I am currently in the process of researching my prototype (the C&O’s Brooke Avenue Yard in Norfolk, Virginia). As I live in Sri Lanka and am modeling a railroad in Norfolk, the Internet is invaluable to me. I have learned several things during the course of the past couple months that may help you as well.
1. Depending on your prototype, you may discover a wealth of information via a simple Google search. The D&RGW comes to mind, if you’re researching this prototype then you will be literally overwhelmed with the amount of material available. (I’ve read somewhere that every mile of the D&RGW has been photographed from both directions – it’s probably not too great an exaggeration.)
I am currently modeling a small, remote yard of the C&O in Norfolk, VA. When I went online to find more information about this yard, I was surprised at the LACK of information, there was hardly anything available at all (sounds like you may be in a similar situation), so I’ve discovered other ways:
2. Joining a Yahoo Group dedicated to your prototype and/or geographic area is an excellent place to start. The nice thing about the Groups is you will meet many folks who are willing to share their information (on a given topic) with you. Simply join the group, introduce yourself and what you are trying to do and those who can help will eagerly do so. This has by far been the most productive and rewarding method of Internet research fo me.
I’m currently a member of:
ChesapeakeOhioRailway: a group dedicated to the entire C&O;
Tidewater_Rails: a group dedicated to railroads in the eastern Virginia (tidewater) region;
CON: a group dedicated to modeling the C&O in N scale;
N scale: a group dedicated to general modeling in N scale;
as well as several other groups devoted to general model railroading.
The first two groups on my list have proven invaluable for introducing me to some folks who know something about my prototype. The second two groups are useful for finding out what equipment is available in my particular modeling scale. The other groups are invaluable for information pertaining to the design, construction and operation of a model railroad.
3. Join a Historical Society (HS) of your prototype (or region if your concentrating on a small area) if available. If there are records available to aid in your research, the HS is certainly the first place to look. Many HS have web pages that you can view and get an idea of what is available. Most HS have staffs (often volunteers) that are willing to help answer your questions even if you are not a member. Joining the HS will help ensure that the HS has funding to complete its mission and continue to provide assistance to you and others as well as it often gets you a discount on any purchases (which can more than off-set the cost of joining). Many have publications/periodicals that you will also likely find enjoyable.
Once you’ve located a promising HS, send them an email, introducing yourself and describing your project; you will likely get a response pointing you in the correct direction. I joined the C&O HS and have been working with Mac Beard (a nicer man you’re not likely to ever meet). He has provided invaluable assistance to me, even going so far as shipping me 4 drawings of the Brooke Ave Yard, before receiving my payment. (I’m anxiously awaiting their arrival to finalize my track plan.)
4. Search for and purchase books that may help you in your research. There are many railroad books available, far more than I’d ever care to search through. However, if you ask for recommendations from the groups and/or historical society, you will likely get a very nice short list of the essentials, which you will likely want to include in your library for easy/ready reference.
I was introduced to a book titled “Tidewater Triangle” by Robert J. Yanosey through the Tidewater_Rails group. I located a second hand copy (it’s out of print) via Amazon.com and it was in my lap about two weeks later. What a great book. Only two pages devoted to Brooke Ave Yard, however the photos and captions of all the other railroads that operated in southeastern Virginia during 1969/70 have provided immense enjoyment and I’ve learned a lot about railroading in this region. Also it provided me my first “color” glimpse of this yard.
5. The same for magazine articles. If you become aware of an article, it is usually quite easy to check for back issues via the internet and order them if available.
I was directed to the May 1999 issue of Mainline Modeler as it had several drawings and photos of the car floats used by the C&O to transfer freight cars (and switchers) between the main Terminal at Newport News, and the small yard at Norfolk. I ordered a copy of the magazine ($2.50 for the back issue + $3.50 international s/h); I was surprised when the issue arrived showing a $4.00 cover price and $6.00 in postage – essentially the company sent me the issue for the cost of postage. (A mistake I’m sure and I do feel some guilt – I promise to address this issue the next time I order a back issue from them.)
6. Libraries and Government Records/Archives. I’ve had limited success here; many of the collections are not digitally available making research via the Internet marginal at best. However, I have had the best success in the areas of images (photographs and maps). You need to search using different combinations of words, essentially trying to guess one of the “key words” used to describe the image. Proper names (i.e., the name of a town or railroad) seem to work the best. If something turns up, be sure to read the captions for possible clues as to other search criteria.
While looking through the records at the Virginia Library archives, I note that one photo indicated that the yard was called “Southgate Terminal” vice “Brooke Avenue”. A search on “southgate terminal” produced about a dozen more images. Similarly, it was also referred to as “Freemason Harbor”. Also, many of these archival search engines treat “C&O” differently than “C & O” (i.e., exact word search where even the “spaces” count), you must search on both to get all the results, also spelling out “Chesapeake” etc. is often worthwhile in these searches.
7. Searching for images on the Internet is frequently rewarding; however, be prepared for some inappropriate material (i.e., best to do in the privacy of your own home as you never know what will pop up on your screen).
I’ve located several good aerial photos and older maps with this type of search.
8. Lastly, GoogleEarth (and other similar things) is a wonderful (free) tool for viewing the terrain of your prototype (as it appears today, however, geological features usually don’t change that much).
