chaya wrote: R. T. POTEET wrote:This railroad fit into the theme of a novel I was toying with in those days and I picked up a copy at the museum in 1977.Thanks! The museum didn't mention it on their website, but I found used copies on Amazon. Seems kind of pricey for being a 56-page book. In your opinion, is the book worth paying $23-28 for a used copy?
R. T. POTEET wrote:This railroad fit into the theme of a novel I was toying with in those days and I picked up a copy at the museum in 1977.
Thanks! The museum didn't mention it on their website, but I found used copies on Amazon. Seems kind of pricey for being a 56-page book. In your opinion, is the book worth paying $23-28 for a used copy?
From the far, far reaches of the wild, wild west I am: rtpoteet
R. T. POTEET wrote:I might even buy it strictly because this subject has not been extensively explored and, as a history major, these things automatically pique my interest. I probably would not buy it solely as an exploration of railroad history but keep in mind that I am not a Rio Grande buff and I AM NOT MODELING A RAILROAD BASED UPON "THE CHILI LINE". You are and you will find much value in this book as a modeler as I did as a history buff. This book will be in my library when I finally assume a horizontal attitude!!!
I might even buy it strictly because this subject has not been extensively explored and, as a history major, these things automatically pique my interest. I probably would not buy it solely as an exploration of railroad history but keep in mind that I am not a Rio Grande buff and I AM NOT MODELING A RAILROAD BASED UPON "THE CHILI LINE". You are and you will find much value in this book as a modeler as I did as a history buff. This book will be in my library when I finally assume a horizontal attitude!!!
A history major! After disability finally forced my retirement from all work of any kind, I went the route of history--which was always one of my first loves. I am over 700 pages into a book--which is not about railroading--and have two other historical book ideas in the wings (also not about railroading). I am truly crazy about history.
I guess I really wanted to know if the book was worth getting at that price even though I have such fantastic resources right here in Santa Fe already. It's just real hard for me to part with my pennies. I expect you can hear them screaming from clear over there where you are. Okay, okay, I'll buy it!
It's great to see an area where we, much maligned(by our HO[horribly oversized]friends)N scalers can share ideas.
Here are a few shots of my 10' X 14' "L" layout.
Mike,
That layout looks fantastic! Who makes that track... is that Atlas code 55?
Modeling the Rio Grande Southern First District circa 1938-1946 in HOn3.
mis1621:
Great photos. Your track looks very good. What type and size and what method did you use to paint it?
Jerry
Rio Grande vs. Santa Fe.....the battle is over but the glory remains!
All the track on the visible part of the layout is Micro Engineering code 70. The flex track is their pre-weathered product and the turnouts have been painted to match.
I started this layout before Atlas released their code 55. However, if I had gone with code 55, I would have used Micro Engineering. Their rail clamps on the ties are smaller than Atlas' and allow running MicroTrain wheels without the flanges hitting. I've since replaced most of my plastic wheel sets with Intermountains metal.
Mike:
Any problems with electrical conductivity wth the pre-weathered track?
A few months ago I started building a new layout and I decided to change completely to Atlas code 55.
My previous layout had a small section with Atlas code 55 and I had no problems with it and I was very impressed with the appearance compared to code 80. I did have to change the wheels on my my MT trucks but Atlas does sell low profile wheels to fit MT trucks. Otherwise I had no trouble operating my other equipment including two old Kato locos that I bought in the late 1980's.
On my first trial section I used flex track and #7 turnouts. On my new layout I also used #5 turnouts and this is where I've encountered my first problems. Although rolling stock passes smoothly over the #5 turnouts, all of my locos including a brand new Atlas loco rock quite severely when passing over the frog. There have even been occassional derailments from this. This isn't just a problem with one or two turnouts but all of them.
Since I only have about half a dozen #5 turnouts I've decided to replace them all with #7s. I find they look a lot better anyway and I do have the space for the longer turnouts.
It is necessary to clean the weathering off of the rails at the rail joiners and at the power connecting points so the solder with adhere. Then run a brite boy over the tops to remove the weathered finish from the rail head.
After that, it's simply a matter of normal maintenance.
NNeil wrote: A few months ago I started building a new layout and I decided to change completely to Atlas code 55.Although rolling stock passes smoothly over the #5 turnouts, all of my locos including a brand new Atlas loco rock quite severely when passing over the frog. There have even been occassional derailments from this. This isn't just a problem with one or two turnouts but all of them.
Although rolling stock passes smoothly over the #5 turnouts, all of my locos including a brand new Atlas loco rock quite severely when passing over the frog. There have even been occassional derailments from this. This isn't just a problem with one or two turnouts but all of them.
