Not So Wordless Wednesday on Thursday #18

The PRR T-1...

The Pennsylvania RR by the 1940's had lagged behind most of the other major railroads when it came to passenger steam locomotive development. The K4s 4-6-2 was the front line passenger puller for Pennsy in the 1930's to 1940's but it lacked the pulling power that other railroads had for their premier passenger trains. Passenger trains were getting heavier and heavier and the K4s just didn't have enough power at high speed like the NYC Hudsons (4-6-4) or 4-8-4 Northerns from other railroads did. In the 1930's Pennsy devoted most of its resources to electrification and electric locomotives (i.e... the GG-1) so it fell behind in the steam passenger locomotive race. Anything they did to improve electrification didn't mean a thing west of Harrisburg, PA though, so the New York to Chicago or St. Louis trains of Pennsy were not winning that competitive timetable race. Diesels started appearing in the late 1930's but the Pennsy was slow to get on that train so to speak, and with WWII putting a damper on new diesel locomotive production, the Pennsy was still stuck with its huge fleet of K4s pulling nearly all their passenger trains when the war ended.

Enter the T-1 locomotive. The T-1 was a 4-4-4-4 duplex drive non-articulated steam locomotive built by PRR at Altoona and Baldwin in Philadelphia exclusively for PRR. The one-of-a-kind streamlined design of the locomotive was by Raymond Loewy, who in the industrial engineering world is considered the father of streamlining.

PRR T-1 #5533. Unknown photographer, Creative Commons license.

Two T-1 prototypes were delivered in 1942 and the trials on those two locomotives prompted Pennsy to order 50 more which were delivered in 1945 & 1946. At the time, the T-1 was arguably the most technologically advanced steam locomotive ever built. It was not articulated like other split-driver locomotives and because of this was nicknamed the "rail straightener". The T-1 had more than enough horsepower to pull a 16-car passenger train at 100mph or more on flat terrain. 120mph was easily achievable and there were unofficial reports that some had reached 140mph. The Pennsy never tried to go for a world speed record with the T-1 though, which it probably would have easily set back in the 1940's. 

There was of course a downside to the T-1. First, it was prone to wheel slippage even at high speed on the rear driver axles and it took a highly skilled engineer to run it at high speeds. Most importantly though, it was very complex and expensive to maintain. The driver rods for instance are roller bearing rods instead of friction bearings common on most other steam locomotives. Violent wheel slippage at high speed could be very dangerous and could cause poppet valve failure.

In a sense, the advanced technology of the T-1 actually led to its downfall and caused the Pennsy to push for dieselization across the entire fleet. Pennsy management eventually realized that the T-1's only made it a couple thousand miles before requiring expensive maintenance overhaul, when at the same time the few diesels on the roster were routinely making it 50,000 plus miles before requiring overhaul. As the 1940's ended, Pennsy was ordering dozens of new EMD E7's and E8's to replace all steam locomotives in passenger service. T-1's were taken off passenger service and lived out their final days pulling fast mail & express trains.

In the early 1950's all of the T-1's were taken out of service and by 1956 all 52 of them had been scrapped. The T-1 had a very short but very profound life.

The T-1 Trust

The T-1 Trust is a non-profit group with plans to build a fully functional T-1 (#5550) from the ground up. From their website, their goal is "To provide mainline steam excursion service and to set the World Speed Record for a steam locomotive".

Check out their website to see their progress.

Columbus Ohio 1953

I think I finally found my Holy Grail.

With all the research I have done in my quest to find a prototype passenger station to base my model railroad on, to date nothing has had as much of what I am looking for in one place as Columbus Ohio:

1. A small Union Station (small enough to model with 4 platforms) but plenty of trains stopping and passing through. Starting in the 1950's as we all know, passenger train travel in the US was on the decline due to the rise of the interstate highway system and airline travel. However, in Columbus Ohio even in 1954 there were still 38 passenger trains a day that stopped. 

