Never get your wife from mail-order, and NEVER get your history from the movies or TV…
.
[/quote]
As the CB crowd used to say, “That’s a ten four!”. I once saw some people in a movie travel quite some distance east of Chicago on the Santa Fe. I’ve even seen them board a steam powered train which magically became diesel powered during “run by” shots. I’ve also seen them board coal fired diamond stackers! The movies and television shows are telling a story and the railroad stuff is usually incidental to the story. They do not nor should they be required to be historically accurate on such information.
Uh, it was a joke. The 1950’s were horrible for historical accuracy. I watched a movie about the fight for the right to run rail in Kanas before the Civil War and the pistols were cartridge revolvers made after 1873 and rifles were repeaters made in 1892.
MDC has turned out two styles of “old time” passenger cars: one is the 30-foot shorties, the other is a 50-footer. The model picutred is one of the 50-footers.
Although its been said that the so-called Overton cars (the 30-footers) are lossely based on cars operated by a small short line called the Sierra Railroad, I personally don’t think either style represents any genuine, specific prototype unless by coincidence. As others have stated, the 30-footers are quite unrealistic. While a few very early (i.e. 1830s-40s) passenger cars were indeed that short, their appearance was very different. The 50-footers are all meant to be Pullman types and are more prototypically correct than the so-called Overtons; the early Pullman cars (1865) were indeed about 50 feet long, but the sparse records indicate they had monitor roofs. By the 1880s car lengths had increased, so 1865-1885 is probably the realistic limit for this car if you wi***o be historically accurate.
I have an excrement load of Overtons, because a couple months ago I was advised here that they were what went with my olt-time 4-4-0s and 2-6-0s. I don’t ahve any of the Pullman Type except a POS Bachman that I got when bought a bunch of EZ track.
So, What style passenger car should I look for. If it is like everyting else you going to show me a bunch of pictures that no-one has made for 20 years. (Do I sound frustrated?)
I have, I think, 12 of the “Overton”, the 30 footer. What I am hearing is that I should have gotten the “Overland”–the 50 footer. The Pullman is not accurate either.
Not sure why you’re worried about the Overtons. I think I’ve missed what prototype you’re trying to be accurate about. Are you attempting to model a prototype line or a freelance? If your layout is set in 1890, the MDC Overtons, if anything are a bit later than that. The Sierra Railroad cars, which were the prototypes for the MDC models were built in 1902 though the style had been around since the mid-1800s.
I think you should reconsider why your railroad shouldn’t be running shorties. They look great behind a 4-4-0 and cash strapped shortlines might reasonably be pulling them into the 1890’s and, in the case of the Sierra RR, much later.
The problem, SpaceMouse, is that there really weren’t any passenger operations on the Northcoast in the 1880’s to speak of. As I have mentioned a few times, the Northwestern Pacific didn’t open up until around 1900, mostly there were a few small disconnected short lines. Most of the railroads were logging lines exclusively, which means the only “passenger operations” consisted of bringing logging crews to and from camp, and often they’d just sit on top of whatever load was being carried because those little lokeys only made about 5-10 MPH going flat-out.
Just use the Overtons–they are no more or less appropriate for what you’re trying to model, and at least they’re roughly appropriate to your era.
The way I am envioning my layout, the logging operation is going visually significant, but in terms of the rest of the layout. I see the mainline disappearing under the logging operation and re-emerging in the city. The top layer will be modeled after the 101 corridor. You know, Hopland, Ukiah, Willits–so if passenger trains ran that way… And the city I’m calling San Francisco, but I’m not set on that.
Once again, here is how I am seeing it. The top level is the blue lines.
It looks like the city is going to be right next to the logging operation, which means it’s probably not San Francisco. There were plenty of towns all through the Northcoast you could use as models for your little city–just look at the 101 route and get some ideas.
The NWP went as far south as Santa Rosa, Petaluma and thereabouts–obviously not to San Francisco, though.
Keep in mind that you’re making this up–the NWP, as we have discussed, didn’t exist until about 20 years after the period you’re modeling, so I assume you’re modeling a fictional predecessor line to the NWP (the NWP was formed out of a bunch of smaller regional railroads.)
The Overtons will be fine.
SpaceMouse, you sooooooooooooooooooo should do some reading on this. Even a couple hours Googling for northcoast railroads. In a few minutes I came across a few of the different predecessor lines, like the North Pacific Coast (narrow gauge that ran around “Saucelito” and the North Bay) and the California Western (the “Skunk Train”) and photos of various Northcoast passenger depots (some of which date back to the 1870’s, so you’re not entirely unjustified in 1880’s passenger traffic–it’s mostly a matter of where) and other assorted goodness.
