Mishaps do happen

Some years ago, I described the creation of a stand-in version of a Southern Pacific postal-storage car, in two blog posts. The concluding one is here: https://modelingthesp.blogspot.com/2014/08/modeling-sp-head-end-cars-part-7b.html . The goal was to produce something like the car shown below, photographed at Council Bluffs, in 1954 (Clark Bauer collection). This was an EP&SW 60-foot postal car, remodeled by SP into a postal-storage configuration. 

I approximated this car by cutting up an Athearn RPO model, to get the right overall appearance, although as I mentioned in showing the modeling process, the size and location of windows in my model don’t exactly match the photo above. The modeling work was described here: https://modelingthesp.blogspot.com/2014/07/modeling-sp-head-end-cars-part-7a.html . This was the finished model: 

So why is it coming up now? A derailment in a recent operating session resulted in the floor/underframe part of the model separating into two parts. That was the mishap, seen below. Obviously it wasn’t as well glued together as I thought. So what now? 

The steel weight on the right-hand section in the photo above would have been good to remove, but it evidently is well glued to the floor section of that part of the car. Instead, I cut two lengths of 1/4 x 1/8-inch styrene (Evergreen #389) and glued them to the inside rails of the sides of both parts, across the gap, using Plastruct “Plastic Weld” cement and clamping. The two sections now appear to be quite solidly joined.

I next painted the white styrene reinforcements black. At this point, the car could be re-assembled. It is now back in service, as I show below, in a passenger train behind Class P-4 Pacific SP 2402, passing the Shumala depot on my layout. 

Accidents like derailments or other kinds of things do occur, and they just have to be dealt with. I thought it might be of interest to see my method of correcting this one.

Tony Thompson 

Trackwork wars, Part 17

The ongoing saga of the track replacement at the lead to my town of Santa Rosalia continues. In the previous installment, I was satisfied with my new track right at Santa Rosalia. You can read that account at this link: https://modelingthesp.blogspot.com/2025/11/trackwork-wars-part-16.html .

With some careful adjustments of the gauge in a few places, I was able to successfully operate one of my diesel switchers back and forth, which of course is what happens in an op session. This operation was essential to verify before doing any more work on the track (note the areas with missing ties below). 

As isn’t visible above, both the MP1 switch motors were now disconnected, and since the throw bars of the new switches are located differently, obviously new “trenches” would be needed for their linkages, along with the MP1s being relocated to have the throw rods perpendicular to the track. You can see this pretty clearly below. Both motors have been “unmoored” from their previous locations. 

But before restoring the linkages, I needed to do more painting of rails, as I mentioned in the previous post (see first paragraph, above for link), and I did so, completing work on both new switches on the main line to Santa Rosalia. I also added ties where they were missing, using old surplus tie strip or individual wood ties. 

The next step was to restore the more important of the two linkages, the one at right in the photo above, which controls  the Walthers curved switch. That’s because when structures are put back in place, it is behind the storage tanks of my Richfield oil dealer, thus not accessible for manual operation. In the photo below, the new trenches are cut. 

Finally, the linkage was reconnected and the correct motion of the throwbar verified, for the Walthers switch. This may have to suffice for the upcoming op session, unless I find time to fix the scenery surfaces. But at least this part is now working.

It is frustrating to continue to work the same problems in the same area of track. Hopefully this time it will yield a more permanent result. Thanks again to Jim Providenza for his help with a major part of this effort.

Tony Thompson 

Cleaning an NCE throttle

In my recent post about my preparation actions for upcoming operating sessions on my layout, I mentioned cleaning my NCE throttles (you can find that post at this link: https://modelingthesp.blogspot.com/2025/09/an-op-session-check-list.html ).

I promptly received an email, asking “what the heck do you mean about cleaning throttles?” or words to that effect. So I will show briefly what is involved, an easy maintenance task but one which is very definitely necessary from time to time.

Let’s begin with the back of a dogbone NCE throttle. The arrow indicates the three screws at the bottom of the throttle — don’t remove these. Remove the other seven. (I added the Velcro at the top.)

