Good evening,
I took your advice and got rid of that "s" curve. It looks a lot better and everything fit with some slight escavations. The longer straights and turnouts arrived so I was able to clamp everything together after doing some final adjustments to the sub-roadbed utilizing a level.
The Mrs. really likes the look of the bridge and wants to stain it to match another wood piece we have in the garden near by... so that settles that decission Here's a few pictures of the progress. It feels very sturdy and I'm hoping the sealer/stain will give it a good lifespan until I decide on a metal or hardwood bridge down the road.
John
Good morning,
I was planning on using a wood sealer for decks or prime/paint it after the bridge is completed. I'm designing it so it can be easily removed for pond maintenance and in the winter when not in use. Not sure if that changes anything for you guys. Honestly the pine and balsa was more of a cost driven choice. Down the road, I'd like to possibly build a metal bridge but that priced way too high for now with all the initial costs for track, etc
Thanks!
john
John,
I am still trying to master the art of the straight cut, so I am going to watch how this unfolds and learn from you!
You might want to look into synthetic and composite materials, too, if you are not too far committed to your current course. Bill, who haunts this forum, does amazing work with vinyl and various plastics, sometimes repurposed from very out-of-the-box sources. In his hands, these synthetics become wood to all outside appearance. Bill lives a climate like mine, so I am taking a cue from him and moving in that direction for material choices.
For what it's worth, I built a deck bridge with a composite material that looks pretty good and holds up well to bugs, water, and heat. The issue I had, though, was that it lost structural integrity as I ripped it down to smaller than 1/4" x 1/4".
The smaller cross-pieces are giving way after a year in the garden, but the main, load bearing elements are doing OK.
I have to return to this area of the railroad after I get my sugar mill in place!
Eric
Hi John,
all good so far, except maybe balsa wood. Wood selection is a hot topic, and I'm sure many others will chime in. Basically, you want something tough enough for outdoors. Many will recommend Redwood for outdoors. I used it for ties years back, and I found it to be far too soft as a wood, and did not hold up over time.
I had excellent results with poplar, which is one of the softer hardwoods. I treated it with a coating of deck stain/ polyurethane. It comes pre mixed in a can, Minwax, I think.
Currently, my ties are 1x1 garden stakes from Miracle grow, cut to 4" lengths.
You want something tough enough for outdoors. My personal feeling is to use oversized cross sections of wood for ruggedness. Scale to me is secondary to toughness, but that's something you'll have to decide for yourself.
Looking good!
Paul
That all is good advice and lines up with my ultimate goal. I like the look of DRGW narrow gauge but I'm not looking for perfection amonst cars. The main purpose of the railway is for enjoyment and ambience followed by realism and operation.
We had rain today so I decided to start experimenting with building my 10 foot bridge that will span the pond. I'm using 1x4 pine boards on each side with 4x4 pieces in between as the base. On top, I'm placing 1/2 inch square balsawood planks accross the top. I'll have more 1/2 inch planks running on each side of the tracks to keep them in line and will fasten the ties to the planks with wire allowing them to flex with the change in temperatures. Thats the plan anyway.... do you all see any issues so far?
Sorry, I meant models of 3' gauge railroad equipment, not 3' long cars! Three feet of anything would stretch across my entire empire! I heartily concur with Paul and your own observation. Run what looks best together in your circumstances!
Case in point (and leaving aside the Easter-themed cargo) there are four manufacturers (Bachmann, LGB, Delton, and Hartland Locomotive Works) and at least as many scales in the photo below:
Looks OK to me, anyway, in my slow build towards something evocative of the real Oahu Railway & Land Co., which ran on 3' gauge track.
To be honest, I have found by sizing everything to my PLAYMOBIL collection, I can get the right "scale" for what I want to achieve given my available space and budget. My father-in-law, in fact, based those buildings on some PLAYMOBIL dude shortly after the collection came out of hibernation. I jokingly call this "1:24-ish PLAYMOBIL scale," as I have found that 1:24 makes measurements easy for my hackneyed attempts at scratchbuilding. In fact, I have a PLAYMOBIL "work crew" I keep handy as I bumble along to check size and look as I go!
