M-R, I’ll step in here for just a moment and offer some basic info concerning your question with regard to MR&T motivepower.
During the 1980’s when the new version of the MR&T was built and most of the extensive MR articles addressing the railroad were published, the majority of photos show a mix of GP-38’s, usually in the solid blue with white stripes, and more often the MR&T SD40-2’s in the railroad’s far better known and much more striking blue and white scheme. The BQ23-7, seen in last week’s Cody’s Office clip, painted in blue and white, was part of the roster during that period too. There was also the switcher or roadswitcher of the Troy & Northern although I don’t recall its exact ID, nor if it was the same as the 2009 MR 75th Anniversary CF-7 in T&N paint by Athearn. Of course, there are presently two 75th anniversary SD40-2’s, in the latest all-blue with white striping (which differs from that of the older all-blue scheme locos), available from Athearn.
There were around half a dozen 1980’s MR articles that are really critical to the railroad’s background (scenery, motivepower and rolling stock) for anyone intent on replicating parts of the MR&T. I’m sure copies are available from Kalmbach.
Thanks for the info, I well have to check them out. I still need to get Jan. 08 issue for the first part of the WSOR Troy branch series (layout I’m basing mine on). I basically wanted my layout to run all the funky little gidgets that MR&T ran, like the BQ23-7 and possible the CF-7, with the exception of a normal GP30, but that’s more or less for me, not the RR. I am also going to have to put an APB out on those anniversary edition locos. By the by, Cody’s Office is where I saw the BQ and got this whole crazy idea to build the Troy branch and run it under MR&T. Plus I really like the blue/white paint [^]
Be advised that the MR&T #601 (BQ23-7) if a fair kitbash project…at least I recall the original was. The shell was by Bachmann and the mechanism was an Athearn. And it’s not a drop-on fit either. There’s also quite a bit of up-grading necessary to make the shell look really good.
Maybe someday in the future then. I’m not up to major scratch building/kitbashing.
Was anything special done to the jeeps in the roster like superdetailing or where they just painted in MR&T colors and then set out on the track to do some work.
M-D, I’m sure Andy or some other MR staffer will post today with further details but I’ll offer the following in regard to your new questrion.
To the best of my knowledge (I’ve been an MR&T fan for many years) the MR&T’s road power was broken down into the these classes:
#500 series - SD-9’s painted all blue with possibly downward pointing chevron nose striping like other early MR&T engines in the 1980’s-90’s.
#600 series - Probably only one example and that’s Andy Hayek’s BQ23-7 #601, painted the 1980’s-90’s blue w/ white cab scheme.
#700 series - Difficult to ascertain from published photos but either GP-38’s or GP-38-2’s, painted in the blue w/ white cab 1980’s-90’s scheme.
#900 series - GP-38-2’s painted solid blue w/ white downward-pointing chevron nose striping in the 80’s.
#1000 series - SD-40-2’s painted in the blue w/ white cab scheme (1980’s-90’s paint scheme), or solid blue w/ white upward pointing nose chevron striping (current paint scheme).
The #900 series jeeps are probably the easiest to replicate (beyond simply buying the Athearn anniversary examples of the SD-40-2), needing only the addition of a simulated yellow beacon ray on the cab, probably a firecracker antenna, repainting in solid ConRail blue and adding the appropriate chevron nose decals for the particular era desired. In addition, I note that all of the actual MR&T road locomotives appear to be equipped with plows.
Finally, below is a photo of one of my custombuilt MR&T replicas.
Thanks for your interest in the MR&T. Right now we use mostly Atlas GP38-2s and Athearn SD40-2s for power. We also have a group of Atlas B40-8s that we’re trying to paint and get into service, but something always seems to get in front of that project. We also have some foreign road power.
We changed the paint scheme a few years ago to a darker blue (Tamiya blue - I think the code is X-3) with the white stripes. The reason for that is actually pretty mundane. We needed some power and found a group of Atlas Mopac Geeps on sale, so we bought them and then relettered them. We thought they looked pretty good so we switched our “official” scheme from the lighter blue with white cabs to the darker blue with white chevrons. We also changed the color of the magazine logo to a darker blue at about the same time, but that’s actually a coincidence.
Also: The forum is fine for informal questions like this, but we don’t have time to check it all that frequently. If you have a question about the magazine, please e-mail us so that we’ll see it more quickly.
Sorry about the ill-placed posts, didn’t even think of just emailing the magazine to talk to. I probably will though, as mentioned B40-8’s are in the works for MR&T and, well, don’t ask me why but I have a major incline towards them so that just gives me an exscuse to add to my future engine roster/projects list [(-D]. However with the exception to the Dash 8’s, pretty much all my questions have been answered. Special thanks to CNJ, all your info has helped greatly, and to Terry who got one step ahead of me. After posting last night I realized I forgot to ask about colors, and well now I won’t have to. Unfortunetly there are problems with the apartments management, not us them, they don’t know what the [soapbox] they’re doing, so the chance of moving in the future is pretty good right now. This doesn’t mean I won’t have a layout, just means it will be small built to be portable. It sucks, mostly for me because now I have to cut things out. As mentioned I was basing my layout on the WSOR Troy Branch layout, assentially remaking it as MR&T Troy Branch, but very limited. As of late, a version of the propane dealer, the Kalmbach feed mill and Cargill bagging plant built as MR respectively, will only be modeled. I really do hate to leave out the ethanol plant, you could say I had my heart set on modeling it. It could be built onto an add on shelf piece, but not untill we decided to move and found a place.