It is still possible to see the location of the old piers and wharfs although all the yard buildings have either been demolished or turned into high class condos.
Hope this has been helpful.
Dave O.
Monday, June 25, 2007
Prototype or Freelance?
Prototype or freelance? I struggled with that very question for over 15 years!
I've always liked the idea of "modeling" a prototype as that is what "modeling" is (to me): copying something that exists (usually in a different scale). Also following the prototype is generally easier as most of the work has been done, you just have to pick the pieces that you want and copy them.
The problem was always that compromise referred to as "selective compression". It seemed that every time one invoked compression, something was lost, and it was never really possible to model the prototype as (usually) one never had the space. This led to other problems as to how to model the sources for all the traffic that we want our trains to haul -- where did it come from? Where was it going? Without these places being modeled i.e., "hidden" the model seemed inadequate.
Freelancing had the tremendous advantage of allowing one to model whatever one felt like, even pieces of different prototypes if desired. One could pick and locate the industries to fit the space; a huge benefit from a modeling point of view. If prototypical practices were followed a very "believable" model railroad would result. The problems with these is that they required a lot of work up front to ensure that the pike would operate like a real railroad and, (perhaps more importantly) they weren't immediately familiar to others; unlike a prototype where the mere mention of the name (SF, D&RGW, SP, etc.) creates a mental image of what is being modeled to most other model railroaders.
My dilemma was solved by:
1) A track plan submitted by Enzo on the Layout Design SIG Group, which included a Harbor with car transfer operations (thus eliminating the tracks to hidden staging -- the car floats take car of that); and
2) An article in MRP 2002 describing a yard that could be modeled in N scale in 32 sq. ft. with very little compression.
That’s the path that I'm on and I am excited about developing this concept into a physical reality.
Dave O.
I've always liked the idea of "modeling" a prototype as that is what "modeling" is (to me): copying something that exists (usually in a different scale). Also following the prototype is generally easier as most of the work has been done, you just have to pick the pieces that you want and copy them.
The problem was always that compromise referred to as "selective compression". It seemed that every time one invoked compression, something was lost, and it was never really possible to model the prototype as (usually) one never had the space. This led to other problems as to how to model the sources for all the traffic that we want our trains to haul -- where did it come from? Where was it going? Without these places being modeled i.e., "hidden" the model seemed inadequate.
Freelancing had the tremendous advantage of allowing one to model whatever one felt like, even pieces of different prototypes if desired. One could pick and locate the industries to fit the space; a huge benefit from a modeling point of view. If prototypical practices were followed a very "believable" model railroad would result. The problems with these is that they required a lot of work up front to ensure that the pike would operate like a real railroad and, (perhaps more importantly) they weren't immediately familiar to others; unlike a prototype where the mere mention of the name (SF, D&RGW, SP, etc.) creates a mental image of what is being modeled to most other model railroaders.
My dilemma was solved by:
1) A track plan submitted by Enzo on the Layout Design SIG Group, which included a Harbor with car transfer operations (thus eliminating the tracks to hidden staging -- the car floats take car of that); and
2) An article in MRP 2002 describing a yard that could be modeled in N scale in 32 sq. ft. with very little compression.
That’s the path that I'm on and I am excited about developing this concept into a physical reality.
Dave O.
Monday, June 11, 2007
Modeling Standards
As mentioned in earlier posts, I desire to model the Brooke Avenue Yard as accurately as possible in N scale (1:160); within the limits of reliable operation. With an operating model, it is impractical to model it to exactly 1:160 proportions. At that scale the 5 1/2” wide wheel of the prototype becomes 0.0344”, which is a bit larger than 1/32” including the flange! That is much too narrow for reliable operations and would be very difficult to construct and even more difficult to maintain on a model that is subject to movement (although there are a few brave souls who are attempting it).
Fortunately, there has been a lot of thought placed into just how much fidelity can be achieved without sacrificing reliable operations; provided careful attention to details and standards is adhered to during construction. These “fine scale” standards have been developed for American prototypes and are published by the National Model Railroad Association (NMRA) as S3.1 and S4.1. For all intents and purposes the “fine scale” standards give the impression of being true to scale and highly detailed and realistically weathered models using these standards are often difficult to identify as N scale and can look very prototypical in photographs.
It has been my experience that there are only a few “dead give aways” that a photo is of N scale equipment:
1. Track rails that are too tall: Realistic rail size in N scale is around code 40. Although code 55 rail is considered acceptable, anything larger looks disproportionate and ruins the illusion of realism. Code 40 rail scales to about 6 ½” tall which equates to something around 123# rail, which would have been typical for this yard.
2. Track flange ways that are too wide: Track designed for the normal standard N scale (oversized) wheels must include extra space between the rails and guard rails and switch points to allow the much too fat flanges to pass. One glance at this track work dispels any illusion of realism. Using the closer spacing of fine scale (due to the narrower flanges), the track work can look very prototypical.
3. Wheels that are too fat and flanges that are too big: Another obvious indicator of N scale equipment is the extremely wide wheels and oversized flanges, especially of the older equipment. To solve this problem and the two track-related problems above, special wheel sets must be used with specially constructed track. Note that this will eliminate any possibility of normal equipment running on your track and may prevent your equipment from running on normally constructed track.
