Combination. For track, I'm old school code 100, mostly because of cost and accessibility. I have rolling stock of pretty much every make. My oldest locos (Japanese brass and Fleischmann) were built in the early 60's, and have some recent locos built less than 5 years ago. Some have high flanges (see point about code 100!). A few kitbashed locos, like the one appearing in my avatar.
All my HO scale locos are DCC (RTR and hardwire upgrades), and I use my cell to operate my locos. I'm installing less sound than I used to, the price of sound decoders is getting too high for me.
I use Kadee couplers, but Rapido uncouplers. 99% of the paints I use are acrylics, I guess that's new school.
For scenery, I'm mostly new school: mostly shelf construction, and I use ground foam, sculptamold, and will use cardboard and plaster rolls to shape my mountains.
I also have some O scale, two-rail, DC equipment. I have some HOn3 and HOn30. I would say that's old school, although my HOn3 is DCC. Like I said, combination.
Simon
20211017_104745 on Flickr
John-NYBWThe layout in my previous home which I moved out of 20 years ago was DC on code 100 (HO) track. That's old school.
I switched to HO in the winter of 1987-88, and used Walthers Code 83 from the start, so not sure that's really 'new school'.
John-NYBWAnother old school/new school choice is couplers. In HO, I think most people are now using some sort of knuckle couplers but is there anybody out there still using the old hornhooks. Back in the 1980s, that was the standard coupler almost all equipment came with and KDs were what you converted to if you wanted knuckle couplers.
Kadees have been the standard HO coupler for a half a century or more. The X2F "NMRA" coupler was a compromise that came out many years back, and could be made by any manufacturer without paying a licensing fee. That's why equipment came with them 'back in the day'; generally everyone except newbies immediately replaced them with Kadees.
John-NYBWI think it was sometime in the 1990s that other brands of knuckle couplers became available and new equipment came with both types of couplers.
Kadee refused to make discount bulk prices available to manufacturers who wanted to make their equipment come with Kadees. However, Kadee's patent ran out about 20-25 years ago, and manufacturers could then make their own version without needing to pay any fees to Kadee. That's when cars and engines started coming out with Kadee-compatible knuckle couplers.
Code 100 was the de facto standard in HO until late in the 1980s and has since been displaced by Code 83. That's why I say it is new school as opposed to old school. As the responses have shown, many are still using the old standard. If you have Rivarossi steamers from the 1980s, and I still do, you are limited to running on Code 100 because of the oversized flanges. I think when Code 83 became popular, Rivarossi reduced the size of their flanges.
As for couplers, the horn hooks are what equipment came with until the patent expired on KDs and many people did not replace them. I don't know what the percentage was among modelers, but not everybody was replacing them with KDs. I remember buying a collection at an estate sale in the early 1980s and it all had horn hooks. I continued to use horn hooks on my Rivarossi passenger cars on my old layout because I didn't do any switching with my passenger trains. As another modeler has said he did, I had a baggage car with a horn hook on one end and KD on the other. The KD would hook to the loco while the rest of the consist ran with horn hooks. I still have some of those Rivarossi passnenger cars boxed up with the horn hooks on them. Maybe some day I will upgrade them.
No, it's true that in the 1980s not everyone was using Kadees, but probably 85-90% of people were using them. By then they'd been around for several decades and were well established as the standard, so wouldn't really count as "new school" in the 1990s.
The easiest way to convert the old AHM/Rivarossi passenger cars is to use the McHenry couplers. They make ones that just snap in place in the existing connection. Of course, Kadees would be the choice if you're going to body mount them, but the McHenry ones make for a quick/easy conversion.
I got back into the hobby about year 2000, so the stuff I bought would be described as new school.
Modern shortline, post year 2000. Since the model manufacturers finally started producing GP7Us and GP15s with front and rear LED ditchlights and finally decent sound coupled with good motor control about 2015, I don't have many locos left that were made before that.
Started accumulating rolling stock about 2000.
About as new school as you can get when it comes to equipment.
DCC control, mainly because onboard sound needs it.
Code 83. That's what I started buying.
