Weekend Update 10/30/22

[up1950s]

https://carsoncolorado.com/historic-route/historic-roster/stock-cars/

http://www.trainweb.org/oldtimetrains/photos/cpr_rolling/four.htm

https://www.cs.mcgill.ca/~rwest/wikispeedia/wpcd/images/219/21920.jpg.htm

https://www.alamy.com/matheran-rail-car-instead-of-coaches-the-matheran-light-railway-made-use-of-rail-cars-rail-cars-were-used-in-the-railways-to-run-sections-where-run-image471700613.html

https://www.richyodermodels.com/rym_stock_history.htm

https://www.dreamstime.com/train-dining-area-anaheim-packing-house-repurposed-car-has-patio-located-california-image147419350

https://orrvillerailroad.com/equipment.html

https://www.dreamstime.com/photos-images/railroad-cattle.html

[davefoxx]

I was off today, so I built the parking lot/loading area for a transloading facility.  Although the loading area surface is still slightly damp, I couldn’t resist setting up the truck, trailers, and rail car.



More on The Carolina Sandhills Lines thread in the Layout Engineering Forum.

DFF

[PiperguyUMD]

It was a perfect fall afternoon here in upstate SC. Took the modules outside to try to get a few glamour shots. Basically I learned I need a photography coach, but blind squirrels…


 
Stupid telephone pole 



I asked my brother one time if he had any idea how much the power company would charge to bury that line. He grinned and said it probably be cheaper to chainsaw it and pay the fine!

[Bendtracker1]

Finished up my 5th & 6th GP35's.....one to go.
While there are a few subtle differences between the two,  they both were painted in the basic Maroon and Yellow scheme of the 60's with no lettering or logos on the long hoods. 

The #312 carries just the road number under the cab window and the handrails were painted silver down the entire length.  It also has a bit of freckles on the nose.


           
           




The #316 is adorned with a shield under the cab window and a smaller road number just below it on the sill but is lacking a plow on the front that most other GP35's carried.   The fuel tank is also showing some Maroon paint although mainly covered in an oily residue.    This wasn't a typical scheme but rather more of a hybrid scheme as the road transitioned from its solid maroon with pin striping to solid maroon, to the maroon and yellow scheme in the 60's.



           


 

[chessie system fan]

After a hiatus I've been working on a few design projects.  I've wanted a Chessie GP15T for ages and after a year of work (here and there, with some breaks) I finally have a finished design.



Here's a test shell. (Ignore the heavy spay paint. I only cared about how it fit together.  It's a snap fit now!)





One disappointment I discovered is the Atlas shells are about a foot too tall.  You can see it right below the hood doors tunnel motor area.   

But now that I have a shell it's time to build the model!

[tehachapifan]

Really cool shell!

I don't see what you mean about under the hood doors. Looks about right to me, especially with the blower duct walkway being there.

[chessie system fan]

Thanks! The blank area behind the blower duct is too tall. So on this side look below the tunnel motor area.  I guess a scale foot is an exaggeration, now that I think back on it.  But I remember being unpleasantly surprised nine months ago doing my first test print only to find my scale height hood was too short.

I used the Mainline Modeler plans, but here are the Trainiax ones.

https://trainiax.net/drawings/18-emd/gp15/18-emd-gp15t-co.GIF

[tehachapifan]

After looking at prototype photos and the Traniax drawings, it still looks pretty accurate to me. It's sort of hard to tell in the drawing that the walkway steps down a bit forward of the grill section. The continuation of that line makes it sort of look like the bottom of the grill is supposed to basically rest on the walkway, but it doesn't. It's supposed to be positioned the way it is on your shell, with a space between the walkway, doors and the grill. In other words, I think your eye may be seeing the wrong set of lines representing the side sill.

[chessie system fan]

Okay, you made me go back in my design history and find out what I did.     So according to the Mainline Modeler plans, the height of the blank spot below the tunnel motor-type area (scaled to N scale) should be 1.469mm.  I had to fudge that to 1.969mm which fit perfectly.  That's 3.12 inches, so my memory was a little off.  Still, .5mm is a suspiciously perfect number to be off by. 

Anyway, 3 inches doesn't sound like much, but I can still see it.    

[nkalanaga]

PiperGuyUMD:  That pole does kind of stick out in the second photo, doesn't it? 

It's probably too tall in the first picture, but I've seen some unusually tall ones, and, with the trees, it isn't obvious.  I looked right past it.

Chessie System Fan:  3 inches doesn't sound like much, but eyes see proportions even better than absolute measurements.  It isn't that the gap is too wide, but that it throws the proportions off, and your eye sees that.  If the entire model was slightly too large, or too small, but properly proportioned, you'd likely have to measure it to tell.

[tehachapifan]

Okay, you made me go back in my design history and find out what I did.     So according to the Mainline Modeler plans, the height of the blank spot below the tunnel motor-type area (scaled to N scale) should be 1.469mm.  I had to fudge that to 1.969mm which fit perfectly.  That's 3.12 inches, so my memory was a little off.  Still, .5mm is a suspiciously perfect number to be off by. 

Anyway, 3 inches doesn't sound like much, but I can still see it.    

It's been a while since I've seen one, but are Mainline Modeler plans known to be extremely accurate? Was the height of that space specifically shown with a precise measurement? I ask because I have some recall about some questionable measurements at a different source for loco plans (I remember a measurement given of 8' from the railhead to the top of the walkway on, I believe, an SW1500. I don't think so!).

[chessie system fan]

Good question.  Bob Hundman's best friend was a designer at EMD so I would hope they're accurate. I would assume that's where he got his resources.  I measured that spot with digital calipers and then multiplied that number by .54375 to get 1.469mm.

[tehachapifan]

Well, that sounds pretty reliable! At any rate and for what it’s worth, I think your shell looks pretty darn spot on. And I’m pretty particular with this kind of stuff!

[peteski]

Good question.  Bob Hundman's best friend was a designer at EMD so I would hope they're accurate. I would assume that's where he got his resources.  I measured that spot with digital calipers and then multiplied that number by .54375 to get 1.469mm.

Aaron,
aren't the hoods too wide on most N scale locos from Kato and Atlas (due to the width of the motor)?  If that is true, and you are able to live with that, the 0.5mm height difference seems insignificant.  I suspect that many commercially made models have dimensions which are off, and modelers generally live with those inaccuracies.

Yes, I understand that you painstakingly designed that hood, and are proud that you did an accurate job, but sometimes we have to compromise slightly.  Personally I'm amazed how well your hood looks and how detailed it is.   Rest assured that it will likely never be made by any of the "big" companies. Since you are using an existing chassis, why not enjoy the fruits of your labor, even when a small compromise had to be made.

I had another thought:  can you just reduce the height of the locos chassis (like we often do to make room for a decoders)?  Or (if I understand  correctly what's bothering you), just extend down the size of that side grill by 0.5mm. Might be less noticeable that way.  Again, we often have to "fudge" things when making models.

[Sokramiketes]

The old “sand the Rowa sides smooth” trick.

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]
[ Guests cannot view attachments ]