When these 7 screws are out, you can gently turn the throttle over and lift off the top of the case. It’s shown below at left, next to the circuit board and the rest of the bottom half. Don’t disassemble the part on the right any further! 

Now examine the gold-colored rectangles that underlie buttons that are used the most (usually the forward-reverse button). If it’s been balky, it probably has a round dirty spot on it, as you see below at upper left. This is the image of the button that presses on it. Several other of these rectangles or pads have some dirt; might as well clean all the pads while the throttle is open.

At this point I make a bowl of soapy water (more on that in a moment) and used a Q-tip wetted with the water to scrub each pad clean.

Next I clean the rubber “keypad” (NCE calls this a “membrane keypad”). This is the shaped rubber piece that fills the inside of the lid of the case, as you see below. The round black things touch the pads you just cleaned.  

This is simply plunged into the soapy water and washed with your fingers. I mean, really put that pad into the water and use your fingers to vigorously wipe all surfaces. Here’s the pad, wet and in the process of cleaning. When that’s done, rinse with clean water.

Let the pad dry well (I like to put it outside in the sun, this time of year), and then reassemble your throttle. You will find that those buttons that were balky before now work fine. Just repeat this process next time the throttle isn’t performing as it should.

Tony Thompson 

An op session check list

I was looking through some past emails that were sent to me about this blog, and found one interesting one to which I apparently never replied. It had to do with what things I do before an operating (or “op”) session. I have posted several times about one aspect of this question, car choice and movements during an op session, and how those are set up (see for example, this: https://modelingthesp.blogspot.com/2024/10/car-movements-for-operating-session.html ).

But my topic today is not the car movement part, it’s the layout part. I am sure the list I follow is pretty common to all layout owners’ procedures, but I will show it anyway. I don’t really need a “to do” list because I’ve had a layout for years, and have entirely internalized the things that need to be done to operate. But some years ago, when I was busy with other things, I did make up a list to make sure that in the press of everything else, I did get the essentials all done.

You may note that some of what is on my list is normal layout maintenance, but it’s maintenance that needs to be updated before an op session to make sure performance is dependable. 

The list is below. Some parts are obvious, such as cleaning track and locomotive wheels. My DCC system is NCE, and the throttle key pads do get dirty with use; the throttles can be opened up and the dirt removed with soap and water. I check for throttle buttons which are as responsive as they should be, and clean them if not.

I run every train that is expected to operate, and make sure everything is okay; ditto for checking every track switch to make sure it functions correctly electrically. This latter point is rarely a problem, but annoying if occurring in a session. Ordinarily all freight cars on the layout are veterans, but if a new one, or a newly modified one, is scheduled in the upcoming session, I check its operation in my “rookie test” (described in this post: https://modelingthesp.blogspot.com/2018/07/the-rookie-test.html ).

There are several paperwork parts to this. Because nearly all my freight cars have multiple waybills on file, I need to check that the waybill for each car that is part of the intended action in the upcoming session is correct and complete. The car may have had a different industry service in the previous session, so the waybill needs to be current. An example is this load of cement (a Richard Hendrickson weathering job).

I write a new train order and clearance card for the branchline train from Shumala to Santa Rosalia and return, and also do a fresh line-up for the mainline trains that will operate in the session (for background on that, see: https://modelingthesp.blogspot.com/2019/01/line-ups-for-operating.html ). I continue to find line-ups a very useful tool for sessions. 

For some sessions, I also issue a Bulletin, as I’ve described in a previous post (you can read it at: https://modelingthesp.blogspot.com/2019/11/more-operating-sessions.html ). To repeat an example, if a ballast train is to be run, I might issue this: 

Something that isn’t on the list, but which I think is important to do, is to send an email to the operators who are signed up for a session, about a week beforehand, giving them a layout description if they haven’t visited lately, and also reminding them of anything especially relevant. For my upcoming session, for example, being in September, I will send them a link to a recent post about operating the layout during peak harvest season (that post is at: https://modelingthesp.blogspot.com/2025/08/operations-for-peak-harvest-season.html ).

