Finding a new focus

Well, my last post was a harbinger of doom, the space constrictions I began to worry about have in fact come to pass, and so for at least the near future I am looking at new layout options, and primarily in directions that may not be a Phase I of anything larger to come. In fact, I have begun to put a lot more focus on the idea of just getting something to build so that I can have something to enjoy in my dwindling spare time.

Long term, I may eventually get some space back. There have at least been a couple of discussions that we may someday put an extension on the house to provide for some additional garage space, and with that may come a layout room. But I have no idea what that time frame might be. So, in the interim, I have been looking at a few outstanding questions that were raised in the last post. One in particular has caught my attention.

Why not Z?

I'd come to the conclusion that an 18" minimum radius was acceptable in N, and if you do the math, that 18" minimum radius in N becomes... (160/220)*18" = 13.1" in Z. A Z scale version of the previous Tennessee Pass Layout becomes much more feasible in the remaining space. After all, the Helix would drop from a 42" x 42" module to about 33" x 33", allowing me to reduce the width of the layout, while maintaining the length. The aisle would still be pinched down near the helix end of the layout, but I should be able to keep at least a 30" aisle on the closet side at that end of the layout.

Fortunately, there are models of D&RGW cars and locomotives available. In fact, in the last few years, not only are F3s and F7s available, but so are GP-7s, GP-9s, GP-30s, GP-35s, and SD45s. These represent a nice range of D&RGW motive power. In fact, looking at the historical locomotive roster of the D&RGW, these models provide the basis for modeling a particular era on the D&RGW. The F3s ran 1946-1966, the F7s from 1949-1968, the GP-7s from 1950-1972, the GP-9s from 1955-1991, the GP-30s from 1963-1999, the GP-35s from 1964-1995, and the SD45s from 1967-1999. So, the intersection of those dates is 1967 and 1968, when everything but the F3s were running. From 1964-1966, I can get everything but the SD45s. But what else is running in those eras?

Well, the other locomotives running from 1964-1968 include:
Alco PA-1s (1947-1967), EMD F9s (1955-1996), EMD FTs (1942-1965), SD-9s (1957-1996), SD-7s (1953-1991), RS3s (1951-1966), KM ML4000s (1961-64), GP40s (1966-2001), and a variety of yard switchers, but those were primarily located in Denver, Pueblo, Salt Lake City and Grand Junction. Of these, only the KMs, FTs, F9s, PA-1s, and GP40s were common on Tennessee Pass. Although, GP-9s were used on the Standard Gauged Monarch Branch out of Salida after SDs proved unreliable on the curves.  So, this proposes two eras - either a 1964-66 era without SD45s but F3s, FTs and KMs, or a 1967-8 era with SD45s and GP40s but no F3s, FTs or KMs.

The KMs could probably be built on an SD45 chassis (just as has been done in N), but FTs have not been done in Z. Alternatively, GP40s have not been done in Z, but seem likely to emerge, and would be a chassis match for GP38-2s - which are available in Z now. Passenger traffic essentially ended on Tennessee Pass in 1964, and there were some line changes around 1965-66, includin the elimination of double track through parts of the Minturn side of the line. This tends to make me look a bit more at the later era, with GP40s and SD45s, even at the expense of the F3s. It also solidifies the use of GP-9s and GP30s on the Monarch Branch.

Okay, so I could probably design/build a late 1960s DRGW layout featuring Tennessee Pass or the Monarch Branch in Z, but given the size, and the reputation of Z as more of a runners scale, could I do the switching and operations that I would desire? I've done some of that in N, and in Nn3, both slightly larger, although Nn3 cars and Z scale cars are very similarly proportioned - but would it be something that I am comfortable with? And that sounds like a layout idea in the making.

Growing Doubts

With Irma bearing down on Florida, I'll take just a moment to express my hopes and prayers for those in its path. Please be safe. Even here in upstate South Carolina, I got emails yesterday and more today about preparing for Irma. Four Hours inland and this morning's reports were that we may expect Category 1 winds and rain if Irma continues.

Irma would be my fourth hurricane. I weathered a small one in Hawaii once on vacation, saw one run up into the Austin area while in college, flew to a conference ahead of one in Washington DC, and now Irma. I cannot even remember the names of the others. But its approach has just confirmed my feeling of ominous clouds on the horizon.

More than a month has passed since I expressed some doubts about the Tennessee Pass Layout I have been planning. And in that month, the layout doubts have continued to grow.

