SY mike conversion.

[electrical whiz kid]

The other day I had stopped at "Connecticut Valley railroad" to just take some pictures.  here, they had a Chinese mike-the same mike that Bachmann produced.  I had purchased two of them, Americanized one; had some photos in the notebook I carry, took a lot of photos, and lso took photos of #40, one of the smallest standard gauge mikes I had ever seen.  I got inspired to take the second mike out of the box, and do a carbon copy of #40-and maybe revamp my roster to smaller engines.  The more I thought of it, the better the thought looked.  The one thing they did there was (it loooked like it anyway) to take the cab of the bigger mike, and cut arched windows in it a la New Haven and presto chango-a New Haven J-1...  A Chinese cab with arched windows-what won't they think of next?...
RIch

[Doneldon]

ewk-

What you are considering -- moving to smaller locos -- is one of those very appealing ideas that hardly any of us ever pursue. The photos and videos of big railroading, not to mention basements full of right-of-way, must be too seductive, even for those of us with our whole model world in a small room or less. But I believe, and have seen it confirmed many times, fewer tracks and smaller equipment often lead to the visually and operationally most effective pikes. I'd be interested in seeing what you come up with if you explore this approach.

                                                                                                                                    -- D

[electrical whiz kid]

Hi Donaldon;
This idea has formulated in my mind at just the right time:  I haven't as yet started building the new layout other than cabinetwork, under layout shelving, etc; with much thought given to underneath accessability, optimum storage, etc.  What this has done is to give me more than adequate time to sit down, and without timelines, stress, etc, engineer out standards, what appeals, what doesn't, traack methods, etc.  As an example, I have decided to work with code 70 (funny thing; Peco has their better grade stuff at code 75), use Central Valley tie system, both for trackwork and turnouts-easy to work with.  Another example would be total reason for being.  I have found that writing a brief synopsis regarding the history of the railroad (I freelance), the type of industries it served, etc. help a great deal in establishing the parameters as well as the discipline to keep from running off wit hjust a gleam in our eye.  I have known only one person who could successfully pull off the "Plan as you go" type of philosophy, and that was George Sellios a brilliant man  in his own right.  I am not a brilliant man...
As a modeller, I too had been inspired by the larger version of the iron horse, but am finding that the sharper radius curves we have, as well as the short runs (unless you have a spaghetti bowl...) lend themselves to smalleer ridgid base locomotives. EG:  Bachmann came outwith that 2-6-0-I bought four.  4-6-0s have also found their way to my shelves, as well as praries and the aforementioned "Greencard" mike.  I will keep the larger poweer, and most likely, will run some of it  Kind of hard to shake the aspect of a long train powered by a 2-6-6-2 thundering across a set of diamonds and turnouts comprising a junction.
Rich

[Doneldon]

Rich-

You can replace that lumbering 2-6-6-2 with a funky 2-4-4-2.

                                                                                   -- D

[electrical whiz kid]

HI Donaldon;
I see Bachmann just issued one in On30.  nice little unit.  I remember some time ago in "Model Railroader" seeing a photo of one and I couldn 't forget the name of the road- the "Bicci and onri" .  The guy had it posed on a turntable, and it was a great lookinhg photo.
Rich

[Doneldon]

rich-

I noticed the On3 2-4-4-2 creeper, too. I'd definitely have to get one if I were doing On3. As it is, I have a Powerhouse hybrid brass and diecast one in HO. It's a terrific little engine and it runs like a top. Of course, it has good genes being from Oriental Limited. It always strikes me as an audacious little buzzard. I mean, what's the point of articulating an eight-drivered locomotive? Well, clearance and tight curves, of course, but it just seems so improbable. It is a lot of fun to watch.
                                        -- D

[jward]

Hi Donaldon;
This idea has formulated in my mind at just the right time:  I haven't as yet started building the new layout other than cabinetwork, under layout shelving, etc; with much thought given to underneath accessability, optimum storage, etc.  What this has done is to give me more than adequate time to sit down, and without timelines, stress, etc, engineer out standards, what appeals, what doesn't, traack methods, etc.  As an example, I have decided to work with code 70 (funny thing; Peco has their better grade stuff at code 75), use Central Valley tie system, both for trackwork and turnouts-easy to work with.  Another example would be total reason for being.  I have found that writing a brief synopsis regarding the history of the railroad (I freelance), the type of industries it served, etc. help a great deal in establishing the parameters as well as the discipline to keep from running off wit hjust a gleam in our eye.  I have known only one person who could successfully pull off the "Plan as you go" type of philosophy, and that was George Sellios a brilliant man  in his own right.  I am not a brilliant man...
As a modeller, I too had been inspired by the larger version of the iron horse, but am finding that the sharper radius curves we have, as well as the short runs (unless you have a spaghetti bowl...) lend themselves to smalleer ridgid base locomotives. EG:  Bachmann came outwith that 2-6-0-I bought four.  4-6-0s have also found their way to my shelves, as well as praries and the aforementioned "Greencard" mike.  I will keep the larger poweer, and most likely, will run some of it  Kind of hard to shake the aspect of a long train powered by a 2-6-6-2 thundering across a set of diamonds and turnouts comprising a junction.
Rich

some random comments about this thread.....

