New Product

I have been developing a number of new products and here is the latest.  It is a heat sink kit that fits SoundTraxx Tsunami's TSU-1000 (the universal fit decoder) and allows the decoder to output significantly more current, my testing indicates that 3 amps is not a problem. For O and larger sales.

The Tsunami is sandwiched between thermal pads and heat sinks and a fan rides atop the part of the Tsunami the produces the most heat.  All parts are included in the kit, except the Tsunami, of course.

Here are some larger photos of the kit assembled to a Tsunami.

In this last photo you can see the Tsunami in the center of the sandwich.

Step-by-step photo illustrated instructions for assembling the kit are included on a CD.  This kit will not fit the Tsunami plug-and-play decoders (BW1000, KT1000, GN1000, AT1000).  This kit has been thoroughly tested but it has not been approved by SoundTraxx and use of this kit may void your SoundTraxx warranty.

The first run of kits has been sold out.  The second run of kits should be ready by Thanksgiving.  Contact me if you are interested.

 

My Friend Nick - RIP

I lost one of my small circle of friends yesterday, Aug. 25.  In spite of radiation treatment and chemotherapy, Nick was gone from a fast moving cancer in about a month after diagnosis. He was 56.

Nick was not a model railroader.  Other than that, we shared several interests and our outlook on life was almost identical.  We both would defer gratification.  We both were pack rat collectors.  And we both had more projects contemplated than could be accomplished in several lifetimes.  On the latter two points, Nick was much worse than I.

I believe that nothing in the Lord's plan is for naught; even a tragedy like this death.  Nick's death has reinforced a couple of things pertinent to model railroading: don't put it off and resize your expectations.  Starting my first large model railroad at age 55, I had already lamented the first lesson. I got so much enjoyment, such a sense of accomplishment out of building my model railroad that I already regretted not having started sooner.  But during all of the previous years, delaying the gratification of building a  model railroad seemed like the logical thing to do at the time.  In some cases I had "direct encouragement" ("Why don't you put that off until after retirement?").  Death, as in my friend's case, does not always respect your plans.  My advice to all who are still in the armchair is don't wait, you'll be a whole lot happier.

The other lesson, one that I had just embarked on a few weeks previous, is to downsize your life to meet reasonable expectations.  In this vein, I had begun to sell off equipment that I was not likely to use on this railroad because, although I would like to think that a bigger model railroad was just over the horizion, the reality is that I will be lucky to finish the one that is currently under construction.  Being so close to another's untimely death has reinforced that reality.

So I am going to downsize my model railroad collection as well as equipment for another hobby that I pursue where I also have way too much stuff.  I will use this opportunity to upgrade my roster while I thin the herd.  By the same token, projects that have no reasonable completion date will be abandoned.

I will be stepping up my production of articles for model railroad publications.  I have two already accepted and potentially two more.  I will continue to write articles, possibly a book, and for this blog as well.  A good idea is no good if it's in my head and never gets out.

Finally, I had been dipping my toe into some small scale model railroad manufacturing; now I'm going to put the whole foot in. I'm moving ahead on several small projects that will be offered for sale, initially in the O Scale community, but potentially in other scales.  More on that in a subsequent post.

Rest in peace, Nick.  I will miss you more than I can say.  Even in death, you are a good friend.

Molds and Moldmaking 2

This is a continuation of Molds and Moldmaking 1. I didn't know that Blogger had a page limit - apparently it does.

I was surprised and pleased with the mold made by this method. There was some latex 'flash' that had to be removed where latex rubber flowed under the master. This was accomplished with a X-acto knife.



All was not perfect, however. The mold came out curved as can be seen in the next picture. It could be the way I removed the mold from the master and the mold box; after cutting around the edges as one would for a cake, I lifted one end and 'peeled' it back. That could have put the curve into the mold. More likely I had too little silicone over the top of the master. Many of the pourable silicones advise to have 1/2" on all sides of the master. This mold only had 1/4" over the top of the master.



What to do to make the castings? I tried to stick the mold down with double stick tape but, not surprisingly, the tape would not stick to the silicone - not much does. I finally hit on using the non-stick surface of the tile to push down on the filled mold and hold it flat while the plaster dries. The next photo shows the tile work surface inverted over the filled mold. During drying I had additional weight on top of this to hold the mold flat.