I still worry about the problems of reinstalling some of the modules should a new home be necessary - particularly the helix. It is so massive as a module - driven largely by the minimum curve radius that I just don't know if it would work. Oh, I am sure I can build it - and I can move it out - but could I ever move it in again. And if not, what is the point of moving it out, and without it, should I bother with making the rest movable.

But also in that time we have gained a new resident in the garage. My wife's sailing boat. It is beautiful, but the trailer is well, larger than I expected. It doesn't just take up a car space in the garage - but more like two. And so now when I look at the garage, I just don't see a future layout space, and so it looks like that expansion dream is pretty dead.

Worse yet, as we continue to settle into the home, I look at the remaining train space, and lament the closets along the one wall. Without them, the space is about 11 feet wide, minus a necessary aisle - so about 8 feet wide. With them, the space drops to just over 8 feet wide, but now requires two aisles. I had cheated and squeezed the Tennessee Pass Layout into this space, justifying a pair of narrow (e.g. 24 inch) aisles at each end. However, as the settling in process continues, it is becoming increasingly apparent that the closets will not be going in all likelihood, and that in fact, they will be needed to store some of my wife's collections. And if that is the case, a 24 inch aisle is not going to be acceptable. So, the space now drops to a width of maybe 2-3 feet.

Well, at that width, my 18" desired radius for standard gauge is pretty well out the door. I'd already compromised that down to 16-5/8" for the Tennessee Pass plan, but only in the helix and going downhill. Now, I'd have to be more drastic.

So, what are the options:

• Explore the implications of a 15" minimum radius for Standard Gauge.
• Consider Nn3 options instead.
• There is z scale as an option.
• Move to new concepts.
• Wait for new space to emerge.

So, at the moment, the Tennessee Pass plan is on the shelf. I'll have to look at tighter radii, going to an Nn3 focus, or maybe jumping to Z. Or even finding another option - or hobby - or simply remaining an armchair modeler. Maybe when the storm passes, some new ideas will emerge.

Filling in the Details - Deck 2

Well, it has been a month since the last post, so I am well overdue for another. Since last time, I have been slowly filling in details to the Tennessee Pass Plan. But also having some doubts. More on those later.

Below is the current Deck 2 Plan. Let's look at it in detail:

Click to see full sized graphic

Since the last version, I have worked in the roads and bridges. The line emerges from staging (on loop 4 of the helix) and crosses over the Gore River on a deck girder bridge, before ducking under I-70. I-70 is arranged so that mirrors reflect both ends of the highway, and the combination of the highway and curving around the hillside with a backdrop on the front as well as the back, prevents anyone from actually seeing the train come out of the helix. The line curves around the left end of the layout crosses a county road at grade and swings into Minturn.

I completely reworked the west end of the Minturn yard to make it more functional, but also included the Minturn station, used for MOW storage, and both the Crew Hotel and Turntable Restaurant. Each should be close to scale size, as I took the measurements from an aerial photograph. I have also included a lumber yard and a warehouse at this end of the yard. I continued to allow for the possibility of modeling the wye - which I probably would not put in place in this location (too constricting) but if the layout were to be shown, a separate module could hold the tail track.

The East end of Minturn yard was also reworked a bit. I moved the engine house to the right, reworked the work and snow train tracks, and added a RIP track. There is now a dedicated fuel track, and I think the area flows much better. I also added a concrete plant and a spur which will host two as yet undetermined industries. This actually gives me a fair amount of switching for the Minturn Yard job (~8 spots), in addition to making up a couple of locals, and adding/servicing helper engines. Leaving Minturn, the railroad crosses Ballpark Road and Cemetery Road at grade, so there will also be a park with a baseball diamond (or at least part of one) and a small cemetery.

Rounding the right corner, I added in another stretch of the Eagle River, before the line crosses under US-24. US-24 actually climbs a steep switchback on its way to the town of Gilman (located above Belden. Meanwhile the tracks enter the Eagle River Canyon, crossing another deck girder bridge at Rex, before entering the Rock Creek Tunnel. Exiting the tunnel, I decided to freelance a pair of through truss bridges due to the geometry of the crossing of the Eagle River. The line curves to the left as the canyon narrows, and disappears from sight. Once again, the rock walls and backdrop restrict vision of this part of the canyon and hide the opening to the 8th lap of the helix. The bridges should help draw the viewer's eyes back tot he foreground, but another mirror will suggest that the canyon continues around the curve. There is still some topography to do on this level, but detailing the design has moved to Deck 3. So far, everything in the plan still works and works well.