Anyone else try Atlas code 55 and have this problem?
Rail fanning in the tiny mountains of my layout.
It's been dry in the high desert and the river is running low.
Along came a Turbine.
43 cars later.
I hope you all like these guys.
I have just finished installing the lighting in my future basement train room and am now ready to start building benchwork and developing a final track plan for my N scale dream layout.
The train room is 28' x 22'. I plan to adapt a portion of the benchwork configuration of Dave Barrow's Cat Mountain and Santa Fe as described in his article in the September 1999 issue of Model Railroader on page 61. The portion I plan to use is the left 2/3 of the benchwork seen in the diagram on page 61. A similar layout configuration can be seen in Tommy Holt's layout illustrated on page 37 in Model Railroad Planning - 2007. It will be a linear walkaround with 24" wide shelves off the walls. A "J" shaped peninsula having 24" wide benchwork on either side of a scenery divider will extend into the center of the room and run parallel with the long axis of the room. There will be a duck-under or movable bridge near one corner of the room to allow access. I plan to have a large classification yard along one of the 22' walls that can be 16'-18' long and 30" wide with an engine facility at one end incorporating a turntable and roundhouse. Given the available space, I think I can use 24" as the minimum radius and use #6 turnouts as the minimum with mostly #8's on the main line. I'm still trying to decide on a single or double main line.
I like to run passenger trains and long freights. I want to have sufficient industries to justify the freight traffic and to provide switching opportunities. I want to have the trains appear to go from place to place without going through the same scene twice, thus my interest in the linear walkaround configuration. While I do not model a specific railroad, I want to set my layout in the western US in a mountainous area.
Since Dave Barrow's layout was set in Texas where it is relatively flat, my question is how can this type of linear walkaround track plan be adapted to mountainous terrain without creating the appearance of a wedding cake with layers of track? I realize that you can create the illusion of varying terrain heights by having the scenery elements rise or fall above or below the track level. Also can any one give me a reference for a linear walkaround track plan that is set in mountainous terrain? Any other suggestions will be apprciated.
Bob
I've been busy today. I'm almost done with the benchwork for the branchline. I'm hoping that in a few weeks I'll have the track laid up to the the coal mine. and I also went the LHS today picked up a couple more decoders and some rolling stock. Anyways heres the pictures
Here is the east end of Alma Ill.
Here is the West End of Alma Ill.
Here is Alma Elevator and Implement(to be built)
Here is the Penninsula that has the City of Alma on oneside and the Coal mine on the other
Here is the Coal Mine
This the Location of the tunnel entrance where the mainline goes under the branchline. The main goes under the coal mine area
Here is the Unnamed Jct. Where the Branchline splits off of the mainline. Its also the site of the West end of the Unnamed Siding.
Great shots of your layout. And I do love that handsome motive power, being a big UP fan myself. Nice work! -Rob
chaya wrote: NNeil wrote: A few months ago I started building a new layout and I decided to change completely to Atlas code 55.Although rolling stock passes smoothly over the #5 turnouts, all of my locos including a brand new Atlas loco rock quite severely when passing over the frog. There have even been occassional derailments from this. This isn't just a problem with one or two turnouts but all of them.Anyone else try Atlas code 55 and have this problem?
Some of the earlier release #5 turnouts weren't deep enough through the frog. This has been corrected in the tooling and is no longer an issue. If you have some of the early turnouts you can take a dremel tool with a small saw bit (like http://www.dremel.com/en-us/attachments-and-accessories/attachment-accessory-detail.htm?H=188537&G=66237&I=66279 ) and route out the flange channel to deepen it some. You have to work slowly though so that you don't heat up the metal too much and melt the plastic ties.
Yes, it is!
No problem. I've had to do this myself, thats how I know.
pcarrell wrote: chaya wrote: NNeil wrote: A few months ago I started building a new layout and I decided to change completely to Atlas code 55.Although rolling stock passes smoothly over the #5 turnouts, all of my locos including a brand new Atlas loco rock quite severely when passing over the frog. There have even been occassional derailments from this. This isn't just a problem with one or two turnouts but all of them.Anyone else try Atlas code 55 and have this problem?Some of the earlier release #5 turnouts weren't deep enough through the frog. This has been corrected in the tooling and is no longer an issue. If you have some of the early turnouts you can take a dremel tool with a small saw bit (like http://www.dremel.com/en-us/attachments-and-accessories/attachment-accessory-detail.htm?H=188537&G=66237&I=66279 ) and route out the flange channel to deepen it some. You have to work slowly though so that you don't heat up the metal too much and melt the plastic ties.
Howdy folks. I've been lurking for the past few days, going through this thread (haven't finished yet!), and decided to register and participate.
