I’ve been re-reading the January issue’s intro to the N scale Salt Lake route. I’m very happy to see this for several reasons.
N scale is a rapidly growing segment of the hobby. I feel while it’s limited in terms of selection for transition era equipment (like my 1956 PRR) it’s tailor-made for today’s oversized modern trains. Wanna run 6-axle widecabs with long consists of 89’ cars in a small bedroom? Not easy to do in HO! Much easier in N.
It’s not Wisconsin. Sorry, MR, but you guys do put a local spin on a lot of your content! It’s home, I get it… [:D]. But nice to see a relatively obscure line modeled as a project railroad.
It breaks past the rigid symmetry of the 4x8. 4x8s are fine, and I used to have one. But it’s not the only benchwork appropriate for a novice to intermediate modeler.
The scenery is VERY convincing. Once upon a time I modeled Colorado and never could get the colors right. East coast is what I know best. Dick really nailed that dry Nevada scenery.
Okay, now, I don’t care for Unitrack for visible trackage. Staging, tunnels, etc., yes. It’s reliable as all-get-out. I have some in my tunnel. But for exposed trackage, it never quite looks right to me because it has an unrealistic rail profile and the tie spacing is off for US railroads. In fact, it’s really 1:150 scale Japanese versus 1:160 scale North American track. The same issues plague the code 80 track on my Juniata Division, which is why I’m laying all new trackage with Atlas code 55 with a plan to re-lay the whole layout in code 55.
However, given the time constraints on building a project railroad (I just helped build one for charity) I can empathize with the decision. I would have liked to have seen the finer Atlas code 55 used, but that’s probably my only beef with the entire thing. I would also probably have made more provision for later expansion.
Not only do I like the layout as built (modern-day Uncle Pete) but immediat
I read the Jan2010 MR myself and I am really impressed with what was done on that project. It was the scenery work that got to me. And the colour----sheeesh, just amazing! I’m looking at mine and going BLAAARRRGH![|(] Not a happy camper—grumble mumble
As for the rails I’m wanting to see a friends layout–he’s using the same Unitrack so I’m kinda curious—
My own granger layout with the really light weight rail is at code55 with two spurs going code40—I’m having to rethink some of the code55/code40 stuff again—[%-)][:-^]
I know a lot of guys who are pining for code 40 flex and turnouts in N scale. I’m not one of them. You definitely have to take great pains to replace wheelsets and turn down loco flanges to use it. To my naked eye, the difference between code 55 and code 40 is not great enough for me to want to deal with the wheel flange issue. It looks great, but to me not greater enough than code 55. The difference between code 80 and code 55 is far more profound.
Yep—there really is not a lot of visual difference but I kinda got curious about how it would work. I have found that there were SOME wheelsets that did need reprofiling but not all did for some dang reason----then again, maybe I need to recheck them again[:-^]
As for code83/code55----a tiny difference-----not [:-^]
Your layout was the inspiration for me to drive forward with an n scale layout. I had recently bought a Conrail sd70mac and went to see if it would just be a collectors item or if i really wanted to get jump started into n scale. I came across your page and was immediately convinced that you can make something (operational layout) outta practically nothing (space). Ive been waiting for this Salt Lake Route to come out in MRR and I still cant take my eyes off it. As for your idea of turning it into a PRR style in Pa, I think thats fantastic. I had the same idea, just with NS and Conrail running around it, instead of the UP and BNSF. It also made me think to model the Amtrak Pennsylvanian as I had stated in the Jan 2010 mrr thread. Anyways, keep up the great work on your layout Dave. Its truly fantastic
Thanks for the kind words! I need to update my site to include the new Enola Yard addition to my layout.
Things are coming along. You’ll note the Atlas code 55 track. I’m just blown away by how much better it looks. I’m also convinced that careful laying with a little tuning avoids most of the problems people have reported.
Were I to use the Salt Lake Route plan I would still do the dual era thing, with both a Pennsy 1950s roster and an early Conrail (~1980) roster. During the 50s, there was passenger traffic on the York Haven Line but none of it survived to Amtrak. However, modeler’s license could be envoked.
Youre very welcome Dave. I have your website under my favorites. I always check in to see if you update it to show the enola yard. It all looks so very realistic! I dont know much about the west. Farthest west ive been is Chicago. If Caliente has zippo, then they sure have this east coaster fooled! I expected a whole engine service area, intermodal yard and much more than what MRR has shown, regardless, it still looks fantastic and hey, im not a rivet counter so call it whatever city you want and ill go with it. haha
I agree–it’s refreshing to see something different for the project layout. And the desert scenery is superb.
I agree with the poster who noted that Caliente doesn’t have squat for modeling. I drive through the area frequently, and there ain’t nothin’ there. Valley NV might have been a better choice for purists. However, I understand the notion of twisting reality a bit to make a layout more operationally interesting. Heck, I do it too. Nothing wrong with that. I prefer to think of the MR project layouts (or any layout for that matter) as a “representation” of reality, or what could have been, if things had worked out a little differently. Layouts fall on different places on that continuum.