4. Couplers: if the track and wheels look proportional, the next clue is the oversized couplers. Here a compromise must be accepted if one desires “operating” couplers (as I do). The best option currently available is to use Z scale body mounted couplers made by Micro Trains. These actually scale out quite close to 1:160, however, the smaller coupling faces require very smooth track to prevent inadvertent separation (usually due to vertical misalignment).
5. Missing details on track work. As a minimum I intend to model the joiner bars (metal plates used to join the 39’ rail sections together; spikes (used to hold the rails to the ties) and tie plates (metal plates between the rail and the tie used to protect the tie). All one really needs to do is look carefully at photos to see all the little details that go into constructing railroad tracks. Turnouts and crossings are another area where emphasis to details can result in very prototypical looking track.
With the decision to model using fine scale standards, I had to determine the best method for modeling these details. There are several companies that provide highly detailed parts such as spikes, joiner bars and tie plates and although not excessively pricey, the large number required even for a small yard does add up. This coupled with the overseas shipping to Sri Lanka (which can quickly double the cost of lower cost items), has made me consider “home grown” options. In fact, I’ve determined that I want to model using materials that are available in Sri Lanka to the greatest extent possible (as part of the modeling challenge). Thus my overseas purchases will be largely limited to:
1. Rail (Micro Engineering c 40);
2. Spikes (P87 Stores “scale spikes”);
3. Ties (wooden and PCB) as I do not have the equipment to produce these myself;
4. Wheel sets (North West Short Lines c50);
5. Rolling Stock (locomotives and freight); and
6. Special detail parts such as automobiles and figures.
I intend to model the majority of the structures using heavy card stock and plaster (styrene and strip wood is not available here). All ground cover will be locally produced.
All for now,
Dave O.
Fortunately, there has been a lot of thought placed into just how much fidelity can be achieved without sacrificing reliable operations; provided careful attention to details and standards is adhered to during construction. These “fine scale” standards have been developed for American prototypes and are published by the National Model Railroad Association (NMRA) as S3.1 and S4.1. For all intents and purposes the “fine scale” standards give the impression of being true to scale and highly detailed and realistically weathered models using these standards are often difficult to identify as N scale and can look very prototypical in photographs.
It has been my experience that there are only a few “dead give aways” that a photo is of N scale equipment:
1. Track rails that are too tall: Realistic rail size in N scale is around code 40. Although code 55 rail is considered acceptable, anything larger looks disproportionate and ruins the illusion of realism. Code 40 rail scales to about 6 ½” tall which equates to something around 123# rail, which would have been typical for this yard.
2. Track flange ways that are too wide: Track designed for the normal standard N scale (oversized) wheels must include extra space between the rails and guard rails and switch points to allow the much too fat flanges to pass. One glance at this track work dispels any illusion of realism. Using the closer spacing of fine scale (due to the narrower flanges), the track work can look very prototypical.
3. Wheels that are too fat and flanges that are too big: Another obvious indicator of N scale equipment is the extremely wide wheels and oversized flanges, especially of the older equipment. To solve this problem and the two track-related problems above, special wheel sets must be used with specially constructed track. Note that this will eliminate any possibility of normal equipment running on your track and may prevent your equipment from running on normally constructed track.
4. Couplers: if the track and wheels look proportional, the next clue is the oversized couplers. Here a compromise must be accepted if one desires “operating” couplers (as I do). The best option currently available is to use Z scale body mounted couplers made by Micro Trains. These actually scale out quite close to 1:160, however, the smaller coupling faces require very smooth track to prevent inadvertent separation (usually due to vertical misalignment).
5. Missing details on track work. As a minimum I intend to model the joiner bars (metal plates used to join the 39’ rail sections together; spikes (used to hold the rails to the ties) and tie plates (metal plates between the rail and the tie used to protect the tie). All one really needs to do is look carefully at photos to see all the little details that go into constructing railroad tracks. Turnouts and crossings are another area where emphasis to details can result in very prototypical looking track.
With the decision to model using fine scale standards, I had to determine the best method for modeling these details. There are several companies that provide highly detailed parts such as spikes, joiner bars and tie plates and although not excessively pricey, the large number required even for a small yard does add up. This coupled with the overseas shipping to Sri Lanka (which can quickly double the cost of lower cost items), has made me consider “home grown” options. In fact, I’ve determined that I want to model using materials that are available in Sri Lanka to the greatest extent possible (as part of the modeling challenge). Thus my overseas purchases will be largely limited to:
1. Rail (Micro Engineering c 40);
2. Spikes (P87 Stores “scale spikes”);
3. Ties (wooden and PCB) as I do not have the equipment to produce these myself;
4. Wheel sets (North West Short Lines c50);
5. Rolling Stock (locomotives and freight); and
6. Special detail parts such as automobiles and figures.
I intend to model the majority of the structures using heavy card stock and plaster (styrene and strip wood is not available here). All ground cover will be locally produced.
All for now,
Dave O.
Friday, June 8, 2007
A Model Railroader's Dream
Dream it …
Plan it …
Build it …
Run it.
Today’s entry follows the “Model Railroader” magazine’s slogan “Dream it, Plan it, Build it” to which I’ve added “Run it”; after all, “running” the trains is the main purpose behind constructing a model railroad (otherwise it would just be a diorama). These four steps are listed in the order that they should be considered to help ensure that we get the most enjoyment from our efforts.
