The CQD: Mockup

I wanted to see how the envisioned landforms would look, so spent a couple of hours and another box on a mockup.

The 'kit' parts.

The upper 'deck' is at 1.75", while the switchback tail is at 1.25". The track heights were determined by what grade I could get away with in the space. The lower switchback leg works out to 5.7%, while the upper leg is 5%. That's pretty darn steep for a railroad, but not unprecedented for American prototype operations. There is a switchback on the excursion Mt, Hood Railroad that exceeds 5%. Space between fouling points has been adjusted to Inglenook proportions, and the track arrangement reflects my experience operating the NPP. 

• bkivey's blog
• 1254 reads

Comments

Sorry to be a bit sceptical

Sun, 2020-11-08 01:20 —  Oztrainz

Hi bklvey

I think you will be lucky to achieve half that height and I think you may have badly under-estimated what the real gradients will be to achieve those height separations.

Here's why:

While there is no indication of scale (I'm assuming HO) rail tracks don't handle vertical curves all that well and you will be amazed at how much length those vertical curves will eat. The tracks can't handle the transition on and off grades as well as the cardboard in your mock up. 

Also you can't have a vertical transition on a turnout - It just doesn't work trust me on this. Here is as close as you can cut it 

 with the change in relative elevation beginning just after the frog. Unless you have to go that tight I'd recommend that you don't. We get away with it because we run single short 4-wheel wagon through this track. The chances of a bogie wagon coupled to others being able to take this type of vertical transition without uncoupling or derailing are not good. 

Remember what I said about vertical curves previously? Consider the following diagram

with your cardboard mock up you are working with "Measured Grades" - but the Actual Grade is a whole lot steeper because of the length eaten up by "acceptable" vertical curves that can be traversed without your wagons becoming uncoupled.  

At the bottom of the grade, you just simply leave stuff behind. Get this wrong at the top of the grade and you have an instant runaway. 

Please have a look at  https://forum.mrhmag.com/post/middle-school-model-rr-vertical-curves-12198545 both the concepts in the original post and the "Whoosh Factor" post. The Whoosh Factor post also should give some idea about the type of rail butchery required to get smooth vertical transitions without kinking the rail itself.  

Please also be aware if you have more than 1/2 a KD coupler head height mismatch between wagons standing on a vertical curve then you are entering "breakaway territory" where a minor track imperfection or any "bounce" in the train caused by a minor loss of traction/speed variation/etc can cause a catastrophic misalignment failure at the coupling head and a WHOOSH. 

As you are running bogie rolling stock, then you may be in for a nasty surprise at just how gradual the summit vertical curve has to be and how much horizontal distance this vertical curve will chew up to avoid a WHOOSH. It gets much worse if you are planning to run long passenger cars and autoracks through the summit vertical curve rather than 40' or 50' long box cars only.   

The top vertical curves as you come off a grade and go back onto the flat are probably going to be he most critical pieces of track you are going to have to lay on your whole layout. From what I've seen so far, you have 2 of these.

The consequences of getting it wrong will be rapid and spectacular.

Regards,

John Garaty

Unanderra in oz

• reply

Did that once in N scale

Sun, 2020-11-08 14:13 —  Janet N

And it was scenically interesting and absolutely unworkable in operation.  Could not get even a single F9 to negotiate the climb over that distance, much less haul any cars.  Just operated the rest of the layout until I had to put it into storage, and then when I came back, the movers demolished it (along with destroying much of my furniture as well), so I finally pitched it and started over.

Janet N.

• reply

Thanks For the Comments

Sun, 2020-11-08 19:11 —  bkivey

It appears this project can increase my modeling knowledge, specifically relating to modeling grades. I haven't done that before, so new ground. I especially appreciate the advice on the allowable coupler height variation. That is important. 

It appears the next step is to come up with a controllable 12V DC power source and put power to some track and see what gradient the locomotive can handle (if it works). I'll hunt through the electronics dump to see what there is. 

Regards, 

Blair Ivey

NPP/CQD

• edit
• reply

The CQD: Bargain Bins

Wed, 2020-11-11 01:17 —  bkivey

I needed a 12V DC power source, preferably with a rheostat, and some nickel-silver track. The electronics dump yielded a couple of computer power supplies that would give 12V DC, but both were dead. Forwarded to the recycling graveyard. 

I spent an afternoon touring the local hobby shops for junky HO stuff, and found:

The Hobby Smith ( https://www.hobbysmith.com/). Nothin' but trains, and usually have a video of local railroad action playing. Found some Bachmann powerpacks for $5 each (got two), and some Kadee No. 148's for conversions. Also a couple of Shinohara #5 turnouts (L and R) for $10 each. 

