Saturday, April 18, 2015
It's Alive!
Well, the real thing anyway. Sorry, no modeling progress to report as one might expect. I had the opportunity to be in Kansas City in early April and, naturally, squeezed in a visit to the spur. To my delight, I discovered that it is still in use, serving Schutte Lumber. This car spot is all that's left of the Fairgrounds Branch in the modern day. My apologies for the grainy cell-phone photo-at-a-distance, but any photo is better than one not taken.
Tuesday, January 6, 2015
New Page
I recently added a new top-level page to the blog as a starting point for prototype information, chief among them, the location of this industrial spur in the larger world.
Friday, December 26, 2014
P:48 Plunge continued...
It's been a few months since a post...for reasons unremembered, it's been a tough winter for applying modeling time, even if it is just the armchair kind...
In my previous post on the subject of converting to Proto48 modeling, I discussed the "touchy-feely" aspects of why I'd pursue such a change. There are also a couple physical ones that are enabled by the larger scale and I'll discuss a few of them here.
First and foremost is Dead Rail. DCC freed us from electrical blocks -- now imagine being freed from powered track completely! While this is of course possible in HO, the larger engine carbody volume leaves more room for batteries. Also, dead rail might let one experiment with additional weathering or construction techniques -- If feeders are no longer required, one could actually use individual stick rail for hand-laid track
Second is truck-mounted motors. This powering option frees up additional space in the carbody for weights placed directly over the trucks and creates additional room for a speaker.
Third is working handbrakes in freight cars. My original idea here was to use an accessory decoder with one function connected to a small servo motor to operate a linkage that locks a brake against one axle. Simply dial up (a portion of) the freight car number and set or release the brakes. Combining this with DeadRail though would probably rule out accessory decoders; instead I'd maybe use a reed switch by the brakewheel and put a magnet on the other end of the uncoupling tool. Since this would be battery operated, the default would be to have the brakes normally set by spring tension and the powered servo could hold them open.
Hopefully some of these thoughts generate some of your own, or better yet, some comments on the blog. I'm quite curious what others think on these subjects...
In my previous post on the subject of converting to Proto48 modeling, I discussed the "touchy-feely" aspects of why I'd pursue such a change. There are also a couple physical ones that are enabled by the larger scale and I'll discuss a few of them here.
First and foremost is Dead Rail. DCC freed us from electrical blocks -- now imagine being freed from powered track completely! While this is of course possible in HO, the larger engine carbody volume leaves more room for batteries. Also, dead rail might let one experiment with additional weathering or construction techniques -- If feeders are no longer required, one could actually use individual stick rail for hand-laid track
Second is truck-mounted motors. This powering option frees up additional space in the carbody for weights placed directly over the trucks and creates additional room for a speaker.
Third is working handbrakes in freight cars. My original idea here was to use an accessory decoder with one function connected to a small servo motor to operate a linkage that locks a brake against one axle. Simply dial up (a portion of) the freight car number and set or release the brakes. Combining this with DeadRail though would probably rule out accessory decoders; instead I'd maybe use a reed switch by the brakewheel and put a magnet on the other end of the uncoupling tool. Since this would be battery operated, the default would be to have the brakes normally set by spring tension and the powered servo could hold them open.
Hopefully some of these thoughts generate some of your own, or better yet, some comments on the blog. I'm quite curious what others think on these subjects...
Saturday, October 11, 2014
P:48 Plunge
I've dropped hints on this blog in a few previous posts about changing scales from HO to O and specifically the Proto48 dialect of the latter. Trevor Marshall's comment on my most recent post prompted me to clarify my thinking, so here goes...
First, some history. HO scale is all I've ever known and was employed in both major railroad building projects in my life. The first was a multi-year journey along with my father to recreate late 1950s iron ore railroading in far northeastern Wisconsin and western Michigan and the second was a rather faithful (if I do say so myself) recreation of the Milwaukee Road's "Beer Line" that I built with my brother, the first third of which can be found in the November 2011 issue of Model Railroader magazine.
In both cases, prototype modeling was at hand and the goals of the operation plus history, familiarity, and available equipment dictated the scale choice. The iron ore operation set out to capture a 100 miles or so of line governed by timetable and train order operation -- 600 feet of mainline wouldn't have been possible in any larger scale and much of the equipment to make it operational was collected over time or obtained for very reasonable prices.
