Santa came early to the Firebaugh Rail Lines and I picked up my new PCM E7A in Great Northern livery - with SOUND - from my LHS yesterday! I was dubious about sound, but figured I needed at least one loco with it to show friends and guests, but I think it's pretty cool! The engine's a pretty smooth runner too. I let it break in for about an hour last night, then took some video of it with the sound on. The audio/video quality is crappy since I just used my digi cam (Powershot A70) but it's better than nothing. The sound is much better in person. Three short videos of it can be found here:
Firebaugh Rail Line Videos
cpeterson wrote: Still waiting on Athearns line to come out, so don't know yet.
Still waiting on Athearns line to come out, so don't know yet.
They're out and they're great!
claymore1977 wrote: Now I am after SP/UP/D&RGW locos and I am having trouble finding a manufacturer that has these road names. Found a few, but I am unfamiliar with the quality of these brands. Any suggestions? Looking for medium-low cost/ medium quality, DCC equipped machines.
Don't forget about the LL GP38-2. It's touted as "DCC Friendly", but I'm not exactly sure what that means. It might have some potential as these newer LL locos are typically very nice runners.
http://www.walthers.com/exec/productinfo/920-75033
Other than that, Atlas is pretty rich in SP/UP/D&RGW loco offerings.
SP: Alco C628, Alco C630, GP9, GP35, GP40, GP40-2, SD35, FM Trainmaster, B23-7, B30-7, U25B, VO-1000
UP: GP9, GP30, GP38, GP38-2 (coming), GP40, MP15, SD7, SD24, SD60, SD60M, B23-7, 8-40B, U25B, H16-44, VO-1000
D&RGW: GP9, GP40, SD7, SD50, H16-44,
whywaites wrote: All I now have to do is buy my track, not having seen the Atlas track as it's not available in the shops here in the UK ( I have a choice of Peco or Peco here in the UK) I was a bit concerned at the plastic frog I have gotten use to the reliability of Peco and the 99% metal contruction of the frog.
All I now have to do is buy my track, not having seen the Atlas track as it's not available in the shops here in the UK ( I have a choice of Peco or Peco here in the UK) I was a bit concerned at the plastic frog I have gotten use to the reliability of Peco and the 99% metal contruction of the frog.
The Atlas code 80 stuff uses a plastic frog, but the code 55 uses a metal frog that can easily be powered.
Hi, that's the answer I wanted to hear; I've only seen pictures of the new code55 #10 turnout and it did look good.
Shaun
cpeterson wrote:I didn't know the N scale challegers were out. i thought the release had been pushed back to Jan or Feb 07?
They are, but I've heard that they lack in the pulling power department.
whywaites wrote: Hi, that's the answer I wanted to hear; I've only seen pictures of the new code55 #10 turnout and it did look good. Shaun
The #10's do look awesome!
Dewayne wrote: A few weeks ago I thought I seen on eBay a listing for the "end tie" piece that would fit the end of a section of flex track. I can't seem to be able to find them on the web anywhere (even the Atlas site.) Do any of you know what I'm talking about and where I can find them?
A few weeks ago I thought I seen on eBay a listing for the "end tie" piece that would fit the end of a section of flex track. I can't seem to be able to find them on the web anywhere (even the Atlas site.) Do any of you know what I'm talking about and where I can find them?
Are you talking about the bumpers??? if so is this what your talking about
http://www.nscalesupply.com/ATL/ATL-Track.html
(look at the bottom pf the page)
If so you should be able to get a set of two from your LHS for about 3 bucks.
Curt
pcarrell wrote: whywaites wrote: Hi, that's the answer I wanted to hear; I've only seen pictures of the new code55 #10 turnout and it did look good. Shaun The #10's do look awesome!Here's a #5 Atlas code 55 turnout from a former layout. You can see the frog real well in this shot.http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j319/pcarrell/N%20Scale%20Trains/Model%20Power%204-4-0%20Camelback/4-4-0Camelback.jpg
Here's a #5 Atlas code 55 turnout from a former layout. You can see the frog real well in this shot.
http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j319/pcarrell/N%20Scale%20Trains/Model%20Power%204-4-0%20Camelback/4-4-0Camelback.jpg
The 10s are awesome I have 3 of them and I love them all. I needed one more but the sold out and are unknown when they will be in so I'm going to have to settle for 7s for now. They are big though Almost 9 inches. I love em though If you have the space and your modeling modern day Thats the way to go.
