The "N" Crowd

[Anonymous]

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.

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 help the opposing view, go ahead...  you can say "I told you so!"

 Dave,

Yes, it's true that body mount couples help prevent derailments.  If you are experiencing derailments while backing it is most likely due to the pressure of a long train on the trucks.  It is the trucks that are being pushed instead of the bodies.  When the bodies get pushed the trucks just have to do the rolling and turning but not the pushing.  The biggest problem with N scale body mounts couples is that the height needs to be aligned just right.  Wishing you the best.

 Rob

[RR Redneck]

Sadly that is an aspect that my cousin Derrick, fails to understand.

[nscaler711]

RR Redneck you do have a point there they are cool to watch............... at speeds up to 15 mph any faster and i get dizzy from looking at the drivers go round and round

[RR Redneck]

I am modeling Southern Pacific in 1950 in my home county, DeWitt. I have a small 4x8 layout that was originally HO, but I quickly tired of HO. I like N scale much better, more action on less space.

[Anonymous]

My wife decided to have a Christmas "Open House"  next Wednesday evening and that was a spur to get me off my duff and laying some track so I could have some trains running.

Happily, I ran a test engine last night over the main loop and it passed initial testing. A few rough spots (in fact, I tore out one 3' section this morning) but I think I can run trains.   I'll post some pics to my web site soon, but frankly, pics of the track in place isn't that exciting.

However, I did have to solve one interesting problem regarding a scenery block on the peninsula and the solution I came up with may be helpful to other N scalers (or other scales, too) so I went ahead and took some pics and put them on the site:

http://www.ironpeng.com/nscalelayout/block.html

Mike Tennent

[Anonymous]

The question was asked about the operational issues of body mount compared to truck mount couplers.  I do feel that on layouts with wider radii and capabilities of longer trains, that body mount couplers might be preferred.  I have a small out and back switching layout with some tight switching moves.  The truck mount couplers are much better on my layout.

[Anonymous]

My wife decided to have a Christmas "Open House"  next Wednesday evening and that was a spur to get me off my duff and laying some track so I could have some trains running.

Happily, I ran a test engine last night over the main loop and it passed initial testing. A few rough spots (in fact, I tore out one 3' section this morning) but I think I can run trains.   I'll post some pics to my web site soon, but frankly, pics of the track in place isn't that exciting.

However, I did have to solve one interesting problem regarding a scenery block on the peninsula and the solution I came up with may be helpful to other N scalers (or other scales, too) so I went ahead and took some pics and put them on the site:

http://www.ironpeng.com/nscalelayout/block.html

Mike Tennent

Great pics.  Thanks for sharing them.  It's pics like this that motivate me.

 Rob

[ngn47]

This is a great idea and a noble effort.

I was wondering if we could get a push from all N-Scale(rs) for more layouts in Kalmbach's

"Great Model Railroads" annual publication? I am disappointed that they only have one N-Scale layout and eight HO layouts. I believe that there are a lot of great (if not fantastic) layouts worthy

included in that issue. 

[RR Redneck]

I'll tell you fellas if it weren't for N scale, I never would have come back to scale modeling.

[R. T. POTEET]

nscaler711;

The nature of your question indicates that you may not exactly understand the differences entailed in the designation a locomotive manufacturer i.e. EMD assigns to their manufactured units.  There is a significant difference between a GP38-2 and a GP40-2 and the differences are as pronounced as the differences between lemons and apples.

GM's 38-series locomotives were roadswitchers rated at 2000 horsepower.  Their 40-series of locomotives, on the other hand, were rated at 3000 horsepower.  This difference in horsepower accounted for some significant internal differences which manifested themselves in certain cosmetic differences, almost all of which occur on the long hood.

Just as a V8 requires greater cooling capacity than a 4-banger the same thing is true of a 2000 horsepower versus a 3000 horsepower diesel engine - the GP40 has a much larger radiator section then a GP38.  To help dissipate that increased heat the GP40 has 3 radiator fans as opposed to 2 on the GP38.