The goal for the Beer Line was to recreate the entire six miles of the line and while N scale might've provided the opportunity to perhaps stretch things out a bit, this is where the balancing act comes in. Allow me to attempt to explain...
In my pursuit of this hobby, I've come to find that the -- albeit imagined -- immersion of myself into the environment is the most important and rewarding aspect. There's clearly a spectrum to every vector of this hobby, from the realism of the models, the level of detail applied, and the engagement in recreating the actions of an operating railroad. In my personal experience, operating sessions are more enjoyable when all of the participants are near the same end of the engagement spectrum. Consider a simple example: Yes, one can "cheat" and see the feet of the other operator in the next aisle and use that to decide if the way is clear, or they could read the timetable and think through the train orders and make the decision that way.
I've come to realize that the scale of the equipment is one factor in the equation supporting the engagement aspect. This is not to say that a larger scale strictly equals more engagement. One can certainly satisfy all of their goals with N scale and those operating it can still derive great enjoyment from it.
I believe it comes down to perspective and mass. The closer one is to the equipment, the more the models mimic the same perspective seen when viewing the prototype and the more real it, in my opinion, "feels". Us humans will always be 1:1 "standing over" our 1:87.1 or 1:64 or 1:48 trains, but if they are bigger and are brought closer, the perspective is changed, the details stand out and one can feel a bit more like they're "there".
As I've gravitated towards smaller, fully recreatable prototypes -- especially industrial spurs such as is the focus of this blog -- the opportunity presents itself to use a larger scale since the full mile of real track can be captured in ~130 linear feet. With the goal of a to "complete" model achievable, the larger scale begs to be tried for all the aspects I've (tried to) convey here.
All that being said, here's the first step:
At $25.00, this was a relatively easy "plunge". No existing HO equipment was harmed in the making of this blog post. Now, I just have to figure out the P:48 conversion aspect, but that's a subject for future posts...Stay tuned.
First, some history. HO scale is all I've ever known and was employed in both major railroad building projects in my life. The first was a multi-year journey along with my father to recreate late 1950s iron ore railroading in far northeastern Wisconsin and western Michigan and the second was a rather faithful (if I do say so myself) recreation of the Milwaukee Road's "Beer Line" that I built with my brother, the first third of which can be found in the November 2011 issue of Model Railroader magazine.
In both cases, prototype modeling was at hand and the goals of the operation plus history, familiarity, and available equipment dictated the scale choice. The iron ore operation set out to capture a 100 miles or so of line governed by timetable and train order operation -- 600 feet of mainline wouldn't have been possible in any larger scale and much of the equipment to make it operational was collected over time or obtained for very reasonable prices.
The goal for the Beer Line was to recreate the entire six miles of the line and while N scale might've provided the opportunity to perhaps stretch things out a bit, this is where the balancing act comes in. Allow me to attempt to explain...
In my pursuit of this hobby, I've come to find that the -- albeit imagined -- immersion of myself into the environment is the most important and rewarding aspect. There's clearly a spectrum to every vector of this hobby, from the realism of the models, the level of detail applied, and the engagement in recreating the actions of an operating railroad. In my personal experience, operating sessions are more enjoyable when all of the participants are near the same end of the engagement spectrum. Consider a simple example: Yes, one can "cheat" and see the feet of the other operator in the next aisle and use that to decide if the way is clear, or they could read the timetable and think through the train orders and make the decision that way.
I've come to realize that the scale of the equipment is one factor in the equation supporting the engagement aspect. This is not to say that a larger scale strictly equals more engagement. One can certainly satisfy all of their goals with N scale and those operating it can still derive great enjoyment from it.
I believe it comes down to perspective and mass. The closer one is to the equipment, the more the models mimic the same perspective seen when viewing the prototype and the more real it, in my opinion, "feels". Us humans will always be 1:1 "standing over" our 1:87.1 or 1:64 or 1:48 trains, but if they are bigger and are brought closer, the perspective is changed, the details stand out and one can feel a bit more like they're "there".
