I have been reading MRR magazine for years now, joined the NMRA ( what a blessing that has been ) joined the N&W historical society ( of course ! ) and I have purchased a small library of books on trains, not to mention a LOT of magazines. I say all of that to say this. I have rarely seen modelers model the civil engineer side of model railroad in a serious way. For example I was lucky enough to find an old spec book that has civil details on the N&W railroad. It has specs on everything ! Slope of super elevations, tunnel arch specs, distances equipment has to be off of center line of the railroad, where to and where not to use cinder, cross sections of RR beds etc… For us as modelers that want to model a proto type RR I would think this would be a critical piece of modeling that we sould include in our Models.
If you have would you share what specs you used and some photos ?
I don’t really have any photos, but I am purposely building my layout large but simple to allow large curves, super elevation, detailed roadbed, large turnouts, spiral easements, etc.
My bare minimum radius is 36" on the mainline, most are more on the order of 40". Small changes in direction are back to back easements, not radiused curves, just like the prototype.
Not to be negative, but basicaly I have stopped talking about this kind of modeling on here because it always seems to start some sort of “space envy” discussion.
Even with 36" curves and #8 turnouts I avoid long passenger cars and long rigid locos to get that graceful well engineered look of the prototype.
Just looked at a possible retirement house yesterday…1900 sq ft basement…
I am not entirely sold on the premise of your post. I believe that most serious (and semi-serious) modelers do take notice of prototype engineering standards (if they model prototype and not purely freelance), but compromises do need to be made in the real world due to space, time, and expense constraints.
I certainly know of modelers who travelled to get soil (for example) from the area they model, while I’m OK with “close enough/looks good” school of modeling. Things like signals and catenary supports are one thing, track clearance diagrams are another (wider than prototype to support cars swinging out further on tighter curves, for example).
Exact building plans of line-side structures are great for one offs, but when you need several of them and, say Blair line has a pretty-close kit available…
Of course, that’s just my opinion, and worth about what it cost.
I fell in love with the Southern Pacific Railroad in my early teens and was hooked for life. Our next door neighbor was the El Paso SP Yard Superintendent for many years and that really helped.
As far as prototyping the exact SP Standards all I can say is I try hard. I’m not a rivet counter but I do like to keep my layout close to the SP standards. My problem is there is so much information out there that is inaccurate it makes it tough. Even after my 65 years of modeling the SP I still find info that contradicts what I thought were SP Standards for many years. I continue searching for info and it’s amazing how much of it conflicts between one site to another.
I have two SP “Standards” sites that I follow closely, the Southern Pacific Historical & Technical Society and the ESPEE Modelers Archive.
Good topic, I’m going to follow this post to see other members input.
If I may…When somebody tells me they model the Chessie System I wonder which railroad?
Here’s why.
If you model the Chessie(B&O) you should have B&O type signals and buildings and the same applies to C&O and WM since all three was still independent railroads operating under the Chessie banner.
When I modeled the Chessie(C&O) the majority of my engines was lettered C&O or Chessie(C&O) as per the prototype before the formation of CSX when engines was freely interchanged-I still recall seeing my first Seaboard System engine a MP15AC switching the Russell yard in '84. The usual engine for this yard job was a Chessie(C&O) GP39.
The same can be said for any merger railroad even the PC-PRR signals and buildings or NYC signals and buildings.
NS didn’t change signals they used PRR/N&W signals until recently. N&W buildings stayed the same Southern stilled used their signals and buildings.
Yes,its very important to remember those details including the color of the railroad’s buildings.
Freelance has the same discipline.All buildings should have a family resemblance. Even a modern shortline may use the former owner buildings.
It really depends how prototypically accurate you want to be. Modelers aren’t all the same. Some are pretty persnickety, and others are pretty casual and devil-may-care. Don Cassler was a Civil Engineer who applied the principles of his profession to his modeling, supplemented by the generous application of the standards of his chosen prototype, the B&O. Well designed trackwork, B&O standard signals and structures, etc. all combined to create a very believable and functional model railroad. He used the actual calculations that an engineer uses to lay out his transition curves. For most of us, we don’t need to go to that extreme. A long piece of lath can give us all we need to lay out a very workable and good looking transition without all those calculations, and shims will provide good looking superelevation, even if we have not precisely calculated the appropriate height of the outside rail. Ballast color and other details can be tailored to match the practices of a particular geography or a particular railroad. Lever interlocking plants can be represented, even if the rods don’t work. Making them work is icing on the cake. All of this can be done, and many do it.
