Hi everyone,
I just thought that I'd introduce myself. I'm Rob Newman and am 45. I started in model railroading when I was 11. That's when my older brother made a 4x8 layout for me for Christmas. I've been model railroading on and off since then. All my past layout have been in HO. I finally put everything away abouth 13 years ago when we had our first child. We needed the layout room for him. About 2 years ago I requisitioned a small space for a folding table and decided to go N scale. I bought a Kato set and ran trains for a while without structures or scenery. Plans changed and the table space went away. Bummer. Well here I am a couple of years latter and have gained some space. We recently remodeled and in the process removed a wood burning stove that was in a bay are in our family room. The garage has been converted to a new family room and I now get the area where the stove sat. I'll post pictures later. I've been messing around with different ideas. One thing about Kato track is that you can build and rebuild until you find just what you want. Sure it costs money to buy the track but I'll use it. Anyway, I decided to use the design that David Popp did in Phase I of the Naugatuck Valley RR in MR. I had to mirror image the plan for my space and am using the Kato track so it is a little different. Also some of the structures will be different since I am modeling the Pacific Northwest. I am using GN and NP equipment and calling the RR the Great Northern Pacific. I will be modeling lumber, gravel and coal on the layout. I really like the fall colors that David used so will be sticking with that but there will be many more evergreens. I'm going to take some construction pictures and will be uploading them to a Blog or somthing and include links here as I proceed.
Problems so far have been Atlas couplers not working well on the Kato uncouplers so I am switching to Microtrains on everything. Also, I bought a Life-Like SW9 that derails on some of the turnouts. Maybe it's a guage thing with the wheels but I'm not sure yet. It just walks over the points when turning. So far I have 3 locomotives and a couple of dozen pieces of rolling stock.
I read through all the posts here on "The 'N' Crowd" so far and really think it's a great place. I'll keep everyone posted as I "chug" along. :-)
Rob
It's been a while since I've visited these forums & this "N" crowd thread seems to be new. I'll post some pics from my " Allegheny & Cumberland " in construction. It's a free lanced point to point version of Conrail & CSX in the early '90's from M&K Junction to Sand Patch. It's a double to single track main line featuring steep grades & helper service. My point of interest is helper service & the coal mine yard at Coal Fork Junction.
Sand Patch -
Coal Fork Junction mine -
Viaduct -
Don't forget the helpers -
Helpers returning to M&K Jct. -
M&K helper service -
All this fits in a 8' x 11' room that wraps itself along the walls... 3 levels up.
MAbruce wrote: dekruif wrote:Same reasons why I didn't choose Kato unitrack or anything like it. Plus ballasting is kindove fun. -dekruifAre you CRAZY?? Nah, I actually like it too...
dekruif wrote:Same reasons why I didn't choose Kato unitrack or anything like it. Plus ballasting is kindove fun. -dekruif
Are you CRAZY?? Nah, I actually like it too...
SICKO's!
Dave - The layout you highlighted is ballasted like mine (even using the same mix of ballast colors - scary). It came out nice, but I'd like to try something else in the future. This is a link to a tutorial that someone with far superior modeling skills than me put together on N-scale track work that I would love to someday emulate:
http://www.conrail1285.com/news.asp?storyid=29
Dave Vollmer wrote: MAbruce wrote: Dave Vollmer wrote: Check this out...A very, very nice little N scale door layout using Unitrack. The Unitrack is painted and ballasted, and looks way better than my own flextrack!http://www.railimages.com/gallery/richardmanskerBoy, I'm wishin' I'd used Unitrack. Next time!!!It's a real nice layout, but I don't see how using Unitrack and his ballasting methods is really saving all that much work. The only step saved is laying the roadbed and track.I'm not saying Unitrack isn't a great product, but I think that flextrack gives much more flexibility (no pun intended) for layout plans and makes it easier to paint rails and ties before the track is put down.I didn't paint rails or track on my current layout, so any sort of work I've attempted is in my opinion harder to do now that the track is down and ballasted. This will be a lesson I plan on applying to future layouts - paint the track and ties before putting on the layout.Well, I wasn't really thinking Unitrack from a time conservation standpoint. I'm thinking reliability, connectivity, etc. Plus, the built-in switch machines... If you think about it, buy a Peco turnout and a Tortoise machine, and you caould just have bought a Kato turnout. There's where your time savings also probably comes in.I initially shyed away from Unitrack for two reasons: 1. Less realism (which the above link de-bunks nicely!) and 2. Rigid geometry. The latter is still an issue, but Kato makes enough short segments of broad curves you can kind of cheat on spiral easements and make thinks look less rigid.Hey, to each his own... But then, I'm going to have to dig out a Peco turnout that I idiotically soldered in place and then accidentally popped the spring out of... Were it Unitrack that went bad (unlikely) I wouldn't have such a daunting task ahead.
