More granddaughter operating

My granddaughter was in town in town this weekend, as was expected, and I organized a short operating session for her at my layout town of Shumala. I have been trying to guide her into being the conductor, in these sessions, and she gets some of it, but prefers being the engineer. I do notice, though, that occasionally when I ask, “What do we do next?” she usually knows. She is not really a “kid” any longer, having recently celebrated her 13th birthday.

I should mention that she has operated a fair number of times previously on the layout, and on both sides of it (for an earlier example, see: https://modelingthesp.blogspot.com/2021/12/more-family-ops.html ). Sometimes my wife has acted as conductor (with my guidance), but more recently I usually fill that role. The goal is for the granddaughter to enjoy herself.

At the beginning of this session, she leaned all the waybills against the cars, in order to identify which ones were which, which I think is a good step, but then the bills were all moved off the layout to the J-strips on the fascia. Below you see her doing a run-around with the switcher to pick up the cars for the first spots to be done, and looking over the waybills.

From there she moved to East Shumala to take care of the switching there. Here is her train on the main line, approaching East Shumala to switch. A few waybills are still standing up until she gets there, and she has the waybills for her train in her hand.

In East Shumala, she sorted through the pickups and set-outs, and pretty efficiently was able to complete all the moves. Here she is just finishing up that work, with the cars that were already picked up sorted onto the main track, and the last set-outs about ready to place. Here the waybills have been moved to the J-strips.

Then she returned to town to complete a few more pickups and set-outs, along with spotting the loaded reefer she picked up, to the ice deck for icing. In this photo, she has run around the consist again,and is bringing the switcher back so she can retrieve an empty gondola at the sand house. That will complete the work. Waybills are also on the J-strips here.

She did this smoothly and well, and really efficiently in terms of time spent, though of course this was far from her first session on the layout. The work I had assigned for the session was really the same amount as the work I would assign to a typical adult operating crew, except that she didn’t have to assemble the next train to go up the branch.

I don’t detect that she is very interested in the models on the layout as models that could be built or collected, but she does enjoy the work done by a switch crew, whether at Shumala (as shown above), or on the other side of the layout with Ballard and Santa Rosalia. She isn’t ready to act as a conductor (though not far out), but I would not hesitate to assign her as an engineer in a session with skilled operators.That’s fun to observe.

Tony Thompson

SP piggyback, Part 5: the 3D-printed flat cars

This series of posts relates to the earliest days of Southern Pacific piggyback operations. They began in June 1953, and because 1953 is my modeling year, my interest is in these earliest details. I’ve provided historical background and description of models in the first three posts (for links, see this one: https://modelingthesp.blogspot.com/2024/10/sp-piggyback-part-3-piggyback-service.html ), and in the immediate preceding post, began description of the excellent 3D-printed models made by Andrew J. Chier (that post is here: https://modelingthesp.blogspot.com/2024/10/sp-piggyback-part-4-progress-on-3d.html ).

My next task in making AJ Chier’s models ready for the layout involved the excellent flat cars that he 3D printed. Though they are extraordinarily complete, they do need to have grab irons, sill steps, and hand brake added. These parts would require dimensions difficult for home 3D printers, and would in any case be very delicate if printed. Instead, metal parts can be added. Holes are pre-located for the grab irons,  as you can see here on both sides and end sill.

For photos of the prototype grab irons, see the Part 3 link in the top paragraph of this post. I set out to use Westerfield brass wire grab irons, but those are 18 scale inches wide and AJ has modeled the grab iron dimension as about 20 inches. Not a problem; the Westerfield parts are not hard wire, and are easily re-bent to the 20-inch width. I also used A-Line Style A sill steps. All were attached with canopy glue.

Incidentally, this 20-inch grab iron dimension modeled by AJ appears to be correct, as I interpret the SP drawings for the Class F-70-7 flat cars.

