Print Page | Close Window

Military Railroad

Printed From: Reynauld's
Category: Topics
Forum Name: Military Trains
Forum Description: Everything about armored trains, military railroad operations, and related topics.
URL: http://forum.reynaulds.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=1173
Printed Date: 12 Dec 2017 at 7:50am
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 10.17 - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: Military Railroad
Posted By: skyhawk
Subject: Military Railroad
Date Posted: 26 Oct 2016 at 9:46am

Hello Everyone,

My name is Nick and I've been a model railroader all my life, but this is the first time that I am going to do a military layout. The scale will be HO-2 rail and for now all of my engines are Roco. I have been ordering all my stuff for the layout from Reynauld's, they are helpful and quick. I am in the process of remodeling the room to do my "shelf" layout. The layout itself will be a foot deep by 28 feet long in a "U" shape in a 12 x 12 office that I have in my house. Photos will follow as I am getting the hang of this forum. Looking forward in hanging arouind here with the rest of the members.




-------------
Nick Biangel
USMC



Replies:
Posted By: RRVRR
Date Posted: 26 Oct 2016 at 11:49am
Welcome in the Reynauld's Community.

Roco has a lot to offer in the military section. Faller also had a military line but I think it is out of production and only available sometimes on auction platform's or if a dealer still has some older stock. If you visit my thread here, I build a small German military station with an air field. There are also some other company's that produce military items in HO scale.


-------------
best, Markus


http://forum.reynaulds.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=901&title=rhine-river-valley-railroad-ho" rel="nofollow - my layout - click here


Posted By: skyhawk
Date Posted: 27 Oct 2016 at 7:25am

Markus, I saw the layout that you are building and it is awesome !!! Looks like you have done your homework. Please keep us posted.

Yes, I am planning to get/order most of my military equipment from REI/Artitech whatever else I find that I like/want. The biggest issue is that a lot of the stuff that I want to get are back order and the waiting time is pretty long. But I guess that is the nature of the beast. My layout will be based on WWII in Germany in 1938-39. Since my layout will be small I am going to use only two engines, BR80 Shunting engine and the BR 50. So far the layout will be from point to point.





-------------
Nick Biangel
USMC


Posted By: BR42
Date Posted: 29 Oct 2016 at 4:59am
Hallo Nick:

Welcome to the forum.  Your project sounds like an interesting one.  A caveat though: The locomotives you are thinking about, a pre-war German layout 1038/1039 (the war started 09/01/1939) cannot represented with the BR50.  It was only produced from 1939 onward. The BR 50 would be more at home on freights. 

Since it looks like that your layout represents a secondary line, I would use a BR64 (official a passenger loco) or BR86 (the freight version of the 64 class) tank engine since they were both used on freights and passenger trains.  If you like larger engines, either the BR55 or the BR57 class would do the job.  None of the other biggies like 01, 03, 41, 44, 58 would have been used on the type of line your layout is to represent.  Finally, the war locomotives 42 and 52 can only be used from 1944 and 1943 on respectively.  Their prototypes appeared about 6 months before that, but serious production started only in the year indicated.

Ulrich


Posted By: skyhawk
Date Posted: 30 Oct 2016 at 2:50pm
Ulrich, thank you for the info but as I understand, the BR50 was manufactured in 1939. According to Wikipedia :"This class was procured as part of the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalsozialismus" rel="nofollow - - Second World War ." So I thought it was appropriate for the time. Am I wrong ?? Please clarified this, I appreciate any information since I am new to German railroad.

