Greetings,
After many many years away from the hobby, the bug has seemingly bit again.
I have always dreamed of doing a model of John Allen's Gorre and Daphetid Railroad. The one published in 101 Track plans
Now I see that EZ track is available and can take some of the work out of track laying.
My question; would it be possible to build that layout in a 4 x 8 space using EZ track?
Thanks for any advice.
Andy
In a word, no.
(http://smallmr.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Gorre-Daphetid1.jpg)
The original G&D, above, was built using hand laid track and turnouts, with curve radii down to 14" on the left end near Daphetid. There's no good way to duplicate that with EZ-Track.
Len
Dear Len,
A few years ago I did just that, building a layout for the raffle at the Amherst Train Show in West Springfield, Massachusetts. As I recall it wasn't an exact match, but very close. If you have room for a 5x9 you should come pretty close.
Have fun!
the Bach-man
So it would seem that 5 x 9 would work better, than 4 x 8 ?
If I may ask what radius did you use on the layout?
Andy
it can be done in HO on a 4x8 using 18r minimum but adding a few more inches around the edges would give the plan some breathing room.
Actually, the plan from '101 Track Plans' I posted is modified slightly from the original. As Doc says, the original used hand layed track and switches, while the modified version uses flex-track and commercial #4 switches with the 'tails' trimmed off just beyond the points. It still only uses 14", 15", and 16" radius curves, with the only 18" curves being on the branch to Daphetid. Remeber, the original only used small cars, with 0-4-0 and 0-6-0 locos that had been modified a bit to handle the sharp curves.
If you expand the layout to 18" minimum curves, it will definately take more space than the original.
Len
I have drawn this in anyrail using 18r curves, #5 switches and 3% grades and it does work but it's very tight. widening the table width to 4'3" or 4'6" would make a better fit.
According to the cover story in the Jan. 1969 MRR, the G&D consisted of a mainline of 18" radius (I think) with a branchline of maybe 15" radius. Not all equipment could use the branch. Locos up to 2-6-6-2 were used on the main.
The railroad was expanded many times, but all versions included the previous ones. No Diesels were allowed.
This was one of the greatest model railroads of all time.
QuoteThis was one of the greatest model railroads of all time.
A twice around Roundy round? Really?
With no purpose, other than to rail fan the train?
Crude engine service facility, with no yard?
QuoteThis was one of the greatest model railroads of all time.
We have to agree to disagree.
While it may have been the greatest of its time, certainly nowhere near the greatest of all time.
Not even a contender.
Sorry, I'm just not a John Allen groupie.
Thanks to all who have posted.
There are some good points in all of them.
This will be an ambitious task, as I try and negotiate real estate from the Mrs.
I believe while in deliberation some model building will take place first.
I am open to any and all suggestions that anyone may have.
Thanks again.
Andy
Quote from: Desertdweller on February 27, 2016, 08:24:38 PM
According to the cover story in the Jan. 1969 MRR, the G&D consisted of a mainline of 18" radius (I think) with a branchline of maybe 15" radius. Not all equipment could use the branch. Locos up to 2-6-6-2 were used on the main.
The railroad was expanded many times, but all versions included the previous ones. No Diesels were allowed.
This was one of the greatest model railroads of all time.
18" Radius sounds like G&D #2 (there were three), which was considerably larger than the original.
James in FL - The G&D being described as, "The greatest railroad of all time.", is probably in reference to G&D #3, which filled a specially excavated basement. As can be seen here:
(http://static1.squarespace.com/static/51213884e4b03a5603c60e57/51a8dadfe4b080a0192de584/54ff1ad2e4b0471d2f78198e/1426004691617/0010119_gorredaphetid_1500w.jpg?format=500w)
Scenery went from floor to ceiling in a roughly 28 x 23 space. The general track plan for G&D #3, which included narrow gage, traction, and incorporated G&D #1 and parts of G&D #2 as noted towards the center:
(http://gdlines.info/G&D_3__1972.jpg)
Len
Quote from: James in FL on February 27, 2016, 09:36:33 PM
QuoteThis was one of the greatest model railroads of all time.
A twice around Roundy round? Really?
With no purpose, other than to rail fan the train?
Crude engine service facility, with no yard?
QuoteThis was one of the greatest model railroads of all time.
We have to agree to disagree.
While it may have been the greatest of its time, certainly nowhere near the greatest of all time.
Not even a contender.
Sorry, I'm just not a John Allen groupie.
