Thoughts on Modeling Prototype Trains

Author: jkdummler

Getting a Jump On Operations: Paperwork Design 1

Posted on by jkdummler
The weekend was productive with 12 55 ton hoppers getting a great start, and a number of other cars getting some details added. With that kind of progress, it’s time to make some paperwork.

Operating a layout goes hand in hand with planning a layout in my mind.  Every layout has some kind of operation plan built in, be it the plan to run trains that the owner wants to just see run through scenery, switch industries, TT/TO, and any combination there of and more.  Planning for operating a layout comes along with the layout design because one must make sure there is room on the layout for the planned trains, and adjust either the layout or the operating plan accordingly during the design and construction phase.

The layout we’re working on really isn’t big enough to run much true TT/TO.  Some might argue that with me, and while I can run TT/TO, my personal preference is more laid-back operation with a 1:1 clock, time to switch, and time to get involved in the paperwork of the railroad, as that’s part of the model.  To that end, I’m a huge fan of lots of the information that Tony Koester and Tony Thompson have shared in the model railroad press and on blogs about realistic waybills.  The research to fill those kinds of waybills out is part of my personal fun.

A test location, close to what one side of our layout will have trackage wise, with every track named in order to facilitate making spotting instructions on waybills possible.

I know that Tony Thompson started out putting stickers with the car information on the clear envelopes (baseball card protectors) that he uses for holding the waybills.  I’ve thought about doing that same thing, but as the more realistic waybill systems have progressed, larger plastic pockets have been located and written about, and the advent of the ability to have a yardmaster re-route an empty car to a waiting shipper on the layout ideated of a car coming and going simply with a 4 cycle waybill system has emerged.  Tony Koester covered how that kind of system works in a video for the Model Railroader Video Plus site when discussing their Winston Salem Southbound project layout and operating it.  

The gist of the discussion is that an empty car is located by the yardmaster, and that person has a list of loads ready for shipping at online industries.  The yardmaster can then match an empty car moving through their yard and re-route it to that industry by slipping a new waybill into a pocket that is shorter than the original waybills, covering the routing information.  The one catch there has been that because the waybills typically include the shipping railroad information at the top, the shipping railroad information doesn’t change, and that’s just ignored.

A test waybill shows the car information at the top, the railroad shipping info, the routing, and other information that are typically included on the more realistic waybills. (You can see at the bottom that I need to get a paper cutter better than my own hand and scissors).

In developing my own waybills, I’ve chosen, prototypical or not, to shuffle some of the information on the waybills around.  I’ve moved the car information to the top of the waybill, allowing allowing for the shipping railroad and shipment information to be lower.  This means that when the yardmaster on our layout needs to reroute an empty car for loading, the new waybills can all read ‘Norfolk & Western’, have the correct railroad number (if I leave that on the waybills, I’m still hunting for an ARA listing to see if those were used before the AAR accounting rules). 

The resulting waybills fit nicely in the same plastic protectors that are now common to see on layouts using the more prototypical waybill system.

Now I have the ability to start creating waybills and routing for cars that I am building while waiting out the Winter cold for time to get back to the garage and layout building.

-JD

Placeholders and Stand-Ins

Posted on by jkdummler

Placeholders are a concept in computer programming or writing that are used to occupy a location that the creator intends to come back later with other data and replace once new data or information is available.  That’s a rough definition.  In modeling, we often see placeholders used for models that aren’t available or the modeler hasn’t had time to scratch build the prototype for, but they needed to have something there.  Stand-in’s in film or television are similar concepts, they substitute for the final actor and are used to get lighting and other setups done before the final shots are taken with the actor.  In either case, placeholders and stand-ins are useful tools.  They allow work to continue toward an overall goal, while in both cases the final version is essentially absent.  Everything else can move forward while and the final version arrives later.

In a world as vast as North American railroading has been, with the variety of designs for locomotives, we often see stand-ins being used to hold the place of a final model that will eventually be built, or sometimes the placeholder becomes close enough and is never replaced.  The stand-in then still represents the model, but efforts are put forth toward other things until such a time as the modeler might desire to go back and replace that stand-in.  This isn’t the same, in my mind, as “close enough”, but is related.  The “close enough” model is a stand-in intended to be temporary.  Many close enough models simply remain in service and aren’t replaced.