Couplers are a mix. As long as they are knuckles and not horn hook. Never had a problem coupling or uncoupling a mix of brands.
I use plywood, foam roadbed, cork roadbed, homosote, caulk, white glue, or nails....since track laying materials aren't that important. They all seem to work for me just fine.
- Douglas
tstageWheelsets - Metal and mostly ribbed;
Which would be appropriate for the Transition Era that you apparently model, as cast iron wheels were the ones with the ribbed backs.
"As of January 1st, 1958 cast iron wheels were banned from new and rebuilt cars, From January 1st, 1964 no new cast iron wheels were allowed on existing cars, and from January 1st, 1968 all cast iron wheels were banned from interchange."
I model the same era, but to me its such a small, hard to see detail, I don't bother
Here's a qustion for the audience. I belong to a club, whose oldest segments go back to the 1970's - wired for DC and using code 100 rail. The question is what to do. In particular, the electric system is obsolete. Ripping out all the DC wiring and re-wiring for DCC (and then you have the problem of picking which DCC system) and relaying all the track seems unthinkable. We're probably talking years of effort - and how do you keep member interest from flagging without an operational layout? We do have a connecting shortline and interurban so there has been the idea of redoing them first and then tackling the Class I line - but that limits the type of equipment (no Big Boys or Cab Forwards on tight radius curves or under wire in the middle of the street) and the number of operators at one time. We can't be the only folks who've faced this problem and I'd be intrerested in your experience. Thanks
PS: Your opinion on say, code 70, for the shortline and interurban. Also, there is a proposed line for the narrow minded - Colorado Gauge (3 foot), not Maine Gauge (2 foot) - use code 70? Hand laid code 55 (normally N scale)? I like the idea of also having a 2 foot industrial line serving a tie and bridge timber treating plant.
Railroad tie treatment plants (trainorders.com)
Fortunately nobody is suggesting Cape Gauge (42 inch) or Russian Gauge (5 feet), let alone Erie (6 foot) or Great Western (7 feet 1/4 inch) or a monorail
Yet
List of track gauges - Wikipedia
PPS: Anybody know if Russian model rails operate on HO standard gauge or true to scale HOw5? Enquiring minds want to know....
BEAUSABRE tstage Wheelsets - Metal and mostly ribbed; Which would be appropriate for the Transition Era that you apparently model, as cast iron wheels were the ones with the ribbed backs. "As of January 1st, 1958 cast iron wheels were banned from new and rebuilt cars, From January 1st, 1964 no new cast iron wheels were allowed on existing cars, and from January 1st, 1968 all cast iron wheels were banned from interchange." I model the same era, but to me its such a small, hard to see detail, I don't bother
tstage Wheelsets - Metal and mostly ribbed;
I started outfitting my rolling stock early on with metal ribbed wheelsets when I was assemblying kits. So I just kept up with doing that as I accumulated kits over the years.
I do have a few RTR pieces that came with flatback wheelsets. You're right that it's a detail that most likely others will never notice but I'll know. However, I have no plans to swap them out; nor am I going to get bent out of shape over it.
Tom
https://tstage9.wixsite.com/nyc-modeling
Time...It marches on...without ever turning around to see if anyone is even keeping in step.
BEAUSABRE I belong to a club, whose oldest segments go back to the 1970's - wired for DC and using code 100 rail. The question is what to do. In particular, the electric system is obsolete.
"One difference between pessimists and optimists is that while pessimists are more often right, optimists have far more fun."
I don't think Code 100 track will ever be obsolete. You can run all modern equipment on it. It's a matter of appearance and preference. I can see how turnouts might need maintenance or replacement on occasion but does track wear out after 40 years? The oldest track on my layout is less than 20 years old and everything runs just fine on it.
If the electrical system was well designed from the start, it shouldn't need replacing. Occasional maintenance might be necessary. Now if they are going to convert from DC to DCC, that's a whole new ballgame. It can be done with the existing wiring but it might be a better option to put in new bus lines and run feeders to it.
wjstix No, it's true that in the 1980s not everyone was using Kadees, but probably 85-90% of people were using them. By then they'd been around for several decades and were well established as the standard, so wouldn't really count as "new school" in the 1990s. The easiest way to convert the old AHM/Rivarossi passenger cars is to use the McHenry couplers. They make ones that just snap in place in the existing connection. Of course, Kadees would be the choice if you're going to body mount them, but the McHenry ones make for a quick/easy conversion.