2. A good assortment of railroads with PRR, B&O, and C&O being some of them. I have a decent inventory of HO scale PRR passenger cars already, followed by some B&O and C&O equipment, so I have a head start. The B&O had 2 trains that stopped in Columbus, N&W 2, C&O 2, NYC 10, and PRR led the pack with 22.

3. Co-located coach yards, passenger car servicing and maintenance facilities, express and freight service, and locomotive servicing.

4. A good mix of transition-era steam and diesel use.

This photo from the USGS Earth Explorer website shows the central Columbus area circa 1953. CUS (Columbus Union Station) is dead center. Visible in the photo are all 5 railroads with yards & facilities, freight houses, express and mail, and also the lines used by each to converge on downtown Columbus.

Here is a zoomed in view of the area just west of CUS.

Besides CUS itself, I'm thinking the PRR roundhouse, coach yards, and locomotive facility will be a key feature on my layout. That may even be the starting point before anything else.

I don't envision any long mainline runs on the layout, I simply don't have room for that. The focus will be switching operations fed from hidden staging/fiddle tracks and the traffic control operations in this area that was managed by several towers in close proximity to each other. 

Stay tuned!

(Not So) Wordless Wednesday #17

Columbus, Ohio Union Station in 1949, looking west. Fourth St. Viaduct over the rails center photo, North High St viaduct over rails very top of photo. The Columbus Convention Center today sits where the station is located. Photo from the Columbus Citizen-Journal (defunct since 1985). Retrieved from Central Library Consorium, https://catalog.clcohio.org, accessed 18 January 2017.

I haven't done a Wordless Wednesday in a long time, and I think #16 was the last one way back in June 2016. Since it has been so long, I feel compelled to include some commentary. Hopefully Lance Mindheim reads this blog, most of my esoteric rambling below should be right down his lane...

If you have followed this blog at all (I commend you if you have), you have seen me basically bounce all over the place with potential topics to model. Passenger operations, steel mills, Cleveland, Cincinnati, Toledo, etc. That continues to today, and this post is no exception as the photo above indicates.

Some model railroaders know exactly what they want to model, they plan it out in a few sketches and maybe a CAD design program and they get right to it and they don't waver from their goal. At the other end of the spectrum you have those who have an idea what they want but don't do a lot of planning and they "fire and adjust" (military term from my days as a tanker) as they go, preferring to get tracks down as soon as possible then solve the Rubik's Cube of layout design while they build it.

I am a meticulous planner which is why I have been in armchair modeling mode for so long. Probably because of my background in military operations which has been part of my entire adult life. The US Army doesn't take a dump without a plan, but for good reason. This lesson has been learned over a couple hundred years and has been paid for with the blood of thousands of servicemen.

But, I digress - back to model railroading. With money, time, and space being at a premium, I have chosen not to cut lumber (with a couple minor exceptions...) until I have a plan down on paper (and/or pixels) that I am satisfied with and know will work. That White Unicorn continues to elude me.

Some modelers use the concept "givens and druthers", unfortunately for the reader due to my military operational planning background I use terms like "constraints", "facts", "assumptions", "critical tasks", "implied tasks", "specified tasks", and the list goes on. Same idea, different terminology with much more detail involved in each term.

As an example, in military planning a Critical Task is a task that must be performed to accomplish the mission according to the Commander's Intent. In my model railroad, I am the Commander (and the planner). The big Critical Task I can't get out of my head is passenger operations.

What that means in lay terms is, I just can't seem to abandon the concept of building my layout around passenger operations. I've tried, but it is the one subject that keeps coming back no matter how hard I try to do something else. Time to embrace it.