From my collection of YVRR materials. This 1987 cover photo from Model Railroader. The locomotive pictured, lettered as YV 23, is a stand-in, the best available at the time. This model was later replaced by a closer-to-prototype stand-in modeled on a Spectrum 4-4-0. Unless you were told it was a stand-in, would you have known?

In struggling with our Norfolk & Western coal fleet for 1927, there are few options on the market at the moment that fit the needs of building cars.  Westerfield models has hoppers, and that’s about it.  The N&W did not own USRA 55 ton hoppers which would be easily available as models.  There are not the “battleship” gondolas available right now.  The other larger hoppers, the HU class, are not available either.  Having built one HPb hopper last year, and knowing the speed that I build that kind of car, I can probably build 3-4 of those a year.

11 car coal train on the “Wauconda Central”

Take a look at this drag of coal that I spotted on a visit to the Lake County Model Railroad Club’s “Wauconda Central” back in November.  The train has 11 hoppers pulled by one locomotive, and a nice caboose tacked on at the rear.  If you watch the short video of this train rolling by, you’ll see a few things. The closer you get to the models, the harder it is to see the front and the end of the train all at once.  Second, this train is actuallYy long enough that standing next to the layout, I had to find just the right spot to shoot the actual overall photo.  The rest of it’s run, getting the locomotive and the caboose in the same shot was nearly impossible.  It works the same way with vision.  If you can’t see the front and the rear at the same time, your brain processes the train as being longer than it actually might be.

I know I’m still in the process of track planning, but let’s assume for right now that I have one large mine, with 3 tracks, and room for 20 hoppers.  If I have a morning train and an afternoon train servicing that one mine, and I want to switch out 1/2 of those cars each time, I need how many hoppers?  Roughly 40 or so hoppers.  If I don’t want the same mix moving just back and forth, I need probably to aim for about 50 hoppers or cars to carry coal (because gondolas can count).  If I build 4 or so hoppers a year, it would take me over a decade building the resin cars to fill that.  I need other cars, after all, and the layout, and structures, etc… 

The solution I’ve arrived at is to employ stand-ins.  It’s not my first choice, but it will get things running.  I know, you’re not supposed to tell folks as a prototype modeler that “hey, I’m building these cars as placeholders”.  I share this with you, though, because it’s an important part to getting things moving.  If I can build 5 or 6 cars in a weekend session at the workbench, I could conceivably build enough equipment to be hauling coal within a month or two.  Later, when the layout is up, when things are operating, I can start to shuffle in the models of actual cars.  It’s not perfect, but I highly doubt that anyone is going to pop up and offer HP or HU hoppers that are Ready To Run in the short term.

The easiest choice for stand-ins is probably Accurail 55 ton USRA hoppers.  There are about 20 cars in the “As Delivered” series (2400 series cars) that are lettered for railroads that would be plausible connections that I could change a few dates on, build, and press into service as foreign-road visitors.  That’s not terrible.  The number could rise to 25 or so if I renumber a couple for some of those connectors.  25… that’s half the battle right there already.  Then there’s the Accurail 2497, data only, as delivered, USRA 55 ton hopper.  They’re black, they have period data on them.   A few quick decals like car numbers and some road initials, and some stand-in N&W hoppers can appear.  Likewise, Accurail’s 3700 series gondolas, with some slight modification, could be used as placeholders for eventual battleship gondolas.  

It’s not perfect.  I’ll know, and you’ll know.  Other N&W fans visiting the layout might know.  However, over time, as the massive undertaking that we all face in building a layout starts to overcome the hurdle of getting things up and running, and as I have time, I can replace a few hoppers here and there.  I can build jigs to make the Westerfield cars assemble faster, or I can CAD and 3D print my own cars.  In the end, though, figuring out how to get something up and running is a huge mental hurdle and, as with the last post where I discussed abandoning a moving helix, this has also been a huge weight off in unblocking the planning dam.  

Time to find some hoppers to build!

-JD

Breaking Through The Information Dam

Posted on by jkdummler

Wow…. When you run into a planning block, it can be rough to get past it.  I’ve had that problem recently.  The common term is “analysis paralysis”.  

I was thinking about what might have brought on the “AP”, trying to solve it.  The short answer is that I’ve planned myself into a corner.  I played into a couple of issues, and it’s coming back to “bite” me so to speak.  I could go on and tick them off, like a somewhat nebulous future space with a shared current space, desire for multiple locations, in the end, though, I feel like I over-included research items and that seems to have just stuck me firm.

