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. 

Turning A Marx H0 999 0-4-0 Into A Pseudo "Atlantic"

 Since receiving and rebuilding my first Marx battery powered 0-4-0, I've always been intrigued by its shape. Let's face it, that is a Belpair boiler, and the Pennsylvania Railroad was the largest used. This looks so much like a baby E6 Atlantic I just had to give it a shot. 

The biggest problem with the Marx model is the frame. This one was made from two models, thanks to a judicious amount of J-B Weld. The shell is scuffed, the motor is cranky, and there is an intermittent gearing problem where the wheels would just lock up. 

All of this means this model is the perfect candidate for the conversion. 

Since there is no easy way to make a working 4-4-2 due to the shape of the frame, I decided to proceed the old toy train route, which means faking the wheels. 

I used spare H0 wheels from the parts bin for the pilot wheels. These were plastic, so wheels were cut from the axles. The flanges where they would touch the rails were trimmed down so that only the treads would contact the rails, and just barely at that. What they really do is float just above the rails. 

The trailing wheels were built on top of a large plastic toy train wheel set that was considerably modified, ultimately being less than 1/2 their original diameter. Again, the flanges were removed at the railhead, and a section of a thin plastic disks were added to the top. 

The trailing truck frame was built up in two sections, one on the body, the other on the frame. This was done to allow the model to come apart with no trouble. In my mind I was trying to imagine how the designers at the nearby Girard, Pennsylvania factory would have overcome this issue as well.

Also, you may have noticed the color of my plastic. Yes, I use plastic signs as they are cheap and readily available. 

Once everything was built, the model was allowed to set overnight. 

The initial painting was done today after cleaning off the shell yet again. For now, the shell is being left unpainted as I decide how to proceed with markings. The rest of the modifications to the locomotive were painted, as well as the wheels. 

This is the end result, for now at least - 

While it is still cranky whilst being run, it certainly looks the part of a mixed train light Atlantic. At least I'm satisfied with it for now. 

The Mystery of E Gauge, or Egads! Model Railroading in 1/96 Scale!

 I have previously written about how H0 used a plethora of scales to ride on 16.5mm (0.65") gauge track. One of the more common scales, at least here in the United States as near as I can tell, was 1/8" = 1', or 1/96. This was most commonly used for structures, where reducing them somewhat so they didn't overwhelm the railroad was a good idea, something akin to selective compression. 

As it turns out, there was a proposed model railroad scale that would have been 1/96 (I suspect this wasn't the only one, but I digress).

In Louis Hertz's seminal work "Riding The Tinplate Rails" he makes mention of such - 

Needless to say, it was short lived, though in some sense the cat was already out of the bag. Knapp made their lovely 4-8-2 in 1/96, and the later Bowser Challenger and Big Boy locomotives were reportedly in this scale as well. StromBecker released their Rock Island Rocket set in this scale as well, and it had the option to be motorized. 

Of course, in Europe many models were already slightly smaller than 1/87, the scale for accepted for H0. Trix on the continent, for instance, used 1/90, but once again I digress. 

Aside from some passenger equipment, and of course the aforementioned StromBecker kit, I have yet to see much in the way of rolling stock in E scale. With a nominal gauge of 5/8" (15.88mm) or 0.625", it was just slightly smaller than H0. What this meant was that if any equipment had been set to that gauge it would have had only slight problems riding on H0. The reverse, however, wouldn't be true - H0 equipment is too wide in gauge. 

How about the size differences?

Lacking the Bowser and Knapp examples, I must instead rely on what I have on hand, and yes, I do have a few pieces. Let's compare the H0 Marx Hudson with the Nomura/Rosko "Almost" Hudson - 

Rather considerable, actually. By the way, this "Almost Hudson" is destined for some improvements. 

I also have a copy of the venerable StromBecker 40' boxcar that has been reduced to 1/96, as part of a planned mini-train set project. Here it is compared with one of my completed StromBecker kits - 

In the end, nothing ever became of E scale. It was decided to go with the already established H0 standards, though of course some 1/96 equipment did escape into the wild. This isn't to say that there is no room for 1/96 scale in model railroading today. There are many countries that use 5' gauge still, including a sizeable chunk of Eastern Europe. Brazil has gone one better and uses "Irish Gauge". 5' 3", on a considerable stretch of their railways, which is 1.6 meters. When scaled down, it works out well to either H0 or E. 