As I mentioned above, normally before op sessions I do most or all of these tasks from embedded memory, but from time to time I have printed it out again to make sure I get everything done for the session. I always want the layout to operate as well as it can, following the vision I have of how it ought to perform.

Tony Thompson 

Maintaining refrigerator cars

I have a very specific piece of maintenance for model refrigerator cars to mention today, namely ice hatch latches. These are very visible on a model, being located on the roof, so missing latches are quite evident, and of course should not be missing. But their location also means that they are quite vulnerable to being brushed or knocked off and lost in the weeds. So something like the view below, showing my model of PFE 64739, is not what we want. (You can click to enlarge if you wish.)

Replacement latches may be found in extra parts sprues from previous kit builds, though these are often rather too big, especially in thickness. A far better solution is the etched stainless steel latches from Plano Model Products, their part number 12079 in HO scale. The fret is shown below. Obviously there are six sets of four. These may not match the latches of every reefer owner, but they suit my PFE cars.

I pre-paint these, usually some variation of boxcar red, since most of my reefers have that color roof and ends. I usually cut them from the sprue with a hobby knife, then I apply these nice latches with canopy glue. Here they are attached to PFE 64739. This model is built from Sunshine parts, given to me by Frank Hodina, and assembled with the high hatch coamings sometimes seen on rebuilt cars.

These latches can also enhance models of somewhat lower detail level. Years ago I posted a description of the efforts I’ve made to upgrade Athearn steel reefer models, particularly removing the gross “hinges” on the ice hatches (see that post at: https://modelingthesp.blogspot.com/2012/08/ujpgrading-old-models-athearn-reefers.html ). 

The Athearn ice hatch latches are also considerably oversize, so replacing them with the Plano parts is a definite improvement. Note also below that I have replaced the kit running board with etched metal, replaced the Athearn brake wheel, and added wire grab irons, placard board, and fan shaft, along with decal re-lettering. 

I continue to need to replace latch bars that have been knocked off of reefer models in operating sessions, so I expect to keep on needing those Plano 12079 sets. Appearance of this detail part speaks for itself.

Tony Thompson 

The yard brush

I suspect this is another of those titles for a post that will puzzle some readers. What I am referring to is a soft brush provided to a yardmaster or yard operator.  But why, you cry. The answer is simple: when a lull in yard work comes along, the yard operator can remove dust from car roofs or interiors. To illustrate, below is a hopper car interior, quite dusty as the finger marks show. Why not dust this?

I have to quickly mention that in O scale, many layout owners seem to like the dusty look, and will tell you, instead of dusting the cars, to please not touch them and thereby disturb the nice dust. This post is for all other types of layout owners, who generally have the opposite view of dust.

So what kind of brush am I suggesting? The usual sort of “make-up” powder brush, available at any cosmetics counter, is large and soft, perfect for dusting without disturbing detail parts. The best kind is the broad brush I was told is a “blusher” of the kind you see below. This type is also called a “face brush” or a “powder brush.” This brush is about 5 inches long, and is the one I use for my layout.

As you can see, the brand is “essence of Beauty.” They have an extensive line of makeup powders and brushes, and brushes are usually around $5.00 or so.

Another brush I have used, and currently acts as my “traveling brush,” when I operate at someone else’s layout, is from the “bareMinerals” brand, and is also about 5 inches long. I use the larger, soft end. This brand also offers a “powder brush” like the one shown above. Brushes from this brand are considerably more expensive than the “essence of Beauty” brushes; I inherited this one.

I have a third brush, with no brand name on it, very similar physically to the others, which I keep on my workbench (in a different place than the layout). It’s the same size, but has black bristles, equally as soft as the others, and I use it for the same kinds of dusting.

All these brushes are quite effective, and I like what they can do. They all get used, whether home or away. And by the way, of course I ask the layout owner’s permission to dust cars, as should anyone! Below I show my “visiting” brush in action on Jim Providenza’s well-known Santa Cruz Northern layout, though in reality it wasn’t needed, just a demo.