Here's the tile lifted from the cured casting still in the mold:



This is the de-molded casting:



The casting is fully-filled and sharp with only a couple of small air bubbles that can be seen in this close-up:



How did I fill the mold and with what?

You'll notice that the casting is a light gray color - that's the way it came from the mold. The material is Merlin's Magic (MM) a dental stone developed for the Fantasy/Wargamer and D&D market. The spec sheet on MM indicates that it is harder and stronger than hydrocal. It comes in white, tan, gray and dark gray. I used the gray. This worked out well, it looks like only a black ink wash will be needed to match the real stone.

Since this is dental stone, it behaves a little differently than plaster. A tutorial on using MM can be found here:

http://www.hirstarts.com/casting/dental.html

I like this stuff. I used a slightly different mixing technique that seems to work with my 'squish' technique for holding the mold flat.

First the mold was sprayed with a soapy water mixture to act as mold release and to help prevent formation of air bubbles against the mold surface. I mixed a batch of MM about the consistency of thin pancake batter. I filled the mold about 80% with this mixture by slowly pouring a small stream into the mold to minimize bubbles. This thin mixture will settle into the mold details easily.

I pounded the table with my fist to release any air bubbles sticking to the detail parts of the mold. Next, I used a small object about the size of a toothpick inserted into the wet plaster and run along the face of the mold to release any air bubbles and several large ones came to the surface.

I mixed a stiffer batch of the MM, just to the point where it would pour readily with a little coaxing from the spoon and poured that slowly into the mold and let it self level. This stiffer mixture adds body to the mix without having to settle into the mold detail. I had to mix two stiff batches to fill the mold to slightly over the top.

Finally I inverted the tile over the mold and added weight in the form of several phone books (the phone books are small where I live). Some of the mixture oozed out between the mold and the tile, that's OK, it indicates that the mold is essentially full. I then resisted the temptation to look at the mold for about an hour or more.

The results you can see above. The casting had only a small void in the back. The casting is otherwise full and dense.

Molds and Moldmaking 1

This post to my blog has a checkered history.  I initially did this project in the spring of 2010.  I wrote this up as two posts to the blog. Then I had the idea that this might be a good candidate for an article, even though the subject matter had been covered before.  The article was submitted to "O Scale Trains" magazine, it was accepted and published in the March/April 2011 issue.

O Scale Trains' terms allow the original authors to re-post or republish articles after certain conditions are met and a certain time has past.  I can now present this material on my blog.  Here, in two parts, is a somewhat expanded version of the O Scale Trains article.  Thanks to O Scale Trains for the opportunity to republish.

Begin Original Posting:

The B&O Tray Run Viaduct and the smaller Amblersburg Viaduct will be scenic features on my layout. Both of these are massive cut-stone structures that, even after selective compression, reproducing them will require scores of stone wall castings.

I had a cut stone wall casting which fit the bill for size and "look" and I decided to reproduce this one in the quantities required by making a mold of it and casting plaster replicas.

The usual procedure for making a mold involves a two-part, pourable silicone or urethane mold rubber to produce the mold. A starter mold making kit costs between $40 and $60. Latex mold making materials are available at considerably less cost, but the molds that they produce are more flexible and may not produce castings that will interlock without gaps. In addition, latex molds are not as durable as silicone or urethane.

The cost of the mold making materials was steep, but do-able. However the unused silicone material has only a 6 month shelf life after opening and I did not want to have to throw away most of the cost of the unused materials should I not be able to use them in time.

Therefore, I wanted a method with less waste that was, hopefully, cheaper. An article "Cast Your Own Urban Structures" by Dick Scott appeared in the July 2001 Model Railroader. In his article Mr. Scott described a method for making molds using latex mold making rubber and silicone caulk from a tube. Long story short, you use several coats of the latex to coat the master and reproduce the details and use the silicone caulk to back-up and reinforce the latex and fill out the mold box. This method also results in a mold with a flat back (just like a poured silicone mold) that does not require extra support like straight latex molds do.

To begin I bought some "Mold Builder" latex mold making compound from Michael's; with a coupon it was about $9 and can make many, many molds (it also has no expiration date!).



I also built a work surface to make the molds on. It's a 8" x 10" glazed ceramic tile bought at Home Depot for less than $2 glued (Liquid Nails) to and backed by 1/2" plywood. Why tile? Because the latex or other mold making compound can be scrapped from it without damaging the surface.





