Author Topic: Colorado Midland in N scale 2.0  (Read 5897 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

DKS

  • The Pitt
  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 12272
  • Dead Man Modeling
  • Respect: +3791
    • David's Modeling Journey
Re: Colorado Midland in N scale 2.0
« Reply #15 on: July 13, 2020, 04:23:06 PM »
0
Do I do a backdrop divider down the whole length?  That would be awesome at shows, but 98% of the time the layout sits in a corner of a room where a backdrop might be obtrusive.

Why not both? Have a permanent divider down, say, two-thirds of the center, and make removable divider parts for the ends to use at shows.
“Everyone leaves unfinished business. That's what dying is.” —Amos, The Expanse

eric220

  • The Pitt
  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 3532
  • Gender: Male
  • Continuing my abomination unto history
  • Respect: +462
    • The Modern PRR
Re: Colorado Midland in N scale 2.0
« Reply #16 on: July 13, 2020, 05:00:34 PM »
0
With either one, what about scenicing the layout as one of the places that the Rio Grande and CM crossed each other? Even with your original plan, you could use strategically placed tunnels to hide the connections between levels. The effect might not work while operating roundy-round, but it gives you an excuse to run Rio Grande trains, and you could easily stage for photos.
-Eric

Modeling a transcontinental PRR
http://www.pennsylvania-railroad.com

Dave V

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 9545
  • Gender: Male
  • The Route of the Galloping Goose
  • Respect: +5018
    • Dave Vollmer's N Scale Pennsy
Re: Colorado Midland in N scale 2.0
« Reply #17 on: July 13, 2020, 05:05:19 PM »
0
OK, so here's a starting point. Now before you go, "What kind of crazy-a$$ spaghetti bowl is this???", hear me out. I started with all of your givens, and druthers, then added on all of the subsequent discussion elements. Yeah, tons of track, lots of tunnels (which would require all sorts of removable scenery, etc. for access). But it's easier to pick and choose what to keep, and back the rest out.



Green track is lower loop, at 0". Blue is upper loop, at 2". Aqua is a connection between the two loops. Grade is 3.3%. Minimum radius is ~11". Track is all Peco Code 55. As a possible bonus, the connector between loops reverses normal loop travel direction.

OK, have at it.

Wow!  Well...  Yes, that certainly scratches all the itches!  That's a fantastic plan there.

I'm a little overwhelmed by the tunnels though.  That'll be a logistical nightmare beyond all nightmares.  Cleaning track in there...yikes.  I honestly have no idea how I would access most of them.

I wonder what I could do with that lower-level yard.  Because of my just under 6 foot limit I know it makes things really hard to fit, but right now that passing siding is next to useless.  I could move that crossover down but then I lose storage space.  Nothing's ever easy!

Also a little concerned whether I could really fit enough scenery in there.

With either one, what about scenicing the layout as one of the places that the Rio Grande and CM crossed each other? Even with your original plan, you could use strategically placed tunnels to hide the connections between levels. The effect might not work while operating roundy-round, but it gives you an excuse to run Rio Grande trains, and you could easily stage for photos.

Could do that...  The Arkansas River Valley between Buena Vista and Leadville is ideal for that.
« Last Edit: July 13, 2020, 05:09:05 PM by Dave V »
Silver San Juan Scenic Line

Member SlimRail Modular Colorado Narrow Gauge
http://www.slimrail.net/

DKS

  • The Pitt
  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 12272
  • Dead Man Modeling
  • Respect: +3791
    • David's Modeling Journey
Re: Colorado Midland in N scale 2.0
« Reply #18 on: July 13, 2020, 05:28:24 PM »
+2
Some possible solutions to various problems. Tunnel access: I re-rendered the plan with shaded areas. These would be dual-purpose: the scenery above track grade would lift off, but underneath is also more scenery, and the backdrop divider along the lift-off would come with it (the permanent portion is darker blue). This would allow you to leave them off and have contiguous scenery from one side to the other for home ops. I also shortened some tunnels, and I lengthened the runaround at the yard. As for the yard itself, you can gain 4 more inches in length: I kept the layout to 6' 6", and your minimum was 6' 10".



More scenery? You might gain a bunch by actually lengthening some tunnels instead of shortening them--just make the removable parts bigger, and maybe even add others. The inter-level connector doesn't need to be visible at all, really. And some tunnels could be accessed from the side through slots in the fascia.

« Last Edit: July 14, 2020, 12:26:15 AM by DKS »
“Everyone leaves unfinished business. That's what dying is.” —Amos, The Expanse

Dave V

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 9545
  • Gender: Male
  • The Route of the Galloping Goose
  • Respect: +5018
    • Dave Vollmer's N Scale Pennsy
Re: Colorado Midland in N scale 2.0
« Reply #19 on: July 13, 2020, 05:50:15 PM »
0
I do wonder if the minimalist approach I took for the RGS would also work here....  I'm beginning to wonder if I'm asking for too much in too little space.