I got my start with model trains over 20 years ago as a kid living in England. Had a Hornby set that my brother handed down to me and enjoyed it very much. I have no idea what type of locomotive it was, or what types of cars it hauled--all I remember is the fun I had with it. And I cringe at the memory of getting bored with the oval track and staging progressively bigger hurdles and accidents, until the set inevitably broke.
Now I'm in my late 30s, and my wife and I have a two-year old son. He loves trains, and loves to watch the "I Love Toy Trains" DVDs. So you see where this is going. After watching the DVDs with him for about 100th time, I finally succumbed and decided to check out model railroading again. Got myself (not my son, but for me! ) a Bachmann HO Thomas set for cheap, and oh boy was that fun (the round track with no scenery notwithstanding). So the past month or so has been an orgy of reading and researching and checking out websites. I think I'm more inclined for HO scale by temperament (ducking for cover), but because of space issues, I've decided to go with N scale. I have cleared a spot in my hobby cubbyhole for a 2x4' layout.
I wish I had found this forum last week, because earlier in the week I placed my first N scale order. I'm normally one of those who laugh at folks buying something first then asking in forums whether it's a good idea or not, but in this case, I'm guilty of it. After reading a lot and also considering the pros and cons of buying a starter set or individual components, I decided to go with a set and got a Life-Like Rail Legends Freight Set with a GP20 in Union Pacific scheme:
http://walthers.com/exec/productinfo/433-7523
... and am eagerly waiting for it. And notice how I haven't asked if it was a good purchase or not!
Sorry for the long-winded intro. Just wanted to say "hi" and introduce myself in preparation for the gazillion questions that I'm sure will be forthcoming. I'm enjoying reading this thread (only on p. 23 so far!) and appreciate the friendliness and helpfulness of the bunch here.
Hyun.
Hyun,
To the forum!
I think your story is very familiar to a lot of us. This whole forum is a great place, but the guys around here are real N scale wizards. If you've got questions, this is the place. The only stupid question is the one you didn't ask!
So have you thought about what you'd like to do with that 2x4 space yet?
(Notice I didn't say a word about the train set? Not saying it's bad or good. I model steam only, so I don't know.)
Oh, and that reading.....keep it up. You'll learn a lot that way. Then you can ask your questions and get the answers you really want.
i have photos in three places around the net if you have a chance look them up
http://nscale.net/mod-photoshare-showimages-fid-791.html
http://gallery.zealot.com/showgallery.php?cat=572
http://viewmorepics.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewPicture&friendID=137032947&albumId=874590
Army National Guard E3MOS 91BI have multiple scales nowZ, N, HO, O, and G.
Welcome to Nscale!
The GP20 can be a decent loco. There have been 2 versions produced by LL.
The older version has a proven split-frame design, but has Rapido couplers. It is easy to convert to MTL couplers. Many online vendors like BLW list the conversion on their website if you can't find it in the MTL tables. Walthers may have the last of these old locos & sell them in trainsets like yours.
The newer version has updated couplers for about $60.
The LL freight cars are decent. You may have the last NE style caboose. THey are very easy to convert to MTL couplers by swapping trucks.
You get 2 nice old LL building kits. Paint them & enjoy building them. You can add to the church with Hallmark church building ornaments.
Now for the bad. At least the LL EZlock track is nickel silver. You could get very lucky if you can find any LL track at the closeout section of Hobby Lobby. Otherwise, you will need to get the adapter track to get any other brand of Code 80 rail to mate with it. THis severely limits the kind of layouts you can build with it. You would be better off getting Kato Unitrak sets if you need plastic roadbed track.
THe DC controller is also limited. It may be OK to get you started. As time & money permits, you can upgrade to DCC or something else later. While the GP20isn't DCC-ready, it can be converted with some work.
The "N" Crowd is a great place to get answers to your questions. And yes, you will definitely have questions. As was mentioned earlier, the only stupid question is the one you don't ask.
Good luck to you and your son on building your RR Empire.
Blue Flamer.
Take some time and think about what you want to accomplish with your layout. You can pack a lot of action into a 2x4 package. Check out the "theme" thread elsewhere on this forum, and put some thought into the concepts discussed there.
Or just go ahead and build those wreck ramps with the Life Like track!
But seriously folks... There are plenty of good websites that feature small layout designs. Just google small model railroads n scale and you'll have plenty to think about!
Welcome aboard, don't be a stranger.
Lee
Route of the Alpha Jets www.wmrywesternlines.net
Guys,
Thanks for the warm welcome. I finished reading this thread earlier today (well, I may have more or less skimmed the last few pages!), and am at once impressed by the knowledge and dedication to the hobby displayed by you guys here, and also at the same time a bit intimidated by it. Some of you have fantastic realism and detail in your layouts, and the painstaking detail and attention are evident in your discussions and photos.
