The Great North Central--2 feet wide and 100 years long

"The Great North Central" is the name of a freelanced model railroad that I'm building. I thought I'd share the base timeline, and see if there's some improvements.

The goal of this timeline is to have serious 2 foot gauge trains still running into the late 20th century and beyond.

Name of Company: Sandy River, Wiscasset, and Farmington
Gauge: 2 foot
Period Operational: 1870’s to the present

Motto: “Two Feet Wide and One Hundred Years long, and growing”
Shop Motto: You carry it in—we’ll do the rest

History/Description:

When the Maine Central attempted to prevent the Sandy River and Rangely Lakes from linking up with the Wiscasset, Waterville, and Farmington, the court case started getting ugly—until demands from the people of backwoods Maine spoke loudly enough to force the legislature to act, and the link-up was forced through. In addition, railroad service was in so much demand, that the legislature passed a law providing that “The right of way, and all buildings necessary for the operation, of 2 foot gauge railroads, shall not be taxed.”

That act insured that the 2-foot gauge railroads would have a place for a long time. Although a law like that sounds odd, it was a sure-fire way to encourage the growth of the little trains into parts of Maine that could only grow with rail service. Among other things, it encouraged potential stockholders, who would know that the big lines wouldn’t encroach, then take over, as soon as it looked like there was a major profit to be made.

Additionally, one engineer proved that it was very possible to run these narrow gauge trains at speeds in excess of a mile per minute. (OTL, one engineer routinely ran at these speeds, but the ride was very rough.)

Although the ride was rough, getting from one town to another at this sort of speed was exhilarating—and the President of the Line decided to take a chance. With profit coming in nicely—for now, anyway—a portion of the line was upgraded, and a few coaches were modified for a more comfortable ride. The “Waterville Flyer” was a huge success, especially with parlor car service added.

In the days right after the Great War, the line was fortunate enough to hire several de-mobilized submariners—including a few engineers. As a result, when someone suggested diesel locomotives for certain purposes, there were already experts in place to run them. No one ever thought they would replace steam for most purposes—but for switching in the yard, they might be useful, simply because they could be started in moments, used for an hour or two, and turned off.

A pair of war surplus diesel engines were obtained, dirt cheap, and soon were mounted on improvised flatcars, shunting cars around the Waterville yard. Of course, open-air locomotives were not the most practical in Maine, but nicely enclosed, they seemed useful enough. The clunky boxcabs were indeed slow—but also reeked of modernity and progress. That was a mixed blessing in Northern Maine—the locals accepted change but slowly—yet valued thriftiness as well.

The boxcabs were used mainly at smaller yards and plants—ones that needed their own switchers, yet might only use them for a few hours at a time. They also needed to be stored in a heated engine house in winter—diesels don’t do well in sub-zero temperatures. More often, they simply weren’t employed in the bitter cold; traffic in their yards was also slower.

As the line grew, both in length and traffic volume, there was soon a need for either double headed trains, or bigger locomotives. The occasional double-header made good economic sense, but as the loads increased, the need for locomotives bigger than the 2-6-2’s became glaringly obvious. At the same time, replacing several hundred miles of track with heavier rail would cost, and cost a LOT.

Even as diesels were being contemplated for switching, so too were far bigger, better road engines. Three basic ideas were contemplated.

The first option was to order some fairly normal 4-8-2 steam locomotives, which would increase pulling power by a third without increasing axel loading.

The second option was to order one or more Mallets, in a 2-6-6-4 configuration, for heavy freight (or what passes for heavy freight on a 2 foot gauge line.)

The third choice almost didn’t get brought up—but Beyer and Peacock and Company was hoping to get into the American market, and offered to build a pair of Garratt locomotives at a good price. (It turns out that they offered to build them at a very slight loss to get American exposure.)