You mean there's two of us? :)
Excellent modelling, I'll give him that but the greatest model railroad of all time? I don't think so.
Cheers
Roger T.
Quote from: Desertdweller on February 27, 2016, 08:24:38 PM
This was one of the greatest model railroads of all time.
I am in total agreement with you on this one, john allen was years ahead of his time on many things including prototypical operation.
the modern obsession with straight track along all 4 walls of a room leaves me bored. mountain railroads, like the g&d, should wind around the natural obstacles.
Quote from: doctorwayne on February 28, 2016, 01:24:40 PM
Quote from: jward on February 28, 2016, 10:32:58 AM
....the modern obsession with straight track along all 4 walls of a room leaves me bored. mountain railroads, like the g&d, should wind around the natural obstacles.
Just because a layout runs around the perimeter of a room doesn't mean that the track has to be straight along the walls, nor does it preclude adding scenic obstacles of any type.
My around-the-room (with ten corners) layout has some straight-ish track where it passes through the towns, but the rest of it is on curves and grades (mostly occurring in the same places). I have one tunnel (not especially prototypical for my modelled locale, but a concession to operational considerations and space restrictions), along with five good-sized bridges and a ¾ mile (HO) 2.5% grade laid out on two reverse horseshoe curves.
In a room big enough to accommodate a 5'x9' table with access from all sides, you could have an around-the-room layout with curves of 30" radii (or greater), longer runs, reach-in access to all of it, and the option of point-to-point or continuous running.
If a layout like that were boring, I'd be inclined to attribute it to the imagination (or lack thereof) of the builder.
Wayne
I agree 100%.
My first Great Eastern Railway was around the walls and a peninsula in a 12 x 16 foot room. and was built for prototype operation. No continuous run as that doesn't interest me but hidden staging yards, three of them, to branch terminal operation. Yes, I admit, there was a plan to extend one staging track to permit continuous running for when I had non-railroad guests and that would have been via an unprototypical steep 4% or so hidden grade but that never happened.
Why, in 12 x 16 foot room would I want to build a 5 x 9 foot table top with practically zero prototype operating possibilities?
Yes, I know some people like to run trains on a continuous loop and just railfan their trains and if that's what they like, more power to them but why not do that around the walls of a room rather than on a tabletop?
But to say an around the room is boring is more to do with the design of the railroad than it is to do with the around the walls concept. Unless you just want to railfan.
Cheers
Roger T.
dr wayne,
your layout is beautiful. the way I see it you are doing things right. I agree around the walls doesn't have to be boring. john allen's final layout, the big one whose plan is posted elsewhere in this thread, is proof of that. what the plan doesn't show, but photos do, is the overall effect. for one thing, it was impossible to view the entire layout from any one point. another trick used was cosmetic curves of varying radii, to make it look like the railroad was carved out of the mountains as practical as possible. short tunnels, bridges and various rock outcrops also added to the effect. i am not a fan of large minimum radii on a layout. the larger the radius the less you can do in a given space. 24r will handle anything i'd want to run, 30r would be the absolute maximum for minimum radius for me.
roger,
it is possible that you are not as familiar with john allen's work as you think you are, john was an ardent proponent of prototypical operation as is well documented by various sources including the kalmbach book. it is also well documented that he never took rivet counting too seriously. it is possible to count rivets to the point that the overall effect of what you are trying to create is lost. i have seen layouts where a freight station is accurate to prototype down to the last detail, yet the facility is almost as large as the town it supposedly serves. in the same vein, it is also possible to focus on the rulebook to the point where all the trains ever do is sit around waiting for track authority, with endless paperwork to be completed (train orders, waybills, etc)....... definitely not my idea of fun.
give me a working, well designed railroad. one where i have a simple way of determining which cars i need to pickup, which to setout, and which stay put for a future train. give me enough track to work with so i don't have to constantly bother the dispatcher in order to place and pull my cars. been there done that on the real ones, it is not fun sitting in a siding at 3am trying not to nod off waiting for a train at least 2 hours away.
jward.
I knew Allen was into operation but I was not a fan of his rather fantasy modelling style. Dinosaurs, pun names, fantasy bridges, Disney style scenery but what he did build was always an excellent model. I'll not argue over his modelling skills, they were excellent.
BTW, being into operation doesn't make one a rivet counter. I know a few "rivet counters" who do incredible detail work on their models but run them around on a tail chaser. :)
Cheers
Roger T.