Before we can run our trains, we must have some portion of a layout constructed on which to run them. And while one certainly can lay track down without any regards to a plan, I don’t believe the results will be very satisfying for very long; thus, we need some form of a plan (even if it is only a mental image for a simple design) to ensure that our labor results in something that is fun to operate. And of course our plan should be based upon some concept, a dream if you will, of what we want from our model railroad empire to maintain our focus and interest; thus enhancing our chances at successfully completing our pike.
While the four steps follow a logical progression, the first two are strongly interconnected with each other and are (in my opinion) the most important elements in achieving success (defined as a model railroad that is fun to work on and operate, i.e., actually gets built and used). While most good plans should be based upon a concept (our dream), the dream must be realistic in terms of available time, space and resources. Although one may dream of constructing a scale replica of the Denver & Salt Lake’s 26 mile “Hill Route” (later replaced by the Moffat Tunnel) in HO; during the planning phase it will become apparent that even 26 miles of twisting track occupies a lot of real estate in 1:87 and requires a lot of compression to get it to fit inside even a large layout space. Thus a dream such as this may not be achievable by a “lone wolf” modeler and one realizes that something smaller in scope must be considered. This process repeats itself until finally a dream and a plan are revealed that fit the modeler’s needs and assets.
My particular circumstances (living in Sri Lanka) placed strong constraints (but not uncommon) on my dream: it had to be 1) small and 2) portable. Furthermore my personal desires required that the railroad be: 1) based on a prototype, and 2) include a lot of prototypical operations (i.e., movement of rail cars in a realistic manner).
Over the course of several decades, I had developed several plans for my “dream” model railroad. The first was the D&SL “Hill Route” mentioned above (it is still my greatest passion and if I could have anything that would be it); but alas the reality is that I will never be able to achieve that dream to the level of fidelity that I demand. I then spent a great deal of time planning a very workable Colorado narrow gage railroad (Sn3 gauge) based on the Denver & South Park, which would be a multi-level, free lanced branch route using the wonderful “mushroom” design. This design was modular (allowing portability) and was designed to fit within the space of a two-car garage. Furthermore, it was to be constructed in three phases to allow one to quickly achieve an operational state in a small space with the ability to expand as space became available. It truly was an ideal railroad and I’m quite proud of my efforts. Unfortunately, it did not factor my relocation to Sri Lanka and importing all the Sn3 gage materials for construction of the pike and the likely expense of shipping a rather large layout back to the states was simply beyond my means.
What was needed was something small using small equipment, a switching layout; however, I could never find one that appealed to me for various reasons, mostly because so many of the ones that I’d considered just didn’t really seem to be very prototypical, but rather concocted to fit on a narrow baseboard with industries placed to match the designer’s whims. The other great detractor of these switching layouts (in my opinion) is that it is difficult to “hide” the rest of the world – where do all these cars that are being switched around come from and go to? The tracks running off the edge of the layout (often into a “hidden” fiddle yard) just don’t work for me. In my opinion to do this correctly, one would have to include at least a loop of “main line” track and hidden staging to allow for the realistic interchange of traffic; thus the switching layout quickly became much larger.
About six months ago, I was reviewing a plan that was submitted to the Layout Design Special Interest Group (LDSIG) Yahoo Group that included a harbor as a terminus. I quickly realized that a harbor was a nearly ideal “universal industry”, even better than a team track. A harbor can generate LARGE quantities of traffic of nearly any type. Although I had glimpsed a solution to my dilemma, I hadn’t recognized it as such yet; however, in the back of my mind the seed had been planted.
About six weeks ago, while reviewing my old Model Railroader magazines, I came across Bernie Kempinski’s article in Model Railroad Planning 2002. This time (with the knowledge of a harbor’s ability to produce traffic), I finally saw this as the answer to my needs; a small switching layout, which included all the essential elements of a great model railroad:
- based on a prototype (the C&O’s Brooke Ave. Yard);
- with major industries (there are 30+ spots for freight cars of various types;
- with interchange traffic between railroads (provided by the car floats);
- including staging (both visible in the yard and hidden via the car floats); and
- offering a unique element (the car float operations).
The two key features of this plan that captivated me were: 1) it was based on a prototype that required very little compression (very high fidelity was possible here) and 2) the car float operation resolved the dilemma of how to hide the rest of the world – it was no longer hidden, it was just across the river!
Yes, I felt that I’d finally discovered a model railroad that matched my dream; time to move to the next step.
Dave O.
Plan it …
Build it …
Run it.
Today’s entry follows the “Model Railroader” magazine’s slogan “Dream it, Plan it, Build it” to which I’ve added “Run it”; after all, “running” the trains is the main purpose behind constructing a model railroad (otherwise it would just be a diorama). These four steps are listed in the order that they should be considered to help ensure that we get the most enjoyment from our efforts.
Before we can run our trains, we must have some portion of a layout constructed on which to run them. And while one certainly can lay track down without any regards to a plan, I don’t believe the results will be very satisfying for very long; thus, we need some form of a plan (even if it is only a mental image for a simple design) to ensure that our labor results in something that is fun to operate. And of course our plan should be based upon some concept, a dream if you will, of what we want from our model railroad empire to maintain our focus and interest; thus enhancing our chances at successfully completing our pike.