One of the constraints I have dealt with is the size of my layout room, which is 13' x 27'. A size that at first I thought was enormous, but have come to realize is really quite small. Another constraint that dovetails into room size is the fact that 85' passenger cars in HO scale need very broad curves to operate reliably and to lose their toyish appearance in a curve. MRH ran an article back in 2009 where they determined that model railroad locomotives & rolling stock need to have curves 5x their length (or more!) to operate most reliably and with the most realistic appearance. With an 85' passenger car in HO scale being around a foot long, this would be a 60" radius curve. Coupler mating for 85' cars on a 60" curve is essentially the same as coupling on straight track. Fortunately though, the HO equipment today is capable of operating on tighter curves than that, and with some smoke and mirrors you can also reduce curvature and still have a fairly realistic appearance in a curve. MRH determined that 3.5x length (about 42" radius for our foot-long passenger car) is about the minimum you can have to achieve smooth operation and have the cars look decent from the inside of a curve.

Recently I have come up with some ideas on how to work within those constraints and I will go more in detail on those ideas in future posts.

There is one other constraint worth mentioning here because it leads me to the end of this post. The big one is the fact that I already own several hundred dollars worth of HO scale passenger cars in the Pennsylvania RR, C&O, and B&O paint schemes.

To conclude this post, recently I decided to take a look at the Columbus Ohio Union Station, which is the photo at the beginning of this post. I took a look at an Ohio railroad map and noticed that five class-I railroads ran to Columbus in 1950, something I really never paid any attention to before. The PRR, B&O, C&O, N&W, and NYC. Then I googled Columbus Union Station and one of the photos I found was the one above. In 1950 there were nearly 50 passenger trains a day that ran through this station, with PRR having the most. What really caught my eye though was the fact that it only had four platforms with 8 tracks. Compare that to Cleveland which had 25 platforms, Cincinnati with 16, and Toledo with 8. PRR didn't use Cleveland or Toledo Union Stations.

I've been down this road before though, so I am not getting too excited about Columbus just yet.

Kudos again if you made it this far reading this post! Lance, where are you???

Construction Report 01/03/2017

I normally don't make New Year's resolutions because they are usually forgotten by Groundhog Day.

That being said, this year I am determined to get my first module built.

A while back I posted how I bought a 4' x 8' sheet of 3/4" plywood at Home Depot and started ripping it into pieces for my first 2' x 8' module benchwork. I planned from the beginning to use plywood for most if not all of the benchwork in lieu of dimensional lumber. The module bench is nearly complete and within the next couple days I plan on finally turning it up onto its own legs so it can stand freely.

After buying this pathetic bundle of 1x2's at Home Depot - and this was the best bundle they had and the only one still banded together - I decided to make it all out of 3/4" plywood. The 1x2's are mainly for leg bracing and will work fine for that, but I was going to also use them as the short girder on the L-girder legs. The contractors get the pick of the litter at Home Depot and the rejects are what you see on the shelves. Next time I think I'll try Carter-Jones lumber to see if they have anything better.

The basic frame of the bench and my template for all following modules. The cross-members are 2' from the ends, and there will be one more cross-member in the center that will actually be laid flat and flush with the table top. The bottom table top layer will be 1/2" MDF which I have a few 2'x4' sheets of, so I will need the center cross-member to lay flat so I can screw the MDF to it at the joint. The legs will be attached to the frame at the vertical cross-members with screws or bolts (haven't decided which yet) so they can be removed, and the table top will also be attached with 1-1/4" drywall screws for removal. The frame and L-girder legs can be glued and tacked together because I don't see the need to disassemble the legs or the frame.

The bench frame is glued at each joint and tacked with 1-1/2" finishing nails from my air nailer. To hold each joint in place while I glued and nailed it together, I used this handy 90 degree clamp I got at Harbor Freight for under $20. Double checking the angles with my framing square showed that the clamp is dead on the money at 90 degrees.

In an earlier post I mentioned how after cutting the 4" planks I also ended up with two planks that were 3-3/4" instead of 4". These 3-3/4" planks are what I am using for the legs of the bench. Having decided to use plywood for everything, I ripped one of the remaining 4" boards into two 2" planks (actually about 1-7/8" after cutting) to form the short girder of the L-girder legs. The L-girders were also glued and clamped and then also tacked with more 1-1/2" finishing nails.

