Avenue Industrielle - Richer Than Previously Thought

Recently, Jérôme sent me a scan of an old 1965 map of Limoilou Yard in high definition. First time I ever saw a good scale drawing of the area before major overhaul occurred in the 1970s. It helped to better understand how the trackage changed near Glassine Canada which, it turns out, was located on what used to be QRL&PCo Limoilou Shops wye. You learn something new everyday.

However, the biggest surprise was the industrial spur along Avenue Industrielle which I have covered on other blog posts in the past. This time, it was really an eye opener. Until now, I only knew about this interesting small industrial park through very unreliable insurance maps and grainy aerial pictures.

While I kind of guessed most elements right, it seems I my original interpretation was right: their was a team track near the roundhouse. For years, I thought it was simply my imagination, but it was indeed real and had a loading ramp.

From a layout perspective, this is quite interesting because it means a diversified traffic occurred there on a daily basis. Thus, a very simple track plan is no excuse to call it boring.

Colorized Limoilou Yard map (credit: Ville de Québec, circa 1965)

But on a surprising note, it seems a big chunk of marshes still existed west to the spur. Indeed, Limoilou yard is built on an ancient swamp called La Canardière where ducks gathered (they still do to some extent). But I wouldn't have guessed parts of that marsh was still surviving as late as the mid-1965.

This little geography fact has a tremendous impact on how I would approach building such a layout. Instead of starting with a flat plank, I'd rather build the entire trackage on an embankment then fill the areas with industrial activities and leaving the natural areas lower. The spur itself would be built upon a dirt and rock embankment full of bushes and weeds, making it clear it was built on previously natural lands.

Revised track plan

Given we always approach small industrial layout from a very dry and rugged perspective, it seems quite refreshing to see it as a small chunk of human activities slow encroaching a natural habitats. It makes for a more dramatic and contrasted visual narration while providing much more historical context and a means to tie together a very long scene (about 20 linear feet).

CN Armagh Subdivision: Exploration in Design

It won’t come to anybody’s surprise I’ve been pondering for years the ever elusive question about a home layout. In fact, this dreadful perspective has haunted me since my childhood, always struggling with old houses not designed to host any kind of decent model railway. Two years ago, I finally decided to build a hobby room acting as a future home of layout, an exhibit of my various collections and a workshop.

Via Rail Budd car at Monk Station (Credit: Jean-Pierre Dupuis, 1979)

Predating taking that big step, I wrote a series of articles titled “Thinking out loud” which was intended to freely explore various ideas without being constrained by our main project, namely Hedley-Junction. It was a terrific experiment that both helped me to better frame my interest but also explore how to size the scope of a subject so it can be turned into a real project. Various great ideas were explored, including a paper mill in East Angus which captivate me, and Temiscouata Railways among others. I also recall exploring the possibility of creating a runaround layout based on QRL&PCo later days. While these weren’t necessarily intended to be built, these designs indeed cross-pollinated Hedley-Junction in such a way it was possible to take bold actions never thought before that made the layout even better.

Many of my designs dealt with end of line scenarios. A very few ventured in continuous run territory for obvious “unrealistic” conditions thought I did dabble in this genre with Bedford and a version of QRL&PCo in Beaupré.

Armagh Station (date unknown, Facebook)

However, after building a few highly prototypical self-contained layouts such as Harlem Station and Glassine Canada, I came to a sad realization. I love to design, research and build these layouts, but at the end of the day, while they provide a satisfying endeavor in modelling, they don’t sustain my hunger for simply running trains. Operations are great, switching small industries too… but sometimes, I just feel like running a train and relaxing while I railfan it. In fact, I have no problem dealing with a point-to-point club layout, but as entertainment at home, it seems to be a different animal. I could probably say that when I’m home, 2 out of 3 times I want to “play with my trains”, I’m just in the mood for looking at my rolling stock in action.

I often wrote about my fond memories of my 4’ x 4’ twice around layout when I was a kid. Frankly speaking, it was the worst layout ever built, but the level of enjoyment has never been surpassed. That was 30 years ago, but what a fun thing it was. It was designed from my brother who – I never was able to replicate it – succeeded in compressing a 4’ x 6’ Life-Like track plan on a 4’ x 4’ using sectional track. My father, brother and sister helped to build and run the layout. And a few weeks later, for my birthday, my mom gave me two structures: a house and a transfer crane. A small siding provided to switching, which generally ended up with a derailment due to the poor slow speed performance of my pancake motor-equipped Bachmann F9 and Life-Like GP3802.