-------------
Nick Biangel
USMC


Posted By: BR42
Date Posted: 30 Oct 2016 at 6:29pm
Hello Nick:

Yes the 50 was built in 1939, but not really as a preparation for war.  The design dates back to 1937 when it was realized that a replacement for older locos like the BR 57 (Prussian G10) was needed for service on branch lines.  In particular, it does not have any of the simplification which were introduced during the war.  Actually, the only modification from the standard DR practice was the ability to burn inferior coal which was suggested by the military.  Similarly, the 23 class was introduced as a possible replacement for the Prussian P8 (38 class) passenger locomotive.  It had the same boiler and tender as the 50.  There was a general attempt to increase the speed of freight trains in order to move goods faster, e.g. the 41 class had a top speed of 90km/h.  Since the BR57 had a top-speed of 60km/h, this was deemed to slow.  Less than 130 of the 50 class were built in 1939, the remaining 3000 in 1940 and later.  On a layout of a secondary line set in 1939, the 57 class is a much better choice. 

Finally, there seems to be this general idea going around that Germany was already planning for "total" war in 1939.  If this were the case, then the German army's tank divisions would not have been equipped to the most part with Panzer I and Panzer II, but the more powerful Panzer III and Panzer IV.  Even in May 1940, Czech designs of the Panzer 38t were used widely in tank divisions, and the Panzer I and II survived quite some time after the French campaign.  In reality, neither the army nor the navy were ready for a major war in 1939.  They were strong enough to defeat Poland, but if England and France would have attacked in the West in September 1939, it would have all been over in three months.

The leadership was gambling on Allied inactivity.  While definitely planning on a war, they did not see the big one coming in 1939.   Although the orders for all steam locomotives except the 44, 50 and 86 classes of freight engines were cancelled in 1940, the railroads did not switch over to war production till some time in late 1941 and early 1942 when simplification of the 50 class were introduced.  The 52 class was the final product of these simplifications, but did not see the rails in any numbers till 1943.
 
Ulrich


Posted By: skyhawk
Date Posted: 31 Oct 2016 at 8:59am

Ulrich

Thank you so much for the well informed details. Made it very clear. I appreciate the time you took to help me out. That is great. I have no choice but to keep the 50 but definitely I will look for a BR64, I like the wheel arrangment better, plus it is a nice "small" looking engine. I was not planning to get any more engines, but you twisted my arm, knocked me down and beat me up...so I give up and buy another engine. Ha !!!!!  Thanks for the beating...you can never have too many engines, isn't that right !!! :)

Nick

PS: Putting another order in for Reynauld's



-------------
Nick Biangel
USMC


Posted By: skyhawk
Date Posted: 01 Nov 2016 at 9:33am
Back-drop: Last night I started to install the back-drop using form core on the layout which will be painted blue. I tried to post some photos but i was not successful. Tonight I will continue to install the rest of the form core so that tomorrow I will focus painting the background.

-------------
Nick Biangel
USMC


Posted By: BR42
Date Posted: 01 Nov 2016 at 7:10pm
Nick:

You can never have enough engines.  The 50 would be a good candidate for a troop train, especially part of a tank division.  But keep in mind, mostly Panzer 1 and Panzer 2, may be a couple Panzer 3 with the 37mm gun, not the 50mm, and Panzer IV with the 75mm short.  No Sturmgeschuetz though.  This type of train would be short but heavy.  Suggested compostion:

1 2nd class two or three axle passenger car for the officer, two 3 class thunderboxes for the crew, three two axled flat cars one with a truck and one 50mm PAK, one with a truck and a 20mm or 37mm single-barreled  AA, and the last with two reconnaissance cars (20mm gun at most)  and 6 heavy duty flat cars: 1 with two Panzer 1, 2 with two Panzer 2, 1 with a Panzer 3 and one with a Panzer 4.  If you have space, add a few more cars with tanks.  No caboose. 

Ulrich  


Posted By: Railwriter
Date Posted: 01 Nov 2016 at 8:24pm
Originally posted by skyhawk skyhawk wrote:

... I tried to post some photos but i was not successful. Tonight I will continue to install the rest of the form core so that tomorrow I will focus painting the background.

In case you are not aware:  To post photos here, you first have to post them to another site, such as some of the free photo sharing sites, then link to that photo.