Either way, 16.5mm/0.65" as defined to H0 is pretty much here to stay. 

The Marx H0 0-6-0 - A Battery Powered Mystery

 The Marx H0 battery powered 0-6-0 is something of a mystery. As I previously mentioned, it apparently had a very short production and is considered rare by some. I am unsure where it falls in the Marx H0 timeline, though I suspect that it predates their battery powered 0-4-0 ersatz PRR Atlantic-like model. For all I know it came at the end, but regardless, it is rare. 

Which is sad, really. 

It is a nice, though very simple, model of a USRA 0-6-0. From an engineering standpoint, it is rather ingenious. 

They managed to cram a lightweight, low voltage smoke unit and bellows pump into the forward part of the boiler, with the motor located under the cab. The original motor in this one was damaged, so I replaced it with the closest approximation, a clone of the classic Mabuchi F-130. This motor is slightly longer so some modifications to the back of the cab were necessary. 

By the way, the drawbar is being held in place temporarily by a brass paper fastener until I redesign the screw mount. 

For all its ingenuity, though, the designers failed to consider weight. Even with all this shoved into the plastic boiler it still remains very light. 

At 4.34 oz, its weight is similar to the cars it would be hauling. Bear in mind this is after I replaced the original motor, which was even lighter. Compare this to the weight of one of the 0-4-0s, in this case a rubber band driven one.

That additional 2.3 ozs actually makes a significant difference. The weight on the 0-4-0 is distributed over just four wheels, whilst the lighter weight of the 0-6-0 is spread out over six. Put this way, the tractive weight per wheel on the 0-4-0 is approximately 1.66 oz whilst the 0-6-0 has 0.72 oz, less than half. 

Another problem is the width of the treads.

The 0-6-0 has very scale like wheels in this regard, but for such a lightweight model this is a detriment. It derails very easily. You can also see another problem here - the tin used to manufacture the frame is extremely thin. It was already bent at the junction between the motor area and the rear driver, and in the process of removing the motor I caused the beginning of a stress fracture. I used a small length of heavier tin and glued it into place the sturdy things up (I chose not to solder for now, pending any future work).

The question remains as to what to do. 

I hesitate to do too much in the way of improvement to this model. It is too unusual, the only other Marx H0 steam locomotive that was very scale-like. There is also the issue of its apparent rareness. There is nothing pressing here in terms of what my "line" needs. There are better USRA six wheeled switchers out there, though the only one I can think that might be of similar vintage is the Rivarossi model (something I need to investigate). MDC made a six that was modeled on Southern Pacific switchers starting in 1949 that were very similar and appear to have been based on the USRA design.

If I want the model to operate reliably something needs to be done.The process of adding a slightly heavier motor that far back behind the last axle shifted the center of gravity enough that it derails far easier, even at 3VDC. Some weight needs to be added somehow, but the lack of space inside the locomotive is a huge problem. I do have lead tape from my model rocketry hobby that could be added in places, but at best that won't add enough. While the smoke unit in this model appears to be dead, I really don't want to remove it. The space in the frame beneath the smoke unit was considered, but in addition to serving as the air space for the bellows, there is once again the issue of working around that very fragile tin. More lead tape inside the boiler, perhaps? It would need to be a heavier stock than what I have on hand at the moment, and right now all hobby spending has been suspended because I need to eat for the remainder of the month.

Hopefully, I will figure something out. I would really like to see this six wheeler hauling revenue.

Marx's "Low Voltage" H0 Steamers - A Personal Overview

 Marx did not stay in H0 very long, just about a decade from 1957 to the mid 1960's. They didn't just end the lines, instead they sort of switched from regular 12 VDC fare to 3-6 VDC battery operated sets, while the rest of the H0 went to Model Power (but not all of it, sadly). 

Marx would continue with their 0 gauge trains until the company finally ended production in the mid-1970's. 

For their battery powered sets, Marx made one diesel using their old F unit shell and an incredibly cranky mechanism, and two steam locomotive designs. I will eventually touch on that diesel, because it is interesting, but the steamers are what I want to focus on here. 