Which would play better at shows...  A Disney ride with spectacular but improbable scenery or a simple, well-executed and scenically realistic layout?
Silver San Juan Scenic Line

Member SlimRail Modular Colorado Narrow Gauge
http://www.slimrail.net/

Philip H

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 7821
  • Gender: Male
  • Respect: +690
    • Layout Progress Blog
Re: Colorado Midland in N scale 2.0
« Reply #20 on: July 13, 2020, 05:58:11 PM »
0
So you started this musing reminiscing about the Jerome and Southwestern.  Its a railroady but not modelrailroady track plan as i recall - I'm too lazy to walk the 30 feet from my desk to that book. Which leads me to wonder if maybe what you need to do is look long and hard at that railroad and what grabbed you about it, and then ask whether that really can be redone in N scale.

Seems to me it could be . . .

Philip H.
Chief Everything Officer
Baton Rouge Southern RR - Mount Rainier Division.

"Yes there are somethings that are "off;" but hey, so what." ~ Wyatt

"I'm trying to have less cranial rectal inversion with this." - Ed K.

"There's more to MRR life than the Wheezy & Nowheresville." C855B

Chris333

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 14431
  • Respect: +3220
Re: Colorado Midland in N scale 2.0
« Reply #21 on: July 13, 2020, 06:02:13 PM »
+1

Hoot

  • Posts: 4
  • Respect: 0
Re: Colorado Midland in N scale 2.0
« Reply #22 on: July 13, 2020, 06:02:44 PM »
0
Dave, I know my suggestion isn't quite what you're looking for but I've always had a soft spot for the HOn3 Red Mountain Railway from the MR book 48 Top Notch Track Plans. The over all size is 6x8 IIRC however it is point to point. Even if you don't utilize the whole plan is there something you could do based off the towns of Bendair, and Red Mountain?

Edit: You could keep the two towns mention on the same level so you don't have to worry about grades, possibly straiten out Red Mountain and then connect them to each other with a loop. You'd still have a mine in Red Mountain, a trestle, a yard, an ore chute in Bendair. Just connect them with on the right side with a loop, and use terrain and backdrops to suggest the elevation.

Jason
« Last Edit: July 13, 2020, 06:06:57 PM by Hoot »

wm3798

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 14014
  • Gender: Male
  • I like models. She likes antiques. Perfect!
  • Respect: +2256
    • Western Maryland Railway Western Lines
Re: Colorado Midland in N scale 2.0
« Reply #23 on: July 13, 2020, 06:58:36 PM »
+2
The HOn3 layout scratches your ops itch.  If it's a display layout, then treat is as such.  That's really all mine is. 

Since you're leaning toward a couple of small time branch lines, not really a full on main line railroad, two sleepy loops, one up and one down that cross over each other will provide plenty of visual stimulus for the three and a half minutes that any given individual will pause to look at it.  You could still do the yard and the town trackage so you can fiddle with it while the strollers roll by, but mostly they'd be opportunities to make some railroady scene elements.  You may never use the switch or the grade during a show, or at home when it's time to JFRTM.  When you want to bump knuckles, you're going to do that on the infinitely less frustrating RGS.

KISS and build a display loop, and then work your magic with scenery and structures.  That's what's going to grab people's attention at a show.  They could care less where the trains go or whether they have anything to do.

Lee
« Last Edit: July 13, 2020, 07:00:18 PM by wm3798 »
Rockin' It Old School

Lee Weldon www.wmrywesternlines.net

Dave V

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 9545
  • Gender: Male
  • The Route of the Galloping Goose
  • Respect: +5018
    • Dave Vollmer's N Scale Pennsy
Re: Colorado Midland in N scale 2.0
« Reply #24 on: July 13, 2020, 07:08:40 PM »
0
Dave, I know my suggestion isn't quite what you're looking for but I've always had a soft spot for the HOn3 Red Mountain Railway from the MR book 48 Top Notch Track Plans. The over all size is 6x8 IIRC however it is point to point. Even if you don't utilize the whole plan is there something you could do based off the towns of Bendair, and Red Mountain?

Edit: You could keep the two towns mention on the same level so you don't have to worry about grades, possibly straiten out Red Mountain and then connect them to each other with a loop. You'd still have a mine in Red Mountain, a trestle, a yard, an ore chute in Bendair. Just connect them with on the right side with a loop, and use terrain and backdrops to suggest the elevation.

Jason

I do like that plan but it's definitely not what I'm looking for.

The HOn3 layout scratches your ops itch.  If it's a display layout, then treat is as such.  That's really all mine is. 

