• As part of a future diesel servicing facility, I purchased and built a car washing facility offered by Stewart Products.  The facility will also include a sand, fuel, and water replenishment area.
• Stewart’s car washing facility is composed of all metal parts. They require a minimum amount of painting and easily assemble using cya glue and Elmers White glue.  Unassembled, the kit looks like this.
• The metal pieces require a small amount of filing to remove the flash left from the casting process. 
• Next, the pieces should be painted prior to assembly. I used Testors Model Master aluminum and steel colors. Aluminum is for the small control box and steel for the brush holders and spray heads. I also used acrylic black to create a black wash to highlight the details of the doors on the control box.  Acrylic black also is used to accent the mountings on the brush holders and spray heads. I finished everything with Testors Dullcote in order to provide a protective coating.
• The instructions for assembly are comprehensive. I encountered no hidden problems during assembly.
• Once assembled, the wash rack components looked like this.
• 
  
• Next, I constructed trackside concrete pads. I edged the pads with Woodland Scenics Paving Tape and poured Woodland Scenics Smooth-It into the resulting forms.  Finally, I painted the pads with Mig Products concrete pigments mixed with water. The pads looked like this.
• 
  
• The final step was drilling small holes in the pads in which to mount the wash rack pieces. They were fixed to the pads with Elmers White Glue.  Here is the wash rack in its final form.
• 
  

• Several manufacturers offer good quality track and roadbed.  Among these are Atlas, Bachman, Kato, and Peco. Each has its own special characteristics so the choice is important based on the developer’s requirements.
• Because N Scale rolling stock is so small and light weight, most authors argue that N Scale track must be laid on a roadbed.  Laying track directly on to an hard surface platform, or even on the floor, will provide an unsatisfactory alternative because of frequent derailments.  The light weight cars “bouncing” along the hard surface will not stay consistently on the track.
• One alternative is to lay cork roadbed upon which the track is fastened. This is a widely accepted practice.  The cork roadbed is flexible and able to be shaped into many different track configurations.  It is easily fastened to the roadbed with adhesives such as household caulk dispensed by a standard caulking gun, glue dispensed from a hot glue gun, or products such as liquid nails.  The track is then fastened to the roadbed with tiny railroad nails or with an adhesive such as household caulk.  If this alternative is selected, products such as Atlas’ Code 55 or Code 80 track is sold in sections of various lengths and curve radii. Atlas also offers its popular Flex Track that can be bent into various configurations and cut to the desired length.  Turnouts (or “switches” to those of us who played with toy trains) have their motors above the surface of the benchwork.
• Another alternative is use track that has been already fastened to the roadbed. Both Kato and Bachman (as well as others) offer this type of track.  Kato’s version is called UNITRACK.  It looks like this:                 
• I chose Kato’s product for the following reasons.  First, with track already fastened to the roadbed, the amount of time committed to laying roadbed and track is greatly reduced.  Second, some authors commend Kato for the quality of their products.  Third, in the photo you can see two plastic clips, one at the 1 o’clock position and the other at the 8 o’clock.  These clips — along with the rail joiners located on the rail opposite the clip, lock the sections together. By being clipped together in this fashion, the modeler is assured of track that is correctly aligned along its entire length. Furthermore, the rail joiners that carry electrical power are properly aligned so power is continuous and there is no danger of a derailment at a joint.  Fourth, Kato’s turnouts (or “switches”) contain their motors inside the turnout/roadbed combination itself providing a more realistic appearance (as opposed to a relatively large plastic container along side every turnout above the surface of the benchwork).  The disadvantage of this alternative is cost. Compared to the track-cork roadbed alternative it is more expensive. To me, the advantages outweighed the cost.
• To me, the configuration of the track was a difficult decision.  A useful resource for understanding how to create an interesting configuration is: John Armstrong, “Track Planning for Realistic Operation” (Kalmbach, 1998).  The author discusses and uses diagrams to show real-world railroad operations (“protoype” railroad concepts) that help to determine the “what” and the “why” of how track is laid out.  He covers such topics as, “loading and unloading products and passengers”, “assembling cars into trains”, and “specialized trackage and facilities.”  He concludes by making suggestions on suitable modeling projects of prototype railroads.  My decision was difficult because I knew I wanted to model a variety of landscapes, create interesting trackside operations such as mine or a saw mill, and lay track connecting everything in a way that operations would be fun and interesting.  In the end, I gave up being original and downloaded a track plan from Kato’s website.  It is their Amherst 2005 configuration. In another post, you will see its configuration.