The Marx "Battery Powered" Steam Locomotives

Top to bottom, we have a nicely proportioned 0-6-0, which really appears based on the USRA design, and the 0-4-0 variants. The basic 0-4-0 really looks like it should be something else, like a light Atlantic. In my mind it really resembles a Pennsylvania E class 4-4-2, right down to the Belpaire boiler. Sadly, because of limitations of the design, there is no way to add lead or trailing wheels, though they can be "faked" (something the author is seriously considering).

This arrangement presents a timeline of sorts. As near as I can tell, the 0-6-0 was offered first, but then was pulled. I have suspicions as to why. The 0-4-0 was the replacement, and remained in production until the end, but even it was modified, not just visually but mechanically.

These were all products of Marx Hong Kong.

I want to save the 0-6-0 for another time, as I still trying to find more information on it, suffice to say that it is not the best runner as it is very light. For now, let's talk about the far more common 0-4-0.

Undersides

While there were visually a few differences, notably with the red drivered Green Valley "Old Timer" locomotive, mechanically there appears to have been two mechanisms. From what I can tell, the older design is the one that used this rubber band drive.

This was the first one of this design I came across, sold by a kind eBay seller who held on to it while I adjusted my finances to buy it. It became my testbed, to see how the design worked. As it turned out, the wheels were borderline unusable. They were diecast cheaply, typical of too many of the Marx Hong Kong output I'm afraid, and in addition to breaking they were also poor at conducting (no fault of the seller, only something I encountered whist doing the rebuild). Fortunately, I had some spares, though one of the originals remains on the model.

This is why I think the design didn't last long. First, the drive isn't smooth. It is rather jerky. The bigger problem, though, is that when the rubber bands broke (and the always do) the wheels had nothing retaining them in the chassis, and with that, the model falls apart.

As luck would have it, immediately after securing the first one, another arrived in a junk lot, much to my surprise. 

The 0-4-0 that replaced the rubber band drive was far more reliable, though still rather unique in its design. 

They replaced the rubber band drive with gears, but the main worm gear on that long motor shaft is in the form of a stiff metal spring. Frankly, rather clever. Also, with the new design the wheels are held in place by the frame. The KTK motor is pretty reliable, though I wonder what one would do if it needed replacement. Personally, I don't think that would be a problem, it would just take some fiddling about (something I am notorious for).  By the way, the locomotive in this photo was my first one of this model, and was an extensive rebuild, hence the red drivers. This version is far more reliable, and enjoyed a longer production life. 

On the subject of color variations, the body itself had two main variations - standard black, and the "Valley Railroad" "old timer" variant, with extended domes, a cowcatcher, and larger smokestack (mine is missing), done in resplendent red and gold, which never appears to have been applied well. Also, one of my geared models is labelled "New York Central" and "999", a number that had also been applied to a very common Marx 0-27 2-4-2. 

I want to talk about the 0-6-0 in another post, as I find it both intriguing, and downright frustrating all at once. The only thing that remained after it disappeared was its tender, which was used in modified form for the 0-4-0s. 

Rather sad that these did not go to Model Power as well. 

HO vs H0, OO vs 00, Etc...

 Recently, I began using H0 in my annotations. 

Look again. That's "aitch zero", not "aitch oh". 

Why, you ask?

Well, you see, the original designations for model railroad gauges were numerical, with 3 for 2.5", 2 for 2", 1 for 1.75", and 0 for 1.25". In the world of toy and model railroading, there was no incremental step to the next smaller commercial gauge. 

It was a leap - 00, which was idealized as half of 0, but worked out to be 0.65", or 16.5mm. This was followed in time by 000, 2mm to the foot, 9mm gauge. 

Then things started getting messy.

Just before the Second World War, in an attempt to make more scale like models but keep costs under control, American Flyer and Marx began making 3/16" to the foot models that ran on 0 gauge track. After the war, Marx continued this practice, but American Flyer switched to 7/8" gauge, and thus S gauge was born.

A letter designation has now entered the fray. 

Prior to that there were attempts to make more scale like rolling stock on 00 track. Doing the math, it was found that the gauge worked out closer to 1/87 scale than the larger scales (variously 1/80 to 1/70) used on 00. To differentiate these finer scale models the designation H0 was chosen.