So is this important? No, not really, totally a detail, though I sometimes remark that a well-equipped yard should have a yard brush handy. Brushes like this need not be expensive, so you might give one a try. Whether you permit visiting operators to wield one is a separate decision <grin>.

Tony Thompson

My latest operating session

Not having hosted an operating session on my layout since July, I planned for and hosted two sessions this last weekend. Preparation for these sessions naturally called for a lot of checking of the state of the layout, and indeed a few repairs proved necessary. One of them was a rail connection that was no longer electrically connecting. This just required a touch of solder, and of course verification with a meter.

I also made a few improvements in scenery and other details around the layout. Some of these, naturally enough, were repairs to things that had gotten damaged or needed to be re-glued, but in a few cases I was able to upgrade something. At left below is the model palm tree that has been alongside my winery for years. The fronds are some kind of fishbowl plant, which has sadly withered and sagged. At right is the upgrade to a far healthier looking palm tree.

When the sessions came along, on the first day the crew was Ray Freeman, Leo Pesce, Jeff Allen and Richard Brennan. All had operated here before, but for widely different numbers of times. For a couple of them, this meant that they experienced something of a learning curve in the session.

The first-day crew that began at Ballard is shown below, with Leo at left and Ray at right. Ray is holding the throttle, so Leo must have been conducting. It looks like he is pointing out the next switching move.

Below you see Jeff (at left) and Richard, who had begun with a shift at Shumala, but now have progressed to take their turn working at Ballard. I believe Jeff was conducting at this point, and appears to be pointing out an industry that was either going to receive a set-out, or one needing a car picked up.

The next day there was a different set of four people to operate, and this time we had a first-time operator, Bob Rosenbauer. He worked with Lisa Gorrell, and they are shown below sorting out the cars in the yard at Shumala, with Lisa at left, who was the conductor here.

Meanwhile, the other crew, Cliff Linton (at left, below) and Steve Van Meter were engaged in switching at Ballard. It looks like Cliff was uncoupling cars for a spot.

These were good sessions, and even with a few glitches (the fear of every layout host), it did go well overall, and everyone seemed to have a good time. I managed to minimize the threat of Host Flaw Hysteria (described in more detail elsewhere: https://modelingthesp.blogspot.com/2023/07/pressure-what-pressure.html ).

Tony Thompson

Rolling stock maintenance — still happening

From time to time I have described previously my various experiences maintaining the rolling stock on my layout. Much of this effort is routine and of no particular interest. But from time to time, I do find something that is either new to me, or that I think might be enough out of the ordinary to be of interest to others. (For one prior example, see this earlier post about trucks: https://modelingthesp.blogspot.com/2019/06/comments-on-truck-maintenance.html .)

An important issue that can arise in operating sessions is coupler height, and of course the ancillary problems of the Kadee trip pin height, and sticky knuckle springs. These of course should be checked long before an op session, but things can go wrong. I’ve had couplers exhibit a brand-new droop in an operating session, and fixed it by just tightening the screw in the coupler box lid!

About the sticky knuckle springs, I have long known that when I operate any of the freight cars I inherited from my late friend Richard Hendrickson, I have to double-check coupler operation. Richard never had an operating layout, so details like this understandably escaped him. He was quite meticulous about coupler height, but a fair number of his couplers, properly painted very dark brown, did get paint into the knuckle pivot pin, easily remedied with a drop of paint thinner onto that knuckle pin. (For background on Richard, for who who didn’t know him, see: https://modelingthesp.blogspot.com/2014/07/in-memoriam-richard-hendrickson.html .) He passed away just ten years ago.

Another point on couplers: over the years, I have become accustomed to one of the banes of the rolling stock operator: the press-in coupler box lid. I realized this is an economy for manufacturers, just mold the box lid with a pin to fit into a hole in the coupler pivot peg in the box. And it is also quick and easy to assemble when building a kit. Many of the Proto2000 kits had this kind of design: coupler box at left, underside of lid at right.

Sooner or later, naturally, that peg in the hole manages to loosen or completely separate. I hate to glue it, in case coupler replacement or repair ever becomes necessary, so I would usually drill out the hole in the box, drill the lid centered on where the peg was removed, and tap both for 2-56. 

