Overseer
Western Thunderer
Yes, I know the feeling but sometimes it is just easier.
Mickoo's American Modelling Empire
- Thread starter mickoo
- Start date
mickoo
Western Thunderer
Yeah, but where do you stop....
Brian Daniels
Western Thunderer
All this talk of 6,000hp loco's I did see some UP ones a few years back. Here is UP 8557 on 14-03-03 smoking it up pulling away from Tuscola (forgotten where it was but it's south of Chicago!)
Last edited:
Brian Daniels
Western Thunderer
Here is a CP 6,00hp job which they were brave enough to let it out on it's own. 04-07-02
Brian Daniels
Western Thunderer
Love to go again for the week trainspotting, oops I mean railfanning
before the Chicago show. Trouble is I'd buy something and I don't need it!!!
before the Chicago show. Trouble is I'd buy something and I don't need it!!!
JasonD
Western Thunderer
What? We all need pancakes, maple syrup, crispy rashers, egg over light on top and regular top-up cawfee to start a good day... oh, you mean great models at great prices!Love to go again for the week trainspotting, oops I mean railfanning
Meeting a mate at Westbury Stn the other month and, bless 'em, they ran a 66 and 70 past me light, had to smooth those stand-up hairs on the back of my neck.
Lancastrian
Western Thunderer
Oh I do miss a good Denny's breakfast!
Ian
Ian
Pugsley
Western Thunderer
I see what you mean, it's a nice model, just lacking a bit of refinement. I'll have to keep an eye on ebay!
mickoo
Western Thunderer
Things move along and after some contemplation I've realised US-O gauge just was not going to meet my needs, it's to small to get the uber detail I crave and it's too big to play trains, I respect those that do in limited spaces but it's not for me.
I'm also head bangingly frustraited at a; the cost of O for what you get (which in O is frankly....
) and b; the near total lack of anything modern. I suspect the latter is more to do with Railroad copyrighting their logos than anything else, something I came up against when developing for trainsim a decade and a half ago; and to a certain extent in flight sim nearly two decades ago.
I'll still keep some hard core O gauge stuff but most will go over time and there's an awful lot of it.
Having made that decision it was time to find an alternative, both Ho and N are a consideration and I already had acquired some US Ho stock here and there by various means so all I needed was some track, a few switches and go play with it to see how it scaled and fitted in the available space.
The layout idea is a work in progress but one thing I did want are some bridges, cue 3D printer fanfair music, it's a simple affair, standard 60' plate bridge though I've got the depth wrong which is for an 80' which I'm also messing with, but as a proof of concept it'll do for now. It's been uprated by having concrete segments added on top with side walls to allow for ballasted track, as opposed to it's original lumber bed with rail directly fixed to it.
There are similar timber ones with an end to end lumber road bed and large side boards to also hold back the ballast, that'll go in the printer tomorrow between other jobs.
It's a simple affair desinged for a water level route, aka Columbia River type scenario as oposed to a towering trestle in the Cascades, though it could be used for that as well but lots of those are in the 80' It consists of two plate beams onto wich pegs are printed on top, these plug into the concrete sections (not sure how that'll work with the full lumber road bed) and there are six per section.
Running the full length of the concrete sections are holes for 2 mm nickel silver bar, this keeps them reasonably straight whilst the adhesive sets and bonds the lot together. As can be seen the bases of the concrete sections have some warping from being printed flat to save time, mind, angling them may impart some twisting in other planes but future prints will use a solid support structure with internal bracing to try and reduce that. I could actually print all the sections in one go, or groups (two, three or four) but these bigger groups will just push the warping further out.
On top is a thin Plasticard deck onto which the track goes and then the ballast last.
I'll draw up some simple bases, each will lock into each deck section and give a reasonably strong complete unit I hope.
I'm also head bangingly frustraited at a; the cost of O for what you get (which in O is frankly....