While the four steps follow a logical progression, the first two are strongly interconnected with each other and are (in my opinion) the most important elements in achieving success (defined as a model railroad that is fun to work on and operate, i.e., actually gets built and used). While most good plans should be based upon a concept (our dream), the dream must be realistic in terms of available time, space and resources. Although one may dream of constructing a scale replica of the Denver & Salt Lake’s 26 mile “Hill Route” (later replaced by the Moffat Tunnel) in HO; during the planning phase it will become apparent that even 26 miles of twisting track occupies a lot of real estate in 1:87 and requires a lot of compression to get it to fit inside even a large layout space. Thus a dream such as this may not be achievable by a “lone wolf” modeler and one realizes that something smaller in scope must be considered. This process repeats itself until finally a dream and a plan are revealed that fit the modeler’s needs and assets.
My particular circumstances (living in Sri Lanka) placed strong constraints (but not uncommon) on my dream: it had to be 1) small and 2) portable. Furthermore my personal desires required that the railroad be: 1) based on a prototype, and 2) include a lot of prototypical operations (i.e., movement of rail cars in a realistic manner).
Over the course of several decades, I had developed several plans for my “dream” model railroad. The first was the D&SL “Hill Route” mentioned above (it is still my greatest passion and if I could have anything that would be it); but alas the reality is that I will never be able to achieve that dream to the level of fidelity that I demand. I then spent a great deal of time planning a very workable Colorado narrow gage railroad (Sn3 gauge) based on the Denver & South Park, which would be a multi-level, free lanced branch route using the wonderful “mushroom” design. This design was modular (allowing portability) and was designed to fit within the space of a two-car garage. Furthermore, it was to be constructed in three phases to allow one to quickly achieve an operational state in a small space with the ability to expand as space became available. It truly was an ideal railroad and I’m quite proud of my efforts. Unfortunately, it did not factor my relocation to Sri Lanka and importing all the Sn3 gage materials for construction of the pike and the likely expense of shipping a rather large layout back to the states was simply beyond my means.
What was needed was something small using small equipment, a switching layout; however, I could never find one that appealed to me for various reasons, mostly because so many of the ones that I’d considered just didn’t really seem to be very prototypical, but rather concocted to fit on a narrow baseboard with industries placed to match the designer’s whims. The other great detractor of these switching layouts (in my opinion) is that it is difficult to “hide” the rest of the world – where do all these cars that are being switched around come from and go to? The tracks running off the edge of the layout (often into a “hidden” fiddle yard) just don’t work for me. In my opinion to do this correctly, one would have to include at least a loop of “main line” track and hidden staging to allow for the realistic interchange of traffic; thus the switching layout quickly became much larger.
About six months ago, I was reviewing a plan that was submitted to the Layout Design Special Interest Group (LDSIG) Yahoo Group that included a harbor as a terminus. I quickly realized that a harbor was a nearly ideal “universal industry”, even better than a team track. A harbor can generate LARGE quantities of traffic of nearly any type. Although I had glimpsed a solution to my dilemma, I hadn’t recognized it as such yet; however, in the back of my mind the seed had been planted.
About six weeks ago, while reviewing my old Model Railroader magazines, I came across Bernie Kempinski’s article in Model Railroad Planning 2002. This time (with the knowledge of a harbor’s ability to produce traffic), I finally saw this as the answer to my needs; a small switching layout, which included all the essential elements of a great model railroad:
- based on a prototype (the C&O’s Brooke Ave. Yard);
- with major industries (there are 30+ spots for freight cars of various types;
- with interchange traffic between railroads (provided by the car floats);
- including staging (both visible in the yard and hidden via the car floats); and
- offering a unique element (the car float operations).
The two key features of this plan that captivated me were: 1) it was based on a prototype that required very little compression (very high fidelity was possible here) and 2) the car float operation resolved the dilemma of how to hide the rest of the world – it was no longer hidden, it was just across the river!
Yes, I felt that I’d finally discovered a model railroad that matched my dream; time to move to the next step.
Dave O.
Wednesday, June 6, 2007
Thanking Those Who've Helped
Today, I’d like to recognize several individuals who have been instrumental in my efforts to research the Brooke Avenue Yard. Although many people have provided valuable assistance, the efforts of the following individuals really stand out.
Bernie Kempinski. Bernie’s article in “Model Railroad Planning 2002” is what started me off. His wonderful ideas of modeling an entire railroad operation in the corner of a room convinced me that I really could have it all. Prior to reading Bernie’s article, I’d considered several design options either short lines (for realistic operations) or switching layouts (for space considerations). My modeling priorities from the outset have always been prototypical operations with highly detailed scenery. The short lines offered both, however, even the smallest of short lines required more space than I was willing to dedicate to a railroad – especially one that was certainly going to be moved at some point. While switching layouts certainly offered operations in a small foot print, they seemed to lack the sense of “place” that comes from modeling a true prototype; also there was always the problem of “hiding” the rest of the world.
Bernie’s plan addressed both issues quite nicely. Here was a yard based on a prototype which used car floats to interchange traffic with the rest of the world – the rest of the world was no longer “hidden” it was just across the river! In N scale, Bernie’s track plan occupies about 6’x 8’ of area in a corner and includes all the tracks with very little compression – perfect from a fidelity point of view and certainly something that could be moved in the future.
