Missouri, Kansas, & Texas Railroad along the Missouri River by Cathead - 1/87 (HO) scale - model railroad with steamboat

[Canute]

I'm with Richard's vote. The tape is quicker to lay out, but it will dry out and curl (been there). Your module looks great.

[kgstakes]

Looks like it's coming along really well.  Your turnout controls, their not tortoise switch machines, so what brand are they?  Are they servos?  Seen them but never used them.  I use Caboose Industries manual switch stand for my switching layout.  Backdrop looks great too.  Bet you can't wait to get trains running 🙂.

 

Keep up the great work and look forward to more!!

Edited June 16 by kgstakes

[Cathead]

7 hours ago, Rik Thistle said:

The electrical snippers give everthing scale....I didn't realise the scenery was smaller than I thought....very impressive.

I hadn't really thought about whether or not I was providing a sense of scale. Glad that happened by accident! The whole scene is 11 feet long if that helps people, with a depth of about 2 feet from fascia to backdrop.

Edited June 16 by Cathead

[Cathead]

3 hours ago, Canute said:

I'm with Richard's vote. The tape is quicker to lay out, but it will dry out and curl (been there). Your module looks great.

My leaning was also the painted version, both for permanence and appearance (I think the thicker lines look a little child-like and overdone). As Rik said, harder to get right in the first place but worth it in the long run. And I could always paint wider stripes but I like the thin ones.

 

2 hours ago, kgstakes said:

Looks like it's coming along really well.  Your turnout controls, their not tortoise switch machines, so what brand are they?  Are they servos?  Seen them but never used them.  I use Caboose Industries manual switch stand for my switching layout.  Backdrop looks great too.  Bet you can't wait to get trains running 🙂.

I'm using the turnout control system made by Walthers. I've used the Caboose manual throws before but I'm not a big fan of their out-of-scale appearance and I just felt they weren't entirely reliable. Plus, the fascia controls give operators a better sense of how routes are lined, potentially avoiding mistakes. Especially on something with a through-running mainline as opposed to a switching layout where the manual controls make more sense.

 

I should note that the backdrop still isn't done, I need to do some additional sky painting. But I do like how the background hills and bluffs came out.

[Cathead]

Yesterday featured a landmark occurrence: the first movement of a train on this project:

 

OK, fine, it was just a quick electrical test of the first bits of track laid. But it was still a very exciting moment! This locomotive is sound-equipped, and the huffing of exhaust along with a triumphant whistle blast brought Mrs. Cathead in to see what was going on. Here's a broader view:

I really hate doing electrical work, it's easily my least favorite thing about model railroading. But it needs to be done so I'm doing it. I already showed the turnout controls; another step was to install the panels where locomotive throttles plug in. These involve drilling out rough holes in the fascia to accomodate the circuitry behind these panels, them screwing them in place. You'll also notice that the left-hand track diagram is now painted instead of taped, as agreed on by the community.

 

I then installed throttle holsters as well. So now the front-facing part of the electrical work is done, and it's time to start doing all the fiddly under-layout wiring along with additional tracklaying. I've already found something I need to troubleshoot and hope I can figure out. Did I mention that I hate electrical work? But the good news is that it directly leads to some really fun stuff (operating trains). 

 

A few more status shots. It really is starting to look "official" with the fascia infrastructure near completion.

And one final shot down the tracks:

Edited June 22 by Cathead

[Keith Black]

55 minutes ago, Cathead said:

This locomotive is sound-equipped, and the huffing of exhaust along with a triumphant whistle blast brought Mrs. Cathead in to see what was going on.

It's really coming together well, Eric. At some point I hope we'll get an audio clip. 

[Cathead]

I continued on track-laying and wiring for part of today. Here's what the wiring under the two west-end turnouts looks like. It's not as scary or chaotic as it seems, like wires are actually neatly bundled together and nothing's soldered, meaning it's easy to adjust if needed. Thick black and red wires are the bus wires that carry main track power, smaller wires branching off from them carry power to individual track feeders, and yellow/brown/orange wires are the control wires for the turnouts. This is by far the most complicated section because of the turnouts and the throttle panel.