Let’s unwind this.  I know the space I have, I am somewhat sure of future space, and I know that my plans will fit in both, but right now, the layout has to share.  That’s a huge challenge, believe it or not.  While we accomplished quite a lot last year with our consolidation and cleaning in our garage, the demands of a family of 4 with storage for holiday decorations, tools, outdoor equipment, and a car mean the layout has to share… and do it well, with that stuff when it’s not inn operation, and it also has to be mobile enough or in a spot that is stationary enough to be available for operating when it’s time for trains.  People had and do build portable layouts.  It’s not unheard of.  The challenge I have run into is building a portable layout that includes everything I want to include.  Part one of unraveling my issues with planning this relates to making sure the planning allows for the space to be used properly.  

I’ve spent time looking at multi-deck layout planning for this project.  You can go back and find some of my thoughts in earlier posts.  However, something I’ve come to realize here is that for the space I have, planning multi-deck means the helix needs to be separate from the layout, and then that’s a portable section, any return looks have to be portable, and that’s another section, and the layout needs to be balanced if it’s stacked so that it’s heavy on the bottom and it won’t fall over on it’s own when being moved, usually be 1 person (me).  That’s a challenge.  Most folks with multi-deck layouts build stationary, around the walls, kinds of layouts, and while my plans include things being stationary at some point in the future, that’s not reality of now.

I was recently gifted a piece of 4×8 plywood by a friend, and the sight of that plywood sitting in our garage, leaning up against some things, gave me the idea of looking back toward my earlier years and 4×8 layouts.  I know, there’s a lot of stuff people don’t like about the classic 4×8 model railroad.  It’s a space hog, needing room around it, it’s limiting in the curves that it can accommodate, etc… etc… If you don’t have your own pet-dislike of 4×8’s, just Google the track plans for them, and you’ll find all sorts of threads online suggesting other kinds of layout design.  But…. In my case, and island type of layout plan is an ADVANTAGE instead of a drawback.  Look above… an island solves not going to multi-decks, killing the need for a massive helix that moves on it’s own, and it eliminates the separate turn back loops too.  Moving a contained layout around, with heavy legs on casters, is much easier for one person than the multi-deck affair.  The weight is distributed much better.  So far, I’m liking where this is going.    There are island-type layouts in the model railroad press that are not just 4×8’s.  Anyone remember the Model Railroader project layout based on the Milwaukee Road Beer Line?  With the addition they made a few years ago, that layout is 17’ long and still just 4’ wide.  

Am I solving my block by building a 4×8?  Well, no.  I recently exchanged some questions with another friend who has a great coal-hauling layout.  Steve was kind enough to answer some questions about his… 4×8…. layout.  He models more modern that we do here, but the lengths of equipment are applicable.  Steve’s layout handles his 50’ equipment through 22” radius curves, and the 40’ and smaller cars handle the 18” radius he has in some spots.  Ok, that’s good info.  While I’m leaning toward a footprint that is more like the Beer Line than Steve’s layout, I now am starting to form a few ideas here about what I can and can’t fit.

I think of track planning as a massive personal negotiation.  The historical information, photos, maps, and all the piles of research say to the track planner “THIS is what you need to include”.  The planner then says back “this is the space we have, not everything fits”.  The operator says “I want to run 30 car trains”, and the planner says “then get the information to cull some of what it’s presenting and we’ll see what we can fit, but we’re probably not going to get a 30 car train.”  On it goes.  It’s sort of a pruning process on the info tree.  With the massive amount of information I’ve collected, not only on coal hauling in West Virginia, but also on the industries in and around Cincinnati and Columbus, OH, it’s not surprising to me that the information part of the equation here overwhelmed everything and brought the space planner to a complete halt while the operator just panicked and said :I just want a train when everything is sorted out.  

I can see some compromises coming here again too.  I had set out at one point that I wanted to include some Z class 2-6-6-2’s in my plans.  There’s not a chance of including those if I go to 22 or 24’ radius curves.  Ok.  I like smaller steam anyway.  I’m comfortable with M class 4-8-0’s and the W class 2-8-0’s as the mainstay of this project.  That’s not an issue for me.  It also means that the larger 6 axel passenger equipment is probably out, unless it’s running into a station, and then off, not making any kind of layout tour.  That’s probably OK too.  Several sources list the N&W as having had open platform passenger equipment in service into the 1930’s on less heavily trafficked routes.  We recently acquired a shorter “old-time” combine and coach that would be perfect for a local passenger train.

