Just wondering if any of you have attempted, operating or non-operating, with or without trolley wire, replicating PRR’s distinctive catenary in N scale.
None of the commercially available N scale catenary is even close. I know a company makes it in HO, but not N.
Since scracthbuilding the catenary towers is necessary, has anyone done it? Styrene or brass? Resin casting? Just wondering…
Third-rail and traction was a standard for layout consideration in the 1930s - 1950s, and; traction was still a bit more commonplace in the 1960s if you look back at Model Railroader and Railroad Model Craftsman articles.
Today, HO Scale traction, or N Scale traction overhead is largely scratchbuilt.
My N Scale traction layout overhead is planned to use NCat http://www.teamsavage.com/ncat/ncat.html specifications.
My attitude is that scratchbuilding N Scale Traction overhead is only a bit more labor intensive than just N Scale railroading plus a lot of operation can be squeezed into prototypical tighter radius curves.
The exception to this would be a Pennsy Class I electrified trackage with broader radius curves, and the requirement for more specialized catenary as you have already noted.
Overhead stability is a primary concern in N Scale traction. In spite of the wire to pole soldering and a pole secured in the layout base, there is a balance of soldering with line tension while keeping the overhead “overhead” the center of the tracks, and especially on the curves.
Here are two pictures showing the NCat approach from a 2002 newsletter…
http://www.teamsavage.com/ncat/NCatSPEd/NCN08.pdf
The suggested NCat specifications are the single wire overhead format. NCat specs are also incorporated into NTrak modules when traction is included in that module.
There are two good N Scale overhead primers at the nscaletraction Yahoo Group:
[1] presentation_all.pdf (by Alex Postpischil)
[2] NCAT NEWS issue 6-2005 - Overhead 101 (by Corky Whitlock)
To model a Pennsy prototype overhead is not impossible, but would require much greater work (i.e. scratchbuilding) than the NCAt overhead specs. N Scale’
Thanks for the info! I remember seeing the NCat pantographs while considering how I might scratchbuild an N scale P5a.
I probably should have specified… I’m really not looking to make operating catenary; it’d just be for show.
Dave:
You might e-mail tomikawaTT because it sounds like your needs may be closer to what he is doing on his Japanese-oriented traction layout as his overhead catenary by necessity will not be live overhead, but standard 2-rail operation running traction engines with pantographs. I can’t think of a more experienced MR Forum member for traction than Chuck.
My intention is single wire live overhead which is a little easier than constructing hanging catenary. Another concern is whether to wire for traditional DC, or to modify things to run DCC. nscaletraction Yahoo Group had some “how to” discussion a few months ago on DCC traction modifications - live overhead does put some new wrinkles into DCC.
It would be worthwhile to join nscaletraction to get those two PDFs on overhead construction if you do decide to do catenary whether or not you do live overhead with their tips for catenary assembly and pole/mast placement.
Dave,
Long ago I was thinking of doing NEC type caternary in HO. I found that Plastruc makes an “H” girder that would provide a quick and dirty basis for the towers. However, I feel that if they are available in an appropriate size for N-scale, they are probably too flimsy.
I don’t think that convincing PRR style caternary is really practical in N-scale. It will either end up grossly out of scale or so delicate that you will be forever repairing it.
Perhaps both.
-George
Did I hear my railroad mentioned?
Actually, after carefully evaluating the potential problems of:
I have come to the conclusion that a lot of our Japanese cousins have it right. On a fairly large operating railway with frequent, heavy traffic (both PRR and JNR fit THAT specification!) the slick trick is to model the support structures and infrastructure (overhead tension devices, substations…) but leave the actual catenary to the imagination. Just lock all the pans at the level where the wire would be if it was really there and let people’s imaginations do the rest - while you continue to uncouple knuckle couplers with shish-kebab skewers, untroubled by fragile modeling in the airspace over your P5.
OTOH, if you either:
or:
then, by all means, charge right in. I’ll be happy to provide moral support from the sidelines.
Chuck (modeling Central Japan in September 1964 - under catenary that isn’t really there)
Yep, I was thinking more about just the catenary poles instead of a full-up wire system…
Dave,
I’m not sure you’re photo represents 1950s PRR catenary. All the vintage PRR catenary I’ve seen is supported by posts with a cross beam. They look to be structural steel shapes…some round posts with H beams, some all H beams, some that look like signal bridges.
If you’d like I can get some photos the next time I’m in Downington/Exton by Amtrak.
Nick
There were multiple configurations… I have some photo evidence from the 1950s (and back to the '30s) with wire crossarms as well as with H-beam crossbars. I’m not sure what the motivation was for each type of install.
Dave,
I guess it’s just the picture. Checking through my Pennsy collection, I can’t find much of a rhyme or reason either.
It seems like all catenary on bridges, viaducts and the like, as well as in station areas had H beam crossbars. Catenary spanning many tracks (ie complex interlockings and yards) nearly always had wire crossbars.
Nick
How about 122 PRR-specific electric railroading pictures?
http://www.davesrailpix.com/prr/prr.htm
Also, there is another type of geographic Pennsylvania traction…
Big City #1 => http://www.davesrailpix.com/pw/pstc.htm
Big City #2 => http://www.davesrailpix.com/pitts/pitts.html
Interurban => http://www.davesrailpix.com/lvt/lvt.htm
City + Interurban => http://www.davesrailpix.com/john/john.htm
It is a free-lanced “interurban flavor” that I am attempting to capture in N Scale while interchanging with a Pennsy mainline. Thus, the single wire overhead with passenger and freight switching operations.
Source: Dave’s Electric Railroads => http://www.davesrailpix.com/index.html
This is a really good resource of prototype traction, let alone, scenery to model circa 1950, give or take a decade.
I thought it would be cool to run the Acela on my N-layout…then I thought about it.
That photo in question appears to be on double track, not the four track Philly-NY road. It could be on the Paoli-Trenton cut-off which detoured freight traffric around Philly.
Dave, do you know where the picture is from?
It is double track, but there is evidence that there were once more then two tracks. The concrete ties, indicate the photo is recent. So it’s not the Trenton Cut off which I believe was been abandoned in it’s entirety.
Nick
It’s NEC, but not sure where. It was really just a random shot I pulled up off the internet, not my own.
Dave,
Kato have them ready made!!!
There are Walther’s part numbers:
381-23059
381-23057
381-23060
381-23056
Boher rounded corners and square corners! SIngle or double track!
Sorry, Ice, they’re not the same…
Here’s another random Internet photo, this time showing the H-beam type setup on one of the bridges at Harrisburg.
oh sorry, didn’t know you are after that specific type…
May be you can get those and try to scratch built from that…but I think keeping a proper tension would be very hard…
Dave,
Here’s a pretty good photo of the “H Beam” catenary at Whitford Station.
I also have some pics of the Trenton Cut Off viaduct over Brandywine Creek in Downingtown, with more of the “H Beam” catenary.
I’ll see if I can get some photos of the “wire crossbeam” catenary too.
Nick
Is the Trenton Cutoff now completely out of service?
Seems ironic that Conrail was so hot to trot to eliminate the Low Grade Line including the Atglen and Susquehanna and the P&T in favor of its Reading line… Now that Reading went to CSX and NS got the Pennsy, NS is having trouble moving freight over the Amtrak Harrisburg corridor. If the A&S and P&T were still in, they’d have no trouble.
Of course, now there’s some crazy battle going on in Lancaster about making the A&S into a rail-trail.