The answers are out there, Chip, it’s just a matter of going out and looking for them. You already know the questions! And, odds are, with a bit of research you’ll be able to answer those questions more effectively than anyone on this board.
That’s not bad advice. And apart from the Internet, there are plenty of decent books out there on the subjects we’ve been discussing. I recommend a stop by the Colorado Railroad Museum bookstore (http://www.crrm.org/train_books.htm) - they have plenty of stuff on California railroads, too.
Although it is physically next to the logging area, the city will not be visually connected to it. I see the mainline running under the logging area and the helix both coming out from under a sort of mountain/ tree backdrop. To get by train from the logging area to the city would be sort of a point to point around the layout.
As for the reading aspect, I only have so much time. I’m spending about 2 hours a day reading on different aspects of railroading everyting from operations to yard design to weathering. The reading and researching the logging area is on my agenda, but since that part is probably not going to be built for 4 months, I have been focussing on the reading that is more pertinent to moving forward now.
The only reason, this whole conversation came up is that I couldn’t date a car I saw when browsing eBay, which brought up the subject of whether or not the Overtons I have are correct. You’ll notice the original title was: Quick question: What era was this from and showed a picture. I never dreamed the topic would last so long or take the direction it did.
But I do want to say thanks for the link. I’m bookmarking it in my research section.
And I forgot about the Skunk Train–seems to me I saw that as a kid.
The Skunk started in the 1870’s but didn’t start passenger service until 1904.
your helix looks pretty inaccessible–is it really going to be in the middle of that big table?
There does seem to be a logic in the track plan–division points (such as where one would find a larger yard like the one you have on the far right) would generally have cities around them, either before or after the division point’s construction.
I suppose I emphasize the reading because you keep asking questions about the history of the Northcoast and what sort of equipment, buildings and industries would be historically appropriate. If you had a couple of books handy on the subject, you could just open up the book and see a picture of what was there–as I have mentioned before, Carranco and Labbe’s LOGGING THE REDWOODS provides a great introduction to Northcoast logging with lots of photos, and I’m sure there are more books to choose from.
You don’t even need to read the whole thing start to finish. Most railroad books are mostly pictures anyhow–this isn’t a homework assignment, it’s a handy tool that you’ll find yourself reaching for more than an X-Acto knife.
It is acutally going to be more to the lower end of the drawing. How accessible does it need to be?
Thanks.
I actually found a coppy of Logging the Redwoods on eBay, but I had a speaking engagement when it ended and lost it. I am looking for and collecting books on logging. I have one en route called the Glory Days of Logging. The besst one I have so far is the Time-Life Book The Loggers, but it deals mostly with out in the trees. I got Coleman’s book Trains, Tracks, & Tall Timbers, but it was disapointing in that it deals with mostly Desiel Era logging.
You’re welcome. I understand how pressed you are for time. I have just got my starter layout (a 5.5’ x 10’ table) up and wired for dual-train control, which took longer than I expected. I’ve filled a notebook with ideas and references and discovered that planning my model railroad is as much fun as building it.
If you’re going to be doing any Bay Area modeling, I strongly recommend John Signor’s “Southern Pacific’s Western Division”, which is an excellent history of the SP’s lines into Oakland, with plenty of diagrams and track plans, and interesting info on the numerous ferry operations the SP had across the Carquinez Strait.
SpaceMouse is modeling the Northcoast, rather than the Bay Area proper (unless he has changed his mind again.) I may have to keep an eye open for that Signor book for my own collection.
SpaceMouse: Books that deal specifically with Northcoast logging will be your friend. Northcoast logging was kind of a unique thing, because of the monster size of the trees and the terrain–logging operations throughout North America had some things in common, but there was a LOT of regional variation. Northcoast logging was marked by the use of the Dolbeer steam donkey, using rails rather than streams to carry logs to mill (because the logs are too darn big to fit in a stream!) and that lovely damp weather. Some of the pictures are just great–and, as they say, a picture is worth a thousand words, or at least five of my rambling posts!
About helix access: You’ll want it as accessible as you can bear to crawl when something derails inside. On second thought it doesn’t look too bad.
Let me see if I have this straight–the upper level is the logging operation, the lower level is the city, yard and Hogwarts-on-Trinidad portion?
