N-Scale Vignette-Style 1955-1959 Tehachapi Layout

[jagged ben]

Neat thread, I don't think I was following this board when it started.
I've never seen a picture of Tunnel 1/2!   Do you know when it was taken?

[mark.hinds]

Neat thread, I don't think I was following this board when it started.
I've never seen a picture of Tunnel 1/2!   Do you know when it was taken?

No, but it might have been when they were daylighting it, based on the earth-moving going on.  If you want a copy of the original, PM me an email address.  MH

[Hamaker]

Are you talking about the tunnel above (east)  Bealville that was destroyed in the 50s earthquake ?  If so, I've never heard it referred to as "Tunnel 1/2" !

[mark.hinds]

Are you talking about the tunnel above (east)  Bealville that was destroyed in the 50s earthquake ?  If so, I've never heard it referred to as "Tunnel 1/2" !

No; note the following:



MH

[Cajonpassfan]

Finished another set of modified Intermountain F7s.  Mods involve lowering the shell to put the roofline at the correct 14' height, lowering the fuel tank assembly, and close-coupling the A and B units to the correct 3'. .....



Next up is to make several hand-laid turnouts so I can experiment with ME code 55 in scene 2 and the helix. 

MH

Mark, I like the closely coupled look. What did you use for couplers?
Otto K.

[mark.hinds]

Mark, I like the closely coupled look. What did you use for couplers?
Otto K.

There was a guy on another Forum who used HOn3 couplers from "Rail Line"; part number #116.  They are a soft-ish plastic, and you cut the shaft to the desired length, and drill a mounting hole.  I modified his design by putting a Micro Trains spring on the mounting screw, as you can't torque it down for obvious reasons.  I also carved off the top portion of the coupler to get the look I wanted for N-scale; note how the side-view image of the couplers looks flat on top.  The close-coupling couplers can be substituted for the standard Micro Trains couplers on the Intermountain F-units, at any time desired.  So, if I want 2 A-units back-to-back, I can switch them out appropriately.  BTW, these can't be uncoupled during an operating session, so are most appropriate for multi-unit diesel sets, such as 1950s-era F-units, which the prototype operated in sets. 

MH

[Ed Kapuscinski]

Mark, I feel so bad, like I've abandoned you.

This should help with the grout: http://conrail1285.com/n-scale-ballast-using-sanded-grout/

[Cajonpassfan]

Mark, thank you. Interesting.
Otto

[Hamaker]

No; note the following:



MH

Oh....okay....west of Caliente.  I never saw that one and my father never spoke of it.

[mark.hinds]

As stated previously, I have decided to experiment with code 55 in Scene 2 and the Helix.  This should be relatively little work, and would allow me to test reliability without ripping up all of Scene 1.  If the track and turnouts (and "standard" low profile MT wheel flanges) work reliably, including reliably with automatic coupling / uncoupling, I can then later redo Scene 1.  Also, if this works, resulting in me going with ME code 55 for the visible portion of the layout, I will be disposing of a *lot* of stashed unused Atlas code 55 flex; anyone interested? 

I will be using ME code 55 for this experiment, as all-in-all, I am more comfortable with it than with Atlas.  Although Atlas looks marginally better (neater ties and thinner rail head), ME handles just like my current Shinohara code 70.  I will be drilling small track nail holes in the flex to allow use of the track-nail technique I currently use, borrowed from the MR Clinchfield book.  (I have already successfully drilled both ME and Atlas code 55 flex).  After the ballast glue dries, you cut off the heads of the track nails, and smear a bit of the tie paint color on each hole with a finger, to hide any residual indication of the nail's location. 

The first step in this experiment is to make 3 hand-laid turnouts using ME code 55 rail.  (The one I made previously used Atlas code 55 rail).  I have already obtained a test consignment of ME code 55 flex.  I will be using a modified Proto87 N-scale printout for the turnout, instead of the Fast Tracks printout used previously.  The mod involves overwriting the printed curved stock rail line with a smooth curve in red pencil.  Although this gets rid of the subtle minor kinks which are supposedly more prototypical, IMHO the visual difference is minimal, and I prefer the increased reliability of the smooth curve, as in Peco turnouts.  My point rails will be hinged with rail joiners at the frog end, and soldered to the throw bar with soldered side reinforcement at the point end.  This should alleviate the solid parallelogram issue.  I don't think I will have electrical conductivity issues, as my 30-year-old Shinohara turnouts use exactly the same construction (except for a continuous rail side reinforcement across the throw bar at the points, whereas my brass rail side reinforcement piece will be electrically gapped in the center of the throw bar). 

MH

EDIT:  BTW, I was planning to reduce my mainline tangent double track spacing for the Bakersfield (Scene 1) and Edison (Scene 2) scenes from the current 1-1/4" to 1-1/8", which equates to about 15'.  Mainline curved double track spacing will be reduced from the current 1-3/8" to 1-1/4".  Comments on either prototypical or reliability issues?

[Cajonpassfan]

Mark, thank you. Interesting.
Otto

For this polite response I got a down vote? What?
Otto

[mark.hinds]

For this polite response I got a down vote? What?
Otto

Not from me, you didn't.  I appreciated both the question (at least someone is interested in close-coupling), and the thank you.  MH

[Spades]

Not from me, you didn't.  I appreciated both the question (at least someone is interested in close-coupling), and the thank you.  MH

It looks photo shopped but I love the raccoon .

[Cajonpassfan]

Not from me, you didn't.  I appreciated both the question (at least someone is interested in close-coupling), and the thank you.  MH

Thanks Mark, I knew it wasn't you. Just makes one wonder; my original inquiry got zapped too
Prototype spacing of multiple units (and cars) is one of my favorite peeves, and your 3' between F units is pretty much right on.
On to doing some modeling
Otto
PS: love the raccoon too...

[Carolina Northern]

Can't have that. Gave you a couple of up's.