# Off to a rocky (re)start?



## moonspenders (May 7, 2012)

Hi, everyone,

I started model railroading when I was very young, mixing my time between N and G gauge, but ended up selling off my entire collection in my teens (being the broke student I was). Now, almost 20 years later, I decided I need a creative outlet that actually gives me something physically constructive to do. It started 2 years ago with re-purchasing by old LBG Starbucks boxcar (since I used to work there). Now, I've had a creative spark and am slowly delving back in... as much as is possible living in a tiny apartment trying to think of where I can set up any track period.

I've decided to model a train after a long-since-bankrupt railroad line here in Ohio: the Valley Railway (1880-1895). I put my research skills to good use, digging up what few photographs there are from then and when it became Cleveland Terminal & Valley Railway. It's a grand plan, but I figure I'll just start with assembling a passenger train from the year 1892 . They had 20 locomotives, but I don't have a list of the models and styles.

So far, I bought an old LGB 2018D Mogul (the red/green early model) for the main locomotive. After some waffling and nervousness (scales always stress me out, since I'm guessing the mogul is 1:22.5), I bought an AMS Jackson & Sharp Coach (1:20.3 scale) because I found the exact same style of coach built for the Valley Railroad in 1892. Now... am I a complete idiot mixing these two together in an effort to create a realistic model version of an actual railroad? Technically, the Valley Railway wasn't narrow gauge. I'll have to wait until the coach arrives before I see with my own eyes how well they match up, but that doesn't mean I'm not nervous.

One main reason I went with the LGB was its extremely reasonable price tag. Considering I have eventual plans to repaint it (after gaining some skills in that department, since I've never tackled model railroading beyond running from-the-shop models on assembled track before) and make it look more accurate to the line, I didn't want to shell out a huge amount of money. Then again, I'm not dealing with a huge budget anyway. Or much room.

This doesn't bode well.

Any thoughts or opinions are welcomed. Considering the last time I delved into model trains was before puberty, I may as well just consider myself a pure beginner here. 
@import url(http://www.mylargescale.com/Provide...ad.ashx?type=style&file=SyntaxHighlighter.css);@import url(/providers/htmleditorproviders/cehtmleditorprovider/dnngeneral.css);


----------



## NTCGRR (Jan 2, 2008)

welcome Mr Poe 
what part of the country do you live in?


----------



## Randy Stone (Jan 2, 2008)

Welcome to MLS Moonspenders. 

One thing you will find with what I'll call G gauge trains, is that the stated scale isn't always accurate. 

So, with that in mind, If the Mogul is exactly to 1:22 scale and the Coach is exactly to 1:20.3 scale the coach will most likey look too big. 

How they look to you is what is important unless you will be worrying about what others think. 

Remember that you're dealing with narrow gauge and standard gauge trains all running on the same track. 

So a 24th scale narrow gauge box car ends up almost exactly the same size as a 40 foot standard gauge box car. 

Mix and match to your liking.


----------



## steam5 (Jun 22, 2008)

I think the LGB mogul will be dwarfed by the AMS Jackson sharp car. Bachmann make a shorter Jackson Sharp car in 1:22.5 which will look nice behind the Mogul. 

You could always look at buying a Bachmann 4-4-0 or 2-6-0 in the Spectrum 1:20.3 series. In general larger 1:20.3 locos will not go round the tight curves that an LGB loco will go round. Something you may need to consider

Alan


----------



## moonspenders (May 7, 2012)

Thanks, NTCGRR and rlvette. I'm from the Cleveland, Ohio area. I literally live two miles away from the former Valley Railway (now Cuyahoga Valley Scenic Railroad). 

The biggest stress-inducer for me is not being able to tell in all cases what the pieces will look like side by side. This is where I really miss my old hobby shop over online everything. The coach is almost as long as the loco and tender combined (22" compared to 26") which sounds reasonable. Honestly, if the rooflines of the loco and coach reasonably match up, I'll be happy. I'm not too much a rivet counter (I don't think), but for me what matters most is aesthetic accuracy. I don't really care of that particular prototype would've looked wonky with the cars; what I do care about is if it looks reasonably like the actual railroad did back in the day. And believe me, by the few photos I have, there's a lot left to the imagination. 

Just to give an idea of what I'm going by, here are a couple of photos I'm using to base all of this on. 

