Happy Veterans Day. Thank You to all who have served.    
Charlie

Hello all,

I recently completed the design of a 60' single door high cube boxcar body in N scale. No one has ever made this car, and I found it silly that us N scale modelers would have to live without such a ubiquitous piece of modern rolling stock. Anyway, the model will soon be available on shapeways.com for anyone that wants to buy it. I'll post the link in a few days once all the kinks are worked out. Hope you enjoy!



-Christian Javier

I'm working on a HO modern era CSX region ISL and although it isn't based on a specific prototype it takes a lot from areas of Orlando, Tampa and Miami. I want to model the area where the industrial spur meets the "main" single track. For the spur I am using ME code 70 wooden tie track and switches without a raised track bed.

I want to have a clear difference between the two track types.

I have considered using a track bed to raise the main and ballast neater but still use the same ME track and switch. Or I could switch to Peco code 83 either with wooden or concrete ties. I haven't found switches in code 83 with concrete ties although I have heard that on the prototype switches may still use wooden ties even though the track uses concrete ties. I'm just not sure I'd like that look. If I did that should I use a peco code 83 or a ME switch? Peco do make a code 75 concrete tie switch but it's a European look. I guess I could alter it to look more a North American switch.

I read on Lance Mindheim's blog he sanded wooden ties down but that sounds like quite a job and with the prospects of me making it look awful

I guess I'm after advice or experience from anyone who has tackled this already. I should note the switch does not need to work. No train uses this switch, it's just to represent the outside world. I should note I'm based in the UK so potentially I may not have easy access to North American products but as I went to the effort to get ME code 70 track I don't want to just throw anything down without consideration.

Many thanks,

Steve.

In an effort to bring Free-mo to Idaho I have started up Idaho Free-mo. So far, I have created a webpage, yahoo. and Facebook pages. Since where I am in Lewiston, and it being close to Eastern Washington and Western Montana, I am encouraging anyone in the area who is interested in Free-mo to get in touch with us.

webpage
http://idahofree-mo.weebly.com/

Yahoo Group
https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/idahofree-mo/info

Facebook
https://www.facebook.com/groups/373098709512150/

I have been trying to come up with a shelf track plan and I got an idea. What if I lay a main line from end to end and build industries and then add track to them. This is somewhat I envision happening in a modern industrial park.

Do buildings come first then the railroad lays track to service them or is it really the other way around.

Comments, opinions, Ideas,

Thanks

Dick

Having read the forum for a while I've registered and decided to post in the hope I can profit from others experience and ideas. Givens are at the bottom

I live in the UK and have been out of the hobby for a couple of decades. Previously I built micro layouts or dioramas rather than anything that required due diligence to track planning. So I know I'm missing on experience of US modern prototype and track planning. I'm aware of my weaknesses enough to read on the subject but I may fail miserably to put any of it into action. I hope you'll bare with me :oops:

Like many I have modest accommodation with typical small British rooms. I have secured the spare room, 9ft by just under 9ft and I plan on using two walls. On the 9ft wall I need to fix the width to 12in but on the other I can go to 18in with a little bit extra in the elbow of the corner to fit the 90 degree curve in.

The biggest problems I can see is the space a 90 degree curve takes up with a minimum 24-27in radius, dead space around the corner area if facing spurs are to be avoided, and ending up with short spurs that will only take 1 or 2 50ft cars. I recognise I am suffering from the worry of having too simpler a plan and fear the layout won't be operationally interesting. I accept the recommendations about thinking in terms of car spots over industries and ensuring industries are valid sizes for getting rail service. I think I need a little help here .

What interests me is industrial switching of the smaller end of industrial size with a varied range of freight cars. Grade crossings and the typical slower operations seen in these locations are important. The kind of layout designs and operations popularised by the likes of Lance Mindheim and others. Call it a bell and horn thing....

In my explorations of this, and other, forums I've come across layouts that have inspired me, to provide some kind of reference these are -

Kurt's NW 58th <!-- l --><a class="postlink-local" href="http://bigbluetrains.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=46&t=169">viewtopic.php?f=46&t=169</a><!-- l -->

Bushwick terminal <!-- l --><a class="postlink-local" href="http://bigbluetrains.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=46&t=6560">viewtopic.php?f=46&t=6560</a><!-- l -->

Mal's Deerfield beach <!-- l --><a class="postlink-local" href="http://bigbluetrains.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=46&t=5569">viewtopic.php?f=46&t=5569</a><!-- l --> and <!-- l --><a class="postlink-local" href="http://bigbluetrains.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=46&t=4317">viewtopic.php?f=46&t=4317</a><!-- l -->