Monk coaling tower (Credit: Canada Science & Technology Museum)

I’m not delusional enough to believe one can capture back his childhood memories – which isn’t my goal – but I certainly believe it is possible to understand what made them a success. For this reason, I’ve been trying to explore another new continuous run layout for the hobby room, this time trying to reuse as much as I can my large roster of freight cars inherited from Harlem Station and from the previous Hedley Junction iteration when we were modelling the 70s and early 80s. Can you believe my fleet of kitbashed CN RS18 virtually never saw any substantial level of action? A crime… I know.

Naturally, I’d like to give a second life to this stuff which is generally in great shape. Bluntly, I’d like to have a layout where I don’t have to try to justify the existence of every single car or locomotive based on a specific online customer. This has nothing to do with the “I Want It All” mentality I regard with skepticism, but with the fact that at some point, it is meaningless to paint oneself in a corner which you can’t escape. Blending passion and historicity is a fine line to thread… and no wonder only running a local freight train can be extremely limiting.

Monk yard and it's coaling tower today (credit: Dannick Fournier)

Is it really a wise move to have all that rolling stock I still like unused because it is unfit for the local feed mill or the small paper mill? Is there a way to stay perfectly realistic will providing enough room to not condemn 80% of the collection to an unwise sale? Giving them a second life (or even just a first life) would be a sensible use of my collection and a honorable way to limit my expenses while working on stalled projects and kits.

This isn’t very different from what Mike Confalone said when he scrapped his Woodsville Terminal layout in favor of the Allagash Railway. Mike loved building this small line and its inherent charm, but he also wanted to witness large freight consists. He wanted more action and I can understand him on that point. The central question lies in how you can keep that small and realistic charm with the goal of running all kind of trains within a credible frame. Once again, it is a question of balance and the less is more approach can help us to find a way...

To be honest, this train of thought started when I built Glassine Canada. At one point, I had a drawer full of cars to test the layout and felt like many of them would never be used on any project of mine. Worst, when I started to store my collection in my cabinets, I found literally dozens of cars that were great but no longer had purpose. What could be done? Sell them? Or use them?

At that moment, it came upon me it a small layout that would replicate a diminutive classification yard would be a neat thing. Add a small engine facility and you are in business. No need for specific customer cars. I had memories of my friend’s layout during our high school days. It was your typical 4’ x 8’ layout from the 80s, ballasted with sand and dotted with kraft paper mountains. While ugly, it had a decent 4-track yard with a long enough lead to perform decent switching moves. We didn’t really know exactly what to do, but most of our fun was derived from doing classification work in that very yard, building and breaking trains. One would give instruction and the other switched the cars. Later, when we built our first club layout in 2007, the same casual switching approach was taken. And you know what? We had a lot of fun.  It was not a soulless job, but great game. With some refinement, it could have been quite great in fact.

If we go a little bit further, you could say I have great interest in simple solo operation such as switching a team track, have fun doing classification work with a friend and a great love of watching long trains running. The three actions have in common looking at freight cars and locomotives moving at a very slow pace. I’m a freight car enthusiast, what can I say!

Now, how can you put together these contradictory elements without having a mess of a layout? Well, let’s see what I designed.

A Layout Concept

Some want a dream layout… but I’d rather have a freedom layout. Something with enough versatility to sustain my eclectic needs while having a strong narrative grounded in reality. I’m not into imagineering stuff thought I certainly do admire those able to find their creative way!

Before moving forward, let’s put some conditions. First, the layout must be generic enough to fit a few decades without looking anachronistic. Given my rolling stock collection covers well the era defined between 1952 and 1981, that gives us a rough template where to look for a prototype. The said prototype will be a little bit backwater to explain why it didn’t evolve over the years. Fortunately, such places did exist and they were in fact numerous on our continent. Next, we will need a main line, a yard and maybe a small town to perform a few switching moves. Adding an engine terminal to simulate a division point where locomotives are maintained and turned would be also a great idea. Don’t forget a roundhouse, with its supply track, is indeed an industry in itself and not just a magnified locomotive parking lot.

