Please Stand By...

 Hello everybody (Hello? Hello?). 

Just a quick note to say I've been busy with other things and will return soon-ish. 

Keep playing with trains!

I Suppose I Owe It An Apology

 

Back in the 1980's when I began planning my first H0 scale empire, I decided I needed more practical looking heavy switchers. I already had a Rivarossi Indiana Harbor Belt heavy 0-8-0, but I felt it was ridiculously oversized for my line as a switcher, and was planned for conversion to a 2-8-0. 

A friend gave me a box of trains one day, and in it was a Tyco "Chattanooga Choo Choo" set. 

At the time, I was not impressed with the locomotive, and immediately set about trying to convert it back into the locomotive upon which it was based, the USRA 0-8-0. 

It became a disaster, and was scrapped. 

My biggest problem was how the model was powered. It was a cheat - instead of powering the drive wheels, Tyco powered the tender instead, using one of their Power Torque motor assemblies. This resulted in an oversized tender for such a bantam locomotive. 

I always felt that these motors were weak. My last diesel as a child, a Tyco Alco 630 in Chessie colors, my Christmas gift for 1974, had this drive, and I felt it struggled with more than a ten car consist. 

And you know what? I miss it.

I also missed the point for the Chattanooga erstwhile 2-8-0. 

These were not meant to be serious models. 

While Tyco did later use the parts to create a right proper USRA 0-8-0, in 1974 when this model was rolled out, it was never meant to be anything other than what it was - a cute gimmick. 

The design of the model would not allow for room for a proper gear system, so Tyco chose to motorize the tender. Instead, the boiler housed a smoke unit, which from what I have read so far seems to have had a high failure rate. 

My current model is parts built from three parts models. I am sure Tyco collectors would shudder to know that I had to make modifications to several different production runs to produce this one. It's still a work in progress.  

Yet it runs, even around my very tight 13" radius track. 

My days of trying for 101% accuracy are over. I feel that you really can't achieve anything near it, to be honest. So if a model has to do without some details to run, so be it. 

And if there's a motor driving the tender, well, it is what it is. 

Sorry, Tyco, I owe you, and this design, an apology. 

Bands On The Run, Part One

 One of the more interesting ways to power model trains involves not using gears. 

Confusing, yes?

It can be done, however. The trick is pulleys and rubber bands. 

In the early days of American H0, some manufacturers used a pulley system combined with gears to transmit power from the motor down to the wheels. Varney is a notable example for some of their early F unit diesels. 

But that isn't what I wish to discuss today. In this segment, we'll look at pure rubber band drive.

Top to bottom - 
Athearn F7
Athearn Hustler
Distler "American" switcher
Marx 0-4-0

Look, Ma! No Gears!

There are a number of advantages to rubber band/belt drive. From a consumer standpoint, they tended to be less expensive. From a manufacturer/accounting standpoint, they were less expense. From an operational standpoint, they were quiet. 

Disadvantages? Well, speed control was lacking. Their top end was usually pretty high. They could be "jerky", and eventually the rubber band will break. Also, if you accidentally got lubricant on the rubber band, it lost power, and sometimes sped up the degradation of the elastic. 

Yet they were common for a long time. More on that in a bit.

Top to bottom -
Athearn F7
Athearn Hustler
Distler "American" switcher
Marx 0-4-0 

Where To Begin

Athearn acquired the Globe line of kits in 1951, and with it their nascent F7 plastic diesel model. These were initially sold unpowered, but soon folks starting acquiring motorized chasses for them. In 1956, Athearn introduced "Hi-F", a rubber band drive for their models. By the way, Hi-F apparently means "High Friction". Their F units were the first recipients of these, of course, but in 1957 Athearn introduced their Hustler switcher. Both proved popular and enjoyed long production. 

This appears to be where this method of drive became popular, though again, I admit there were probably previous examples, though somewhat forgotten.

