Replace a steel bridge with a wood trestle?

One of the most familiar scenes on my old layout was the Williams Creek* bridge. It was featured on the blog header several times. I also blogged about it on many occasions, including this post, which illustrates how it was actually in three locations (and two heights) on the layout. I also wrote a whole series of posts showing how I built and moved (and then moved yet again) the thing. So I've gotten lots of mileage out of it. 

The Williams Creek bridge was built on it's own benchwork, meaning it was fairly easy to save when the layout was dismantled. In fact, it's the only piece of that layout I saved. As you can in the photo at right, it's been installed on the Richford Branch layout. It's just a little too long for the spot it's sitting in, but it does fit, although there's going to have to be some extensive and tricky blending of the river into the wall to fill a triangular-shaped gap. But it could be done. The question is should it. 

What the Richford Branch had plenty of is wood trestles - right up to the point it was abandoned. What my layout has none of at this point are wood trestles. And precious few places where they would fit. However, one location that would be ideal for a trestle (or two) and some pastureland is the section where the Williams Creek bridge is currently installed. But as much as the Williams Creek Bridge doesn't really "fit" on the Richford Branch, a scene like the one in the George Corey photo below would truly capture the essence of the prototype:

Although I'm making every effort to avoid the "do-loops" which produced nothing but lack of progress on the previous layout, I think this one change may be appropriate. I can always keep the Williams Creek Bridge as a photo diorama. 

*The name Williams Creek is not the prototype name for this bridge - it's named in honor of my college roommate and best friend, Brigadier General Zeb Williams, USA, Ret. 

A new look - Epic Fail - and a reboot.

As several of you noticed I changed the appearance of the blog a week or two ago. 
I like to change the look of the blog every so often, and it has been more than a year since I made any changes to the layout and appearance of this thing - and frankly the look of the blog before the green background was a quick revamp in an effort to make it obvious that the blog, and model railroad that serves as it's primary focus, were taking a different tack. 
I kind of liked the dark green - thought it looked "snazzy" - but I know well it's more difficult to read to large amounts of reversed text. 
I received several comments - via email or in the comments section regarding the dark background. 
So, I've changed it. 
I actually like the new look, and hope you do as well!

Philosophy in Practice?

I started building the Richford Branch last summer - early August to be exact (see this post). Even though I've done a pretty good job of sticking to the script (ie., the plan Lance Mindheim designed) I have been tempted a time or three to "Add just (chose one) <more track//more industries//a spot for that structure kit that looks cool but doesn't really fit with the rest of the layout>." 
The only one of these changes to make it to the plywood stage is the staging yard. Lance designed the layout with a deliberately simple, small staging yard. I added an extra eight inches or so of benchwork and added a few more staging tracks.  
That was, in itself, fine. 
But it also put me firmly on the precipice - It was like the those devil vs. angel arguments from classic film and television: 

Devil: "Add a couple more tracks and sidings and the Canadian Pacific interchange could be a "live" one, and create an another operator position or two."
Angel: But you're not a CP modeler - the CP tracks are there to provide context. Besides, where does the devil think these "live staging" tracks will be? 
Devil: Along the narrow walls at both ends of the layout  - you could screen it with hills and trees. After all, you'll never need to access them. There's almost 4 whole inches between the CV line and the wall. Plenty of room!" 
Angel: So a CP train is just going to be sitting there behind the scenes you want to build - you know, the ones that inspired this whole project in the first place?" 
Devil: "Plans are made to be broken."
Angel: "You discussed with this with Lance when you were designing this thing. And he made some really valid points about not needing to add more operating capacity - there's plenty there already."
Devil: "That guy ruins all our fun!"

Okay, enough of the silliness. 

I'll summarize all this by saying even though I wish I hadn't added extra tracks (and benchwork) to the staging yard, it's in place and working so I'm not going to change it out now. 
And, other than some roadbed, which is easily removed or scenicked over, I didn't get that "live staged" CPR connection in place before I stood back and realized how silly it would look.
That takes care of adding additional track and more "operating interest."*
What of the temptation of adding things that really fit the theme of the layout? One perfectly valid approach is to say "It's a hobby, I like it!" and simply be done with it. Perhaps if it's not around, there won't be a temptation to use it? 

Seeing what my friend Bernie Kempinski is dealing with this week has given me pause. He's had to pile all his stuff in the center of the room, and he's amazed at how much stuff was living under the layout. I know some of it he hasn't seen in years.  
Of course, there's no universal standard defining too much, or too little, stuff . It varies from person to person. 
And it's not because I'm a hoarder, or have some sort of psychological disorder (see the last comment on this post for one of the oddest comments I've ever received on this blog!). 
I've come to realization the very presence of things I know I won't use on this layout are actually impeding progress. They're just "in the way" - even if they're stashed under the layout or in the back room. 