But you don’t have to.
I know standards books have been published, with reproductions of actual railroad specifications and drawings, showing standards for the B&O and PRR. There may be others. I don’t know whether any are still in print.
Easy answer in my case: I’m not skilled enough to pull it off. What you’re discussing is equivalent to the difference between casual woodworking and cabinet making; the tolerances are WAY tighter than my fumble fingers can keep them within. Respect and admiration to the modelling titans who can pull this off, but i’m not one of them.
We don’t model it because we don’t have the space.
Even the generous (by model railroad standards) 36" and 40" radii that Sheldon mentions are way too tight. A 40" radius is a 20 degree curve. This is not used on class 1 mainlines. It is the sharpest curve on the Maryland and Pennsylvania Railroad - a short line noted for it’s sharp curves that was limited to small steam (2-8-0) and short passenger cars. For a mainline you need a radius of 80+ inches, 120 would be better as a minimum. You need turnouts that are no. 10, 16 would be better.
While you could do that in a basement space, you will find that even in a basement you have too much mainline tied up in curves and you’ll be limited to an around the walls layout with some industrial trackage in the center.
A 60 foot basement is only 1 HO mile long so you’re protoypical 117 car long coal train takes up the length of your basement. Even with a basement layout and double decking you can only get about 8-10 miles of mainline.
So we use tighter curves, smaller turnouts, with shorter trains on our layouts. When it comes to things like super elevation and side clearances, we use what works with the curves we have to use. Not to prototypical specs, but hopefully a reasonable representation of the prototype.
Here are few examples that I am referencing. Note the drainage ditches, the different materials in the road beds, the curbs, measurements from the centerline of the road bed, the heights given on the trestle…I understand that we all have to make selective decisions based on scale, available room…but for the items that do not necassarily have a huge impact on scale why not build in the drainage ditches, the protypical distances off of centerline etc…?
LION has NYCT specs and drawings. Interesting they are, but him not going to build to those specs. LION is not going to take the time to set half ties in concrete.
I can only speak for myself, but I suspect I’m very typical:
Time, money, interest level, effort, and the “good enough” factor all come into play. Remember, some get intensely thrilled with a cheap train set on an oval that gets shoved under the couch when not in use. Most of us make an attempt at more realism, although “more” is a relative term.
I can approximate the look of groomed ballast with drainage between two parallel main lines and ditches outboard of them. I won’t spend a lot of time going through all the steps the prototype takes to build hidden layers…it’s just not practical. Instead, on the 14 degree curves I have, which a real passenger train would take at yard limits speeds, I can slam my trains through with no more regard to clearances and drainage than my NMRA gauge commends to me. Similarly, when I purchase a Woodland Scenics rock or concrete tunnel portal, I know it will work, provided I am mindful of overhang on curves, and of high stacks, booms, or the odd pantograph in my fleet. Dwarf turnout throws? They have to fit where Peco puts the hole unless I am prepared to modify the throwbar…which I have done once or twice, but don’t particularly enjoy doing.
This topic is interesting to me. I agree that more could be done, and that the prototype civil engineering information can be extremely interesting even to someone such as myself with a non technical background. The civil engineering element is just one more aspect of realism, a goal which all of us share to one degree or another, and the realistic modeling of the railroad’s physical plant does not need to stop with accurate rolling stock.
I have been pondering this same topic recently after re-reading part of Linn Westcott’s benchwork book and noting his comment that in the real world, about 80% of the surrounding territory and scenic features are below track level. Yet on most layouts, there is only the thickness of cork roadbed below track level. That is why he advocated open grid layouts rather than plywood table tops.
We would benefit from more information about HOW to do it in MR and the other magazines. The NMRA Magazine has had a few things in recent years about infrastructure. And the C&NW Historical Society has published several volumes of materials from their archives about civil engineering issues: bridges, slope of subroadbed, culverts, and so on. I know the similar PRR group has done similar things.