All three options were executed between 1919 and 1927. Of them, the 4-8-2 was a fine locomotive, and had good power and excellent reliability; they hauled plenty of freight and passengers over the years. Tight curves were not a big issue; the ubiquitous Maine Forneys already needed broad curves. (Maine’s Forneys did not have the blind driver that many others had. Blind drivers does not refer to motorists needing glasses, but to drive wheels without a flange, allowing for tight curves on the line. Motorists that need Braille, however, DO seem to be common in some parts of Maine…)

The Mallet was a daring choice, supposing that traffic would suffice to support such a costly investment—but it also paid off nicely. Successfully hauling huge loads right into the 21st century, the first two Mallets were joined by several more over the years. They, however, needed a wye or new turntable at each terminus; they were too long for the existing turntables. Thus, their runs could only terminate at certain locations.

The Garrets were, in many ways, the best heavy locomotive for the system—powerful, able to manage tight turns, reliable, and fast. But—being imported, maintaining them posed a potential problem.

Garratts did have the key advantage of being fully bi-directional—no new turntables needed. Another pair was ordered later. The massive capacity and versatility of these locomotives worked wonders through the years of the Second World War, as heavy loads might need to be taken anywhere on the system.

The last set of special locomotives was the Baldwin 4-6-2 Pacific express locomotives. The big, high stepping engines could exceed 75 miles per hour on the straightaway, and ran smoother than the smaller Prairie 2-6-2, taking curves at a faster clip.

As the line grew, reaching southern Quebec, and also extending into Vermont in places, some were referring to it as the “North Central,” and the name change became official in May of 1928.

In mid 1929, the North Central was growing ever more prosperous, and northern Maine along with it. But, two great threats were looming, one seen, one unseen…

Next: Surviving the Depression and the Automobile…
 
This is a neat idea, but some thoughts:

1) I can see an initial bonus to 2 foot railroads if they prove especially successful, but not a long term "no taxation" - and even if that's the case, standard gauge's advantages are considerable (although that's not what OTL killed the Maine ones, if memory serves) when it comes to hauling loads.

2) Why would being able to operate a diesel submarine translate into being able to operate a diesel locomotive?

3) More problematically: http://utahrails.net/loconotes/coifman-locopaper.php

Obviously you can say the tech developed faster, but it'd be nice to see that mentioned.

4) Not to argue, but what's your source on the blind driver issue? Would love to read more on the locomotives used.

5) Nifty idea having the Garrets - very plausible and very cool.
 
Some thoughts back to you

This is a neat idea, but some thoughts:

1) I can see an initial bonus to 2 foot railroads if they prove especially successful, but not a long term "no taxation" - and even if that's the case, standard gauge's advantages are considerable (although that's not what OTL killed the Maine ones, if memory serves) when it comes to hauling loads.

2) Why would being able to operate a diesel submarine translate into being able to operate a diesel locomotive?

3) More problematically: http://utahrails.net/loconotes/coifman-locopaper.php

Obviously you can say the tech developed faster, but it'd be nice to see that mentioned.

4) Not to argue, but what's your source on the blind driver issue? Would love to read more on the locomotives used.

5) Nifty idea having the Garrets - very plausible and very cool.

1. The tax issue was a responce to big lines like the Boston and Maine trying to freeze out the little trains--and to keep them viable in the age of GM and Ford. That could easily go away, though.

2. A diesel engine is much the same wherever it is located. In this case, they had some demobilized submariners, and got a deal on a few engines--and experimented. The 1919 diesel locomotives aren't great, but they work. The main advantage is that, if you need motive power for an hour or so to shift some cars around, you don't need 2-4 hours to get steam up!

3. The technology is pretty much the same, but the Mainers are experimenting early--prehaps too early--more will be seen in later installements.

4. Regarding the blind drivers, I have several sources. First and foremost is personal observation. I have ridden behind several 2' Forneys, and had the great honor to get shown around the shop where three were in various stages of restoration. (And get in the cab, too...)

The Maine Two Footers by Linwood Moody has many pictures and plans, some of which let you see the flanges clearly. Also, if you want more info, the Wiscasset, Waterville, and Farmington Railway gift shop has LOTS of books that cover the 2 footers available. http://www.wwfry.org/

5 Thanks. I can't take credit for the Garrets, though. that comes from here: http://www.crayvalleyrailroad.com/

In fact, that site is a serious inspiration for my model building.