As I've gravitated towards smaller, fully recreatable prototypes -- especially industrial spurs such as is the focus of this blog -- the opportunity presents itself to use a larger scale since the full mile of real track can be captured in ~130 linear feet. With the goal of a to "complete" model achievable, the larger scale begs to be tried for all the aspects I've (tried to) convey here.
All that being said, here's the first step:
At $25.00, this was a relatively easy "plunge". No existing HO equipment was harmed in the making of this blog post. Now, I just have to figure out the P:48 conversion aspect, but that's a subject for future posts...Stay tuned.
Serving The Line
With basic research nearly complete for almost all of the industries on the line, I'm turning my focus to at least one of the modeling aspects of this project: Determining the necessary car fleet to support operations.
This is especially important for me to work out since I'm still heavily considering a change in modeling scales from HO to O (P:48, actually). Regardless of scale choice, I'll still need the fruits of this thought exercise; if a switch does happen, this will help scope the equipment changeover.
We'll start with the theoretical discussion of each industry, the commodities they handled, and the typical car types that would've been used to service them. I'll update the table with additional information as I locate suitable products to represent the prototype.
In the meantime, I'll keep track of a some potential candidate models below:
PFE Reefer (yellow) [Weaver]
This is especially important for me to work out since I'm still heavily considering a change in modeling scales from HO to O (P:48, actually). Regardless of scale choice, I'll still need the fruits of this thought exercise; if a switch does happen, this will help scope the equipment changeover.
We'll start with the theoretical discussion of each industry, the commodities they handled, and the typical car types that would've been used to service them. I'll update the table with additional information as I locate suitable products to represent the prototype.
| Spot Code | Industry Name | Commodities | Freight Car Types | Models |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 303 | Open | n/a | ||
| 305 | Garfield Team Track | Various | Various | |
| 306 | Paper Supply Company | Paper | Boxcars | |
| 308 | Runaround Track | n/a | ||
| 309 | Open | n/a | ||
| 311 | C. E. Schutte Lumber Company | Lumber Building Materials | Boxcars Flatcars | |
| 315 | Carthage Marble Corporation | Cut Stone | Flatcars Gondolas | |
| 319 | W. C. Tingle Company | Flooring | Boxcars | |
| 326 | Pacific Mutual Door Company | Lumber Windows Doors | Boxcars | |
| 327 | Battenfield Grease & Oil Company | Petroleum Products | Tank Cars | |
| 335 | Safeway Bakery | Flour | Covered Hoppers (Airslide) | |
| 336 | Motor Parts Distributors Incorporated | Auto Parts | Boxcars | |
| 340 | Sherwood Chemical Company | Chemicals | Tank Cars | |
| 340A | Union Carbide | No research yet | ||
| 340B | American Mineral Spirits Company | Chemicals | Tank Cars | |
| 341 | Southwestern Bell Telephone Company | Bulk Wire Telephone Poles Supplies | Boxcars Flatcars | |
| 342 | Turner Uni-Drive Company | Gearbox Castings Machined Parts | Boxcars | |
| 345 | U. S. Engineering | Steel Pipe | Flat Cars Covered Gondolas | |
| 348 | Swenson Construction Company | Construction Materials | Boxcars Flat Cars | |
| 353 | Styro Fabricators Incorporated | Polyisocyanurate | Boxcars (Drums) | |
| 354 | Fred Wolferman Incorporated | Dry Goods Perishables | Insulated Boxcars Refrigerated Boxcars | |
In the meantime, I'll keep track of a some potential candidate models below:
PFE Reefer (yellow) [Weaver]
Tank Car (Sunoco/Undec) [Weaver]
Insulated Boxcars (GT, L&N, SF) [Atlas]
Standard 50' Boxcars [Atlas]
Modernized 40' Boxcar [Atlas]
Covered Hopper [Atlas]
Flat Car [Atlas]
57' Mechanical Reefer [Lionel]
3 Bay Hopper [Lionel] (MoW service only, no online industry for an open hopper)
70ton Airslide [Atlas]
60' HiCube Boxcar [Atlas]
50' Plug Door Box [Atlas]
60' Auto Parts Box [Atlas]
Insulated Boxcars (GT, L&N, SF) [Atlas]
Standard 50' Boxcars [Atlas]
Modernized 40' Boxcar [Atlas]
Covered Hopper [Atlas]
Flat Car [Atlas]
57' Mechanical Reefer [Lionel]
3 Bay Hopper [Lionel] (MoW service only, no online industry for an open hopper)
70ton Airslide [Atlas]
60' HiCube Boxcar [Atlas]
50' Plug Door Box [Atlas]
60' Auto Parts Box [Atlas]
Saturday, September 20, 2014
Swenson Construction Company
In this installment of the tour of the Fairgrounds Branch we're capturing what we can on Swenson Construction Company, which is spot #348 on the 1972 Map.