Monk yard (credit: unknown, 1973)

The mainline will provide the excuse for running and railfanning anything that fit the chosen era, be it large locomotives, multiple unit consist or passenger trains. Let’s be clear, if the layout is set in the mid-60s, what is running that day will be consistent to the era. The yard will provide classification work to build the local trains while the small town a reason to run the aforementioned local freight trains for short yet rewarding switching sessions that would last anywhere between 20 minutes to 1 hour.

Also, these tree aspects shouldn’t contradict themselves but rather complement each other. By example, if you are working the yard, it should be possible to let a train run on the main line or having a friend handling the local freight. It should even be possible to stage meets between opposing direction trains.

As for a prototype, it seems to me CN (ex-NTR) Armagh Subdivision (also known later as Monk Subdivision) on Quebec South Shore would be a neat place to draw inspiration from. It was abandoned in 1981, saw a sustain level of traffic to the Atlantic and hosted a few interesting rural villages. Local customers were related to agriculture product/feed, lumber, pulpwood, oil and coal. All things I love on a layout. Better, Monk itself was a division point with a roundhouse where crew change occurred. It hosted a large two-storey station and a classification yard full of weeds and bushes, making it a very scenic place with a sense of remoteness and abandonment.

Monk yard (credit: unknown, 1973)

Monk Subdivision also saw passenger traffic between Charny and the Maritimes. It also had a cool mixed freight train in the 60s and railiners in the 70s. Better, all the old wooden structures survived up until the line close in 1981. Since that subdivision slowly faded away starting the end of WW2, it seems CN never cared to “improve” all the buildings with cheap grey shingle sidings and sky blue/orange doors. Basically, they still looked like they used to in the 1950s with their dark red siding and cream trims. In fact, judging how bad the paint looked on color pictures, I guess they never cared to repaint them after 1960.

But better, if you remember my Quebec South Shore Railway project with the small feed mill, you will also recall it was originally located in St-Pamphile, on the Quebec Central Lac-Frontière line. I even mentioned in my fictional story that the feed mill siding handled lumber and cement for the restoration of a local hydroelectric plant. Well, near St-Pamphile is the town of Armagh on Monk Subdivision which had a small siding for a feed mill that also loaded lumber and was located less than a kilometer from a hydroelectric dam. Seriously, if this isn’t a great coincidence, I don’t know what it is. Also, Armagh had two stations. The main station sported a depot, a passing track and a very long team track handling all kind of goods including coal and oil. You could also find a water tower and a section house with a speeder shed. About a mile further East was Langlois Siding, a small flag stop which had only one siding serving the aforementioned feed mill and a portable station. Within the same locality was a quite large deck bridge over Rivière du Pin valley which provided quite a spectacular and scenic panorama.

So basically, a Monk Subdivision layout would feature a lightweight version of Monk yard, engine facilities and station in a realistic manner and a small town similar to Armagh with both station and the large bridge for the sake of coolness.

Lacasse feed mill, Armagh (credit: Ministère de la Culture du Québec)

Generally speaking, when designing, I like to have access to prototype track plans. In the case of this layout, I thought knowing less would be better. I’m not that much interested in modelling the exact prototype, but I do like its flavor. Monk was created weeks before I had access to a map of the area. Only pictures helped me to shape the various scenes in a more artistic approach. However, I must stress my knowledge of how railways work did help a lot in creating something grounded in reality. Not following a specific prototype wasn’t a reason for doing fanciful interpretations.

In terms of trackage, only the strict minimum is required. In that regard, I based my design on Craig Bisgeier’s excellent Ten Commandments of Model Railroad Yard Design and Trevor Marshall original design for Fresno Yard on Pierre Oliver’s excellent Clovis Branch layout. The engine facility is based on Marty McGuirk’s The Model Railroader's Guide to Locomotive Servicing Terminals book, but also on Rick de Candido’s exquisite Fillmore Avenue Roundhouse layout which, when his blog was online, used to be one of the most interesting source about steam engine facilities. Also, the beautiful CPR Orangeville, ON roundhouse also provided a lot of inspiration.

So basically, I provided for a long passing track to stage meets but also to act as an arrival/departure track. A caboose track, in front of the station but behind the yard provide for an interesting visual element to stage. The yard can be operated independently due to its long yard lead.