More coming...
 
1. The tax issue was a responce to big lines like the Boston and Maine trying to freeze out the little trains--and to keep them viable in the age of GM and Ford. That could easily go away, though.

Yeah. I'd have - if you want them to be favored - have some bigshot Maine politician initially give them (or even this particular railroad) some sort of state subsidy, and over time it becomes a point of pride (on the county and lower level) to "ship by the narrow gauge" since the little two footers run like a charm.

That attitude boosted the Nevada County 3-footer in California for a little while, it ought to help the GNC - especially if Maine's politicians favor the rails over encroaching roads.

2. A diesel engine is much the same wherever it is located. In this case, they had some demobilized submariners, and got a deal on a few engines--and experimented. The 1919 diesel locomotives aren't great, but they work. The main advantage is that, if you need motive power for an hour or so to shift some cars around, you don't need 2-4 hours to get steam up!

Its the locomotive part that would take some getting used to, although I can buy this as a headstart.

And I'm not sure they really work that well - I'd work this in at a slightly later date and not as war surplus myself.

3. The technology is pretty much the same, but the Mainers are experimenting early--prehaps too early--more will be seen in later installements.

Good to know.

4. Regarding the blind drivers, I have several sources. First and foremost is personal observation. I have ridden behind several 2' Forneys, and had the great honor to get shown around the shop where three were in various stages of restoration. (And get in the cab, too...)

The Maine Two Footers by Linwood Moody has many pictures and plans, some of which let you see the flanges clearly. Also, if you want more info, the Wiscasset, Waterville, and Farmington Railway gift shop has LOTS of books that cover the 2 footers available. http://www.wwfry.org/

You are a lucky man. I have never been out as east as Maine, so I've only seen them in pictures - and apparently not ones that good.

Would love to get a copy of Moody's book though, among others - so if you have any specific recommendations please share!

Narrow gauge was a really cool thing in its day.

5 Thanks. I can't take credit for the Garrets, though. that comes from here: http://www.crayvalleyrailroad.com/

In fact, that site is a serious inspiration for my model building.

More coming...

Still. They fit the idea of "Hm, we need heavy duty motive power, but we never built heavy duty tracks. What do?" beautifully, so even as borrowed its still worth praising.

Not to mention that from the model building standpoint it must be really cool to have something distinct and weird (by American standards) to add variety to the loco collection.

Looking forward to seeing where this goes. :D Pictures (of the model railroad) would be nice if you have any at some point.

By the way, I assume that areas not detailed went more or less as OTL (close enough to not be worth detailing, that is) - same basic route from city to city, same kind of engines purchased (pre-diesels and Garrets), etc.
 
The diesel engines are the same no matter where they're located, and then, any railroad engineer can handle running the beat. They'd still have 2 man operation anmyway, at first--one to drive, one to babysit the prime mover. It's an experiment, since, on any railroad, there's times when a second locomotive, for a few hours, would make a huge difference. The experiment is semi-successful. I used the war surplus idea because inexpensive is the only way the line would go with a diesel at this point--and I wanted to build one or more. (My narrow gauge diesel plans are the "Diesel 1919" that I'm currently working on, and perhaps a sleek center cab.)

You can see my current progress here: http://model-railroad-hobbyist.com/blog/18390

Things not detailed did go largely as in OTL, excpet fewer roads and more tracks...the subsidy--in the form of major tax incentives--keeps them running, and the Maine Narrow Gauge lines become as much a symbol of Maine as the cable cars of San Francisco or the Old Man of the Mountina in New Hampshire--but survive the Old Man.

The next piece, through the depression--will be posted Friday if all goes well. I've written through the 1970's, but am cleaning things up.
 
The diesel engines are the same no matter where they're located, and then, any railroad engineer can handle running the beat. They'd still have 2 man operation anmyway, at first--one to drive, one to babysit the prime mover. It's an experiment, since, on any railroad, there's times when a second locomotive, for a few hours, would make a huge difference. The experiment is semi-successful. I used the war surplus idea because inexpensive is the only way the line would go with a diesel at this point--and I wanted to build one or more. (My narrow gauge diesel plans are the "Diesel 1919" that I'm currently working on, and perhaps a sleek center cab.)