Here is the master being covered in latex mold compound. The light tan on the left is the previous layer fully dried. On the right, new latex is being applied, it is a whiteish compound. Follow the instructions on the jar of latex.



Here the next layer of latex is fully applied.



The mold box is built around the latex-covered master. The mold box and any of the tile surface that it encloses must be covered with a few coats of latex too or the silicone will stick to it and be hard or impossible to remove.  About six coats of latex were applied before filling the mold box with silicone.



Here's the mold partially filled with silicone. I built up the layers in 1/8" thicknesses, per Scott's article. The silicone that I used was 'Mainstays' - Wal-Mart's brand which cost $2.76 a tube (caulking gun size) [note:  mainstays is no longer available at Wal-Mart; GE silicone will work but is more expensive]. This mold used about a tube and a half. After the last coat, the back of the mold was struck off flush by using a taping knife (4" putty knife)

Model Rail Radio O Scale National Show

While attending the O Scale National Convention, I recorded several interviews for Model Rail Radio.  Those interviews have been collected into a special show. This show is not yet available from the Model Rail Radio home page, but it is available from iTunes (use your iTunes application on your computer/phone/pad to search for Model Rail Radio).  It's also available from the Internet Archive by following this link:

http://www.archive.org/download/ModelRailRadio/mrr_072112.mp3

When you click on this link, the Internet Archive player will launch and begin playing the episode.

My purpose in recording this show (and I believe that the episode demonstrates) is that 2-Rail O Scale is a vibrant community with thoughtful, intelligent and  skilled modelers, historians and artisans.  Topics in the show include 19th Century modelling, layout design, preserving historic layouts and an interview with Tony Koester who admits that even he began model railroading with a Lionel O-27 layout (Hmm...this is the second time that I have run onto Tony at an O Scale event, could he be a closet O-Scaler? :-) )

It is my contention that few people start the hobby in 2-rail O Scale, but I believe that it is where increasing numbers of people will end up. With the current state of the art in HO, factory produced locomotives and rolling stock meet or beat what the best modeler can do.  As Clark Kooning (Master Model Railroader and former director of the NMRA) admitted in response to my question on one episode of MRR, he not upgrading his Blackstone HOn3 locos on his current layout under construction because "they have everything".

As factory HO models begin to routinely exceed the skills of a Master Model Railroader to improve upon them, what's a modeler to do?  Come to O Scale.  We have great kits and factory rolling stock that can be improved upon; not because the factory product is crude, but because so much more can be done in O Scale.  Things like working brakes, coupling air hoses, operating steam reverse gear, highly detailed track work and, most importantly, it's all large enough to see with aging eyes.

O Scale need not be expensive as the gap between HO and O  is narrowing quickly (e.g. an HO car is $30-40 even $50 and an O Scale car from Atlas is about $60).  Plus you need less O Scale to fill the available space.

I'll get off of my soapbox and let you listen to the episode and decide for yourself.

Twins?

Well, not really; not as much as one would hope.

Like everything else there's a story connected with this.  Back on July 8 I hosted a model railroader at my layout.  I had had the brass Sunset Models B&O I-12 caboose on the left for some time, but had not put it out on the layout.  So I put on a pair of couplers (quite a task due to poor design) and put it out for the session.  With this caboose on the layout the converted 3-rail MTH caboose I had been using now looked very oversize. The MTH is a nicely executed caboose, but too large to be a B&O I-17.  So now that I was unhappy with the MTH I had to get better cabooses on the layout.  So I pulled out one of the Lionel B&O I-12 cabooses that I have and began the conversion from 3 rail to 2 rail.

The caboose on the right is the Lionel B&O I-12 converted to 2-rail.  Before I launch into the Lionel's shortcomings let me say this;  Lionel is to be applauded for mass-producing this caboose.  This is a prototype unique to the B&O and its successor the Chessie System.  Only 125 prototypes ever existed.  For Lionel to invest in such a limited application model is worthy of support.  I have bought 4 of these cabooses and, depending on how I resolve the shortcomings that I will talk about, I may well buy more.  What follows is more of a review with an eye towards helping produce better models than a condemnation of a flawed product.