As to the original poster's question, while it could be problematic in HO-scale, you could do it rather grandly in N-scale in the same 4x8 space... unless you are already married to HO-scale. Just remember that unless built in a common footprint (2x4, 4x8, 5x9, etc.) most model railroads like the G&D were / are built to fit their builders' specific space and interests, and so it's better for you to build a layout to your own specific space and interest than to exactly copy someone else's.
As for the other remarks about John Allen and the G&D...
Yes, I believe that the final version of the G&D earned its place among the "best" or at least the most historically well-known model railroads in the US - after all, we're still talking about it 40+ years after John's death and its destruction in a fire. John was a talented artist, modeler, and photographer, and what he did with his layouts and wrote about in magazines helped to influence the direction of a generation of model railroaders.
Do I love the G&D? No. As someone else noted, it was a bit too fantasy-ish for me as well. The historical layout that I love is Frank Ellison's Delta Lines. It's outdated by today's standards for design, but that didn't prevent him from pioneering realistic operations on his bowl-of-spaghetti layout. Of current layouts, I honestly cannot think of one that is print as often as the DL, V&O, and G&D were in decades past. I do enjoy reading about the Utah Belt, though I think Eric needs to write more about it. ;)
~AJK
Quote from: Piyer on February 29, 2016, 01:29:50 AM
Do I love the G&D? No. As someone else noted, it was a bit too fantasy-ish for me as well. The historical layout that I love is Frank Ellison's Delta Lines. It's outdated by today's standards for design, but that didn't prevent him from pioneering realistic operations on his bowl-of-spaghetti layout. Of current layouts, I honestly cannot think of one that is print as often as the DL, V&O, and G&D were in decades past. I do enjoy reading about the Utah Belt, though I think Eric needs to write more about it. ;)
~AJK
Couldn't have put it better. I was strongly influenced by the V&O and yes, more about the Utah Belt.
Cheers
Roger T.
back to the original layout:
rather than being a layout with no operating potential, it would provide a great representation of a shortline. note that the turntable area only appeared on john's original plan, and was left out of the as built version in favour of an industrial spur. the two tracks at the top of the branch line would make a great spot for a small mine, and the stub end track along the bottom could be the interchange track with the railroad of your choice. you would only need one locomotive and maybe a dozen cars to run this layout like the real thing.
and here it's time to point out another fallacy from the "4x8 layout is bad" crowd. contrary to what these people would have you believe, this layout will work in a room as small as small as 6x10. why? because all switches and hands on activity are within arms reach of just two sides of the layout, meaning that it can be placed in the corner of a room. as a matter of fact, one possible configuration would be in a small guest bedroom, with a bunk bed. the layout itself could be set in place of the upper bunk. and if you have more room, you could extend the branch line along the walls to a couple more industries, perhaps even a timesaver type switching district.
remember, this plan is the seedling which spawned a empire......
QuoteOn, no! Shocked Don't tell me that the "4'x8' layout is bad" guys are here, too. Cry
Yes, unfortunately they are here too.
QuoteBuild whatever suits your needs and tastes. No need for knotted knickers.
Not sure why some here want to impose there concept of what is right or wrong on layout building.
Guess it will always be the same, and has been since the beginning.
Build what you like and run it. Screw everybody else if they don't approve.
It's your hobby to enjoy as you wish.
Agree, that is, at 100% ;)
What a discussion here! It seems appropriate to bring up the late Carl Arndt's Micro Layout site, which is still being maintained by friends.
http://www.carendt.com/
As I recall, the original G&D had very tight curves, perhaps some even smaller than 15 inch radius that's the minimum you can get in sectional track. Those hand built switches would give him a space advantage as well.
There are two things that I would consider most useful in concept from the original G&D. One is the idea that a small railroad like this can be a jewel in detail, simply because there isn't too much area to cover. That was something Allen did on this line, and it was apparently a great dress rehearsal for what he would do later.
The other thing I would take from the original G&D would be the concept of a branch line with a continuous main line connection, the latter doubling as a staging location at the rear. Of course even main line trains would be short for something this small, and that in turn suggests something Allen also seemed to go with, that this railroad was one dominated by older equipment, certainly one built in an era of smaller equipment. In fact, it could even be narrow gauge throughout.
Such things can be mere details when we are in the idea stage!
some of the most creative layouts I've ever seen are on that site.
Wow,
I really started something here...
Was definitely not my intent
I have limited space and that is what the original post was about.
But I am intrigued by the responses. I have truly enjoyed them all.
Got a lot of ideas for doing a few things.
But L:ike I said in an earlier post, real estate must be negotiated with the Mrs.