I'd love to say that this sign is true, but several factors have created a few doubts in my planning. First, my space may not be what I once thought it would be. The garage part of the layout space is looking like it will be more difficult or further off from being available. However, the layout also may not be crewable either. This layout would probably need a Dispatcher, a Minturn Yardmaster, a Staging Hostler, and 3-4 road crews, including a helper crew. That is probably the crew capacity. Even with single person road crews, that is 6-7 people, and I am not sure where to find the operators. And if I did - would this make things congested? The Minturn Yard job would operate on the bottom side of the layout, and the Staging Hostler on the top side. The Dispatcher would be elsewhere. That puts the four road crews at various points around the layout - and conceivably, in the event of a meet, 3 road crews plus another job (Minturn or Staging) all on one side of the layout at the same time. Four bodies and some tighter than I would like aisles. I could operate with fewer folks, even just by myself, but part of the "fun" would be orchestrating the meets and passes on the hill.

So, if a less dispatcher intense operating layout more the preference? With that in mind, I have been thinking more about some alternatives, including a Salida based layout featuring the Monarch branch, or a protofreelanced version strongly based on that type of operation. That would give me the ability to consider other options for operations, but still allow me to test out some of the design/construction principles I have in mind. This alternate idea could also resolve the next doubt.

Another concern is the width of the modules. I originally set the maximum width at 42", knowing that I have a 44" wide sliding door that I can carry those through. What I did not think about was whether I would have a 44" door to carry them back into at the other end of the move. Unfortunately, with the layout running from 30" to 90", I can't even turn them on their sides to get through a narrower door - say 36". And unfortunately, the Helix is a 42" wide module without much hope for width reduction. So, I have been trying to think about whether or not I could make the wider modules split vertically, at least if needed to go through a 36" door. I do not yet have a good solution - but I am looking for one. The helix is the chief issue.

So, these are legitimate concerns. And I think that they will ultimately require some other plans to determine how best to proceed. But these doubts have been nagging, and have at least pulled some of my attention away from the plan. In addition, I've been putting time into my shapeways projects. I've gotten a number of designs back on line and available after the repricing for many shapeways materials, plus I have been working on plans for a T gauge layout for the Central Railroad Club (which I joined earlier in the year). I have to admit, I've had a recent spike in T gauge interest after seeing a new exhibition layout depicting the Firth of Forth Bridge in Edinburgh.

A link to the layout is shown below. More on these ideas next time.

All I can say is WOW! What a model in T! The real bridge is 8,094' long, which is 18 feet in T-scale. The layout is therefore on the order of 24' long. Quite the layout!

A Design to Consider

Well, in my last post, I introduced a concept that I wanted to further refine. Primarily, I wanted to see if the idea would work as planned, i.e. that the grades and curves seemed to fit with the available space.

The plan still needs some work, but I have enough done that it is worth introducing. I selected the Tennessee Pass line from Minturn (on the western side of the continental divide) to Tennessee Pass Siding (located on the eastern part of the divide). This line has 3% grades in parts, and would certainly offer the opportunity to run long trains with helpers, but only limited switching. But the layout would let me experiment with train lengths, helper operations, and some multi-deck benchwork ideas that I have been developing. I'm including the route profile below:

The grade of interest is on the right side of the main diagram. Minturn is the helper base, and helpers are generally cut off on the other side of the summit at Tennessee Pass, Malta or Kobe. In this case, I would cut off helpers at Tennessee Pass, immediately before the helix down. So, with no further ado, let me introduce the layout.

Before showing the track plans of the various levels, let me show a few side views of the layout to help show the concept.

Minturn Side of the Layout

Tennessee Pass Siding Side of the Layout

So, these two views show the 3D render of the layout. The layout starts in staging (bottom image) and a train would run to the right and enter the helix. The train would climb the helix either to Minturn or Tennessee Pass Siding. If the train is headed for Minturn, the train would exit the helix on the left side of the upper image and run left to right through Minturn before wrapping around the end and entering the Rock Creek Tunnel area of the lower image. Again, the train runs left to right, and re-enters the helix for a couple of laps, before emerging at the Belden level of te upper image. Again, Left to right, entering the lower layout at the Pando level. Left to right again, returning around the end to the Pando Tunnel level of the layout on the upper image. Again left to right and the train enters the Tennessee Pass Tunnel at the right side of the upper picture. The train emerges out of the left side of the lower image, runs through Tennessee Pass Siding and then ducks back into the helix, heading down to staging. There is a small staging yard located off of Tennessee Pass siding that will represent Malta and Leadville.