Neither the Sunset nor the Lionel is a dead-on-accurate model.  The Sunset cost about twice what the Lionel costs, and that needs to be borne in mind.  Let's start with simple things like color.  Not even the B&O Yahoo group can agree on what paint represents an accurate red for B&O cabooses.  But all agree that it's a bright red.  On that basis, the Sunset is too dark.  I believe, looking at color photos of the prototype, that the Lionel may be a shade too bright; but the Lionel's color is the better of the two.  By the way, the white lettering on the Sunset, which is numbered for a first batch I-12 and Lionel's use of yellow for a second batch I-12 are both correct.

This brings me around to a minor beef that I have with all of Lionel's production.  Lionel marks all of it's models with the Lionel item number and "Built by Lionel"  as seen in the next photo.

Lionel does this all of the time.  It's unnecessary.  Lionel collector's will know that this was "Built by Lionel"  It's minor because I can Photoshop this out in pictures, but I should not have to.

There's one flaw on the Lionel that could be corrected, but to do so would require stripping the entire paint job and repainting.  Running through the center of the bay window on a real I-12 is a lap joint in the side sheet metal accompanied by a line of rivets.  The Sunset omits the lap joint entirely, as you can see below.

For some inexplicable reason, probably associated with language difficulties, overseas manufacturing or interpretation of drawings, the Lionel has a groove where the lap joint should be.

Maybe this was an honest attempt to represent the lap joint, but the groove is the worst aspect of Lionel's model.  It could be filled in with putty and sanded, but doing this so close to the line of rivets and having to repaint the model is more bother that I am willing to put up with.  I'll have to live with this one.

Speaking of rivets, Lionel's are sharp and stand proud of the sides of the model, Sunset's are pressed into the brass and somewhat indistinct.  Lionel's are easier to see with old eyes, and at a distance; you'll have to judge for yourself which is preferable. And, no, I don't know what the correct count of rivets should be; but on my next trip to the B&O Railroad Museum... :-).
  
Now for my observations about the Lionel trucks, which are horrid.  First, like many 3-rail models, the Lionel sits too high when on it's trucks.  Supposedly this is necessary to clear the 3-rail flanges and couplers.  However, the Sunset model was also available in a 3-rail version, yet it sits at a more prototypical height.  The height will also cause problems with coupler mounting.

The complex design of Lionel's truck (or MTH's or Atlas's similar trucks) means that there's nothing that can be done to lower the truck itself, the bolster is too high and the bolster is a complex design in folded sheet metal and I cannot see any way to alter it.

On it's high perch, the Lionel caboose looks larger than the Sunset; but it's an illusion, the dimensions of the two bodies are similar. 

The Lionel truck is a complex design that has a two-part core in addition to the side-frames - with separate bearings and two tiny springs buried in each one.  Removing the 3-rail wheel sets and couplers requires full disassembly of the truck after which the lower part of the truck frame, housing the coupler actuation mechanism, serves no purpose.

Lionel's wheel sets have 2.5 mm pointed axles, standard O scale pointed axle wheel sets will not fit; and no one makes a 2.5 mm pointed axle 2-rail wheel set.  I know that Lionel has no interest in 2-rail conversions, but it appears that they have gone out of their way to prevent 2-rail conversion. I was able to convert a Lionel truck using Precision Scale #203 blunt axle wheel sets which has stepped-down ends of 2 mm.  The converted truck rolled more freely than the original, in spite of the blunt end axles.

The worst feature of the Lionel truck are two tiny coil springs embedded in each side frame supporting the top part of the frame (I'm hesitant to call it a bolster, because it is more than just a bolster), these springs are not visible from the outside of the truck.  The Lionel truck has a blob of metal representing the caboose leaf springs - very poorly done - and these tiny springs are embedded behind it.  In spite of being sprung the truck does not equalize.  I believe that these springs are supposed to allow the bolster to move up and down; but they are so firm and have so little travel that I cannot see that they would allow the bolster/frame to move unless the impact was really large.  Maybe this is appropriate for the 3-rail market.

The issue with these springs is in disassembly and reassembly of the truck.  The springs fly out when you remove the side-frames and the you have to try to put them back in place during reassembly.  The space where they fit is small and they have to be captured at the top by the bolster while you are juggling wheelsets, side frames and separate bearings (hint - remove the plastic brake shoes to give yourself more space to work with.  They are simply press-fit in the side-frames and easy replaced) .  The first truck that I converted required 4 hours to get everything together; after working out a procedure, the second still took the better part of two hours.  And current pickups still have to be made for the converted trucks. 