Next came the hand brake. I model these vertical-staff brakes with Cal-Scale brass brake wheels, soldered to 0.020-inch brass wire. This is a quick and simple task, and I usually make half a dozen or so at a time, and keep them on hand for future needs (I showed these kinds of completed parts in a previous post: https://modelingthesp.blogspot.com/2023/05/small-project-replacing-brake-wheels.html ).

This too is inserted into a drilled hole with canopy glue. The installation should look like the photo below (detail of an SP photo in the Part 3 post, linked in the top paragraph above).

The brake wheel staff here, as on flat cars generally, is a bit short, compared to tank cars, because when dropped down to permit trailer movement from car to car, the wheel must be close to flush on the deck. When the car is operated, however, the brake staff is required to be at full height. Here is my version prior to painting:

This wraps up the detailing of the flat car. The car was now given another quick coat of paint over the new detail parts, and was ready to decal. Luckily there is an excellent decal sheet for cars of this class, from Protocraft. I will discuss that aspect in a future post.

Tony Thompson

Southern Pacific steam switchers

Like most railroads, Southern Pacific in steam days owned a considerable fleet of switchers, very predominantly of the 0-6-0 wheel arrangement. And as with most of the SP steam locomotive roster, many were built by Baldwin, others by Alco and Lima, but a notable class of relatively modern switchers was built in SP’s own shops, 38 locomotives in switcher class S-12. Many of these survived to the end of steam. I’ve been meaning for some time to summarize the SP fleet as it was in later days.

Like other steam locomotives in the early days, SP switchers originally all had slide-valve cylinders, limiting the boiler pressure and thus the tractive effort which they could use. These older switchers also were frequently equipped with what are often called “slope-back” tenders and inside valve gear. Below is an example from Class S-8, built by Alco-Brooks in 1908 (Wilbur C. Whittaker collection, location unknown). 

But in the summer of 1913, SP began to acquire switchers in new Class S-10 with piston valves, a modern feature in use with SP road locomotives since at least as early as 1900. Engines in the S-10 class were built by Baldwin; following Class S-11 came from Lima. They were succeeded by the SP-built Class S-12 mentioned above, from the summer of 1918 to the summer of 1923, 33 of them built at Sacramento and the other five at Los Angeles General Shops.

Many of the Class S-12 locomotives were equipped with newly-built cylindrical tenders, like the one shown below (Paul Jansen photo at Bayshore, Clark Bauer collection). Long called “sausage tenders” by SP enthusiasts, they were modified after construction with the very tall oil hatch visible here. Note also that the road name lettering is entirely located on the water tank, avoiding the inevitable oil spills on the forward fuel tank.

The earliest versions of this tender design had a 4700-gallon water capacity and were classed accordingly as Class 47-C (C = cylindrical). Soon the design was enlarged to 5200 gallons, Class 52-C (taller and 3 feet longer), for most of the Class S-12 engines. The car shown above is a Class 52-C tender.

Other locomotives of Class S-12, along with those of other classes, were also equipped at times with tenders from older locomotives, suitably modified. By that, I mean changes such as cutting away the projecting sides of the oil bunkers on conventional Vanderbilt tenders for better rearward visibility. The need to do so can be visualized, looking at the Class 70-C tender shown below (behind 4-8-0 no. 2919; Joe Strapac collection).

When one of these 7000-gallon tenders was modified in this way, it looked like the photo below (Gene Deimling collection), and is sometimes called a “clear-vision” tender. (You can click on the image to enlarge it if you wish.) The switcher is from Class S-12. Incidentally, steam locomotive range was entirely a function of tender water capacity, not fuel, so reducing the fuel bunker somewhat did not limit the locomotive.

So if a person were to model a Southern Pacific steam switcher, and do so for the period after World War II, the largest class with piston valves would be the best choice. That class is Class S-12, which has the additional attraction of having been built in the railroad’s own shops.

For much more about SP steam switchers, particularly photographs, the indispensable book is this one by Gene Deimling. It was published by Benchmark Publications, Los Altos, CA, 1987.

