ModelRailroadForums.com is a free Model Railroad Discussion Forum and photo gallery. We cover all scales and sizes of model railroads. Online since 2002, it's one of the oldest and largest model railroad forums on the web. Whether you're a master model railroader or just getting started, you'll find something of interest here.
RR, If I thought there was gold in the layout trust me there would be miners panning everywhere.
Now here's a photo of the redo section. You can see the hump. In fact I actually bent the ends of the turnout track a bit to ease on to the bridge. Works for most rolling stock and all the locos but it BUGS me.
I looked underneath and I will have to cut all around this and the upper section to lower the track and turnout. I will have to saw a segment out of the riser beneath turnout aswell. That won't be fun. Jim
Now here's a photo of the redo section. You can see the hump. In fact I actually bent the ends of the turnout track a bit to ease on to the bridge. Works for most rolling stock and all the locos but it BUGS me.
I know how you feel. I have a couple of places on my layout (under construction) where I am not happy with how the grade turned out. And I was (I thought) very careful. It LOOKED right but checking later with a straight edge I found it wasn't. My old eyes must not work as well as they used to. Just have to remember to always use the straight edge from now on.
Looking at those 2 pics Jim, it seems to me you have a choice. Either reduce the height of the hump as you are considering or try to raise the track/s on either side into more of a rounded shape so as to reduce the amount of coupler angular change occuring as they pass over it's peak. Before I started cutting into the supports etc, I would be looking to see if raising the bridge and packing up the track opposite is easier.
The club I attend has done quite a bit of alteration and additional trackwork in the last couple of years and not a small amount of it has had derailing/uncoupling problems because of the difficulties of altering established formwork.
I find that I'm now limited to running in 1 direction only (I tried to go the other way around the main line today only to have stoppages for both problems).
That layout would look great in On30. It is just the right size to make a nice mining or logging layout. Your work reminds me very much of an On30 modeller from the UK by the name of Paul Templar. Seeing his layout is what made me get into model railroading. Unfortunately Shamus, as he called himself on this forum, passed away a few years ago. He did leave some very nice layout pics in the photo section if you are interested. Just search for Shamus and the pics should come up. He did his trees and scenery almost the same way you do yours. Your idea of changing out the buildings for O scale is a good idea, but will the trees and other details look out of scale?
I had a similar idea for the layout I was going to build. I was going to make the layout so you could change the era by changing out the buildings. I didn't think about dual scales though. In any case, I am sure you will come up with another excellent layout. In the meantime, while you wait to change the layout, you could build a bunch of On30 locos. I have been using Boulder Valley kits for my On30 stuff. They are very reasonable to buy. Even with the cost of the donor locos you need, most come out to under $100 which is pretty reasonable for a locomotive, these days. Ron.
fcwilt, When I ran my test loco around the layout it did just fine. After it was all finished and I added rolling stock is when I 'discovered' this particular issue. So my testing was faulty. Lessons learned! Jim
WaltP, Glad you discovered this thread. Price is right, so tell your friends. If you have questions I or someone else here will try to answer them for you. Jim
Ron, Thanks for the encouragement. I will look for the "Shamus" photos.
As far as HO and On30 I would like to have both with interchangeable buildings and stuff. I will actually have a short road along the stream bank to the yard. Date will be close to 1931 again. I can't seem to get away from it.
Things like bridge trestle dimensions are bothering me. Quarter inch wood looks okay for On30 but not for HO. This could be the deal killer??? Jim
Not only bridge timbers, you also have track ties, fences, poles,people ect....not much could be permanent,
Why not stick to one scale and have narrow gauge and std. gauge .
Thats my plan, to have std. HO and HOn30 on the same layout, I will use the narrow gauge in the backwoods and mining locations and the std. gauge to haul there goods once out of the woods.
My layout is small and will have tight radius and steep grades, short cars and small loco's.
T.C.
For the "seldom/never seen" criteria I use old time logging books (with lotso pictures).They are a rich vein to mine for ideas......I assume old time mining books would be about the same.
TC, Good points thanks. I figure HO On30 because of the shared track. Money is always a problem with me living on a fixed income, so I have to add something like that into any equation. Jim
JPIII, I think I mentioned that I do indeed study books for inspiration. I've never been to a lumber or mining camp, but I do know the great outdoors. Jim
Didn't I see some pictures of a "N" scale layout you had ?
Rember HON30 runs on "N" scale track, if you could fudge,fake, hide the ties somehow. or maybe remove every other tie ?
Then cut up some of those used locos and make them HO size.
Just a thought ..................
T.C.
Hey I just noticed post 1001 for your thread. kool !
RE: the last pic.
All you need to do is fair out that intersection. I work in foam but have BTDT a couple times......about 20-30 minutes with stout sandpaper gets to it. I would guess that a drop of 1/4 to 3/8 at the peak will be necessary to make a smooth curve (fair) over an area of 6-8 inches.
Bend a batten over it to check it out......I'm just eyeballing it.
If the structure below is some knarly, stout stuff, my disc sander (w/60 grit) would make short work of it.....otherwise it's hand sanding with a block. Sawsalls have their place, but this ain't one of em'....IMO.
TC, No going back. Finances are always going to be an issue here. Ho or On30 or both. Or bust! And, yes, you may have seen my N scale layout. Most of the photos are found on N-Scale.org.
JPIII, I gave sanding a thought and I have not ruled it out. Go back to the last photo and notice the bridge actually is rising up. This is not good. Any sanding would also mean lowering the the bridge to at least level, but I'm thinking of starting the downhill grade at the beginning of the bridge so from right to left in the photo all will be going downhill. Make sense? I'm sure toot was just kidding about the Sawsall? Jim
Sure, makes sense to me....as long as the curve starts gradually......I can't help using the term "fair". When lofting a boat one has to go back & fair (take the kinks out of) the lines.....even when it results in a line that doesn't agree with the offsets. Shapes are best with smooth transitions in a 3 D world.
JpIII, Fairing is a good word. And I also have to get a kink out when I lower this hump. Speaking of which:
First step is lifting the tracks and turnout off the layout. I sliced down either side of the rail and found that this section of track is on top of Woodland Scenics Foam Risers. This can be a blessing or a curse. We'll see. Jim
Not saying to go back, I was suggesting to use any "N" scale track, locos ect... you had leftover from the "N" scale layout and convert it to HOn30 .
Saving you money and getting narrow gauge onto your layout, although it sounds like you are set on the On30 ?
Think I'll set back and see how this plays out ?
T.C.
And, yes, you may have seen my N scale layout. Most of the photos are found on N-Scale.org.
