Dan’s Train Blog

Corte Madera Creek trestle. Facing east, north is to the left.

One of the clearest remaining artifacts of the Northwestern Pacific Railroad in southern Marin County is the Corte Madera Creek trestle and bascule span.

I’ve always been attracted to the railroad-to-water interface and this captures a lot of that charm and has a lot of small elements that could be incorporated into a layout.

Built in their current form in 1923, these were designeted by the railroad as two bridges: the North and South Corte Madera Creek approaches and both were specified by the railroad as structure number 14.61 with a combined length of 1,252 feet.

The bridge was originally two side-by-side bridges (the trestle is one track but the bascule may be seen to be two-track) for the orginal dual track main line but was single track for as long as I can recall, back through the 1970s.

I assumed the number 14.61 referred to miles from either Tiburon (SF&NP mileposts) or maybe Sausalito (NPC or NS mileposts) but this location is about 5.6 rail miles from Tiburon and 8.5 rail miles from Sausalito so I’m stumped. The mystery was solved when I found that Milepost 0.0 is the San Francisco Ferry Building, south across the bay so the 14.61 signifies “miles from San Francisco.”

Google Earth kmz file to the location

The bridges are largely intact other than the recent removal of the rails and 165 feet of the north end that crossed East Sir Francis Drake Blvd — thanks to damage caused by an idiot colliding with the bridge in a too-tall truck.

There is a foot/bike path nearby which is a nice spot to take pictures. The bridge is climbing a short sharp grade leading up into the tunnel number 3 on the way to San Rafael.

Almost the same view in 1949 with NWP 178 and leased SP 2336.

Note the galvanized steel caps on the piles. This is where the truck-damaged section of the bridge was cut away.

I recently mentioned to my wife that one of the books that got me interested in small railroads as a child was Dorothy Newell Deane’s 1960 book Sierra Railway, which I found in my grandparents’ library as a child. That original book got lost but it got me thinking so I searched at Amazon and several small booksellers were selling copies for various prices. I chose one seller because they were nearby – in Sacramento.

The book arrived promptly (I’ve had excellent luck buying used books through Amazon). It’s a first-edition and in condition as described by the seller.

Then I look inside and see the previous owner has written his name: T. Wurm.

T. Wurm, Ted Wurm? Ted Wurm is (was?) a prolific author of many railroad books with most being written in the 1950s and 60s focusing on the history of small western railroads. 

Link: Search for Ted Wurm books at Amazon

I have several books he wrote but I never expected to have one of his personal copies.

Small, nimble on the rails and with beautiful proportions, the classic 4-4-0 “American” has always been one of my favorite engine types. As I mentioned in my last post, the Northwestern Pacific Railroad was powered almost exclusively by small 4-4-0 and 4-6-0 engines. This is one of the great things about modeling the NWP on the limited size of a model railroad since small engines help create the illusion of greater layout size and mainline distance.

Exact RTR (ready-to-run) models of NWP engines are not available. Consistent with my overall modeling philosophy (plausible but free-lanced), I’m going to examine the engines of the NWP and build engines for my layout that are consistent with the spirit of the prototype. My goal is to build plausible and reasonable, while not exact, models. Understanding the prototype well enough to build things and make decisions consistent with the way the builders and mechanics of the NWP did things is what I enjoy.

The Americans on the NWP in the 1920s fell into two broad groups: old engines built in the 1870s and 1880s — some twelve engines and a “new” group of seven built between 1904 and 1914.

The Old Engines

By the 20s, the older 4-4-0s had been in service between 40 and 50 years and had been significantly updated and altered from their as-built appearance. As built the engines would have looked much like these shown below:

Grant 4-4-0 1873

Baldwin 4-4-0 1871

Both of these engines are standard “catalog” offerings and are therefore typical engines. Compared to the mechanical standards of the 1920s these engines are missing many pieces of equipment:

1920-29 Standard Equipment:

• Engine brakes
• Knuckle couplers
• Air pumps and associated hardware
• Electric lights, generators and associated equipment
• Oil burning modifications (in the NWP case)

While engines may have left the factory looking pretty similar, railroads would generally shop engines only when something broke or needed to be done to meet new requirements (compatible couplers, air brakes, etc.). Individual engines in their 50 year trek to their 1920 appearance would have been shopped and upgraded on unique schedules. In this way each of the old Americans on the NWP looked quite different from each other by the 20s.

