|
Post by dak94dav on Nov 21, 2016 12:21:10 GMT -5
According to my "Model Railroader's Guide to Coal Railroading" by Tony Koester, there was a significant coal boom in the early 1970s. He states:
"The energy crises of the early 1970s ended the doldrums of the Appalachian coalfields and created car and motive power shortages."
In that case, maybe more of your power could've been purchased in the early 70s instead, as the railroad struggled to keep up with increasing business.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 21, 2016 13:15:29 GMT -5
According to my "Model Railroader's Guide to Coal Railroading" by Tony Koester, there was a significant coal boom in the early 1970s. He states: "The energy crises of the early 1970s ended the doldrums of the Appalachian coalfields and created car and motive power shortages." In that case, maybe more of your power could've been purchased in the early 70s instead, as the railroad struggled to keep up with increasing business. Thank you very much for this information. More fuel to add to my research and development.
|
|
|
Post by lyled1117 on Nov 21, 2016 17:09:47 GMT -5
Brian, I don't know if you are an ALCO fan, but.... in the mid 70's very close to your projected turf the Interstate Railroad was retiring a lot of RS-3's. These were in coal service for the INT edited to add, this image is the scheme that NS used for it's Heritage locomotive representing the Interstate if it's not obvious Lyle
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 21, 2016 20:40:15 GMT -5
Thanks Lyle for the information and input.
I am staying with EMD. Not just because I am an EMD modeler, but for this reason. WRR went to EMD for their SW1500. Even though I am changing locomotives, I am still staying with EMD. Less of a change in history than going with a different manufacturer.
I really do appreciate the idea though.
|
|
|
Post by lyled1117 on Nov 21, 2016 20:47:39 GMT -5
You are paralleling what INT was doing at that time. They had been an ALCO road, but with the demise of ALCO they started going with EMDs as well. If I recall correctly, they were Southern units marked for INT. They had SW1500s and GP38-2s. I did some quick digging but was unable to find images of the new locos, but those wouldn't be out for sale of course. The RS's by this time were in Southern tuxedoes. Your road of course didn't have much history if any with ALCOs, so they probably wouldn't have had any experience keeping them in running order and would probably be uninterested in acquiring them. None the less, food for though on the RS-3
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 22, 2016 20:25:02 GMT -5
So today I was batting around whether I should build my layout as an N-Scale layout to run longer trains or an HO super detailed Proto-87 layout. Proto-87 won out. I am a junky for detail. Let me rethink this. I am going to look into Proto-87 and if it is worth it. Maybe just go as far as code 88 or semi-scale wheels. That might be more reasonable. I have made a few changes. 1. Moving the era back to 1969-1972. 2. Motive power change. One phase III GP9 with DB's. Instead of purchasing the GE 70 tonner in 1957, they bought a phase III GP9. 3. Scenario stays the same for the GP28's. The change is only two instead of three are purchased. The layout plan can be seen here. appalachianrailroadmodeling.com/winifrede-railroad-track-plan-ho/A local friend will help me make a few adjustments to allow a little longer run. The right side goes from a length of 15' to 17'. The width drops to 9'-6" from 10'. I will move the tipple to the left side and have a double deck on the left. The top deck will be at approximately between 56" and 60". The lower deck will be around 45" The climb is about 17 to 18 feet long. Without doing the calculations, I think that is just over 2% maybe 3%.
|
|
|
Post by Randy Earle on Nov 23, 2016 0:05:50 GMT -5
My road is going to be 2 11 foot shelves connected by a helix with a 2 track staging area hidden behind scenery. I'll have an interchange with the Pennsy using 2 Proto RS-27s.