The Valley Railroad arriving at Peninsula around 1885-1895: 









Wreck on the Valley Railway (hard to tell if it's a 2-6-0, 4-6-0, 2-8-0, etc., but makes me think a mogul would work: 









A J&S coach fresh out of the factory in 1892 built for the Valley Railroad (I'm assuming it's probably green):


----------



## moonspenders (May 7, 2012)

I might switch to a different loco at some point, Alan, if it's too iffy. As far as turn radius, I'm not too worried about tight curves. I'd rather be historically accurate with track layout too instead of having the tightest radius possible. If I can pull off the full train, I might beg and plead with a local historical society to see about setting it up in their little (mostly empty) museum space.


----------



## steam5 (Jun 22, 2008)

Welcome back to large scale, your modelling a standard gauge line using two different scales of narrow gauge on Gauge 1 track.







confusing this large scale game

Alan


----------



## moonspenders (May 7, 2012)

@import url(http://www.mylargescale.com/Provide...ad.ashx?type=style&file=SyntaxHighlighter.css);@import url(/providers/htmleditorproviders/cehtmleditorprovider/dnngeneral.css); Posted By steam5 on 07 May 2012 11:52 PM 
Welcome back to large scale, your modelling a standard gauge line using two different scales of narrow gauge on Gauge 1 track. 

Alan 
Thanks, Alan. And yes... yes I am, apparently. The real Valley Railway did end up being standard gauge after some debate. Maybe this will be some sort of alternate universe where they decided to use narrow gauge instead. From what I've noticed, the biggest challenge in recreating a specific railroad in G gauge is that there are so many scales being manufactured. When the time comes to add scale-accurate buildings, my head just might explode.


----------



## Gary Armitstead (Jan 2, 2008)

Hi Moonspenders (first name?),

Welcome to MLS.









I have a friend here on MLS (Russ Rutalj), who just purchased a Bachmann 4-4-0 Spectrum which is 1:20.3 narrow gauge. Note the passenger cars. These are Bachmann J&S cars. Makes a very nice train. Russ has 7 1/2 foot radius (15 foot diameter) curves on his layout.


----------



## moonspenders (May 7, 2012)

Hi, Gary, 

Oops... sorry... I'm Ken. Very nice! I'll have to wait and see when my orders arrive later this week how similarly my loco and coach match up. That's basically the look I'm after... minus the combine. Out of the 20 locos the Valley Railway had, I've only seen photos of three of them, so I figure I'll take a little artistic license with them. The only thing that irks me about the Spectrum 4-4-0 is the drive wheel spacing. Finding a 4-4-0 in large scale that comes close to the old photos of 4-4-0 locos I often see is probably the biggest challenge there is, and it always boils down to the drive wheels.


----------



## pete (Jan 2, 2008)

Ken welcome aboard. There is a g-scale club in your area nogers if you are interested in finding out more about g scale trains they are a good group to get to know. My wife and myself belong to the club. You can call me 330-605-6802 after 9pm tonight and we can talk.


----------



## docwatsonva (Jan 2, 2008)

Ken,

Here are a couple more pictures that my help you out. The first 2 pictures show a comparison of heights between an AMS combine and the LGB Mogul (top) and Bachmann 'Connie'.



















And the last 2 are additional pictures of the Mogul and the combine.




















I think they look OK if that's all you have for now. I'm not sure if the Mogul can handle 3 or 4 AMS coaches though. Maybe you can add the reasonably priced Connie later. It has much more pulling power.

Doc


----------



## Torby (Jan 2, 2008)

Pleased to meet you. 

Great Poe quote. 

Don't pain yourself so much over scale. Anybody who takes a caliper to my train is invited out. I just keep my Bachmann Annie away from my Mallet and nobody notices that it's bigger


----------



## Dave Meashey (Jan 2, 2008)

Ken;

Here is another example of two different scales together. (Still both narrow gauge, but to my eyes they don't clash too badly.) The locomotive is a Hartland Locomotive Works 4-4-0 in 1:24 scale. The coach is LGB in 1:22/5 scale.



















Well, I thought I had the locomotive and cars a little better posed, but I think you can get the idea. Below is an example of just the opposite combination of scales. The Davenport gas mechanical switcher is actually narrow gauge and 1:20.3. The tank car is standard gauge and 1:29. In real life this switcher was so diminutive, that it still looks small when posed with a standard gauge model that is built to a smaller scale.