When I started searching the Internet for information about this yard and its operations, I found that there was very little available. So I joined the ChesepeakeOhioRailway Yahoo Group, introduced myself and requested assistance from any who may know something about the Brooke Avenue Yard. Who should be the first to respond? Bernie K.! Bernie forwarded me several photos and drawings which he had used in his research for the article and now the spark had developed into a flame.
As I continued to navigate through the various links in the Internet, Bernie’s name appeared quite often – he has been very busy and is quite an accomplished model railroader and author. Bernie’s interests have drifted from the C&O and now he is modeling the D&RGW’s Tennessee Pass in N scale, however, he is still a fount of knowledge when it comes to the C&O (and its small yard located in Norfolk, Virginia).
Russell Underwood. Russell lives in the Tidewater area and his photographs of railroads are well known. Sadly my little yard predates Russell’s photographs; however, Russell does have access to several post cards showing the yard and it’s environ. Russell still sends me interesting scans of these cards when he comes across them because he “knows that I can use them.” Through these cards, I have a much better idea of what this yard “looked” like and the colors of the various structures. Thanks Russell.
Mac Beard. Mac works at the C&O Historical Society and a nicer man you’re not likely to meet. Several folks from various groups suggested that I take my requests for research to Mac. Finally, after exhausting all other readily available sources, I contacted Mac via eMail. I was searching for a 1923 “blueprint” of the yard that was mentioned by a member of the Tidewater Rails Yahoo Group and supposedly available from the COHS. I could not locate this drawing in the COHS database and further attempts at communication with the original poster went unanswered. So I passed on my request to Mac. Mac responded the following day that he was unable to locate the 1923 blueprint, however, he had found 4 other drawings from 1898, 1904 and 1918 that he was willing to post as soon as I supplied a shipping address. I explained that I desired to pay by check vice a credit card (for security reasons in Sri Lanka), he said no problem, he would still post the drawings and I could pay for them after reviewing them! Wow! From his description of their content, I certainly don’t need to review them so I posted payment, however Mac’s trusting generosity will get the drawings in my hand about 20 days sooner than expected (10-14 days for my check to arrive in the states via the mail and another 7-10 day for the check to clear is my normal experience when dealing with others). Thanks Mac, hope that no one ever takes advantage of your generosity.
Again, there have been many others who have taken the time to answer my questions or point me in the right direction to find them. Hopefully as my research progresses I’ll meet many more and perhaps be able to do the same for others. To all of those who have helped me or others such as me I’d like to extend a big thank-you! It is the generosity of those who are willing to share their knowledge and experience with others that make model railroading such a wonderful hobby.
All for now,
Dave O.
Bernie Kempinski. Bernie’s article in “Model Railroad Planning 2002” is what started me off. His wonderful ideas of modeling an entire railroad operation in the corner of a room convinced me that I really could have it all. Prior to reading Bernie’s article, I’d considered several design options either short lines (for realistic operations) or switching layouts (for space considerations). My modeling priorities from the outset have always been prototypical operations with highly detailed scenery. The short lines offered both, however, even the smallest of short lines required more space than I was willing to dedicate to a railroad – especially one that was certainly going to be moved at some point. While switching layouts certainly offered operations in a small foot print, they seemed to lack the sense of “place” that comes from modeling a true prototype; also there was always the problem of “hiding” the rest of the world.
Bernie’s plan addressed both issues quite nicely. Here was a yard based on a prototype which used car floats to interchange traffic with the rest of the world – the rest of the world was no longer “hidden” it was just across the river! In N scale, Bernie’s track plan occupies about 6’x 8’ of area in a corner and includes all the tracks with very little compression – perfect from a fidelity point of view and certainly something that could be moved in the future.
When I started searching the Internet for information about this yard and its operations, I found that there was very little available. So I joined the ChesepeakeOhioRailway Yahoo Group, introduced myself and requested assistance from any who may know something about the Brooke Avenue Yard. Who should be the first to respond? Bernie K.! Bernie forwarded me several photos and drawings which he had used in his research for the article and now the spark had developed into a flame.
As I continued to navigate through the various links in the Internet, Bernie’s name appeared quite often – he has been very busy and is quite an accomplished model railroader and author. Bernie’s interests have drifted from the C&O and now he is modeling the D&RGW’s Tennessee Pass in N scale, however, he is still a fount of knowledge when it comes to the C&O (and its small yard located in Norfolk, Virginia).
Russell Underwood. Russell lives in the Tidewater area and his photographs of railroads are well known. Sadly my little yard predates Russell’s photographs; however, Russell does have access to several post cards showing the yard and it’s environ. Russell still sends me interesting scans of these cards when he comes across them because he “knows that I can use them.” Through these cards, I have a much better idea of what this yard “looked” like and the colors of the various structures. Thanks Russell.
Mac Beard. Mac works at the C&O Historical Society and a nicer man you’re not likely to meet. Several folks from various groups suggested that I take my requests for research to Mac. Finally, after exhausting all other readily available sources, I contacted Mac via eMail. I was searching for a 1923 “blueprint” of the yard that was mentioned by a member of the Tidewater Rails Yahoo Group and supposedly available from the COHS. I could not locate this drawing in the COHS database and further attempts at communication with the original poster went unanswered. So I passed on my request to Mac. Mac responded the following day that he was unable to locate the 1923 blueprint, however, he had found 4 other drawings from 1898, 1904 and 1918 that he was willing to post as soon as I supplied a shipping address. I explained that I desired to pay by check vice a credit card (for security reasons in Sri Lanka), he said no problem, he would still post the drawings and I could pay for them after reviewing them! Wow! From his description of their content, I certainly don’t need to review them so I posted payment, however Mac’s trusting generosity will get the drawings in my hand about 20 days sooner than expected (10-14 days for my check to arrive in the states via the mail and another 7-10 day for the check to clear is my normal experience when dealing with others). Thanks Mac, hope that no one ever takes advantage of your generosity.
