Here is how the math to calculate the grade works out:

Grade = Rise/Run x 100

10 feet is 120 inches, and this is our run, 3 1/4 (3.25) inches is our rise.

Rise/Run = 3.25/120 = 0.02708333...

0.02708333... x 100 = 2.708333...

So therefore the grade is just a little bit under 2.8%, which is steep, but not extreme. Preparations for helpers should be made for weak and/or light engines.

I'm assuming you need the wheelbase measurements for a turntable, yes? Well adding a "fudge factor" of 5 scale feet to the wheelbase you listed, the wheelbase comes out to 14.27 inches. So I would recommend a 14.5"  turntable at the bare minimum. Though 15.5 to 16 inches or longer would be better.

--Jake

I remember having one of these sets as a young child. (About 10 years ago, It was my first train set actually.) Only the locomotive and caboose were painted for Burlington Northern instead of Santa Fe. I would recommend swapping out the trucks for Athearn or Intermountain trucks, as the ones included with the set had plastic wheelsets and probably did not roll very well, and adding Kadee couplers to the cars. If you buy talgo trucks then I would recommend Kadee #148s, which are #5s but with metal whiskers used to center the coupler instead of a brass spring. If you choose to go with body mounted couplers, I would recommend Kadee #5s and Kadee draft gear boxes mounted onto the car underbody.

--Jake

Well "proper" is relative. Technically, a 40' car running on 12.5" (90 scale feet) radius curves is indeed prototypical, and therefore "looks good." Has anyone here ever seen the Harlem River Transfers in NYC? If you have, you know what I'm talking about.

I think the loco will show up on a lot of HO layouts as well as On30 layouts. I saw the engineering samples at the Hartford show today... those things are TINY!! Tear out the cab, and modify the backup light and it would make a more than suitable HO scale locomotive.

I remember seeing an ad for a stationary model of it in Historic Rail. A special motor kit was available for it. I can't quite remember, but I know it was either O or G scale.

Quote from: pdlethbridge on June 11, 2009, 07:49:14 PM
And to see the J without streamlining is even more impressive

Oh my! It looks more like a powerful brute than a speed machine without its streamlining!

Alex,

Have you tried Caboose Hobbies, or Litchfield Station?

Quote from: Santa Fe buff on October 07, 2008, 11:09:48 PM
Congratulations. Not all that surprising, around since 1855, bound to happen one day!

Just so you know, a single person from Bachmann was admitted into the hall of fame, not the Bachmann company itself.

^Also, sozos, this is not the place for a question like that, you would be better off posting that in the O scale board.


And send my congratulations to Mr. Riley as well.

I see the most practical use for this product being for smaller scales being in smaller scales, HO narrow gauge, and HO logging. Considering 3 out of the four have tiny, light locos, and the latter has insane grades.

I might try it some time.


--Jake

Quote from: Yampa Bob on December 29, 2008, 04:20:44 AM
GG. ...Since NEO didn't mention the DVD, he apparently didn't view it in the first place...

Quote from: Neo Fender on December 28, 2008, 11:47:38 PM...The instructions are not clear (to me)...

I would think that the DVD would be a form of instructions, no? But Neo, I have not used my E-Z Command in quite a long time, but I do remember that to run a consist of locomotives you just change their address to a common one. By that I mean, if you want loco #7 (lets say this one will be the leader) on the easy command to run with locomotive #3, you simply give them the same address, I would usually use the address of the lead locomotive, so I would reprprogram locomotive #3 to address #7. Then both locomotives will respond to the throttle when that address is selected. If you wish to have one running backwards, you must change the default 'forward' direction for the decoder, which I have since forgotten how to do.

And again, while some people have gotten good results with Atlas Right Track software, I prefer XtrkCAD. (Available HERE) Both programs are free, and I prefer XtrkCAD because its features are more comprehensive and precise, and allows free laying of track, or sectional track such as Atlas track, its directory comes with various track libraries from multiple brands and allows designing in scales from Z and Nn3 all the way up to 1:8 scale. While it does take more time to learn all the features and oddities XtrkCAD, I feel it is worth the extra time and effort to take all of the tutorials offered. And no offense to pdlethbridge, I just want the newer users to get a taste of both programs.

^For what its worth I do not like Atlas Right Track software at all. I prefer XtrkCAD. (available HERE) There is a bit of a steeper learning curve, but I feel that it is worth the extra time and effort to take all of the tutorials for the program.

Quote from: SteamGene on December 05, 2008, 10:57:16 AM
(I'm disregarding north-south as VT&P is a east-west railroad.)

^Good idea with the capacitor, Alex! I've never heard that one before, even though it makes so much sense.