* Of course, the added operating position would have consisted of running a short train from behind a row of trees, setting off and picking up some cars at a feed mill, then the CV interchange, before heading into another stub ended track at the other end of room. Hardly engaging, especially compared to the CV Richford local job!

Spanning the chasm

(16 July: Edited to actually upload the photos) 

Stic came by yesterday and after a somewhat slow start with the planned assembly of the last of the IKEA Ivar cabinets being deferred to a future date due to shortage of a unique piece of IKEA hardware best referred to as a "thing-a'mick- bob" we fell back to regroup and decided the best use of our time wasn't hanging more track lights but instead getting started on the gate that will permit access to the "interior" of the layout area. 
My original intention was to simply build a lift out - but in the end we decided a hinged access gate made more sense. For one thing the problem with lift outs (as opposed to hinged access methods) are when you remove it you're standing there with a board in your hand - and you need to put it somewhere. It's also necessary to connect and reconnect the power to the track every time the liftout is removed and installed. 
None of that is insurmountable, since the layout is designed to be operated "from the inside." meaning it would be a simple matter to get everybody in the layout area, put the lift out in place, and connect the wires, reversing the process at the conclusion of the op session. 
But I tend to get a lot of non-railroad visitors - they will want to see the interior of the layout area, and will most certainly want to see a train run - meaning I needed a solution that would be a little less clumsy than a basic liftout would be in practice. 
Hence, the swinging gate approach. And since this is such a critical element to the layout (the entire scheme hinges on it, pun intended) we decided to tackle it head on now....).
But keeping our priorities straight, we first broke for lunch. 
After lunch we stopped by Lowe's and picked up an assortment of hinges, screws and the like and set to work.
Honestly, we probably spent more time noodling through how to do this than we actually spent cutting wood. There was even a point where we realized we were overthinking this thing and were in danger of an over engineered monster. Luckily we caught ourselves before we started down that path.  

While we didn't finish the assembly or installation yesterday we did get the plywood bridge "surface" cut to fit, installed the "plate" that the hinges will ultimately connect to, and Stic routed a matching angled notch in the floating end of the bridge to support the bridge (and take pressure off the hinges). This will also ensure the track lines up properly. 


.

Tracking turnout issues

Like many modelers, I opted to use Micro-Engineering turnouts on this layout due to the appearance and the fact that they have a a built in spring mechanism to hold the points in position without the need for any under table mechanical or electrical devices.
While all turnouts need some tweaking prior to installation, I've noticed some disappointing - infuriating actually - issues with the latest batch of Micro Engineering turnouts I obtained.

Actually, it started with some of the first dozen or so - cars and engines derailed regularly at the frog on several of them. At first I suspected the frogs were too high (a common problem with ME from a few years ago). But that wasn't the case here. Closer examination revealed a piece of plastic sticking up above the rail head surface - essentially the plastic filling the insulating gap where the frog connects to the closure rails was sticking up - quite a bit (close to .040-050" by my best estimate. I was able to trim it away on top easily enough, but this same plastic had filled the inside of the rail web - not as easy to remove.

Second issue - the latest batch of turnouts I bought earlier this year  have some sort of systemic issues with the throw mechanism since all (okay, 17 out of 20) of the springs don't snap back to one side when they're thrown. In other words, they only stay thrown right or left. It's like the spring has too much tension in one direction and not enough in the opposite direction.

Third issue - much less common - but on several of the turnouts it takes little - very little - force for the rail to spring free of the ties. In one case I'd used a rail cutters to shorten the straight side of the turnout only for the entire rail to come off in my hands.

I'm frankly at a loss for what to do - I have a fair number of these installed (the entire mainline "loop" - and I've gotten savvy enough to know I need to check for these issues and avoid installing any turnouts that exihibit these problems. But I do need turnouts for the peninsulas and don't really want to have to buy 60 turnouts to get 20 that work correctly. And I certainly don't want to have to rebuild the things.

What I'm leaning towards is to leave the ones that are down and working in place - knowing full well that I might have to replace them "someday."

I might just handlay the turnouts for the peninsulas - but that obviously is going to take more time and I really wanted to get all the track in place by the end of the summer. Perhaps "temporary" track (Peco, Atlas, etc...) on the Richford peninsula - enough to finalize the track arrangement? I don't know.

Irritating.

Wordless Wednesday #209

J. Delano, Enosburg Falls, VT., Sep 1941

Layout Video Update #4

I've posted another video update. You can find it on YouTube by clicking on this LINK. 

I'm really enjoying doing these video updates - although if you're not careful video can become a real time sink and frankly I need to spend my hobby time working on the layout not messing around on the computer!

Appreciate any and all constructive feedback - positive and not so positive. Just remember, like the blog, this video is worth every penny you're paying for it!

And remember, a thumbs down vote, without some indication of why you feel that way, is virtually useless to me. 

I'll say that this particular update is a little more "what I'm going to do" as opposed to "what I've done" - something that didn't dawn on me until I was editing it.