Trains would climb from 34" in height in Staging to 80.5" at Tennessee Pass Siding. Yet the grades work, and the clearances are generally 8-12" plus. The 8" clearance is at the Tennessee Pass siding area and this could be fixed by raising the top of the layout if necessary - but I think at this elevation - 8" may be enough to work. It is even possible to build a raised platform of 8" or even 16" on the Tennessee Pass Siding side of the layout. That would make staging only 18" off the raised floor, but Rock Creek Tunnel would be about 35" off the raised floor. That is a little low, but Pando becomes 52" off the raised floor and Tennessee Pass Siding is at 64.5". Maybe a 14" or 15" elevated floor would be better - but both at acceptable.

Track Plan

There is a lot of detailing still to incorporate into the plan, but the concept works. I'll do some more analysis on the plan and discuss it in a future post. Until then, if tere is feedback, please share.

Considering a Concept

Well, with all the other items discussed, I have been doodling in the background. Having the train space in CAD is nice, as it allows a number of quick visualizations. One of the first drawings that I looked at is below.

Usable Space

Each of these lines represents the remaining space given aisles of various widths. Clearly, as long as the closets and sink (top of the picture) are in place, I am fairly limited. Access along the right side is a necessity, and the left side must deal with the door to the garage. About the only useable wall space at the moment is in the upper left hand corner - if the door to the garage does not have to open all the way - which it does not.

So, this is part of the fun. It is a challenge. Well, I have been following the Canadian Canyons Series on MR Video Plus. This is the most excited I have been about a project layout in Model Railroader in decades. I really like how the layout uses a helix to connect to a staging yard to form the loop. And so a concept may be born.

Looking at my space, and sketching out where the benchwork could go, I arrived at the following conceptual benchwork configuration.

Conceptual Benchwork

There is room for a helix on the left, and the trains could run around the layout and be followed by a crew all the way around the room. In only a few spots, do we have some sub-24" pinch points, and often we are wider. As a test layout, this concept has potential. It has the shelf style I am anticipating, yet could easily support full length trains. A cleaner benchwork drawing without the aisle potentials is shown below.

Dimensioned Benchwork

The layout is broken into 7 sections - each of which will fit out of the sliding door in the basement. Six sections are sceniced - and the seventh would be the helix. The layout may even be somewhat portable in case I need to move, or want to take it to a show.

So, this benchwork was not created solely by the space, but with a concept in mind. That concept is drawn from the Canadian Canyons Layout. I've drawn up a rough plan of the Canadian Canyons Layout on my own.

So, the tracks run through staging, climb the helix on the upper left hand side and then run through the sceniced layout, before descending the helix and returning to staging. It is a giant loop, but it sparked an idea. What if, my layout did much the same thing, climbed out of staging, ran around the perimeter of the layout and the returned to staging by descending the helix. A little quick math suggested that my visible run could be about 52 feet. In N-scale, that is about 1.6 miles. Since many of the places I am interested in modeling are centered around a grade, so, what I used that stretch to model the grade. Running a few quick calculations led to the following:

...a 1% grade would climb about 6.3 inches.
...a 2% grade would climb about 12.6 inches (think Moffat Line/Craig Branch).
...a 2.2% grade would climb about 13.9 inches (think Soldier Summit).
...a 3% grade would climb about 18.9 inches (think Tennessee Pass).

These are very interesting numbers. Playing with a bookshelf, I am convinced that in N scale, you need to have about 10 inches between the scenery base on the lower deck, and the underside of the upper deck. If you can get 12 inches, all the better, and then you need 2-4 inches for the deck structure. In other words, 12-16 inches of deck separation works for me - particularly if you are talking about 10-16 inch deep scenes. With this in mind, you could almost circle the available benchwork and climb to the next deck in the process.

So, what if the layout climbed out of the helix from staging, climbed around deck 1 to deck 2, circled around while still climbing on deck 2, and then descended the helix. Heck, you might be able to do it 3 or even 4 times. Interesting!

So, I have a concept for a layout that would start in staging, climb out of staging to a first deck, and then tackle a grade to the summit, before descending the helix back to staging. I've had similar ideas in the past and so I adopted a term for it - the double helix layout. This could be a chance to try it out.

Following some quick math, the footprint of the layout is 78.36 square feet, and I think I can more or less have staging + 3 decks, so a total of 313.5 square feet of layout, with a visible main line run of about 156 feet or almost 5 scale miles. Granted, the helix connecting the visible top with the staging level would be massive - but that too could be used for elephant staging (trains nose to tail) so you would not "see" the delay climbing the helix, and going down the helix could be automated or managed by the staging hostler. But a 5 scale mile helper grade, that could be a site to be seen.

