ONLINE
STORE
"ASK THE BACH MAN"
FORUM
PARTS, SERVICE,
& INFORMATION
CATALOGS AND
BROCHURES

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
November 22, 2017, 03:07:31 AM
Home Help Search Login Register
News: Please read the Forum Code of Conduct   >>Click Here <<
+  Bachmann Message Board
|-+  Discussion Boards
| |-+  General Discussion
| | |-+  All-steam model railroads
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 Print
Author Topic: All-steam model railroads  (Read 2026 times)
Trainman203

View Profile
« on: November 18, 2016, 02:28:25 PM »

I run nothing but steam engines on my railroad.  Always have,  always will.

How many others here have an all steam railroad, and why?
Logged

Modeling the New Iberia and Northern 1945
Terry Toenges


View Profile
« Reply #1 on: November 18, 2016, 02:46:01 PM »

I've always liked steam because you can see all the moving parts. Diesels are like watching a cracker box move.
The sounds of a steam loco getting up to speed is so much more appealing than a diesel that just makes a louder humming noise as it increases speed.
Logged

Feel like a fourfouro.
Flare

View Profile
« Reply #2 on: November 18, 2016, 02:56:30 PM »

*raises hand, but not very high*

Currently my On30 layout only has a Porter, but I love watching the side rods of steam locomotives as they run.

While steam locomotives are my favorite form of rail power, I admit that I'd like my track cleaning cars to be powered by a gas-mechanical critter with side rods, and I also want a railtruck for whimsy.
Logged
ebtnut

View Profile
« Reply #3 on: November 18, 2016, 04:18:27 PM »

I'll hold up my hand.  All the major motive power is steam, both rod and geared.  There is also a gas-electric car and some small MOW rail critters. 
Logged
Trainman203

View Profile
« Reply #4 on: November 18, 2016, 04:22:27 PM »

I'll allow a doodlebug exception ,
Logged

Modeling the New Iberia and Northern 1945
Trainman203

View Profile
« Reply #5 on: November 18, 2016, 04:29:57 PM »

I'll also say that those of us of a certain age remember working steam on the railroad very well. My daddy, who was kind of a railfan and had a couple of railroad contracts, told me to look at them closely because pretty soon they'd be going away.  I did.  And to this day haven't gotten over their being gone.

 No diesel will ever polish a rail on my layout.  There will be no "transition."
Logged

Modeling the New Iberia and Northern 1945
Flare

View Profile
« Reply #6 on: November 18, 2016, 04:55:34 PM »

I'll also say that those of us of a certain age remember working steam on the railroad very well. My daddy, who was kind of a railfan and had a couple of railroad contracts, told me to look at them closely because pretty soon they'd be going away.  I did.  And to this day haven't gotten over their being gone.

 No diesel will ever polish a rail on my layout.  There will be no "transition."
Not even as a cheap 'maintenance' or 'inspection' loco?  Those are the purposes of my non-steams.
Logged
Trainman203

View Profile
« Reply #7 on: November 19, 2016, 05:16:47 PM »

In the interest of full disclosure, I do "own" several vintage period diesels, but they run on other layouts,  not the Midland Western.
Logged

Modeling the New Iberia and Northern 1945
rogertra


View Profile WWW
« Reply #8 on: November 20, 2016, 06:17:27 PM »

As I model 1958, I'm still mainly steam, though diesels have taken over the major passenger runs and the run through freights.

Steam handles the Montreal commuter trains along with a pair of RDCs.  A doodlebug handles the branch passenger with steam on the wayfreight.  Interchange along the branch to the CPR are steam while CNR diesels now handle the CNR interchange run along the same branch. The daily wayfreight and interchange run down to the D&H and CV are still steam hauled.  The daily Montreal - Megantic passenger is still hauled by steam as are the way freights east and west of the main yard in Farnham Junction.

Cheers


Roger T.

Logged

jward


View Profile WWW
« Reply #9 on: November 20, 2016, 07:06:13 PM »

For me steam has always been a curiosity. The diesels have always done the heavy lifting. There is a reason they replaced steam. I think most of us want to model the things we remember. for me, steam was long gone but alcos were common. so, that is what I prefer. does this make modelling steam railroading wrong in my eyes? definitely not, if that's your thing go with it. But I personally want something I have experienced. I can't put things in proper perspective if I've never witnessed it.
Logged

Jeffery S Ward Sr
Pittsburgh, PA
RAM

View Profile
« Reply #10 on: November 20, 2016, 10:39:19 PM »

What killed the steam locomotive was the cost of operation.  Water tanks every 40 miles,  fuel stations every 100 miles.  The cost of hauling coal or oil.  Cost for this and the cost for that. 
Logged
Trainman203

View Profile
« Reply #11 on: November 21, 2016, 02:34:50 PM »

Plus the engines had to be changed every 150 miles or so , then go in for a day of maintenance like boiler washing and tightening everything back up before they would go out again.  This is how division points got spaced, and why so many went away at the end of steam.
Logged

Modeling the New Iberia and Northern 1945
ebtnut

View Profile
« Reply #12 on: November 21, 2016, 04:43:02 PM »

The spacing of division points had more to do with what constituted a "working day" for the road crews.  In the steam days (and early diesel days, too) union agreements generally set 100 miles and/or 16 hours as a working day.  This was sometimes referred to as the "hog law".  100 miles in 16 hours works out to a little more than 6 miles per hour.  This sounds real slow, but the local way freight could kill a couple of hours at each town working the various indutries.  They may run at 30 mph between those towns, but the over-the-road time was slower.  One reason passenger service was such high seniority is that the crews might hit that 100 mile mark in a couple of hours and their "day" was done.  Modern steam didn't really need much at the end of a run besides fuel and water.  An ash dump too, if coal fired.  Unless the crews noted something needed attention, the hostlers could turn an engine around to the ready track in a couple of hours. 
Logged
Woody Elmore

View Profile
« Reply #13 on: November 22, 2016, 11:26:19 AM »

What is a diesel? I don't even like steam engines built after WW 11 - too modern.
Logged
rogertra


View Profile WWW
« Reply #14 on: November 22, 2016, 09:17:35 PM »

Plus the engines had to be changed every 150 miles or so , then go in for a day of maintenance like boiler washing and tightening everything back up before they would go out again.  This is how division points got spaced, and why so many went away at the end of steam.

Not really.  At a division point, as EBTNUT has already pointed out, a team of hostlers could turn a loco around in a couple of hours ready for its next run.  Boiler washouts were scheduled and were not done everyday.  Ditto for other forms of scheduled maintenance.  All that was done on a  daily basis were minor repairs-adjustments as noted by the engineer.

For locally assigned engines, on my GER, boiler washout days are noted on the engine's waybill card, along with what trains it is scheduled to work, so every once in a while that loco has to be stabled in stall number one in the roundhouse for an ops session for a boiler washout and scheduled maintenance.  It's then the responsibility of the roundhouse foreman to select a standby engine to cover that engines duties for the day.  

Of course, this doesn't effect through freight engines as they are not locally assigned.

Add more interest and realism to an ops sessions.

Cheers


Roger T.


« Last Edit: November 23, 2016, 12:45:29 AM by rogertra » Logged

Pages: [1] 2 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  
Powered by SMF | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!