NWP 8 Engine 8 was an 1881 Baldwin product with 63” drivers, 15×24 cylinders and weighed 71,000 lbs. By 1915 it looked like this:

Engine 8 has received minimal modification beyond the standard equipment listed above, a new metal cab, and a new pilot. This is probably not what the engine looked like by the 1920s but I love the proportions of this engine and will likely model it as seen above.

NWP 9 An 1883 Grant product, number 9 had 59” drivers, 16×24 cylinders and an 86,300 lb. engine weight. Number 9 was heavily modified in its lifetime and in the 1920s probably looked something like this 1935 view.

Engine 9 has an entirely new boiler and obviously mismatched pilot truck wheels.

Transition between the Old and New 4-4-0s

Boiler location: In the 20th century as scientific principals were increasingly applied to locomotive engineering, an emphasis grew on firebox design, boiler pressure and superheating. For the classic 4-4-0 (shown in cutaway below) the location of the firebox low between the engine frames severely limited the size of the grate and therefore the amount of boiler horsepower that could be generated.

The solution was to raise the boiler centerline so that the bottom of the firebox was completely above the engine side frames. As early as the 1888 view shown below this techniques came into use. However, while wider than before the firebox is still constrained to fit between the driving wheels.

One of the ultimate limitations on the 4-4-0 design is that increasing the firebox size further was never seen as practical. On more modern engines with different wheel arrangements the boiler was raised even higher so that the firebox and grate could be carried completely above the driving wheels and widened to the width of the engine. NWP 4-6-0 number 181 below shows this kind of configuration.

Extended firebox: Comparing the Baldwin 1871 with the PRR 1888 drawing also note the difference in how far the smoke box (the part of the boiler the smokestack is mounted on) extends forward. To hopefully enhance complete combustion, the “extended” smoke box became common (but not universal) on new and rebuilt engines.

Superheating: Superheaters were added to locomotives by changing the boiler design such that steam lines were fed back into widened fire-tubes in the boiler increasing the temperature of the steam and thereby increasing the amount of work the steam could do. This reduced fuel and water consumption for a given amount of power produced. On an old engine superheating is typically only signified by the change from slide valves to piston valves .

Variously updated 4-4-0s on the NWP in the 1920s

This is not a complete breakdown and I picked the following engines because I find them the most interesting.

NWP 10 was a twin sister engine to number 9 (Grant numbers 1665, 1664, respectively) but by 1920 appeared highly modified and updated.

Fully updated with all the modern (1920s) conveniences. Slide valves (superheated), new boiler, air and electrical equipment.

NWP 17 was a Rogers 1889 product with 63” drivers, 17×24 cylinders, and 87,300 lb. engine weight.

In this 1927 view the engine appears to still have its original boiler since the steam dome is old-style location directly over the firebox and the smoke box is not extended forward. The engine has air and electrical equipment.

NWP 20 was a Rogers 1884 product (older than 17 above) with 62” drivers, 18×24 cylinders and 93,800 lb. weight.

In this 1923 photo the fluted domes on number 20 might lead you to think that this is the original boiler. However, my best guess is that the boiler was added around 1917 and the old domes were apparently reused.

NWP 21 was a Baldwin 1904 product with 69” drivers, 18×24 cylinders, and 117,350 lb. weight.

What a difference a few years makes! Number 21 is much heavier than the older engines and in this 1936 photo looks quite modern with the exception of the slide valves.

NWP 22 was a 1908 American product with 69” drivers, 18×24 cylinders, and 128,500 lb. engine weight.

Fairly modern engines but still with slide valves in this 1931 view so presumably not superheated.

NWP 52 was one of the last batch of 4-4-0s purchased by the NWP in 1914. These had 63” drivers, 19×26 cylinders and a hefty 158,500 lb. engine weight.

These engines were more than twice the weight of old number 8. Note the modern piston valves and Walschaerts valve gear.