Again, there have been many others who have taken the time to answer my questions or point me in the right direction to find them. Hopefully as my research progresses I’ll meet many more and perhaps be able to do the same for others. To all of those who have helped me or others such as me I’d like to extend a big thank-you! It is the generosity of those who are willing to share their knowledge and experience with others that make model railroading such a wonderful hobby.
All for now,
Dave O.
Monday, June 4, 2007
C&O Brooke Ave Yard Progress Report 001
I figured that Mondays may be a good day for me to summarize my progress on my little project. Presently I'm very nearly ready to "put the saw to the wood"; however, there are two things holding me up:
1) Finding quality plywood in Sri Lanka is not at all easy (although it can be found, just takes some searching); and
2) I'm not at all convinced that I've gotten the arrangement of the wharfs quite right, which is certainly something that I need to firm up before making any cuts!
Progress thus far:
I have a "workable" track plan (based on Bernie Kempinski's design published in “Model Railroad Planning 2002”) that accurately represents the track arrangement (if not the precise location of the tracks). I've used #5 frogs (to save space); however, I'm awaiting a drawing that may more accurately describe the actual frogs used.
I have received the May 1999 copy of "Mainline Modeler", which includes several photos and drawings of the C&O Car Float, so I now know how the tracks need to be arranged on both the car floats and the transfer bridge apron. I don't have any drawings (or even good photos) of the bridge apron; however, I do know that it was around 100 feet long, which is probably close enough. I’ve used the drawing to accurately locate the tracks in 3rd PlanIt (3pi, a model railroad CAD program) and am slowly using 3pi to “build up” the car float itself. When completed, I should have some good templates that can be used to model the car float.
I have ordered a copy of "Tidewater Triangle" and am hoping that it will arrive in the next couple of weeks as it seems that there are some additional photos of the yard there.
I'm attempting to locate a copy of a 1923 blueprint of the yard that was mentioned on the Tidewater Rails Yahoo Group earlier -- so far no luck on this one. It supposedly was a copy obtained from the C&O Historical Society. I REALLY want to find this if it exists, as it will help me ensure that I get the wharfs (and tracks to some extent) correctly positioned. On the advice of others from the ChesapeakeOhioRailway Yahoo Group, I have contacted Mac Beard at the C&O Historical Society and he is searching for this item for me. Unfortunately I only have the one reference to it and further attempts to contact the member for more information/clarification have been met with silence; even a reference number would help. Here’s hoping Mac has some good luck.
Finally, I'm still searching for an aerial photo of the yard from between 1955-1970 as that will answer my questions concerning the wharfs as well. Thus far, I haven't been able to find anything with enough resolution to be usable.
Bernie Kempinski forwarded me a copy of a Sandborn map and Valuation Map that are very useful; however, I suspect that they are lacking in accuracy. Specifically, the angle of the Ocean Pier is different in the two drawings; a 1990 satellite photo indicates that the valuation map may be the more accurate.) So barring any further information, I'll likely cut my wharfs to match the valuation map.
I've placed an order for a KATO N2 switcher in C&O colors, which is scheduled for delivery soon (late May). Although Brooke Ave Yard never used one of these (they did use an SW-1 during the early 1970's which is similar), it is reputed to be a good runner, which is important for a switching layout. Perhaps sometime in the future, a good running GE 44-tonner (or even an 0-6-0 switcher with a tender) will become available and I can operate with prototypical motive power as well.
I'm firming up my track requirements: I know that I'll require around 180' of rail (for 90' of track) as well as ties and all the little details that I want to include. I also know that I'll need to construct about 30 turnouts including at least one curved and three wyes. Currently the straight turnouts and wyes will use #5 frogs and the curved turnout is #8; however, as mentioned earlier, this is subject to change pending forthcoming information. I’ve ordered 198 feet of Micro Engineering code 40 weathered rail, which I anticipate will arrive near the end of this month. Once I firm up my other track laying requirements I’ll place an order for it as well. While I'm waiting for it to arrive, I'll construct the bench work (framed open grid) and table top (plywood). I'll be sure to post a few photos for any who are interested.
All for now (and perhaps more than many of you cared for).
Dave O.
1) Finding quality plywood in Sri Lanka is not at all easy (although it can be found, just takes some searching); and
2) I'm not at all convinced that I've gotten the arrangement of the wharfs quite right, which is certainly something that I need to firm up before making any cuts!
Progress thus far:
I have a "workable" track plan (based on Bernie Kempinski's design published in “Model Railroad Planning 2002”) that accurately represents the track arrangement (if not the precise location of the tracks). I've used #5 frogs (to save space); however, I'm awaiting a drawing that may more accurately describe the actual frogs used.