For those new to model railroading, I have used a title most of us used when playing with toy trains as a child. Where I grew up, we put our trains on a “platform.” In model railroading, benchwork is the base (and the supporting structure such as table legs) upon which the track, scenery, and structures are placed. The inspiration for this railroad’s benchwork came from “N Scale Model Railroad That Grows” by Kent Wood and Ric LaBan (Kalmbach Publishing Co., 1996). I was looking for a light weight layout that could be moved easily because it would occupy a portion of our home’s “bonus room.” It needed to be easy to lift and carry to the attic when not under construction or being used by our grandchildren. Wood’s and LaBan’s benchwork met these requirements.  I considered other alternatives. In the model RR club of which I am a member, some have built railroads on hollow core doors. These are obviously sturdy and are also light weight when compared to 3/4″ plywood of similar dimensions.  Other books have suggested using styrofoam insulation used for home construction.  Some suggest using 2″ thick sheets and others suggest gluing 2 such sheets together.  Wood and LaBan construct their benchwork out of foam core. I rejected the hollow door alternative because I believed it would be too narrow. A standard 30″-wide door appeared to me to force a short turning radius for the curved track and thus perhaps restrict the use of longer rolling stock such as container cars and the more lengthy box cars.  The styrofoam insulation appeared very interesting but I had trouble finding thicker sheets here in southern Virginia that are suggested by some authors (2″ – 4″).  Moreover,  styrofoam would require the purchase of a foam cutting tool that appeared rather expensive and would take some experience to use effectively when cutting valleys, stream beds, or building mountains. Thus, foam core appeared to meet my needs the best.  I won’t repeat here the construction techniques Wood and LaBan describe.  Their book is filled with many important suggestions and building techniques beyond the specifics of the model railroad they suggest the reader attempt to build. For these reasons, IMHO it is a very worthwhile purchase.   That said, here are some challenges I had to meet in order to follow their suggestions. First, they suggest using 1/2″ thick foam core, 40″ x 60″ in width and length.  I could only find 3/16″ sheets in the correct dimensions.  They suggest that if this thickness is the only available, glue two such sheets together. I did, using 3M’s “Super 77 Multipurpose Adhesive.” Second, Gluing the sheets together with this adhesive was a bit tricky. Once applied to the foam core in accordance with the product’s directions, it acts like contact cement; when two surfaces TOUCH each other, they are bound together forever. So gluing two 40″ x 60″ sheets together required two people working together very slowly and carefully to get the sheets aligned exactly before the tacky surfaces touched. Other than that, building the benchwork was as easy as they accurately describe.  In the photographs included in the “Track” category here, you will see the result.  Am I pleased with the result? Yes, it was simple to build and is very light weight.  I have one reservation. Because it is very light weight, when lifted at the four corners the whole layout flexes. I am concerned that when I try to move it any distance, the flexing will cause the scenery constructed on the surface to crack, break, and perhaps fall off. So far this has not happened, but I have not moved the layout any distance. When I build my next railroad, I will glue three sheets of 3/16″ foam core together. Perhaps this will substantially reduce the flexing.

This is the history of the Grantsylvania Railroad. An N Scale model railroad measuring 40″ x 60″. Its purpose is not to brag about the railroad’s accomplishments in hauling huge tonnage of freight and thousands of passengers. Instead, it is intended to be a source of information on creating and maintaining an N Scale model railroad.  It describes the various successes and failures in laying track, wiring, creating scenery, buying/building structures, and acquiring the heart that makes a railroad beat: the locomotives and rolling stock.