The whole process so far has been quite easy to do, mainly because the plywood is straight as can be and also because I was extra careful to make all my ripping cuts accurately. Taking the extra time to make accurate cuts cannot be understated. As I glued and tacked the legs and the frame together, everything lined up perfectly and nothing was out of whack like it would have been had I used dimensional lumber.

This bench is going to be quite sturdy and probably overkill in hindsight for a 2' x 8' bench, because this 3/4" plywood is very strong. The only downside I foresee is that it may be a little top-heavy at 48" tall due to only being a 2' x 8' bench.

One thing I have noticed about this Home Depot plywood is that it is not as good a quality as I originally thought, even though it is their best plywood. It is 7-ply plywood but the sanded outside veneer ply is paper thin and splinters easily on cut edges. I am going to shop around at Menard's and Carter Jones Lumber in the future to see if they have anything better.

Run 8 Train Simulator

How has this eluded me for so long?

I've been playing train simulators on the PC since about 2000 when Microsoft Train Simulator (MSTS) first hit the market. MSTS morphed into Railworks at some point, then Railworks morphed into Train Simulator which is what is available today on Steam.

Just the other day I discovered Run 8 Train Simulator V2. I never even heard of it until last week. Apparently it has been out (version 1) for 3-4 years now, but version 2 just came out in November 2016. Probably the reason I haven't heard about it is because I really haven't been following any of the train simulator forums like I did many years ago when I was still into MSTS.

Anyway, here's my plug for Run 8. The graphics are good but they are not cutting edge technology by any means. The train models look good up close. Road numbers so far are authentic.

UPRR ES44AC #5299

Cab interiors are modeled and mostly functional (some buttons/switches are not modeled). Braking is fully modeled and the physics are quite realistic. It takes a while and some finesse to bring an 8500' train of 12,000 tons to a stop on a down-grade. During switching moves, you have to get out of the cab and down on the ground to close air valves, open couplers, and throw manual turnouts.

Cab view of UPRR 5299. Most controls seen to include the MFD's are functional. The fan isn't modeled... :P

Overall, the graphics at ground level (i.e. train level) are quite impressive and give the needed immersion for driving a train.

Looking over the hump at Barstow CA BNSF yard into the bowl. Yes the hump is functional with retarders

Pre-dawn shot inside San Bernardino CA BNSF Intermodal Yard. Clouds rolling in...

Here's Tehachapi loop modeled to scale to include signalling, grades, etc.

Engine facilities at UPRR West Colton yard

Where Run 8 really shines in my opinion is inside the actual world that it is simulating and the ability to be part of that world on a multiplayer server. There is a fully functional dispatching system where human dispatchers can control movements of not only AI controlled (computer controlled) trains, but also human controlled trains as well.

Fully functional dispatch board for BNSF/UPRR Cajon Sub

Using the dispatch board, a dispatcher can not only see what traffic is out there but he can control turnouts and signals and direct movements of individual trains via the functional radio system. The radio actually functions in on-screen text, but it serves the same purpose as voice radio. For example, in the board above, UP and BNSF trains share trackage rights over some of the Cajon Sub. UP trains would be on Channel 14 while BNSF trains would be Channel 65. A player on Channel 65 could talk to the BNSF dispatcher and the UP trains would not see his text and vice-versa.

Populate the world with through trains, terminating and originating trains, locals, yard switchers, and industrial switching, and it can get quite busy. Through trains can be assigned to the AI and they will follow their routes, obeying the dispatcher and signal rules automatically. Real-life train symbology and train movements are modeled and simulated here. For instance, you can have BNSF train H-BARGAL, which is a high-priority manifest train originating in Barstow (modeled in the Run8 world) and running to Galesburg, IL (not modeled in Run8). You would start the train at Barstow and move it over the modeled line until it reaches the end of the modeled world at which point it disappears. You can drive it or you can have the AI drive it.

Anyway, I'm having a blast with Run8 right now. More productive time down the crapper!

Visit the Run 8 website for more info and to purchase Run 8.