|
|
|
Post by slowfreight on Nov 23, 2016 10:47:48 GMT -5
Also consider whether your track is good for 263k or 286k. This would definitely be the question in your 1970s scenario (which is more appealing to me than the late-60s scenario, but it's about what you like). You may also have track rated only for 210k during your era...not as likely for a coal hauler, but by setting your load limit you have to make a couple of decisions
--What rail size do you want to model? At 210, you could be dealing with 75lb rail. 263 would likely be 90lb rail. I doubt you'd see heavier than 112lb rail on such a line. But if you have enough good ties and run slowly, we handle unit coal trains on 90lb stick rail without problems. --Are you going to have 50t hoppers at 210, 70t hoppers at 263, or 100t hoppers at 286? --If you are at 210 or 263, you will definitely want to lighten the weight of your units. With the short haul, small fuel tanks are a no-brainer. Other changes could be less visible on a prototype unit, such as size of frame rails. If you want to follow IC spec, find out what they were ballasted to. At worst you could restrict how many gallons of fuel go into the tank. UP limited Dash-9s on the Belvidere Sub to a half tank or less for weight reasons.
Depending on what other Chessie lines could handle at the time, you might have to have a fleet of smaller hoppers dedicated to your railroad, which might mean acquiring your own fleet if Chessie wasn't interested in supporting a car fleet for you. In either of your eras, railcars typically would be supplied by the railroad, but a bunch of cruddy patched 50t hoppers wouldn't be out of the question. It depends on your customers and destination. If you want to use small, light hoppers, then keep them captive to the river terminal. Over a long distance, you just wouldn't be competitive from a rate standpoint if the cars are too light. That means you'd need to load at least 70t cars. But I really can't see 50t hoppers even by 1970. If you decided to go to the later era, however, it's conceivable the mine may have acquired its own fleet of used hopper cars.
|
|
|
Post by slowfreight on Nov 23, 2016 10:50:01 GMT -5
Ultimately all this is just food for thought. I certainly don't want to steer you away from what you want to model. It's funny how the features I like as a railfan and modeler I hate as an engineer: high hoods, running long hood forward, flared radiators, wide noses, high mounted headlights, ditch lights, etc. Nothing better than seeing an NS SD60 running LHF leading a coal train in the snow. But if it was me in the cab, I would not be happy. Give me an AC4400CW any day. I'm with you. Work is work. I don't model the modern era because I want a complete separation between work and fun.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 23, 2016 12:26:10 GMT -5
Also consider whether your track is good for 263k or 286k. This would definitely be the question in your 1970s scenario (which is more appealing to me than the late-60s scenario, but it's about what you like). You may also have track rated only for 210k during your era...not as likely for a coal hauler, but by setting your load limit you have to make a couple of decisions --What rail size do you want to model? At 210, you could be dealing with 75lb rail. 263 would likely be 90lb rail. I doubt you'd see heavier than 112lb rail on such a line. But if you have enough good ties and run slowly, we handle unit coal trains on 90lb stick rail without problems. --Are you going to have 50t hoppers at 210, 70t hoppers at 263, or 100t hoppers at 286? --If you are at 210 or 263, you will definitely want to lighten the weight of your units. With the short haul, small fuel tanks are a no-brainer. Other changes could be less visible on a prototype unit, such as size of frame rails. If you want to follow IC spec, find out what they were ballasted to. At worst you could restrict how many gallons of fuel go into the tank. UP limited Dash-9s on the Belvidere Sub to a half tank or less for weight reasons. Depending on what other Chessie lines could handle at the time, you might have to have a fleet of smaller hoppers dedicated to your railroad, which might mean acquiring your own fleet if Chessie wasn't interested in supporting a car fleet for you. In either of your eras, railcars typically would be supplied by the railroad, but a bunch of cruddy patched 50t hoppers wouldn't be out of the question. It depends on your customers and destination. If you want to use small, light hoppers, then keep them captive to the river terminal. Over a long distance, you just wouldn't be competitive from a rate standpoint if the cars are too light. That means you'd need to load at least 70t cars. But I really can't see 50t hoppers even by 1970. If you decided to go to the later era, however, it's conceivable the mine may have acquired its own fleet of used hopper cars. You definitley know your railroading. It is why I like chatting with those of you that work for the railroad. Everything you stated above parallels EXACTLY what the real Winifrede. The real Winifrede upgraded the rail to 100lb. Code 70 in HO. They also had fairly sizable fleet of their own hoppers captive to their river terminal. Old C&O and N&W cars. I read where they were captive not only because of the transloading, but also because of the braking system. They were not allowed to roam off the property. They had three cabooses too. Numbers 1, 2 and 3. I can find models for #2 and #3, but I cannot for #1. If you do a search on flicker for Winifrede Railroad, you can see the hopper types. Mostly what looks like ex N&W 50T type. I have other photos of a few ex C&O 70T offset side type.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 23, 2016 16:12:53 GMT -5
In 1955 the 85lb rail was replaced with 100lb rail.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 23, 2016 16:21:50 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by simulatortrain on Nov 24, 2016 8:31:15 GMT -5
They are similar to but not identical to the ones Broadway makes
|
|
spike
Chairman
They say I can't be Spike anymore, so Mr. Burns it is!