Here's a detail of track laying. I lay a thin smear of glue down on the roadbed, then use these nifty metal track spacers to set consistent curves or straight runs; these hold the flexible track in the right shape while I use a few small spikes to hold the track down until the glue dries.

 

And the really cool news is that the track-laying and wiring are all done! After a small amount of trouble-shooting, everything appears to work smoothly and I can operate all across the layout. It's super-exciting. In celebration, here are some broader context shots with more trains staged for appearance.

 

It's so cool to reach this stage. It'll be back to scenery for a while now, but I can actually run trains!

 

5 hours ago, Keith Black said:

It's really coming together well, Eric. At some point I hope we'll get an audio clip. 

 

I don't think we can upload video or audio clips directly to MSW, and I don't really want to start posting layout stuff to third-party sites like YouTube. So I'm not sure if I can do that. I do agree I'd love you all to see and hear the actual operation, it adds so much. I'll give this some thought, there may be a solution down the road.

 

Thanks to all of you for helping me get to this point!

 

EDIT: I forgot to add this image, which is a first rough take on recreating the historic photo that inspired this whole project. Pretty cool!

The actual location of the real shot is actually west of the tunnel (layout left), so it'll appear if/when I extend this to the next module. The layout shot is actually along the bluffs in the background of the historic shot, just east (layout right) of Rocheport. But it's close enough!

Edited June 22 by Cathead

[kgstakes]

Looking great!!  Love DCC and sound locomotives!!

 

 Keep up the great work!!

[Canute]

Really like this scene. And your shelf on the fascia. Very important for operations. Having to put car cards on the tracks while switching is very distracting. Looks very good.

[Cathead]

11 hours ago, kgstakes said:

Looking great!!  Love DCC and sound locomotives!!

 

Me, too, though I kinda can't wait until the next revolution comes and locomotives become self-contained with battery power. I'd be thrilled to eliminate all track wiring. Sound does add an extraordinary level of immersive realism.

 

28 minutes ago, Canute said:

And your shelf on the fascia. Very important for operations. Having to put car cards on the tracks while switching is very distracting

Yeah, the car card boxes will be right at that shelf for easy use. This way this scene is designed, it's all but impossible (or at least highly inadvisable) for any paperwork to get put on the layout because the tracks are set back a bit with scenery in the foreground. There will also be a track diagram with spotting locations labeled, I'm working on developing that now. That'll be a future post.

[Canute]

Excellent writeup on building/growing your layout. 👍

 

Dead rail is the thing for the garden railway crowd. Our club garden setup is mostly that nowadays, with a few live steamers in the mix, too. Batteries need to shrink a lot for HO, but I can see the O scale guys doing it. Not sure about the tin-plate folks. I need to talk to my American Flyer guy.

[Cathead]

Here's a bit of fun historical background. I was finally able to make a trip to the State Historical Society research center, where they have all sorts of cool stuff. The item I was after, which I'd perused before but not taken detailed notes from, was this:

This is a thick volume, published by the railroad, that lists summaries of every town along its entire system covering Missouri, Kansas, Texas, Oklahoma, and Louisiana. These summaries include population, primary industries, descriptions of the surrounding country and its agriculture, and so on. The volume then goes on to list, in exhaustive detail, every business or businessman having a relationship with the railroad in an extraordinary variety of classifications. For example:

That last one cracks me up. Language is always changing.

 

So I was able to slowly go through the entire volume and note down every business that dealt with the railroad in my focus towns like New Franklin and Rocheport. Here's a summary of the businesses operating in Rocheport in 1912 that the railroad felt were worth listing in its business directory as shippers or receivers, curated for the entries I felt were most relevant. Yes, I'm focusing on 1900 instead, but this is the only year the research library has and it's close enough for my purposes.