I have several books on bridge engineering, some of which are too technical for me to really understand. I do see however that many model bridges include aspects which are just about impossible from an engineering standpoint and that with little more effort we modelers could get more of this stuff “right” – if we had access to the information, and if it was translated into terms we could readily grasp and convert to modeling techniques.
One of the prizes in my rail library is Elements of Railroad Engineering (5th edition, 1937) by William Raymond, revised by Riggs and Sadler. This is for all practical purposes a college lev
I model as much of this kind of thing as practical - cuts, fills, ditches, specific bridge abutments and tunnel portals, variations in ballast types and contours, etc. I mostly base such modeling on photos.
This scene has little vertical relief, but the roadbed is on a fill, and it has a stepped profile like the prototype. I added appropriate drainage features, including culverts under the dirt road.
Here’s a similar prototype location to the above. Note the step in the ballast and roadbed.
This culvert was copied from WP prototypes and cast in plaster from a homemade mold. The dark ballast emulates WP practice from the era and location modeled. Note the variation in shape, texture and color between the railroad fill and the natural slopes around it.
These bridge abutments were scratchbuilt from styrene sheet, again to match prototype photos. The timber retaining walls were also based on photos. Close attention was paid to ditches and provisions for drainage.
This branchline fill shows larger material at the bottom to guard against erosion, topped by finer material, including compacted cinders near the top, and the final layer of current ballast. A ditch provides for drainage at the base of the cut. The wood trestle and its abutments were built from prototype photos. This track is intended to look less heavily built and maintained compared to the mainline
I spend lots of time doing exactly what you are suggesting., I have built turntables, bridges, stations etc. based off of plans or photos of the real thing. I use a proto-lance approach in that I am mixing up various prototypes that never existed but most things on my layout are models of real locations or equipment.
I get my info from a variety of sources:
SP standards books: For the SP there are set of blueprint books called the SP standards books… From these books I have built water tanks, trestles and stock pens. I have also used them to determine the slope angle (similar to your photos) of ballast, the distance from centerline for signal placement etc…
Yosemite Valley reference CDS and books: Jack Burgess has put together a tremendous collection of drawings and diagrams detailing many of the YV structures and right of way items. I have used his drawings cd to build bridges, tunnel portals, buildings and turntables.
There are lots of other resources including old MR articles, Gazette articles, online Yahoo groups etc. where you can glean information about your prototype. I
Exactly, my specs are based on something that has a chance at actually looking like a Class I railroad, still very selectively compressed.
I like long trains, but still run shorter trains than were common in the era I model. But rather than settle for 20 cars to simulate 70-100, I can get in the 40-50 range easily - much more convincing.
And, in my chosen era, rolling stock was still generally shorter, helping with the illusion.
We all are going to make the compromises we need to make, but it seems l
From my past viewing of elevated curves on a club layout the engines and cars very slightly leaned going into the curve. Looking at the road bed it was very hard to see the roadbed had cardboard raisers under one side.
I ask what they used and was told they used thin layered cardboard.
Guy,The photo of the 9 spot fooled me…I had to look closely to ensure it was a model and not a period photo. [bow]
Just like in real life, you may not notice it looking at the track alone, but you will notice the rolling stock tilted at a slight angle.
In his Trackwork Handbook, Paul Mallery was neutral on the subject of super elevation and suggested care in not over doing it.
And of all the various details of railroad civil engineering, I would say it is the one we can skip on our layouts with little or no negitive effect.
Most important in my mind is the broadest possible curves and proper easements.
That combined with a properly elevated roadbed gives the necessary “smoothness” of a mainline railroad for a realistic appearence.
I find it very interesting the number of modelers who insist on highly accurate rolling stock models, and then, in the case of passenger cars for example, will settle for those cars being coupled too far apart so they can “lurch” around what are effectively toy train curves.
That ruins the effect for me.
I would rather have a selectively compressed 75’ car, with working touching diaphragms, close coupled, gently gliding through sweeping curves just like all the real life trains I have observed…but that’s just me.
Remember, my 36" radius curves would only be found in the coach yard on a Class I railroad, and 24" curves would derail most passenger cars…so I prefer the idea of compromise from both ends to get closer to the real thing.
The original NMRA data sheets given to new members back in the 60’s and 70’s included lots of this kind of information…still have mine, joined in 1968.