Langlois Siding portable station (credit: Ministère de la Culture du Québec)

The engine facility is small, yet most elements are there. The inbound track is equipped with an inspection pit, a coaling tower, a sand house and an ash pit. A long supplies track act as a customer and will also serve a few diesel reservoirs. I’ll have to decide where the diesel fueling pad will go, but it will probably be on the outbound track. Monk roundhouse used to be quite large, but by the mid-1950s, it was abandoned and used as a saw mill. According to a map from the era, it was by then a 6-stall building, which could be easily replicated on the layout. The rest of the track plan is simple and self-explanatory.

This layout plan has been an exercise in restraint. It could have been easy to add to much stuff and in many cases, I removed tracks and structures to keep the scenes uncluttered and turnout count as low as possible without compromising the operational aspect. At this point, 14 turnouts would be the maximum required, which, honestly, is quite low given the scope of the project.

However, do I consider it visually balanced or even interesting? Could it work in my room without overwhelming the place? These are good question. The bridge scene, Armagh and Langlois Siding would be nested under 15” deep display cabinets while Monk Yard wouldn’t have any valence over it.

Rivière du Pin bridge, Armagh (credit: Dannick Fournier)

I believe having the yard as the focal point when entering the room is probably the most compelling way to present the layout. Not only is it the main component, but it is also the anchor to the various stories that can be told.

The second focal point would be the bridge scene. With a total span of 39”, this is a major visual component that creates a sense of distance while providing a majestic setup to show case locomotives and rolling stock. Then, the last major element that one could only see when entering the room would be Armagh, confirming the second role of this scene and stressing its inherent rural nature.  The final scene would be Langlois Siding which can be a little bit tricky to execute. One could be tempted to consider it a separate scene, however, the physical distance is almost inexistent. In my mind, it should be considered as a geographical location merged with Monk Yard. It isn’t unusual to have customers located within the yard limits and I feel it would be the best bet.

Will I dare to build a version of this design? I don’t know, but it is an interesting option to explore given the flexibility in term of rolling stock and how it repurposes a huge chunk of my collection. It is also an assessment about my interests in this hobby and how I relate to models.

Route 138 in Wieland

It seems respected modeller Jim Dufour really enjoyed my technique on modelling roads. Knowing how Jim's work is outstanding, I must admit I'm humbled by this. And he's lucky I've been working on other roads recently for our club layout.

Route 138 was the "mythical road" modern road that opened up Charlevoix to the rest of the province back in the 20th century. While the railway did help a bit in 1919, it was still slow and not that much of help for people that lived many miles away from it. As a modern 4-way highway, it was the achievement of a project that traces its roots back in the French Regime. Ultimately, that road proved fatal for the railway, stealing a lot of business and cutting the travel time of passenger in half, if not more.  Now, Quebec City was only 1 hour away from Baie-Saint-Paul and about 1.5 hour away from La Malbaie. Even under perfect condition, trains can't hardly take less than 3 hours due to the serpentine nature of the line imposing severe speed restriction.

But well, as much as I can "despice" that dreaded road for having killed the train in the long term, it is a part of Murray Bay subdivision. The railway line and road stand side by side from Quebec City to Beaupré, then from Clermont to Pointe-au-Pic. From a railfan standpoint, everywhere both are parallel, you have a chance to see the train. Outside these area, you better be creative and plan your trip accordingly!

With that said, I can announce that road and a public utility shed have been successfully modelled and installed on the layout. These were the last items required before I can move on with the final steps of vegetation. As you can see in the pictures, the road is parallel to the track, but both are oblique to create a sense of dynamism in the scene. It is an old graphic trick to make a composition suggest speed and movement. I was curious if it would work with a layout and the answer is a resounding yes! I think this is another trick we can use to easily create more interesting scenes.

This time thought, instead of using illustration board, 1/8" thick MDF was used. Interestingly enough, it works as good as illustration board and takes paint very well. Painting and weathering was done with various spray paints and automotive primers (mainly grays and concrete) then weathered with airbrushed washes of a pale dirt colors followed by a subtle mist of very thinned down alcohol and India ink mix as Lance Mindheim used to recommend before switching to photos.

Road markings were defined with Tamiya tape after the road dried a few days. A this point, you don't want the tape to pull off your hard work. I worked carefully using Google Earth and Ministère des Transport du Québec (Quebec DOT) guidelines to make sure the width, length and pattern were accurate. Honestly, we underestimate the space between discontinued lines. It's about a ration of 1 part line, 2 parts empty space.