Not long after Athearn released their models, the West German toy company Distler made their own version for their sets. Distler sold toy trains in North America under the Cragstan label, and up to this point had been making them out of tin and with spur gear drives. These new Distler trains were now plastic, with locomotives sporting diecast frames and rubber band drives. Being battery powered models, the company wasn't concerned about top end speed for such low voltage, so the drive axles, which a pattern that companies such as Marx had used on their O-27 switcher, were smaller in diameter. To slow things down, you want larger in diameter axles (see the Athearn examples above). As a result, the Distler locomotive would take off like a rocket at power over 4.5 VDC, which it really isn't meant to operate at.

Marx followed in the 1960's when they began introducing their line of battery powered train sets. After briefly making a nice little gear driven 0-6-0 (with smoke!), Marx switched over to a simpler design, an 0-4-0, that used rubber band drive. Again, the motor was designed to take no more than 4.5 - 6 VDC to run smoothly, but once more went down to smaller diameter axles, or in this case, actual pulley wheels. This model had a rather short run as well, being replaced by a gear driven version a short time later.

The End?

Eventually, rubber band drive would give way to gears. Athearn retired the Hi F drive in the 1970's, even though as late as 1974 they were still introducing models that ran on it. So you would think that would be the end of rubber band drive. 

Nope.

The East German model train manufacturer Piko introduced a Hustler clone, right down to the rubber band drive, sometime in either the late 1970's or early 80's. They used the same chassis for a center cab locomotive as well, both being sold under the "Piko Junior" line. 

They are still being produced, now under the "Piko MyTrain" banner.

Long live rubber band drive. 

Bridging The Mighty Ashtabula River In H0

 

A Tyco USRA 0-8-0 "Chattanooga" clears the counterweight... barely

My planned layout is still very much in the planning stage. I am slowly expanding the design to allow for more operation, but there are still space considerations, as my apartment is small and my budget is tight. I do know I want a little scenery, and a waterfront is important to me. 

My town of Ashtabula once had a thriving port and shipyard. Now, while part of the port is still doing well, the shipyard has long closed and been replaced by a number of marinas and campgrounds along the slips where commercial vessels had once been built. There was also extensive rail lines, mainly the Pennsylvania Railroad, that fed into the port. 

Most of that is gone as well, with just the tracks on the east side of the Ashtabula remaining. 

But two other vestiges of the Port's heritage remain - two bascule bridges. 

Screenshot from Google Maps

At the north end of the above image is the "Ashtabula Bridge", or as we call it "The 5th Street Bridge".

This 1925 Strauss design was built by Brown, and is strictly for road traffic. The bridge on the south end of that map shot is the railway bridge. 

This was built by Strauss in 1911 for the New York Central and Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Railroads, whose tracks came up from the south and to the east of the Ashtabula River, from this point to the mouth and the coal port. The Pennsylvania Railroad had lines to the west of the river.

While my interest in these two bridges was there, it was mostly passing. After all, bascule bridges are fairly complicated things, and I am trying to keep this layout design fairly simple. 

All of that changed earlier this month. 

One of those "You Might Also Like" ads popped up doing a search, and it was for a "Historic Strauss Trunnion Bascule Bridge" by Pathfinders. This was an older version of their current kit, which isn't badly priced really. After digging a little further into their kit, I decided to pull the trigger on this one.

First, don't expect anything complicated or a "real" (ugh) model railroad kit here. This is made from cut ply, and is really meant for students 8 and up. It is inspired by the "Blue Bridge" in Victoria, British Columbia, though of course rather simple. No delicate plastic, no urethane castings, no photoetch. Just a relatively simple, yet pleasing, one or two hour kit (allowing for glue drying time, mine took about an hour and a half). 

However, as we say in model building, while it lacks complexity, it has "good bones". True, the various braces and structure is oversized somewhat, but you have to remember the primary audience here. There is enough, though, that it should can build up into a decent looking model with some work. 

For now, I'll setting for "solid" and "working".

I built this whilst sitting on my sofa with one cat at my side, another wanting my attention

While this isn't a review, I will say that the instructions are very well, and humorously, written. It all went together very well. I chose to leave a few details off for now, the sign, crossing arm, and the string for the "winder" (while I try to figure out the best way to mechanize the lift). Also, the span crosspieces are not glued into place, so as to allow access to the deck.