With the postwar boom in smaller scales, especially H0, it was inevitable that someone, somewhere, would go even smaller. 

In 1945, Hal Joyce introduced TT gauge in the United States, 1/120 scale, 0.472" gauge. While it never really caught on in the US, it did become quite popular in Europe.

So now we have three model railroad sizes with letters - S, H0, and TT.

In time, they would be followed by even more letters - N, Z, T on the small end of the scale spectrum, and G on the larger. 

Naturally, there is very little visual difference betwixt O (oh) and 0 (zero), and in many places "oh" and "zero" are interchangeable in things such as counting (though of course not spelling). The transition of 0 to O, 00 to OO, and H0 to HO was really inevitable. 

Yet I now find some odd comfort in using H0 ("aitch zero"). It's legacy remains in that designation.

I suspect I will vacillate between HO and H0, being as I am only human, and a curious one at that.

Lionel H0 - A Study In Overengineering

 

The two chassis you see up there are from late 1950's Lionel H0 locomotives. They are amazing pieces of work.

And infuriating.

In my opinion, they are overengineered. As someone who used to own a couple of Volvo 200s, I know too well what overengineering is like on the consumer end. When everything works properly, it's amazing. 

When it doesn't, well, that's a problem. In the case of my Volvos, a 264 sedan and a 245 estate, the problems were various. For the 245, it was the electrical system, with redundant fuel pump relays that were prone to failure at inopportune moments, like the expressway. 

The 264, though, was a nightmare. The motor, designed by Peugeot and Volvo, was frequently prone to oil blockages, due to how narrow the channels that the lubricant had to pass through. Also, the automatic transmissions for the production year 1978 (Borg-Warner) were high maintenance - when properly maintained, they'd last forever. My car was parked in 1989 and wasn't driven again until 2006 when I got it. To say the least, the transmission was not properly maintained. But I digress.

My point is that sometimes overengineering produces products that work properly as long as they are cared for. In the case of old toy and model trains, chances are really good that they weren't. 

The GP7 diesel came to me in pieces, and after shelling out a few more dollars I managed to get it sort of running. But it's anemic and jerky. I still have yet to properly rewire the chassis. Lionel designed these things to extremely tight tolerances, and the wiring soldered into place, which means that parts that would eventually fail (and they will) required taking the unit apart, or to a Lionel Service Center. On mine, I soldered new leads to the trucks, and will use twist on connectors. 

The other locomotive arrived to me as parts as well, the Lionel 0-4-0T. As before, it uses a belt/band to get the power from the motor down to the driveshaft and to the wheels. This is the second Lionel belt driven steamer I have, the other is their 2-4-2, which runs, albeit much like the GP7. 

However, the tolerances in both cases for the steamers is even tighter. 

While I was able to use some #10 elastic bands that I had on hand from motorizing my Athearn F7 for the Geep, the same would not work for the steamers. The path that the elastic has to take is too close, and the slightest bulge will lock it up. 

For the 2-4-2 (which needs its own entry, as it is such an odd looking locomotive), it took a few hours and specially ordered elastic to do the job. I still needed to properly quarter the wheels, which took a lots of trial and error, but I did manage to get the wee beastie running. 

This 0-4-0T is not being as gracious. 

It is still binding somewhere. The couple of times when I thought it would run properly it did so for a moment, and again, it would stall. 

I have little doubt that the problem is in the rods somewhere, but with each stall it stretches that belt even further, and I am concerned that it might soon get to the point where it is too loose to work properly. 

After having worked on these I think I understand why Lionel's first attempt at H0 didn't sell that well. Compared to simpler designs from Athearn, and even their arch rival Marx, they were too prone to problems. 

Which is sad, really. They looked great. 

A "Junque" Lionel H0 GP7 - Such An Odd Bird

Recently my latest batch of "junk" locomotives arrived, and amongst them was a Lionel GP7 from about 1957. Like many other mass market H0 locomotives from this period, it uses that accursed rubber band drive (which, I promise, will be the subject of its own entry). 