In addition, there are other helpful references:

Diebert, Timothy S. and Joseph A. Strapac, Southern Pacific Company Steam Locomotive Compendium, Shade Tree Books, Huntington Beach, CA, 1987.

 Wright, Richard K., Editor, Southern Pacific Company Diagrams of Locomotives and Tenders, Wright Enterprises, Oakhurst, CA 1973.

I am still contemplating a modeling exercise aimed at one of these locomotives, but have been exploring options.

Tony Thompson

Waybills, Part 118: more information

For a number of years now, I have been writing occasional posts in this blog about both information and issues relating to waybills, in both prototype and model form. (To find previous ones, use “waybills” as a search term in the search box at right.) A recent example was this one: https://modelingthesp.blogspot.com/2024/04/waybills-part-114-managing-fleet.html . This may be a daunting backlog; a guide to the first 100 of these posts is here: https://modelingthesp.blogspot.com/2022/11/waybills-part-100-guide.html .

Today I want to share yet another source of prototype information on this topic. A single example is shown below. This was part of an approximately annual issue of “question and answer” format from the journal, Traffic World, and was issued by the publisher of Traffic World, the Traffic Services Corp., in Washington, D.C. The magazine was published from 1907 until 2011 or thereabouts.

This is a 6 x 9-inch book, hardbound, and contains 155 pages. The points made in it stem from question-answer pairs in the magazine between July 1964 and June 1965, and it was issued in 1965. How long these volumes continued to be published, I don’t know, but at least until 1976.

Many of the questions, it must be said, relate to minutiae of the rules, and often turn on extremely microscopic examination of Interstate Commerce Commission rules and other authorities of a legalistic bent. Those, naturally, make extremely dry reading, and might be ideal for perusal when you are having trouble getting to sleep.

But there are nevertheless gems in here. Here’s one that isn’t too long or too detailed (adjacent material was removed from the page to focus attention on the point I want to discuss). I will comment below. You can click on the image to enlarge it, to help read the text. The topic is routing.

This example makes very clear that priority in routing lies with the shipper, even if that route results in higher rates than some other route. But it also makes the interesting point that if the shipper has not designated the route, the railroad is obliged to route via the route of lowest rate. 

It is long-established dogma among modelers that the railroad would route a car so as to traverse company rails as far as possible, and no doubt that was the desire; but such routing must not be at a higher rate than another approved routing, even if resulting in lower mileage on the originating railroad.

Here is another example, this one unfortunately longer, and again, I will comment below. This entry extends over two pages, but a lot of it is citations of authorities, which can be skipped for our purposes. It has to do with leased cars.

The key point in this question runs from the bottom paragraph in the first column, to the completion of that paragraph in the second column. In essence, it asks whether an empty specialized or leased car, moving under a car order to return it to a shipping point, generates demurrage before actually being placed for loading at the shipper. Evidently the railroad involved said yes, and the shipper said no.

The answer is interesting, as it reminds us of the railroad distinction between “actual placement,” that is, the car placed at the shipper’s dock or loading door, and “constructive placement,” meaning the car is nearby in the same town on a track that can be considered an “off-spot” (for example, if there is no space at the shipper’s dock). If the latter, the railroad must furnish the shipper with notice of the constructive placement. Otherwise, there is no demurrage.

I don't see simple ways these points could be utilized during a model railroad operating session, but they do suggest things to keep in mind for such aspects as waybill contents, for example with routing. There are so many prototype examples of indirect routing that it might be considered commonplace. And the railroad would try hard to avoid off-spots, certainly not accepting them for “crew convenience.” Those are things we can keep in mind when striving for realistic operation.

Tony Thompson

Refining scenery, Part 5

This series of posts about minor scenery refinements on my layout is not intended to present profound insights into scenery development, only to illustrate that even a largely complete layout like mine can benefit from some refinement and upgrading of scenery. 