Have fun,
David Meashey


----------



## moonspenders (May 7, 2012)

Thanks, docwatsonva, for those images!!! In the old photos, the lower roofline of the coaches lines up with the top roof of the loco, so it looks like a great match after all. As for the loads, the Valley Railway wasn't like modern passenger carrying lines (aside from the fact that most income came from freight). Typically, it hauled 2 passenger coaches and a baggage car only behind it, so in a typical running situation, I don't think the mogul would be overstressed. I have a few ideas for future locomotives in keeping with the original line... one might have to wait until I have any skill with kitbashing - the Number 22 seem here in 1887: 








Thanks, too Dave. Now I miss my old LGB D&RGW coaches... but if I start kicking myself for everything I sold (including every last foot of track), I'll be busy for a week. As much as I am a stickler for accurate appearance (I am a quirky self-described historian, after all), I think as long as things mesh well together, exact scaling isn't a prerequisite. So no, Torby, I wouldn't dare critique a layout (I'd be too busy sitting back watching with child-like glee), though if a train completely dwarfed a station I might mutter something under my breath... 

Oh, and Pete... thanks, I just looked into the club and sent a message on the website last night. If I don't wake up too late, I'll try to give you a ring. (I work very very early mornings, so my sleep pattern is probably closer to people living in Australia...)


----------



## Pterosaur (May 6, 2008)

I gotta say I am surprised at how good the LGB mogul looks with the AMS coaches! I sometimes run my Bachmann 4-4-0 with my AMS coaches and even though both are 1:20.3 the size/height difference is significant. 

What really annoys me is the difference in Bachmann Big Hauler sets; the 10-wheeler is out of scale with the cars they come with. They made the set and could not get it right. I also find a 1:20.3 K-27 pulling 1:22 cars bothersome. 

But hey, that’s just my opinion. If you like the look, then by all means go for it. It’s your railroad…Run it your way!


----------



## pete (Jan 2, 2008)

Ken if you want you can call me any time wendsday i will out running around.


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

The LGB mogul is surprisingly well-porportioned for a c. 1870s era narrow gauge mogul when measured in 1:20.3. The cab is comparatively spacious to other moguls of that era. Yeah, it's small. A _lot_ of locos were small back then. We tend to be jaded by the D&RGW's famous Ks, the EBT's mikados, etc--locos that are actually much larger than most narrow gauge locos; especially those that ran on the early lines, or those that were too poor to afford new locos later in life, relying on the used market. 










All three of these locos are accurately scaled in 1:20.3. 

Here's a mogul I built using an LGB mogul chassis. The loco is within a few inches of the prototype in 1:20.3, but is actually _smaller_ than the LGB mogul I started with. 









Here's the loco pulling a 1:20.3 passenger train. You can see how it's dwarfed by the passenger car behind it. 









Cool prototype! I love obscure narrow gauge lines... 

Later, 

K


----------



## moonspenders (May 7, 2012)

You bring up some interesting points, East Broad Top. Locomotive size varies quite a lot in real life steam. I remember when the old Mikado ran on the valley tracks... seeing the Ohio Central loco pass along the route every so often makes it all seem so much smaller (but plenty of locos would seem dwarfed by a beast of an engine like the old 4070). I guess in that respect having such a wide range of scales used in G actually works out well for recreating a variety of railroads. 

I love what you did with the LGB chassis. I do have plans to repaint the green and red mogul I bought, though I'm still trying to figure out what would work best for doing that. (I'll probably create another post elsewhere or dig through the forums for the answers, but since Krylon came out with those plastic spray paints a few years back I've wondered if those might be a better choice for painting plastic locomotives. I don't want paint flaking off after several years.) As nice as the mogul is, I want some resemblance of accuracy. The other tricky part will be decals... since it looks like I'm going to have to recreate the lettering based on a few fonts instead of using a preexisting font like I'd hoped. (Copperplate Bold is the closest to it I've found, but doesn't have the thick tops and bottoms of the original lettering.) 

I'm glad you like the prototype, though I hate to admit it's not narrow gauge! The line runs through some of the most wonderful scenery in Ohio, and the area has such a rich and fascinating history. I've spent over 12 years now researching the area. It's a modelers dream come true: quirky people, interesting buildings, a canal running alongside... it was very much like the Wild West with tough saloons, murders, and ghost towns. Eventually, I'd like to model the Ohio & Erie Canal and its aqueducts as well. 

Now, even though the prototype isn't narrow gauge, the proportions look right for the train and track. I have plenty of old photographs of stations and towns along the route, as well as old maps showing track layout, sidings, spurs, etc. But I need to reel myself back out of the clouds and focus on getting the train itself together and painted/decaled before figuring out how to condense all the great surroundings and atmosphere into pieces and parts for a layout.