As for size, it is H0, but it is tight. 

THUNK...

My current largest locomotive, a Gilbert 4-6-4 Hudson, doesn't clear the counterweight with track on the deck. There are two ways to overcome this. First is laying the rail directly on the bridge deck (I use code 100, so finer rail will drop the height even more). The other way is to modify the upper lift supports slightly, by drilling new holes for the attachment points so that it lifts the counterweight somewhat. 

The upper lift supports run from the center of the span to the counterweight

There are still a lot of considerations to be made. While I do plan on adding some detail and paint, I really don't want to overdo it, as that would go against the goal of keeping this simple and fun. Due to its size it will become the dominant feature on any layout I build.

Still, I really like this model. It feels good to actually begin moving from constantly planning a layout to building something. 

(Edit - 27 November, 2025 - Edited to correct rail lines. I'm still new here)

It Wasn't Supposed To Be Steam This Time

 Currently, I am sitting down eating as soft a dinner as possible after having emergency dental work. I am hurting, but I also need to eat, so oatmeal it is. 

As I do so, my mind goes to my test track in front of me, and something has become immediately apparent. 

I have a lot of steam locomotives. 

A whole bunch. 

A good many of them do not run at the moment, as I plan to use them as work for the colder season. There will be parts that will have to be replaced, and I suspect that a number of them will simply be put out to pasture. 

A good many of these came in lots I would purchase, parts lots. My soft spot has always been for the lower end items, locomotives from train sets, and especially those considered "toys". I feel for them, these forgotten things.

When I ventured back into H0 trains, after the purchase of that battery powered NewRay switcher, however, I wanted to concentrate on diesels, not steam.

And here I am.

While there are a few diesels I have that are "cheap" (Marx, Nomura), I am finding that low end steam from the period from 1950 to 1980 are far more abundant. The diesels that fall into this area, usually imports, are out there, but... I keep running into inexpensive steamers that are alluring!

So it is I stumbled right back into steamers. 

Anyway, I am rambling, I need to rinse and rest my head.

Riding The Tinplate H0 Rails

When researching the history of H0 here in the United States, it becomes very apparent that, unlike the larger scales, it was a scale endeavor fairly early on. It did not go through a real "tinplate" phase on these shores. Over in Europe, that was how H0 (specifically in its 00 phase) began - mechanical, later electric, models riding over tinplate track. 

Here, after it and nearby 00 scale were introduced, it started out as a craftsman scale. You could buy components, but you were left to build all your equipment, and oftentimes that included track.

Unlike its English, and to a degree European, counterparts, 00 here did not use 16.5mm gauge. Here, it started with 19mm from the beginning, and while it grew somewhat in popularity, it was eclipsed by H0 fairly quickly, even though Lionel introduced their small range of equipment in the later 1930s. 

The A.C. Gilbert Company, before buying the American Flyer line, began looking into H0 around the same time, and introduced their line to run on 16.5mm, H0, though I have read somewhere that they chose a scale of 9/64" to the foot instead of 3.5mm to the foot, resulting in their equipment being slightly oversized at 1/85 instead of 1/87. Like the Lionel 00 line, these were ready to run.

They also began mass production of track. 

Initially, Gilbert's track used solid rails on stamped tinplate roadbed. Later, in the late 1940s, they switched over to tinplate style track that strongly resembled their S gauge offerings. This was short lived, however.

Meanwhile, elsewhere on the planet, tinplate H0 track was still the norm, and amazingly stuck around at least until the 1970s, possibly even the 1980s. 

That's what I want to talk about here. Why?

Because I have a lot of it, and I plan on using it.

While it would be far more practical to buy modern nickel silver track, my interests lie in older, more toylike equipment, Some of this hardly qualifies as toy like, though perhaps in detail - some European made equipment was solid, and performed amazingly well, though with caveats.

