To clarify, I have two options - an island in one room (that cannot have an around the walls layout) or a long narrow layout in a different room. I'd like a continuous run, but y'all have convinced me I won't be happy at the size curves I'd need. I have since looked at some of Model Railroader's Virginian layout videos and I know I would tire of the toy train look. So I have decided I'd be happier with a shelf layout. Which has me looking at shelf layouts set in the steam era. Most are designed for four axle switchers (and I understand why). I'll be happy with an 0-6-0 on a shelf if I have a believeable scenario.
N scale, which would be my choice if I was 30 years younger, is not an option. My eyes aren't good enough.
Tom
Cataract surgery took care of my being able to see but nothing helps my arthritic fingers, it’s like working with unjointed fat wooden fingers. Mel My Model Railroad http://melvineperry.blogspot.com/ Bakersfield, California I'm beginning to realize that aging is not for wimps.
I am the resident radius snob, and I don't think a Bachmann Consolidation looks that bad on 18" radius curves.
It does after all have small drivers. Would 24" or 28" look better? Well yes.
But sounds like the OP does not have much space, not a problem I can solve.
Sheldon
LastspikemikeThe 30's were fairly late for small steam.
Small steam locomotives ran, and were built new, right up to the end of steam.
The 1930s still had plenty of 2-8-0, 4-6-0, 4-6-2, 0-6-0, and so on, and so on. I am pretty sure the MILWAUKEE ROAD and SANTA FE were still running 2-6-2s. SOUTHERN PACIFIC was still running, and had recently given major rebuilds to 2-6-0s.
For the OP's small coal hauler in the 1930s, most of these would be very appropriate.
-Kevin
Living the dream.
I just started modeling the Campbell's Creek Railroad, a shortline coal hauler that interchanged with the NYC east of Charleston WV. They used a collection of 2-8-0s and small driver 2-8-2's. http://www.wvncrails.org/campbells-creek-railroad.html Would love to post a photo of my progress on the yard at Port Amherst but I guess I'm too much of a computer dinosaur to figure out how to include a photo.
SeeYou190 Lastspikemike The 30's were fairly late for small steam. Small steam locomotives ran, and were built new, right up to the end of steam. The 1930s still had plenty of 2-8-0, 4-6-0, 4-6-2, 0-6-0, and so on, and so on. I an pretty sure the MILWAUKEE ROAD and SANTA FE were still running 2-6-2s. SOUTHERN PACIFIC was still running, and had recently given major rebuilds to 2-6-0s. For the OP's small coal hauler in the 1930s, most of these would be very appropriate. -Kevin
Lastspikemike The 30's were fairly late for small steam.
The 1930s still had plenty of 2-8-0, 4-6-0, 4-6-2, 0-6-0, and so on, and so on. I an pretty sure the MILWAUKEE ROAD and SANTA FE were still running 2-6-2s. SOUTHERN PACIFIC was still running, and had recently given major rebuilds to 2-6-0s.
Yes, on railroads like the Western Maryland, B&O, PRR and many others, "modern" 2-8-0's (like the Bachmann model) built in the late teens and twenties worked right to the end in early/mid fifties.
Despite bigger more modern power, Consolidations and Mikados remained the backbone of freight railroading.
While the B&O had their share of big articulated locos for the mountians, they never even owned a Berkshire, or a Northern, or a 2-10-4, their biggest rigid power being 4-8-2's and 2-10-2's. And the quantity of those locos was dwarfed by the number of Mikes and Consolidations.
2-6-0s and 4-4-0s were still delivering freight in my hometown into the 1950s... And, for what it's worth, they were doing so on curves that are 18" in HO scale
Lastspikemike speedybee 2-6-0s and 4-4-0s were still delivering freight in my hometown into the 1950s... And, for what it's worth, they were doing so on curves that are 18" in HO scale Exactly. What was hauling coal on tight radius prototype in the 1930's is the question. No small Consolidations were built after the 1920's. Mikados were never small. Athearn made a nice small Consolidation modelled on early 1900's designs that will run fine on 18" radius and look plausible in the 1930's. Larger versions of 2-8-0 or 2-8-2 actually current in the 1930's will look quite toy train like on such sharp curves. But would these be hauling a coal train?
speedybee 2-6-0s and 4-4-0s were still delivering freight in my hometown into the 1950s... And, for what it's worth, they were doing so on curves that are 18" in HO scale
Exactly.
What was hauling coal on tight radius prototype in the 1930's is the question.