Where does this leave me then?  I’ve unraveled some of the issues I’ve been having.  I’m no longer looking at a multi-deck layout, I’m now looking at an island.  That realization is like a weight being lifted off.  

Some other challenges, like lack of a readily available N&W hopper appropriate to 1927, that I can also overcome in stages.  My friend Eric recently stated to a group of friends (and I am paraphrasing here) that unless you tell someone that something doesn’t match a prototype, they’ll most likely assume it does, and if they notice, and ask, then you can explain things.  I can take that approach with my coal equipment, and set up enough equipment to get started with, and then replace or augment with resin or scratch built equipment over time.  That thought was seconded some time ago by another friend.  It makes sense to me.  I know some serious model railroaders who are also historians of their prototype railroads who have anachronistic, or ‘foobie” portions of their layouts.  Nobody would know.   The number of people who would know would be small, and then the number who would say anything is even smaller.

Pencil on paper…. that’s progress.

So, here we are, then.  I have a space idea that will work, and I have solved some of my other hurdles, even if they’re temporary hurdles.  What will go in the space, and how will the layout take shape?  I had hoped to be showing you a track plan at this point.  What I can show you, though, is a start, with a promise of more with explanation thrown in for good measure as I progress.

-JD

Thoughts on the Year Ahead

Posted on by jkdummler
Sights of things to come. A F&C boxcar (Central Vermont 36′) was recently on the workbench for decal work.

It’s time once again to set some goals for the year.  I find that goals, as opposed to New Years Resolutions, make it more likely that I’ll continue to aim at achieving the things I decide to prioritize.  With 2019 upon us, it’s a good time to look back at some accomplishments and set some goals for the year ahead.

2018 saw some significant work accomplished toward getting our layout up…. And then because of choices I made to re-use materials or to make-due with things, saw the layout, and those materials, go away.  It really is a combination of factors there, struggling with my vision, having close to but not exactly the tool to do what I wanted to do, making some mistakes in calculations of weight (remember, the layout was going to roll), and finally, the wrong materials and reused materials that just weren’t up to what I was trying to do.  I did learn a great deal, and had fun to the point the layout got.  In the end, the saws-all cured the issues and the trash truck hauled it away.

There were good things in 2018 too.  I managed to complete close to 20 freight cars, amassed a large number of cars to work on in the coming months, and discovered the N&W in Cincinnati, which will now wind up being the first part of the next iteration of our layout.  Lots of research was done, structures were chosen, and plans are being made.

It was a good year in modeling.

2019 should be as good, if not better, in terms of hopefully having a layout to show for the effort.

So, my goals for 2019 are:

  1.   Complete the benchwork for a 3’x14’ section of layout, including backdrop, sub-roadbed, sturdy legs, and straight cut lumber.
  2. Build as many freight cars as I can, two at a time, from start to finish.  The rule I’m setting for myself is that for each boxcar I build, I need to also build some other type of car.
  3. Build 3 structure kits.

That’s it.  I should be able to accomplish those goals, more guidelines, in 2019.  There are other things that I would “like” to do, like finding a shay, building a helix, laying all the track… but some things come faster once the bigger things are done.  Benchwork takes me FOREVER to build.  By setting my sights on getting the benchwork up and in place, and not pushing myself to get all the track in, maybe, just maybe, we’ll see trains running in 2019.  That would really be fun!

-JD

Assembling The Toolkit

Posted on by jkdummler
Track planning toolkit

With a certain comfort level reached now in my research of Cincinnati and the industries I’ve selected to model, it’s time to start drawing a track plan for that portion of the layout.

If you watch model railroading video’s online, you’re probably aware of Model Railroader Video Plus.  I watch several sources, but I bring up MRVP because of the planning series that David Popp has been doing on the C&NW in Crystal Lake, IL.  My research of Cincinnati and his on Crystal Lake have been nearly parallel for their locations, and it’s been fun to see how close my path is to his.  Along the way, I’ve learned a few things as well that I’m adopting.  (This link should take you to Part 1 of the series: http://mrv.trains.com/how-to/benchwork/2018/10/how-to-library-designing-a-layout-part-1-research)

One thing I learned from the most recent installment on starting to actually draw a track plan was about an architects ruler.  I’d never considered using anything other than my track planning template that I treasure.  However, Mr Popp’s use of the architects ruler allows for drawing in other scales, not modeling scales, but scale reductions, other than the 1/2″ = 1″ that I’ve been used to.  Drawing bigger seems really appealing to me.  

