Locomotives Plan for (Hopefully) Upcoming HO Layout

Model Railroader General Discussion (Model Railroader)
1

I’m interested in any pointers or opinions (some of this is subjective) in how to plan for locomotives (over time) for a new HO layout. I’m 3 months into layout planning for a 10’ by 13’ (max) L-shaped layout. I’m considering starting out by building a few buildings, acquiring a DCC system and also a 1st engine plus some track to try things out as I continue planning. I plan to bias towards UP locomitives, perhaps mixed with my own rail line (custom decals, etc), named after the grandkids or something fun like that. I’ll lean towards engines from the 40’s to the 60’s mainly, plus a modern one if needed for fun.

So, I’m biased towards (depending on lots of things) UP 4-8-4 with a Chellenger and/or Big Boy (some day), F-seies and GP diesels, plus a diesel (and maybe a steam switcher). I’ve checked out some threads here plus some MR product reviews, but I haven’t got my arms around it, as my questions below will indicate. I might go for a diesel switcher first (to figure out the DCC, etc). I prefer one with sound, and see things like the Proto 2000 SW7, FM-H10-44, etc.

a) I presume that (diesel) Athearn Genesis, Proto 2000, and some others (certain Atlas) have quality mechanics and run well initially and are reliable? On Athearn, is a DC Genesis the same in detail and mechanism and simply lacks the DCC motion and sound decoders? If so, I can buy an Athearn I like and convert it to a preferred decoder (I’d check out what’s available). What other brands do you suggest I look at for diesels (I don’t have any idea, for instance, how MTH, Broadway Ltd, and Kato compare in quality & performance with the aforementioned brands. And, how to Bowser/Stewart Hobbies and Bachmann Spectrum fit in (in your opinion)?

b) On steam engines, I feel like I might have missed t

2

I applaud the idea of a locomotive roster plan. IMHO, at least an outline of a plan should be part of the layout design itself. Iain Rice designs his layouts with specific locomotives in mind. But, from reading your post, I see some obstacles to a locomotive “plan”:

  • fairly soft focus on era. You have identified UP, but then talk a span of 3 decades which saw major changes in motive power. What the UP ran in 1960 was completely different from what they ran in 1940. The soft time focus allows you a lot more “freedom” but results in less adherence to prototype and less coherence in any roster plan.
  • no identification of intended operations on your layout. Will the operations emphasis be on through freight, name passenger trains, branch operations, or way freight? The UP used different power for different operations. Big Boys were used to get the tonnage of through traffic from Utah to Wyoming; later they were used within Wyoming. A Big Boy would be inappropriate for local freight switching.
  • you seem to plan around what manufacturers offer, rather than what your layout should have for its intended operations.

Probably the bottom line question for you to answer is how important is fidelity to UP practice to you? If it’s really important, then I would recommend becoming a member of the UP historical society, and learning UP practices and history before drawing up a plan.

In planning the roster for my free-lance 1900-era layout, I first decided what trains would run in a typical operating session. Based on regional prototype practices and era for the situation, I assign appropriate motive power to each train. The tightness of the era prescribes a lot of limits - there were a lot of locomotives built after 1900 that won’t “fit”. The locomotive train assignment chart creates my “dream” roster. I don’t “need” any more locomotives than that.

Then, after havin

3

Fred’s response, with its usual comprehensiveness and quality, speaks for itself. [:D]

I would add my own approach to thinking about the hobby and how any available locomotives could help me along. In my case, and I suspect in yours, you aren’t all that keen to buy some books and materials, and spend the next three years perfecting the art of building HO scale steam locomotives. Probably not in any three year period coming to you…right?

So, you may be like me, and simply have a hankering for engine A…just 'cuz…and engine B looks pretty spiffy, too. If the UP ran 'em, then you’re likely to try for it…if it’s available. So, I do understand that you are concerned, up front, about availability, and then about quality and reputation in what is available. After all, they equate to utility, and if there is one thing to kill our hobby for us, it is engines that won’t work. Worse, engines that are intermittent performers…they really drive us crazy. Bad engines, no engines, and bad track really hose the embers of our hobby enjoyment.

To address the specifics of engines of the type and manufacture that you probably have as choices, the Athearn Genesis FEF’s are decent engines…nicely detailed, strong pullers, run well. My pesonal complaint was with the appearance of the side-rods’ mounting practice…I think it looks terrible, and not prototypical enough for my tastes.

I don’t know much about the Genesis Challenger, but just a day or two back on another forum, I remarked that one person said he had heard nothing but good reviews. He had heard from other users that it was a good strong puller and worked reliably. It is also nicely detailed.

It is in the MRC decoder that a person is likely to experience grief. If you want either engine, and must purchase what is available, and that is with the decode

4

I would also take into consideration the radius of the curves on the layout. I would love to have a big boy, but all that I’d be able to do is run it along straight track. I don’t have curves broad enough to fully run an engine of that size. Just make sure you think about this before purchasing the larger wheel arranged engines.

