Monday Mountain thread

[E7]

Greetings Bob, On the assumption that 2 rail cars will run on your track: if you replace the pilot wheels and the wheels on the tender (they seem to jump out the most visually) with some with 2 rail profiles (not sure what all is out there), that would tend to take one's eyes away from the rest (drivers and trailing truck). Northwest Short Line maybe?

Rich

[Seaboard Air Line Fan]

Rich, the track is Ross and Gargraves 3-rail with the center rail removed. From what I've read 2-rail wheels will drop when going thru the turnouts. I did run one of my BPRC engines on a piece of 2-rail test track when I was at Ed Rappe's house several months ago, but I think I'd have a problem going thru 2-rail switches with the flange riding up instead of dropping down. maybe not. But at the time I didn't want to rip up my layout and start over using 2-rail track.

Right now I'm satisfied with the way things are working out, but if I could hide the large rail or the flanges I would be more pleased

BobD

[rogruth]

It seems to me that the biggest complaint about three rail trains must be the oversize flanges.
They always seem to be the largest complaint. That is unless the rest of the piece is a real mess.
I also know that many of the two rail modelers want accuracy in their models and wont accept
generic stuff.

[bob turner]

For me (opinion and personal preference) the big glaring problem in three ail is the unrealistic track. It is accentuated (again, just my opinion) when the rest of the layout is drop-dead gorgeous. See Norm Charbonneau or Dennis whatsisname. Or Hot Water.

Flanges and couplers are secondary - way down the list of things that look unrealistic. For me. But they still greatly detract from scale models - they just stick out like sore thumbs on truly scale stuff. They bother me not when looking at shortened caricatures, like most early Lionel.

Seaboard, above, is a case in point. He is gradually becoming two rail scale, and as far as I can tell, is about 3/4 of the way there. He is doing it the hard way - incrementally - but he is enjoying his hobby and learning stuff. His efforts are significant - he is proving what I have been asserting for years - the center rail is not required, and is retained only if the modeler likes the looks of three rail track.

Just to make sure - Opinion.

[Seaboard Air Line Fan]

Thanks Bob!

I guess I need to read up on camouflage so I can blend in the rail height so nobody notices. VAST amounts of trackside clutter may help

BobD

[rogruth]

OK, Bob,

I forgot that extra rail.

What about everything being correct but using outside third rail?

You do realize that I'm satisfied with any train.

[Jay Criswell]

So Bob,

I went to the trouble of going to my storage unit, picking up an example of the tender in question, bringing it home, taking photos, uploading them and then waiting for a response from you. As of now......crickets! This is why I wonder why I take the time to post this crap.

Jay

[Seaboard Air Line Fan]

Jay,

I'm sure you were asking Bob T and not me, but I'll take up some of his slack and say your Vandy looks FINE!!! Wish I had seen those photo before starting my own tender, I could have least asked some questions!

Enjoyed putting those Lou Cross estate kits together by the way, all but one (the Quality Craft N&W Hopper) are on the layout. I need to replace the fragile wood end frame parts with brass.

WE NEED MORE VANDERBILT TENDERS!!!

BobD

[Jay Criswell]

Bob D,

Yeah, it was meant for Bob T. The issue is the identification of a tender he posted earlier in this thread. I asked if it could be a MG tender brought in specifically for the Lobaugh "Lost Wax Mike". I believe he said it might be. I mentioned pulling one out of storage to help identify what he has.

I just dislike wasting my time. I have lots of other things to do. I also wonder if people only read that last post instead of the entire thread.

Jay

[bob turner]

Apologies. I think you proved what you had asserted - that it was a 120 C. I did note that it seemed shortened, which may be why I thought it was a 90 C or 100 C. I had no intention of hurting your feelings. I will go back there and make sure I did not miss anything.

[bob turner]

Re- reading it carefully, I guess I missed what was short and what wasn't. I think I will go back to my original assertion. I think it was a model of the tender now behind #1744. That one is a 100C or 90 C with an oil tank that looks out of place, more or less like the 120 C oil tank, but nowhere near as graceful.

I think somewhere I have a compendium of the smaller tenders - maybe in one of those giant Dunscomb books. I will look. Meantime, check out 1744 in old photos of the Heeber Creeper. It is now in Colorado someplace, after a short stint near New Orleans.

[bob turner]

And for Roger - I find outsid third rail track far more realistic than inside third. Again, that is just me, but you have to know that NYC and New Haven had extensive outside third track?

I respect your hobby, but unlike you I have very little time for the smaller "O-27" style trains. I have less interest in them than I do dollhouses, and that is pretty low on the scale of interest.

For me, it has to be scale, and O or larger, and made out of metal or wood. Again, that is just me, and I am delighted that others have a different outlook.

[bob turner]

Back to that tender - you can google Southern Pacific 1744, and get a good idea of what that tender looks like. I cannot figure out how to get a link.

[Jay Criswell]

Bob T,

No feelings hurt. More irritating than anything else.

For what it's worth, the water tank has the length of a 120 (or nearly so) but the oil bunker is way too small length and height.

Jay

[bob turner]

Well, that's actually worse - I did not hurt your feelings, I pissed you off! Still, apologies. So did you look at that hideous oil tank on 1744?