This is my third Lionel H0 locomotive, and the first diesel. It's low on some crucial detail, lacking handrails (or even a way to install them), and comes with ALCO style trucks instead of Blomberg. At some point in this models life someone attempted to repaint it - this was originally New York Central (I suspect the flat red paint is old Pactra, it certainly looks it. I need to find a way to remove it, however). 

But I want this model to run. I was surprised it was as complete as it was, with only one truck needing to be replaced. A few dollars later, a replacement was ordered (hat tip to Henry at Close Out Trains of New Jersey). 

Still, there is the problem of replacing those blasted "belts". 

I know that #10 rubber bands might work, but I worry about binding. The other problem is simply the act of installing them. Each truck has what appear to be nylon clips holding the truck drive shafts in place. Nylon gets incredibly brittle with age, and I am rather concerned that trying to pry them off will cause them to break. 

Yet I truly want to give this a try. 

The motor is still strong, and the lights (amazing things, really!) work fine. 

Once I get this beast running, I will of course share here.

I Know You've Been Missing Me... I Hope...

Well, it's been a couple of weeks, hain't it? Lots of changes here, biggest of which is I can see better than I have since 1988, which is a very big deal. Since my main daily activity is solar astronomy I've been busy getting all of that caught up.

Now that's done, I can fiddle a bit more with the trains, which means writing about them.

Soon.

The Sakai HO Gauge 2-6-2 "Hudson and Pacific", Sort Of In An Overview (and Pieces)

I had been after a Sakai HO Hudson & Pacific "Prairie" for some time, so imagine my excitement when one turned up a few weeks back for a song.

Sadly, it was damaged. 

(My cat Gwynn bumped my arm, sorry)

In the above, slightly out of focus picture, I had dismantled the locomotive to evaluate where the problems were. The seller, to their credit, was honest, and said that the locomotive was for parts only. 

I just took it the rest of the way.

Anyway, the major problem is right here - 

From the motor mount back, the frame is missing. Gone. Vanished. Simply not there. You get the point. 

Yet, the motor still defiantly runs. 

Sakai has often been compared to America's Marx trains, and I suppose that's logical. Their O gauge stuff is very similar, definitely inspired by the American company. Their HO stuff is similar, though they do have a tinplate 2-6-0 I would love to get my paws on (I'd need to sell an organ, I suspect, if I ever did find one). By the time Sakai moved on to plastic bodied trains, their output improved. I'd go more into the history of Sakai, but instead the folks at the TCA Western Division did a better job - 

Seki/Sakai/et al

This locomotive is lovely, but why 2-6-2? 

In my desire to get this locomotive was regardless of the odd wheel arrangement. After all, Lionel and numerous HO gauge manufacturers used it as well. Yet, 2-6-2s were really not that common in North America... or were they?

As it turns out, there is a prototype for this locomotive, the Milwaukee Road's K-1 class Prairies, right down to the cab shape and the domes. 

Courtesy Big Bend Railroad History

Meantime, I need to scheme a way to rebuild this locomotive. If I can find a parts donor, probably best. If not, well, that would be a major undertaking, one that only a fool might try. 

And I'm that fool. 

The Nomura/Rosko HO Scale New Haven F7 - An Examination Of Sorts

 I had spent the better part of September waiting for this to arrive. Somehow, between the time it was purchased on the 3rd and when it finally arrived on the 19th, it was lost in the postal system purgatory, apparently stuck in Indianapolis. What normally would have taken three days took more than two weeks.

Once it arrived, I was very relieved. 

This is a Rosko brand, Nomura manufactured HO scale EMD F7. By the time Nomura manufactured this model they had moved away from lithographed tin and into plastics. This came with three cars which will be the subject of another review at some point in the future, but for now, I want to talk about the locomotive. 

This one has a small degree of damage. A tab that held the shell down broke off at some point, and some small pegs on the frame that kept the shell from slipping down were damaged as well. At some point the forward frame was cracked as well (old styrene becomes rather brittle). 

For a "toy" it looks rather nice. Internally, things get interesting. 

As with my previously mentioned Rosko/Nomura "Hudson", this uses a rather robust Mabuchi motor, apparently a model 45. These were popular with slot car enthusiasts back in the 1960's, and are frequently sought after for 1/24 scale Japanese kits. It's also a full twelve volts. 