Good enough for me. A little yard engine that just has to be strong enough to push a few cars around slowly is easier to cobble together to an acceptable level than a full fledged road engine - the technology does exist, its just very primitive.

I'm a major steam fan and anti-diesel guy, so I suppose that's backing up my skepticism. Anything to keep them down is a good something. :D

I imagine that from the railroad's perspective, the downsides of the "cobbled together" are outweighed by "Hey, it doesn't take hours to steam up" - but otherwise its nothing remarkable.

No faster dieselization of the world at large thanks to this example or anything horrific like that.


Woot.

Things not detailed did go largely as in OTL, excpet fewer roads and more tracks...the subsidy--in the form of major tax incentives--keeps them running, and the Maine Narrow Gauge lines become as much a symbol of Maine as the cable cars of San Francisco or the Old Man of the Mountina in New Hampshire--but survive the Old Man.

The next piece, through the depression--will be posted Friday if all goes well. I've written through the 1970's, but am cleaning things up.

That should do them a world of good - tourism (for the sake of the trains, not even Maine) as a source of revenue should be something they can make very good use of if they survive the Depression and WWII (didn't the prototype only fold up as late as 1944?).

Its not enough on its own maybe, but that plus "ship by narrow gauge" business and normal passenger service should be enough to keep things running.

Narrow gauge forever. :D
 
To Diesel ort not to Diesel...that is the question

I am a BIG steam fan personally, followed by electric. The diesels I like most are the old boxcabs from the late '20's, and there will be some on the standard gauge part of my layout. Dieselization won't be much faster--and the maine trains will remain a serious mix of steam and diesel even into the 21st century.

As for "cobbled together," the Maine two footers could--and DID--cobble together almost anything they had the parts for. Diesel 1919 is only good for moving a few cars at need. It will provide early experience with the care and feeding of diesel locomotives--which will aid the line greatly in years to come. (Expetise is a VERY marketable comodity...)

Heck, given the Maine attitude, I could see them coming up with--and burning biodiesel in the war years...

The only downside--and to me, it's a big one--no Edaville Railroad.

OH--as for sources on the two footers, the http://www.wwfry.org/ Wiscassett, Waterville, and Farmington Railway's museum store online has all sorts of useful books. For some good online pics, go to railpictures.net and search for "Forney," "Wiscasset," "Alna" among others.(And OF COURSE, Edaville!)

This pic of of a Maine 2' Forney shows the flanges on the drivers nicely! http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=293821&nseq=17

As you can probably guess, I LOVE the old steamers--especially the Maine 2 footers...

Note: The 2' gauge vertical boiler Climax is modeler's liscence--there were no 2' gauge geared locomotives in Maine--but they are neat.
 
Heck, given the Maine attitude, I could see them coming up with--and burning biodiesel in the war years...
p
The only downside--and to me, it's a big one--no Edaville Railroad.

OH--as for sources on the two footers, the http://www.wwfry.org/ Wiscassett, Waterville, and Farmington Railway's museum store online has all sorts of useful books. For some good online pics, go to railpictures.net and search for "Forney," "Wiscasset," "Alna" among others.(And OF COURSE, Edaville!)

This pic of of a Maine 2' Forney shows the flanges on the drivers nicely! http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=293821&nseq=17

Thanks. :D

Note: The 2' gauge vertical boiler Climax is modeler's liscence--there were no 2' gauge geared locomotives in Maine--but they are neat.

They are. I prefer Shays, but Climaxes have their own charm.

The old steamers are a lot better at that than the new designs (well, new in the context of where your railroad history is at now) - not to say they're ugly or ineffective, but some of the charm is missing from the Bigger Better More Powerful drive that sees 4-8-8-2s and so on elsewhere.

Gimme a little American or Forney any day and two for Fridays.
 