My library is currently stored away in boxes while I try to come up with some organization to my railroad room so I can't really come up with precise figures but I'll bet you dollars to donuts that this larger radiator assembly automatically translates into a longer long hood and hence a longer overall unit.  A  longer long hood implies a different configuration in tall and short doors - and their location.  Somebody correct me if I am wrong but I believe that the diesel in a GP40 was a sixteen cylinder monster while that in the GP38 was only twelve.  And as stated above the GP40 was turbocharged and the exhaust vented through one stack on the roof; the GP38 was normally aspirated and vented through multiple stacks - I will guess at four.  All of these internal differences manifested themself cosmetically on the long hood.  The units look the same but they are significantly different locomotives.

Can a GP38 be converted to a GP40.  Yep, but by the time you get done with all the add-on parts you might just as well buy yourself a GP40 (or GP40-2 in this case) and try to get some bucks by selling the thirty-eight.

      

[R. T. POTEET]

Well I just got bite on eBay.

The seller listed 20ea sections of N guage flex track.

I received the track and guess what? It is HOn3 guage.

If anyone would like to trade 15 ea. of 30" N guage flex track (new condition) for 20ea. 19 1/4" HOn3 track. Please contact me. This track appears to be in new conditions.

I dont know what code it is but the ties measure 3mm x 27mm.

Dewayne

[e-mail]

Thats a zero in n0ssy and not the letter o.

What is the distance between the rails? If I remember correctly HOn3 runs on the n scale track so you may not have been burned from evil-bay. If the distance between the track is 9mm you should be ok. You may also want to post this in the main section for those ho guys that dont always read this thread. Just a thought,

Curt

Huh!!!!!

Three feet in HO-Scale is 10.5 millimeters (.4133 inches).  The gauge for N-Scale is 9 millimeters - that's where we get the "N" - and that equates to .354 inches.  The measurement is off by just short of 3 percent but HO-Scalers use N-Scale track to represent 2.5 foot gauge.  

[R. T. POTEET]

Dave, RMC, I believe, had an article way back when Custer was a cadet about putting one of the Minitrix K4 boilers on an old - make that ver-r-r-r-r-y old - Atlas Mike of the 1970s.  The article appeared [just] before Uncle Sambo sent me to the Azores in 1977 because I remember a discussion going on among the N-Scale weenies in the club there about the conversion. 

[R. T. POTEET]

Dave,

I used to use Digitrax DZ143 & 123 decoders exclusively, but lately I've been using the Lenz Gold decoders because of their smaller size.  The DZ's are much cheaper though, so if size isn't an issue then I'd go that way.  If you want to add sound then the Lez is the way to go because of it's compact nature.

And congrats on the Connie!  That's a great catch!

Connie????

Consol I have heard!!!!  Connie I have never heard except at one other place on a forum somewhere!!!!  Even "Consol" is rare - they are usually just refered to as a 2-8-0!!!

[Anonymous]

Well I just got bite on eBay.

The seller listed 20ea sections of N guage flex track.

I received the track and guess what? It is HOn3 guage.

If anyone would like to trade 15 ea. of 30" N guage flex track (new condition) for 20ea. 19 1/4" HOn3 track. Please contact me. This track appears to be in new conditions.

I dont know what code it is but the ties measure 3mm x 27mm.

Dewayne

[e-mail]

Thats a zero in n0ssy and not the letter o.

What is the distance between the rails? If I remember correctly HOn3 runs on the n scale track so you may not have been burned from evil-bay. If the distance between the track is 9mm you should be ok. You may also want to post this in the main section for those ho guys that dont always read this thread. Just a thought,

Curt

Huh!!!!!

Three feet in HO-Scale is 10.5 millimeters (.4133 inches).  The gauge for N-Scale is 9 millimeters - that's where we get the "N" - and that equates to .354 inches.  The measurement is off by just short of 3 percent but HO-Scalers use N-Scale track to represent 2.5 foot gauge.  

