N Scale Hi Rail - Retro Hollow Core Door Layout

[DKS]

By some mystery, Bachmann was under the delusion that the cab roof should be black.

Recently came cross this. Maybe Bachmann wasn't delusional?

[wm3798]

That photo has been the subject of debate in WM circles forever.  It's from the Chessie era, and they never washed anything.  The factory-delivered GP40s had red roofs on the cabs.  That's where my inspiration is.  (Bachmann also had the whole face of the cab roof painted black, so even if it's dirty, that would be red)
Lee

[Mark5]

Very artfully applied grime on that cab roof! (3795)

Other photos of the same unit do show red though.

[wm3798]

Those first generation Bachmann units didn't always look "right", but they ran!

In their defense, WM upside down is still WM, although the font looks funny.  To someone at the factory, who's never seen a WM diesel, and may not be used to the Roman alphabet, it might not be obvious which way it should be.

The lettering on the rear of the long hood is actually correctly applied...  Just a little hit or miss on the Quality Control... one of Bachmann's endearing qualities!

[wm3798]

Sometimes you have to abandon principle for functionality.  As much as I loved the Retro look of these old short radius turnouts, one is vintage Arnold, the other a Trix, they just didn't work very well, especially with my old steam.  Fortunately, slightly more modern Peco shorties have roughly the same geometry.  And they let the Force flow through my 0-8-0 a lot better.

With a little ballast replaced I can finally move toward finishing the scenery behind this.

Lee

[Dave V]

I've always believed that smooth operation should trump every other consideration when it comes to trackwork. You made the right decision! And, FWIW, with the short radius, those Pecos looks every bit as retro as what they replaced.

[Van Horne]

I have started a new 42" X 84" layout, just to have a space to run trains. I have gone to Peco Code 55 for the same reason. I don't like the tie spacing, but operation is bulletproof.

Dave

[Ed Kapuscinski]

Good call. Dr Hotballz' Colorado Midland speaks to how good that stuff can look with the proper care.

[Dave V]

Good call. Dr Hotballz' Colorado Midland speaks to how good that stuff can look with the proper care.

Well... Mine's the code 55 stuff versus the code 80.

[peteski]

Well... Mine's the code 55 stuff versus the code 80.

Peco track?  Isn't the tie spacing identical for both rail sizes?  C55 track itself will look better than C80, but not because it has more accurate track spacing.

[Dave V]

Peco track?  Isn't the tie spacing identical for both rail sizes?  C55 track itself will look better than C80, but not because it has more accurate track spacing.

It is, and I know that. Just saying that comparing my track to Lee’s track, it will look different because of the rail height. In Lee’s case, the extra rail height is desirable for the retro look.

[wm3798]

As well as those retro flanges!

[nkalanaga]

Lee:  Anything in N scale will run on Peco code 55, because there are no spikes on the inside.  That's the main reason they used the double-base design - to allow ancient (and modern British/European) pizza cutters to run on the visually smaller rail.

[wm3798]

The short radius turnouts are not offered in c55.  Plus I like the Retro look of the c80.  It's part of the aesthetic!!  Just like the lychen on the hillside!
Lee

[CRL]

The short radius turnouts are not offered in c55.  Plus I like the Retro look of the c80.  It's part of the aesthetic!!  Just like the lychen on the hillside!
Lee

True statement, but the Peco code 55 will still couple perfectly with the Peco code 80 because the total rail height including the buried rail on the code 55 is the same as the code 80. Therefore, you could use a shorty turnout on your code 55 layout. Just bury the excess rail in additional ballast/dirt to disguise it. Maybe blacken the lower rail web with paint also.