The Whistle Stop ( https://wsor.com/). Probably the premier model train store in Portland, OR. It is a challenge to leave without buying something. Maybe a lot of something. A decent used train stuff area; mostly N scale, which I look forward to most times, but this time, looking for HO. Picked up 8 Atlas #4 turnouts for $10 each, a couple of $5 flatcars, and some miscellaneous items, so didn't quite go yard here. I would have liked to do the layout in #5's (or #6's), but just not enough space. 

Tammies Hobbies ( https://www.tammieshobbies.com/) in Beaverton caters to the scale plastic model and R/C folks, but a full 30% of the store is a very decent selection of model railroad stuff. There is a model train specialist on site most days. I picked up new N/S code 100 flextrack for $4.99/section. Not a lot of used track, but a decent amount of used  pre-owned N-scale and HO, if your tastes run to the last 30 years. There is a consignment area, with a beautiful Bachmann N-scale model of the North Coast Limited for $200. Thinking about it. 

The transformer warning cannot be missed. 

The $5 powerpack, and equally frugal test track. 

I smiled when the locomotive ran. "It Lives!". The Conrail loco actually ran pretty well for straight out of the junkbox. The Amtrak loco showed signs of life, but was not what you would call 'reliable'. I looked up the number, and 1639 wa assigned to a GP-15-1, built 1979. Not exactly as represented. I'll look at the mechanisms, and I assume Life-Like produced several body styles on the same chassis, so I'll see what fits. Looks like a runner. 

Because the layout has a significant grade, I tested the loco up various gradients. It appears to be able to climb the grade desired, but I won't know until I test it on the mocked-up track. 

While I had the test track out, I looked at the N-scale RS-1's and RS-2's I'd bought for the Wenatchee - Oroville project. 

The three KATO RS-2's ran well, while the Conrail and Amtrak locos look on enviously. 

The four Atlas RS-1's also ran well, with impressive low-speed performance, considering the power supply. 

• edit
• reply

The CQD: Bargain-Bin Benchwork

A friend of mine has a pile of vinyl fence parts stacked on his property:

Every time I've seen this, I've thought "That looks like benchwork". And if you add about $60 in hardware, foam, and construction adhesive, plus a few hours, it can be:

Except for the foam and 1" MDF strip to mount the foam to, all of the structure is from the junk pile. When the layout landforms are finalized, I'll put in some fascia. Also looking to put a slide-out table where the aluminum braces are. Next time I'm near a construction recycling place, I'll have a look. 

Tools were limited to a miter box and saw, cordless drill motor with appropriate bits, pliers, a hacksaw, motor tool with cutoff disc, and a nut driver. Power tools were available, but because I hadn't worked with vinyl as benchwork, I preferred to make my mistakes at a slower pace. It was about seven hours in the building, and about a third of that was reworking, because, vinyl. 

I chose to hold the structure together with braces fabricated from mending strip. This compromised the structure, but sturdier fabrication would have been more trouble than using lumber. Seen the prices of dimensional lumber and plywood lately? Yeah. None of the structural members was more than 36" long, so the aluminum girder acts as support and bracing. It came from the inside of the fence rails. The key to whatever stability the structure has is the tension wire rope with turnbuckle between the legs on the bottom. Un-tensioned, the structure 'hogs', and the wire rope and adjustable feet under the legs allow for some approximation of level. 

It's good for what it needs to do, and cheap enough. Using store-bought sticks would have at least doubled the cost, but made for a sturdier structure. Like most other things on this layout, it's an experiment. 

• bkivey's blog
• 1040 reads

Comments

  "The key to whatever

Fri, 2020-12-18 09:42 —  ctxmf74

If you have more of the square vinyl you could probably add a truss assembly between the slanted braces( in front and in rear) and solve that problem.   Always interesting to see novel approaches to the hobby ....DaveB

• reply

Thanks commenting DaveB

Sat, 2020-12-19 18:42 —  bkivey

You are correct, and there are several ways to fix the problem, chief among which is to use better material. I just wanted to see if serviceable benchwork could be made from free stuff. I was also looking to use some of that material on my 'real' model railroad, but from experience, I will pass. One of those things that *can* be done, but probably shouldn't be. 

• edit
• reply

The CQD: Foamer

The first order of business was to find out what grade the locomotives on hand could actually climb, and do so with a useful load (2 cars). I had wanted 2" of elevation gain with the switchback, but only had 36" total track length to work with, not including the tail track. That's a big ask, unless your name is Shay. Several commenters had noted that there was no way that would work, and I did not doubt them. But you have to try. 