Shay vs Climax

I prefer Shays, too--they were the best logging locomotive design IMVHO, and interesing to watch run. However, a vertical boiler Climax is MUCH easier to scratchbuild--especially for a scratchbuild first time! Hence, a Class A Climax!

Forneys, 10-wheelers, Americans, and the logging locomotives--and anything on 2' gauge are my favorites. (Most of my layout will be standard gauge, though--almost everything 2' gauge has to be scratchbuilt or from Craftsman (translated--many hours!) kits. Standard Gauge is readily available ready to run.)
 
I prefer Shays, too--they were the best logging locomotive design IMVHO, and interesing to watch run. However, a vertical boiler Climax is MUCH easier to scratchbuild--especially for a scratchbuild first time! Hence, a Class A Climax!

Here's hoping it runs as well as the real thing would. And was the "prime mover on a flat car" actually just that on the model? :D

Forneys, 10-wheelers, Americans, and the logging locomotives--and anything on 2' gauge are my favorites. (Most of my layout will be standard gauge, though--almost everything 2' gauge has to be scratchbuilt or from Craftsman (translated--many hours!) kits. Standard Gauge is readily available ready to run.)

HOn3 seems moderately better, but HOn30 seems to be for the dedicated.

You mentioned having a mix of steam and diesel into the 21st century - I wonder if that means the GNC will be ordering new steam locomotives post 1960ish.

And if so, from where. Having it order things based on the not-quite-two footers in Wales (as the Talyllyn is one of the few other ones operating, and thus providing a market for steam engine related work) would be very charming.

Might be too much to hope for double fairlies a la the Ffestiniog railroad, but I like the idea anyhow.
 
Locomotives

"Diesel 1919" is a litle bit beyond "Prime mover on a flatcar." This one has an actual hood to cover the engine, and a cab for the engineer. It's more than a proof of concept, and is also buildable in HOn30--the hood concelas the mechanism.

HOn3 is expensive, but readily avaialble--and has ttrack that's too wide for me--it's designed around the western narrow gauge, mainly, and the East Broad Top, with 3' track.

The Great North Central likely won't need many new steamers after the '60's--but then, there aren't many that can build them. They can, however, rebuild almost anything, so old ones can be rebuilt as needed. (More on that when the posts about the war and postwar era are cleaned up.)

Sorry, no double-ended Fairlies, though.
 
"Diesel 1919" is a litle bit beyond "Prime mover on a flatcar." This one has an actual hood to cover the engine, and a cab for the engineer. It's more than a proof of concept, and is also buildable in HOn30--the hood concelas the mechanism.
Convenient.

HOn3 is expensive, but readily avaialble--and has ttrack that's too wide for me--it's designed around the western narrow gauge, mainly, and the East Broad Top, with 3' track.
Yeah. I just mentioned it because it at least does seem to have actual ready-built stuff, unfortunately HOn30 is still advancing from the days when modelers built stuff on N gauge models as a substitute for having stuff for the little 2 footers.

The Great North Central likely won't need many new steamers after the '60's--but then, there aren't many that can build them. They can, however, rebuild almost anything, so old ones can be rebuilt as needed. (More on that when the posts about the war and postwar era are cleaned up.)
Yeah. The main issue is going to be keeping the boilers sound, and that seems doable with effort (judging by various restoration projects) - if not cheap.

But if it can keep those up, it should already have a well established roster - and with a little luck, the old engines (the ones built pre-1900) will keep running as long as there's a GNC.

Sorry, no double-ended Fairlies, though.
Awwww. Those are impractical but cool.

Oh well. At least there are Garrets and geared engines.
 
maintenence

Steam locomotives can be kept running indefinately, with work. OTL's Edaville, for many years, did all its own work--new boilers and the like--and kept running steam as its prime motive power for decades. The Mount Washington Cog Railway built a new locomotive locally in the 1970's. Steam can be built and rebuilt as needed. Steam locomotives need great pressure tollerance, but do not need to be machined as precisely as diesels--that's a big part of why dieselization didn't happen more durring World War II.