At the end of the day, the main thing is to have fun. Our museum has some finescale models of OR&L equipment. They are things of beauty and exquisite craftsmanship. If I had waited until I possessed the talent, tools, and time to produce a model like that, I wouldn't be having fun with what I have and what I am capable of achieving en route to that end.
to answer your question: LGB makes models of both standard and narrow gauge American prototype. You can tell what your looking at by: the narrow gauge cars will have truss rods underneath, and will usually have simulated wood detail. They are virtually all the samesize,and not really scale, but look great. I would say also that although there is a great increase in quality of LGB engines, you could probably do just as well with less expensive cars; Bachmann, Aristocraft/ Delton classics, etc. They are similar in detail, and you could save a few bucks....
There has been a movement in recent years for trulyscale cars. Accucraft and Bachmann make these, and the narrow gauge cars are enormous, but require at least R3. Maybe not best for starting out.
Opinion: I went down the scale 1:20.3 road, but came back ! My conclusion is that most people only see a train on the track, and the overall illusion is more important than the scale! There's my two cents....
Greg, Luckily I have a small case of OCD so I’ll be at it with a level until I feel really confident with the results.
Eric, the passenger cars are something I’d like to add.... definitely not any 3 footers haha but maybe 1-2 shorter ones for mixed local service on a mainly freight branch line. Looks like piko makes 14” cars and LGB makes 18” cars in the DRGW with a drovers caboose. My current engine is about 13” long so I don’t think the longer ones would look odd and would be better for a larger engine down the road. I guess it really is up to the individual with how realistic they want to get right?
Scale and Gauge. Someone once told me "G" stands for "Gummi," which is German for rubber! LGB nominally bases things off of meter gauge track then, for cost reasons, uses bits and parts for its 3' gauge American stuff, US and Euro standard gauge stuff, and Euro .75 meter stuff! Figuring out where you want to go will, as Paul suggested, save you money! To my eye, all LGB's narrow gauge stuff looks good together, especially if you don't have gear "cross the pond!" Not that I would ever be guilty of running D&RGW 3' gauge coaches behind an Austrian .75 m gauge locomotive
I cannot echo Greg enough regarding track. My track floats because, like Paul, I felt a need to tinker with the track plan (And because I miscommunicated what I wanted done to fill the garden. Different story!). Bad electrical connections, derailments, uncouplings were my bane, and I was reaching for the credit card. It turned out all I needed was a cheap plumber's level and a garden trowel, and both are now part of my "train box." Things got better as the dirt and rocks settled over time, but that level and trowel are my first tools whenever I have issues!
Have a great week!
I would caution about "doesn't need to be perfect"...
on prototype railroads, this is certainly true
On our G scale, it depends. For example the inexpensive Bachmann big hauler is notorious for derailing the pilot. All kinds of "fixes" have been used, testimony to the issue.
Inexpensive locos tend not to have sprung drivers and can derail more easily.
Also smaller locos can be lighter and have more difficulty.
I have a heavy steamer, and it runs through track that lighter locos or ones with unsprung drivers derail.
So, it depends. Definitely LGB tends to be able to run over rougher track, aided by quality materials and the deep flanges.
So, I would strive for perfection in your trackwork. I say strive, not accomplish. Make it as smooth and level (across the rails) as you can. You will be rewarded with more reliable running, longer trains, and just more enjoyment.
Greg
Visit my site: http://www.elmassian.com - lots of tips on locos, rolling stock and more.
Click here for Greg's web site
Paul,
Good to know that the roadbed doesn't need to be perfect. Forgiving sounds good to me. I stumbled across some stuff about the real DRGW engine and it had a cool backstory. The drive rods are what originally caught my eye since most diesels don't have much action like steamers.
The 4000 series freight cars I was referring to are just the numbering... like the 4061 gondola I already have. Seems like they all have 4 axels, truck mounted couplers, and are about 16 inches long. Are most LGB cars narrow gauge? It would make sense since their European trains have the same look.
you're off to an excellent start! One reason for asking about your direction will have an effect on your track. Narrow gauge tends to have smaller equipment, and track standards are not nearly as demanding. You can appreciate how a train of streamline passengers cars would tend toward requiring pristine trackwork. Narrow gauge modeling is much more forgiving!