Callum's SSWUP <!-- l --><a class="postlink-local" href="http://bigbluetrains.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=46&t=4271">viewtopic.php?f=46&t=4271</a><!-- l -->

Larry's Miami River <!-- l --><a class="postlink-local" href="http://bigbluetrains.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=46&t=5300">viewtopic.php?f=46&t=5300</a><!-- l -->

Chris's CTU Spur <!-- l --><a class="postlink-local" href="http://bigbluetrains.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=46&t=5147">viewtopic.php?f=46&t=5147</a><!-- l -->

KU4PC 15th Street <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://youtu.be/fPUs_aE8-5E">http://youtu.be/fPUs_aE8-5E</a><!-- m -->

Maybe a common thread beyond the excellent modelling is the impression of "feel".

Today I spent some time learning AnyRail and came up with a plan that fits, however my gut says it's playing to my comfort zone of adding more track than in reality I need. I ended up with needing a run-around in order to switch two facing spurs. These were an attempt to use space parallel to the "main" as I have no space for an straight lead off either 9ft leg of benchwork. I may have the option of another 90 degree 6ft section continuing round the room but right now I think that would only make things more complicated.



For me using one 9ft to have something similar to Lance Mindheim's "skills builder" bottom of <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.shelflayouts.com/blog.htm">http://www.shelflayouts.com/blog.htm</a><!-- m --> would not satisfy me enough other than as a stepping stone. So I'd like to use the other space I have to use for more than just a lead. I like the idea of being able to use the fact there are two legs at 90 degrees as a means to not be able to see the whole layout so I can deal with a lack of prototypical track connecting the two. That said there are enough 90 degree curves leading off a main into industrial parks

I would be really interested in any thoughts or advice. I am not committed in any way to the track plan above but felt I should at least show I was playing with track work rather than just expect someone to come up with a plan for me.

Thanks in advance and warm regards,

Steve.

Givens :

Scale: HO
Era: Modern 2005 to now
Region: Open as long as CSX though I do like the warm southern states

Governing rolling stock: 4 axel GP38-2 & MP15 with mostly 50ft cars with the odd 60ft

|______________________V_______________________|
Track/Operation .................................................. ..Scenic realism
|____________________________________________V_|
Mainline Running .................................................. ........ Switching

Space: 9ft (12in width) x 8ft 9in (18in width)
Minimum radius: 24in
Track: ME code 70 with #6 turnouts

Boy...Have we been slacking lately.

More from Cass. Shay No.3 with missing driveshafts.

Attached Files

Image(s)
   

After wondering for years why the covered hopper that revolutionized grain handling on the rails had yet to be produced by someone - the wait is over! https://www.exactrail.com/announcements/...hn-release A bit on the expensive side, but well worth it for those of us that saw these cars on a regular basis back in the 60s and later and would love to see one (or more) of these on our layout!

Now bring on the All-Door and Hogshead box cars!

Trainfest 2014 in Milwaukee is rapidly approaching. Who else from Big Blue will be attending?

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.trainfest.com">http://www.trainfest.com</a><!-- m -->

Hey guys!

It's been along time since I have been on here, I have been pretty busy with school and other things, but I decided that I should finally take all of my model railroad stuff out of their boxes and build something!

Since I will be moving out soon, I will need the layout to be fairly portable and I want it to be able to be placed under my bed when it is not in use, since I don't have a lot of spare time, I want a layout that can be assembled fairly quickly, a 1x4 micro layout seemed like the perfect solution.

I was originally going to build an inglenook, but a 1x4 version would only allow for 40' rollingstock and I have quite a few 50' that I want to use, so I decided to build a fork layout.
I saw a great example of a possible fork layout in a discussion on the Model Trains International Forums from awhile back: http://forum.mtimag.co.uk/viewtopic.php?t=1200

Using the video posted there as a guide, I came up with the following track-plan:



The track-plan contains only one small industry, I labeled it as a lumber company, but it could be replaced with almost any other industry rather easily. The train will start on the left side of the layout carrying 1 freight car inbound for the industry, the train will head into the industry to pick up the outbound car, drop it off at the left end of the layout, and then drop off the inbound car at the industry, it will then return to pick up the outbound car where it will then continue on down the line.

This doesn't sound like it would keep me busy for very long, but I plan on doing things such as stopping at the road to wait for traffic, and waiting when coupling and uncoupling. That should lengthen the operating sessions so they won't be too short.

What do you guys think of my idea?