No small Consolidations were built after the 1920's. Mikados were never small.
Athearn made a nice small Consolidation modelled on early 1900's designs that will run fine on 18" radius and look plausible in the 1930's. Larger versions of 2-8-0 or 2-8-2 actually current in the 1930's will look quite toy train like on such sharp curves.
But would these be hauling a coal train?
How many pictures we would you like to see? Unfortunately many that I have are in books not in digital form. But a quick scan of B&O Consolidations on www.rr-fallenflags.org produced lot of pictures of modern Consolidations photographed in service as late as the mid 50's.
And what was coupled behind many of them? Hopper cars.
Be it a more modern design or an older 1895/1900 design, all these locos had 52" to 63" drivers. So the rigid wheel base, which effects curves (and appearance of our models on curves) is all pretty similar at 15 to 16 scale feet.
That was the whole reason they lasted and kept being rebuilt and modernized. These railroads, especially here in Appalachia, had branch lines and secondary mainlines with light track and sharp curves.
Until diesels came along, the WESTERN MARYLAND used BIG modern Consolidations almost exclusively on their mine branches and secondary routes to deal with sharp curves.
LastspikemikeMikados were never small.
There were lots of small Mikados. There was recently a discussion on building a model of one based a prototype that ran in Texas.
Kevin, that is a sweet looking loco. While I like the look of the USRA, it is a bit on the long side for a small pike. Tons of people out there have small layouts...
For the record, the Athearn 2-8-0 is actually longer than the Bachmann 2-8-0 (latest runs). The Athearn, which came from the MDC line, depicts an earlier model and would not be as appropriate for a 30's operation, IMHO. But it's still an option and the traction tire makes it a good puller.
And to my knowledge, the few remaining 4-4-0s in the 30's were mostly used for light passenger and freight duty, rarely for hauling heavy coal. As for 2-6-2s, from what I read, they were popular in lumber operations, but not used much for mining operations.
At this point, if I was the OP, I would be thinking more about the parameters of the layout and see what loco would fit best. 2.5 X 16 is an interesting challenge. I can see a mining operation at one end, with a wye to turn locos around. Perhaps at the other end, an area to unload coal could be built, with a small turntable. In between, there is room for mountain scenery.
Simon
These are good points Mike, I was going with overall length.
Lastspikemike Well, the Athearn 2-8-0 I have is much smaller than the Spectrum 2-8-0 I have. The important number for curve radius is driver wheelbase. The Athearn driver wheelbase is about 2.5" whereas the Spectrum is about 3 1/4". That's a lot. The Spectrum is a much later design than the Athearn, protypically speaking.
Well, the Athearn 2-8-0 I have is much smaller than the
Spectrum 2-8-0 I have.
The important number for curve radius is driver wheelbase.
The Athearn driver wheelbase is about 2.5"
whereas the Spectrum is about 3 1/4".
That's a lot.
The Spectrum is a much later design than the Athearn, protypically speaking.
Well Mike I'm not home right now to actually measure any locos, but you numbers fail a basic math test.
The Athearn old timer loco has 52" drivers, and likely an axle spacing of 55" or less.
Four axles = three spaces between axles.
3 x 55 = 165 ÷ 87 = 1.9" driver wheelbase
The Bachmann modern 2-8-0 has 63" drivers and a likely axle spacing of 66"
3 x 66 = 198 ÷ 87 = 2.28" driver wheel base.
2.28" vs 1.90"
Driver wheel base is from front axle center to rear axle center. Or the theoretical points where the wheels sit on the rails.
EDIT: when I got home I pulled out the digital calipers and a Bachmann 2-8-0, actual wheel base measurment = 2.38", no where near 3-1/4".
My suspicion is the Athearn model also has a longer wheelbase than my calculations. I do not have access to the Athearn model or its MDC predecessor to take any measurements.
How many loaded coal hoppers would a 2-6-0 or a 2-6-2 haul up a 1.5% to 2% grade in the 1930's?
- Douglas
Lastspikemike Didn't do any math. Just eyeballed a tape measure. I was using "wheelbase" as a loose stand in for locomotive size. The Spectrum is a lot bigger. Measured rear wheel flange to front wheel flange rather than axle centres. My numbers are bigger for that reason. Eyeballing a digital calliper instead you wheelbase of 1.9" for the Athearn and 2.4" for the Spectrum. Not taking the axle retaining plate off just to get a correct measurement. As for the visual length of the driver set I actually eyeballed it turns out to be 3 1/4" by caliper, again eyeballed because you can't actually get a caliper onto the front driver at max wheel diameter. My rough and ready comparison was sufficiently accurate to make the point.