Now back to the engines, CNJ your SD looks flipping awesome. Assuming MR&T, as a prototype RR, would have all the locos built pretty much the same, your SD will be followed. Snow plows, mars lights as I’ve grown to call them, the antenna, and all-weather windows will be incorporated. I will end up with quite the roster though as I like all the used paint schemes, so definetly have a mix of blue/white cabs and solid blue engines. I might build an SD40, but it wouldn’t get used much, too big for the layout size. Hopefully I can get started on it all soon.
I would note that in my list of classes of MR&T locomotives, which I presented up-stream, I missed the designation for switchers, examples of which admittedly are rarely even shown in any widely circulated MR&T photos.
These locomotives seem to have been of the “00” series, with an early Athearn so-called “SW1500” numbered #21 (shown on page 60 of the May '09 MR incidentally) as at least one representative example. These were painted in the early MR&T solid ConRail blue scheme with white herald, lettering, handrails and sill striping.
I would add that virtually all the MR&T locomotives illustrated over the years were based on older Athearn models. Up-stream Terry did mention the addition of several much newer Atlas B40-8’s to the roster and I’m rather confident that there must be at least a few others as well, given that many new HO models are far superior in detailing and operating characteristics to those older, long in service, Athearn models.
I am aware that are modelers who stick religiously to a real-world prototype when building their model empires. I am aware that there are freelancers who gleefully make up their own little worlds. And of course there are those like me who intermix their fictional railroad with surrounding real railroads.
Until now however I have not been aware that there are modelers who use another model railroad as the prototype for their model railroad!
Of course with the way things have been going with all the mergers in the rail industry over the course of the last few decades, it may be the only option left for those of us who do not wish to model the UPBNSFNSCSX
Ahhh, Stebby…ever hear of the G&D, or the F&SM? There are entire Internet forums today devoted to just the discussion of and intercomparison of hobbyist-built replicas of G&D and F&SM rollingstock, structures, etc. There are even those who have chosen to copy whole sections of famous layouts in detail. I can only guess how many times Frank Ellison’s Raymondale was replicated on other hobbyists’ layouts of long ago. I’m told the same has existed for Tony K’s, Allan M’s and other well known layouts in the hobby down through the years. I believe it was the latter modeler that even had a fictional historical society with a broad membership devoted to the layout! Likewise, but on a less extreme basis, the number of hobbyists who employ G&D, or similar rollingstock, to represent a supposed active interchange of their layouts with the G&D (or A&M, V&O, et al.) is equally large. [swg]
I have a friend modeling a freelanced railroad that connects to the southern end of my freelanced railroad. Both of our roads have formed the New England & Atlantic Transportation company (NEAT), actually just using the name of a different partnership that had included two other railroads, now defunct. This agreement funnels traffic from the industry-rich Nashua-Manchester-Concord, NH corridor to Canada via my railroad.
We both are planning to model some of each other’s equipment. One of my retired locomotives is awaiting shipment for service on his railroad, and we’ve planning to run some custom-painted cars from each others’ railroad.
So yes, modeling another model railroad does happen!
Well to add onto CNJ’s post, Tony K, Allan M. and one other individual started seperate RR layouts together with intentions of keeping them close nit and created an entire history of their freelance RR, including mergers of the 3 RR’s and renaming.
Now, as to CNJ, if you really are that into the MR&T, weeeeeee need to start talking. I should be starting bench work some time this summer, and with in the next few months, like when the next time I get some extra cash, I am going to get a loco and paint and super detail it. Either the GP38, CF7, or B40-8. Not sure which. I do have a plan which I will post, but I’m sure it will get changed as I build it. For one I need to add more track center clearance between the main line and the feed mill track at the far left. I want to follow the MR’s build pretty closely and think I need more room to have the track inlaid in the concrete. I know the frameing size so I will start off with framing, maybe some scenery foam base, but I will at least have a basic form of the structures built before I lay track. I will probably have trains and some cars ready to go before I even have track bought. I did notice that in the picture of the ehtanol plant in the Jan. 08 article that a train is rolling by with some MR&T covered hoppers, looks like Trinity 5161’s or 5701’s. I am also going to have a few MR&T box cars.