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

Now, even though the prototype isn't narrow gauge, the proportions look right for the train and track. 
Shoulda noticed that from the photos. 

For the font, check out Railfont's "Pennsylvania 1930" font. It's a version of a font that was fairly common on RR equipment from the 1880s to the 1940s on a number of railroads, particularly in the northeast, including Ohio. It looks very similar to what I think I'm seeing in the photos you posted. (Not enough detail to be sure). I'm 99% positive both Stan Cedarleaf and Jeff Damerst (the two most oft-used custom decal guys in large scale) have it on hand. 

When you get ready to paint, drop me a note. 

Later, 

K


----------



## moonspenders (May 7, 2012)

Pennsylvania 1930 is very similar to Railroad 1916 font which I have, but they're still too dissimilar for me. I made closer views of the baggage and passenger coach to show you what I mean: 
See how the lettering is more squared off and similar thickness over the entire letter... 








The same with the stretched lettering above the coach. The numbers are a whole different kettle of fish... 









I know, I know... modeling narrow gauge as standard, and here I am bickering over tiny details in the bettering. I'm a walking contradiction.


----------



## moonspenders (May 7, 2012)

Based on the image, here is the baggage car font as I drew it on my laptop...


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

I'd bet dollars to donuts the 45-degree angles on the corners of the letters as you drew are actually curves: 










They don't show up too well in the photos you have, but based on contemporary examples on other railroads, that appears to be the font style they're using. I sent a file to your e-mail using the lettering I drew based on examples of that font. (It's very similar to the "Pennsylvania 1930" font from railfonts, though--since the lettering was hand-lettered by individual artists, there's a lot of subtle variations from car to car, railroad to railroad.) 

Later, 

K


----------



## moonspenders (May 7, 2012)

I'm pretty sure they're not curves. I zoomed in to 100% of the image size and clipped out part of the photo... this is on the right side of the baggage car. 








They all look straight, except on the B. I'm still pretty well convinced that this lettering style isn't exactly like anything else out there in the font world. It is extremely similar to Railroad Roman font, but perhaps it was simplified for ease of repainting?


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

Thanks for the enlargement. My eyes still detect a very subtle arch on some of the corners, but certainly nowhere near as pronounced as in other examples I've seen. Could also be the lens. Certainly for simplicity sake, a straight line would be close enough. The nice thing about modeling the obscure is that there's little chance someone's going to show you a photo that proves you wrong--and if they do, you welcome it! 

Later, 

K


----------



## moonspenders (May 7, 2012)

On some of the inside corners, you're right... there's a tiny curve on most of them. If only I had a time machine! 

It's true, most people wouldn't notice, but I would. I'm my own worst critic. Even if they told me it looked wonderful, I'd point out every single flaw! Naturally, there will probably be plenty of them...


----------



## moonspenders (May 7, 2012)

Well, I'm still waiting on some rolling stock and figuring out what I'll do about repainting the loco... but in the mean time, there's no harm in sprucing up a little bit of the LGB mogul here and there. I really need to invest in a few new tiny paintbrushes before going any further, but for now, the engineer (who's been rattling around in the cab for who knows how long, getting bashed up badly) deserved a new coat of paint, as did the bell (to look more realistic) and the cab (one drawback to LGB--they're not so keen on decorating the interior and an all-black inside just looks too boring). I guess you could say I've officially started work on the Valley Railway: 








Not quite as cleanly done in spots as I'd like, but for a first-ever attempt at painting model trains, I'd say it's not too terrible.


----------



## jake3404 (Dec 3, 2010)

I think it looks good. Keep in mind that you will view this from a distance. The mix of color will probably look great.


----------



## moonspenders (May 7, 2012)

Thanks, Jake. Actually, the cab is completely enclosed so unless people look closely they probably won't even notice. Still, it'll be a neat surprise when someone does bother to look inside.


----------



## moonspenders (May 7, 2012)

A few stress-filled days later... 

Let me start off by saying that my first experience repainting a loco has had its great and nightmarish moments. The tender was a breeze; it took the paint and was back together in no time. The loco, on the other hand, has been fraught with troubles. Not just the mix of satin and high-gloss paints on different parts, but hand painting details and running paint on one side (not noticed until it was too late, but hey, real locos have their streaks, rough spots, etc. too). Still, I think it came out decently in the end. A few touch-ups need to dry and parts need to be glued in tomorrow after the paint has a full 24 hours to dry, but the 2018D Mogul looks vastly different from the red/green LGB that came in the box. Since the front light bulb snapped off during renovations, I replaced it with an LED Christmas bulb. We'll see if that works when I eventually get to test it out. (First, I need my track to arrive, then to get a transformer so I can actually turn the power on and double check everything electrically... fingers crossed.) 