MAbruce wrote: Don't forget about the LL GP38-2. It's touted as "DCC Friendly", but I'm not exactly sure what that means. It might have some potential as these newer LL locos are typically very nice runners. http://www.walthers.com/exec/productinfo/920-75033Other than that, Atlas is pretty rich in SP/UP/D&RGW loco offerings.SP: Alco C628, Alco C630, GP9, GP35, GP40, GP40-2, SD35, FM Trainmaster, B23-7, B30-7, U25B, VO-1000UP: GP9, GP30, GP38, GP38-2 (coming), GP40, MP15, SD7, SD24, SD60, SD60M, B23-7, 8-40B, U25B, H16-44, VO-1000D&RGW: GP9, GP40, SD7, SD50, H16-44,
Thanks for the advice and linkage!
Dave Loman
My site: The Rusty Spike
"It's a penny for your thoughts, but you have to put your 2 cents in.... hey, someone's making a penny!"
Is double posting faux-pas around here? Hope not. K, heres another question for the experts:
I have desided that due to extreme space contraints, I am going to build a simple 2'x4' layout. Nothing special except I would like to make it 2 decks, one right below the other. I am not concerned with grade as I am not trying to model anything prototypical yet, just trying to get my feet wet in N scale and trying to make sure the locos can take a grade like 5 or 6 %
I am thinking a standard loop style, but at the back of the layout, instead of connecting the loops, there are to ramps down to the lower level. The tracks then make most of an oval on the second level and then return to the upper level. Think figure 8 folded with each o part of the 8 on different levels (and no crossover). My question is this: In order to minimize the grade, I need to make the upperdeck out of moderately thin material. If use 2x2 stancheon style support for the upper deck, how much clearence does the loco need on the lower level and how thin can I make the upper level? I am familiar with situation in HO, but it makes sence that this particular aspect doesnt scale down linearly...
LOL is my situation clear as mud now? I will work on a picture if people don't understand my gibberish.
NS2591 wrote:I belive the standard Clearnence needed for N scale is around 2 inches. Also my Grandfather Passed away this morning(Dec 14) He was an Avid N scaler and the one that got me into Trains
I'm very sorry for your loss. This is a tough(er) time of year to lose a relative.
You're correct about 2". That should clear about anything in N scale.
Modeling the Rio Grande Southern First District circa 1938-1946 in HOn3.
Jay,
I am sorry to read of your loss. It is always sad to lose a loved one. My thoughts go out to you.
Christopher
Dave,
4% is usually about tops, and even at that a loco is going to be lucky to get more then one car at a time up it. 5-6% is probably a loco only type deal.
pcarrell wrote: Dave, 4% is usually about tops, and even at that a loco is going to be lucky to get more then one car at a time up it. 5-6% is probably a loco only type deal.
P is right but alot has to do with the weight of the cars and weather the grade is on a curve. I have seen pictures of a small layout run between 3-5 "empty" cars up a 6% grade. It was a loging layout and the main motive power were atlas Steam loco's.
My own personal layout is going to have a 5-6 % grade more then likely, I still havent finnalized my track plan. Big supprize there but it is a mining opperation and it will be fulls down and empty's up. But any way have to run,
curtw_944 wrote: pcarrell wrote: Dave, 4% is usually about tops, and even at that a loco is going to be lucky to get more then one car at a time up it. 5-6% is probably a loco only type deal.Dave, P is right but alot has to do with the weight of the cars and weather the grade is on a curve. I have seen pictures of a small layout run between 3-5 "empty" cars up a 6% grade. It was a loging layout and the main motive power were atlas Steam loco's. My own personal layout is going to have a 5-6 % grade more then likely, I still havent finnalized my track plan. Big supprize there but it is a mining opperation and it will be fulls down and empty's up. But any way have to run,Curt
I guess I was making the assumption that the grade would be on a curve as the proposed layout is to be 2x4. The points you make Curt, are correct. One thing to keep in mind though is that you can lighten the cars to make them easier to get up the hill, but if you make them too light they won't track well and they'll derail easily. It's a delicate balance.