The present post is a follow-on to my post about creating some ground texture in an area alongside the modest-size industry, Pismo Marine Services, in my layout town of Santa Rosalia (read that post at: https://modelingthesp.blogspot.com/2025/01/refining-scenery-part-4.html ).

At the end of that prior post, I mentioned that I had chosen the Tichy handcar shed for a storage shed structure to be placed in the area I had worked on. Like most Tichy products, this shed goes together very nicely and is easy to build. The first step is to glue walls together and add the floor. (The building’s footprint in HO scale is 12 x 20 feet.)

Following this step, the doors were added. I decided to paint the roof of the structure a different color at this stage, when it is easy to do so. I chose dark green, a common enough color for rolled roofing as is depicted on this kit. 

And after considering several shades of gray and tan for the structure’s walls, I decided to keep the molded color of the walls, and thus simply sprayed the body with clear flat, so it could be weathered. I will paint the underfloor support posts a darker gray after weathering .

My next step was weathering. I used my usual technique, washes made with acrylic tube paint, as described in the “Reference pages” linked at the top right corner of this post. The intent was to show a moderate amount of dirt, consistent with a fairly long time in service. On the roof, I added some Pan Pastel gray to soften the dark green.

You can see above that the doors are a little elevated, to accommodate tracks for a speeder. But this isn’t going to be that kind of shed, so I needed to add a little platform, making shed entry convenient. I just used some scrap Evergreen scribed styrene sheet with about 10-scale-inch board width, and assembled it with styrene cement, using scale 8 x 8-inch strip for inside corner reinforcement. I then dirtied it with Pan Pastels. I also added the name of the adjoining business on the doors.

Next the ground texture and some grass and small vegetation needed to be added to complete the scene. That is why, in the previous post’s last photo (see link in top paragraph, above), the center of the area between the two dirt piles was unfinished. Now it looks like this.

Although really quite a small project, this does complete an essentially empty layout area that had been unscenicked except for painting the Homasote. The area has now been put to some use, instead of being merely a blank spot. I suspect there are lots of layouts with occasional small areas that could be given improvements or upgrades like this.

Tony Thompson

Car Service Rules, again

The Car Service Rules of the ARA and its successor, the AAR, are a topic of ongoing interest to many who attempt to mimic prototypical freight car handling. I’ve written about these rules before (see that post at: https://modelingthesp.blogspot.com/2012/01/car-service-rules.html ). The topic was large enough that I needed to complete the discussion in a follow-up post: https://modelingthesp.blogspot.com/2012/01/car-service-rules-2.html . 

Although those two posts were fairly thorough, there did arise further commentary some years later, as contained in a post discussing a comment to an earlier post; I wanted to clarify several aspects of the topic. (That post is here: https://modelingthesp.blogspot.com/2021/05/freight-car-handling-and-distribution.html ).

Just recently, I encountered several verbal discussions on the topic, most recently in the bar at the Cocoa Beach meeting two weeks ago (for a meeting summary, see: https://modelingthesp.blogspot.com/2025/01/cocoa-beach-2025.html ). As commonly occurs, there were several misconceptions and misunderstandings expressed in those discussion. Let me see if, once again,  I can clarify.

Let’s say you’re the Car Distributor at an Illinois Central yard in the St. Louis area. You have just received a car order for a 40-ft. box car to go to Seattle, to a consignee located on the Great Northern. The “empty” track in your yard has six box cars: two IC cars, and one each New York Central, MKT, Rock Island, and Western Pacific. What do you choose?

Let’s look at the rules. These were reproduced for decades in the back of each issue of the Official Railway Equipment Register, or ORER. You can click on this image to enlarge it if you wish.

As can be seen with a little thought, the purpose of these Rules was to reduce the number of empty miles run off by freight cars. If every railroad always loaded its own cars, and sent all foreign cars homeward empty, at least half the miles moved by the national fleet would be empty miles, of no benefit to anyone. In practice, these Rules were found to reduce empty miles to a little less than a third of all miles. In a sense, then, the Rules reduced the need for car purchases, through better utilization.