Kudos on thinking about your engines while still in the planning stages. Good luck!!!

5

Yes, good point, Mike. The engines that will give you the most grief over trackwork, but also choices in curves if they are low-radius curves, are the six axled diesels, particularly the modern longer ones like the AC6000 and prior models going back to the early 70’s, and steam locomotives with large scale driving wheels, especially when four or more are coupled. The worst in HO, generally, are the Northern type 4-8-4 engines because they never come with a blind driver (no flange), whereas the ten-coupled do, and so does the Duplex T1 4-4-4-4 from Broadway Limited if you can lay your hands on such a beast. All articulated engines in anything but brass are going to be able to handle 22" radius curves or better, some down to 18". They’ll look much better, of course, on curves with radii in the 30" range and on up.

-Crandell

6

Thanks, all, for the thoughful comments.

To clarify my interests, the UP bias comes from family history (granddad and great granddad, plus the fact that it’s much of what my grandsons see today in TX). Anything that rode the rails in the 1950-1965 period when I first got interested in trains is also a plus. My granddad ran a switcher in Sydney NE in the 1940’s, so I ought to research what type that might have been. My other granddad (I never met either) worked in the Baldwin loco works in PA until about 1927, so if there were a Baldwin switcher built by 1927 that might have been in Sidney NE service in the 1930-1945 period, that would be an ideal type. Seems I ought to do more research.

We visited grandma’s in 1955 (via Chicago from the east), and probably saw or maybe even rode behind a 4-8-4 (or Challenger), maybe saw a Big Boy. I was 7, so don’t remember (I like to think it wasn’t all diesel). And, the #844 Northern came thru TX a few years ago and my grandson and I chased it one day (and will again in 2 weeks). I wonder if it’s even possible the #844 was pulling our family from Chicago to/from western NE in 1955! I think the Big Boy is just plain cool, so it’s on the wish list (unless it’s just too long for the layout). Thus, I hope to include some or most of those types in our roster, plus diesels that rode the UP rails in 1950’s-1960’s, such as switcher, F (or E) series, and GP types. I will be loose with prototype adherence, more of a fan of UP, a broad time period (late steam / early diesel, etc). Whatever is most fun will also carry weight.(e.g., for the grandkids). Oh, I’m trying to keep the mainline 30" radius, with some 28", and #6+ mainline switches (#5 in yards). And there will be freight (no modern long cars), and passenger. My current plan is to run 1-2 trains around the double, folded dogbone, while a gran

7

Peahrens, If you want to run big engines build the best bench you can. Sand the wood or foam you are going to lay the turns on to make them level. If you are going to use flex track with cork road bed, sand the road bed to make it level as well. Make sure all joints where the track butts up is smooth. I have ran big engines on tight turns (they do look better of 24 inch) and they can work well.

Far as your love of the Big Boy, you are not the only one. I have a out of production PCM Big Boy and love watching it do a slow 50 car drag. Broadway Limited makes the PCM line, and used the same casting for the Blue Line Big Boy engines.

Far as diesels, I would look at Proto 1000 F-3’s. Great pullers and a pair of A B units would run around $70.00. They are DCC ready and not hard to install a decoder in. I have 15 Protos and only one has went bad and it was ran well over 150 hours.

Cuda Ken

8

One other possibility, and I may well be lambasted for this, but Bachmann makes preset curves in the 30"+ range. For cost, you could lay your straight sections in Cork+flextrack, and save some headaches in curves with the Bachmann track, if you don’t feel like trying to hunt kinks out of flex.

As far as engine planning, when I did it for Half-Moon Orion & Northern’s origianl design, I first set up a schematic for all locos likely used, and then narrow down from there to what would be coming through the layout area, and then do a few numbers of the engiens I liked best.

For example:

  • Cab engines, like the Fs, PAs, FAs, etc. were loved for visibility going forward. They sucked trying to back up, because you couldn’t see anything in your width. With a hood engine, you could at least see the side thirds or so of your engine. Long-drag trains not requiring swtitching got the cabbys. Hood engines tended to get the switch jobs for the above, and the brakeman could easily scamper about the engine to do his work, and have a safe place to ride.
  • Baldwin was in love with air-actated throttles. No one else was. Baldwins could not easily run MU’d with an ALCO or EMD engine, but because EMD and ALCO, later GE too, were electric MU, those two could run in pairs all day. Hence why a lot of BLW engines we see are switchers. (no need to MU) I suspect the Sharks and Babyfaces would have sold fairly well if they had an MU system that could play well with others. But, since it was air, that meant BLW could only run with BLW. If, you reslly like Baldwins, the most likely you won’t see a lot of EMD or Alco. If you prefer the latter two, the Balwdins will be few if any. The Sharks may be on for demonstration, for your case, they did go to UP and SP, but they didn’t sell to many roads. Incidentally, the first BL2,