Since you're leaning toward a couple of small time branch lines, not really a full on main line railroad, two sleepy loops, one up and one down that cross over each other will provide plenty of visual stimulus for the three and a half minutes that any given individual will pause to look at it.  You could still do the yard and the town trackage so you can fiddle with it while the strollers roll by, but mostly they'd be opportunities to make some railroady scene elements.  You may never use the switch or the grade during a show, or at home when it's time to JFRTM.  When you want to bump knuckles, you're going to do that on the infinitely less frustrating RGS.

KISS and build a display loop, and then work your magic with scenery and structures.  That's what's going to grab people's attention at a show.  They could care less where the trains go or whether they have anything to do.

Lee

Lee, once again you speak the truth.

Really, why do I think I need to connect two loops?  I just don't.  And that simplifies things GREATLY.

Two loops would work.  But I want to execute this really well...  No wonky compromises on scenery like that stupid slash canyon I built on the current Midland.  I want rocks, trees, talus slopes, and all that.  But not impossible scenery.

OK, consider the connection between the loops to no longer be a requirement.  I'm already dreaming about a plan.
Silver San Juan Scenic Line

Member SlimRail Modular Colorado Narrow Gauge
http://www.slimrail.net/

Dave V

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 9545
  • Gender: Male
  • The Route of the Galloping Goose
  • Respect: +5018
    • Dave Vollmer's N Scale Pennsy
Re: Colorado Midland in N scale 2.0
« Reply #25 on: July 13, 2020, 07:25:30 PM »
+1
Just a quickie...

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]
Silver San Juan Scenic Line

Member SlimRail Modular Colorado Narrow Gauge
http://www.slimrail.net/

Chris333

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 14431
  • Respect: +3220
Re: Colorado Midland in N scale 2.0
« Reply #26 on: July 13, 2020, 07:54:16 PM »
+3
That new plan saves you about $4000 USD on portals.

GimpLizard

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 413
  • Respect: +22
Re: Colorado Midland in N scale 2.0
« Reply #27 on: July 13, 2020, 08:06:25 PM »
0
Well, it looks like I'm too late to help Dave. I just threw this together and while it might need a little massaging, I think the Jerome & Southwestern could easily be done in 30x60.
I used Peco C55 and 11.1" minimum radius.

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

By the way Dave, I think the plan you came up with fits the bill quite nicely.

davefoxx

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 9223
  • Gender: Male
  • TRW Plaid Member
  • Respect: +2609
Re: Colorado Midland in N scale 2.0
« Reply #28 on: July 13, 2020, 08:21:03 PM »
0
I like the separate loop idea, because this is merely a display layout and not for serious ops.  But, since I know little about your prototype, I'll float a question or two to possibly spur some brainstorming:

With two separate loops, could you do two competing railroads, e.g., D&RGW and CM?  That could justify the two parallel trestles and add variety to your fleet.  Yeah, it would add cost to the project, but, as Chris pointed out, you'll save thousands of dollars on portals.

How about one in narrow gauge and one standard gauge?  However, this would be Nn3 on a display layout.  Uh, maybe not.

DFF

General Counsel to the Laurel Valley Ry.
Member: ACL/SAL Historical Society
Member: Wilmington & Western RR
A Proud HOer

Dave V

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 9545
  • Gender: Male
  • The Route of the Galloping Goose
  • Respect: +5018
    • Dave Vollmer's N Scale Pennsy
Re: Colorado Midland in N scale 2.0
« Reply #29 on: July 13, 2020, 08:41:39 PM »
0
I like the separate loop idea, because this is merely a display layout and not for serious ops.  But, since I know little about your prototype, I'll float a question or two to possibly spur some brainstorming:

With two separate loops, could you do two competing railroads, e.g., D&RGW and CM?  That could justify the two parallel trestles and add variety to your fleet.  Yeah, it would add cost to the project, but, as Chris pointed out, you'll save thousands of dollars on portals.

How about one in narrow gauge and one standard gauge?  However, this would be Nn3 on a display layout.  Uh, maybe not.

DFF

I could do one as D&RGW standard gauge...Tennessee Pass Line.  But nah, I really don't need to complicate it.  Two different sections of the CMRy, and that's fine.

Well, it looks like I'm too late to help Dave. I just threw this together and while it might need a little massaging, I think the Jerome & Southwestern could easily be done in 30x60.
I used Peco C55 and 11.1" minimum radius.

(Attachment Link)

By the way Dave, I think the plan you came up with fits the bill quite nicely.

I like that...but the challenge for me regarding the J&S has always been the impossible grade to go from the junction the lower left to the flyover. If you looks at the J&S articles and books, you never really get a good solid look at what that grade looks like.
Silver San Juan Scenic Line

Member SlimRail Modular Colorado Narrow Gauge
http://www.slimrail.net/