From left to right, by radius - Distler 11.5", Fleischmann 11.5", Fleischmann 14", Fleischmann 10", Nomura 10 with plastic ties", Marx 15" with roadbed, Marx (Hong Kong) 15" with plastic ties

Of the track pictured above, two brands appear to have persisted well into the 1970s, Fleischmann and Nomura, as well as a mysterious "Y" brand from Japan (that trademark is normally associated with Yonezawa, though I am unaware of them making H0 trains). Piko, an East German company at the time, may have made tinplate track into the early 1990s, though I cannot confirm this. As for Fleischmann, their tinplate track production ended in 1974. I cannot be sure of Nomura, though their trains were still on the shelves in 1973 where I lived. 

But why bother using what some consider the worse possible track for a small layout?

As I mentioned, I have many pieces already, but another reason is simpler - curiosity. 

After all, tinplate track is still very common with 027 and 0, as well as the larger tinplate trains. Same material. The difference is weight of the equipment. As tinplate track oxidizes, it loses a good deal of conductivity. In a sense it becomes its own resistor. My heavy Fleischmann gear, though, has no trouble at all running on it. Same for my diecast Marx Hudsons. As long as the pickups are making good contact with the track, your equipment should still get power. 

The other thing is to keep the track clean. 

(You have been warned)

I am unsure as to when, or even if, I will begin construction. This initial layout is mostly to test techniques, and as I am pressed for space, it will be rather small, so much so that my large steamers will not be able to run on it. 

I have to start somewhere, though. I have the track, after all. 

There comes a point where the planning has to stop and the actual work has to start.

The Evolution Of Nomura's F7 Diesel

 This was a recent discovery that has me now wondering just how much I may have underestimated and missed with regards to Nomura's H0 toy trains. They apparently put more thought into them then I anticipated. 

I acquired a battery powered set that just bore the TN trademark modestly on the side of the box. Not Rosko, not Cragstan. The box looks very similar to many other toy train sets.

The contents are pretty typical of the other Nomura manufactured trains sets - the ATSF boxcar, the NYC gondola, the BO caboose. The track is, of course, the usual tin tubular variety. 

The locomotive included in it looked pretty much the same as my previously acquired New Haven one. When I landed this set, I actually wanted just the cars, though the different F7 body was interesting. As my friend Gene pointed out, those Globe/Athearn F7 inspired shells really got around.

Upon opening the set, I discovered that the diesel was actually very unusual. It appears to be a stepping stone from Nomura's earlier tin diesel to their final (?) New Haven unit. 

I was unable to clearly see the side frames in the original ad for the set, but upon arrival it was clear that they were not like the very nice ones on the New Haven model. They were simpler, reminiscent of 0-27 versions, in a way. Also, the crew ladder grabs have been terminated at the shell bottom, much like early Varney. While this was probably to allow a wider swing for the power trucks, Nomura's later solution of moving them out slightly was a better solution.

Like the tin version, the Santa Fe model is only powered on one axle. 

Any cars that this model could haul would need to be light. Also, you'll notice that brass tab on the Santa Fe unit's tank. I am certain this was for "features", things like whistles, that would be triggered when the locomotive passed over them. A number of model train companies used this. 

The mechanism also seem to show the type's evolution.

This is a step up from the earlier tin version. Beneath the gear box in the plastic Santa Fe unit is a larger Mabuchi motor, though I cannot be sure the model (likely an RE-36). The pinion gear on my model broke the first time the model was fired up here. Fortunately, I have plenty of spare pinions and had the model running in no time. The two black boxes are covers for weights, which this model needs every bit of. Also of note is the improved coupler, a hoop type that Nomura had adopted, which are very similar to European H0/00 practice. 

I have only just started testing the model. I am sure that it will not pull as well as the later New Haven model, though my future layout will be small anyway, and long trains would be impractical (if not impossible!). 

This has me wondering what direction Nomura may have gone in. Was the New Haven model the end of the line for their trains? What about accessories, what did that have?

I'll keeping looking, and when things do show up, I will share them here.