) and b; the near total lack of anything modern. I suspect the latter is more to do with Railroad copyrighting their logos than anything else, something I came up against when developing for trainsim a decade and a half ago; and to a certain extent in flight sim nearly two decades ago.I'll still keep some hard core O gauge stuff but most will go over time and there's an awful lot of it.
Having made that decision it was time to find an alternative, both Ho and N are a consideration and I already had acquired some US Ho stock here and there by various means so all I needed was some track, a few switches and go play with it to see how it scaled and fitted in the available space.
The layout idea is a work in progress but one thing I did want are some bridges, cue 3D printer fanfair music, it's a simple affair, standard 60' plate bridge though I've got the depth wrong which is for an 80' which I'm also messing with, but as a proof of concept it'll do for now. It's been uprated by having concrete segments added on top with side walls to allow for ballasted track, as opposed to it's original lumber bed with rail directly fixed to it.
There are similar timber ones with an end to end lumber road bed and large side boards to also hold back the ballast, that'll go in the printer tomorrow between other jobs.
It's a simple affair desinged for a water level route, aka Columbia River type scenario as oposed to a towering trestle in the Cascades, though it could be used for that as well but lots of those are in the 80' It consists of two plate beams onto wich pegs are printed on top, these plug into the concrete sections (not sure how that'll work with the full lumber road bed) and there are six per section.
Running the full length of the concrete sections are holes for 2 mm nickel silver bar, this keeps them reasonably straight whilst the adhesive sets and bonds the lot together. As can be seen the bases of the concrete sections have some warping from being printed flat to save time, mind, angling them may impart some twisting in other planes but future prints will use a solid support structure with internal bracing to try and reduce that. I could actually print all the sections in one go, or groups (two, three or four) but these bigger groups will just push the warping further out.
On top is a thin Plasticard deck onto which the track goes and then the ballast last.
I'll draw up some simple bases, each will lock into each deck section and give a reasonably strong complete unit I hope.
mickoo
Western Thunderer
Moving onward and a couple of observations/changes along the way.
The original 60' was right at the limits of the printer bed and created a bit of a bevel to the ends of the side plates, not quite sure why though as I thought the LED display on these modern printers was pretty much vertical across the whole bed. Anyway the bevel was toward the inside so the outer edges actually but up really tight, it's a good thing to have but it shouldn't be there. I also couldn't get the full five section concrete unit in, again odd as it's the same length as the side plates. Rather than fight it I decided to just go smaller.
To that end I've opted to drop down to 50' and get a complete five section concrete sub structure in one hit, I did reduce the sections from 12' long to 10' long to even them out. I also added a single doubler plate to the base flange, it's barely noticeable but it is noticeable if you get my drift.
I've also worked up the water pier unit and the land side buttress, but forgot to add the bearing pads on that module. At this point the second observation came around, 3D printing is totally the wrong medium for objects like this, however it is fast and near instant results....faster than scratch building from other materials.
From the side it's fairly obvious how much better the combined concrete section deck is.
I've only printed three water piers for four spans, and there again was another observation, even in Ho it takes up quite a lot of real estate. The second 50' span is in the printer, another observation, with zero failures so far it's still chewing through a lot of resin, what you're saving in time you're paying for in materials.
Inside there's no cross bracing or attempt to clean up the support side of the beams, you can barely see under here so why bother. What I did do though was to design in some slots, so that if the beams do begin to warp I can solder up 1 mm bar section to make cross braces; these'll drop in the T slots and hold the two sides the same distance apart. Or, just bend some 1 mm wire to fit in one leg of the T slot and then cross to the other side and do likewise. You'll have to excuse the white stains, it's dried IPA after cleaning from rubbing down.
The piers are designed as two parts, the water pier and the upper retaining 'plug-tower', it has a slot in the top to grab the ends of the concrete deck and with corresponding holes, accept the 2 mm bracing rod. So far there hasn't been any tendency for the middle to warp, bow or sag so the 2 mm bar may not be necessary through the full length.