I found a reasonably priced version out of aluminum that also came with a new metal ruler.  Having added those two new things to my tool toolkit for track planning, I’m excited to get started.  Over the next few weeks, I plan to work on getting at least a first pass drawing done, and will be looking forward to sharing it with you.

-JD

Industrial Research – Part 4: Choosing Industries from Maps

Posted on by jkdummler
Seen several years ago at Trainfest in Milwaukee, this small industrial switching layout starts to provide some idea of what the upper deck on my layout is emerging to look like.

My project to research and design the layout space based on the N&W line into Cincinnati (Norwood), OH, has once again made some progress, and the focus continues to become sharper, in my mind.

As I think I may have mentioned before, this whole layout needs to be able to move in the future.  With that in mind,  and allowing for the idea that the layout “could” or maybe I should say “should” be designed to at a minimum fit in a truck that isn’t a full-on shipping container, I obtained the inside dimensions of a U-Haul truck.  Assuming that either a 20 or 26 foot long U-Haul truck was employed to move, I need to plan for less than 19’ long, and for about 6’ at a maximum “deep” on the ends of any protrusions.  Ok, so that makes for a really nicely sized “U” shape.  While I know the overall target has adjusted several times, bringing the HOW of moving a layout into focus early in this process means I have a narrowed focus.  Even if the layout eventually moves with a moving company, this size should be movable for them in a moving truck.

With that out of the way, it’s important to also keep in mind that eventually there needs to be a way to go from one deck to the other on this layout.  We’ve been discussing just that here, and decided on a temporary helix for our location now, with the idea that later on, when we have landed in 8 or 10 years in our permanent location, that we may add a larger helix and expand this whole layout.  For now, a smaller helix, and running point to point with fiddle-staging at the other end of the runs, is pretty much where we need to go right now.

Now, some actual information on what will be on the upper deck of the layout in Cincinnati, OH.

The area selected to model has the following companies along the stretch of the railroad:

Unnamed Coal Bins. – Coal / Coke

2nd Unnamed Coal Bins  – Coal / Coke / Ice

The Cook Paint & Varnish Co.  – Paint & Varnish

The A.M. Lewin Lumber Co.  – Lumber and Hardware

The H.W. Roos Co. – Metal Parts and Shores Mfg.

The Cincinnati Cement Products Co.  – Cement blocks

The Union Gas & Electric Co.  –  Electric motors

The A.S. Boyles Co. – Paint & Varnish

The Wet Wash Laundry Co.  – Washing Machines

Cincinnati Sewer Pipe Co.  – Sewer Pipe

The Ault & Wiborg Varnish Co. – Paint & Varnish

The Rebhun Last Co.  – Shoe lasts

The Ulland Coal Co.  – Coal / Coke

Victor Safe & Lock Co.  – Safes and office furniture.

The J.P. Humphries Co.  – Road building materials

Norfolk & Western Freight House – General merchandise

In addition, I want to add some kind of connection to the Ohio River, but that will come in another post.

It’s safe to say in the space I have, fitting all of those companies in, even just from this list of 16, might be difficult.  Some consolidation will most likely be necessary.

Norfolk & Western Historical Society track diagram for the Victor Safe & Lock Co.  The top track on the drawing reaches a coal bin, the middle track goes into the building for what I am assuming from the Sanborn map indication of an overhead crane in this area is unloading of materials for making the safes, and to the left is a shipping and receiving track.
Late 1800’s advertising for the Victor Safe & Lock Co gives some, but not great, indication of what the industry looked like.
Norfolk & Western Historical Society track diagram showing how the railroad intended to reach the Rebhun Last Co through another industry track.

I have yet to locate any really good photos of just about any of these industries.  I have found some advertising materials for the Victor Safe & Lock Co, along with the N&W track diagrams and the Sanborn maps for that location.  I also have the N&W track drawing for how they served the Rebhun company through the Ault & Wiborg Varnish track along with those Sanborn maps. I’ve been able to locate some items for sale online that were made by several of the locations in the list, but not anything showing their buildings or any part of the area.  I did finally just recently find a photo of the N&W freight station.  Locating what these places actually looked like has been a challenge.

