Springfield Terminal RR -- Groundbreaking!

Model Railroader General Discussion (Model Railroader)
1

If nobody objects, I’d like to take a few bytes to start (yet another[;)]) “check out my progress” thread.

After several years of dormancy, I’ve finally broken ground on the Springfield Terminal RR.

Highlights:

N Scale, 9x10 feet, Twice-Around, urban industrial switching. Code 80 on homasote (still under debate) on 3/4 ply on 3/4ply “1x4” frame using pocket-hole joinery.

For more details, including track plans, CADs, photos, etc etc, check out my blog:

http://s-t-rr.blogspot.com

Any and all ideas, suggestions, criticisms, (and maybe even a compliment or two) are always welcome!

Thanks, all!

Peter

2

Why not code 55 or 40 rail? Have you considered it?

The first thing I notice about smaller scales is railhead heights being way out of proportion with scale.

Just thinking out loud.

Good luck!

3

By ST do you mean in its present state as part of Guilford, or as the original electric-later dieselized ST.

4

I briefly considered going with smaller rail, but I had a couple of reasons for sticking with c80: My previous layout was build with c80, and I can salvage much of the track from that. (Yes, I’m cheap…) Secondly, I enjoy handlaying – to a degree. I did a previous layout in HO code 70, so I’m pretty comfortable knowing that I can crank out a curved turnout in code 80. I’m not so comfortable in the smaller sizes. Finally, my interest, really, is operating. And if I can get better reliability for this small (pardon the pun) sacrifice, well, that’s really okay by me.

Thanks for the input. If nothing else, it makes me think about why I’m making these kinds of choices!

Peter

5

Yep – you caught me. The word that I consistently omit is “freelanced”. In my case, “fully and utterly freelanced.” I opted for “Springfield” for exactly the same reason it’s used in The Simpsons: Springfield can be anywhere (Seriously, how many states don’t have a Springfield?)

Sorry to disappoint you…

Peter