Now to our car order. Rule 1 says that you shouldn’t use the IC cars. For the further rules, you have to look back at the Bill of Lading, which includes the shipper-designated routing, via Wabash as far as Council Bluffs. That would be one railroad’s car you could use, the Wabash, so that the car could run off some miles on its own road, but you don’t have one. At Council Bluffs, the route designates UP, but you don’t have a UP car either. The routing designates UP as far as Portland, Oregon, then via GN to Seattle, but here again, you don’t have a GN car. This means you can’t follow Rule 2, 3 or 4.

We now consult Rule 5, to load a car to a Home District before or adjoining the destination District. Here is the official map (from the ORER), and the destination in District 1 adjoins Home Districts for the WP, in both Districts 2 and 5. So the right choice for this load is the WP car. The Rock Island car could be used also, as the adjoining District 5 of District 1 is a Home District for the RI.

What else may come into play? The empty NYC, MKT and RI cars could all be readily returned directly to their home rails in the St. Louis area, provided that there was no car shortage, so this could be a further reason to use the WP car for loading.

The example above is a little misleading, in only having a single car order to fill. In most situations, the IC Car Distributor would have several. From the Car Service Rules, you could expect the NYC car to be used for destination in the northeastern quadrant of the U.S., the Southern car for the southeastern quadrant, and the MKT car for the southwestern quadrant.

Modelers often think that a railroad would load the home-road car first, and that might be necessary on some occasions, but the Car Service Rules clearly prioritize using a car from quite far away from the originating point, as in the case described above. A consequence that may not be obvious is that on a layout like mine, an SP layout in California, loaded cars arriving from far away have a good probability of being SP cars, not cars from railroads in that faraway location.

For a somewhat different example, here is a Great Northern box car spotted at the type foundry on my layout (to learn what a type foundry is, you can consult this post: https://modelingthesp.blogspot.com/2018/05/whats-type-foundry.html ). The car came from Elizabeth, New Jersey and in accord with Car Service Rules, was routed to a Home District adjoining a Home District for the GN. The car, incidentally, has drifted a little into Alder Street, but should properly stand clear.

I should also mention a factor often overlooked by modelers: the state of the economy. When the economy is slack or in recession, each railroad tends to have more empties on hand than it needs, and priority goes to returning those empties; thus there are usually lots of empty cars to choose from in filling an order, and one can readily follow the Car Service Rules.

But when the economy heats up, cars tend to be in shorter and shorter supply. Then the Car Service Rules get ignored, in favor of getting your shipper the car that is needed. In such a case, you might fill the car order described above with an empty Southern box car, even though it would violate all six rules, if that was the only empty on hand. Railroaders sometimes called this provision “Rule Zero,” in reference to the Car Service Rules, as the most important rule: satisfy the shipper first.

Whether you choose to take these Rules into account in your model railroad layout, as part of car flow in operating sessions, is of course a personal matter, but it is one more component of achieving realistic operation.

Tony Thompson

Starting a Yarmouth Model Works kit

Awhile back I purchased one of the very nice Yarmouth Model Works kits developed by Pierre Oliver. I was struck by his success in representing a common appearance in the earliest welded box cars: rippled side panels. In later years, the welding process was improved to minimize this effect, but in the 1950s it was often very evident. I bought a kit for an Atlantic Coast Line box car, built by American Car & Foundry.

But the model is interesting for several reasons beyond the welding ripples. It models two interesting variations on the usual boxcar components, variations which are called “carbuilder” ends and roof (“carbuilder” meaning a part used only by a particular car building company, in this case AC&F, at a time when components of that type were becoming industry standards, but the particular company used something else). 

The carbuilder ends in this case are essentially the Standard Railway Equipment Co. (SRE) Improved Dreadnaught end or IDE, but without the intermediate small ribs. The photo below shows these intermediate ribs between the large ribs, in the standard version of the  SRE IDE end.