HOn30 is almost all scratchbuilding using n-gauge equipment as a base. Some HOe (european narrow gauge) is appropriate--same track and scale, but European prototypes. If I can find a deal on a European loco, I'll snap it up--just like the North Central.
 
In the 1920’s the automobile was becoming a significant means of transportation—but roads in Maine were far from the best. Sure, a motorcar had its advantages—but also moved at most, 30 mph on the rare good roads, was slowed down by rain, snow, and worse, MUD. And trucks were useful locally, but not so much for long distance. (With a better—and growing—railroad network, less money is going to roads. And the taxes the railroad would have paid on its land otherwise—aren’t getting paid; the railroad’s exemption has been sustained—hence, less state money for roads.)

And, at one point, a passenger paid the railroad to transport his motorcar—and soon enough, many passenger trains have a flat car or two with motorcars—or even trucks.

Also as the 20’s moved on, double track mainlines started to appear. But—each track was signaled for two-way traffic, so that the express trains could proceed with fewer delays if one train was running behind schedule, and so that longer, slower freights didn’t slow the traffic as much. In short, the North Central Railroad was acting just like a standard gauge line…or a “broad gauge line,” as the Locals in Northern Maine called the bigger trains.

Unlike many railroads, the North Central had avoided excessive bank loans, preferring instead to build up its cash reserves, then simply write a check for major purchases like a new locomotive. In many cases, the funds are invested in the booming stock market until it’s time to make the purchase. At the end of September, 1929, the CEO cashed in every stock the line ownd, preparatory to ordering 3 new Mallets, a class of 6 2-4-4 Forneys, 2 more diesel switchers of an improved, yet experimental design, and 4 new high speed express steamers, along with some new coaches .

The railroad, as a result, had massive cash and gold reserves when the depression hit—and no deadly loans sitting around ready to crush the line at a banker’s whim. Unless the depression is unusually long and severe, the company should survive—perhaps even thrive. Few people will be buying Detroit’s latest. And, if coal gets too costly, steam locomotives can burn wood—and if Maine has a lot of anything, it’s wood…

One side effect of the crash: A few locomotives that were stored for future use, years ago, and about due for the scrap heap, were , instead, shunted aside, where they could be used again if needed. In particular, the small, vertical boiler Climax that’s so popular today with railfans and Hollywood moviemakers alike today would never have survived to the present day—but fortunately, the little engine was in the back of the engine house, behind other reserve locomotives.

Business fell off as the depression set in, but the road managed to keep running—the reserves of cash intended to purchase new locomotives and rolling stock kept the line through the various glitches. And with adequate locomotives and rolling stock, wreck damage could be handled as the workforce became available, rather than either rushing it at ruinous expense, or cutting back service. This allowed the line to maintain decent levels of service, although cut back when appropriate. In some cases, railbusses filled in on less used lines—but no lines were abandoned. Profits, though slim, never quite vanished altogether.

Even in hard times, there’s people with funds for vacations, grand hotels letting rooms for low prices—in short, some tourist trade for the little trains. Adding more parlor cars helped draw trade, and wasn’t an overly expensive job. Regular passenger coaches could have their interiors gutted, and finer fittings installed. With names like Rangely, Wiscasset, Sandy River, and other towns along the line, the parlor cars were a great success. In the mid 20’s, dining cars had been added, though the smaller coaches meant that dining was not at the same level as on the standard gauge palace cars; they were essentially snack cars with decent food. The improvements made the little railroad an even more pleasant way to travel than before—and vastly superior to road transport.

Likewise, people always need food and lumber—and the little line brought both of those to the city in abundance. In short, the Great Depression was a hard time for the North Central, but it came through in a reasonably strong position. By 1939, traffic was slowly growing, but the cost of locomotives and rolling stock was still low, so several multi-purpose locomotives were ordered, including 3 modern diesel-electrics for switching, and also for helper service in a few spots.

Also in the 1930’s, railfanning brought passengers to the little trains, bringing in more needed revenue. (Railfans have been around for a LONG time!)

