I use styrofoam as well but also use N scale cork roadbead against the edge of my PECO track to make the soil/roadbed appear be level with the top of the ties.  I have been switching from PECO to handlaid for the past year and use ties glued to the styrofoam that are half-thickness to reduce overall height. I like this method as the trackwork looks backwoodsie but works very well.

I have tried sanding the PECO ties down but that's a lot of work that's better  not done. 

I have conventional cork roadbed in some areas and that works fine. Noise is a big factor in any model railway. I recall that Lionel kept the tubular track because it added to the railroad noise kids expected.

Uncle Joe turned his "superior" locomotive into a few T-54's.  The actual designers were at a university and had never designed a steam locomotive. Same problem we have with many products, people design things they've never seen or used.

A rigid frame will only work so well on curved track based on its total driver wheelbase. Many European locomtives that were ten and twelve coupled were narrow gauge with very small drivers spread out to distribute the weight on light track.

The Russian monster was much bigger than UP's 4-12-2 and was tried on what might as well have been a siding. The rail was 75lb/yd when the locomotive had an axle loading like Gene's beloved 2-6-6-6s. My understanding was that it went less then 25 miles and ruined all the track it ran on.

Charlie,

Thanks for some words of sanity. A lot of people aren't inclinded to look at the reality of what was built. While it is nice to have the biggest and baddest, most people don't realize the prototype environment.

The NdM mudhens were converted to standard gauge when the line they were on was converted. Trains ran a picture in a 1961 issue and it seemed much too small  for the new underpinnings.

Gene, The last steam locomotive to do 100 mph on the Southern was not a coal burner. It was 4449 an oil burning SP locomotive. I was on board for the ride with Graham Claytor. There was a whole trainload of witnesses as well as the staff from Trains Magazine.

For the naysayers on the electrics, go to Middleton's book "When the Steam Railroads Electified" I beleive that Middleton still lives in Charlottesville, ask him yourself as he had acces to the Milwaukie's records. What happened there was that the Electrics allowed them to merge two difficult divisions in Montana into one with no crew changes. The same for the Washington electrification.  As the electrics could MU with one crew, they could cover those two diviison with one crew and no helpers. The savings paid for the cost in five years.

The 2-6-6-2 was very hard on the roadbed and track because of over weight. I agree on it's speed capability  but being as overweight as it was, even the C&O knew how it tore up the tracks and operated them accordingly. Same with the Virginian whose version was even heavier on the axles.

Electrifications were done when labor was cheaper and there was no other competitor. Diesels hadn't happened yet. When they did, the run-through capability killed both steam and any electric system that needed renewal.

The cost of maintain roadbed and bridges under the weight finally made the railroads realize that they had to change. They were stuck until Diesels came. 

BTW, in my opinion, the 2-6-6-4 the N&W used was a much better locomotive than the 2-6-6-6 as it was built for purpose buy the railroad which understood what it needed.

While the 2-6-6-6 was a good industrial design, it flunked weighing what it was supposed to. It was well over the axle weight limit specified by both the C&O and Virginian. There was some fineling done when the locomotive was weighed.

The Challenger was the UP's idea for getting the axles split as opposed to the 4-12-2. A much more flexible engine. If some is good, then more is better so they went back to ALCO and asked for something bigger and got it. It didn't fit the turntables so the added a jack for the last axle..

The Milwaukie did their homework based on locomotives available for the 1914 period. The electis initially cut their operating costs in the divisions equipped by almost 52%. The electics were faster, required a lot less maintenance and didn't pull out couplers. The N&W and Virginain both took note of the operating economies tyhe Milwaukie had gotton. The C&O had better grades than either the N&W and Virginian and stayed with steam.

The UP wanted speed on its fast freights and the Challengers and Big Boys did that. The 2-6-6-6 slugged out the grades. But the large steamers on the uP were supplanted by Gas Turbines which were even fasterand required less maintenance. For the UP, speed was of the essence on big blocks of reefers and such.

Coal haulers aren't speed demons.

Go to the Con-Cor website. They are talking about just this subject. It appears that the pre-war version will be the first.

Gene,

I have done this for club layouts. I use blind nuts in each corner. Other methods are inserting a small rod to engage a tube set in the layout.

This is witner. I need it closed. It's cold in Ohio.

I've noticed that my roof vent on my Berkshire is open. Is this the normal position?

Those generally came in sets. The drumhead does not light up but an HO or O scale one can be found and made into what you want. Most are LEDs these days and could run from track power.

Kevin,

I built one of those Hartford models. They are challenging, even with many years of building similar construction Labelle and other wooden kits.

I'll wait for AMS (Accucraft) to bring theirs out.

For Fly Navy, the easiest way to get plans is to buy the Carstens book on Narroww Gauge Cars. It's advertised in their book section of RMC. It has the best selection of frieght and passenger cars. Otherwise, see if you can find a Sloan book "100+ years of D&RGW Freight cars". It has all critical dimensions and such.

Once upon a time I was into very scale On3 engines and rolling stock which I still have. Being a civil (or uncivil) engineer I had to restore meter-gauge  railroads in a place called VietNam. It was a poorly done colonial railroad but used 40 foot rooling stock.

The Colorado Narrow gauges used 30 to 40' rolling stock. While the rolling stock could be coherced into running on the Silverton Railroad which had one curve (The so-called Chattanooga Curve) of 165 foot radius (41 inches or so in O scale), a lot of rolling stock left the tracks.

Point is that we are lucky that Bachmann engineers and marketing people build us equipment that will run on absurdly tight radius'. The passenger cars will make the 18 inch radius turns  because the trucks have been moved toward the center of the car to minimize overhang. They were forshortened from a normal 50 foot car. Rather tan being 32 feet in length, the flat cars are about 25 feet. You are correct about the 16 foot stock car. No disagreement there.

My problem is that I am not going to convert or buy any San Juan kits or RTR for 30 inch use. I will keep my On3 as On3. On30 is all freelanced for my own use. My caution to others is that you can modify for use on less than 30 inch radius. Even with good track, there will be problems. Couplers should be made radial on any car over 25 feet in length if you use 30 inch or less for a radius. Bachmann cars were engineered  for purpose and they did a fine job. The San Juan cars are not engineered for less than the equivalent prototype curve. The underside of my short caboose is proof. There is a highly modified center sill and relocated center truss rods.

My feeling is still that it's  your railroad, just be aware that it isn't just put it on the track and go as it is with Bachmann equipment on under 30 inch radius.  I do have a module (3 actually) that have both On3 and On30.

If you used anything under 30 inch radius, it would be a good idea to use 72 foot cars as Athearn and other manufacturers offer.

As much as I like my scale California Zephyr, I can only run it at large clubs to make it look right.

When E. H. Harriamn took control of the IC, SP and UP  the design team at SP and Up was combined to give Common Standard designs for cars, locomotives and facilities. The common features were wagon-top boilers, Vanderbilt tenders and wheel arrangements. Driver sizes, boiler tube sizes and other features were incorporated. Most railroads of that day had their own engineering staff to deal with the specific requirements of the railroad. Many of the features used by the Harriaman railroads were later used in the design of some USRA locomotives.

The common standard designs were good enough to last until the end of steam.The designs greatly reduced maintenance costs and improved on line service. Aftr the split of the Harriaman roads due to anti-trust action, the railroads still shared many design ideas.

Your point is?

Prototype Mexican and US narrow gauge  never really had short, abrupt curves as we model with.  24 inch radis is 96 feet in full size. Selcctive compression is required though you can do anything on your model railroad.