I do something similar with InterMountain cars, some of which have a clunky coupler box. Here again, drilling and tapping for 2-56 works (as I showed earlier: https://modelingthesp.blogspot.com/2022/01/improving-freight-car-part-2.html ), but this is a good example of where a Kadee box might be as easy, and perhaps a somewhat better final result.

An even worse design is the old Athearn “Blue Box” tank cars, in which the cover plate for the coupler box was pressed into place. This was durable for months at most. Below you see this cover plate from underneath, and what friction there is, is right at the end sill.

Since that tank car is a good starting point for most of Southern Pacific’s tank car fleet in my modeling year of 1953, I have upgraded a fair number of them, and have a method for fixing the coupler pockets (shown in this post: http://modelingthesp.blogspot.com/2019/05/fixing-athearn-tank-car-coupler-pockets.html ). 

Finally, in an operating sessions a few months back, I noticed that one of my passenger cars was kind of “limping” along the track.  The train returned to staging all right, and after the session I pulled out the car to take a look. The metal “tire” on one of the plastic wheels had become separated, and had slipped to one side. I considered trying to glue it back in position, but instead replaced all the wheelsets for the entire car. (Like many passenger car models, these were 33-inch wheels, not the prototype’s 36-inch wheels.)

All these things are ongoing maintenance issues, and as every experienced layout operator knows, any piece of rolling stock can, at any time, suddenly exhibit a new problem. I try to be proactive on these and watch for them in setting up operating sessions, but naturally some come to light in the relatively intensive use of rolling stock during sessions. I have learned not to be surprised.

Tony Thompson

Trackwork wars, Part 13

I'm pretty much done with the previous challenges described in this series, but one more interesting one did surface during my last operating session. There’s an old saying, that using a layout inevitably breaks things. Well, this was another demonstration of that adage. (For previous series posts, see for example: https://modelingthesp.blogspot.com/2024/04/trackwork-wars-part-12.html ). I’ll describe the issue because it was not a simple problem.

The interesting aspect of this particular problem is that it involves several different things. First, it’s a really old switch, dating back at least 40 years on the layout. (It’s one of the Russ Simpson “Scale Model Railroad Trackwork” No. 5 switches, wonderful components, and if I had managed to buy more of them, I would have used them throughout the layout. The point rails are all in one piece, from frog to throw bar.) 

Second point, I had had problems years ago with electrical performance of this particular switch, which relies on the contact between point rails and stock rails. I had solved this many years ago, by adding the contacts of a micro-switch under the layout with an operating wire up through the layout and into the hole in the center of the throw bar. Movement of the points moves the wire, which moves the contacts to the appropriate connection.

In the photo below, the switch point rails can be seen to be joined by a brass strip, to which they are soldered. In the center is a rivet which attached the brass strip to a plastic throw bar underneath everything. Or there was. It broke at the rivet, and the two pieces are lying parallel to the track, just above the points. The throw bar in turn has a hole at one end (at left in the view below), which was the connection to the (un-mounted) Bitter Creek ground throw which is at upper photo center.

My first shot at fixing this was to try and glue the left half of the throw bar (as you see it above, at left), back into place under the brass connector strip. This worked, but didn’t survive many throws. It was clear I needed to make an entire new throw bar.

I chose some Evergreen scale 6 x 10-inch styrene strip, and cut a length equal to the original throw bar. I then rounded the corners and drilled two holes, about no. 55, one in the center (to accommodate the wire activating the micro-switch contacts below the layout) and one near the end, for the ground throw. And I painted it black.

It wasn’t easy to slip the new throw bar under the switch points and over the center wire, but I got that done. There was a slight bend in the frame of the Bitter Creek throw, so I temporarily replaced it with a Caboose Industries throw, just to get it back in service.

This works well enough, and for now will remain this way. I was glad to be able to keep the successful electrical arrangement on this switch, while replacing the throw rod. The test will come, of course, when visitors operate through this switch, as they will repeatedly for almost any switching task at Shumala. Fingers crossed.