If I ever update the Rivarossi cars with knuckle couplers, they would be body mounted KDs. The reason I don't is because my old layout was a freelanced UP railroad and my new layout is a fictional eastern railroad. They just wouldn't fit the current theme. I have both Armour Yellow lightweights and two tone grey heavyweights. Those cars and the big UP steamers are just boxed up but for some reason I don't want to part with them.
Side question. Is it possible to get replacement wheel assemblies for those old Rivarossi steamers with the oversized flanges?
John-NYBW Side question. Is it possible to get replacement wheel assemblies for those old Rivarossi steamers with the oversized flanges?
No, and I don't think the parts interchange on the few models they made later with smaller flanges.
Sheldon
I guess I qualify as "old school," albeit not on grounds of using Code 83 rail; I run DC and probably always will (a lot of older brass), and I have no interest in DCC. I don't scratchbuild everything, but I scratch or kit build most things, using RTR when I can get it, which isn't often (my era is 1890-1913).
One thing that I learned gradually, but that seems important to me: when you build your own buildings, scenery and equipment, your layout acquires a sort of "artistic unity:" your choices of technique and materials tend to make everything blend together, so that the differences in manufacture don't leap out at you as much. I really enjoy building models, so that works for me. It is time-consuming, and if my personal priority was different, say, realistic operation, I might make different choices.
I also dislike electronic solutions; there's nothing inherently wrong with them, they just aren't what I want to do. I am trying, to the extent possible, to use electric and mechanical solutions wherever I can, rather than digital. I have repurposed my electrical control panel with 23 blocks and dual-cab control three times now, and have always been able to basically wire in the track and power pack connections, flip a switch, and run trains in a manner that satisfies me.
http://mprailway.blogspot.com
"The first transition era - wood to steel!"
I think there will always be somewhat of a mix for folks. I have code 100 on my standard gauge and code 70 on my narrow gauge. Ironicly I run DCC on the standard gauge and DC on the narrow. I think there will always be a lot that use code 100. Our club uses code 100 and I think a lot still lean to that. As for equipment there is still a whole bunch of the older stuff out there at swap meets that people are buying.
BEAUSABRE Here's a qustion for the audience. I belong to a club, whose oldest segments go back to the 1970's - wired for DC and using code 100 rail. The question is what to do. In particular, the electric system is obsolete. Ripping out all the DC wiring and re-wiring for DCC (and then you have the problem of picking which DCC system) and relaying all the track seems unthinkable. We're probably talking years of effort - and how do you keep member interest from flagging without an operational layout? We do have a connecting shortline and interurban so there has been the idea of redoing them first and then tackling the Class I line - but that limits the type of equipment (no Big Boys or Cab Forwards on tight radius curves or under wire in the middle of the street) and the number of operators at one time. We can't be the only folks who've faced this problem and I'd be intrerested in your experience. Thanks PS: Your opinion on say, code 70, for the shortline and interurban. Also, there is a proposed line for the narrow minded - Colorado Gauge (3 foot), not Maine Gauge (2 foot) - use code 70? Hand laid code 55 (normally N scale)? I like the idea of also having a 2 foot industrial line serving a tie and bridge timber treating plant. Railroad tie treatment plants (trainorders.com) Fortunately nobody is suggesting Cape Gauge (42 inch) or Russian Gauge (5 feet), let alone Erie (6 foot) or Great Western (7 feet 1/4 inch) or a monorail Yet List of track gauges - Wikipedia PPS: Anybody know if Russian model rails operate on HO standard gauge or true to scale HOw5? Enquiring minds want to know....
Does track wear out after 50 years? I can see how a turnout might because it has moving parts but how would ordinary flex track degrade over time. With my own layout, I'll be 100 years old when my track turns 50 so I'm not sure I'm going to get first hand knowledge on that question.