Here's the unlettered as-is loco. Some of the details are hard to see here, but I'll take better pictures when the last details are complete.


----------



## chuck n (Jan 2, 2008)

Ken:

From my experience, I think that the LGB mogul with look OK pulling a 1:20.3 coach. I do not think that the reverse looks OK. That is a 1:20.3 engine pulling a 1:22.5 LGB coach. 


Here are a couple of pictures from a book that I have on Minnesota Logging Railroads. The engines are much smaller than the caboose and coach.



















Chuck N


----------



## moonspenders (May 7, 2012)

Thanks, Chuck. In looking at the AMS J&S coach compared to my mogul, the loco is a tiny bit dwarfed by it, but still a fairly good match. In photos of the Valley Railway, the cab roof lines up approximately with the bottom of the roof of the passenger cars, which is almost exactly true with my models, so it seems like it's going to work. Eventually, I'll look into replacing the loco with a 1:20.3 scale one that fits with the railroad, but I have to stick to some form of budget or end up in the poor house. 

The challenge is the baggage car. There are no AMS J&S baggage cars, only a combine. I just sent off a few photos to Rio Grande Models UK to see about price estimates for replacement sides (as much as I hate spending so much on a coach only to dismantle and bash it). This is where I have to walk the fine line between trying to be completely historically accurate and not going broke in the process.


----------



## Rods UP 9000 (Jan 7, 2008)

Ken 

Doug at http://www.bronson-tate.com/index.shtml will have a double and a single door baggage car kits for the AMS cars soon and they will be around $100. 
I have a prototype kit of the double door I'm working on right now. It is a easy kit to put together. It all basswood and all you will need to do is a little sanding of the the charred edges and glue together with titebond III. It is a very nice kit and I know that it is a extra $100 but you'll have what you want. 



Rodney


----------



## chuck n (Jan 2, 2008)

Ken:

Just remember it is your railroad. If you like it that is all that matters. What others think is only their opinion based upon their experience and thoughts. Some days, I run 1:20.3 trains and some days I run 1:29. If neither of those appeal to me I'll run some of my LGB/Delton/USA 1:22.5/24. I have been in this part of the hobby for about 32 years. When I see something that I would like to add to my collection and the price and my finances are OK I'll get it. You are beginning in the hobby, get what you like and in time it will all work out and you will have some neat trains that you really like.


Chuck


----------



## moonspenders (May 7, 2012)

I'll be sure to keep an eye out for it, Rodney. Thanks for letting me know. I'll see what Rio Grande says about their cost for it too and weigh out the differences. I'm tempted to check with Bronson Tate about cost for the Peninsula Depot. Even though I only have a few old photos of it, both the freight depot and a similar station (moved there from a nearby town along the same line) are still standing, so I could get plenty of photos and maybe a few measurements. Since I don't have woodworking equipment, it might be my best option. 

I do understand, Chuck, and I am my own worst critic so the toughest person to impress! I grew up near the tracks for the Valley Railway so it's been a huge part of my life, which is why I want to do it justice. Of course, it all boils down to just wanting to have fun running trains, but being able to lose myself in my imagination and see what it might've been like back in the day is just as rewarding. I am just restarting my childhood collection except with a focus this time. If I don't hold myself back, I'll run out of room too quickly, so I have to think things through. 

Right now, a big frustration is trying to figure out what the abbreviation used on freight cars for the line was. Since it was before they became standard in the 1910s, it could be anything... and none of my old photos are crisp enough to make them out. I could just guess--V.R.R. or something like that--but I'll deal with that when I get into purchasing rolling stock. For now, my mind is swimming with too many other ideas... past the passenger/baggage cars, the buildings. So many unique structures worth building! I feel like a kid in a candy store with some spare change and eyes bigger than his stomach. Then again, looking at the switches in Peninsula, I might just have to learn building track from scratch too.


----------



## moonspenders (May 7, 2012)

Who knew I could become addicted again to model railroading so easily....


----------



## chuck n (Jan 2, 2008)

ALL OF US!!!