• Hotels
  • Grossman Hotel
• Agricultural implement, vehicle and wagon manufacturers and dealers
  • W.W. Scobbee
• Apple and potato dealers, buyers, shippers, and growers
  • George Roberts, apple grower & shipper
  • C.D. Hill, "
  • C.C. Bell, "
  • H.J. Fieschman, "
  • Luther Grigsby, "
  • Sid Challies, "
  • L. Torbitt, "
  • C.S. Jenkins, "
• Coal & wood dealers
  • T.J. Canole
• Drug dealers
  • B.F. Dimitt
  • E.H. Chinn
• General merchandise dealers
  • E. Inman
  • J.B. Challis
  • H.R. Harris
• Grain Elevators, flour, feed, corn, grist and rice mills
  • Rocheport Roller Mills, flour, 125 bbls daily
  • Rocheport Elevator, 10,000 bu
• Hardware and mill supplies
  • F.E. Bysfield
• Hay and alfalfa dealers and shippers
  • T.J. Canole
• Lumber
  • F.E. Bysfield
• Stock yards and livestock dealers and shippers
  • Basque & McMillan
  • Rapp & Little
  • D.C. Steckdaub

 

Note some of the interesting overlaps: TJ Canole is both a wood/coal dealer AND a hay/alfalfa dealer. This is pretty fun, since when I was first trying to figure out what that giant hay barn was, I thought it might be a lumber yard. It may still double as a fuel dealer and that means I can spot cars of coal there (Missouri has several major coal mining regions that were quite active in this era, including a major field along the MK&T mainline in SW Missouri). Also noted that FE Bysfield is listed under both hardware and lumber; that's also a pretty sensible combination.

 

The sheer amount of independent businesses in a town of 434 is fascinating. Not to mention the far more diverse agriculture. Nine independent growers and shippers of apples from a town that size! I knew this area was once vibrant with orchards but even so that's a vivid picture. I'm strongly resisting the urge to get political here with regards to the decline in small towns, manufacturing, and independent communities and the resulting socio-economic problems. 

 

So all this is very interesting if you're a complete local history nerd, but why is it relevant to this modeling project? Two primary reasons.

 

(1) It lets me use real names for local businesses. I can now call it the Rocheport Elevator (creative name, I know) and put a sign for TJ Canole, hay dealer, on the larger barn wall. I can give the commercial buildings in town the names of real enterprises. It adds a layer of realism and context that I think is pretty neat.

 

(2) It makes operating sessions more interesting. Having all these names for local shippers lets me set up specific orders for cars. For example, maybe one set of stock cars sent to the stockyard is for a consignment being shipped by Basque & McMillan to one destination, while another set of cars is for Rapp & Little being sent to a different destination (for example, Kansas City vs St Louis, both of which had major meatpacking establishments), instead of just "two stock cars". I can have different boxcars spotted to be loaded with apples from different farms being sent to different destinations. I can have shipments for a given merchandise or implement dealer set out, rather than just "spot boxcar 123 on track 1 loaded with general freight". Operators switching in Rocheport (or anywhere else) will have a much richer sense of what the railroad is doing there, and that's part of the joy of modeling railroading, the ability to really recreate the actions (not just the look) of a setting.

 

Another aspect of (2) is the value of planning a model railroad based on real settings. I laid out my version of Rocheport based on the actual track arrangements and what I could see in contemporary photographs. For example, there's only one siding and only two physical destinations for freight cars on that siding (the stockyards and the hay/grain complex). Model railroaders building something more freelanced would want more physical industries in a scene this size, and would be adding factories and other sidings and so on. I stuck with what I could see. And the reward is the evidence that Rocheport DID have a lot of other industries going, it's just that most of them didn't have specific loading points. I left room in my track plan for two spots where freight cars can be spotted for general loading/unloading (called "team tracks", since traditionally a wagon drawn by a horse team would pull up there, and still called that today even when served by modern trucks). I didn't have a specific plan for what would ship to/from these points, I just felt certain they'd be needed. And now I have a massive list of specific businesses that would be using those team track points, from outbound apple shipments to inbound farm equipment. It just makes the whole setting so much more vibrant.