At the intended grade, the locomotive just *would* get to the top, wheels slipping madly. Didn't even bother with cars. At 0.5" elevation gain for each leg, the engine motored on up. The two heaviest cars I have are, ironically, flatcars. I think the train-set house cars weigh less than my properly-weighted N scale equipment. The locomotive got them up the grade well enough, although you probably wouldn't want to try it on wet track. So enough elevation change to be operationally and visually interesting, and anything that helps with those on a layout this size is a good thing. 

Bought some 2' x 2' x 1" foam squares, and replaced the cardboard mockup with them. The mockup was useful in that I knew what parts had to be cut, and about where the track had to go.

Weighting with appropriate books. The books combined likely outweigh everything that will be above the benchwork. 

I'll let the track sit for a little while I adjust siding lengths. I will likely adjust the siding at the top of the lower deck to 3 car lengths, keeping the 5-3-3 Inglenook ratio for the lower level. The near mainline switch on the lower level will be moved back to make a useful interchange track. The upper level lacks a 5 car space, and I'm looking at moving the near siding switch back along the main and shortening the siding. The siding track beyond the switch is not actually part of the plan. 

With the laying of track comes roadbed and ballasting, and the need for a coherent vision, or 'story', to focus the effort. The CQD and SOS are two Class 2 railroads serving an urban area in the coastal Mid-Atlantic states. This is their story (dum-dum).

The CQD is represented by the trackage on the left, and serves the only two industries on the layout, located at either end. Probably a grocery warehouse near and a furniture factory far. The CQD put the switchback in to serve the factory powerhouse. Sometime later, another railroad (not the SOS), put in a line adjacent to the switchback. The furniture folks were happy to have a little competition for their fuel business. After the lawyers finished, the competitor could leave cars for interchange, but could not switch them. The railroad eventually abandoned the line, to be taken up by the SOS.

Time frame will be determined by the equipment available, or what comes over the transom, but likely late 60's/ early 70's. Whether the story is plausible isn't as important to me as to give some direction to the modeling and operation. 

• bkivey's blog
• 979 reads

Comments

Those #4 (4.5) Turnouts

Sun, 2021-01-03 19:41 —  bkivey

Ugh. I used #4 turnouts on the NPP, because there wasn't room for anything else, and the same compromise on the CQD. But over the last several years I've become less happy with that number of amphibian. My current layout designs offer #10 (0r #12) for mainline crossovers, #8's for Class 1 mainline turnouts, and #6 everywhere else. Branch lines #7/#5 respectively. The longer turnouts look better, and offer smoother operation. In 1:160, this is a little easier to do than 1:87. #4's look almost like street car turnouts. Well, ballast and weathering can obscure some sins. 

• edit
• reply

The CQD: Roadbed and Elevation

With track and a track plan, I needed some roadbed. HO cork roadbed was the obvious answer, but that costs, like, money. Well, $30 - $40, for the amount I'd need, keeping in mind the sidings wouldn't need any. Looking around the house, I found a 30" x 40" sheet of 1/8" foam board. A little arithmetic suggested that might be all I'd need. 

First step was to rough-in the switchback. There are many easy ways to work foam; none of which I used. Just whatever tools were on hand and By Guess and By Goodness. I found a hobby sanding block worked well to smooth the transitions. 

I cut the foam board to 1 1/2", which turned out to be the same width as the alleged sub-roadbed. Not especially worried. My main concern is that the roadbed does not have the desired shoulder profile. My experience suggests this will be a problem. The idea at this point is to run some edging (caulk/putty/spackling) along the edge of the roadbed. This seems easier than trying to cut a consistent profile into 60 linear feet of roadbed edge. And, heck, it's worth $40 not to have to do that. So, I'll see how the edging works. 

The upper switchback leg has a funky curve to it, and perhaps no civil engineer in railroad employee would counsel it. Spent some time sliding switches back and forth trying to maintain track geometry and Inglenook spacing. The interchange track will accommodate three cars; one more than expected. The runaround turnouts are going to have to be crammed together. Nothing outrageous, but some trimming will be needed. 

The plan is to divide the layout into three blocks: Upper, Switchback, and Lower. I'm looking to wire the panel for DC dual-cab control, although only one cab at the moment. 

• bkivey's blog
• 814 reads

Comments

The CQD: Turnouts 1

Wed, 2021-02-10 13:21 —  bkivey

Having acquired the track, it was time to move on to turnouts. There are ten of them on the CQD, and my experience is that if there is troubled track work, it will start with turnouts. 

During the NPP construction, work came to a halt for four months while I figured out the turnout situation. There is lots of advice, some if it conflicting. DC-friendly? DCC-friendly? Power-routing, dead frog, live frog: It can be confusing. In the end I hooked up some track on the workbench, ran a locomotive, and it worked fine. 

Which, working fine on the bench, and working fine installed on the layout, especially after a couple of years, becomes problematical. I wanted to avoid those problems. 