I'm also dubious that it'd have any effect at countering and warping forces if I'm honest. I will however still use it to pass through the two deck sections and tower plug to bind them all together and line everything up.
The idea of the separate towers is two fold, it makes it smaller to print (much faster) and will allow the piers to be set into the layout and then the whole bridge lifted out to add the scenery and water. The towers drop into a well in the pier and there's three holes in the bottom, for one good reason.
I use Devcon 5 minute epoxy and it's quite thick, quite often with blind holes the adhesive will form a good seal around the two parts and create a bubble at the base, or worse yet, squish the adhesive out and all around your nicely detailed and painted pier and bearing pads. The holes should allow excess adhesive and any trapped air free passage out of the cavity and ensure the tower drops in nice an level.
The separate parts also allow me to simply change the pier on another bridge if I choose to and not have the added expense of different towers etc.
The final shot is toy train play mode, the view you'd see if you were at water level as the train passes, the type of bridge and pier is aimed more at a water level route like Columbia River as opposed to something in the Cascades or Feather River, however, just by changing the pier you can opt for either type of scenery though from what I have seen, the mountain routes tend to almost certainly favour wooden decks; probably as they're easier to fit and shift the raw materials into poor access locations.
I've not yet decided on the play set scenery as yet, two track roundy roundy might loose it's appeal as will endless industrial shunting, so something that mixes both, but not a massive township, just something very local and scenic.
The original 60' was right at the limits of the printer bed and created a bit of a bevel to the ends of the side plates, not quite sure why though as I thought the LED display on these modern printers was pretty much vertical across the whole bed. Anyway the bevel was toward the inside so the outer edges actually but up really tight, it's a good thing to have but it shouldn't be there. I also couldn't get the full five section concrete unit in, again odd as it's the same length as the side plates. Rather than fight it I decided to just go smaller.
To that end I've opted to drop down to 50' and get a complete five section concrete sub structure in one hit, I did reduce the sections from 12' long to 10' long to even them out. I also added a single doubler plate to the base flange, it's barely noticeable but it is noticeable if you get my drift.
I've also worked up the water pier unit and the land side buttress, but forgot to add the bearing pads on that module. At this point the second observation came around, 3D printing is totally the wrong medium for objects like this, however it is fast and near instant results....faster than scratch building from other materials.
From the side it's fairly obvious how much better the combined concrete section deck is.
I've only printed three water piers for four spans, and there again was another observation, even in Ho it takes up quite a lot of real estate. The second 50' span is in the printer, another observation, with zero failures so far it's still chewing through a lot of resin, what you're saving in time you're paying for in materials.
Inside there's no cross bracing or attempt to clean up the support side of the beams, you can barely see under here so why bother. What I did do though was to design in some slots, so that if the beams do begin to warp I can solder up 1 mm bar section to make cross braces; these'll drop in the T slots and hold the two sides the same distance apart. Or, just bend some 1 mm wire to fit in one leg of the T slot and then cross to the other side and do likewise. You'll have to excuse the white stains, it's dried IPA after cleaning from rubbing down.
The piers are designed as two parts, the water pier and the upper retaining 'plug-tower', it has a slot in the top to grab the ends of the concrete deck and with corresponding holes, accept the 2 mm bracing rod. So far there hasn't been any tendency for the middle to warp, bow or sag so the 2 mm bar may not be necessary through the full length.
I'm also dubious that it'd have any effect at countering and warping forces if I'm honest. I will however still use it to pass through the two deck sections and tower plug to bind them all together and line everything up.
The idea of the separate towers is two fold, it makes it smaller to print (much faster) and will allow the piers to be set into the layout and then the whole bridge lifted out to add the scenery and water. The towers drop into a well in the pier and there's three holes in the bottom, for one good reason.
I use Devcon 5 minute epoxy and it's quite thick, quite often with blind holes the adhesive will form a good seal around the two parts and create a bubble at the base, or worse yet, squish the adhesive out and all around your nicely detailed and painted pier and bearing pads. The holes should allow excess adhesive and any trapped air free passage out of the cavity and ensure the tower drops in nice an level.