Didn't do any math. Just eyeballed a tape measure. I was using "wheelbase" as a loose stand in for locomotive size. The Spectrum is a lot bigger.
Measured rear wheel flange to front wheel flange rather than axle centres. My numbers are bigger for that reason.
Eyeballing a digital calliper instead you wheelbase of 1.9" for the Athearn and 2.4" for the Spectrum. Not taking the axle retaining plate off just to get a correct measurement. As for the visual length of the driver set I actually eyeballed it turns out to be 3 1/4" by caliper, again eyeballed because you can't actually get a caliper onto the front driver at max wheel diameter.
My rough and ready comparison was sufficiently accurate to make the point.
But Mike, it is the axle to axle measurement that affects performance and appearance on curves. it is from that point that additional length front or back translates into outboard overhang.
So the center section of these two locos actually has a similar foot print on the track and will have similar performance on curves. And the over lengths of the boilers are not that much different, despite the bulkier size and look of the more modern loco.
A USRA Mikado actually has a similar driver wheel base to the modern Bachmann Consolidation, BUT, the Mikado has a much longer frame, and a trailing truck, and thereby a much longer "locomotive wheel base" (distance from pilot axle center to trailing axle center).
So the Mikado looks much bigger, and has rear overhang the Consolidation does not have.
As for the old time Consolidation, it has smaller drivers, so yes it is a little more compact, but not by the large percentage you implied.
Doughless How many loaded coal hoppers would a 2-6-0 or a 2-6-2 haul up a 1.5% to 2% grade in the 1930's?
Not many, and at least in these parts I have no information to suggest such locos were used in that kind of service.
I have a series of photos, taken of a mine branch run on the WESTERN MARYLAND in the early 50's.
70 loaded 50/55 ton hoppers, two large modern 2-8-0's on the front, two RS-1 Diesels and another 2-8-0 in the middle, and two more 2-8-0's at the rear. Or, about 10 cars per loco to handle combined 2% grades and 22 degree or sharper curves (think 36" radius in HO).
These were modern 2-8-0's with over 60,000 lbs of tractive effort.
In fact, the use of 2-6-0's or 2-6-2's in this part of the country for any use appears to have been very limited after WWI.
LastspikemikeDidn't do any math. Just eyeballed a tape measure. I was using "wheelbase" as a loose stand in for locomotive size. The Spectrum is a lot bigger.
I guess it is too difficult to say "I had no idea what I was talking about, so I just made up a bunch of stuff that I presented as fact, and I was wrong again, as usual."
Lastspikemike SeeYou190 Lastspikemike Didn't do any math. Just eyeballed a tape measure. I was using "wheelbase" as a loose stand in for locomotive size. The Spectrum is a lot bigger. I guess it is too difficult to say "I had no idea what I was talking about, so I just made up a bunch of stuff that I presented as fact, and I was wrong again, as usual." -Kevin Huh? I included only facts. When it was suggested my facts were wrong I restated those facts. Go ahead and take your own measurements. Let us know what you discover. To assist: the Athearn Consolidation is a lot smaller and has a lot shorter wheelbase than the Spectrum model. Let us know if your tape measure, calipers or eyeballs find a different result.
SeeYou190 Lastspikemike Didn't do any math. Just eyeballed a tape measure. I was using "wheelbase" as a loose stand in for locomotive size. The Spectrum is a lot bigger. I guess it is too difficult to say "I had no idea what I was talking about, so I just made up a bunch of stuff that I presented as fact, and I was wrong again, as usual." -Kevin
Lastspikemike Didn't do any math. Just eyeballed a tape measure. I was using "wheelbase" as a loose stand in for locomotive size. The Spectrum is a lot bigger.
Huh?
I included only facts.
When it was suggested my facts were wrong I restated those facts.
Go ahead and take your own measurements. Let us know what you discover.
To assist: the Athearn Consolidation is a lot smaller and has a lot shorter wheelbase than the Spectrum model.
Let us know if your tape measure, calipers or eyeballs find a different result.
Yes, Mike, the term "wheelbase" has a definition, a definition that is not the overal length of the drivers on their centerline, so once again your original statements were misleading.
