Signaling

[dcarrell8]

Hello all,
I will be building a HO/HOn3 layout based on the Leadville district in Colorado.  Can anyone point me in the right direction on how signaling was accomplished with any of the Railroads in this area. Midland, Rio Grande, Colorado & Southern. 

~Dennis Carrell

[eric220]

What era are you looking at? I can say for sure that the C&S was not signaled for its whole existence. I’d guess the same for the Midland, and likely the Rio Grande in the narrow gauge days.

[dcarrell8]

Thanks for the reply

I don't have a specific date in mind.  It might be that there were no signals ever on the Midland.  I was thinking Late 20's and early 30's.  I know the Midland was defunct by then but I do want some kind of signaling.  It will be a freelanced railroad so I'm not worried if things don't make perfect sense.  I may even re-write some history and keep the Midland live and well with "updated" power.

[Missaberoad]

Others more knowledgeable on Colorado railroads will be able to give a better answer, but considering the scope and Era of those prototypes they all likely used timetable and train orders to control the movement of trains.

Likely the only signals would be train order signals at stations, and possibly signals at interlockings (however considering the early Era and branchline nature of the lines unsignaled manual interlockings are also a real possibility)

[dcarrell8]

Others more knowledgeable on Colorado railroads will be able to give a better answer, but considering the scope and Era of those prototypes they all likely used timetable and train orders to control the movement of trains.

Likely the only signals would be train order signals at stations, and possibly signals at interlockings (however considering the early Era and branchline nature of the lines unsignaled manual interlockings are also a real possibility)

Well, that certainly complicates things.  I was really looking forward making use of signals as part of the new Layout.  Of course I could also look at this as a blessing and go with a fast clock, saving myself a lot money of headaches with signals.

[eric220]

Colorado mountain railroading is definitely not the place to look if you want signaled railroading. Shoestring was the name of the game. The only real exception was the modernized Rio Grande.

[Dave V]

Based on your other thread...  The Colorado Midland had no signaling during its life, and neither did any of the narrow gauge lines of the D&RG, RGS, or C&S save for train order boards at the stations.  In later years the D&RGW used signaling on its standard gauge lines, but probably not until the 20s.  By then the Colorado Midland was scrap metal.

[dcarrell8]

Based on your other thread...  The Colorado Midland had no signaling during its life, and neither did any of the narrow gauge lines of the D&RG, RGS, or C&S save for train order boards at the stations.  In later years the D&RGW used signaling on its standard gauge lines, but probably not until the 20s.  By then the Colorado Midland was scrap metal.

Hello Dave!
I'm a fan of your RGS layout and subscriber to your youtube channel!  Love your railroad!!

So, I have some choices to make. 

1.) Do away with signals, and save money time and headaches.
2.) Change focus from C&M to D&RG standard gauge. (look into Tennessee Pass) create yet another track plan for my 26X30 space
3.) Go with the "It's my railroad, I'll do what I want" mantra and Create a fictitious story line changing history to keep the Midland relevant into the 30's or later.  Create anachronisms and updated power for the Midland ensuring I never grace the pages of Model Railroader.   Hmmm

[Dave V]

Create anachronisms and updated power for the Midland ensuring I never grace the pages of Model Railroader.   Hmmm

Well...  Sam Posey was all over Model Railroader for his fictionalized and proto-lanced Colorado Midland.  I don't think it would hurt you either!

But my suggestion would be (1) if you wanted to maintain some sense of what Colorado mountain railroading really was around the turn of the last century.

If you must have signals, then I'd go with (2) and ditch the Midland.  But then you'd be doing just another HO/HOn3 Rio Grande "Can't Make Up My Mind on Gauge" kinda layout rather than something truly unique.  Bear in mind that I say that from a position of doing something even less unique and more dime-a-dozen than that, so take it with a grain of salt.

Being a proto guy, (3) would be my least favorite choice.  The Colorado Midland was a standard-gauge narrow gauge railroad, if that makes any sense.  In operation it was indistinguishable from the rest of the "dark" narrow gauge territory where only your train orders and a stiff bolt of whiskey gave you authority over the track ahead, and you were as likely to find another train around the next curve as you were an elk, a moose, a rockslide, or 20 feet of ice and snow.  That's Colorado railroading...none of this sissy "signaled" CTC-style stuff.  Bowler hats, handlebar mustaches, and balls the size of cantaloupe...

[Missaberoad]

A good question to ask, (if you decide to take the prototype path) would be when was Tennessee Pass signaled?

A quick search provided some info.

The 1920s were a boom era for the Grande, and once again Tennessee Pass was a significant bottleneck. Recognizing that the largest productivity gains were to be had in the single-track sections, the Rio Grande installed 6.8 miles of Centralized Traffic Control (CTC) signalling between East Tennessee Pass and the beginning of double track, just past the Pando Tunnel. One long siding was added in the middle - 2.6 miles of track between East and West Mitchell. This was the first CTC installation west of the Mississippi, and the Rio Grande's first step into signals. Also in 1928, those sections of the line not outfitted with CTC were given Automatic Block Signals (ABS).

1928 is really early for CTC. It would make an interesting conversation piece being state of the art at the time.

The combination of CTC / Timetable and Train orders (with ABS) would definitely add operational interest.

A bit of a stumbling block and anachronism if an earlier era is desired.

Here's another quote way out of your Era but still interesting.

The next major change came in 1958. With dieselization complete, not as many helpers would be needed, alleviating some of the traffic between Minturn and the summit. Also, installations of CTC elsewhere on the Grande had convinced the railroad of its worth in keeping traffic moving. So, much of the second main from Minturn to Deen was pulled up and replaced with long sidings, and the entire stretch was placed under CTC control. This, along with the Kobe-Tennessee Pass and Minturn-Avon stretches, marked the last sections of the D&RGW mainline to come under CTC.

Both quotes from, http://www.drgw.net/info/TennesseePass

Personally I've always had a soft spot for standard gauge Rio Grande, so I know where my vote goes! 😊

It is however a different kind of railroading then you are aiming for.

[dcarrell8]

Thanks for all the input.

I believe for now I will go with the above mentioned option 1.)  Do away with the idea of using signals. I feel strongly about keeping the Midland, though it is not narrow gauge it fits the mold of mountain railroading.  As a benefit I will be able to run later model diesels and other ready to run power if I want, while I'm building up my Midland fleet. (which will take some time and effort)  If you've seen my post in Layout Engineering then you will know I also plan on modeling the Colorado & Southern's Blue River route out of Leadville.  Still working on a track plan that works well with both railroads. As part of that layout I have an HOn3 Timesaver built in.  I may go ahead and put some signals in there just to be a rebel!!

~ Dennis