smaller cars and locomotives are one of the things which keep me from modelling the modern era. cars and locomotives were much smaller during the early diesel era, so i pretty much limit myself to pre 1980. 4 axle diesels handle 18r curves well, as do 50' or shorter cars. eventually when i get more space i will go to 24r curves so i can run my c636s and sd45s. but i can't see that in ho the trade off of a larger radius than that would be worth it.

peco code 75 is a compromise between code 70 and code 83. as such, it can be used with either. on my dad's layout, he has a few in use without needing traisition joiners.

from my experience, there are two types of modellers: the scenery men and the operators. selois is a scenery man, thus his railroad doesn't have much operating potential. track was plunked down to look good with the buildings, without much thought as to how the real railroads laid things out, or even how he would uncouple cars on tracks set several feet back from the edge of the layout. when he decided to hold operating sessions, he quickly found the shortcomings of the layout he had built.  in this respect, john allen's approach made much more sense. john pre-planned everything with not only an eye for the overall scene, but with an idea of how things would work once the trains started running.

the operating man, on the other hand, sees his railroad differently. he plans things like yards in ways that enhance the operation of the layout. ways that add wrinkles to the operation of the layout. ways that introduce problems to solve and require some thought to work around. when you are engrossed in a switching puzzle, you don't have time to notice scenic details, and even lack of scenery isn't much of a problem.  to once again use my dad as an example, his layout ran for many years with little of no scenery. the marathon operating sessions during that period often lasted the weekend.

finally, i must admit to being a fan of the multi-level spaghetti bowl type of plan. it just seems so much more creastive to build operating interest into a small compressed place. anybody can run straight tracks along a wall, only turning when a corner is reached. but that approach only tends to highlight how small an area you have to work with. a properly designed, multi-level layout on the other hand can look so much larger than the area you actually have. john olsen's jerome and southwestern illustrates this perfectly.

it's all in what you want out of the hobby.

[Doneldon]

finally, i must admit to being a fan of the multi-level spaghetti bowl type of plan. it just seems so much more creastive to build operating interest into a small compressed place. anybody can run straight tracks along a wall, only turning when a corner is reached. but that approach only tends to highlight how small an area you have to work with. a properly designed, multi-level layout on the other hand can look so much larger than the area you actually have. john olsen's jerome and southwestern illustrates this perfectly.

it's all in what you want out of the hobby.

Rich-

Exactly. My hat is off to you for such a clear statement of a lot of what I look for in model
railroading, while respecting folks who want something else. Thanks for your post.
                                                                                                                          -- D

[Pacific Northern]

rich-

I noticed the On3 2-4-4-2 creeper, too. I'd definitely have to get one if I were doing On3. As it is, I have a Powerhouse hybrid brass and diecast one in HO. It's a terrific little engine and it runs like a top. Of course, it has good genes being from Oriental Limited. It always strikes me as an audacious little buzzard. I mean, what's the point of articulating an eight-drivered locomotive? Well, clearance and tight curves, of course, but it just seems so improbable. It is a lot of fun to watch.
                                        -- D

The Baldwin 2-4-4-2 is a little gem of an engine. Especially since it is based on a real engine.

http://loggingmallets.railfan.net/list/lr126/littleriver126.htm

Now that would be a model for Bachmann to produce. A mallet for everyone. If that was done in the Spectrum line I am sure it would be a winner.
If you follow the HO brass market, when these engines come up for sale they sell for top dollar.

[ryeguyisme]

A Denver and salt lake 2-6-6-0 would be right there with the smaller engines, still very popular with modelers

[electrical whiz kid]

Those photos were fantastic-all I can say is"WOW".  I have a small collection of On30 locomotives, I couild be pursuaded without too much trouble to buy one.
What I do have is that Mantua 2-6-6-2; she runs like a horse!  I had installed a "Tsunami" decoder in her, and it made her just right.
Doneldon; the thing I do to make up for my lack of imagination is to take little tidbits from photos of layouts that really grab me by the trousers-ther are a lot of good layouts outthere and they have inspired some great thoughts about what might look really nice; so when the shelfwork gets done and installed, I should have enough ideas to go thrashing ahead full throttle.
RIch