Southern Pacific 4-4-0s

For comparison and more modeling ideas I have some photos of 4-4-0s from the Southern Pacific since SP was one of the NWPs corporate parents and some mechanical influences are evident.

SP 1421 is shown in 1924. The thing I like is the headlight moved to the center of the smoke box front per SP practice.

SP 1358 is shown in 1923 and other than air and electrical is looking pretty old fashioned indeed. The relatively un-altered appearance of this engine is my justification for carrying forward NWP 8′s ultra-cute 1915 appearance forward to the 20′s.

The Northwestern Pacific Railroad was an amalgamation of some 60 different railroad companies and was the result of a business agreement between the Santa Fe and Southern Pacific railroads to jointly own and run one railroad through a rugged and sparsely populated region of northern California. The NWP’s 300 mile route ended up full of sharp curves, bridges, tunnels, and short steep grades.

Despite the railroad’s diverse beginnings the motive power roster was remarkably simple in the 1920’s and 4-4-0 and 4-6-0 locomotives provided nearly all mainline power. The only trend through this period is as 4-4-0’s built in the 1880’s wore out they were retired while 4-6-0’s were purchased and maintained.

The chart below shows the numbers of different engine types in this period. Note that the NWP had five 0-6-0 switchers and five Moguls (2-6-0) in this period so their lines overlap.

Averaged over the 1920s, here is a pie chart of the different engine types. Americans and Ten-wheelers clearly dominate.

On my NWP I plan on having lots of 4-4-0s and 4-6-0s but I’ll also have a 2-10-0 or two (surely those cheap Russian decapods would have been attractive?), some 2-8-0s and one small 2-8-2.

.

Dave Nelson made a good comment on Part 1 of this series:

he wrote

Three observations

1. When comparing page counts how do you factor in Great Model Railroads, Model Railroad Planning, and other “special” issues that didn’t exist at one time? Arguably MR is now a 14 or is it 15 issue a year magazine now.

2. I would also point out that using the August issue as comparison is a bit odd — I bet that has the lowest news stand sale of any issue (since I suspect less model railroading is done that month) and thus they probably tend not to put their best articles in that issue.

3. Third observation is that had I ranked issues years ago, before beginning my layout, I would have placed far less value on articles about benchwork, tracklaying, wiring, yard design etc than I would now. Soon I will be deeply involved in structures and I imagine my ranking of articles will change once again. Just a point
   Dave Nelson

These are good points and bear expanding on:

Page counts and special issues: No, I did not include the new special issues in the page/cost comparisons but these special issues are not part of the 12-issue annual subscription. Even subscribers must pay extra for them. I might feel better about my subscription dollars if MR spread the content in these issue into the 12 issues through the year. No doubt Kalmbach would need to charge more but at the same time the quality of the magazine would be improved.

Why look at only August? I agree it is probably the low mark of the year. People tend to be on vacation in July and August. However, this should be true over all 40 years I looked at. If I compared December issues to August issues that would obviously be a problem. Despite all that, there were some really good August issues! Really it was random timing that led me to choose August — I had just recieved my August 2006 issue when I started the series.

Why look at only one month of the year? This review ended up being a LOT of work just looking at 40 issues. There’s no way I could have done a resonable job including more months and I was interested in including as many years as possible.

Dave’s last point: that what constitutes a “good” article is changable and prejudiced by what you are interested in TODAY. I absolutely agree. That’s why I gave up on ever reducing my MR collection to a file collection of “just articles I like.” I tried that once and almost immediately regretted it and had to spend a lot of time and $$ on eBay getting the whole issues back. As far as affecting how I reviewed the issues? Obviously the reviews of the issues are my personal opinions.

I have been feeling for many years that the quality of the magazine has declined. I was interested in whether I would find that old issues were bad too, in which case MY standards had changed, or whether I really liked those issues better. For my part, I found a real trend downward in quality in MR.

However, one thing that Dave wrote REALLY got me thinking:  those “special” issues. I have bought several of them over the years and they have good material. If MR included all that great content — and yes, charged more – I would very likely feel better about the magazine.