You cannot post pictures directly here.

Hope that helps.  We're always interested in photos of what others are working on.

-- Ernest




Posted By: skyhawk
Date Posted: 02 Nov 2016 at 6:27am

Ernest, thank you for the info on the photos. Let's see what I do, it sounds like it will be a little pain to post the photos in at another site and then use the link to connect them to the post. It's all good. Again thank you for the info.


Ulrich, thank you for the pack of information. My trains will mostly be very short trains in length. I have a small layout. A foot wide shelf by 28 ft long in a "U" shape in a 12 x 12 ft room. It will definitely be more of a switching layout than anything else. There will be the city area, then the "military" area which that is the area to load/unload the tanks and the heavy mechanism for the army and last section will be the passenger station with a small engine facility. The whole thing will have somewhere between 9-12 turnouts. That is plan for now. But things changes as the building of the layout goes.



-------------
Nick Biangel
USMC


Posted By: skyhawk
Date Posted: 03 Nov 2016 at 7:32am
Well, I am in the process of painting the back drop blue and installing it on the layout. Hopefully by Saturday the back drop will be completely installed. I am looking forward to start laying track gthis weekend.

-------------
Nick Biangel
USMC


Posted By: skyhawk
Date Posted: 03 Nov 2016 at 8:46am

Ok Ernest, I took your advice and I opened an album in photo bucket. Hopefully this works:


http://s32.photobucket.com/user/jarhead14/media/aftershelf_zpstb6ada8h.jpg.html?o=0




-------------
Nick Biangel
USMC


Posted By: BR42
Date Posted: 03 Nov 2016 at 3:34pm
Dear Nick:

Nice locos, except you have a slight problem.  The BR50 you have is an Era III loco (1956 - 1968), and has the smoke deflectors which were installed after the war.  Most 50's had the large deflectors well into the mid 1950s similar to this one made by Tillig:




Also, the sign "DB"  on the cab was not introduced till 1956.  Locos built in 1939 had the eagle with the stretched wings and a swastika at the bottom.

Ulrich


Posted By: skyhawk
Date Posted: 04 Nov 2016 at 5:14am

Ulrich, before I decided to get this version of the 50, Roco has both version. I was debating between this type of deflectors and the big ones. I could not decide. So I started to look/search at the internet and YouTube and the one I saw that was the most common was the one with this type. Now I can see why because this are the newer ones. Boy oh boy ! All the wrong decisions !!! (too funny) Well I wonder if I can modified it by replacing the defectors, is it possible to get the older style deflectors ? The DB I am not too concern since I was going to remove it and get the eagle with the swastika decal for the cab. Most likely the one that I am going to use the most will be the BR80 and the BR64. Keep throwing info and helpful hint at me...as you can see I really need all the help I can get.  Too funny after all my life doing modeling railroad I am back to square one , learning new things by doing the European theme railroad. IT DOES NOT GET ANY BETTER THAN THIS. I am really enjoying this fresh new experience in the hobby. I appreciate the help.





-------------
Nick Biangel
USMC


Posted By: skyhawk
Date Posted: 04 Nov 2016 at 5:23am
I just wrote to Reynauld's to see if they sell the deflectors to replace them. Maybe they can send it with the BR64 engine.

-------------
Nick Biangel
USMC


Posted By: Model Train Projects
Date Posted: 04 Nov 2016 at 10:32pm
Hey Nick,

it also depends in which area of Germany you layout is planned. The 64 wasn't used in the north or Prussia at all, they used the T18 ( Class 78 ) and mostly the 55 ( G8 ).
The 50's been not used for military yet, they tested them in freight service to see how they perform. Also, you only can buy era II models, not the are III 50. The 50 is actually completely out of place for the desired use at that time.

Most common military train loco were the 55's and 57's ( G10 ), sometimes 56's ( G8.3 ).
For shunting they mostly use the T3 ( 89 7*** ), heavier shunting T16.1 ( 94's ). If you like ( like me ) the T14 ( 93's ) you could use them as well.