At this point, I’ve mostly concluded that finding actual structure photos may not happen.  I don’t know that there were many photos that would have been taken in the area anyway, as it’s not a particularly tourest-oriented area.  That seems to be reserved for Mt. Adams in Cincinnati and the inclines that operated there.  However, that’s not necessarily a bad thing.  There are photos of Cincinnati from M. Adams that can instruct on what the businesses might have looked like, and the Sanborn maps indicate the materials, so the two combined can start to really paint a picture of what this portion of the layout will look like as I being to doodle track plans.

A portion of a widely distributed photo taken from Mt. Adams in 1908.  This photo starts to instruct on the general architecture and style of industries in Cincinnati of the early 20th century, and can be used to help in designing the industries to be modeled.

In the interest of keeping things interesting on the layout too, a few things will probably be left off.  Their shipping will move to the N&W Freight House, and the companies will be used as off-line receivers of shipments instead of on-line and modeled.  While it pains me to cut down on the number of industries, as I’ve already discarded many that would have been absolutely fascinating to model, as with any model railroad, space limitations are a ruling factor.

When deciding what to include, I’ve taken my pruning scissors, as it were, to things that feel somewhat redundant to me.  If you look at the list above, you will see that there are 3 paint and varnish companies, 3 coal / coke companies, essentially 3 building materials locations with a concrete block, sewer pipe, and road materials companies, on the list.  Simply cutting 2 from each of those lists we cut the numbers by 6.  The reality of layout space, and also the added reality of train length and sheer number of cars, makes some of those choices for me.

Pairing the list, I’ve arrived at the following set of 10 industries to model.  You’ll see here, too, some of my notes on shared trackage.

Victor Safe & Lock Co. (Multi-track)

(These 2 industries share 1 siding)

Ulland Coal Co

Cement Warehouse (Some maps list a “Coney Co” at this location)

(These 2 industries share 1 siding)

Rebhun Last Co

A.S. Boyle Co (Wax & Hardwood Finishes)

(These 3 industries share 1 siding)

Union Gas & Electric Co

Cincinnati Cement Products Co. (Cement Blocks)

H.W. Roos Co (Adjustable Shores)

A.M. Lewin Lumber Co (2 tracks)

N&W Freight House

Take into account my previous post about interchange, and add connecting to the CCC&STL, PRR, and B&O here, and this is still a very busy part of the layout.  

With that, it’s now time to draw.

-JD

Industrial Research: Part 3 – Drilling Down With More Maps

Posted on by jkdummler

As time allows, I am continuing to research and refine the focus of the Cincinnati portion of our layout plans.  In recent days, I’ve been looking at what is in the area that I have Sanborn maps for, and getting down to even reading the trackage markings for ownership.

I’ve narrowed the scope of the modeled area of Cincinnati to essentially one stretch of track running through Hyde Park and Evanston.  Some friends have been quite helpful in providing links to other sites that have started to help me fill in the picture of where this section of track actually sits, and for that hep, I am grateful.

A map or Cincinnati with individual railroads drawn in different colors.

The overall map above was helpful in causing me to take a 2nd look at some of the Sanborn maps I posted in the last part of this series.  After doing so, I cut out several portions and some industries, that I was considering adding, as they fall on either PRR or B&O trackage.  More on that another time.

To help orient this map piece, black trackage is N&W, red is PRR, blue is B&O, and green is CCC&STL.   The master map comes from this site:  http://www.cincinnativiews.net/Railroads.htm

Important things to note are that the N&W enters from the East, runs essentially straight through into Idlewild, then turns North and connects just past where the label for Berry Yard is to the CCC&STL with B&O and PRR interchanges scattered around.

The further I refine this research, the more I start seeing where the model railroad will sit.  

This map shows the area that I am narrowing my modeling focus to.

This second map shows the area that I have really good Sanborn maps for.  It focuses on the industrial area that runs East/West just before the N&W turns North.

Industry wise, starting in Hyde Park, there is a nice mixture of large and small industries, starting with the RK LeBlond Machine Tool Co. and the Hyde Park Lumber sitting “far” to the East, and then entering a stretch that includes no fewer than 16 industries (by my count) that should provide the bulk of our modeled area.  