So I am going to revive some of my older equipment and actually put up a small oval on the rug (I know I'll go to train hell for that)
and see what is still running and get things up to snuff.
Them probably build a few building kits to get the feel of it all again.
While on the subject some of but not most of my equipment has kadee couplers. Any suggestions on that?
Andy
Quote from: AJPiskel on March 02, 2016, 07:23:26 PM
So I am going to revive some of my older equipment and actually put up a small oval on the rug (I know I'll go to train hell for that)
Put some kind of plastic sheet under the track to help keep carpet fuzz from getting sucked around axles and in to gearboxes.
Even just a couple green lawn and leaf trash bags spread flat is enough.
Well, you'll certainly go around in circles, after that ... ;D
Love the idea LOL
AJ, definitely consider getting Kadee couplers. #148s are easiest to use bc they have "whiskers", #5s are also good. Each takes a different coupler (draft gear) box. Also you should have a Kadee Coupler Height gauge, you will also need small drill bits, a pin vise, screws, Kadee Washers, maybe some small metal washers...
until you can convert all your cars to knuckle couplers (kadee is only one brand of many, all compatable) you may want o find a couple of cars with body mounted horn hook couplers, such as those made by athearn of roundhouse, and just replace the coupler on one end. these conversion cars will allow you to mix coupler types in the same train. then you can convert yhe rest of your fleet as time and money allow.
Related to what Jeff says about making a few 'transition' cars, IHC "Magic-Mate" couplers look clunky, but will couple with both knuckle and horn-hook couplers. Using them on both ends of a car eliminates the need to keep track of which end of the 'transition' car is which.
They can be seen here: http://www.ihc-hobby.com/product/19001 (http://www.ihc-hobby.com/product/19001)
I wouldn't recommend them for general use, but they are handy for dealing with mixed coupler situations.
Len
Sure, EZ Mate Mark IIs are out there and I have used them, but when I make a recommendation...
Quote from: jward on May 09, 2010, 10:49:07 PM
that copper centering spring is the main reason i switched to kadee 148s. they have metal whiskers on the sides that eliminate that spring plate. much easier to install and get working properly.
as for the plastic knuckle couplers, i use them until they become unreliable, then replace them with kadee 148s.
As for sticking knuckle couplers in Talgo Trucks, I would not spend/waste the $$. If I am going to convert, then I am going all the way; couplers, boxes, no more plastic pin or plastic friction pin mounted trucks, no more huge flange wheel-sets. As for transition/conversion cars, sure a nice idea, but not really a long term solution. I don't do them any more, I get rid of Horn Hook couplers and move on.
I'd say whether to use 'transition' cars or not would depend on how many cars you have to convert to knuckles, time available to do conversions, and budget available to get conversion parts. Or putting it another way, it's a matter of personal choice. Some folks do it, some don't.
Len
Oh, yes, truck-mounted, 'talgo', couplers versus body mounted couplers - that is an important issue - especially when talking sharp curves like used on the foundational section of the G&D.
Truck mounted couplers will more closely follow the track centerline on curves, while body mounted couplers will swing outboard of track centerline.
Below a certain curve radius, when a car of each type is coupled together, one of those cars is going to twist the other off the track.
Guaranteed.
Another thing is backing a train, the push on truck mounted couplers is prone to twisting them sideways hard enough to force the wheel flanges to ride up over the railhead.
That brings to mind the strong recommendation to acquire this book, Track Planning for Realistic Operation, Third Edition, by John Armstrong.
It has an important section on model RR car behaviors on curves. And sections on switches, transition from curve to straight and from slope to level.
And also mentions car overhang at ends and center both on curves.
And then of course covers how real RR's operate in getting freight and passengers from here to there, and ways to replicate that smoothly on model RRs.
Quote from: Len on March 03, 2016, 09:55:24 AM
it's a matter of personal choice. Some folks do it, some don't.
Len
It certainly is. And some folks have operational issues bc of the trucks and couplers and others don't. But again, I am making
recommendations. It goes without needing to be said, that what one choses, is entirely up to them ;).
I would like to note, that I am strictly speaking of freight car operations. I have no and have no knowledge about, passenger cars.
For those interested, I started an N scale version of this layout with my father when I was 14 as an exact scaling down from HO. The minimum radius is 7.25 inches and an N scale spectrum 2-8-0 will navigate it without a pilot truck but my D&SL 2-6-6-0's made from spectrum 2-6-6-2's will navigate it with ease. I'm 27 now and have reconstructed it with better track and expanded it to include a turntable, the original blueprint was 2' x 3.5' and now it's 2.75' x 5' roughly. It's a really fun layout so far. Planning on adding an Nn3 branch to it on the bottom level much like the original with HOn3.