Another element of old school vs. new school is scenery techniques but that is a little harder to define since techniques have evolved over the years. My first book on the subject was Bill McClanahan's book Scenery for Model Railroads which was first published in 1958 and I purchased a revised edition in the late 1970s. Used copies are still available on both Amazon and ebay. I still use many of the techniques in that book. I've also have the first edition of David Frary's How to Build Model Railroad Scenery and have taken from that as well. I haven't made extensive use of layered foam but have found it to be useful in places. I'm always willing to experiment with new techniques. The current issue of MR has an interesting techinique of combining poly fiber with profile boards to create forest canopies. I don't know if that is a new technique or not but I haven't seen it before. I have lots of wooded hillsides to construct on the the last section of my layout and I'm going to give this one a tryout at least. When it comes to scenery, I'm a litte of both old school and new school.
John-NYBWDoes track wear out after 50 years?
Russell
You will wear out long before the track does. ;-}
I am not sure anymore what constitutes old school vs new school. Maybe DC vs DCC? Having said that many long time modelers have no desire to convert to DCC and face having to install decoders in dozens of locomotives.
In the 1980's I built Dr. Bruce Chubb's CMRI for my then code 70 layout. I used PROLOG for the code (I had been using PROLOG extensively at work) and even added signal repeaters to the 4 cabs. It worked like a dream. DCC was in it's infancy. I guess that made me new school. Over the years I resisted the urge and stayed with DC. I guess that made me old school. Fast forward to my current much simpler layout built using DC and the KISS method. Once again, old school. Then in 2017 I dove into Arduinos to automate 2 grade crossings and I am now working on interfacing the Arduino with a laptop and Visual Basic to display layout status. I guess new school again. Oh, an MRC Tech 6 is coming to run my handful of DC/DCC locos and control the sound. OK, maybe a chimera.
As with some of the other contributors here I fall into the category of a blend of "tried and true" old school and a little hi-tech sprinkled in.
For me the hi-tech part of it at least has to be sensible and useful for my goals and also not so cutting-edge that there are still some technical glitches to be ironed out.
For the old school end of things I have a substantial benchwork and sub roadbed structure. My present layout, begun in 1995, and to this day I've never had a situation where there was any misalignment or shifting. The subroadbed is a good grade of 3/4" plywood well screwed and glued. scenery is hard-shell plaster where required and the rest is various types of ground foam and static grasses.
Shinohara code 83 was gaining popularity and a friend was using it extensively so I was sold on its looks, durability and the fact that there was a decent selection of turnouts and such being imported by Walthers. A choice I've never regretted.
I ran the layout for about ten years with cab control and Aristo-Craft wireless throttles. A couple cabs used MRC Controlmaster throttles with the walk-around, plug-in throttles.
In 2006 another friend was leaving the hobby and made me a deal on his Digitrax system that I couldn't say no to. Since then I've made quite a few upgrades to the overall DCC system including some of the latest Digitrax 600-series throttles. I have no complaints or regrets with using the Digitrax products. The original command station and boosters I bought used in 2005 are still performing well.
Many of my signals are "animated" using the boards available from LogicRail. They provide just enough realism without having to go "whole-hog" on a fully functional signal system which, to me, has glaring limitations on the small confines of the model layout.
Just this week I took a step BACK from hi-tech and removed my programmable stepper motor and indexing from my turntable.
IMG_4964 by Edmund, on Flickr
Yes, it worked OK as the designer intended but there were just a few things I wasn't impressed with. For one thing there was a very slight bit of backlash which sometimes caused misalignment. Another hassle was that if you wanted to make slight adjustments to the indexing of one track you had to re-program the entire thing, fifteen tracks times two ends of the bridge or about three hours of messing around.*
I removed it all and re-installed the worm gear originally provided with the Diamond Scale turntable and put a nice, heavy, old-school handwheel in place!
Turntable_Op-wheel by Edmund, on Flickr
The handwheel has enough heft and is nicely balanced that I can spin it easily with one finger and aligning the bridge is no trouble at all. I may install a video camera in the ceiling above to get a better view of the rail ends for those distant tracks.
Hi-tech is great when it works for you. It isn't a solution for everyone nor for every situation.
