL (industrial switching layout) nested in the middle of it all with a crew working it, and another crew working a large yard. And did I mention the coach yard and passenger terminal crew? And then there is the totally seperate waterfront ISL........
Code 88 wheels may "work" on most trackage, but I'm not impressed with how they drop into many frogs. I'm using mostly Atlas code 83 turnouts - over 100 of them....except for the ones I build from scratch.
I have my own "old fashioned" ideas about trucks, wheels and trackwork....not changing now. Too much time, money and work invested in the current fleet - which includes rolling stock from the 50's, craftsman kits, Athearn/Varney metal cars, and a little of everything made since then.
My fleet rides mostly on sprung trucks, most of which are Kadee trucks with Intermountain wheels, but others include Central Valley, Lindberg (now EB), and old Walthers, Athearn, etc.
And I really dislike those semi scale Kadee 58's. They look funny - I would rather have oversized than have bad proportions. And I swear they have more linear play than a regular Kadee - I don't need that on my 50 car trains - I know Sergents would fix that - but I would have to assemble and install 3500 of them, I already have the 3500 much easier to install Kadees in place.....
The layout also converts to display running, four trains just chasing their tails along a fairly long mainline - while one operator plays in the yard or the industrial area.
We all have different interests and goals.......
Sheldon
dirtyd79I'm building my layout for me and my own amusement.
.
Me too.
I am doing what is right for me, and not for anyone else. I share what I enjoy, and make no suggestions that I am doing it the only right way. Each railroad needs to be built for its owner.
If this were not true, the book "101 Track Plans" would have been "1 Track Plan."
I choose to toss in turn all night over things that only matter to me.
-Kevin
Living the dream.
SeeYou190If this were not true, the book "101 Track Plans" would have been "1 Track Plan."
If you apply the litmus test of no track more than 3 feet from a place where you can stand, it becomes 47 track plans (or something like that).
I can be a little fussy with some things, at some times, but never a perfectionist. I learned a long time ago that I'm not that good, but am probably more like, for me, anyways, good enough.
Wayne
BMMECNYC SeeYou190 If this were not true, the book "101 Track Plans" would have been "1 Track Plan." If you apply the litmus test of no track more than 3 feet from a place where you can stand, it becomes 47 track plans (or something like that).
SeeYou190 If this were not true, the book "101 Track Plans" would have been "1 Track Plan."
Does that include access hatches and "service only" aisles?
I keep trying to build "shelf" layouts, and find myself always wanting "deeper" scenes.
The new layout will have some 42" deep benchwork against walls (with stagging yards all the way at the back, behind a backdrop) and two 8' wide peninsulas to accommodate 44" radius curves.
ATLANTIC CENTRAL BMMECNYC SeeYou190 If this were not true, the book "101 Track Plans" would have been "1 Track Plan." If you apply the litmus test of no track more than 3 feet from a place where you can stand, it becomes 47 track plans (or something like that). Does that include access hatches and "service only" aisles? I keep trying to build "shelf" layouts, and find myself always wanting "deeper" scenes. The new layout will have some 42" deep benchwork against walls (with stagging yards all the way at the back, behind a backdrop) and two 8' wide peninsulas to accommodate 44" radius curves. Sheldon
Yep, access is access. I did a straight forward evaluation based on the fact its hard to build and maintain something you cant reach, topside creeper not withstanding. I deemed about 47 of these layouts "buildable" based on that requirement.
Sometimes it is unavoidable to need a deeper scene. Its not easy to build a wye without a deep scene. Especially if you want all three legs of the wye to be actual routes with no stub ends (there is a LDE I want to include, but I dont think it will fit in my space well).
Yep, I'm picky when it comes to the build quality of my equipment, especially when it comes to my locomotives, which are my favorite part of the hobby. But as someone who makes his living working in assembly inspection in an automotive plant owned by a Japanese company known for their high quality standards, it's hard for me not to be.
I remember a long time ago reading an article by John Pike in MR about a vist to a trolly layout he was looking to do a story on for the magazine. He said when the guy answered the door to invite him in, he was wearing six wrist watches, three on each arm! The man explained to him he was a watch repairman and he was checking to insure they were now keeping the correct time. He went on to say the layout was good but the trollys themselves were assembled kind of sloppy for a man who worked with such small precise gears that go into a delicate watch. Later it dawned on him that the layout and trolly construction was this man's "release valve", the one time he could just relax and enjoy some work without being so "picky". I could learn something from that guy.
Ralph
Just a note on the Train Engineer system, they come up on e-bay all the time, some quite cheap. Got some of mine that way.
Ralph,
That's about right. It's gotta run or it ain't no fun. Other than that, beauty and credibility is in the eye of the beholder. If it convinces you it's a railroad, that's good enough.