These lines were painted with a sponge. I think it works best and is less messy. Airbrush is also a good solution. If possible, weather you yellow with some white to make it a little bit faded.

I immediately removed the tape once done and using an Xacto blade, I started to scrape the fresh paint so it looked worn up. Theses lines, in North America (particularly in Canada and northern United States) never stay in good shape for long. Worst, most DOT have the habit of repainting them in late summer or fall, meaning they start to disappear the moment snow plows hit the roads.

Don't fear scraping too much paint. In fact, I always find myself redoing it twice or thrice until I'm satisfied. Then, it time for black color pencil. Using again Google Street View, I planted myself in the middle of the road, exactly on the spot I'm modelling and studied the cracks in the asphalt. These are intricate patterns that aren't random at all. They follow the invisible joints when the pavement was applied by working crews and also how the loads from cars and trucks put stress on the road. Most cracks will be parallel with the road markings and define the lane. Others are right in the center of lanes while perpendicular ones seems to appear due to expansion and contraction of asphalt due to temperature variation. Be careful, study pictures and you'll be extremely pleased by what you will create. Just make sure you keep you pencil very sharp.

Once done, a good coat of Dullcote will seal everything and provide a rugged surface that survive abuse better than plaster roads which are a pain to build and paint without getting messy. Except how I paint these lines, I've invented nothing, but I feel this method yield better result because you can bring the road to the workbench, sit and take time to make it the best you can. Basically, you are treating your road with the same care you do with rolling stock and structure.

Given most people have a more comprehensive understanding of how roads look like than train, failing to address this particular modelling challenge is a major flaw. Can't go cheap with them. And honestly, getting decent results doesn't take that much effort. Once you've done one, the others are a breeze to create. In that regard, Louis-Marie surprised me by recently making the most complicated road on the layout which is more than 10 feet long and curves in all direction. More on that later thought!

Keep safe!

The Dark Side of Industrial Avenue

Another day and another time for layout design.

As regular readers know, I’ve built a small switching layout a few months ago for my office room. The idea was to get some train running and experiment a little bit. While I’ve been too busy to switch cars since Christmas, I also took time to analyze what I had in front of my eyes. Pros and cons started to become clearer and it is now time to see how I can improve this layout a little bit by taking into account my recent observations.

Actual layout track plan

First, I noticed I seemingly despise runarounds. For some reason, they get on my nerve and I feel I’m wasting time when dealing with them. I can hardly see fun doing such a thing with diesel locomotives and reversing a train only to switch a car in the opposite direction seems absolutely inefficient to me! I know some will argue they add “interest” and maybe they are right. But that kind of “interest” isn’t for me. I take much more pleasure at looking at flowing tracks than complicated ones.

That said, originally, the layout was based on a British gentleman’s own switching layout. I simply transplanted his track plan on my baseboard. He used 5 turnouts to create a runaround track, two main sidings (a feed mill and a warehouse) and a team track on the opposite side handling about 2 cars. All in all, 5 turnouts and 8 car spots. Not too bad, but I felt I could do a better job.

When operating last weekend, I simply felt the opposite-facing team track was unpractical. I felt the railway would have repurposed the runaround as a team track and got rid of the turnout. At this point, even one could question the very existence of one turnout on the runaround track if you don’t need to reverse the train. It would bring down the total number of turnouts to three.

But even then, I felt the feed mill and warehouse could share the same siding instead of wasting a turnout for nothing. It would make life easier. I was thus down to two turnouts and kept the same number of car spots (in fact, more car spots) while providing interesting classification work instead of shuffling cars into their siding without an afterthought.

Glassine Canada tentative track plan

While discussing this matter with Jérôme, he pointed out the layout was quite similar to an industrial branch in Limoilou that served industries on the East side of Avenue Industrielle.

This small spur connect to Murray Bay Subdivision under the highway bridge (which I incidentally once modelled), cross a power line (which I also modelled in the past) and serves a specialty paper plant called Glassine Canada and a long team track and several warehouses handling produce and building materials. Honestly, a perfect blend of cars. Better, at the end of Glassine Canada, until the late 2000s, you could still see old 40ft rotting boxcars in CNR Maple Leaf scheme and CP Rail Multimark bright colors rusting and serving as permanent storage.

