really new N-scaler

Discussion in 'N / Z Scale Model Trains' started by Agatheron, Nov 8, 2003.

  1. Agatheron

    Agatheron Member

    Thanks for the link...

    Although that's a model of a GP-7 not a GP-9... its road number indicates that the locomotive depicted was retired between 1967 and 1975... (Canadian Trackside Guide).

    Or am I too new to this to understand that a GP7 and a GP9 are very similar looking locomotives?
  2. Cinnibar

    Cinnibar Member



    I am a long way from being a diesel spotter but I have read that GP-7's and GP-9's are almost identical. The big difference is the "prime-mover" or the diesel engine itself. I also remember that there were a few louvers that were placed differently. I'm sure other guys will chime in and can tell you more about the differences. However it could be that GP-9's are too "old" also, I don't know. Are you looking for GP-38's or GP-40's?
  3. Agatheron

    Agatheron Member

    Well... I'm not a great locomotive spotter myself... I am really a newbie in all respects. I recently acquired a Canadian trackside guide that lists the status of all locomotives operating with any rail company that operates locomotives within Canada. According to the pics I snapped in the other thread, anything in the 4000-4143 range is a GP9RM(GP9u). Exactly what that means, I honestly don't know. I would leave it to the advice of the grizzled veterans here on the Gauge to help us with the finer points on the differences between GM's older locomotives...

    That having been said, however, I did find the reference to the GP9 coming out from Atlas... No CN Markings... but an undecorated GP9 could nicely force me into painting up some of my own models... :)

    I appreciate the help Cinnibar... keep it coming... I find out in 20 minutes whether I managed to "win" a CN SD40-2 on an Ebay auction...
  4. Cinnibar

    Cinnibar Member


    Hope you get it!:)
  5. Agatheron

    Agatheron Member

    Well... I got the SD40-2... Nice addition to my teensy fleet. I realize that if I'm going to be running a Via rail train on this layout, I'll be running 85' Budd cars... Which means I need to widen my layout a bit. I'll see if I can negotiate up to a 36" door...

    Redrawing the track plans, I've expanded some of the curves to a mix of 11" and 19" curves, with only the inside one on the right hand side being the much sharper 9 3/4". Not quite sure what to do with it yet. I've also added a runaround track in the yard for some interest...

    Any advice? This is beginning to get a bit complicated for a newbie, and I may keep drawing up plans from scratch to see how they go.

    Anyway, the pic:

    Attached Files:

  6. Bikerdad

    Bikerdad Member

    You don't have a mainline in your layout. If you trace around it, you'll find that your train has to negotiate the branch rather than through leg of quite a few switches. This is problematic if you want to just set the train to mosey around without intervention, and simply exacerbates your size challenges with those LONG passenger cars you intend to run...

    Aside from that, it looks like a good, albeit packed, plan.
  7. Cinnibar

    Cinnibar Member

    A Humble Opinion


    I have to agree with "Bikerdad". Always keeping it in mind that's it's your railroad and you are the President and you can do whatever you want. However I have one 11" radius curve on my layout the rest are 12" and up. When friends stop by and run stuff I find my 11" is always a problem, even SD’s don’t like when coupled to any cars. Eighty five foot passenger cars make it around fairly well but I wouldn’t want to be in the vestibule between cars! The last thing any of us want do is discourage your efforts, but use caution when you start buying six axle diesels and other long equipment. It’s not that they won’t run on your layout but they will be operating at the very edge of their envelope and could frustrate you. GP’s (four axles) would be a better choice on a layout of the size you are planning. As I mentioned, a branch or short line interchanging with the CN would be a good theme. You know, years ago I worked in a hobby shop and spent many hours convincing customers to make their first R/C plane a trainer and hold off on the B-29 until you get some experience. Please don’t take any of this the wrong way and I am certainly not the last word in N scale, but I have been in N since the first “Lone Star” 9mm were brought to the U.S. back in the 60's. I wish you nothing but success and above all.....have FUN! :)
  8. Agatheron

    Agatheron Member

    Whoa... hey... good point...

    This last plan was to try to keep it so I am operating with minimum 11" turns on the main lines. It's too bad that Atlas doesn't make a 12.25" radius turn to nicely parallel the 11...

    I've been experimenting a bit more with some track planning software (RTS) and at least Flex track can give me those 12.25" turns to nicely parallel the 11" curves. However, At least I am not limited there... I am assuming that flex track is pretty muc the way to go all round...
  9. SD90

    SD90 Active Member

    Agatheron, contact me offline, I have a locomotive you might like.

  10. Hoss

    Hoss Member

    I agree with you on that....for several reasons. One thing, you have less joints with flex track. Plus, it looks more realistic. can make whatever radius you desire. ;)
  11. Agatheron

    Agatheron Member

    I've fiddled with the plan some more, but I'm not quite ready to post a pic of it yet. However, since I am still a beginner at this, I'm definitely keeping the interior "base" oval sectional. This is mostly so I can actually pick up some track and have an operating oval that I don't have to pin or glue down when trying to get a handle on the basics...

    With luck, I can post a new draft for critique a bit later today...
  12. Cinnibar

    Cinnibar Member

    Flex Track

    The benefits of “flex-track” are many. For one thing a whole lot less in the way of rail joints. Read up on transition curves and keep a track gauge handy, soldering can re-gauge rails fairly easily, especially when they are pre-loaded in a curve. Seems like you are on the right track - pun intended. :)
  13. Agatheron

    Agatheron Member

    You're going to curse me for having this pic a little wide... but here we go...

    Latest track plan. The Yard I am reasonably happy with... to a point... I followed the guidelines on Yard design found here. Although there really is not enough space to do a decent yard on a layout this size. The industrial spur was quickly hacked together, and I am still not happy with it. I see this as servicing the auto industry as well as some small chemical and/or cement plants nearby. I'm certainly open to lots of suggestions here. There's also room for interchanges, and I hope a Via train station along the way as well.

    Attached Files:

  14. Hoss

    Hoss Member

    Heeeyyyyy....I like that one a LOT better than the first one you posted. I think for the size layout you have that you've got a pretty good yard design there. I also think you did a better job of making the double main line. Now you can easily let trains run continuously without a lot of unnecessary switching if you want to.

    The industry area looks pretty good too...and if you don't like it you'll soon realize that adjustments are easily made "on the go" if you get it all layed out and it just doesn't look like what you had in mind.

    Lookin' good!! :D
  15. Cinnibar

    Cinnibar Member

    Looks Nice

    I like your THEME, every layout needs one. You may want to watch your clearance on the curves at the right side, they appear to be pretty close together. If you get your VIA going one way and 85 foot autoracks going the other you may hear a "clunk" as they try to pass. There is a lot of overhang with long cars rounding tight curves. :)

Share This Page