MRH 2nd Annual One Module Challenge

I know, it's been a while since I posted. That's not to say I haven't been thinking about model railroading. I actually think about it all the time.

To catch up and sum up with a "state of the union", I'm still in armchair modeling mode. The number one reason for that is that I'm finding out the easy way rather than the hard way that a lot of my ideas just won't work in the space that I have. The easy way is to discover this on paper or on computer; the hard way is by buying and building stuff to discover it doesn't work the way you planned.

If you have followed this blog at all or have at least gone back to the beginning, you can see that my initial interest was in passenger operations in the late 1940's and early 1950's, focused in the Cleveland area.

If you read any Lance Mindheim or Mike Cougill, you will constantly be reminded that you should follow your original interests in railroading/model railroading, don't try to bite off more than you can chew, build small projects to completion, and don't try to stuff too much into a scene, and the list goes on. I'm happy to report that I haven't learned any of those principles the hard way.

That being said, I am really tired of being in armchair mode.

The One Module Challenge

MRH is running a "One Module" challenge for the second year. Here is the rules page from the online magazine:

I've seen this posted in their magazine since the August 2016 issue. It just dawned on my that with all the time I've been spending on AnyRail designing stuff, it wouldn't take much for me to submit an entry to MRH. Notice I said "submit an entry" to MRH... I never said anything about submitting a winning entry to MRH...

My First Idea for a Starter Module

Given the rules of the contest and that the layout is restricted to a 10' x 14' room, In my mind this is just screaming to be done in N scale. I really don't know anything about N scale because other than at model railroad shows, I've never really seen an N scale layout in action. Most of what you see in N Scale at the train shows is pretty much just toy trains on an oval, with the possible exception of a few well done N-Trak modulars.

Getting right to it, here is my initial attempt at the first module for the contest submission. This is an N Scale module on a 2' x 8' table and the theme is passenger switching operations. All turnouts (12 of them) are #8 and the curves in N scale are minimum 36" radius (quite broad in N scale). There is of course some selective compression going on here but it actually is fairly close to prototype dimensions. The actual prototype of the area represented is about 2000' long, or about 12 1/2' in N scale if I wanted to model it to scale. In HO scale, 2000' would be just under 23' modeled to scale.

Keep in mind this is the main module, the idea here is that there will initially be temporary staging added to both ends to allow an operator the ability to have a place to enter and exit trains being operated on the module. Future modules would connect to actual yards and industrial areas.

If anyone is familiar with the former Akron Union Station in Akron Ohio, this is what it looked like after the Union Station building was built in 1950. The Erie station to the left of it was there first, being built in 1947. Prior to 1947, the Akron Union Station was about a half mile further north (railroad east) or off the right side of the module.

One key takeaway here is that this probably would not be very interesting to actually model as Akron Ohio on a model railroad. By the time the Union Station was built, there were only a few trains stopping in Akron at all on any of the lines. It would be far more interesting to use this module as a "stand in" for a much larger and busier passenger terminal such as Cleveland or Cincinnati, ala Chuck Hitchcock style in his Argentine layout which used a much smaller station as a stand-in for Kansas City Union Station. This module could also easily be anywhere else in the country, for instance it could be AT&SF and Union Pacific with separate stations sharing the same area.

Erie used their station exclusively and the line through Akron was part of their main line from New York to Chicago. PRR & B&O both used the Union Station on shared trackage through this part of town. B&O also had their Valley Station to the north of this location, which was used on the Valley Line that ran from Cleveland to Akron until the early 1960's. B&O used Union Station for trains running on the New York-Chicago mainline, which this line was part of. For the PRR though, Akron was not on their mainline and in 1952 only one PRR train (the Akronite between Pittsburgh and Akron) ran through Akron at all. Passengers wishing to travel via PRR could either take the Akronite to Pittsburgh or take a 40 minute Greyhound bus trip (the terminal was attached to the Union Station on the west side of the tracks) up to Hudson which was on the Cleveland-Pittsburgh mainline and had more through trains that stopped there on their way to and from Cleveland & New York.