MAbruce wrote: Dave Vollmer wrote: Check this out...A very, very nice little N scale door layout using Unitrack. The Unitrack is painted and ballasted, and looks way better than my own flextrack!http://www.railimages.com/gallery/richardmanskerBoy, I'm wishin' I'd used Unitrack. Next time!!!It's a real nice layout, but I don't see how using Unitrack and his ballasting methods is really saving all that much work. The only step saved is laying the roadbed and track.I'm not saying Unitrack isn't a great product, but I think that flextrack gives much more flexibility (no pun intended) for layout plans and makes it easier to paint rails and ties before the track is put down.I didn't paint rails or track on my current layout, so any sort of work I've attempted is in my opinion harder to do now that the track is down and ballasted. This will be a lesson I plan on applying to future layouts - paint the track and ties before putting on the layout.
Dave Vollmer wrote: Check this out...A very, very nice little N scale door layout using Unitrack. The Unitrack is painted and ballasted, and looks way better than my own flextrack!http://www.railimages.com/gallery/richardmanskerBoy, I'm wishin' I'd used Unitrack. Next time!!!
Check this out...
A very, very nice little N scale door layout using Unitrack. The Unitrack is painted and ballasted, and looks way better than my own flextrack!
http://www.railimages.com/gallery/richardmansker
Boy, I'm wishin' I'd used Unitrack. Next time!!!
It's a real nice layout, but I don't see how using Unitrack and his ballasting methods is really saving all that much work. The only step saved is laying the roadbed and track.
I'm not saying Unitrack isn't a great product, but I think that flextrack gives much more flexibility (no pun intended) for layout plans and makes it easier to paint rails and ties before the track is put down.
I didn't paint rails or track on my current layout, so any sort of work I've attempted is in my opinion harder to do now that the track is down and ballasted. This will be a lesson I plan on applying to future layouts - paint the track and ties before putting on the layout.
Well, I wasn't really thinking Unitrack from a time conservation standpoint. I'm thinking reliability, connectivity, etc. Plus, the built-in switch machines... If you think about it, buy a Peco turnout and a Tortoise machine, and you caould just have bought a Kato turnout. There's where your time savings also probably comes in.
I initially shyed away from Unitrack for two reasons: 1. Less realism (which the above link de-bunks nicely!) and 2. Rigid geometry. The latter is still an issue, but Kato makes enough short segments of broad curves you can kind of cheat on spiral easements and make thinks look less rigid.
Hey, to each his own... But then, I'm going to have to dig out a Peco turnout that I idiotically soldered in place and then accidentally popped the spring out of... Were it Unitrack that went bad (unlikely) I wouldn't have such a daunting task ahead.
Modeling the Rio Grande Southern First District circa 1938-1946 in HOn3.
Oh, and I heard it over on Trainboard.com that a certain East Coast track manufacturer is contemplating Code 55 track with built-in roadbed.
Well went and did it. Ordered the Kato unitrack for the layout I am going to build. Not cheap but think it will be the best for me. Have had a spectrum 2-8-0 engine for a year. Seems like its time to see how it runs.
January 2007 MRR's: "Scale couplers in N" by Lance Mindheim
Always thinking ahead, even though I am at least a year away from considering any N Scale coupler conversions...
What are your thoughts about this article using Z Scale Magne-Matic Couplers on N Scale rolling stock? Any tid-bits for us coupler-conversion novices? This conversion was body-mounted.
Lance Mindheim used this bill of materials:
Evergreen - 127 .020" x .156" styrene strip (for spacer cuts)
Kadee - 231 Grease-Em dry lubricant
Kadee - 1059 tap & drill set for 00-90 screws
Micro-Trains Line - 905 assembled no. 903 Z Scale couplers
Miscellaneous - Thick-viscosity cyanocrylate adhesive (CA)
P.S.: I kept the query in this thread so we in theory should not have to deal with any lurking "body-mounted" vs. "truck-mounted" flamers. The article's Z Scale couplers did have a more prototypical appearance, but; also looked more like a real labor of love to accomplish with some shades of scratchbuilding.