The separate parts also allow me to simply change the pier on another bridge if I choose to and not have the added expense of different towers etc.
The final shot is toy train play mode, the view you'd see if you were at water level as the train passes, the type of bridge and pier is aimed more at a water level route like Columbia River as opposed to something in the Cascades or Feather River, however, just by changing the pier you can opt for either type of scenery though from what I have seen, the mountain routes tend to almost certainly favour wooden decks; probably as they're easier to fit and shift the raw materials into poor access locations.
I've not yet decided on the play set scenery as yet, two track roundy roundy might loose it's appeal as will endless industrial shunting, so something that mixes both, but not a massive township, just something very local and scenic.
richard carr
Western Thunderer
That looks great Mick, so what period is your HO layout going to be ?
Richard
Richard
Jordan
Mid-Western Thunderer
Clarence3815
Western Thunderer
Still thinking of Swiss HoM perhaps?
mickoo
Western Thunderer
Cheers,
It'll be modern era, by that I mean double stacks and high cubes onward, mind they came in around the 70-80's but I'm looking more this century and close to what I've seen on vacations to be honest. Stock will be predominately UP, BNSF, CN, maybe MRL and I might throw the odd CSX or NS units in the consist. Essentially you're looking at GEVO's, SD70's, GP38, 40, 60 and gen sets really.
Scenery wise it's going to be out West somewhere so you're eliminating most of NS and CSX countryside and thus that sort of stock really.
mickoo
Western Thunderer
Not at the moment, I'll see where this rabbit hole leads first
But like N scale, nothing is off the table.
mickoo
Western Thunderer
Update on the 3D bridge, I have to confess when I put it all together for the photos my first thought was unrepeatable on a public forum.
First off, it's actually quite big but boy is it impressive, even in HO; second the pier height, span depth and length plus overall length (four spans) just looked aesthetically right, to me anyway.
I changed the design of the land side pier and added a sloped back for one simple reason, it allowed me to print it flat on the build plate with that sloped edge as the build edge, the slope wasn't quite perfect for layer free surface but it did reduce the print time from five to three hours and remove any warping and bowing you get from printing blocky sections like this. The scenic faces were then sanded after printing and blown over with Tamiya filler primer, resulting is a perfectly good finish.
Four span model, this comes out at just about 2 feet long and to me looks the best for composition, it has presence but not over powering.
The three span looks okay but lacks some of the wow factor. I think five would be too many and it then runs the risk of over shadowing any other scenic features. Five span would need to be higher as well to recover some of the length/height visual ratio. Higher piers then intimate a navigable waterway so you'd need the centre span to be wider, probably 80' and that exceeds the print bed for printing as single piece spans.
Some closer and different angles, I need to sort some sort of ballast and to my mind there should be drainage, typically these would be pipes through the concrete section that protrude a short distance to clear the run off from the structure, they'd probably exit on that sloped section on the underside.
I've just noticed the joint between span four and five (far right) isn't quite so, just needs a tweak to line it up better. Eagle eyed folk will notice that the concrete sections curl up ever so slightly at the end of each span, I could have sanded the base back to counter that, but that fell under the 'lifes to short to care anorak'.
In hindsight (if it really niggles me) I could add a feature here to mask that in the form of a water pipe or power cable conduit on cantalever supports from one bank to the other. I may even add that anyway as a scenery feature.
The other reason for the big camera photos is the engine, I like SD70ACe's to a worrying degree. I've got the superb OMI O gauge version but the price tag is eye water frightening, however, this Athearn Genesis model pitched up on Ebay last week and was mine for the princely sum of £118.
I have to say it's unbelievably good and may even out detail the OMI model or certainly come close. Athearn Genesis are not even the top models, that goes to Scaletrains and their Rivet counter series so it'll be exciting to see how good they really are, especially as Athearn Genesis already exceeds what I wanted to get from HO.