At that time the military used the readily available loco classes, which were easy to fix, made in masses and got lot of interchangeable parts, like the Prussian loco types. The "modern" loco's weren't built in big numbers yet and the class 44 couldn't run on branch lines. 


-------------
Br

Leif


Posted By: BR42
Date Posted: 05 Nov 2016 at 5:36am
Leif:

I agree, anything Prussian was considered most suitably:  Simple, rugged, easy to maintain.  The only problem was the top speed: About 37.5 mph with the 57 (the 55 somewhat slower) and 41 - 44 mph for the various 56's and 58's.  The heavy freight loco for the first two years of the war would be the 44 class: Heavy puller with a top speed of 50mph, albeit with an axle load of 20t only suitable for mainlines in top condition.  The 50 had no real impact till 1941.

Ulrich


Posted By: Model Train Projects
Date Posted: 06 Nov 2016 at 6:39pm
Hey Ulrich,

The scheduled speed for freight trains in that era was 60km/h, so all but the 55 could reach that speed and wouldn't hold up traffic.
On branch lines, the general max speed was 60km/h, also for passenger service. Only main lines had max speed of up to 120km/h ( Some exclusions 160km/h ), the scheduled freight max speed was 80km/h there. Later on ( after WWII ) some branch lines got upgraded signaling and got ready for 80km/h. Ever since, till today, everything above 80km/h line speed is considered a main line and need to be equipped for that. 

Br

Leif


-------------
Br

Leif


Posted By: skyhawk
Date Posted: 07 Nov 2016 at 10:25am

Wow !!  A lot of info. Everything that I've read it tells that this engine was used to prep for war. Maybe if I model 1941-42 instead of 1939 will make better sense? 

The DRB Class 50 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DRB_Class_50#cite_note-1" rel="nofollow - - German class of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2-10-0" rel="nofollow - - locomotive , built from 1939 as a standard locomotive ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einheitsdampflokomotive" rel="nofollow - - goods trains . It had one https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leading_axle" rel="nofollow - - coupled axles and was one of the most successful designs produced for the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deutsche_Reichsbahn" rel="nofollow - - German Nazi party's preparations for war that led into the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_World_War" rel="nofollow -



Posted By: Model Train Projects
Date Posted: 08 Nov 2016 at 6:44pm
Hey Nick,

that statement is incorrect. The Class 50 was always a full featured and equipped loco. The so called war loco's been the classes 42 and 52 ( Not to confuse with the later DR ( GDR ) class 52 and the 042 and 052 Class of the DB ( GER ), The 052 was in fact a 50, but because of the new computer ready numbers, they had to split the 3000+ Class 50 locos in several class ranges, since each class range had a max of 999 loco's. For the 042, it was the oil fired version of the class 41 ).




-------------
Br

Leif


Posted By: BR42
Date Posted: 09 Nov 2016 at 4:39am
Nick,

I agree with Leif.  The 50 started life as a replacement for a whole bunch of older locomotives for branch lines which the DRG had inherited from the State railroads.  While speed on branch lines remained slow until after WWII, the problem faced by the DRG was that quite a few of trains from these lines also moved for part of their way on mainlines.  It was then that engines like the 57 became a moving roadblock.  This one of the reasons why an engine like the 24 class, which was designed as an engine for secondary lines, had a top speed of 90km/h.

The BR 50 was simplified somewhat in 1941/42, but its original design at pre-war specs limited the amount of simplifications.  However, a 52 would not be correct for the type of layout you envision either.  It would be hauling supply trains and medium freights which carry essential war material and food.  The same is true for the 42 class.  Since you envision a branch line, the 57 or a comparable engine is most suited.  I would try to sell the 50 for a good price, or try to trade it for a 57 or similar engine.