I'm a narrow gauge nut for days....( and everything else with flanged wheels, for that matter).
The LGB 2063 is actually a model of what was at one time the Durango yard switcher. It's a real engine, from the 50's.I think it may be up at CRM now.
I am not sure what is meant by LGB 4000 series. Any of the traditional LGB stuff will run on R1, you'll have no trouble with R3 curves.
One last thing:
my first garden railroad at the old house, in place for 12 years, went through several realignments. I wasn't completely satisfied until my " Phase 4" track plan, 8 years in!
" Home wasn't built in a day"....
when I started with G, we had just returned from a trip to Colorado, and I was attracted to the amount of G gear offered with Colorado road names. But that didn't stop me: I bought anything and everything in G. Eventually, I calmed down, and settled on a narrow gauge theme. Even my Swiss and Austrian models are narrow gauge.
Have you decided on standard gauge models, narrow gauge, a mix, or any combination there of ? You don't have to decide right now, but I was curious if you have any central theme in mind?
There's a simple rule, you need a straight section between opposig curves. That straight should be the length of your longest car, at a minimum.
This will make a huge difference, to the point of being able or not able to run certain cars.
Clearly if you run short cars this track is short. If you want to run 80' streamliners or 60-90 foot rolling stock like auto carriers, etc. you can see you need longer track.
If you run short cars, and all couplers are truck mount, normally you can get away with no straights, but do not forget your locos, since most are body mount.
So, many people go out and buy a Dash 9, or SD70 and are upset when they don't run well/derail.
to clarify:
I guess it was difficult to see in the pictures. I had thought the straight piece was a 4 footer....
if that is 2 one foot straight sections going into the S, remove one 12 " straight, and start your curve a little early, then take that 12" straight and insert it into the S between the two opposing curves. You will not need to cut anything.
I must say , it really looks like you've done your homework on roadbed construction.
This is gonna be great!
That all makes a lot of sense. So you're saying to cut one of the 12 inch sections and position a 6inch section between the curves in the "s"? I think I can fit that in without an issue if that's the case. If not the engineers may have to blast some more of the mountainside away.
I was actually wondering why they only had one hook per car/engine. I ordered a few extra hooks to add on.
Thanks for all your input guys. It's really helpful for a newbie getting his feet wet in GR.
it really looks great!
I will say, as a general rule, to put at least 1 small straight section in between the curves on an S curve. The relieves stress on couplers, and improves tracking on cars. If you cut the straight behind the S curve ( hacksaw), you can use the short piece you just cut in between the S curves.
Also, on hook and loop couplers, be sure to " double hook". They usually come with hooks only on one end. Make sure to install on both ends.
Greg, I'm using R3 curves. Do you think the S-curve will be an issue? I have straights in between groups of two R3 sections except for the one spot in the middle.
Thanks Eric. I also ordered them not knowing there were two types. I may clamp both rails on curves and alternate straights since I'm guessing curved sections will be more likely to come loose.
Great progress! You got some skills!
As for alternating rail clamps, I have done alternated them in sections, too, and for the same reason! I have not had issues with the connection or electrical conductivity...yet. I am sure it is a matter of time until corrosion, gunk, and wiggling cause the rail joiners to stop working. All that being said, my climate is much milder, with freezing and thawing obviously not an issue! I would defer to a local.
Continuing with rail clamps, I have used over-the-joiner and on-the-rail. I purchased the over-the-joiner by mistake, having been told that, in time, they, too, become dirt traps. Two years later, they are working out OK. They are much, much easier to install, too! Were it I, and were it not too late, I would defer to the experiences of people with more mature railroads than I have.
In closing, this is really going to be a thing of beauty! Thanks for letting us ride along with you on this process!
I would say put some straights between your curves. What curves are they? R1, R2, R3, 10' diameter?
Today's Update:
I've been working on building up the section leading to the pond and future bridge. I used a mix of gravel and soil before topping it off with the general purpose sand as a roadbed. After tamping and soaking it down, it becomes very solid even when walking on it.