From the far, far reaches of the wild, wild west I am: rtpoteet
Bill54;For reasons which I won't go into right now I recently had to tear out my layout - I will be building a new one in the future but this will probalbly be a couple of years down the road - this one will have to be portable (and convertible). In the meantime I have some long-time-put-off projects and one of those is to take all my rolling stock and body-mount couplers. I don't do less than 15 inch mainline radius so I have no need for talgos and body-mounts are so much better for shoving into my 9 inch (or less - but not much less) industrial tracks. I recently bought some Z-Scale couplers to body mount on my equipment but haven't go around to it yet. The article in the latest MR has convinced me that that is the way I want to go, however.
While I'm not new to model railroading, I've only been in N for about 4 and a half years, so this question may sound supremely dumb...
Do body-mounted couplers work better on backup moves than truck-mounted?
In HO I only ever used body-mounts and so it was never an issue. But in N, most of my freight cars have truck-mounted couplers, and I find backing a long train into a spur through even #6 switches sometimes causes derailments. The track is as close to flawless as I can get it. I'm thinking it has to be the truck-mounted couplers... possible?
My locals tend to be long and I'm often spotting a car that's as many as 10-15 cars back of the loco, and oft times it's the number 6 or 8 car that derails on the backup move, usually on a switch. The switches are all in gauge and operate just fine when the train is rolling forward. Based on the angle it which the wheels leave the rails it looks like it's a torque thing from pushing on the truck rather than the body.
Good gosh, I'm not looking forward to the bill for so many body-mounted couplers.
Yes, I know in the past I'd advocated truck-mounted couplers in N... That was before I'd developed an operating scheme for the layout beyond watching the trains chase their cabin cars! To those who held the opposing view, go ahead... you can say "I told you so!"
Dave Vollmer wrote:While I'm not new to model railroading, I've only been in N for about 4 and a half years, so this question may sound supremely dumb...Do body-mounted couplers work better on backup moves than truck-mounted?In HO I only ever used body-mounts and so it was never an issue. But in N, most of my freight cars have truck-mounted couplers, and I find backing a long train into a spur through even #6 switches sometimes causes derailments. The track is as close to flawless as I can get it. I'm thinking it has to be the truck-mounted couplers... possible?My locals tend to be long and I'm often spotting a car that's as many as 10-15 cars back of the loco, and oft times it's the number 6 or 8 car that derails on the backup move, usually on a switch. The switches are all in gauge and operate just fine when the train is rolling forward. Based on the angle it which the wheels leave the rails it looks like it's a torue thing from pushing on the truck rather than the body.Good gosh, I'm not looking forward to the bill for so many body-mounted couplers.
My locals tend to be long and I'm often spotting a car that's as many as 10-15 cars back of the loco, and oft times it's the number 6 or 8 car that derails on the backup move, usually on a switch. The switches are all in gauge and operate just fine when the train is rolling forward. Based on the angle it which the wheels leave the rails it looks like it's a torue thing from pushing on the truck rather than the body.
R T Poteet, I was thinking about going with the body mount but have decided to stay with the truck mounted couplers for now.
I read the MR article where they used Z scale couplers on N cars because they look closer to prototipical but with their size I would be concerned over the possibility of them disconnecting when going over any minor hump in the trackwork. Those things are really tiny!
Dave, You and RT Poteet make those changes to the couplers and let us know how they turn out.
I have another question: What is the perfered size radius for passenger cars?
I'm planning on using mostly 18" and 20" on the main and 13" and 15" on spurs and #6 turnouts. I thought about possibly running passengers sometime in the future, do you think this will work?
Bill
My condolances. I know how you feel pardner.
Lionel collector, stuck in an N scaler's modelling space.
Army National Guard E3MOS 91BI have multiple scales nowZ, N, HO, O, and G.