This aerial view of the RK LeBlond plant show just how big this industry that was in Hyde Park is. Figuring out if this will be included in the end will be something to take into consideration as I choose industries to model.

As we move now into some serious focused research and planning, the two large industries in Hyde Park may wind up dropping off as I can in my minds eye where everything is starting to present as a model railroad.  Along this stretch, the ‘operator’ would stand to the North side and face South toward this line of industries.

It’s amazing how this is all starting to feel like it’s nearly designing itself.  I still have a lot of work to do finding structure photos if they exist, and fitting things into the layout space, but the Sanborn and other maps make that so much easier.  

The overall Sanborn map of the area I am looking at modeling has been further trimmed thanks to the other map seen above.

It’s probably time to start looking now at individual industries and deciding what is screaming to be modeled and what is begging to be left off.

-JD

Planning for Interchange: Part 1

Posted on by jkdummler

This photo, taken in Cincinnati, OH in 1935, shows a CCC&STL 0-6-0 that would be appropriate as an interchange locomotive to model. (Jeremy Dummler Collection)

How many railroads do you model?  That thought has been bouncing around in my head for a few weeks as I continue researching the Norfolk & Western in Cincinnati, OH.  

The maps show numerous railroads reaching Cincinnati…. The N&W, PRR, CCC&STL, B&O, just to name a few. Then there are the interurban lines in the city.  (As a side note here, I was recently sent a link to a great website that has information on the interurban lines of Cincinnati.  That can be found here:  http://jjakucyk.com/transit/?fbclid=IwAR22WTdqvZinge4hOsOpCE06GcmUC35u0iIj8fY4fxJVzp8qipfUMPUJquM)

On a layout, part of the fun in my mind is not only switching the industries, but having a place for cars to come and go, not just off the layout, but also into some kind of staging that represents connections to other railroads.  In a city, that kind of interaction is a logical place, and figuring out how to include that will my layout planning is something I am putting a little energy toward.

Of interest there, then, becomes thinking about powering interchange trains.  Do I hunt for an appropriate locomotive for all those railroads, do I simply include a track for interchange and have the N&W locomotives push and pull cars from and to there?  

In my mind, as I work out designing for operation on this layout, the answer is both of the above.  Power for some, tracks for others, is where I lean.

Imagine this with me.  One of the “big” railroads has a track that represents the N&W interchange with them.  A switcher positioned in that track, with a cut of cars, arrives at some point during an operating session to exchange cars with the N&W.  The interchange train picks up it’s cars, and might drop some cars to head East on the N&W, or for industries on the modeled portion of Cincinnati.  Then it leaves.  Elsehwere, the N&W switcher takes cars to an interchange and picks up cars from that interchange, without there needing to be a locomotive from the foreign roads.  That could even be done with 1 staging track then representing multiple interchange partners.  Traffic, however, moves, cars come and go, and there is the feeling that the layout is part of a system, not just standing on it’s own.

Aesthetically, I tend toward smaller power, and the CCC&STL 0-6-0’s in the form of B-10 or B-11 switchers would be size-appropriate to the size of the layout and could be the interchange line that comes and goes.  Meanwhile, the PRR and B&O would be served by the N&W trains going into and returning from staging tracks.

So, is it one railroad, the N&W, two, the N&W and CCDC&STL, four, adding the PRR and B&O, or is there really an answer, because the freight car fleet means I am modeling each of those railroads too?  I’m not sure there is an answer, but a change of the question is probably what makes me feel best.  How many railroads do you interchange with on your layout?

-JD

Industrial Research: Part 3 – Cincinnati Sanborn Maps

Posted on by jkdummler

Finding time in late November and December to do much modeling is always a challenge. There are many other things, important things, that involve family and friends spending time together that can take our hobby time away, or in our case, occupy the space that the workshop often occupies with a Christmas tree and other decorations.  

It isn’t, however, impossible to do anything.  Often I find myself with a few minutes in the evening with time to do some research, and I’ve spent that time the last week or so looking at Sanborn maps of Cincinnati.  I found a set of maps from 1922 with 1927 updates at the Public Library of Cincinnati and Hamilton County website. (http://digital.cincinnatilibrary.org/digital/).

Coming into Cincinnati from the East, this area shows a massive machine company and a lumber company that were both serviced by the N&W.