The last view I've been able to obtain of this location is a 1969 aerial view. There's a fair amount of rail activity at this spot location, but some of it appears to be potential offspot cars for Sherwood / American Mineral Spirits. An aerial view 10 years earlier shows pretty much the same layout for the materials yard, but is devoid of rail activity.
Swenson's Construction Company has a lengthy history in Kansas City and was founded in 1906. Projects that the company has worked on include:
I found at least one reference to an employee retirement in 1978, so it seems plausible that Swenson Construction Company can be included on the planned 1970s rendition of the Fairgrounds Branch. However, this business record indicates that they dissolved their main Missouri operations in December 1972, so some modelers' license might be necessary. The related record for Kansas just says "withdrawn" but gives no dates. What is also interesting is the Kansas record is addressed at 3305 TERRACE, KANSAS CITY, MO 64111 which lines up better with an undated but early (given the track layout at the end of the line) Sanborn Map showing that nearly all the property along Terrace St was Swenson Construction and possibly the tracks along there were privately owned. The Missouri Record lists an address of 3252 Roanoke Rd, Kansas City, MO 64111 (which is currently a business called Crossland Construction) and is further evidence of businesses in this small little area moving around quite a bit as operations changed.
Other fun facts found while searching:
Swenson's Construction Company has a lengthy history in Kansas City and was founded in 1906. Projects that the company has worked on include:
- 1960 KC Star article on I-70 bridge contracts
- Various Other Bridges
- Jackson County Courthouse
- Westport High School
- Kansas City Power & Light Building
- Coca-Cola Building
- 15th Street Stone arch Bridge
- Scottish Rite Temple
- The Kansas City Livestock Exchange (pg. 7)
I found at least one reference to an employee retirement in 1978, so it seems plausible that Swenson Construction Company can be included on the planned 1970s rendition of the Fairgrounds Branch. However, this business record indicates that they dissolved their main Missouri operations in December 1972, so some modelers' license might be necessary. The related record for Kansas just says "withdrawn" but gives no dates. What is also interesting is the Kansas record is addressed at 3305 TERRACE, KANSAS CITY, MO 64111 which lines up better with an undated but early (given the track layout at the end of the line) Sanborn Map showing that nearly all the property along Terrace St was Swenson Construction and possibly the tracks along there were privately owned. The Missouri Record lists an address of 3252 Roanoke Rd, Kansas City, MO 64111 (which is currently a business called Crossland Construction) and is further evidence of businesses in this small little area moving around quite a bit as operations changed.
Other fun facts found while searching:
- Mr. Swenson passed in 1946
- Hartzell "Ding" Burton was a subsequent CEO of the business and he passed in January 1970 (obituary).
- Clarence Rupp was construction foreman with the company and worked there until 1978.
Monday, September 1, 2014
Milestone(s)
Sometime between yesterday and today, this blog's readership crossed the 5000 total views mark. In the previous eighteen months, 33 posts have documented my findings of a short Frisco Railway industrial spur in Kansas City, Missouri. This date also marks (almost) one year since the blog was able to transition from largely speculation and guesswork to one of targeted research due to the find of the 1972 railroad produced spot map. This change in trajectory gave new life to this project and set the stage for creating a railroad model, not just a model railroad. It'll likely be some time before I'm able to begin construction, so for now, the research continues to flush out details and narrow down the industrial history of the rail-served properties. I also hope to experiment with a few experiments in "modern" P:48 modeling, since, after writing about it previously, I've become more interested in that scale as the preferred medium to recreate The Fairgrounds Branch.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)