Okay, so back to the concepts - Focusing on standard gauge for a minute - the Moffat would be the toughest, the grade is at the low end, which would lead to minimal clearances throughout, and if you had some flatter spots at towns, the climb distance it not there. Furthermore, some of the signature features, such as the Big 10 curves, don't work well at all. The Craig Branch has similar issues with some of the scenes (Crater loops), but perhaps a piece of it could be achieved. Soldier Summit does a bit better, it is worth considering, and given that there are few real towns on the eastern side - maybe. The western side has Gilluly Loops - that won't fit well at all. That leads us to Tennessee Pass, with a western side with 3% grades, virtually all a helper district, only a few sidings, and even where it levels out, we are often still talking about 1-2% grades. Promising.

So, it sounds like I have some concepts to draw up, and let us see how they look. Then there are some other options if I look at the Narrow Gauge options too. But I'm going to start with the standard gauge ideas and see how they look.

Layout Givens and Druthers

One of the first model train books I wore out growing up was John Armstrong's Track Planning for Realistic Operation. John Armstrong's Givens and Druthers were the basis for many of his track plans. In my professional life, I teach Design Methods, and we do much the same thing, by formulating design requirements. Design requirements are a combination of constraints (items that are nonnegotiable, i.e. the Givens) and criteria (items that are desirable, i.e. the Druthers).

In my previous post, I discussed the available space and described the necessity for a phased construction approach. These all relate to significant design constraints. But what other constraints are there?

1. Well, one primary constraint is that I want a layout that can host operations. I enjoy operations a great deal, and one of the reasons I have fallen away from building modular setups, is that I enjoy operating a lot more than simply running trains around a layout. I prefer operations to simply parading trains around a layout. In particular, I enjoy dispatching and yard operations. Local switching and over the road running is less of a priority.
2. The layout should be operable by a crew of 1, but can also be enjoyed by a larger crew. 
3. I want the layout to be self-re-staging as much as possible.

I have a lot more criteria to the project. These include:

• Scale - N is my preference, and I have collected a lot of rolling stock in N scale. I have also operated on several N scale layouts and I have found that operations in N scale are quite enjoyable. Would I consider a shift in scale - yes, but only for a definitive benefit.
• Gauge - Obviously, I have been considering both standard and narrow gauge. I have had a particular interest in Nn3 for the last 25 years. I have even built multiple Nn3 modules, and I am convinced that operations are equally viable. More recently, I have developed an interest in other scale/gauge combos, including Nn2 (N scale on T-gauge track), Zn2 (Z scale on T-gauge track), and HOn2 (HO with Z-gauge track). My father has recently gotten into On30, and I have to admit that there is a certain appeal to that as well. Particularly the Bachman geared locomotives. This decision will primarily affect the style of operation.
• Scenery - While Operations is my priority, the best operations oriented layouts are still often recreations of recognizable scenes. These scenes provide the pauses between operations tasks. These pauses provide both a sense of distance and time between the tasks. Thus, I do want to capture scenery for the in-between places. Further, since one of my passions is dispatching, distance is crucial between sidings, and furthermore multiple sidings are essential.
• Era - Probably a modern era layout, 1987-1996 is one particular timeframe of interest. I do want to be able to recreate backdated scenes and run out of era equipment occasionally.
• Train types - Given the era, I am looking primarily at freights, but I will host Amtrak, and some special passenger trains on a regular basis.
• Track Standards:
• For N-Scale Standard Gauge, I plan on using the following: Mainline - Code 55, Minimum Radius 18", Easements on Curves below 36", Grades per prototype, Mainline Primary Turnout #10, Secondary Turnout #7, yards and industries #5 which match the new Atlas Code 55 offerings. Whether I will use Atlas or Peco is undetermied, but handlaid turnouts are a viable consideration. Grade separation, 2.5" (tentative). Branchlines may use tighter radii, down to 15", and spurs may go down to 12" as may rarely used tracks, such as engine terminal or wye trackage. Target train length of 168" for unit trains, 138" for general freights and 100" for passenger trains.
• For Nn3, 10" minimum radius, 12" preferred. Turnouts of #5, #7 and #9. Code 55 and Code 40 rail.
• Multideck design is okay, and in fact is likely, with a target deck separation of 12-14".
• Grades - This depends upon the prototype to be modeled, because I would like to replicate the grades if possible. However, I will still need to do some testing to determine the impact of curves and grades on engine power.
• DCC Operations if at all possible.
• Duck-unders - Nod-unders are okay, Hinged sections are okay, I would prefer to avoid most duck-unders or liftouts.
• Walkaround Design preferred.
• Aisles - Target of 48" near yards, 36" Nominal, 28-32" okay, and 24" only for pinch points.