*The later models allowed individual programming. This one could have been upgraded for a modest fee but that still didn't solve the backlash.
Regards, Ed
I am definitely old school. HO layout built with Code 100 Model Power flex track and Atlas turnouts nailed to cork roadbed on plywood. Power supplied by four MRC Controlmaster 20 units. Can run four trains at once or any train any where. I use basic block control and BLI Quantum Engineers and DC Master unit’s to run BLI steam and diesel locomotives. Have equipment from Athearn,BLI,Roundhouse,P2K,Rivarossi,Walthers,and Atlas to name a few of the manufacturers. Layout has been up for 30+years. Lionel layout underneath and that runs on Gargraves not so flexible track. Powered by two Lionel ZW transformers. Can run five trains at once or any train any where using block control. Turnouts run by compressed air system. MTH PRR position light signals controlled by Lionel ITAD’s. Trains from Lionel, MTH, Williams, and Atlas O. Both layouts set in a urban industrial setting. It’s too late in life and too much equipment to even consider going to DCC operations. This will take me to the end and the two kids can do whatever with all of this when I’m gone.
nycmodelYou will wear out long before the track does. ;-}
So far the track is holding up better than I am.
gmpullman I removed it all and re-installed the worm gear originally provided with the Diamond Scale turntable and put a nice, heavy, old-school handwheel in place! Turntable_Op-wheel by Edmund, on Flickr The handwheel has enough heft and is nicely balanced that I can spin it easily with one finger and aligning the bridge is no trouble at all. I may install a video camera in the ceiling above to get a better view of the rail ends for those distant tracks. Hi-tech is great when it works for you. It isn't a solution for everyone nor for every situation. *The later models allowed individual programming. This one could have been upgraded for a modest fee but that still didn't solve the backlash. Regards, Ed
I'm very much interested in this hand cranked system. I have two turntables on my layout and plan a third for the short line addition I am working on. I have been very unsatisfied with the operation of the electrically powered TTs and was already considering replacing them with manual power. The one on the short line is going to represent an armstrong TT so that would only make sense. I was trying to figure out a system but now I see Diamond Scale already makes the necessary components. I went to their website but found it difficult to navigate. I'm going to give them a phone call so they can talk me through what I will need. If this works for the short line TT, I might convert the other two to manual power. Do you think their system can be used to power other makes of TTs?
BEAUSABRERipping out all the DC wiring and re-wiring for DCC (and then you have the problem of picking which DCC system) and relaying all the track seems unthinkable.
By the 1970s nickel-silver track was the preferred rails for track. If the code 100 track is nickel-silver and works well, no reason the club couldn't pretty easily convert it to DCC. I know the preferred method for wiring a DCC layout involves under-the-track large wires with smaller feeders going up, but you don't actually have to do that. Many of us 'converted' to DCC by disconnecting the two wires going to a DC powerpack/throttle and connecting them to the output of a DCC system. On a large layout you'd need to add some DCC boosters, but that's far from difficult to do.
John-NYBW I went to their website but found it difficult to navigate. I'm going to give them a phone call so they can talk me through what I will need.
I seem to recall, maybe it was Dave, HOn3critter, that was looking for a turntable bridge "arch" probably three or four years ago. He tried to track down what was left of Diamond Scale and found that most of the operation was being run out of a hobby shop in Canton, Ohio.
Their worm and ring gear is pretty much built into the pit design but I suppose some of the parts could be used separately.
Here's a look at the underside and the former stepper motor setup I was using for quite a few years:
TT_drive by Edmund, on Flickr
Toward the top you can see the worm gear that I left in place when I added the motor drive. Recently I removed most of the hardware below that and replaced the ring gear that mounts to the 5/16" central pivot shaft.
The main thing I was looking for was a zero-backlash setup. I plan to elongate the bearing mounts for the worm gear shaft and install adjustable springs that will take up any gap between the worm and ring gear and still provide a smooth operation.
The operating shaft goes into a flaxible coupling then a bronze bearing mounted in the benchwork. The handwheel is aluminum and has a nice balance and feel for spinning the shaft.