 

The rail spacing is 10.5mm, it is code 70.

If you want it let me know ASAP as it is going to local hobby shop tomorrow.

 

 

[Dave Vollmer]

This is a great idea and a noble effort.

I was wondering if we could get a push from all N-Scale(rs) for more layouts in Kalmbach's

"Great Model Railroads" annual publication? I am disappointed that they only have one N-Scale layout and eight HO layouts. I believe that there are a lot of great (if not fantastic) layouts worthy

included in that issue. 

Yep, this year I, for the first time, did NOT buy GMR...  It just wasn't aimed at me in any way.  Mostly huge HO layouts.  The one N scale layout was also enormous.

Clearly I wasn't their intended audience, so I saved my cash.  I'd like to see some smaller layouts, too.  Even a medium-sized HO layout would be of some interest to me (I could always modify the trackplan for N).  Wonder if Kalmbach is listening...?

I'm sure it's neat to have the kind of layout where you need 25 people over just to run a train.  That's just not for me.  If it keeps me and my two boys (or a friend or two) busy, that's perfect!  In fact, if I had a 20'x40' finished space, I wouldn't fill it with layout.  I'm thinking 12'x12' is roughly my ideal size in N.  Can be built and scenicked in a reasonable time, not cost-prohibitive, maintainbable, and operable by 1-4 people.

That's just me, though!

[Dave Vollmer]

Dave, RMC, I believe, had an article way back when Custer was a cadet about putting one of the Minitrix K4 boilers on an old - make that ver-r-r-r-r-y old - Atlas Mike of the 1970s.  The article appeared [just] before Uncle Sambo sent me to the Azores in 1977 because I remember a discussion going on among the N-Scale weenies in the club there about the conversion. 

The December 1975 MR has an article about converting an Atlas 0-8-0 to an H10 using the Minitrix parts.

[R. T. POTEET]

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.

No Kidding!!!!!!

Every N-Scale roundhouse should have "FIDO" engraved above each  door in fitting tribute to the dogs sleeping beneath!!!

The only decent N-Scale steamer ever made was the old Rapido Pacific, a USRA model dating from the 60s; it didn't have much detail but it was die-cast and would pull the walls down.  I've got one; wish I had half a dozen more.

[Anonymous]

This is a great idea and a noble effort.

I was wondering if we could get a push from all N-Scale(rs) for more layouts in Kalmbach's

"Great Model Railroads" annual publication? I am disappointed that they only have one N-Scale layout and eight HO layouts. I believe that there are a lot of great (if not fantastic) layouts worthy

included in that issue. 

Yep, this year I, for the first time, did NOT buy GMR...  It just wasn't aimed at me in any way.  Mostly huge HO layouts.  The one N scale layout was also enormous.

Clearly I wasn't their intended audience, so I saved my cash.  I'd like to see some smaller layouts, too.  Even a medium-sized HO layout would be of some interest to me (I could always modify the trackplan for N).  Wonder if Kalmbach is listening...?

I'm sure it's neat to have the kind of layout where you need 25 people over just to run a train.  That's just not for me.  If it keeps me and my two boys (or a friend or two) busy, that's perfect!  In fact, if I had a 20'x40' finished space, I wouldn't fill it with layout.  I'm thinking 12'x12' is roughly my ideal size in N.  Can be built and scenicked in a reasonable time, not cost-prohibitive, maintainbable, and operable by 1-4 people.

That's just me, though!

I'm with you on this one on all counts.  No GMR for me and 12'x12' is great for N scale.  Although If I had more room and finished a 12'x12' I guess I would consider expanding.

Rob

[on30francisco]

I also decided not to buy GMR this year. Although I model in Large Scale narrow gauge, I'd like to see more layouts - both smaller and medium-sized - in N scale and other scales and gauges. Although HO may be the most popular scale, there are many other layouts in N and other scales that are worthy of inclusion in GMR. I've seem some very small layouts in a variety of scales that would knock the pants off of some super-sized layouts as far as detailing is concerned.