The AC&F carbuilder end, however, though produced by SRE, omitted the small intermediate ribs between the major ribs. This can be seen in the prototype photo below of one of the ACL cars (AC&F photo). Note also the 8-foot door, unusual for a 1951-built box car. (For more background on these AC&F box cars, see the Railway Prototype Cyclopedia or RPC, volumes 26 and 29.)

Not visible above is the AC&F carbuilder roof. This was a really unusual design, with a pair of flattish ribs in each panel and a small raised area between the ribs at the outer end. I haven’t found a good prototype photo which shows these unusual features well, so I show below the model’s roof. I think the rib profiles can be seen here (you can click on the image to enlarge it).

The first step recommended in the kit instructions is to glue a pair of steel nuts inside the floor, before gluing the floor into the body. I used my usual choice, 5/8-11 nuts, attached with canopy glue. This is shown below, along with the body, prior to cleaning it up. You can see the rippled side sheets of the welded 12-panel sides.

But before putting the floor into the body, I drilled the bolster holes for truck screws, and tapped them 2-56. Meanwhile, I examined the kit directions, which merely advise, “Add the cross bearers, crossties . . .” with only an inconclusive model photo for guidance as to which ones are which. Luckily RPC 26 contains a very useful view (AC&F photo) of one of the AC&F cars, looking upward through the side door opening, and showing the underframe members at that location.

Clearly in the photo above, the two underframe cross-members at the door corners are cross bearers, and the one between them is a cross tie. I will show more about the model work on this point in a future post.

Tony Thompson

Role playing for operation

Whenever model railroad operating sessions are discussed, the topic of role playing usually comes up. By that, we mean fulfilling a role of a railroad employee, most visibly the engineer of a locomotive. And of course there are other roles too, from dispatcher to yardmaster to brakeman, and not least, conductor. And there are others. These roles are played during the session.  I’ve recently posted a blog about those kinds of roles (see it at: https://modelingthesp.blogspot.com/2025/01/realistic-layout-operation-part-3.html ).

But awhile back, my friend Jim Providenza pointed out some additional roles that end up being played, before and after operating sessions. These too are railroad jobs that have to be done, every bit as much as those that are pursued during operating.

An obvious one is track maintainer. It is a rare layout indeed that does not require maintenance, repair, upgrade or even replacement of track elements between operating sessions. (We also clean track, which the prototype does not need to do, so I don’t mean that part.) I’m referring instead refer to the rails and their correct arrangement.

As a person who has, to date, written fully 14 episodes on a continuing series of posts, all titled “Trackwork wars” in part, I know this well. (To check on that series, you can readily find them by using “trackwork wars” as the search term in the search box in the upper right of this post.) And I know from talking to many a layout owner, I am not alone.

I recognize, in my own layout, that there are areas that have been perfect in operation for years, but there are also trouble areas that I know will need work from time to time. The scene shown below, with an ancient NMRA Mark II gauge, is all too familiar.

Another kind of role, of course, is car maintainer and locomotive maintainer. Most cars and most engines are fine in any given session, but a coupler may be pulled out of alignment, or truck screws get too tight for trucks to rotate into curves, and so on. Between sessions, they have to be brought back up to standards.

On my layout, and I think on many, a significant time-sink of an off-session role is that of clerk. All the paperwork for a session, from train line-ups to notices of all kinds, have to be prepared, and of course whatever system of car forwarding is in use has to be exercised to provide the right waybills, car cards or other documents for the session.

Hopefully, of course, we don’t encounter an immense amount of such paperwork, so that setting up an op session doesn’t require a prototypical force of clerks (SP yard office photo).

Instead, we work through whatever our system requires, as it’s been developed for reasonably efficient resetting of the layout for the next session. As often as not, I find myself setting the waybills against the cars to make sure I have every one covered, and the bill is correct for the session. (Visiting operators are discouraged from doing this except at the outset of a session, when all cars need to be identified.)