Tony Thompson

Trackwork wars, Part 10

In a recent post, number 9 in my series on this topic, I showed the work done in leveling some track in the area between my layout towns of Ballard and Santa Rosalia (you can read that post at this link: https://modelingthesp.blogspot.com/2024/02/trackwork-wars-part-9.html ). 

But even as that work was being completed, I realized it was not all of the problem. There remains some variability in the track gauge that still can cause derailments, and in a few places the track gauge becomes too tight. Thus this post.

For example, I have used the clear plastic “test car” shown in the previous post (see first paragraph for link), and even with the track leveled, there are still derailment problems. Below you can just see the leading wheel lifting and turning to derail.

Both these switches have given trouble for some time. The one at left in the photo below is a Peco, and like other Peco switches I have, it has evidently experienced shrinkage in its plastic parts, and the track gauge is now too tight. I corrected this once before, by filing the inside of the rail head. By now I’m not too enthused about continuing with that, as I have had to do the same with two other Peco switches on the layout, and it’s an apparently endless task. At least the other two don’t cause derailments after their gauge is corrected.

[By the way, I contacted the Peco “help” service about this shrinkage. Amazing how naive I was, even at my age: I thought they might apologize for the defect, might even send me a replacement. But in fact, Peco replied that they “had never heard of anyone experiencing shrinkage in a Peco switch,” though I have three different Pecos that have done this, and others around the U.S. have told me the same. Makes me take a deep breath before purchasing more Peco switches.]

Next I began to measure the individual rails in the two switches, since some appeared to perhaps be bent. I soon found that indeed there were bent rails, bent vertically, not horizontally, which is less convenient to fix (perhaps the result of an earlier derailment). At first I began to try and straighten them, which wasn’t going well, when it came to me: “What am I doing? Replace the bloody things!”

My first step, in which I admit I took pleasure, was to remove the annoying Peco switch. Once it was separated from the other track, I felt better already.

Over at the right edge, you can see the existing curved switch, and just above it, a new switch, one I had in stock, but not one that would fit.

I spent some time shopping for new switches, and reading a couple of email lists for comments about the various switches on the market. For the curved turnout at the right of these photos of the area (see middle photo, above), it looked like the dimensions of the relatively new Walthers line of “DCC friendly” switches would fit. 

For the other switch, a left-hand #6, I am still looking at options. The Walthers switch of this kind has a very straight diverging route beyond the frog, which I don’t think will work in my location. There are a couple of other manufacturers of switches that are options.

It would have been nice if these new switches could be located with throw bars exactly where their predecessors were located. But I realize that isn’t likely, so probably the entire switch machine locations (see photo above) will have to be moved, including digging up the buried tubes that carry the activating wires. That’s just to be expected as part of the project.

Now I just need to get the new switches in house and start restoration. Progress reports later.

Tony Thompson

Trackwork wars, Part 9

From time to time, I document some of the maintenance and upgrade work done on my layout. The most elusive solutions and most persistent problems seem to be trackwork and electrical ones, thus the names of a series of posts about each, under the “wars” title. The “electrical” series is the longer, but as the present post demonstrates, I have my share of trackwork problems too. 

The previous post in this series,though not a logical predecessor as it was in an entirely different part of the layout, did focus on track leveling issues (see that post at: https://modelingthesp.blogspot.com/2023/12/trackwork-wars-part-8.html ). That was very much an issue in the area to be discussed in the present post, which is shown below.

This is the area where the layout transitions from the town of Ballard, to the left of the creek, to Santa Rosalia, at the right of the creek. It has been troublesome for some locomotives in several previous operating sessions, but recently has become worse. 

The building with the gray roof, against the backdrop, is the site for the MP1 switch machines powering the adjacent switches. (For a discussion of the MP1 machine, see: https://modelingthesp.blogspot.com/2019/02/powering-turnouts.html ). With that building removed, the MP1’s are visible (below). I’ve been pleased with these linear-motion switch machines, following their installation (see: https://modelingthesp.blogspot.com/2023/03/powering-few-more-switches-part-2.html ). It was essential to use surface-mounted switch machines in this area because there is trackage right under it.