The CQD uses eight Atlas Custom Line #4.5 C100 NS turnouts, and two #5 Shinohara's. The idea was to have turnouts that were

• Mechanically and electrically reliable. This meant a live frog, which introduces some complications. 
• Manual operation. I used Peco track on the NPP, mainly because I like the spring-operated switches. The Atlas turnouts require some sort of switch machine, so I wanted to add a spring throw. 
• Enhanced appearance. The stock turnouts are perfectly serviceable, but can be improved. 

The primary limitation was that nothing could be more than 1/8" below the turnout, or the thickness of the roadbed. 

There were two test articles for this project: an old brass turnout to test spring throws, and an extra layout turnout to modify, or, Turnout 0.

After looking around to see what other people did, I started with removing the point rails. The ends of the point rails snap in to the throw bar, and the heels are held in place by rivets. A 5/64ths bit was employed for the rivets. This is just large enough to spin the rivet out, and one end can be cut off with side cutters. You could drill the entire rivet out, but I wanted to minimize load on the track. After the rivet is cut, the point rail and contact plate slide out. A #17 blade was used to cut under the closure rails far enough to slide in a joiner. 

Next step was to turn the turnout over and make four vertical cuts on the outside of the head block ties. Or where those ties would be, if Atlas included them. The tie section will lift out. 

Turning attention to the electrical side, I wanted to use 0.020" music wire embedded in the ties, rather than regular wire. This seemed to be easier to do, and a cleaner installation. The grooves for the wire were cut with a cutoff disk in a motor tool, and took about 20 seconds. A little care has to be taken not to 'burn' through the ties.

The rail jumpers are two separate pieces of wire, insulated from the frog jumpers by 0.015" styrene. The plan was to have screws underneath the throw bar contact the appropriate frog wire, and so power the frog. CA holds the wires on Turnout 0; production models will use epoxy. 

Head block ties were made from basswood, and cut to a scale 12'. I looked through several railroad engineering and maintenance manuals, and that seemed to be the standard length. 

On this particular turnout, I had bollixed up the throw bar during the spring development phase, and needed a new one. I wanted to use one of the head block ties, as it was already the right size, but did not think basswood was up to the rigors of regular service. 

The replacement throw bar is a sandwich of two pieces of 0.040" styrene. I had wanted to place the point rails closer to the stock rails than the standard turnout for a more realistic appearance. I conducted tests with a railcar truck, and found there is an alarming amount of lateral play in the wheel sets. Like half the tread width. Not so much a problem with plastic wheels; metal wheels need more space to prevent shorts. I used the stock point rail spacing. 

The top turnout is the spring throw test bed, the middle turnout is a stock layout turnout, and the bottom example is the modified article. 

Setting up some track and applying power, the turnout works as intended. The next project is to increase the reliability of the throw bar contacts, and protect them, and the throw bar spring, from weathering and scenicing. 

Soldering Station

I bought a soldering station last year, and finally used it on this project. I like it. It's almost like spot-welding. The iron stays hot, and the operation goes quickly, so not so much worry about melting plastic. 

MOW

I put all of the disparate threads under the one subject "CQD", in the hopes of cleaning up the blog a bit. The MRH blog format is a bit different than most other platforms. 

The CQD: Turnouts 2

While 'CQD' means 'Cheap, Quick, Dirty', it does not mean that attention won't be paid to construction  Given my experience on the NPP, I am paying some attention to the turnouts. 

I had used an old brass turnout to test spring throws, and a layout-similar Atlas CL code 100 turnout to test modifications for increased reliability, or Turnout 0. I took a layout turnout (Turnout 1) to develop production procedures. I think if you are going to make more than two of something, you probably need a procedure. 

I wanted to protect the area under the throw bar with the contacts and spring, and used black 1/8" foamboard (the same thickness as the roadbed) to form a mask around the underside. The mask also acts as a brace for the throw bar to resist warping. 

I had to replace the throw bar for both turnouts, as they had been tested to destruction, and used 0.060" styrene. The mask, head blocks, and the throw bar screws were secured with epoxy. 

I had planned to put black 0.020" styrene sheet under the foam board mask to protect the mechanism. I decided to wait until I see what color ballast will be used, then paint the sheet a similar color. The black color was chosen so that after the paint inevitably wears away, it won't be a glaring white. None of the hardware projects below the foam board. 

The idea is to have the mask blend in with the roadbed, so the switch is protected and supported. 

So that all looks good, is robust, and the points snap into position. Will it blend (run)?

No. 

Works great on the diverging route, with the loco running as slow as you please. The main route has a dead short somewhere. This is frustrating, because I thought I'd taken care to make sure this would not happen. Time to put it down and come back.