(https://scontent-lga3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xtl1/v/t1.0-9/12799338_341805855943173_3114630330297135653_n.jpg?oh=7993788976df64bab5e17fe2e735a134&oe=576927BF)
(https://scontent-lga3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xla1/v/t1.0-9/12802696_341805875943171_4948330696006831108_n.jpg?oh=137611901912d9070b3a911cf1151d43&oe=575E7E28)
Looks fun! :)
Hi Guys,
Love all the feed back. It is nice to have a place to go to learn new things and draw on others expertise.
While I am on here about restarting in the hobby, what is your take on the EZ Command DCC?
How is it to convert older dc locos to dcc?
Andy
I have one of the EZ Command DCC systems. It serves my needs. It is a really basic system, pretty much a "drive this loco or that loco, turn the lights on or off" operation.
Converting older locos to DCC is one of those, "Well, it depends" operations.
Things with open frame motors, such as older Athearn, MDC Roundhouse, Mantua, will require new can style motors, and rewiring to isolate motors from frames. The contact sparking from those older motors causes RFI with the DCC system.
Recent issues of Model Railroader magazine have touched on this matter.
Define "older" Athearn loco please.
Older Athearn meaning 1970s and 1980s.
Here, this style: these 2 are slooooowly having On30 sized bodies built for them.
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1507/25423308581_09625bd55d_n.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/EJz6Uz)IMG_2502 (https://flic.kr/p/EJz6Uz) by Forrest Wood (https://www.flickr.com/photos/dwm440/), on Flickr
Note that on rear one the brass flywheels and motor casing were at some point colored with magic marker.
Back to talking about articles in MR, page 70 in Feb 2016, and page 82 in March 2016, the DCC Corner feature, have some relevant information, with March 2016 installment being titled "Are your locomotives DCC friendly?"
Ring field motors of 1980s vintage, such as this Italian job from Lima, and its Bachmann contemporaries, are as I remember, not the first candidates for simple addition of a DCC decoder. That question is one that someone else will have to address, as having no desire to convert one to DCC I didn't make a point of keeping info on the matter.
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1518/25148936129_1f85c43c58_n.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/EjjSx4)IMG_2503 (https://flic.kr/p/EjjSx4) by Forrest Wood (https://www.flickr.com/photos/dwm440/), on Flickr
Getting back to John Allen, you must remember that he was working in the Lionel era where all the track plans had straight sections and curves and very toy like operating accessories. He showed that model railroading could be a lot more realistic.
Okay, so he used dinosaurs as a joke. What made the layout great was that there was switching as opposed to running long trains. I think he was a member of the Baker coupler fraternity and they weren't the best for switching so switching must have been a chore.
Another "great" model railroad was the O gauge layout of Frank Ellison. He emphasized running with time tables. He also had whimsical names for places. For example, there was an over the counter medication called Carter's little liver pills. On his layout he had Carter's little river mills.
At an NMRA convention I saw a film of John Allen's third layout in operation. The scenery was spectacular. One of Allen's innovations was the use of mirrors to make an area look larger.
Give Allen's memory a break - he was a pioneer. His layout was great in that it influenced people in adding scenery and operation to their home layouts. And the Varney ads were terrific!
Quote from: on30gn15 on March 04, 2016, 11:19:42 PM
Older Athearn meaning 1970s and 1980s.
That's a better descriptor and I would take it a step further and say, any one that does not have a gold casing around the motor ;)
here is my experience with the older athearn locomotives which I once standardized upon.....
the first thing you have to be aware of is the stall current on those older grey magnet motors. it can be quite high, well over an amp. this will affect your choice of decoder, as most are rated at 1 to 1 1/2 amps. you will need a more robust decoder than that if you want to use those motors. better yet, replace those motors with the gold flat side ones. one of the drawbacks I have seen in the older athearn motors is they can develop a weak magnetic field, and if so will stall and cook the motor rather than slip their wheels.
the motor is not isolated from hold the brushes in place. the bottom one has two tabs that contact the chassis. since you are going to have to remove these clips to solder to them anyway, swap the one with the tabs to the top of the motor, and after soldering the decoder wire to the bottom one cover it with a piece of electrical tape.
note that wiih the exception of the copper clips I just mentioned, the metal in an athearn chassis is difficult or impossible to solder to. my workaround for this was to drill and tap a hole for a 2-56 screw wherever I wanted to make a wire connection, and use a brass screw in this mole to solder to.
the electrical pickup from the trucks to the frame is through a pin on the chassis resting on a hole in a metal plate on the truck, this is not reliable enough a connection for dcc, so you may want to find a way to wire around that. the metal tab above the gear tower provides the other conncection from the trucks to the motor via a metal clip. discard this clip and solder the decoder wire to one of those screws I mentioned, mounted in the tab.