For helper service, diesels could be almost ideal. A helper might only be needed once or twice per day, for a long heavy train on a hill, yet a steam locomotive takes a long time to fire up, and just as long to cool down. A diesel can be turned on in a matter of minutes, and turned off likewise. In winter, it should have a heated engine house; they are notoriously difficult to start in the biter cold. The use of the diesels for tasks like this is another savings. And as one of the first railroads to use a limited amount of diesel power, the North Central Railroad diesels are some of the best in the country…

In fact, by the mid to late 1930’s, railroad men from several standard gauge lines are paying visits, learning about the practical uses of the new technology, and paying consulting fees.

Through these hard times, the North Central made some money—and management wisely plowed most of the profits into keeping the line in outstanding shape, knowing that, when prosperity returned, the North Central could be well poised to take full advantage of it…

(Modeling plans--VERY long range) include a Prarie (2-6-2) like they ran in OTL, and a 4-8-2 or 4-8-4 as bargains become available. Also, a centercab diesel is on the agenda. Oddly enough, a Forney is a ways down the line, despite being the most common 1920's 2 foot loco in both this timeline and OTL. A Forney will be a very difficult project--and require expensive drive mechanisms to get good running characteristics. Likewise, a Garratt is not in the near future for modeling.)
 
Steam locomotives can be kept running indefinately, with work. OTL's Edaville, for many years, did all its own work--new boilers and the like--and kept running steam as its prime motive power for decades. The Mount Washington Cog Railway built a new locomotive locally in the 1970's. Steam can be built and rebuilt as needed. Steam locomotives need great pressure tollerance, but do not need to be machined as precisely as diesels--that's a big part of why dieselization didn't happen more durring World War II.

This is a good thing. The repair and rebuildability, that is.

HOn30 is almost all scratchbuilding using n-gauge equipment as a base. Some HOe (european narrow gauge) is appropriate--same track and scale, but European prototypes. If I can find a deal on a European loco, I'll snap it up--just like the North Central.

Given that the Maine Two footers are one of the iconic American Narrow Gauge lines, I'm kinda surprised. Then again, "American Narrow Gauge" in model railroading seems to have focused on the Colorado ones to excess - another gauge and not even the right kind of locomotives.
 
Rolling stock--yes..locomotives--no

There is actually a fair amount of rolling stock available from varying sources--especially F&C. Locomotives are VERY few--and mostly brass and COST! Thus, scratchbuilding. Some pieces and parts can be got from Shapeways to modidy N-gauge steam to 2' gauge.

Western trains are more commonly modeled, I'd guess, because they got a lot of atention from Hollywood, and have some famous scenic lines right through the present. Also, HOn3 includes the East Broad Top and also the White Pass and Yukon.
 
There is actually a fair amount of rolling stock available from varying sources--especially F&C. Locomotives are VERY few--and mostly brass and COST! Thus, scratchbuilding. Some pieces and parts can be got from Shapeways to modidy N-gauge steam to 2' gauge.

Boo, brass. Wonderful quality, but definitely not cheap.

Western trains are more commonly modeled, I'd guess, because they got a lot of atention from Hollywood, and have some famous scenic lines right through the present. Also, HOn3 includes the East Broad Top and also the White Pass and Yukon.

True. But the Colorado lines get a lot of love.

Nice update, by the way.
 
Railfanning

Expect the North Central to receive a shed-load of tourist annually, any Welshman that see it would die of shock:D:p, it would become an American 'Romney Hydth and Dimchurch'. I must admit this would be a fantastic layout to see in operation. It would be damn surreal to go see a 2FT main line in action or watch a 4-8-4 go by for that matter.
 
I know what you mean...

My actual layout will have some mainline (or Maineline) running in 2 foot, but much more standard gauge. Even the OTL 2 footers get a fair amount of tourist trade today--as well as some occasional serious passenger service in Portland, Maine. But the North Central will be a serious railroad, much like the Romney, Hydthe, and Dimchucrch.

I have had the pleasure of seeing 2 footers under steam--they are glorious!

Having a working layout is well in the future, thought :(
 
Top