I have received the May 1999 copy of "Mainline Modeler", which includes several photos and drawings of the C&O Car Float, so I now know how the tracks need to be arranged on both the car floats and the transfer bridge apron. I don't have any drawings (or even good photos) of the bridge apron; however, I do know that it was around 100 feet long, which is probably close enough. I’ve used the drawing to accurately locate the tracks in 3rd PlanIt (3pi, a model railroad CAD program) and am slowly using 3pi to “build up” the car float itself. When completed, I should have some good templates that can be used to model the car float.
I have ordered a copy of "Tidewater Triangle" and am hoping that it will arrive in the next couple of weeks as it seems that there are some additional photos of the yard there.
I'm attempting to locate a copy of a 1923 blueprint of the yard that was mentioned on the Tidewater Rails Yahoo Group earlier -- so far no luck on this one. It supposedly was a copy obtained from the C&O Historical Society. I REALLY want to find this if it exists, as it will help me ensure that I get the wharfs (and tracks to some extent) correctly positioned. On the advice of others from the ChesapeakeOhioRailway Yahoo Group, I have contacted Mac Beard at the C&O Historical Society and he is searching for this item for me. Unfortunately I only have the one reference to it and further attempts to contact the member for more information/clarification have been met with silence; even a reference number would help. Here’s hoping Mac has some good luck.
Finally, I'm still searching for an aerial photo of the yard from between 1955-1970 as that will answer my questions concerning the wharfs as well. Thus far, I haven't been able to find anything with enough resolution to be usable.
Bernie Kempinski forwarded me a copy of a Sandborn map and Valuation Map that are very useful; however, I suspect that they are lacking in accuracy. Specifically, the angle of the Ocean Pier is different in the two drawings; a 1990 satellite photo indicates that the valuation map may be the more accurate.) So barring any further information, I'll likely cut my wharfs to match the valuation map.
I've placed an order for a KATO N2 switcher in C&O colors, which is scheduled for delivery soon (late May). Although Brooke Ave Yard never used one of these (they did use an SW-1 during the early 1970's which is similar), it is reputed to be a good runner, which is important for a switching layout. Perhaps sometime in the future, a good running GE 44-tonner (or even an 0-6-0 switcher with a tender) will become available and I can operate with prototypical motive power as well.
I'm firming up my track requirements: I know that I'll require around 180' of rail (for 90' of track) as well as ties and all the little details that I want to include. I also know that I'll need to construct about 30 turnouts including at least one curved and three wyes. Currently the straight turnouts and wyes will use #5 frogs and the curved turnout is #8; however, as mentioned earlier, this is subject to change pending forthcoming information. I’ve ordered 198 feet of Micro Engineering code 40 weathered rail, which I anticipate will arrive near the end of this month. Once I firm up my other track laying requirements I’ll place an order for it as well. While I'm waiting for it to arrive, I'll construct the bench work (framed open grid) and table top (plywood). I'll be sure to post a few photos for any who are interested.
All for now (and perhaps more than many of you cared for).
Dave O.
Friday, May 25, 2007
A "Perfect" Model Railroad
In "Model Railroad Planning 2002", Bernie Kempinski discussed the modeling of Chessapeake & Ohio Railway's (C&O) Brooke Avenue Yard in Norfolk, Virgina in HO and N scale. One of the outstanding features (in my opinion) of the N scale pike was that it included nearly the entire operation on a cleverly cut sheet of 4'x8' plywood (occupying a 8'x6' corner)! This yard was served by a car float and had no other rail connections. This combination of ships and trains is hard to beat!
A quick look at Bernie's design, reveals that this small layout includes all the features that distinguish great model railroads:
1) Interchange traffic (via the car float),
2) Staging (it is a yard after all),
3) Major Industries (there are over 30 places to "spot" rail cars),
4) Protype Inspiration (the C&O), and
5) a Unique Feature (the car float operation).
I am currently residing in Sri Lanka, which is certainly not a modelling Mecca -- in fact, I'm not aware of a single hobby shop that sells model railroading supplies (other than the "toy" variety) in the entire country. Therefore, if I'm to engage in model railroading, I must have nearly all the matials that I am unable to "manufacture" myself from overseas. Thus, this small layout, which includes so much operation in such a small space seemed ideal to me and provided the perfect opportunity to transition from armchair to operations and I've become hooked.
The intention of this blog is to record my thoughts and progress in designing, constructing, and operating the C&O's Brooke Avenue Yard in N scale.
Stay tuned.
Dave O.
A quick look at Bernie's design, reveals that this small layout includes all the features that distinguish great model railroads:
1) Interchange traffic (via the car float),
2) Staging (it is a yard after all),
3) Major Industries (there are over 30 places to "spot" rail cars),
4) Protype Inspiration (the C&O), and
5) a Unique Feature (the car float operation).
I am currently residing in Sri Lanka, which is certainly not a modelling Mecca -- in fact, I'm not aware of a single hobby shop that sells model railroading supplies (other than the "toy" variety) in the entire country. Therefore, if I'm to engage in model railroading, I must have nearly all the matials that I am unable to "manufacture" myself from overseas. Thus, this small layout, which includes so much operation in such a small space seemed ideal to me and provided the perfect opportunity to transition from armchair to operations and I've become hooked.
The intention of this blog is to record my thoughts and progress in designing, constructing, and operating the C&O's Brooke Avenue Yard in N scale.
Stay tuned.
Dave O.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)