 

In a future post I'll talk more about model railroad operations but this is enough writing for one post. I think it's some pretty cool context and maybe you will, too.

 

 

 

[Cathead]

Here's a quick update on an upgrade. I finally made time to properly finish the backdrop. Although I did kind of like the bland threatening overcast look of the base sky color, I had planned on a different look. Some of my favorite Missouri winter days are those with clear skies but a haze of high clouds portending a change in the weather, like these reference photos from the Rocheport area in January:

And here's a before-and-after pair going from the background to the finished sky:

 

Thoughts? I'm trying to decide (a) how well it matches the reference photos and (b) whether I do in fact like a more overcast, threatening look. 

 

You'll note that I was historically accurate and did not attempt to recreate contrails...

 

EDIT: Just realized I didn't describe HOW I did this. It's a technique pretty common for model railroaders; for example searching YouTube for something like "paint model railroad backdrop" will get lots of results. Basically I laid down a fresh roller layer of blue paint, then started brushing white in from the bottom, blending the wet paint upward to go from hazy near the horizon to brighter blue higher up. Then I started using brush strokes to develop the elongated hazy cirrus-like clouds, going back over everything with the roller now and then to blend things in. I actually ended up nearly done and then started over, because my first version was too blue and not hazy/cloudy enough. I also made things hard for myself by being over-perfectionist and trying to keep touching things up as the paint got too dry, which makes blending harder.

 

One other thing I did that you shouldn't do, is paint the foreground hills before the background sky. It's a pain to try and blend sky into pre-existing hills; much easier to start from the back and work forward. But that's not what I did and it just made the job a bit harder. You can't see it from the distance of these photos, but I need to go back through and use pastels to blend in the horizon/hill interface a bit. No excuse; I just got ahead of myself in being excited about scenery and didn't take the time to do the sky first. Oh well. I think it came out pretty well.

Edited July 13 by Cathead

[Keith Black]

 That background is beautifully done, Eric. Bravo! 

[FriedClams]

Hey Eric.  First, those are very nice images - especially #1. I love the low angle light of winter and can almost feel how crisp the air is.

 

Secondly, I think you did a great job of representing that sky in your backdrop.

 

2 hours ago, Cathead said:

Thoughts? I'm trying to decide (a) how well it matches the reference photos

 

If anything, I feel the clouds could be a touch whiter, but I suspect that's simply a camera white balance thing.  The blue is spot on.

 

Very nice work and an interesting log.

 

Gary

 

 

[Cathead]

4 hours ago, FriedClams said:

I think you did a great job of representing that sky in your backdrop...If anything, I feel the clouds could be a touch whiter, but I suspect that's simply a camera white balance thing.

Yeah, I think it's the photo color balance. Here are a few closeup shots just to show what this looks like, partly since the camera "lies" from distance. These all have an odd, Mars-like red tint that demonstrates color balance oddities. These also show that, like many things in modeling, a sufficiently close look can ruin the illusion (the clouds look more like paint here) but I'm still pleased with the result. 

I also went through and touched up both the clouds, and the horizon interface with the hills, using pastels to soften some areas and blend sharp boundaries. I don't think you can tell the difference in the photo below but it looks better to me in person.

I brightened this photo; the version below looks a little closer to the in-person view, and also closer to what it might look like when I get the overhead lighting installed.

6 hours ago, Keith Black said:

That background is beautifully done, Eric. Bravo!

Thanks, Keith! And to all of you for the likes, comments, and interest.

[Canute]

Think you hit that nail on the head with the backdrop, Eric. Really like the wispy cirrus clouds. Keep it up!

[FriedClams]

19 hours ago, Cathead said:

Yeah, I think it's the photo color balance. Here are a few closeup shots just to show what this looks like, partly since the camera "lies" from distance.