What is shown above is not so different from the yard clerk attaching route cards to freight cars in the yard, as in this Missouri Pacific photo (courtesy Charlie Duckworth).  

So as Jim observed, we do play some roles between sessions, just as we play them during sessions. It may be a different kind of “play value,” but it’s mostly enjoyable just the same. And of course the core of all this is that you choose to have an operating session at all. My own sessions on the present layout are about to reach 100 in number.

Tony Thompson

Yet another Tony Koester book

I recently received a question about my book reviews, asking why I hadn’t reviewed Tony Koester’s 2019 Kalmbach book, Time-Saving Techniques for Building Model Railroads. I do own the book, and have enjoyed browsing in it, but probably because my own layout is already built, and fairly complete at this point, I didn’t feel an impulse to review it. But here goes. 

Tony K. has always advocated a number of specific approaches for layout building, and this book pulls a number of them together. I enjoyed seeing Doug Tagsold on the cover, renowned among operating people for his rapid and impressive layout building. He’s shown in the early days of at least his third (and present) layout.

The book, as was usual with Kalmbach Media books, is 8.5 x 11 inches in size, softbound, with 112 pages. As with all of Tony’s books, it is handsomely illustrated with informative photos.

The scope of the book is well demonstrated by names of the chapters. Here is the Contents page:

An interesting and certainly simplified approach to upper decks on double-deck layouts is to use shelving systems. Koester himself has done this, as you see below. Note that the steel brackets for the upper level are already painted sky blue. The backdrop will be notched to fit around them.

One interesting time-saving method described for a couple of layout is foam-base scenery. You see that in the book cover photo, at top. Here is another view of Doug Tagsold’s 1:72 layout, showing at left the fairly complete scenery contours accomplished with foam, and at right the scene when the usual materials are added.

Another person who has used this approach is Bill Darnaby. He has emphasized narrow track boards, and likes the flexibility of the foam (easily modified). At top is the 2-inch blue foam that is the foundation, being applied to wall brackets. Next below is trackwork being placed atop the foam, with easily-added ditches alongside, and at bottom we see a completed area.

I like this book, and have enjoyed reading and re-reading it. If I had to offer a criticism, it might be that there are too many photos of a finished layout (the author’s) and not enough in-progress views or views of more and different layouts. But it’s not a “step-by-step” book, it’s an idea book, and the points made about time-saving approaches are quite valid and clearly presented. That’s why I believe the book does what it was intended to do.

Tony Thompson

Cocoa Beach 2025

Yes, it’s a new year, and for freight car enthusiasts like myself, the year begins on a high note with the annual Prototype Rails meeting in Cocoa Beach, Florida. Originated and long directed by the late Mike Brock, it’s now ably directed by Mike’s long-time second in command, Marty Magregian. 

And as has always been the case, the meeting was well organized and ran smoothly throughout. This year the heavy snows in the Midwest and Northeast did lead to a whole bunch of last-minute cancellations for obvious reasons, but otherwise attendance was typical of this meeting at around 200, and every one appeared to be having a great time.

I always focus on the clinic program at a meeting like this. There is rarely a clinic time slot when I’m not sitting in one, and have presented one or more clinics at every one of these meetings I’ve attended (out of 24 of these meetings, I’ve just missed two). 

This year’s program, organized by Jeff Aley, was as usual, nicely varied and of uniform high quality. My talk this year was entitled “Creating Realistic Operation on a Small Layout,” and you can view the handout if you wish (it‘s at: https://modelingthesp.blogspot.com/2025/01/handout-for-realistic-operation-clinic.html ).

One clinic I enjoyed was Mont Switzer’s talk about freight cars associated with Muncie, Indiana. He opened his talk with a variation on a slide he often uses at this meeting, which includes an HO scale surf board:

For those not familiar with Cocoa Beach, the huge Ron Jon surf shop is a local landmark. Mont also brought along all the freight cars described in the clinic, and exhibited them in the ballroom’s display area.