I kind of picked the L because it opened up options in DCC a bit. Alot of the DCC systems with a hand held throttle are kind of expensive, so having a spot where I could mount something like a Zephyr control panel will make it easier. I also plan on having lights and such so if I do go with an NCE type system with a hand held throttle it opens up more room for light switches. Plus, I nee
M-R, re your posted preliminary trackplan, I would only note that it seems rather spartan with regard to enough trackage to keep most modelers interested and involved for any length of time.
Although I’m not aware of exactly how much space you have available to devote to a shelf-type layout of this sort, I would suggest re-examining the trackplan for MR’s Wisconsin & Southern to see what additional trackage might be incorporated.
I’m also including below the trackplan for Andy Sperandeo’s original Troy & Northern, which occupied essentially the very same space today devoted to the MR&T’s Wisconsin & Southern branch. I always considered the T&N to be an interesting and compact branchline, if maybe just a bit crowded arrangement, but perhaps you might draw some inspiration from it, too.
M-D, re your posted preliminary trackplan, I would only note that it seems rather spartan with regard to enough trackage to keep most modelers interested and involved for any length of time.
Spartan’s only half of it, M-R. There’s no runaround or staging. I suppose you could operate the thing like Lance Mindheim’s original Miami based shelf layout East Rail (http://www.lancemindheim.com/track_plan.htm ), but I’m not sure that would be particularly interesting in this case as, if I read the plan right, it’s only a 6x6 L whereas Mindheim’s was 9x9 and had removeable staging. He also had a lot more places to spot cars.
You actually only have two useable spurs, the ones to the left side of the layout. The tail track for the spur in the upper right doesn’t have enough length for both a locomotive and a car. There may be room for one or another, but not both. You’d be better off reversing the direction that particular spur faces. It wouldn’t just make switching easier, it would also make it practical. As it stands now, you can’t switch that spur.
You’re correct about M-R’s trackplan lacking of a runaround track, Andre, but the apparently stubby tail track for the spur at the upper right is not a design flaw, or problem. M-R had already noted in his trackplan post that the mainline at each end of the layout would connect with clamp-on train cassettes, like those MR used on the Beer Line, leaving plenty of room to hold a loco and several cars during switching operations.
Not strictly correct. The idea to suggest a corporate connection between Koester’s, McClelland’s, and Steve King’s layouts came after all three layouts were built or well under construction when they came up with the Appalachian Lines idea.
Apparently I missed the part about the cassettes. Even so, I’m not so sure that a real railroad would have laid out the spurs that way since it forces at least one industry (and the smallest one at that) in a confined geographical area to be switched in a manner inconsistent with the larger traffic generators. I’m also not sure that M-R will be happy using a cassette to simulate a run-around rather than actually having one on the main part of the layout where it would add additional action. Having said that and with all due respect to M-R, I think I would switch to N given the space restraints with which he’s faced and the additional features N would allow in the same space. My own first preference is for HO, however…
I’m going to be building an N scale shelf layout this summer (there’s a long story involved, not appropriate for here). The layout will be based on Fillmore, California (SP Santa Paula branch), in 1952. Track plan will be a selectively compressed version of the result obtained by joining Sanborn maps together. The interesting thing about the track layout for Fillmore is that ALL spurs were trailing point for eastward trains. This would indicate that the overwhelming majority of switching was done by eastward trains and that westward trains would most likely do no more than drop off cuts on a convenient siding for an eastward train to spot although there are two industries (3 if you count the stock pen) that are on do
Here is a link to a very movable 2-section 6 x 7 1/2 foot 18" deep L-shaped track plan by Byron Henderson based on a prototypical location - it has five switchable decent sized industries, a runaround and a small hidden staging/interchange area: http://home.earthlink.net/~mrsvc2/id16.html
Despite all the critizism I didn’t think it was all that bad. It was supposed to a be a small plan taking up a corner of the room. Any way I do it I’m limited now that I have to share a room. Believe me when I say I’ve been limited. For reasons I won’t go into here our spare room was finally cleared to be used as a room and not a storage locker. Well when that suddenly my girl went from not caring what the helmans mayo I did to “uh, sorry buddy, you can’t have the whole room. I get part”. I’m still in an ongoing battle about the layout size. At one point I was knocked down to a shelf layout, no more than 2 feet deep since that would be unobtrusive, and along the back wall which is only 137.5" long and is obstructed on the right 1/3 of the wall by a 5 foot long double window. My link below for signatures takes you to my model RR photobucket file, which currently only has photogs of the room. Heck at one point I had a room sized HO that went all the way around the room, took up the closet, and had a removable portion that diverted around the door so I could have continuous running.
But I digress. Last night I decided to try one out with more room. Ah heck I’ll just post the pics.
Thats about it. The right wall can only go 4-5 feet long before it would get in the way of the door opening and closing. The door can’t be taken off, that idea didn’t fly to well with the missus. The left wall was the real dibiletator, that’s where the missus wanted to have her area. Some time along the way she also decided that 4 feet or so of space between the floor and the bottom of the layout would still be enough room to use as a storage locker. I don’t know why she wants to use it as storage, I mean that’s pretty much what it was used for before we cle