It's also made me think about why I want to get (back) into model railroading. I like watching trains run. As simple as that. It satisfies a sense of mechanical curiosity and it's so gosh darn neat watching the little mechanical marvels chug along, to and fro, obeying all commands. However, I don't have the desire to recreate a specific era or setting in history like many of you seem to. Maybe that will change in time, but maybe not. A lot of you seem to have grown up around rail or have had family members who worked on railways. The extent of my involvement with rail growing up is hurrying to catch the British Railways train home after school and all too often missing it. Not exactly pleasant memories! So, I'd be perfectly happy to set up a track layout, mix and match engines and cars based on what I think looks "good," and let them have at it. Historical accuracy isn't exactly a factor for me right now. There's got to be people like me, for whom the enjoyment of the act of controlling a train or two and running it around the track is what they're in the hobby for.
I'm not exactly a newcomer to some aspects of this hobby. My main hobby right now is 25-35mm miniatures modeling, and before that was military model buidling (mainly 1/35 armor). I've got a pretty nice hobby cubbyhole setup (used to have my own office/hobby room, but my son--the ingrate!--evicted me when he was born), where I can build stuff and paint and generally make a mess without needing to clean up every night. Oh yeah, I'm a big fan of HirstArts cast-your-own buildings, too, for those of you who might be familiar with them.
Anyway, thanks for the kind words of welcome. I'll try to post some pictures of my hobby area soon.
I know all about watching the trains go round the layout. I think we all start there. Many people enjoy just that and maybe a little scenery, and thats it. Those kind of layouts are usually referred to as "railfan layouts", and there's nothing at all wrong with them. My first two layouts were just that, railfan layouts. Thing is, after a while I got bored watching my train "chase it's caboose" so to speak. That when I started defining a few things (like era, local, reason for being, and so on) and tarted getting more interested in operations. I wasn't huge on it at first. I would find out what kind of car was used at a certain industry, include it on my train, and then break it out of the train and spot it as I was passing through. Later, after a few laps, I'd swing by and pick it up again.
I still enjoy the occasional break from the scenario that I have. My last layout was based in the 1930's in Maine, but there were times that one might see a N&W streamlined J locomotive from the 1950's pasing through. I even ran the occasional "D" word loco!!!!! (diesel) I had an ABBA set of Penn. F units with a set of lightweight streamliners behind it. I don't run any of those during an Ops sesion, but they are good for a change of pace when you'e just having fun.
The thing you have to remember is that we all started out at some point or another, where you are now. We've been there. Don't feel intimidated by some of the people around here. I've found that most of them are willing to share immencely. And don't feel like you have to know it all overnight either. We didn't learn it all like that, so we can't expect you too.
I know that you're reading a lot right now, and thats a good thing. Let me toss a couple of links at you to some web sites that might help in your quest for knowledge.
http://www.nmra.org/
http://www.chipengelmann.com/trains/Beginner/BeginnersGuide01.html
http://ldsig.org/wiki/index.php/Category:Primer
http://home.earthlink.net/~mrsvc/index.html
http://siskiyou-railfan.net/e107_plugins/content/content.php?content.26
http://www.carendt.com/
I hope those help.
And please, don't be afraid to ask that question that you think is dumb. It can't possibly be as dumb as some of the ones I've asked!
Hi Philip,
Thanks for the links. I've so far read the Space Mouse's guide, which was very helpful. So much to read and learn, but I'm enjoying it thoroughly.
Thanks also for the words of encouragement. Yes, I'm going to keep it fun for me, as a hobby ought to be, and see where it takes me. As a complete newbie, I'll keep it simple for now without applying myself unrealistically to some arbitrary standard of historical accuracy or realism. It's all good.
And thanks to everyone who encouraged me to ask questions! Here are my first three:
1) Why is the "real" railroad called "prototype"? My understanding of that word, until a few weeks ago (when I started reading up on the railroad stuff) was something that was first in its class, or a new example of something, not a real-life or historical equivalent of something miniaturized.
2) I've been reading up on the importance of cleaning the track. I understand that oxidized nickel-silver will still conduct electricity, whereas oxidized steel won't. Is it still necessary to periodically clean nickel-silver track?
3) On the subject of using masonite pads under a car to clean the track: A carpenter at work (I work in Facilities Management department at a university, although I'm not a tradesperson) gave me a scrap piece of tempered masonite. Is this the same thing as track-cleaning masonite? I've cut it down to size (to fit an HO car) and beveled the edges, but it doesn't look very convincing:
Thanks again for all the help.