Speaking of the ballroom, as always it was the location for model displays, manufacturer's tables, and hobby sellers, with many interesting things on view. Here’s an overall photo:

As he always does, Eric Thur brought some interesting freight cars, including several with very well-done loads. I will just show a single example, a load of Allis-Chalmers transformers. The loads are S scale transformers 3D-printed by Multi-Scale Digital. They were shown loaded on a hybrid model, a Funaro & Camerlengo Pennsylvania Class FM flat car body with Sunshine resin sides. A prototype photo of a very similar load of transformers was also displayed. 

For John Armstrong fans, it was fun to see exhibited a 3D-printed, O scale model of his “imagineered” 200-ton articulated cement car, called a “Cementipede,” built by Jim King of Smoky Mountain Model Works for David Vaughn’s Wit & Wisdom LLC (I understand kits are available; you can email to witandwisdommodels@gmail.com ). As you see below, there was also exhibited an O scale version of Armstrong’s famous re-creation of the diner in the Edward Hopper painting, Nighthawks.

There weren’t large numbers of relatively modern models exhibited, but I liked a Canadian National aluminum-ingot flat car by Bob De Stefano. The car, CN 618226, is from the early 2000s, as shown in the upper photo, and as evident in the model photo below, the load is removable. Impressive modeling.

Lastly, I liked a model that Fenton Wells displayed. To some passers-by, it may have looked like “simply” an Accurail 8500-series plug-door reefer, with a 1953 reweigh date and almost-new paint. But look again, and note the upgrades: the free-standing grab irons, sill steps, ladder, ice hatch latch bars, roof corner grabs, and door hardware. This is nice work.

All in all, another typically enjoyable and fun Cocoa Beach meeting. I always look forward to each one, and invariably find it just as good as I expected. Reminders for it are already blocked in on my calendar for the event in 2026.

Tony Thompson

Refining Scenery, Part 4

In this series of posts, I am describing some quite minor refinements to my layout scenery, not because they are noteworthy projects, but to illustrate that even a nearly complete layout like mine still has some needs for scenery repair, upgrade or completion. The second of these was a good example, simply moving  two trackside details farther from a ground throw; it can be found at: https://modelingthesp.blogspot.com/2024/12/refining-layout-scenery-part-2.html . (It also contains a link to the first in the series.)  

In the present post, I don’t describe a correction to layout scenery, as I did in the first two of these posts; instead, I describe completing an area that has been “bare ground” (actually, brown-painted Homasote) for years. In the photo below, it is the area against the backdrop, identified with the arrow, to the left of the long, low gray building (Pismo Marine Service). The small yellow shed was a candidate for this area, but will be used elsewhere. There’s really nothing there but a tie pile (you can click to enlarge the image).

What I decided to do was to add some kind of a (different) shed in this area, along with some terrain character that would look as much like dirt piles as anything. I made a couple of low piles using Sculptamold paper mache, as you see below. Note also the distinctive texture of the Homasote “ground” in the area (you can click on the image to enlarge it if you wish). What used to occupy this area was the foreground stack of ties.

Obviously we don’t want to be presenting snow piles, located mere yards from the Pacific Ocean in central California, so these were promptly painted brown.

Then the same scenic technique described in the previous posts in this series was used to cover the piles in dirt and a little grass, leaving the space between the piles open. The area is now prepared for the next step.

The intent for the gap between the two dirt piles was to accommodate a shed of some kind, whether a railroad-owned shed or something associated with the warehouse business to the right, in the scenes above. The real purpose is to fill the empty area that you see above, which can’t accommodate an industry to be switched because it is alongside a turnout. My choice was the Tichy kit for a handcar shed, which follows a C&O prototype, though I won’t be representing a handcar facility, just a shed. But that will be the topic of a future post.

Tony Thompson