I am sure that there are others I should think about, but these are a pretty good start.

Space...nothing but space...

Its been a busy month since I last posted to the blog. I wish I could say that it was because I was working on a layout plan - I wasn't - or that I had an epiphany and know what I am going to model - but I don't. Most of what I have been doing is some measuring and modeling of the layout space.

What I have is what I would consider a textbook definition of a phased space. The space lies in our walk-out basement and consists of two areas. One area is a 300 square foot space adjacent to our basement level family room (aka the crew lounge). This space is separated from the crew lounge by a double sided built in bookcase. Another plus, I have a perfect spot for my train books.

The two areas are connected by a common wall, and there is a door between them. The second area is a 940 square foot, double tandum garage - of which my wife has graciously allowed me about half of the space, probably the back half, which makes the most sense. This means that I have about a 5 foot common wall plus the existing 3 foot doorway to the garage to connect the two spaces...someday. I have a diagram shown below.

Available Layout Space (Garage on the Left)

So, there is eventually about 750 square feet of layout space available. But there are some challenges. The garage will need a dividing wall, to claim the back half and climate control it. Splitting the garage in half puts that wall through the middle of the door. So, the wall needs to go on one side or the other of the door. I'd prefer to have the door on the layout side, even though that means that there needs to be access from the layout room to the garage. This would allow operators to follow trains from one room to the other without an exit to the garage.

So, you may ask, why not add a door, or completely remove that 5 foot connecting wall? Well, it doesn't look feasible. That five foot wall sections contains plumbing to most of the house. I think that there may be a 24-30" section in the clear, but I have become ever less hopeful as I studied and examined the wall. So, the existing door looks like the best option for people egress. I think I can find enough gaps to run a mainline through the wall though.

Okay, so, what else is there - well, on the garage side there is a water heater, which my wife wants to replace with a instant hot water heater (yea!) and 400A of electrical panels, not all of which are in use (also yea!). There is also a sump pump, a utility sink and a washing machine, but I can work with those - I think. But all of that is down the road. We aren't going to redo the garage for a few years.

So, there is the existing interior space, which is about 132" by 333.5". Not a bad space, but again, not all is perfect. One wall is the book case - which is untouchable. So this also means that there is a necessary aisle-way along that wall. The wall on the right is against the staircase, but also contains AC ductwork, so I could attach to it with care, but there is some need for access. The upper wall is a foundation wall, and has a set of closets for much of its length, along with another sink. The sink can go, and the closets too - but neither immediately. Furthermore, there is a crawlspace access along this wall, with access to a second water heater. Access needs to be maintained. The last wall has the inside swinging garage door. All told, this dramatically reduces the room footprint to about 51" by 286" - assuming 24" aisles along 3 sides and 36" for the garage door side. So, my 750 square feet is currently only about 101 square feet today. I've made another diagram of this room below.

Interior Room Diagram

So, right now, I don't have a lot of space options - and so Phase 1 is limited to about a 100 square foot layout. But, Phase 2, the removal of the closets and sink in the interior room would make this space closer to 225 square feet. Phase 3, the back of the garage would add another 470 square feet. So, as I said a space for a layout to be built in phases.

My initial thought is actual to approach it this way:

1. Built a Demo/Test layout in the current 100 square foot area (phase 1).
2. Redo the garage and built phase 2 in the garage space
3. Then, either connect the two layouts together in phase 3, or remodel that space to be an addition to the phase 2 layout; and
4. There is even a phase 4 possibility, where perhaps more of the garage space can become available.

But that is the plan - look at the possibilities of a 100 square foot layout to test out construction and operational ideas, until and while the remodeling of the other spaces becomes reality. So, with that, perhaps some discussion of my design givens and druthers should come next.

Thinking Outside of the Box - Or Going Off the Rails

What if...

Two very powerful words, full of infinite potential. So, what if I did something else with the layout? There are a bunch of possibilities. If I didn't pick the Rio Grande, I could easily have picked the Western Pacific through the Sierras, or the Southern Pacific in California or Oregon. I seriously considered each as a viable option. I am a big fan of the Feather River Route on the WP, Donner Pass, the Cascade Line, the Siskiyou Line or the Modoc line on the SP. That these lines have ties to the Rio Grande is a plus, but so is the fact that my family has ties to these routes as well. Each of these lines would also make a fantastic layout.