First off, it's actually quite big but boy is it impressive, even in HO; second the pier height, span depth and length plus overall length (four spans) just looked aesthetically right, to me anyway.
I changed the design of the land side pier and added a sloped back for one simple reason, it allowed me to print it flat on the build plate with that sloped edge as the build edge, the slope wasn't quite perfect for layer free surface but it did reduce the print time from five to three hours and remove any warping and bowing you get from printing blocky sections like this. The scenic faces were then sanded after printing and blown over with Tamiya filler primer, resulting is a perfectly good finish.
Four span model, this comes out at just about 2 feet long and to me looks the best for composition, it has presence but not over powering.
The three span looks okay but lacks some of the wow factor. I think five would be too many and it then runs the risk of over shadowing any other scenic features. Five span would need to be higher as well to recover some of the length/height visual ratio. Higher piers then intimate a navigable waterway so you'd need the centre span to be wider, probably 80' and that exceeds the print bed for printing as single piece spans.
Some closer and different angles, I need to sort some sort of ballast and to my mind there should be drainage, typically these would be pipes through the concrete section that protrude a short distance to clear the run off from the structure, they'd probably exit on that sloped section on the underside.
I've just noticed the joint between span four and five (far right) isn't quite so, just needs a tweak to line it up better. Eagle eyed folk will notice that the concrete sections curl up ever so slightly at the end of each span, I could have sanded the base back to counter that, but that fell under the 'lifes to short to care anorak'.
In hindsight (if it really niggles me) I could add a feature here to mask that in the form of a water pipe or power cable conduit on cantalever supports from one bank to the other. I may even add that anyway as a scenery feature.
The other reason for the big camera photos is the engine, I like SD70ACe's to a worrying degree. I've got the superb OMI O gauge version but the price tag is eye water frightening, however, this Athearn Genesis model pitched up on Ebay last week and was mine for the princely sum of £118.
I have to say it's unbelievably good and may even out detail the OMI model or certainly come close. Athearn Genesis are not even the top models, that goes to Scaletrains and their Rivet counter series so it'll be exciting to see how good they really are, especially as Athearn Genesis already exceeds what I wanted to get from HO.
Last edited:
garethashenden
Western Thunderer
As you probably know, the US market is very HO centric, with N following an O a distant third. The majority of the O market is still 3 rail with its associated lack of detail and chunkiness. HO has enough players that there is competition and detail is one way manufacturers differentiate themselves. N almost has enough manufacturers, but aside form the GG1 there are no more than two manufacturers of any locomotive and mostly you're stuck with whoever happens to make the one you want.
I don't remember where I heard this, but someone described the choice of scales in this manner: If you want to model a boxcar, choose O. If you want to model a freight train, choose HO. If you want to model a railroad, choose N. I'm not trying to push you in any particular direction. I've spent 25 years in American N, a decade in P4, and I dabbled briefly in P48 and think that that summary is broadly accurate.
I think that bridge is excellent and I look forward to seeing whatever you create.
I don't remember where I heard this, but someone described the choice of scales in this manner: If you want to model a boxcar, choose O. If you want to model a freight train, choose HO. If you want to model a railroad, choose N. I'm not trying to push you in any particular direction. I've spent 25 years in American N, a decade in P4, and I dabbled briefly in P48 and think that that summary is broadly accurate.
I think that bridge is excellent and I look forward to seeing whatever you create.
mickoo
Western Thunderer
I have to agree with this and said pretty much the same to a friend privately just a few days ago.
Super detailed models are the area of O, sadly not that easy to accomplish in O as the base model you're working from is utter garbage on the whole, playing trains is the remit of HO and modelling grand scenic vistas is the remit of N.
I'd love to stay in O and probably will with a small collection of the best models I have acquired, but, for my space it has no play factor and to be honest, if I had more space I'd struggle to build something scenery wise to fill it.
N still has a foothold in my mind, obviously detail is less but longer trains in even more grandiose scenery is possible.