[RR Redneck]

That is always a big a plus with having a smaller layout, but having a huge basement empire is always nice too.

[Anonymous]

I still purchased the GMR, but also noticed the balance issue.  I think the best way to combat the discrimination, is to contact Kalmbach, and let them know of the feelings of N scalers.  One might be prepared for a reply stating that we have 2 magazines based solely on our scale.  It might therefore advantage us to cantact the N scale magazines and suggest that they might be well advised to offer a Great N Scale Model Railroads yearly magazine.  There is a catagory of the person who complains while wishing that somebody else would do something.  Unfortunately I often find myself in this.  Maybe what we need is a constructive thread on what we can do to balance the scales.

[nscaler711]

Well R. T. POTEET Nscale is 1/160 of the real thing so scince it is so small if i just modified it with a single fan there would not be a problem on how much a 12 VOLT OPEN FRAME MOTOR WOULD HONESTLY TELL ME HOW MUCH HORSE POWER IT WOULD NEED!!! Also i do know the differences between the two, i have a gp 40-2 and a gp38-2 it was supossed to be simple and cheap. plus LL  gp38-2 body is a gp40-2's body with a missing fan. ive gotten the basic blueprints on the internet for a gp40-2 and used a TI 84 Plus to get my measurements for nscale.

[RR Redneck]

Well personally the GP 40 and GP 38 are the same locomtive to me.

[tgindy]

Yep, this year I, for the first time, did NOT buy GMR...  It just wasn't aimed at me in any way.  Mostly huge HO layouts.  The one N scale layout was also enormous.

Clearly I wasn't their intended audience, so I saved my cash.  I'd like to see some smaller layouts, too.  Even a medium-sized HO layout would be of some interest to me (I could always modify the trackplan for N).  Wonder if Kalmbach is listening...?

 

Ditto!

You can always buy the current issue of Model Railroader to get another big railroad layout.  Each monthly M.R. issue places a lesser emphasis on HO Scale than readily seen in Great Model Railroads.  I haven't purchased a G.M.R. since the 1994 & 1996 issues.

I choose:  Model Railroad Planning over Great Model Railroads because the content has more N Scale with a lower intensity on the post-transition era (after 1960) diesel-dedication of "big, bigger, and really biggest."

Model Railroad Planning has much more balance & layout design topic diversity.  M.R.P. gives the reader a learning experience applicable to any scale.

 

---

Here's two examples:

[1]  Bernard Kempinski's, "Super-compact steel mill" in 1999 Model Railroad Planning, converts HO steel mill kits to N Scale steel mills.  Just like the prototype, you should see the impact of the building's size dwarfing the N Scale engine...

http://index.mrmag.com/tm.exe?opt=I&MAG=MRP&MO=1&YR=99

[2]  Doug Gurin's, "A primer on helix design" in 1997 Model Railroad Planning, was the "diamond in the rough" that was unexpected...

http://index.mrmag.com/tm.exe?opt=I&MAG=MRP&MO=1&YR=97

At each M.R.P. link => check out the balance of topics.

[RR Redneck]

I like them both.

[nscaler711]

thank you RR Redneck you further proven my point

[RR Redneck]

That out er ginuine appreciation, or was that an insult? I want to be sure be for I start yelling.

[nscaler711]

it was not an insult it was in fact genuine appreceiation so thanks again ur a texas rail fan right? well do you have any trains under the company name 'texas and pacific'

[RR Redneck]

Dude, if Lionel made it, chances are I have it. I have several in O guage 3 rail, but none in N scale. I am an SP modeler.

[nscaler711]

Really thats cool you know u could still have a texas and pacific sw8 on your layout. i have one it runs like a charm to life like makes two versions of it in n scale question are you a teenage modeler? i am theres not enough teen nscalers out there