WP Feather River Route

SP Donner Pass

SP Cascade Route

SP Siskiyou Line

SP Modoc Line

Of course, now living on the East Coast, there are opportunities that are more local. The Norfolk Southern line between Greenville, SC and Atlanta runs less than a mile from my house. And to my north are opportunities such as the Clinchfield, the Pocahontas Division, or the Rathole. I'm somewhat drawn to the Norfolk and Western as a potential line to model, if I swung east in my focus. After all, 911 is one of my favorite engines, and there is a certain romance to these lines.

Clinchfield (now CSX) Railroad

NS Crosses Lake Hartwell near Clemson, SC

N&W (now NS) Pocahontas Division

N&W 911 - A Favorite Steam Engine

And again, proto-freelancing is an option. The Allegheny Midland (AM), the Virginia and Ohio (V&O), and the Virginia Midland (VM) are all fascinating railroads that are so well done, they almost exist in real life. With two of the three now but a memory, there is certainly some room for my own interpretation of those lines. 

The V&O Railroad

The VM Railroad

The AM

All three are the products of fantastic modelers, and there is an element of it is theirs - not mine in thinking about modeling a model railroad. But I could see perhaps a proto-freelanced road of my own, that tied into one or more of the Appalachian Lines. 

And then there is yet another option. One of my favorite books on model railroads in Linn Wescott's seminal book on the wizard of Monterrey, John Allen. I don't know many model railroaders who have not been inspired by his layout, the Gorre and Daphetid. 

The 3rd Gorre and Daphetid, looking over the 1st Gorre and Daphetid in the foreground.

Now a days, I suspect that this would have been built more as a multi-deck railroad - after all, in many ways it operated as such, with the main passing through french gulch on four levels. What would a modern design update to the GD Lines look like? Would it be fun to operate? Would diesels finally have made the scene or is steam still hanging on. I got to admit, this would be a step away from the world outside and a step into the imagination of someone else. Of course, others have build their own tribute layouts. The original GD Lines, is a popular twice around loop plan. But there is something enchanting about it.

Well, those are the wild cards. And I honestly do not know what option to pick. But I am enjoying the possibilities. So, what comes next? I think after this, it is time to talk about my space, both what I have now, and what I may be able to acquire down the road. Afterall, that knowledge is driving my thoughts towards building in 2-3 phases, and deciding how to use the space during that time.

A Little bit of a Narrow (Gauge) Imagination

A little imagination goes a long way. And with narrow gauge modeling, it goes even further. I started model railroading with my father and an O scale layout. By high school, I moved to HO, and by college, I moved to N. By the time I was in graduate school, Nn3 seemed to be the way to go, because of both the small size and the challenge. I even built nearly a scale mile of Nn3 modules that I took to the National Train Show in St. Louis in 2001. I still enjoy tinkering with narrow gauge ideas, and layout plans. But, as I have become increasingly interested in operations, it isn't the small size of Nn3 that makes me hesitate, but my feeling that the operations are kind of small, low density affairs. I've operated enough in both N and Nn3 to feel like I can operate in those scales. I've also operated both on standard gauge and narrow gauge layouts. Both can be satisfying. But I find that the narrow gauge lines, to remain plausible, just do not have the feel of operating a standard gauge line.

One particular inspiration in how to get the operations "feel" I want, but model narrow gauge is to copy Bob Hayden's approach on the Carrabasset and Dead River Railway. The C&DR is a Maine 2-footer, but models an era after which all the prototype lines had been abandoned. And it is not a fading concern, but a healthy, vital railroad, featuring new diesels, passenger service, and even innovations such as unit trains.

In some ways, the prototype equivalent is the White Pass and Yukon Railroad in Alaska, that operated as a narrow gauge freight line until 1982, and now operates as a tourist line. The line operates primarily with diesels, and even sported intermodel trains at one point.

It is as a healthy going concern that I imagine my Rio Gorre Northern. As one of my other hobbies is the history of the atomic bomb, I even think I would set the layout in 1952, shortly before the H-bomb was first tested. Part of the theme of the layout would be that the line serves and provides transportation of military-grade equipment and materials needed for the nuclear arsenal. Were this equipment goes exactly is a little bit more of a mystery, but there are rumors of a secret town hidden in the northern mountains of the west. And there are rumors of a mysterious black train that runs at night delivering personnel to this location, the so called "Black Goose." Most locals laugh at the legend of this train which does not exist, but train crews are always wary to clear the line when the goose is making its mysterious run...although none can say that they have ever seen it.