 

Yes, cameras typically have a difficult time deciding color temperature under artificial lighting when the white balance is set on auto. Sometimes you can get better results setting it manually.  And generally speaking, I have found slightly overexposing an image will provide truer colors. 

 

But anyway, I think your backdrop and those clouds look great.  Fantastic work, Eric!

 

Gary

[Jack12477]

If the camera has a Tungsten/Indoor setting, use it instead of Auto. But if your indoor lighting is 5600K (Kelvin) LEDs, then use the Daylight setting.  If you're an old film guy like me and have a set of the old Kodak Gray Scale step cards and Color Cards use them to color balance or use an 18% reflective grey card with the white reverse side then use the White side to adjust white balance.  Most indoor lighting is around 3200K

 

From "An old 35mm film photographer" who still has all his old equipment and darkroom.

 

Those last two overall photos look fine. Nice job blending foregroundvwith background. 

Edited July 14 by Jack12477

[Cathead]

LOL, you guys are way ahead of me. I'm just using an iPhone.

[Jack12477]

1 hour ago, Cathead said:

LOL, you guys are way ahead of me. I'm just using an iPhone.

The principle is the same, Eric, regardless of "camera" type. If you have a real camera store close by, ask the owner or senior photo tech to show you how. The Apple Store is staffed with computer geeks not photographers.  

[Cathead]

Thanks for all the feedback and advice!

 

To be clear, I am familiar with the basics of photography and Mrs Cathead is a moderately skilled SLR operator. I just tend to use my iPhone on a day to day basis because frankly, it matches the SLR about 70% of the time and I personally don't enjoy using "real" cameras. I'm actually pretty good about adjusting phone settings to get good results when I want to (I do a lot of nature and landscape photography for both work and pleasure), and I tend to have a good eye for composition. I just don't always fuss with it when I'm doing basic model photography. Maybe (probably?) I should, but I don't. And for what it's worth, the nearest camera store is over 100 miles away!

 

Here's a couple examples of phone photos I'm happy with. First one from a central Missouri prairie, second from a south Missouri glade. Neither has been altered in any way.

I'll hopefully have another update this weekend.

 

[Keith Black]

 That second photo looks like prairie hula dancers. Both are great compositions. 

[Jack12477]

Outstanding photos Eric

[kgstakes]

Everything looks great!!  Do have a question, are you planning on doing any detail on the painted hills or leave them as distant hills, mountains.  A little sponge painting would make it look like there are some vegetation but also not sure if that would be prototypical for the time period you're shooting for.

 

It looks great the way it is, I was just wondering.  Put it this way, it's better than my background on my switching layout.  Mine is just a hazy sky no detail.  You did a nice job on the clouds and don't worry about steaks or any of that.  More foreground details, buildings, etc. and people will be more interested in what is going on in front and not even really notice the backdrop.

 

Keep it coming, the scenery in my mind looks great !!!

 

[Cathead]

10 hours ago, kgstakes said:

Do have a question, are you planning on doing any detail on the painted hills or leave them as distant hills, mountains.  A little sponge painting would make it look like there are some vegetation but also not sure if that would be prototypical for the time period you're shooting for.

 

Great question. I don't plan on sponge painting as that's usually best for simulating foliage, which wouldn't fit for this late fall leaf-off setting. I'm still trying to decide whether I want to try drawing on a blend of bare trees or just leaving it as a hazy background. The challenge I see is that adding that level of detail would be all or nothing; if I can't get it the way I like, I'm going to have to repaint the entire thing because I can't just blend it back in the way I can with the current hills. And perspective/distance would be hard; the details of the trees would have to change from foreground to background or it'd look ridiculous since the way I have the hills painted represents quite a bit of depth (from right behind the foreground to miles away). 