Mike Lehman
Urbana, IL
BMMECNYC ATLANTIC CENTRAL BMMECNYC SeeYou190 If this were not true, the book "101 Track Plans" would have been "1 Track Plan." If you apply the litmus test of no track more than 3 feet from a place where you can stand, it becomes 47 track plans (or something like that). Does that include access hatches and "service only" aisles? I keep trying to build "shelf" layouts, and find myself always wanting "deeper" scenes. The new layout will have some 42" deep benchwork against walls (with stagging yards all the way at the back, behind a backdrop) and two 8' wide peninsulas to accommodate 44" radius curves. Sheldon Yep, access is access. I did a straight forward evaluation based on the fact its hard to build and maintain something you cant reach, topside creeper not withstanding. I deemed about 47 of these layouts "buildable" based on that requirement. Sometimes it is unavoidable to need a deeper scene. Its not easy to build a wye without a deep scene. Especially if you want all three legs of the wye to be actual routes with no stub ends (there is a LDE I want to include, but I dont think it will fit in my space well).
Well, in my case the first two feet is where the visable trackage is, the last 18" is behind the "backdrop" and/or under the scenery staging, but the the layout height and a few other aspects make reaching the staging no problem when needed.
A few removeable scenery elements, some hatches and strong benchwork solve the problem just fine.
And yes I also have large turntable/roundhouse and large radius wye that take up big real estate in addition to the large curves.
This layout is being built in modules that will alow it to move to a possible larger space in my retirement residence. At which time it may expand and get rear access to these areas. But for now, the forward only access works fine.
Never saw much in that book I would bother to build anyway.
I would rather have a very low level of detail everywhere than have one section of layout super detailed while the rest is plywood pacific. Later I will go back and upgrade scenes with more detail. Even structures are never finished. I will go back later and paint them and add more details.
I am a perfectionist by nature, but have learned the wisdom of being less so over the years. For model railroading, I mostly am not too perfectionist. The exceptions are:
(1) locomotives have to run nearly flawlessly. No stuttering or flickering headlights. Clean wheels yield reliable operation.
(2) trackwork must be very smooth and switches reliable. Appearance of the track I'm less perfectionist about.
(3) operation must be reasonably realistic. It really irritates me watching people run engines with jackrabbit starts and stops, and slamming into coupling cars at high speeds. Also, leave a bit of time for coupling of brakehoses, releasing brakes, walking to end of cuts of cars, etc. Maybe this comes from my railfanning.
(4) consistency of presentation. I hate seeing a rivet counter buy lots of super-detailed accurate rolling stock, and then run them all unweathered, on a layout with scenery, trackwork, structures that's been given much less level of attention. I appreciate a model railroader who has BB-level equipment that he has taken the time to weather up nicely, things operate smoothly, and has a layout that appears "uniform" level of attention. Thus my own efforts, while lacking the great skills and abilities of others, does have a uniform appearance. No distracting inconsistencies.
Bubbytrains
Lone Wolf and Santa Fe I would rather have a very low level of detail everywhere than have one section of layout super detailed while the rest is plywood pacific. Later I will go back and upgrade scenes with more detail. Even structures are never finished. I will go back later and paint them and add more details.
Lone Wolf. I almost forgot about this thread. I had'nt gone to the third page where I found it since I got home yesterday.
Plywood Pacific that's a good one......I think I like the way you're thinking. I may adopt this progression rule of yours when I'm doing scenery on my layout. I agree there would be nothing worse than seeing your train come through a finish scene and going into unfinished Central.
That would'nt look good. You're right, you can always go back and brush up on detailing things later.
Might as well keep everything in the same Loop. Makes sense to me.
Happy Holidays
Track fiddlerPlywood Pacific that's a good one
It only takes a brief amount of time to put out a cardboard web, cover it with plaster cloth, smooth it out with plaster of paris, paint it Apple Barrel English Ivy green, and sprinkle on Woodland Scenics #T-49 Green Blend.
No more "Plywood Pacific", or "OSB Central" after that.
After this rudimentary scenery is done, it is easy to go back and add buildings, trees, details, etc.
Lorell Joiner did something like this when he built the Great Southern. He finished the entire layout like a desert, then went back and finished all the scenes later.
Hey Kevin. I'll give you that one, it doesn't take too long to get everything looking halfway decent.
MR posting and Sunday night football at the same time. Entertainable multitasking. Isn't life great!
I am going to use Lone Wolf's idea of keeping scenery progression in sink one step at a time over the whole layout. I do remember unfinished zones on my best layout being somewhat disappointing.
PS I took so much time off of work for Thanksgiving I forgot what day it is. I thought it was Monday today. I have to go back to work Tuesday I just got a brand new day.