Posts: 561
|
Post by spike on Nov 28, 2016 18:10:56 GMT -5
I don't know how these cars would have non compatible brakes, unless the cars had K brake valves. They were outlawed for interchange before WWII.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 28, 2016 19:32:04 GMT -5
I don't know how these cars would have non compatible brakes, unless the cars had K brake valves. They were outlawed for interchange before WWII. I'll have to read again why they were kept in captive service. One of the articles I read explains it. The bulk of their hoppers were ex N&W H9's. Naturally these are not available in HO scale. I'll have to use something as a stand in because I am NOT going to scratch build a few dozen of them. I might get two done in my life time. Of the four different types of hoppers used, two are commercially available and one is half available and the fourth being the H9 is not. The rebuilt two bay war emergency is offered by P2K. I have two of them. Pretty much all I need since from photos I have only seen two. Maybe they have a few more. The other type is the three bay offset side. A couple manufacturers make that car. The third type is an ex C&O like this one except without the rebuilt sides. www.fandckits.com/HOFreight/8380.html. So half the car is correct. I cannot remove the bulges because it would cut right through the car sides. So I will have to live with it the way it is. In the photos I have, I see four of these cars. Maybe a few more. The bulk as I mentioned though is this car. www.nwhs.org/archivesdb/detail.php?ID=19845. I really like the looks of this hopper. To bad it is not available. I have to use a stand in car for it. I do not know which one though yet.
|
|
|
Post by simulatortrain on Nov 29, 2016 8:06:40 GMT -5
Whoops, didn't even realize the ex-NW ones were 2 bays. You could probably still get something close by cutting a couple panels out of the Broadway cars.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 29, 2016 8:32:56 GMT -5
I was informed that Bowser had a very close two bay hopper. I looked it up and yep. it is VERY close to an H9. So close that with what appears to be a few simple modifications. I can make it even closer.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 30, 2016 13:14:16 GMT -5
All the Hopper cars are taken care of now.
- Bowser for the H9. I'll have to make a small modification. No major surgery. Just adding a tow loop and straightening the fish belly side. I'll need about 50 of these.
- Westerfield offers the five ex C&O 70-ton peak end hopper with dreadnought ends that I need.
- Kadee offers the one 2-bay that I need.
- Athearn offers the three 70-ton 4-bay offset side hopper I need.
- P2K offers the two rebuilt war emergency 2-bay hoppers I need.
|
|
|
Post by dak94dav on Nov 30, 2016 14:10:02 GMT -5
Good to hear. You lucked out finding every type you need, and I'm sure it's encouraging
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 30, 2016 14:24:54 GMT -5
Good to hear. You lucked out finding every type you need, and I'm sure it's encouraging Yes, very encouraging. The only one out of the lot that is a bit rough and will need some work to bring up to my standards is the Athearn 4-bay. That is an old car and Athearn did not do ANYTHING to improve it when they put it in their RTR line. MAYBE, what I should try to do is marry the Kadee end and detail with the Athearn car sides. Something to look into.
|
|