MAKE SURE YOU REMOVE THE HEADLIGHT AND HEADLIGHT BRACKET AS THESE WILL CAUSE A DEAD SHORT ON DCC.
lastly, apologies to Bachmann but I would not recommend using ez command here for the following reasons: first, the power output is way too low (1 amp) for the locomotives you wish to run. invest in another dcc system that has adequate power capabilities. mine is an entry level system with 2.5 amps and full programming capabilities, and the cost was under $250. which brings up the second reason I would advise against ez command: it can't do any programming other than locomotive address, and can't be upgraded to something that will. it is a very basic, stripped down dcc system. for me, the lack of programming ability alone is enough to remove it from contention.
Quote from: jward on March 05, 2016, 10:26:21 AM
the metal in an athearn chassis is difficult or impossible to solder to.
Yes but it is not impossible, or difficult, to solder to the steel headlight bracket receptacle that is attached to the front of the chassis. Depending on the model loco, GP38-2 or F7A, I might or might not also remove all of the rest of the headlight assembly. Nor is it difficult to solder to the steel components that are on either side of the truck assemblies on the gold case motor locos, right where it is secured by a brass grommet. This style truck assembly comes with the gold case motored locos. Make sure you remove the plastic (they also come with gold case motored locos) side frames before doing the solder work. I also think it is always preferable to use either flag or spade connectors that have wire soldered to them to attach to the metal tabs that project up from the trucks (for SW models a rail joiner w/a wire soldered to it works well) this way it is easy to remove the connection to work on the trucks if you ever have to.
Quote from: jward on March 05, 2016, 10:26:21 AM
MAKE SURE YOU REMOVE THE HEADLIGHT AND HEADLIGHT BRACKET AS THESE WILL CAUSE A DEAD SHORT ON DCC.
Why, if you have taken c/o isolating the motor first ???
(https://scontent-iad3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xtp1/v/t1.0-9/10525618_342742552516170_147758680007882188_n.jpg?oh=2c26c47a08edd01c58fa6d2c313da4db&oe=574EF459)
(https://scontent-iad3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xtl1/v/t1.0-9/12803292_342742542516171_8623822635422095320_n.jpg?oh=8b705e9031ad7f8ccb2a564a08e271ff&oe=576369AF)
some progress shots for those interested :)
Rye, I like those D&SL 2-6-6-0s you have on this layout. They look right at home on it, even though way too large (compare them with the siding lengths you have).
I can picture those engines being something Allen might have picked had they come out while he was still alive. The 2-8-2s and 2-8-0s also had that look as well.
In fact, much of D&SL, particularly the original line over Rollins Pass, would look like something Allen would do, complete with those backbreaking 4% grades.
Quote from: J3a-614 on March 09, 2016, 04:21:28 AM
Rye, I like those D&SL 2-6-6-0s you have on this layout. They look right at home on it, even though way too large (compare them with the siding lengths you have).
I can picture those engines being something Allen might have picked had they come out while he was still alive. The 2-8-2s and 2-8-0s also had that look as well.
In fact, much of D&SL, particularly the original line over Rollins Pass, would look like something Allen would do, complete with those backbreaking 4% grades.
Well actually if you really want to know the PFM D&SL 2-6-6-0's were made in a number of runs while John was still alive, it's surprising he didn't purchase one or two of them honestly. The first run came out in 1969 and the last run I believe was in '78, despite him buying the farm in '73. But his roster was considerably sizable for his railroad, so I don't believe he would've bought any unless he really liked/needed them. He already had a stable of Mallets. He probably would've preferred to get the PFM GN 2-6-6-2 operating better before anything new came along.
The sidings I have are adequate enough for an engine 3 or 4 cars and a caboose. I wasn't planning on using lengthy trains here. This is going to be a mining branch, off of expansions I have already cut out for a much much bigger 4'x12' layout. I will be using 2-6-0's and small driver'd 2-8-0's primarily here and the 2-6-6-0's to bring trains in from the mainline.