Conemaugh Road & Traction circa 1956
Hi to everyone, I hope you all have your Christmas shopping completed. I was in my local hobby store over the week-end and there are going to be a lot of happy fathers this holiday, there were lots of dad's in there buying train sets for thier kids.
Last week I asked for help about attaching dry decals. As I decided to try it on my own I have come up with what appears to be an easy way to attach them. In the last few weeks I have started to build houses and other buildings for my layout. I have come across two types of decals. One being a type that comes with a tacky backing and you just rub them on. The others come as a print sheet of paper. You have to cut them out and then apply them. These were the ones that was causing me concern as the how to apply them and not ness up the paper or the build its was being applied to. Then my darling wife said why don't you use Elmer's all purpose glue stick. I knew I married her for some reason. I have tried the glue stick and it works great. - Problem sloved.
Hope this helps others out there.
I have tried to attach a Jpg image of my layout into this fourm and I'm not having much success. I'll see if I can get it into one of those pic servers.
Dewayne
n2mopac wrote: curtw_944 wrote: Bill most if not all N-scale I have come across are truck mounted. You could probably kit bash a body mount coupler but I have never had a problem with truck mounts. I dont know about anyone else here though. I do recomend though changeing your atlas trucks to micro trains trucks. I have heard of problems with the accumate trucks/ couplers breaking. I havent had it pearsonaly happen but I have had guys in the local N-scale club as well as at the hobby store tell me to change the trucks when I have the money on my atlas cars as they have had the couplers crack in half, or just fall to pieces when they were pulled from the track. Welcome to N and I hope you enjoy your stay.Curt I have had this problem with Acumate couplers on some Atlas equipment, but personally I give it a chance to work. I have many Atlas pieces that the couplers work great on, so I use the old "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" philosophy. I wait for a coupler to break. If and when it does, then I change the trucks out. Ron
curtw_944 wrote: Bill most if not all N-scale I have come across are truck mounted. You could probably kit bash a body mount coupler but I have never had a problem with truck mounts. I dont know about anyone else here though. I do recomend though changeing your atlas trucks to micro trains trucks. I have heard of problems with the accumate trucks/ couplers breaking. I havent had it pearsonaly happen but I have had guys in the local N-scale club as well as at the hobby store tell me to change the trucks when I have the money on my atlas cars as they have had the couplers crack in half, or just fall to pieces when they were pulled from the track. Welcome to N and I hope you enjoy your stay.Curt
Bill most if not all N-scale I have come across are truck mounted. You could probably kit bash a body mount coupler but I have never had a problem with truck mounts. I dont know about anyone else here though. I do recomend though changeing your atlas trucks to micro trains trucks. I have heard of problems with the accumate trucks/ couplers breaking. I havent had it pearsonaly happen but I have had guys in the local N-scale club as well as at the hobby store tell me to change the trucks when I have the money on my atlas cars as they have had the couplers crack in half, or just fall to pieces when they were pulled from the track. Welcome to N and I hope you enjoy your stay.
Curt
I have had this problem with Acumate couplers on some Atlas equipment, but personally I give it a chance to work. I have many Atlas pieces that the couplers work great on, so I use the old "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" philosophy. I wait for a coupler to break. If and when it does, then I change the trucks out.
Ron
Most of my rolling stock is Accumate and I have experienced three issues with them.
1. The trip pins falling out. This is a pain when it occurs because Murphy's Law usually applies that it will usually drop in a turnout (causing derailment) or a sensitive electrical contact area to cause a short. The couplers will work fine (manually) without the trip pins, so I usually don't replace them. But they can be replaced and a small dab of glue should hold them in place.
2. The trip pins catching on turnouts. Accumate trip pins had a propensity to hang too low and caught on turnouts, usually causing derailments. The fix is easy but tricky. Carefully bend them up - but not too hard or you will experience issue 1.
3. The couplers coming apart. This is the most frustrating issue I've had with them. No actual breakage of parts occurs. Rather, the coupler box comes apart because too much strain is put on it. They can be reassembled, and a dab of CA glue on the box cover should eliminate any future ‘coupler box explosions'.