AL21, AL22 and AL23 tracks are part of this industrial spur

 Interestingly enough, this would require only one turnout. But in fact, a second very short track served Glassine Canada and provided unloading for tank cars. An old 1970s aerial picture shows an attractive acid tank car in a red-orange paint scheme, probably a Hooker tank car from Niagara Falls.

Given I have all the cars required and already have built a handsome model of the highway, creating this layout would be quite straightforward while providing a modern (1970s-1990s) prototype-based theme fitting well my taste.

I already built the correct highway overpass for our old Limoilou-based layout.

Interestingly enough too, Glassine Canada offers another neat small paper mill than can easily be modelled. They received chemicals and paper pulp in boxcars, but also some additives. It wouldn’t be farfetched to believe some covered hoppers would also be used to haul starch used to make glassine paper.

Ajouter une légende

The produce warehouse means various reefers and insulated boxcars from all over North America can be used. Given the layout would be set into the per diem era, it would be quite colorful. Finally, the team track could handle virtually anything.

Given the sheer simplicity of this design combined with its fidelity to real life operations, I feel it could make for a great little switching layout that would be fun to build but also visually appealing. Most tracks were buried in dirt, old ballast, mud and grass, making for a great scenery challenge.

CN Woodchip Cars - Official Unveiling

I'm pleased to announce both pre-production models of CN 878000 and 879000 series are now painted, lettered and dullcoted. It was a marathon to complete them during the last few weeks including a last minute reprinting of custom decals, but it is done.

I'm quite pleased with the finished result even thought assembly and sanding was a little bit sloppy on my part. Several points will need to be addressed, but overall, the end result is quite close to what I hope to put on the market.

At this point, you must wonder why I share no picture. Simply because the models will be officially unveiled in Toronto next Saturday at the invitation of fellow modeller Hunter Hughson. It will be a good occasion to get feedback from a few well-known modellers before moving forward into production.

As for the next steps, I'm slowly but steadily working on a second set of models with improvement. Minor changes include thickening the floor and sides from 1mm to 1.2mm to limit warping, improving the locating tabs, adding locating pins on detail parts such as ladders and finding a way to provide easy to install brake rod and chain.

Many questions still need answers at this point, particularly due to production constrains. I hope to find some of them during the weekend. Building the pre-production models changed my perspective on many things, including how the assembly process should be streamlined to ensure most modellers can build these cars in a reasonable amount of time.

Saty tuned!

Indiegogo New Single Sheathed Boxcars Project (1929-1970)

Sometimes people come with great projects that can change your perspective on rolling stock in an era, bringing products that can provide some diversity into a well-known and loved era.

This is what Randall Hammill and his team at Prototype Junction are trying to do by fundraising the production of RTR plastic models of classic single sheathed boxcars, in particular, the ubiquitous ATSF Bx-11, Bx-12 and Bx-13 and other variation such as Rock Island, Pere Marquette, CGQ, L&N, C&O and others.

If you are into the transition era, it is quite likely you'll need these cars since they travelled all over North America... A few years ago, I scratchbuilt a few with old MDC OSB boxcars, but it was tedious and far to be accurate. Now, that would be a game changer since it would bring to life many models only available in resin kit, which can really put off many people.

To do this, Prototype Junction is doing an Indiegogo fundraising campaign. The goal is quite optimistic, but the rationale behind it does make a lot of sense since it is based on hard facts. However, like any social financing, the words must go out.

As Joe Fugate and others recently pointed out, contrary to what people would think, the transition era is still by far the most popular era. It seems steam locomotives, early diesels and 40ft boxcars do connect with younger generations. It's for this reason I think this project needs much more publicity because there is a customer base for it and "old geezers" methods would work to reach a younger crowd.

You can participate and find more information here:

https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/ho-40-single-sheathed-box-and-auto-cars-1929-70s#/

And take a look and discuss on their Facebook page:

https://www.facebook.com/groups/prototypejunction/

Disclaimer: I'm not a part in this project, only providing my own enthusiasm toward something of interest for me and wanting to encourage more people to enter the field of manufacturing so the offer can grow.

CN Woodchip Car - Update on Printed Prototypes

I know many people were eager to get more news about the CN woodchip cars project. It took me a while to start assembling the prototypes 3D printed by Bruce Barney last year due to lack of time, unforeseen professional projects and procrastination. However, I’m glad to announce the cars have been assembled, detailed, primed and painted over the last few years.