Note in the above photo the small level on the track at left. I quickly discovered considerable variations in track level over short distances, an excellent arrangement to cause derailments. Even this simple tool can easily reveal the level differences that are causing trouble, as you see below. The area depicted in both photos is a close-up of the area shown above, one photo for each switch.

This sharp difference in level over a short distance has to be corrected. I used white styrene (HO scale 1 x 10-inch strip) to cut shims, and try them out under the track to get closer to cross-level throughout. Below is a first cut at these corrections. They are not final, but closer to what is needed.

The next step was to try and use the transparent “test car” to check consistency in the track leveling. One attempt is shown below. But this is not a very effective test, because the truck mounting is not very stable against tilting. One can carefully level the car, and try to gently move it over the track to be tested; but even the slightest of bumps will change the tilt of the car. Something better was needed.

My next test was to bring one of my steam locomotives to the area, and slowly and rapidly back through and then go forward through, the affected area. After all, this is the real goal of the track project, to avoid derailments. This is shown below. Note that the trackage being tested is all unballasted, which won’t change until the track problems are at least close to “fixed.”

Much of the previous problem, and at the usual derailment location, was remedied. But one position of the switch to the right in the above photo still gave some derailments. So further work is needed beyond the leveling that was described above. I will return to this problem.

The work so far seemed successful, though more is needed, and more thorough testing. Of course, the real test, as any layout owner knows, is an operating session with visitors, ideally ones you want to  impress; but that will have to wait. Right now, things are certainly improved, though I need to continue to experiment, modify, and of course, test and test . . .

Tony Thompson

Trackwork wars, Part 8

Over the years, my maintenance issues with my layout have involved many things, but the two most frustrating have been electrical (spawning the name “electrical wars” for posts about them), and to a much lesser extent, trackwork (thus the obvious counterpart, “trackwork wars”). This is another of the latter topics, interestingly in about the same area as the previous such post (see it at: https://modelingthesp.blogspot.com/2023/10/trackwork-wars-part-7.html ) but a different issue.

Below you see the obvious dip in the track in the area of the entrance switch into my layout area of East Shumala. This was discovered by the usual method, derailments during an operating session (for a description of the session, not the problem, see: https://modelingthesp.blogspot.com/2023/12/december-operating-session.html ). I amused some of the visiting operators, when this dip was discovered, by exclaiming “It’s a new dip!” But I was correct; this wasn’t evident six months ago.

But in fact the problem is not only at this location. Moving to the right of the above photo, it was evident that though the main line through Shumala is level, the switch diverging toward East Shumala from the main line is downhill over a longer area that suggested in the photo above. So a wider area needed to be corrected.

I have a way of correcting dips, as I showed in the previous post (link in the first paragraph at the top of this post). I force a putty knife into the track support (installed too long ago to be sure, but I suspect Homasote) under the area that needs to be raised. This is near but not the same place as the area I corrected in that previous post (top of post).

With an opening created, I slide in some pieces of Evergreen styrene strip, 0.040 x 0.125 inches (HO scale 4 x 12), about an inch long, into the opening where the putty knife was.

As you see above, these were a little too long, and the protruding ends were cut off. Then a check with my steel ruler showed that there was no longer a dip in the track. In the photo below, the rail joint is at the 10-3/4-inch mark on the ruler, and there is no discernible dip any longer. And the mainline track is also raised to be level, correcting what is shown in the second photo from the top of this post.

The very ends of the styrene strips are evident above, but these will be covered with ballast in my upcoming tour of the layout to correct innumerable areas where scenic ground cover needs to be added or renewed.

With this track corrections, repeated switching moves revealed no derailments (of course, as every layout owner knows, bringing in guests may reveal a different result). I realize that this and other track subsidence problems probably indicate that my sub-roadbed or track boards may have shrunk, warped or shifted in some way, but rather than tear up the layout down to the framing to fix things from the bottom up, I will continue to make these kinds of “corrections” to the track.

Tony Thompson