At this point I whimped out and bought MTH 2-rail caboose trucks, which, it turns out, have their own problems in removing the three-rail coupler, also requiring complete disassembly, as well as cutting off the "horn" that's left behind by the 3-rail coupler.  But the MTHs do not have the accursed springs and have current pickups built-in.  MTH's also have double insulated wheels making the orientation the wheels during reassembly immaterial.

Coupler mountings will have to be devised for the Lionel, and these will hang down by at least 0.125 inch because of the high mounting of the body.  The end platforms of the Lionel are plastic which will lead to it's own set of problems, especially since I will use these cabooses in actual pusher service; gluing my not be strong enough.

Other "features" of the Lionel are just annoyances.  The markers are probably oversize, but are painted yellow, which I believe is correct.  The Lionel window frames seem to be too narrow, when compared to prototype photos; Sunset's are much better in this respect. 

The photo above show the Lionel's handrails to the roof walk. the bottom of the handrail shows a nicely formed attachment point with two simulated bolt heads; but the upper end is simply stuck into a hole drilled through the roof walk into the body.  Why do the job half way?

The Lionel has an oversize smoke jack to accommodate the built-in smoke unit.  However, they supply a more scale-sized unit that can be substituted; this despite their apparent ambivalence to the scale market.

The biggest surprise came in the truck center-to-center spacing.  It's axiomatic in the O scale community that 3-rail models need shorter truck center spacing to negotiate tighter curves.  This is all the more so if the prototype has the outboard wheel sets tucked behind stairs, as the I-12 does.  Yet the Lionel has the proper 19 ft. center-to-center spacing and the Sunset does not! The visual effect of this is not great but can be seen in the next two photos.

First the Sunset:

The outboard wheel on the Sunset looks like it could turn 90 degrees and still clear the steps.

On the Lionel (sporting the  MTH trucks) the wheel is more tucked behind the steps, as seen in the next photo.

The Lionel is more prototypically accurate.

Lionel also seems to excel in small details like the safety tread on the stairs and well as painting the grab irons and stair edges in yellow, which was B&O standard practice.  The Sunset has some grab irons painted body color.

So would I buy more Lionel I-12s?  That depends.  The excess height of the converted caboose rankles me more than I would have thought. It's not the absolute height, but the comparison of heights that will look like hell on a caboose track.  The time it takes to make the conversion, even by buying the easier-to-convert MTH trucks is also an issue.  I am going to try using the Yorder caboose trucks to solve both the height and conversion time issues, but they come at a cost of $40 per pair.

$40 for trucks plus the cost of another Lionel caboose, usually $85-95, is beginning to creep up into the range of used RTR brass, if you can find a good buy.

Then there is the issue of availability. Lionel has released about 10 variations of the I-12.  The ones that I have are from the first issue, painted for the 1945 build of I-12s and are accurate for the years 1945~1955.  These are beginning to command a premium from Lionel collectors; pushing the cost of acquiring and converting any more further into brass territory.

Some of the later paint schemes issued by Lionel, like B&O pool service blue, Chessie System and all of the 'fantasy' schemes like the Alaska Road and Polar Express would have to be repainted; a job that I do not relish.

So, if the Yorder trucks solve the conversion problems and I can find the proper variations of the Lionel product at a reasonable price then, yes, I will buy more. Also, if I need more I-12s and the brass supply dries up or gets more pricey (currently about $200 for new and $120-150 used) then I will consider more conversions, even if repainting is required.

2012 O Scale National

.
For various good reasons, work on the layout has been slow recently. However, I did attend the 2012 O Scale National Convention in Parsippany, NJ. The convention was fairly conventional (pun intended), so let me tell you about a particular piece of swag that I came home with.

For anyone who has been to more than a couple of train shows or conventions knows that being there when the doors to the dealer hall open is critical. All of the really good deals are snapped up in the first hour or less. So it was with this show. On about my third aisle, I spotted a Suydam O Scale building kit for a furniture factory. I knew that at one time Suydam made HO scale kits, but if I ever knew anything about what their HO kits were like I have long since forgotten.  I do not remember ever hearing of an O Scale Suydam kit. The obviously ancient kit box was sealed with tape and was satisfyingly heavy. I was not about to be crass enough to open it for inspection, especially since it was priced at only $15. I figured that for $15 I could afford to buy a "pig in a poke"; so I bought the kit.