Finding decent hardware can be a problem. I've seen some turntable drives using a rather large disk and a smaller "pulley" on a shaft and a nylon or other cord belt.
I had been gathering some various gearboxes, bearoings and shafting for a while (got rid of a lot of it, Duh ) but fortunately had enough on hand to get this system working.
I'm very pleased with the results. I feel like the Wizard of OZ when I'm spinning that operating wheel
Good Luck, Ed
gmpullman John-NYBW I went to their website but found it difficult to navigate. I'm going to give them a phone call so they can talk me through what I will need. I seem to recall, maybe it was Dave, HOn3critter, that was looking for a turntable bridge "arch" probably three or four years ago. He tried to track down what was left of Diamond Scale and found that most of the operation was being run out of a hobby shop in Canton, Ohio. Their worm and ring gear is pretty much built into the pit design but I suppose some of the parts could be used separately. Here's a look at the underside and the former stepper motor setup I was using for quite a few years: TT_drive by Edmund, on Flickr Toward the top you can see the worm gear that I left in place when I added the motor drive. Recently I removed most of the hardware below that and replaced the ring gear that mounts to the 5/16" central pivot shaft. The main thing I was looking for was a zero-backlash setup. I plan to elongate the bearing mounts for the worm gear shaft and install adjustable springs that will take up any gap between the worm and ring gear and still provide a smooth operation. The operating shaft goes into a flaxible coupling then a bronze bearing mounted in the benchwork. The handwheel is aluminum and has a nice balance and feel for spinning the shaft. Finding decent hardware can be a problem. I've seen some turntable drives using a rather large disk and a smaller "pulley" on a shaft and a nylon or other cord belt. I had been gathering some various gearboxes, bearoings and shafting for a while (got rid of a lot of it, Duh ) but fortunately had enough on hand to get this system working. I'm very pleased with the results. I feel like the Wizard of OZ when I'm spinning that operating wheel Good Luck, Ed
It sounds like I might have come across an obsolete website. I went back to it and saw it was from 2007. Has Diamond Scale since gone out of business. I see their stuff being sold on ebay. Here is the website I as looking at:
products__motor_index_drive_systems.htm (diamond-scale.com)
It sounds like you pieced together materials from multiple sources rather than buying all Diamond Scale components. I figured on doing the same but it sounds like Diamond Scale at one time sold all the necessary components. If that is no longer an option, that is too bad. It would have made it easier.
John-NYBWHas Diamond Scale since gone out of business.
The last I knew of them was that they were bought by the guy that runs Rob's Trains in Alliance, Ohio. It has been years since I've been there but you could try contacting him there.
http://www.robstrains.com/
Diamond Scale was started around 1967 and for many years was located in Oakridge, Oregon. In late 1999 it was relocated under new management to Glendale, Arizona. Since 2000 all the kit instructions have been up-dated and include many diagrams to make the construction steps clearer.
In August of 2007 Diamond Scale was sold again and moved to Alliance, Ohio. We intend to keep all current items in production and will also make available again O scale turntables.
First of all, even back in the day, most serious modlers kicked hornhooks to the curb and installed KD #5s so that's not new school. Only thing new is that they come preinstalled and there are more brands.
My answer is yes
My current layout is a 14' long shelf layout and is entirely track I've saved from previous layout all code 100. I paid zero additional dollars for it.
Control will be DC or DCC at the flick of a switch. MOST, but not all of my locomotives are assorted 80s and 90s Athearn, Atlas, Kato with a few Mehanos and Mantuas thrown in. Some have DCC or DCC Sound installed, but not all. At some point everything will be DCC, but until then, I have DC as well.
But I do also have DCC ready and DCC installed and multiple sound locos.
And we use Code 83 at the club.
My N scale layout will probably stay DC for a bit longer. My plans to DCC that fleet come after I get more of my HO stuff upgraded.
The Diamond Scale hand crank works very well, I have operated a number of layouts with them.
My CMR turntable has a gear reduction DC motor with virtually no backlash that is easily jogged into postion with a momentary switch, much like how the real ones operated.
I have always felt indexing systems were unnecessary as long as the operator is close to the turntable.