Using the map I had previously gotten from the Norfolk & Western Historical Society, I homed in on really the heart of the N&W industrial switching operations in the city.  After printing the maps that I downloaded, I used a cutting mat, straight edge, and hobby knife to cut and stitch together a larger version of the N&W map.  With everything pieced together, I then cut away with scissors to make a focused almost aerial view of the railroad, I believe in 1927 or close to.

The “Heart of the Matter”. There are a lot of industries crammed into this area of the map. The top of the photo is North. With this view it’s possible to start imagining where an operator would stand on a layout.

It’s fascinating to start putting some physical buildings with the simple track line-drawing that I started with, and to see everything starting to have some scale.  The information has started to paint a picture for me that will influence the track plan that I develop in the next few weeks.

As I started piecing this all together, I found myself starting to orient where an operator of this as a model railroad would stand, what the view would be, and what kind of compression would be necessary for modeling this part of the N&W.  I’m still working that out, but the operating potential here is obvious to me.

This section is North of the 2nd section, so the tail to the lower left connects to the upper right of the last photo.

Many of the larger industries seen in the maps have coal deliveries being made for furnaces or power plants.  Many of the smaller industries are somewhat unique.  A shoe Last company, soap companies, lumber…. But the sheer size of the massive metal working facilities is what catches my eye immediately.

I’m just getting started with digging into the industries, to see if I can find photos of any of them, but even representational versions would make operating the Cincinnati area of our layout something that would keep a crew busy for a while.

With the Sanborn maps now assembled, it’s probably time to start sketching out some track plan ideas.  That’ll be fun.  In our house, that means more paper, cutting, folding, tape, and full size mockups to move things around.  

Stay tuned!

-JD

Industrial Research Part 2: Fertilizer

Posted on by jkdummler

On the map of Cincinnati, OH from 1921 that I got from the Norfolk & Western Historical Society, I find myself starting to dig into research on specific industries and how their particular traffic might impact my choices in modeling and planning.

One of the first industries that caught my eye appears to have been located on, or reached by trackage on, the CCC&STL (Big 4, part of the New York Central Lines), and that is the Bowker Fertilizer Plant.

Bowker Fertilizer Works, Cincinnati, OH (1921)

I hadn’t ever thought about a fertilizer plant being located in what I would consider to be an “urban” setting, but the traffic location in Cincinnati, with a potential shipping reach for supplies to make and material to sell, being able to traverse the CCC&STL, N&W, PRR, B&O and other railroads fairly quickly.  Researching the Bowker company, I find it interesting that records of them as an independent company appear to end in the earlier part of the 1900’s in an embezzlement scandal that seems more 2018 than 1910.  The fact that the plant still exists to be called out with track on a 1921 map is interesting to me.

A listing of Bowker Fertilizer Products from an early fertilizer catalog.

Bowker was apparently fairly important in the late 1800’s in New England, and the Cincinnati plant was, from what I’ve been able to find so far, most likely their furthest reach to the West.

While researching the Bowker plant, I stumbled on and secured a copy of a photo from a different fertilizer company located in Columbus, OH.  The Independent Fertilizer Packing Company appears in records from 1906 until at least 1919.  The photo of the plant from 1906, supposedly along the CCC&STL (according to the source I got the photo from) shows many interesting details, including the building, the box cars ob piously behind the fence, the wooden fence, and the train over to the right.

The Independent Fertilizer Packing Co, Columbus, OH circa 1906. (Jeremy Dummler collection)

I’m still working on selecting industries to model, but a fertilizer company would provide something interesting, especially in an urban setting.  Without yet finding a photo of the Bowker plant, but having discussed operation of these kinds of industries recently with some friends, it appears that many of the buildings were similar in design from Ohio to North Carolina and on to other states.  That makes me think that a ‘generic’ building, based on the IFPC plant, and labeled for Bowker, could be modeled and provide a sizable amount of traffic to model, along with a plant that would probably want sure-spots for cars to be spotted.

Along the way, I’m learning more and more about life in the 1920’s and the important industries of the time. Imagine my surprise when I discussed layout plans with another friend who models 60 or so years later in the 1900’s, to find that his prototype in the 1980’s also was still serving a fertilizer company.

I never thought I’d be modeling THAT.  Now, knowing it’s a huge source of traffic, can I leave it, or the traffic to and from it, off?

-JD