Why "stuffed and mounted"? Some Action> No Action

Dear Mike,

Why must it be static? Check
http://www.carendt.com/scrapbook/page56a/index.html

and scroll down to "Smallest Layout for the Biggest Loco"...

With such an physically immense and impressive model, some action, even back-n-forth 
(which is easily achieved in both analog and DCC now),
would be a big gain over "stuffed and mounted" static display...

Happy Modelling,
Aim to Improve,
Prof Klyzlr

PS while you are on the Small/Micro layout site, use the site search for "passenger". Carl had some great ideas for emulating the appearance of passenger station and "full length pass trains" on incredibly-tiny layouts. There may be some tips to be gleaned...

Doesn't have to be static but ...

The primary reason for it to be static is really space.  I don't have a lot of space to actually use the engine the way it really should be (largeish home layout).  The other reason is I have more stuff for N scale and sorting out a few financial burdens from moving/divorce (very messy!) before I start building my N scale empire.

I was hoping to at least be able to setup a static diorama with this engine above my work desk (I work from home) but there is little preventing me from extending this into a bit more of a shelf layout other than time and possibly money, both of which can be resolved relatively easily (especially since I don't need to buy the engine!).  I also have a lot of junk brass HO track somewhere around here, about the only use I could think of for it would be strip the rails off the plastic ties and stack them up on flat cars as a track load with scale timbers between layers.

I will check out the small layout site, I haven't been on there in a long while and actually forgot to look there for ideas!  Thanks!

Mike

Look for the Portland Rose

Hi Mike,   A photo search for the "Portland Rose express" may turn up something useful. For model passenger cars in HO in the UP Grey scheme, look for Atlas/Rivarossi/ConCor brands. In the mid 1980's or so in N-scale ConCor was releasing boxed sets of the Portland Rose with a Challenger and 6 heavyweight cars in UP 2-tone grey of the Portland Rose express. Quite often they would release a HO version at the same time as the N Scale version. I have an old HO Rivarossi catalogue from about that period and I think that the grey UP cars may  listed in it. I think the scheme may be known as the "Harbor Gray" scheme. As to the mismatch between the yellow paint on the cars and white paint on the loco, you may have to live with that.  Apparently there could have been box cars  done as well - see https://forum.mrhmag.com/post/union-pacific-express-service-boxcar-12190529 Another easier option may be the consist of an "executive inspection special" with UP Armour yellow light-weight cars of say a chair car, diner, observation tail car and a flashy Challenger up front?  

...

Why stuffed and mounted?  Simple, it's old Rivarossi, which means if he's running anything less than code 100 track, the flanges are too deep.

If he is running code 100 it'll be fine on DC, but you have to watch these things and be careful not to overheat.

Hey why knock Code100?

If Code 100 works, then stay with it - It equates to some of the heavier railweights that would have been in service on the mainline in steam days. I don't know what the axle load was on the Challenger, but I'll bet that it was 25 tons plus some. You don't run big stuff on lighter rails unless you want derailments. As someone who used to watch hot metal torpedo cars with 50 ton axle loads go past in a steel plant, sometimes a heavier rail is a GOOD thing.   

...

Commercial Code 100 approximates 155 pound rail on sleepers that are designed for engineering purposes first [wide ties, large spike heads] and modeling esthetics second.

http://www.icrr.net/rails.htm

Once you go to a scale tie, there's no going back to code 100.

It is Mike's call to make

on what the Challenger sits on.. If Mike wants to stay with a static diorama as suggested in his original post then Code 83 or perhaps smaller, will as you say give a more prototypical appearance. If Mike wants to change to a short operational "shelf layout" then your warning about Code 100 track being needed is valid and appropriate. Given that this loco was designed to run on Code 100 track, there should not be a problem. It is Mike's call which way he goes - diorama of shelf layout. Getting back to Mike's original request that was for something to put behind this loco rather than what is under it, perhaps if anyone has some other ideas add to to what I put up above, please contribute them here for Mike's benefit.  

Thanks John for the info on

Thanks John for the info on the Portland Rose.  I was able to find an engine only a couple numbers off from this one and it seems there might be a few other color differences to the two-tone grey scheme an example: http://www.steelrailsgallery.com/Portland_Rose_watermark_.jpg  Certainly lots more to research here!

Thanks Benny for the warning re track type.  I prefer code 83 as it looks better but if there are going to be potential operational issues I may need to go up to code 100 to avoid headaches.  Are the issues going to be with switches or more of a general "all track" type of issue?  Also, I plan on keeping this as DC mostly because I do not have a DCC system (yet).

Re static vs shelf.  Well, I am mixed on it still.  I have a few ideas for a longer shelf layout that may look better than a static layout.

From the link from Prof and subsequent searches on there.  I am thinking I could do a short (under 10ft) shelf layout maybe 12" deep?  I was thinking maybe take the train shed and coal/sand towers and extend the line along the shelf to a station or something?

...

My suggestion is to plow forward with code 83 and avoid equipment with the larger flanges, You won't miss anything by not running them.  Freight/passenger you can upgrade to better wheelsets, there are now better engines available on the market as well.

Portland Rose consist

Portland Rose Image Link

http://www.steelrailsgallery.com/Portland_Rose_watermark_.jpg

I'd go static with a very

I'd go static with a very detailed scene of a scrappers yard with cranes, etc. cutting up the old loco. That way no one would be expecting it to move :> ) .....DaveB

platform or street

If you don't like the look of code 100, but the unit only runs on code 100, then perhaps have the layout be a small piece of street running or at a platform where the depth of the rail isn't as noticable?  Alternatively, you could have the track be so overgrown that the rail height isn't noticable.

...indicates that UP 3977

Actually, the tracks between Portland and Seattle runs at a right angle to the Columbia. The river runs east-west where the tracks pass over the river at Vancouner, WA. The now BNSF/UP/Amtrak line runs north-south at that point.

Actually, the tracks between

You are right, I am not sure how I reached that conclusion before.  I haven't started anything yet for this unfortunately as work has been rather busy for the last few months but I want to still setup something simple for this to display it.