Now to be fair, these issues plagued only the early (first) generations of Accumates. All of the newer models seem very reliable. However, there are still many first generation Accumates in circulation and unless you're an Atlas product expert it will be difficult to tell if you're in for trouble or not. Atlas does stand by their products, and they have replaced the first couple of issues I had without question (until I learned to fix them myself).
I typically run a maximum of 30 cars on my layout, and it has a 2 percent grade. I'll try to put my MT equipped cars at the front of the trains and then the Accumates. I occasionally have an issue with the Accumates, but the MT's are pretty much bulletproof. I'd think twice, however, before running a long 100% Accumate train on an N-trak layout. It only takes one break and everyone loses faith.
As far as body mounted couplers go, I don't have much experience with them. However, the little I do have showed me that you need to be very precise with the coupler position or you will be plagued with troubles. I purchased car that someone had converted to body mounted couplers and had to rip them out because whoever mounted them did a poor job.
Some cars, like some old Delaware Valley cylindrical hoppers I have, actually have a pilot hole for body mounted couplers. So I imagine it would not be too hard to convert them. I'm not sure if other manufacturers do this.
slotracer wrote:Bill, I have only been getting back in to N scale but truck mounted couplers seems to be the way to go to me. I used to be in HO and body mount si the preferred method, but I don't think much realism is lost using truck mount in N....N scale is so small afterall, once you have a train hooked up it pretty much loos the same. The advantage to truck mount in N is better train performance and relaibility particularly regarding un coupling. While you can achieve similar success in N with body mount, to do so is going to require much in the way of tedous hours trying to get coupler heights perfect to match to prevent trains from uncoupling, particularly at changes in grade....truck mount eliminates that problem. In HO where the couplers are larger, one can be off a few thousands of an inch on coupler height match and still have a train stay together, but in N one must make super smooth grade transitions, no dips or bumps in the roadbed and coupler heights need to match right on. Richt now we only have a temporary layout using unitrack and despite the relatively sharp turns and steeper grades, we run 25 cr trains without derailments or uncoupling and all using truck mount. I'd rather put my time into scenery and stuff than to mess with coupler heights for hours and hours.
Now what I probably need to do is purchase a few MT trucks to change the remaining cars that still have rapidos.
Bill
Howday "N" gang!!
I've just about body mounted all my rolling stock,Being real carefull , you can clear the trucks,on my cars I use a little peace of plastic filler stock on the frount edge of the body,then paint it black and install the M&M couplers,I use the little short one an drill an hole in the plastic filler,works for me and they seem to do fine on my layout curves and all (I also use an coupler gage).
JIM
P, I will get the layout up in a couple days. I dont have any CD RW's at home and our new to us computer dosent have an A drive. So When I can get to the store and get some cds I will get it uploaded. Unfortunitly I dont have internet at home yet so I cant up load it directly from the computer.
But I did work on it last night I have the main loop designed with a sideing spur going to where I am going to put an engine house. I may condence it a little and put in a double track as well. The main thing I am stumping my self on is the second level where the mine is going to be. as well as my track arrangement at my service facility. But again I will have Ideas up soon.
Owner and superintendant of the N scale Texas Colorado & Western Railway, a protolanced representaion of the BNSF from Fort Worth, TX through Wichita Falls TX and into Colorado.
Check out the TC&WRy on at https://www.facebook.com/TCWRy
Check out my MRR How-To YouTube channel at https://www.youtube.com/c/RonsTrainsNThings
Curt,
MDC has a great 2-6-0 and 2-8-0 that are 1890's vintage. They run very nice. I've got a couple myself. Athearn has redone the 2-8-0 and updated it, but they haven't done the 2-6-0 yet. You can pick up the MDC versions at a pretty reasonable price here: http://www.trainworld.com/2005_n_scale.htm . You could update them or grunge them out if you wanted to use them in a later time period.
As for the plan, I'll be lookin' forward to it!
pcarrell wrote: Curt,9 3/4 is pretty tight, but doable for smaller equipment. 5-6% grade is really steep, and with the smaller trains that you'll be running I think you might have a problem, especially if that grade is on the tight curves. There just isn't enough weight in the loco to grip the rails and make the climb, and the curves add to the resistance. Traction tires will help, but not a lot. Please understand, I'm not trying to be discouraging. It's just that those numbers fall outside of the usual range. Thats not to say that even the prototype doesn't do weird things once in a while.I'll be curious to see your plan and hear about what you plan to model. Maybe a logging or mining facility that only moves a car or two at a time might work. Anyways, I'll look for it soon.