The universals, though, are unique - springs. This isn't the first time I've seen this setup. It is an inexpensive and easy solution to the problem of transmitting power to the wheels. But while the universals might seem cheap, the gearing in the power trucks are anything but. 

Machined brass gears, again rather robust, if slightly noisy. 

I had assumed that like many of these inexpensive toy trains from the 1960's - 1970's, the locomotive's shell was a copy. The tab arrangement suggested Athearn, so I brought out my B&O Hi-F drive F7 to compare it, and indeed, it's pretty similar.

Yet it is not identical. Not only does it lack horns, it is very slightly shorter.

There are other differences as well. 

Nomura made these trains to go around very tight radii, 10" (25.4cm). This locomotive has to able to negotiate such tight curves. Nomura accomplished this without sacrificing detail by being rather clever - instead of deleting the steps, they moved them out slightly.  Here they are compared with their Athearn counterparts.

That solution is ingenious, and I think I might just copy it on some repair jobs.

As to how well the locomotive runs, so far tests indicate that it performs well, though I myself am not up to 100% visual acuity yet (one cataract remains to be removed). Hopefully in a few weeks this little diesel will be tested in full. 

For The Love Of Cheap Trains - The Cragstan/DIstler Set I Almost Had

 The time period between 1970 and 1976 was a very hard one for my family and I. My Mother struggled to keep us afloat. Being a single mother in the South at that time was very difficult. She had several mouths to feed, and to worsen matters we moved frequently.

When her money was good, though, she always managed to get my sisters and I gifts, toys or models for me, clothing or toys for the girls.
She knew I loved trains as much as anything space related, and at least she was more familiar with them.
Next to Art's Hobby Shop there was a five and dime store, that sold not only new items but a mix of odd used items as well. They had a decent selection of toys of varying quality.
One day, she gifted me with a train set she found there.
I was so excited. The box art showed a diesel switcher locomotive hauling several cars. It said it was in HO scale, so I knew I could eventually get more track.
I broke the tape seals, and was crushed.
Not only was it a different set, there were only a couple of pieces of track, it was very incomplete.
And it wasn't HO.
I made do with it as best I could, making a garden railroad of sorts with the damaged steam locomotive.
I lost interest. It would be lost. I wonder if the folks at the five and dime knew what the box contained. There would be other toy sets, but I had such high hopes here.
Recently, I found that box again. This time, of course, I'm wiser and know exactly what it is supposed to contain.
While this may have been imported by Cragstan, an American toy importer known chiefly for tin toys from Japan, this set wasn't one of them. For Cragstan, this was high quality - Distler, a West German toy manufacturer. While it may have been high quality for Cragstan, Distler was known mostly for cheap toy trains, though they were durable.
Naturally, I bought it.
And this time, nine year old Robert was happy.

To be sure, I am far more familiar with Distler now, mainly their O gauge equipment. Not too long ago, though, I picked up the locomotive from this set, and like most of my other purchases, was damaged. I love the design, its simplicity. It will be the subject for another post, but the point is, I had an idea what to expect. Recently, when I discovered the box art from that set I was given by my Mother, I began to keep an eye out for it.

And then one popped up.
This set is complete, lacking only the directions. In fact, it looks as though it has never been used.

The spare piece of track you see just below the locomotive is from my Fleischmann collection. I brought it out to compare it to the Distler track. I had read that Distler was supplied with parts from other companies, such as Fleischmann and Trix, but in this case, the track is different, and still labelled "Made In West Germany".

The locomotive is unusual and lovely by itself. It is obviously based on an American EMD SW1, though it has a cooling fan.

The cars look nice as well, though not particularly well detailed. They remind me of a mixture of Marx and Varney. This is the boxcar.

There is also a gondola. 

The caboose looks odd, in that it has only four wheels but is long enough to use trucks. 

Power is supplied by a battery box that uses two D sized cells, and utilizes a simple directional switch. There is no speed control.

It's complete, the whole set, and I have already lubricated and tested the locomotive.

I cannot tell you how this set makes me feel. The feelings are so deep. My Mom tried to make me happy, though, and for that, I will be forever grateful for the joy she could give us.