This assembly is not only a way to show people how the models will look, but also to seek arising issues and find ways to address them so the final product is, as possible as I can, flawless, sturdy and easy to assemble.

While the assembling procedure was quite smooth, I found out a few things that I’d rather change if I were to sell the models to others who want to build a fleet. I see a significant difference between what we can live with when scratchbuilding a single model for ourselves and what we find intolerable when trying to work with a “commercial” kit.

Issues I found are various but not deal-breaking. They will be easy to fix and yet provide a great finished model. I must admit once painted, these two cars could pass easily for good quality RTR models.

From a purely technical perspective, I’ll probably add some thickness to the parts, going from 1mm to 1.2 mm to lessen risk of warping. Straightening resin or 3D printed parts is an easy process, but it can be tedious and I quickly found myself annoyed. It must be improved. Also, while trying to keep the underframe structural members within prototypical dimensions and minimum 3D print design guidelines, I feel they must be sturdier. No a lot, but just enough to make sure breaking is unlikely under normal handling conditions.

In terms of assembly, I felt the grooves and tongues I designed to make for easy alignment of parts are inadequate. First, they are too shallow. Second, they lack tabs to make sure everything is perfectly square and aligned together. It shouldn’t have a major impact on the model, but expect some kind of tabs under the car. I’ve yet to figure out how to do it but it must be done.

Speaking of underframe, I 3D printed the brake apparatus (valve, reservoir, etc.) directly on the underframe. They look good, but I’ve yet to decide if it is a good decision. I feel it works well for most modellers and that it can be upgraded with pipes, wire and other such for prototype modellers. I’ve yet to decide on the level of details. Should I locate brackets and levers? I don’t know and I’m not sure if it matters. I feel the ones who will want these details are better equipped than I am to model these and I suspect a large share of modellers won’t care. However, I think the model must have provision for people wanting to go to the next step. It means, I’ll try to provide holes in the underframe to insert air lines. I’m not interested in cast-on details that can be seen from a normal point of view. They will be of no consequence for casual modellers and be a hindrance for people with high standards.

In terms of details, I found out some parts are better 3D printed while others should be photo-etched. Brakewheel platforms and end of car platforms should all be photo-etched for the sake of sturdiness. They can be printed in great details and be strong enough, but they are still fragile and can be broken during assembly. Photo-etched parts would be easier and faster to install while surviving nicely normal handling condition and providing a great level of detail.

As for ladders, I thought the 3D printed versions would be flimsy and they are not. Better, they look like the real thing, are easy to glue and the profiles are quite close the prototype. I believe using photo-etched ladder would remove a level of detail while performing minimally better.

I also plan to include a notch in the fulcrum so the brake rigging can be easily cemented and stay in place.

Another point is related to performance and NMRA standard. I design the car using correct model truck dimension and Kadee coupler pockets. On one car, I kind of tweaked the bolster height to fit the truck and it seems I made a mistake. To get the coupler at the correct height, I must add 3 Kadee red washers. This means my first bolster version was the right one. I’ll go back to it. The other car only requires 1 red washer, meaning the bolster height is quite right. I’m reluctant to make a change because I know various trucks may have different height due to manufacturer’s preference. At this point, better leave the fine tuning to the end user, like we all do with most of our RTR cars.

Another thing I found out was the height on the coupler pocket hole is slightly too high. About 0.2mm at most… It may seem trivial, but it causes the coupler to drop instead of being perfectly horizontal, impeding coupling performances. It will be addressed.

Finally, the screw holes for the couplers and trucks are not right. Trucks have pegs too thick and need to be sanded to accept a standard truck. On the other hand, the coupler pegs are too small, inducing unwanted wiggling and exaggerating the drop I mentioned before. All these are easy fix.

Other than that, I figured out one could easily assemble the model in an afternoon when all parts are cleaned and prepped. Doing an assembly line would significantly speed up the process, particularly if the locating pins and tabs are better designed.

I tested the car on the layout yesterday and they are sturdy and track well. Weight can be added between the underframe members or inside the cars if one is not afraid of seeing steel or lead from the top.

As for availability, I can pronunce myself on a date. I will have to address the few issues and print a new pair of "final" prototype before launching production and taking order. I've yet to figure out details about sale and distribution. All that with an extremely busy professional schedule in the upcoming months. Stay tuned!