Before the track is set in place for good and ballasted, I'm going to add the conductive paste and clamps. I grabbed the piko over joint clamps for the regular sections and the on rail ones for turnouts so they can be removed if needed. I was considering alternating clamps on the left and right rails each section to save some money. Do you guys think that'll be enough to keep the rails together?
Have a great weekend!
Eric,
I definitely think I'll have room for expansion down the road so future kids will be able to get involved. Luckily, the railroad will be technically on the front yard side of our fence so where the kids would be playing with less supervision, trains would be out of reach. They can safely view them from the deck or be escorted to the front and we can enjoy them together.
I agree on enjoying the unique challanges that pop up with my new venture into garden railroading. It's very rewarding to slowly see the terrain shaped into what I envisioned... and since I'm dealign with soil and rock, I can always knock down and start over if needed.
Great start! I am envious of the space, topography, and availability of fill material! I find it fascinating how each of us has to adapts physical circumstances and material availability to meet our ends! Part of the "realism," if you will, of the hobby.
One more thought for you. You had mentioned in your post on couplers kids are / may be in the future. May I suggest leaving an accessible area for them? I had strict orders to plan for the kids' involvement ("This cannot be just your hobby!"), and it has paid dividents. This really enhanced my enjoyment of the endeavor and helped secure support for it. I'd just leave an area open as your last area to develop, maybe routing your mainline just out of reach of the youngest self-propelled visitors (6-24 months). This has worked for us without limiting where we go with the Triple O.
You'll also note that the kids closest to you will generally not be the problem. They will "get it." Trainsets, let alone garden railroads, are not common, and they will positively draw their friends to the rails, where a tiny handful will cause - or try to cause - havoc. Typically, these are also the ones whose parets will say, "It's OK. They'r just toys."
I short, I think planning for kids interacting with the railroad and the level of interaction desired is as important a consideration as scale and prototype. Remember, too, kids only get older, so you also have to plan to dial up the complexity of their interaction over time.
My Two Cents!
I was thinking the same regarding track sections. I'm using LGB track and will try to use 4 footers whenever possible. Soldering is not a strength of mine so I'll be using rail clamps and conductive paste. Taking your advice on vantage points, I'm going to move the sidings towards the viewpoint of the deck since most people wont be looking from the front yard.
I'll check out the Complete Collection for sure. I just watched all 14 videos of Mark Found's series on building his garden railroad. Between those and the book I read, I felt pretty comfortable getting to work. I'm sure I'll make mistakes but I guess thats the best way to learn.
Todays progress:
I took a trip to the dump and picked out some nice rocks for retaining walls.
Made a trip to home depot and picked up some multi-purpose sand that worked well for me as a sturdy base for another project in the yard. I'm starting in the rock garden building up a roadbed at the high point of the main line. I ripped out some rocks and built up around some low areas. I used stakes and a level to ensure this area is nice and flat before adding the sand. I tamped it down using a 4x4 and then added more. Finally, I spayed the sand down with the hose to help is set and bond together.
As an aside and a follow-up to an earlier question about references, you may wish to consider Garden Railways the Complete Collection. It has a really, really solid search function that brings up multiple articles on the given subject. It is my go-to reference for idea generation before I go to the forums.
Really, really smart idea to lay the track down and see how it looks. I might add three things:
That's a fantastic start ! You can always start with this initial loop, and then you'll get a better feel for what else to add.
I wouldn't mind a connection with that secret dirt network, but I think shipping to NJ might be costly haha. Luckily, I think I can raid the town dump. They have a huge pile of escavated dirt and rocks. My neighbor goes there whenever he needs to fix his rock retaining wall.
So, I figured the best way to come up with a more concrete plan would be to lay down some track in the area and see how it would fit in. Since I only have curves at the moment, I measure the spacing between curves to figure out how much straight track I'd need.
With a good idea that it would all fit, I was able to draw up an altered track plan. The total length of the main line would be 102 feet, which it more than adequate for what I want. I'll add a couple team tracks and a small yard for variety. I may play around with the yard a bit, possibly just having a runaround siding then a branch to a bigger yard in the top right space instead.
Get the Garden Railways newsletter delivered to your inbox twice a month