Search results

I love the idea. Purposely mismatching the color for the renumbering patch is the easy part, and lends just as much verisimilitude as the blotchy "UNION PACIFIC".

Those (particularly the Armstrong set) are biased toward operation-oriented layout design, which is not usually the way garden railroads are built.

The system was taken out of service in the 60s. I haven't seen many photos of the antennas on PC units, but I know they existed. I've even seen one shot of a GP7 or 9 from the early 80s, in Conrail patches but still with the trainphone. Don't know if the engine was still running at that time...

In HOn3 with 18" radius, you'd be best off looking at HO standard gauge plans. Not surprising, since Rio Grande 2-8-2s were as large as small standard gauge power.

Didn't know they'd made another 4-4-0!

By "weaknesses", I meant that I liked all of those!

http://www.amherst-depot.com/nwkatohoscale.htm Kato themselves made the NW2 in HO, including in Burlington black, but that was back in 1994. BLI makes the SW7/late NW2 in HO; the SW7 came in Burlington black.

That's exactly it... they have some nice features, but the proportions ruin it. My weaknesses in the field of steam are Elescos, Vanderbilts, all-weather cabs, skyline casings and Scullins. As for diesels (this should get some responses from a different set)... Again, too many preferences to...

You asked for pictures, you got 'em! Paraguayan uglies: http://www.internationalsteam.co.uk/trains/para04.htm Uruguayan: http://www.internationalsteam.co.uk/trains/urug06.htm The Russian 2-10-0 I was referring to, the L class: http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=132937 SP AC-9...

You'll find that most highly experimental engines from anywhere draw bad reactions. It's interesting just how different we are. I count J3s, S1s, L4s and A2s all among the most attractive. This I can agree on. The worst offenders on this aren't American; the loading gauge in steam days wasn't...

Links don't work...

Call me shallow, but aesthetics is a big part of the appeal of railroads and modelling. I've studied my own reactions to locomotives particularly - almost have it down to a science. Unfortunately, that means that I can't summarize them. It would take a small book. Maybe I'll post some of that...

In North America, steam switchers were typically 0-6-0 and 0-8-0 (and 0-4-0 in earlier times) tender engines. In Britain and Europe, the same wheel arrangements, but tank engines. In most of the rest of the world...? The only other country I can think of to have 0-x-0 tender engines...

Most 6-axle diesels will run on 11"; I'm pretty sure all the Katos will. Apart from looks, of course, the issue is keeping rolling stock coupled. On these curves, you may need long-shank couplers on the engines.

Note that this plan has 15" curves in HO. If you make it half the size, you'll have 7.5" curves, as shown already. Note that 101 Track Plans says you can fit an N layout in half the dimensions of HO. You can't. N is 55% of HO.

With those radii, it looks like a passing/runaround track should be possible, no? Even one with a turnout in the middle. There are more options than a loop with one spur.

"Degree radius" is an erroneous term. Degrees refer to how much of a 360-degree circle the piece is; radius to how large of a circle you can make. (Let's stick to model terminology here; prototype terms would be confusing.)

A lot of people find Atlas Snap-Switches unreliable. Custom-Line are better.

Not quite the same (N is 1/160, 1/16" to the foot is 1/192), but close enough that N scale techniques should probably work. Oh, and welcome!

For passenger cars, you'll want 30" radius, not diameter. Those will certainly fit in the corners. That assumes you're going all the way around all four walls, no gap. If there have to be turnback curves, you can just about forget about a passenger-oriented HO layout in this space. How do you...