Ulrich


Posted By: skyhawk
Date Posted: 09 Nov 2016 at 9:34am

Guys, thank you so much for the information. I guess I will use the BR80 and the BR64 for the layout, as per your advice and I think I will keep the BR50 for display.

I added the LED's to the shelf. Now I need to install the valance to cover the lights from the front.

http://s32.photobucket.com/user/jarhead14/media/LEDoffice_zps90imqng0.jpg.html?sort=3&o=0" rel="nofollow - http://s32.photobucket.com/user/jarhead14/media/LEDoffice_zps90imqng0.jpg.html?sort=3&o=0



-------------
Nick Biangel
USMC


Posted By: skyhawk
Date Posted: 09 Nov 2016 at 9:38am
One more thing I need to pick your brains- Couplers, which type you recommend ? All of my rolling stock are Roco, I've heard that the Fleishman Profi are one of the most popular. Any comments ? I am planning to do a lot of switching.

-------------
Nick Biangel
USMC


Posted By: Railwriter
Date Posted: 09 Nov 2016 at 10:57am
I use Roco universal couplers on my freight cars and locomotives.  I've written more about them before.  They have two main advantages:
  • They allow advanced/delayed uncoupling.  (In other words, you can uncouple at one location but then push the car further -- and pull away from it.)
  • They mate not only with each other, where they give give a good connection, particularly when pushing cars during switching, but also with standard Roco couplers -- and older cars that do not have interchangeable couplers, but do have the hook and loop couplers.  (I do have some older cars from Kleinbahn, an Austrian manufacturer, which have these non-interchangeable couplers, but which otherwise fit fine into my planned layout.)
In addition, these couplers are also used on Roco locomotives with digital uncouplers (or where Roco digital couplers have been retrofitted) so, again, they work extremely well with those locomotives during switching.

Another useful feature is that you do not have to change out all your couplers at the same time as the universal couplers still mate with the standard couplers with which most Roco (and other) cars are delivered.

I think some of the other members of this board also use the Roco universal couplers.

And, as mentioned before, each pack of Roco universal couplers comes with a hand uncoupling tool for manual uncoupling where needed.


I've also mentioned this before:  While I do plan to use electric uncouplers at some locations, particularly tracks further back from the edge of the layout, I also plan to use a manual uncoupling tool at many locations near the edge of the layout.  Installing electric uncouplers at every possible location where I might need to uncouple cars would quickly get very expensive.

-- Ernest



Posted By: Model Train Projects
Date Posted: 09 Nov 2016 at 1:19pm
Hey Nick,

Class 80 is usable for shunting only, but they used mostly T3's for that. Remember, we are pre war, they used the available loco's, the 80's been fairly new and used by the DRB on there freight stations, rather then somewhere for military use. But you could say, that they got lucky and an 80 was used for that. The 64 is too weak for freight operations, it's designed for light passenger service on branch lines, with the capability to run on mainlines. If you like tank locos, the class 86 would be the right choice here ( modern ), or the T14.1 and T16.1.




-------------
Br

Leif


Posted By: BR42
Date Posted: 11 Nov 2016 at 5:05am
Hey Nick:

The 64 is great for passenger trains.  Watch the Great Escape where one of them makes an appearance in the scenes on the train.  It was used on light freights, although the 86 was designed to handle freight jobs.  However, it was on passenger trains too.

Ulrich


Posted By: EJ
Date Posted: 28 Mar 2017 at 8:24pm

If you are interested in adding an airport to your layout Reynaulds sells this wonderful unit. It is AC so you have to replace the wheel sets to run on DCC HO track. Something to consider

  Marklin - 7pc German "Airplane Transport Freight Car Set of the DRG



Posted By: EJ
Date Posted: 29 Mar 2017 at 5:33pm

Thanks for this post as I can add the Fleischmann 523610 and 5236008 to my tank/troop train.





Print Page | Close Window

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 10.17 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2013 Web Wiz Ltd. - http://www.webwiz.co.uk