No, The logging operation is left half-or so of the lower right side. The “city” is the section of the drawing on the bottom of the screen with the yard and an industry or two along the left side lower level.
The upper level are the previously mentioned 101 corridor cities, Willitis, etc. or fictional city representations thereof, and hopefully I can figure a industry or two to go there. But that will be the last part of the layout to get any work done.
Where the confusion may have come is that indeed the the logging operation butts against the city. But you can’t get there from here. To get to the city from the logging area would involve traversing the layout. Visually from the logging operation you cannot see the city nor from the city can you see the logging area. they are separated by cliff and trees. The main line runs under not through the logging area and the helix comes up from the staging area at this point and they emerge from the cliff.
The left half of the drawing will be Hogwarts, Diagon Alley with a partition that divides it with the lake station below Hogwarts.
So I see construction in this order.
Framework and lighting.
Track main lines and Helices, but not ballasted so I can add turnouts.
Hogwarts Mountain and Hogwarts Castle
Lake Station
Diagon Alley
Kings Cross Terminal and Yard
Classification Yard Track (not details)
Logging Operation
City and Classification yard details
Upper level towns and industries-although I’m building and collecting models that will fit all the areas.
Hmmm…Okay then…if the upper level includes locations along the 101 corridor, where are the logging area, yard and city located? I assumed that, aside from assumptions about rifts in spacetime to get from Trinidad to Hogwarts, that the whole layout was supposed to be on the Northcoast, in which case pretty much everything would be on the 101 corridor.
About industries: Keep in mind that industries are not islands unto themselves. So you have a logging operation–assuming that the logging concern has trees and guys with saws on one end and a lumber mill on the other end, you can then ship lumber to furniture manufacturers, rural wholesalers (think a 19th Century Home Depot) selling lumber to the building trade, cooperages, or any other industry that builds things out of wood and needs regular shipments of lumber (which, before the age of plastic, was a lot of stuff!)
Some of that lumber will head south–if you’re going to include a coastal scene, then a dock becomes a natural choice for an industry, both to ship out logs and to ship in things that weren’t produced on the northcoast (anything metal, fabric, leather, specialty items, foodstuffs that won’t grow in cloudy damp climes) to deliver to local markets. A brewery is a good choice too–19th Century beer was not pasteurized and so was distributed locally rather than nationally, and shipped in reefers (not the sort of reefers one associates with the Emerald Triangle!)
I guess I’m just not seeing why you have a helix and a second level. The “101 corridor” sounds like it would be your mainline, and I assume that most of your terrain will be mountainous, which means you’re going to want several feet of clearance above the layout surface for mountains and big trees. This means that a helix would have to go up maybe three feet, rather than just a foot or two. Is there a reason why your railroad won’t just wind its way up the mountainside, and save yourself the trouble of building a helix and second level?
You raise some good points. In the last layout I designed, before I had been given more space, I spent the entire layout trying to get the trains elevated and by criss-crossing them 3 times on a 2% grade, I was able to elevate them 5.75 inches. So when I threw this very preliminary design together, I was thinking that if I wanted a second level, especially with these weak little steamers, I was going to have to have a helix. For instace on the 4x8 layout I have, in order to get the trains onto a level where the track can run underneath in a tunnel I had to have a 3% grade. On a 3% grade, my two 2-6-0 pulling together could get 6 freight cars and a caboose up the hill.
Another factor is that as I learn more about myself as a model railroader, the more I am becomeing facinated by yardwork, so I am trying to get the best yard I can on the layout. While the railfan in me is visualizing the trains in the redwoods, I am thinking most of the running I’ll be doing is putting together passenger trains for my kids to run (lots of small towns and stops) and breaking down freighters coming up from staging to be sent out to the towns in the area.
I’d like to tie that all together somehow, and having the lumber be the focus of the layout seems the way to go, but there are major inconguancies that have to be worked out. For instance, I am visualizing the upper part being 16 inches above the lower level. I also visualize it as being scrub oak forests (don’t ask why I haven’t thought it through.) But the trees from the lower level will be higher than the second level. I know this is a problem.
Something has to give. I need to compromise and I have sort of boxed myself into a corner by picking up all these older engines. The BLI’s and Protos I have at the club are just so much better engines, that I get frustrated with what is availible.
For instance, at the club I’m using a Proto 2K S1 switcher. It is smooth, tracks well, and can pull or push 6 passeng