40 Years of August in Model Railroader – Part 1

40 Years of August in Model Railroader – Part 2

40 Years of August in Model Railroader – Part 3

40 Years of August in Model Railroader – Part 4

40 Years of August in Model Railroader – Part 5

40 Years of August in Model Railroader – Part 5½

40 Years of August in Model Railroader – Part 6

40 Years of August in Model Railroader – Part 7

40 Years of August in Model Railroader – Part 8

40 Years of August in Model Railroader – Part 9

Okay, I admit it; I paid in when Model Railroader sent me an unsolicited copy of the first issue of their “Dream Plan Build” video series. Hey they included “collectible” coins too!

I saw this series as Model Railroader (MR) working really hard to remain relevant in a web age and changing modeler demographics that they do not seem to have a clue how to handle. I liked the first one enough to cough up the $24.90 and see how they go.

What I liked:

There is a fair amount of content on each disk, something like an hour and a half to an hour and forty-five minutes each sectioned into 12-16 articles.

I liked the modeling clinics. However, like the magazine, the emphasis remains on the beginner.

I liked the layout tours. I always like to see what other people have built. As long as it’s scale.

What I did not like:

Uck. The modeling clinics where the work ended up looking bad. Come on guys, do it over until it looks good! Video is really kind to most model work so it has to be really shoddy to look bad on video.

Argh. The layout tours of Lionel sets with scenery. I dare you: find one where they do not say “reliving a childhood dream…”  Scale railroading is a rejection of the “let’s see how fast the train can go” world of Lionel based layouts.

Snooze. The prototype tours. I model the 1920’s. I am not really interested diesel engines trundling around.

Recycled. The production values, style, and the sections look a WHOLE LOT like the “Tracks Ahead” series seen occasionally on PBS stations. Can you say “leftovers”?

Conclusion:

I wish Model Railroader luck but after a bit over a year and seven DVDs I’m not going to buy any more.

Yes, I did wait until I filled the little coin holder before I quit.

Yes, I’m weak.

Sketching is a really important part of model building and design. Some of my best ideas come to me while killing time in meetings or classes that are not keeping or needing my attention. Sad but true.

This is a boat I sketched for a modeling idea about a small river steamer. I have a 16” hull under construction and this is definitely my favorite superstructure outline yet. I’ll use 1:35 scale and take advantage of all the military miniatures details available.

This design is somewhat inspired by the MARIN.

A very long seminar was a good place to do some drawings of my waterfront town of Tiburbon. Here is a rough idea about the ferryboat loading trestle.

This drawing is hard to read but if you compare to the real location on the layout:

An early drawing of Crazy Horse Canyon bridge.

This bridge and canyon has been worrying me but this initial sketch let me establish how things would look. I made a more detailed drawing in this post and determined I would only need three full towers instead of the four shown above.

I changed the shape of the mountain significantly to be more like the planning model.

Sometimes I do a full-on high quality drawing like this one of an NWP picnic car based on a photo.

The final drawing ends up a composite of the pencil drawing and digital drawing since I continue the finer detailing on my computer using a Wacom stylus pad.

This is an idea of a typical building in Tiburbon. Since there is almost no dry land beyond the roadway the buildings will all be built over the water.

I found an ad somewhere for this magazine Model Railroad News (MRN) and went to their website where I signed up for their “3 free issues” offer. MRN has been published since 1995 so while it was new to me it’s not really a new magazine. 

For this review I looked over their “About MRN” page and decided that this part of their description most accurately describes what Model Railroad News does:

“Model Railroad News provides timely, in-depth coverage of new products, model railroading news, and includes highly regarded product reviews.”

MRN has chosen a pretty tight focus and within this focus I think they do a good job. They do not do “how to build my first 4×8 layout” or “buying my first air brush.” What you find here is lots of news about what manufacturers are doing and the product reviews are detailed and very well photographed.

After reading my three free issues I must agree that MRN’s explicit focus on product reviews and industry news works much better than Model Railroader’s implicit semi-random move in the same direction.

If this sounds interesting to you I recommend you try out the three free issues. I know from corresponding with some people around my “What’s messed up with Model Railroader” series that this magazine could be exactly what they are looking for.