Narrow Gauge In Ohio: A Review

Author: Kyle Montgomery
Category: Book Reviews Railroads:

The following is a review I posted on Amazon. In part two I’ll discuss some of the more local-centric aspects of this book.

In Narrow Gauge In Ohio: The Cincinnati, Lebanon, and Northern Railway John W. Hauck tells the fascinating story of a small railroad in Southwestern Ohio.

The railroad was founded in 1888 as a local narrow gauge railroad built to supply rail service to the highlands in between the Little Miami and Great Miami river. It never becomes overly profitable, it never has a huge amount of traffic or becomes a part of a huge rail corridor, and it eventually is broken up and abandoned. It is this plain, mundane atmosphere that makes the story so interesting. This is not just the story of one road but can represent the story of hundreds of little railroads all over the country.

Hauck tells this story against the backdrop of the wider Midwest narrow gauge movement. He claims as a thesis the inefficiency of this concept. Cheaper construction costs for the narrow track did not make up for the shortcomings of the gauge. He spends the first half of the book discussing the CL&N’s narrow gauge operations as well as its integration in the Toledo, Delphos, and Burlington system. This is one of the few books that does discuss the TD&B or the “Little Giant” and its narrow gauge empire.

Along the way the author gives the reader unprecedented detail. The CL&N was near a century old at the time of publication and for a railroad that old the amount of information presented is outstanding. Documents, maps, and even pictures of old roadbeds all point to a well-researched manuscript. Hauck also goes one step farther, interviewing older residents who road on the passenger trains in the 20′s and 30′s. These interviews manifest themselves as interesting antidotes and side stories that would be missed otherwise. They bring out more of the human side of rail travel and just how different these railroads were than the ones of today.

If there is one flaw with this work it is the omission of any footnotes or bibliography. Hauck claims it would be too difficult to record every interview and document he researched as a source, but even a partial list would have been helpful. Anyone wishing to do further research on this railroad will be limited to this dead-end secondary source.

Never-the-less, the usefulness of this book for any researcher, historian, or model railroader can not be underestimated. In addition to a complete map of the system and major stations there is also a well-research locomotive roster as an appendix. All 24 CL&N locomotives are accounted for with numbers, models, and years of service.

Rounding out the material is an index and a large number of black and white photos. Overall, Narrow Gauge in Ohio fulfills dual roles. It tells the story of the Midwest narrow gauge movement as well as the story of a specific railroad in time. While the information could have been more extensive the publisher was clearly looking at small run and thus limited in pages. Every page in this book is crammed full of useful and interesting information.

Narrow Gauge in Ohio is out of print. However, if ever seen in a used bookstore or on the Internet I heartily recommend it. For those interested in Eastern narrow gauge railroads, the Cincinnati or Lebanon area, or just railroads in general, this book is worth every penny.

Track Plannin’ Part 1

Author: Kyle Montgomery
Category: Model Railroad Railroads:

The past couple of months I have been hard at work on various layout designs for my new layout, a model of the Cincinnati, Lebanon, and Northern. Right now I am no closer to finding the mythical ‘perfect track plan’ than I was when I started. The proverbial drawer is full of discarded designs. Over the course of this series I am going to demonstrate a little bit of my journey, hopefully leading up to my final design.

First, a little description of my layout plans; John Armstrong would call these givens and druthers (I would also recommend any layout design book by Armstrong for those in a similar boat). Basically I needed to create a list of what I want, and what is constraining me. The ideal layout strikes a compromise between these.

The CL&N that I will be modeling would be shortly after the company was acquired by the Pennsylvania Railroad in the 1920’s. This was when they operated as a separate company before being fully integrated into the system, and also was before passenger operations began to be severely cut back. I want to focus on modeling my hometown, Lebanon Ohio and some of the line leading to it. At the current time I don’t have the space to model much more of the thirty mile mainline.

Currently I own a not-quite-reliable 9×5 tabletop layout. The mistakes I made here formed a basis for what I wanted to do differently the second time around. Here is a list of my goals for the new CL&N, in order of priority.

  • Minimum radius greater than 18” on the mainline. I’m okay with 18” on the sidings, but was hoping for 22” on the loop. In recent designs I’ve been forced to scale that back down to 20”. This is still an improvement, and with the power I’ll be running minimum radius isn’t too big an issue.
  • Large turnouts. For me, this is #6’s. I don’t mind using #5’s for siding and possibly one #4, but #6’s are clearly the best balance between space and functionality. On my old layout the turnouts were Atlas Snap-Switches and 4’s. This was an unqualified disaster.
  • Reliability. This goes with my first two points. My number one problem on my layout is derailments. I can trace this back to poor planning and poor track work. I can’t even think about running a steam locomotive on my layout because it wouldn’t make it around the loop.
  • Accurate Prototypical Modeling. This is going to be my first layout based on a specific prototype. I want to model Lebanon as accurately as possible and make a minimum amount of compromises in the design.
  • Operations. In constructing my last layout I realized I enjoy the operations side of things. This is hard to do on a small railroad, but I want to set things up with operation in mind. Staging is going to be hard to work in but I wanted it to be able to model accurate Lebanon operations.
  • Portability. I will enter college this coming fall. After the next four years I don’t know where I will be. I may not want nor have the space for a layout, but I want disassembly to be possible for the future.

Next: Part 2. The druthers.

Shelves

Author: Kyle Montgomery
Category: Model Railroad

The other day I posted a thread discussing the various shelf width for model railroads. It was interesting to see everyone’s opinions. As I suspected, there are as many answers for shelf width as there are modelers.

The most common response was 24 inches. This is probably what I’m leaning towards. It provides the best balance of space on the layout without encroaching too much on your aisles. I also forgot that shelf width depends a lot of the height of your layout (and subsequent reach ability). The higher you go the narrower the layout should be in order for you to reach the back.

There were responses as narrow as 12 inches and as wide as 30. Most people said that it depends.

I did learn a thing or two. For one, most people seem to think that it takes more space to model a rural setting than an urban one. On first glance this makes set as you want to convey the wide open spaces on the county. Still, I find it hard because the city has so much more to model. Even though it may be easy to create an “urban canyon”, you miss out on some interesting structures and model opportunities.

In completely unrelated news, I have a number of things I’m working on for the blog. I am writing a review of Narrow Gauge in Ohio: The Cincinnati Lebanon and Northern. I also continue to design my next layout. I plan on writing a post to describe some of that journey.