LOL those were my exact thoughts…NS running through the alleghenies and hugging the mountain side.,near altoona/johnstown when i saw the curves on the scenery side. it is very refreshing to see a n scale layout such as this one. breaks up the door and the 2 x 4 same ol same ol.
I’m just not to crazy about the switching side… i love the intermodal yard… BUT a diamond coming out of the engine house? some very wierd trackage as well, goining into the furniture industry… just seems like it was either rushed, or the designer tried to hard to get to much in the space. not that i’m a genius or master trackplanner myself, just my opinion!
Overall i am very pleased to see a layout like this!!
Thanks! Appearance-wise all I did was to paint it using Polyscale Railroad Tie Brown, Black, and Roof Brown. The ballast is simply Woodland Scenics Fine gray blend, and I weathered the track and ballast using powdered tempera paints a la Joe Fugate.
Now, in terms of mechanical tuning, you’ll find the flangeways through the frogs and guardrails on the turnouts are tight for many locomotives and cars. The Atlas trackwork is actually correct in this case; it’s thick flanges and wide wheel treads at fault. I take a flat jeweler’s file and ever-so-slightly widen the flangeways.
Dave, were you thinking of the availability of transition-era steam in making this generalization? I find that – steam aside – there’s at least as much (and possibly more) mid-1950s-1960s Rio Grande equipment available in N scale than HO. I’m glad I chose N scale for my Utah Division layout.Were I modeling the late 1940s, though, I’m sure I’d feel differently.
Steam has long been a sore spot for N scalers. There aren’t many models available and the brass market is nonexistent. It’s tough to put together a credible, prototypical roster – and what’s more, there are few detailing parts available for those who’d like to attempt a custom job. For years, N scale steam locomotives had a poor reputation for reliability and pulling power, too. To see what’s available in N scale steam, see Spookshow’s great N scale locomotive database (here’s the steam data). Note how many locos received poor grades.
Let me add that the N scale steam situation is improving, and there is a thriving community of N scale steam modelers who are learning how to overcome the scale’s disadvantages. For more information, obtain a copy of NTRAK’s
Yes, steam plays a big part in my generalization regarding transition era in N. Especially us Pennsy modelers.
You’ll note in the 2007 Addendum to the NTRAK N Scale Steam Locomotive Information Book I wrote an article on kitbashing a Pennsy H10sb in N scale using parts from a Bachmann Spectrum 2-8-0 and a pair of Minitrix engines. There are NO ready-to-run N scale versions of any sizeable class of PRR steam locomotives. Offered are only a few oddballs like the HH2 (the 2-8-8-2s that lasted a few months during WWII) and the N1(?) 2-10-2 that was delivered as USRA (offered this way by ConCor) but was quickly modified with Bellpaire fireboxe and new smoke box front.
All three of my Pennsy steam engines are the result of weeks of kitbashing. And before anyone mentions the BLI/PCM PRR M1a/b mountain, I’ll remind everyone it was announced in 2004 and according to the manufacturer, the pilot models haven’t even been ordered yet.
For my prototype, I don’t see the N scale steam situation improving any time soon. I don’t mind the extra work, actually. I rather enjoy kitbashing.
Have you ever considered on doing an article–or something along that line on kitbashing in N scale? I know that there are–were? I can’t seem to find the things now—grrr–articles on kitbashing diesel engines but I haven’t seen articles on kitbashing steam in that scale. And I’m not even thinking scratchbuilding steam in N scale—which would be something[:P]
Micro-Engineering makes Code 40 flex…I have some for my yard and sidings! As for turnouts, yeah, you’re on your own
But yeah, the difference between code 55 and 40 isn’t that great. In fact, I can use standard Atlas code 55 rail joiners for linking my code 55 and 40 track! I might have to flatten the code 40 end slightly with a needlenose plier, but it works fine.
Or they could have swapped Caliente for my neck of the world. The LA&SL route has a lot of business around Sin City.
The solid wall of low-profile models of high-profile casinos against the backdrop would make for an interesting challenge - especially for night operations. (Our electric bill is WHAT??!!)
It’s great to see a layout based on the LA&SL. That line isn’t modeled much (unless you count trackage rights on Cajon!).
The scenery work was excellent, 'nuff said there. As for Caliente, it’s easy to suggest some changes, especially with the use of a little more space:
a miraculously revived branch to Pioche (oops, no “high iron” on that),
a selectively compressed model of that great old mission-style depot, or
maybe an oil distributor. (Did I miss it? It was mentioned in the article.)
Modeler’s license is part of what makes the hobby fun, but if anything seemed like too much of a reach, it was the furniture manufacturing plant. If you’ve been to Caliente, you know. However, it does make for some nice local switching, and that might have been a key consideration here.
All in all, a very nice piece of work. I look forward to part two of the story.