 

In other words, if the backdrop were "flat" and just needed to represent a line of trees right behind the foreground scene, it'd be easier to add more details. But I'm not sure if I can get the perspective right with slowly blending fainter and fainter tree details as the perspective retreats back. You could argue that sponging would work for giving the faraway hills some texture, but I'm not sure how to blend that into more detailed trees in the near-ground. Partly just my artistic limitations since I have no real painting experience.

 

11 hours ago, kgstakes said:

More foreground details, buildings, etc. and people will be more interested in what is going on in front and not even really notice the backdrop.

And this is also why I'm not sure it's worth trying to super-detail the backdrop. It stands out right now, but once the town buildings are filled in, and there's even a handful of bare trees breaking up and obscuring the horizon, I'm not sure the extra detail would really stand out enough to justify the work. I'm less worried about making any still photography look photo-realistic and more about creating a setting that feels real and immersive when you're operating trains in front of it.

 

The other consideration is that the current scene isn't meant to stand alone, but to be part of a larger layout eventually. So whatever design/color/detail style I define for this scene, I'm going to want to extend reasonably consistently to all the other scenes. IF I take this project to its full extent, I'll need at least another 50' of backdrop in addition to the current 11'. So do I want to be drawing/painting on complex tree details for another 50+ feet down the road so all the scenes feel consistent? In other words, whatever I do here defines the "style guide" for the rest of the potential layout, which creates different considerations than if this was just a stand-alone diorama.

 

All of which is why I'm leaning toward leaving well enough alone, but have not actually decided. It's possible I could paint a small test-case panel off-layout reasonably close to the current backdrop style and see if I can create a more detailed style that's effective and efficient. Oh man, what did I just talk myself into when I just spent this whole post talking myself out of doing more work!

[Cathead]

After posting that, I decided to do a little visual demonstration. It's easy to focus on the backdrop when it's the dominant thing you see without the foreground details in place. So I went back to the comparison photos I posted earlier, and added some basic tree silhouettes to give a better sense of how trees will break up the horizon and focus attention on the foreground. This is roughly the plan for major tree location:

And this doesn't include the added effect of buildings, which granted will be no more than 1-2 stories except for the elevator, but will still further focus attention forward.

 

What this suggests to me is that I shouldn't worry about most of the background and horizon, but that I might want to carefully draw in some suggestions of trees along the top of the left-hand bluff line receding away above Moniteau Creek, as there the foreground trees vanish abruptly once the bluff reaches the backdrop. Same for the bluffs on the far right. But that's (a) a much more narrow and doable space and (b) will only be needed in a handful of other places elsewhere on future backdrops.

 

Thoughts?

 

 

[Keith Black]

2 hours ago, Cathead said:

All of which is why I'm leaning toward leaving well enough alone

 Eric, IMO that's the better choice for now, once you have the town and foliage in place then decide. 

[kgstakes]

I agree with you on leaving it alone for now.  You can always go back and add whatever detail or distant "trees" to the background if need.  Buildings will hide a lot of the "horizon" and the viewer will notice more of the buildings and other details than what is actually behind the buildings.

 

This is my background with buildings in front.  You don't see much of the "horizon" or for that matter the "sponge trees" peeking through the foreground trees and buildings. 

 

With a fall scene it is really hard to make it look convincing with painted trees in the background.  I commend you on trying to create a "real scene" from the past.  Hands down it is a challenge.  What ever you do, if you like it, that's really that all that matters.

 

 

 

 

 

[wefalck]

It is always a good idea to hide the line between the background painting and the 3D-foreground with some 'props' such as trees, hedgrows, fences etc.

 

I have seen in museum dioramas that the foreground (cliffs etc.) was continued as fading out relief into background. It is always difficult to convincingly continue a 3D-foreground feature into the background painting. There will be always a sharp edge between them. So it is better to have a clearly outlined feature in front of the background. Somehow, I have the feeling that the cliffs left and right continue as painting on the background - perhaps you can continue with the same style of painting as on the 3D-feature for a few inches and then let the cliff details become increasingly faded?

 

Otherwise, it is coming on indeed very nicely ... I regret that I don't have the space for a railway model.