9 3/4 is pretty tight, but doable for smaller equipment. 5-6% grade is really steep, and with the smaller trains that you'll be running I think you might have a problem, especially if that grade is on the tight curves. There just isn't enough weight in the loco to grip the rails and make the climb, and the curves add to the resistance. Traction tires will help, but not a lot. Please understand, I'm not trying to be discouraging. It's just that those numbers fall outside of the usual range. Thats not to say that even the prototype doesn't do weird things once in a while.
I'll be curious to see your plan and hear about what you plan to model. Maybe a logging or mining facility that only moves a car or two at a time might work. Anyways, I'll look for it soon.
P, Most of the 9 3/4" will be hidden curves. This is going to be a mine based layout, And locos I plan to run are going to be a 2-8-0, and the atlas 2 truck shays. I would love to get a 2-6-0 eventually and plan to get a 0-6-0 switcher. Also my max car length is 40'. The grade Is steep I know but I will know more once the track plan is a go. Any way I will have it up at some point tomorrow I hope.
Bill54 wrote: Being new to N scale I've recently been aquiring locos and rolling stock. I mostly have Atlas and Micro Trains. I've noticed all of the rolling stock has the truck mounted couplers. Does all rolling stock come with truck mounted couplers? Is there other manufacturers that have car mounted couplers? Do the truck mounted couplers give any problems?Coming from HO I converted to car mounted couplers to avoid problems with the cars derailing or detaching. Does everyone change the couplers or keep the truck mounted type? Bill
Being new to N scale I've recently been aquiring locos and rolling stock. I mostly have Atlas and Micro Trains. I've noticed all of the rolling stock has the truck mounted couplers.
Does all rolling stock come with truck mounted couplers? Is there other manufacturers that have car mounted couplers? Do the truck mounted couplers give any problems?
Coming from HO I converted to car mounted couplers to avoid problems with the cars derailing or detaching. Does everyone change the couplers or keep the truck mounted type?
You can go either way really. It's a preferance thats up to you.
The manufacturers use the truck mounted couplers because they seem to work a bit better on the tight curves that N scale sometimes uses. If you don't use those curves though I see no particular reason to keep them if you don't want to.
Ok so My weekend was ok all be it a bit cold. Didnt get alot done on the RR minus cleanning off the top to prepair for the new layout finnaly got all reminiants of the old plan scraped off.
I am going to be working on the track plan tonight and post it here tomorrow for comments. My minium radius is 9 3/4" and maxium grade is 5-6%. There is going to be a stream, a couple trestles, and a small engine house with yard. I have a double track sanding facility as well as a coal tower and should be getting a branch line water tower for x mas. Any way so some of you know I live in an apartment and have limited space. The area I was allowed is 4' long and 30" deep. This is going to be the first stage of a larger layout as I am providing for expansion at a later date. any way I hope all your weekends were good.
pcarrell wrote: Dave Vollmer wrote: In one of the other forums I only ever go in the N scale one, so who knows what I'm missing...Which one is that?
Dave Vollmer wrote: In one of the other forums I only ever go in the N scale one, so who knows what I'm missing...
In one of the other forums I only ever go in the N scale one, so who knows what I'm missing...
Which one is that?
Trainboard.com
Good points all. Hey, I don't mind keeping this just a thread. This isn't just for me; it's for all of us, and whatever is most useful goes.
I was also thinking that with a seperate forum I'd probably miss a lot in General Discussion. In one of the other forums I only ever go in the N scale one, so who knows what I'm missing...
modelalaska wrote:I don't know... this thread has been fun and informative but I really do appreciate input from the other scale modelers as well. There are other N specific forums out there already. Personally I only have time to view one, and this is it (specifically General Discussion). I would hate to see people leave and not have their input... like Mouse. Just my 2 cents. Peter
There are a couple N-scale only forums out there and they arnt nearly as helpfull as this one. I dont mind this thread and this we should keep it going as far as a page all our own I think the HO guys will still be there and if we have a genral MRR question we could still post it in genral disscussion. I do believe however that it has been brought up before and the answer is always the same. This is a genrall MRR forum, if you want a specific scale forum they are out there and go find one. Just my 2 cents. I would love to see a n scale page but I wont hold my breath.