And in fact, you had the wheelbase measurement for the smaller loco and the overal driver center line length for the larger loco which exaggerated the difference, by a conciderable percentage.
For the record, I never said the smaller loco would not look better on 18" radius curves.
I said that in my opinion (and I am the forum radius snob who would never run trains on the curves you are using) the Bachmann model would work and look fine on 18" radius - but bigger is always better when it comes to curves.
The OP asked about a 1930's era for his railroad, some simple research points to the fact that the locomotive I suggested fits the era and the task, and the older loco would more likely already be scrapped or not used in that kind of service.
That was the basis for my recommendation.
The Bachmann loco wheelbase is 20% larger than the Athearn/MDC oldtimer - maybe that's a lot, maybe not.
Alton Junction
Lastspikemike I ain't getting paid to be right or wrong (not that I ever am...)
I ain't getting paid to be right or wrong (not that I ever am...)
Hello All,
snjroyIf he wants to turn a loco around using a wye, 18" radius is pretty much the only option (assuming some space is needed for the loco and the return track).
I have a wye on my HO 4'x8' pike made with PECO Small Radius Turnouts (#ST-240 & #ST-241) with the legs consisting of two sections of 15-inch radius sectional track each, to an Atlas Mark IV wye turnout.
There is only enough room, due to track conflicts, for a single 9-inch re-railer track section on the stub end.
If there was no track conflict, and the wye began at the edge of the pike, the stub end could be extended another 18-inches for a total of 27-inches.
Not a huge length of track but it could still accommodate a 0-6-0 with tender and a few cars.
This wye is used to turn the USRA 0-6-0 with a Vanderbilt tender or the 0-6-0 Side Tank Porter. The cars are set out on the "mainline" between the two legs of the wye while the locos are being turned.
Because this train only runs when the coal mine is closed there is no problem with the coaches blocking the "mainline".
The stub end of the wye is also the fueling rack for the 0-6-0s, which have been converted to burn oil.
Hope this helps.
"Uhh...I didn’t know it was 'impossible' I just made it work...sorry"
ATLANTIC CENTRAL Doughless How many loaded coal hoppers would a 2-6-0 or a 2-6-2 haul up a 1.5% to 2% grade in the 1930's? Not many, and at least in these parts I have no information to suggest such locos were used in that kind of service. I have a series of photos, taken of a mine branch run on the WESTERN MARYLAND in the early 50's. 70 loaded 50/55 ton hoppers, two large modern 2-8-0's on the front, two RS-1 Diesels and another 2-8-0 in the middle, and two more 2-8-0's at the rear. Or, about 10 cars per loco to handle combined 2% grades and 22 degree or sharper curves (think 36" radius in HO). These were modern 2-8-0's with over 60,000 lbs of tractive effort. In fact, the use of 2-6-0's or 2-6-2's in this part of the country for any use appears to have been very limited after WWI. Sheldon
I figured the 2-6-0 and 2-6-2 were a bit light in the pants for coal hauling on grades. They were mainly flatland locos, IIRC, and, the 2-6-2 is even called the "Prairie", not that its the reason for it.
Since the Bachmann Spectrum 2-8-0 is probably the best steam locomotive model for smaller layouts, I'd pick that.
OP here. To update those that care, I have given up on the table layout, and coal as well. I never considered a wye on the shelf layout. Where I am now: 1930s shelf and switching layout. I'll probably go with a few classic industries. Engine will be turned either by turntable, hand of God, or not at all. Since I'm freelancing I'll buy a locomotive that looks good to me, because I've learned from this thread there will be an expert that tells me it's not correct, and an expert that will tell me it is.
I'll buy a locomotive that looks good to me!
Mel My Model Railroad http://melvineperry.blogspot.com/ Bakersfield, California I'm beginning to realize that aging is not for wimps.
Late4Dinner OP here. To update those that care, I have given up on the table layout, and coal as well. I never considered a wye on the shelf layout. Where I am now: 1930s shelf and switching layout. I'll probably go with a few classic industries. Engine will be turned either by turntable, hand of God, or not at all. Since I'm freelancing I'll buy a locomotive that looks good to me, because I've learned from this thread there will be an expert that tells me it's not correct, and an expert that will tell me it is.
As well you should, opinions were offered based on the criteria you set.
In Many ways small layouts are more challenging than moderate sized ones.
Just a thought. A wye can be built with one leg on a folding shelf that protrudes when in operation. Electrical and/or physical constraints are wise to keep equipment from hitting the floor.