Chuck


----------



## SD90WLMT (Feb 16, 2010)

Follow Chuck's advice,.. do what YOU want!!! MY advice is for you doing 'what you want' - for the track work also, even switches and all . Make it the way you want it to be. There are many avenues for switches and track work, SO take time to choooose how you really want it to be and set a mental base as a guideline to work from. Go from there....... 

Have FUN, and wear a life vest for US while your out swimming, OK!!!!!!! 

:~} Dirk 
........ DMS Ry.


----------



## moonspenders (May 7, 2012)

All the bits and pieces of the LGB mogul are glued or snapped back in place; a few touchups here and there are out of the way as well. I'm debating hand-painting on the lettering using my tape-and-knife technique instead of decals for this loco, but we'll see how ambitious I feel. I'm way behind in my writing, thanks to being so sidetracked... no pun intended. 

So, here's the final result of my work (unless it gets some weathering in the future). 








Some detail work inside and around the cab. Ignore the stratches on the "glass" from removing white paint. 








The still-wet repainted wood (looking a bit too bright between the wet paint and lamp above) in the tender. I may replace it with real wood at some point, but for now it needed to look a little less plastic. 








So far, it looks the part of an 1890s mogul on a borderline-bankrupt railroad! One of these days, I have to get it to some operable track and let it have a test run.


----------



## moonspenders (May 7, 2012)

Time for another very late update. Not that there's much new... I've been too busy lately, since I started working on the local scenic railroad, So my time has been spent playing on full-sized trains. 

As far as research goes, I found that the Valley Railway did own two moguls, so I'm on the right track. Unfortunately, the smoke stack was different than the LGB 2018D has and I haven't figured out how to swap that out yet. There wasn't a cow catcher either, or front wheels, so I need to learn a few things about modifying it to get it just right. Most of the research on the line is still pretty elusive, but I think I'll get there. 

I decided to go with the maroon red color for the coaches, since it is possibly a better choice with accuracy (guessing, still, since finding records of the actual color scheme is still next to impossible). Unfortunately, that means I now have one too many AMS coaches, so I'll have to figure out if I want to sell it or trade it with someone somewhere for some things that might actually be useful to me. The baggage car conversion is being problematic as well; the two companies I've been talking to have had a series of unfortunate events happen, so I'm no closer to having a kit made. I did find drawings from Jackson & Sharp, though, showing the doors, dimensions, etc. so I could get a more accurate baggage car made when it eventually happens. After all this nightmare is done, maybe I can finally get those decals made up that I painstakingly made. 

Just like the real-life Valley Railway, so many hurdles have popped up to postpone my plans. But on the bright side, at least a few times a week I get to ride the very same route it took and help out travelers with a little bit of interesting rail history. That slightly makes up for the pile of boxes towering on top of my desk, waiting for work to begin again.


----------



## mickey (Jan 28, 2009)

Anyone know if AMS will sell a carcus only where you could take 2 combines and cut in half and splice? I understand it might get up in $ and might not match up all the way. Any idea why no baggage only?


----------



## moonspenders (May 7, 2012)

Two long years later...

Working for the railroad didn't leave me much time to touch my project until finally this winter. With the railroad opening a small space for ticket sales and a museum, It was crunch time for me trying to get the train finished in anticipation of it possibly being displayed at the depot. It will likely be a static display, but I hope it'll have the chance to run at some point.

This is the mogul locomotive just before being numbered "1880" (the year the line opened) and repainting the window frames red:









The baggage car is still a future project, but here is one of the two passenger coaches lettered and numbered as I suspect they would've been in the 1880s (based on the 1890s coach photo). Likely, the cars were painted a "wine red" color, but I decided to stick with a more "Pennsylvania Red" shade since the exact color is unknown:









I opted for hand painting the lettering instead of using decals to give it a somewhat more realistic appearance. I have enough straight track for the whole train, but until my boss gives the okay on if and how it will be displayed, I haven't figured out exactly what type of diorama or track base I'll use for it. And considering I've sunk about $3,000 into railroadiana and other items for the depot (including full period outfit for daily wear), including the model, anything additional will be on hold for now until my bank account rebounds a bit.


----------



## Sjoc78 (Jan 25, 2014)

The Mogul may look small with the AMS coach, but also note that LGB stuff isn't exactly 122.5 either. They took a ton of liberties with heir models, an example their D&RGW stock car while certainly based on the real car has a length closer to 1:24, a height closer to 1:20.3 and the width some where between. The mogul will probably look fine. If it bothers you build a larger cab and replace the figures.


----------