About 10 minutes later, another attendee stopped me to ask how did I like soldering those Suydam kits?   Solder? Solder? I thought. Did I hear that right? Was this guy suggesting that I was going to have to solder a structure kit?   I figured that it was better to feign inexperience than ignorance and I responded, entirely truthfully, but evasively, "I don't know, this is the first one that I will be building." 

Eventually, I took the box out to my car rather than schlep it through all of the clinic rooms.  I opened the box and the photos show what I beheld.

The box was filled with neatly die-cut and formed pieces of flat and corrugated tin-plated steel.  A few turned wood detail parts (that actually appear to be HO size) and a few sheets of instructions - for the HO kit.  A single sheet appendix for the O scale kit acknowledges that the instructions are for the HO kit, but O scalers should be smart enough to figure out what the differences are for themselves (well, maybe).  And, yes, the instructions for the HO kit specify soldering for assembly.

I've done some quick research on these kits.  I can find little about the O scale kits; but HO builders recommend Walther's Goo for assembly.  I think that I will stick with solder.  I don't think that I will build this as a furniture or other woodworking facility, but I'll incorporate it into the Alpha Portland Cement complex as a warehouse.

Other swag that I came away with were wheelsets and trucks - items that the local hobby shop does not carry in "O".

Two things really made the convention for me.  I did interviews with some of the clinic presenters for the Model Rail Radio podcast; and a half-hour interview with Tony Koester.  I'm hoping that Tom Barbalet, the head honcho at Model Rail Radio, will collect all of the interviews into a show dedicated to the O Scale National and O scale.  I'm hoping that a dedicated show will get some O scale guys into listening to podcasts.  Right now, when I mention a podcast to a O scaler, I may as well be speaking Klingon.

The second thing was that I got to do a clinic at the convention,  albeit it was an impromptu thing.  As far back as January, I had offered to do a clinic on photo backdrops at the national, but they had a full clinic schedule.  However, their best laid plans went awry and several clinicians did not show up.  I volunteered again and this time I was accepted.

That gave me a couple of nights to pull together a presentation - and I had brought no materials with me.  I pulled my photo backdrop videos down from the web and cut some slides out of the videos.  I filled out that material with new slides and I was ready; although without the polished presentation that I would like to have made.

My time slot was 10 am on Sunday morning.  Now the convention was winding down on Saturday afternoon with several vendors pulling out.  I did not know how many attendees would be here Sunday morning, so I made up only 5 CDs with my presentation and videos on them as handouts.  As luck would have it, 15+ people showed up for the clinic.  I made a sign-up sheet and will mail discs to the people who did not receive them.  The presentation was well-received with some people remarking that it was the best of the week.

One of the "getaway" layouts on my way home was in Bethlehem, PA; and in design and execution it is the most unusual layout that I have ever seen.   Out behind his modest home this gentleman had built a 4500 sq. ft. basement and put a roof over it - but there was no house involved.  The basement walls were capped with roof trusses to provide a clear span and there was no house between.  


With 4500 square feet, even in O scale, one would expect a railroad representing a line from the Atlantic or the Pacific to the Mississippi.  Not for this modeler.  Most of the square footage of the layout was a single scene of Easton, Pennsylvania where the Lehigh and Delaware rivers converge and five rail lines, primarily Jersey Central and Lehigh Valley, but with appearances by the Pennsylvania, Lackawanna and the Lehigh and Hudson River, come together.


The following photo shows the area of the layout near the river junction.  This a panorama made up of 5 exposures.  Click on the photo for a bigger view to appreciate it.

I estimate that the river scene is compressed by only a factor of three or four and I'd be surprised if it were more than a factor of five or six.  In this layout, the trains are definitely are dwarfed by the scenery.  The bridge in the center of this picture is for the Lehigh and Hudson River Railroad (yes, it really is curved).   In the right foreground is a small portion of the Jersey Central bridge over the Delaware, which seems to be close to 50 actual feet long.  The aisle runs along the bridge (you are walking in the river) and on the other side of the aisle is an equally long and impressive Lehigh Valley Bridge.  The Morris and Delaware canals are also represented including their inclined planes.

But the most unique thing about this layout is that, as far as I can tell, there is no facility for continuous running of the trains.  Each railroad follows it's route along or across the rivers and dead-ends at a wall.  The one exception might be the combined Jersey Central/Lackawanna which had a sizable yard and might have held a continuous running connection.  All in all, even my wife was impressed.

.