What is just off the north (right) end of the module is an area affectionately known to Akron railroaders as the "Akron Diamond". This was where the PRR/B&O tracks crossed over the Erie line, essentially flip-flopping the track arrangement so that the Erie ran on the east side of the right of way instead of the west side as depicted here. Movements through the diamond were controlled by JO Tower, which is an interesting little piece of Akron railroad history in itself. The diamonds actually were sharp enough of a crossing that they had movable frogs and were controlled by the JO Tower interlocking. The "Diamonds" are in my mind an essential operational element to modeling this area because of how movements would have to be controlled at the crossing point.

Operationally the starter module when connected to staging at both ends would allow one or more operators the ability to operate trains terminating/originating here, as well as through trains and trains requiring sleeper/diner/lounge car switchouts at this station. Through freights, whether they be local or long distance, could also be routed through the module as static traffic because there are bypass tracks for through trains to use to get around any passenger trains stopped at a platform. Mail & express cars could be spotted at the sidings, although the prototype has a separate express/REA terminal just off the north end of the module that had access to both ends by both B&O/PRR and Erie. Even just working head end consist switching on a parked passenger train would be challenging enough to keep a single operator busy and could be done with a minimal amount of off-board staging.

For the contest, I plan on roughing in the rest of the layout in the room representing construction of a full layout in stages.

After that? Maybe my own 13' x 27' space is just screaming to be done in N scale as well...

Upson Nut & Bolt part IV

I was doing some more research on the Nut & Bolt plant when I discovered the incredible photo below on a retired website called Teaching and Learning Cleveland, which was run by Cleveland State University at one time. This is a photo of the Upson plant circa 1910 according to the citation, although the web page where the photo was located does not identify this as being the Upson plant.

“Industrial flats at bend in Cuyahoga River at Cleveland, Ohio, circa 1910,”Teaching & Learning Cleveland , accessed October 8, 2016, http://exhibits.clevelandhistory.org/items/show/549.

The photo is very large and a lot can be seen in it. The open hearth furnaces were built in 1910 and it is obvious that they are not yet built in this photo because the towering stacks for the open hearth are not present. If you look closely though, you can see what appears to be the gabled roof of the open hearth building being constructed in the background behind the right leg of the ore bridge. Therefore I would concur that the photo probably is from circa 1910. Had another photo been taken 20 years later from the same spot, Terminal Tower and CUT would be visible in the background above the ore bridge.

From a modeling standpoint this photo is very valuable. The blast furnace can be seen in the background above the ship along the dock. The boiler house with its large stack is just to the right of the ore bridge and its elevated coal dumping line is clearly visible along the left side of the building. In the foreground the Erie boxcars are sitting on a siding along the Erie line which interchanged with DK Yard just to the right of the photo and accessed the Upson plant from this end (south end). New York Central accessed the plant from the opposite (north) end from DK Yard.

Most importantly though, the high line which fed raw materials (ore, limestone, coke) to the blast furnace can be seen leading up to the blast furnace just under the center span of the ore bridge. From this photo it is obvious that the ore bridge did not feed raw materials directly into the bins of the high line as I originally thought it might have and which was common for some blast furnaces around the country. Instead it appears that the ore bridge loaded raw materials into hopper cars (a few of which are parked to the right of the ore bridge) and the hopper cars would have then been switched over the high line for discharge into bins that would have fed the skip hoist to the blast furnace. Had the plant continued operation, in later years the hopper cars may have been replaced by self propelled materials cars ala Bethlehem Steel style. Also of particular note is the ore bridge itself, which has one leg along the pier and a shorter leg above the concrete retaining wall leading to the high line. Going by the piles of raw materials, it appears that ore and limestone were both delivered by ship, which would have meant that coke was delivered by rail and most likely would have been pushed straight over the high line off the siding.

Now all I have to do is figure out how to compress this into a layout module or two...