In my imagination, the line begins at a port town. The port itself is known as Port, and the town as Porthmadog. Out of this terminus, runs a branch to the town of Gladhaven, a fishing and lumber town. The main climbs to summit its first range at Furlow Pass, and descends into the major terminal of Gorre. Gorre is the major terminal on the line, and from Gorre run a number of branch lines to various destinations. The line leaves Gorre, and climbs a second summit with the twin stations of Alpine and Tundra, before descending once again to a standard gauge line at Kaybeck.

The standard gauge connection could be any of a number of railroads, and might change to fit my fancy. And the branches may be operations of other lines, such as the Alpine, Kaybeck and Tundra (AKT), the Alpine Central (AC), the Gorre and Northern (GN), the Big Water and Tall Timber (BWTT), the Devils Gulch and Helegon (DG&H), The Gorre, Daphetid and Northernly (GDN), etc.

Along the way, we would see sights that resemble, the Georgetown Loop, Forks Creek, Ophir, Lizard Head Pass, Trout Lake, the Highline on the RGS, the Highline on the Durango and Silverton, Vance Junction, Windy Point, Cumbres Pass, spectacular bridges, and mines, mills, logging, and livestock. Power would be a mix of steam and diesel, and the cars would e an eclectic collection of long gone roads. Roads are not penetrating this tough country, at least not easily, and thus the railroad is the lifeline. Some say that the military has something to do with that, preferring the lack of roads and the resulting isolation to becoming a well trafficked area. Basically, the railroad would be my favorite everythings.

I don't really have LDEs for this line. It is the most freeform and undefined concept I have. I've always kept it that way so that I can imagine it in whatever space I have. I have looked at it as both a home layout empire, but also as a portable railroad that I could take to train shows. But it would not be a display layout, as much as an operating demonstration layout. However, I have also thought of it as a starter layout. Something small, that can begin operating in say 12 months, and brought to completion in 2-3 years - that would give me something to enjoy, while the larger layout was pursued, and would give me something that could live beyond the larger railroad empire.

Following the waters home

`I grew up in Golden, Colorado at the base of the foothills of the Rockies. No wonder my interests tend towards Colorado roads, and I have a bit of a narrow gauge interest. So I suppose it should not be a surprise that I would also put the Colorado Central on my list of possible subjects.

The Colorado Central ran from Denver, out to Golden and followed Clear Creek into the mountains. At Forks Creek, the line split, heading to Black Hawk and Central City on one route, and continuing up to Idaho Springs, Georgetown and Silver Plume. Along the way, the line climbs the Georgetown Route, winds through Clear Creek Canyon and serves the mining communities along the way. Perhaps the most famous rendition of the line is the HOn3 Union Central and Northern Railroad, housed in the Cheyenne Depot and built by Harry Brunk. Much of the construction of the model railroad is covered in a series in the Narrow Gauge and Short Line Gazette, and republished in not just one, but two books Up Clear Creek on the Narrow Gauge and More Up Clear Creek on the Narrow Gauge.



The UC&N model railroad also is captured on YouTube in a fun video.

Most of the models of this line seem to focus on the portion of the line west of Golden. Golden and Denver are often unmodeled - or represented with staging. Interestingly enough, the ends of the line interchanged. In Denver, the line interchanged with the major railroads in Denver, and on the western ends, there was the Argentine Central in Silver Plume, and the Gilpin Gold Tram, a unique 2' gauge railroad) in Black Hawk. There are several fantastic books on these lines including Colorado Railroad Museum Annual #10,  Colorado Railroad Museum Annual #26, Georgetown and the Loop, The Colorado Central Railroad, and The Gilpin Gold Tram, and the Gilpin Railroad Era, among others. These connections are particularly interesting. Unfortunately, none of these lines made it past WW2, although part of the line between Georgetown and Silver Plume was rebuilt and operates as a tourist line. Parts of the line were standard gauged, operated by the Colorado and Southern, and today by BNSF as the Golden Branch serving Coors.

Like the other narrow gauge ideas, this one would be a smaller operation. Operationally, the LDEs would include:

• Denver
• Arvada
• Golden
• Forks Creek
• Idaho Springs
• Georgetown
• Silver Plume (and the Argentine Central)
• Black Hawk (Gilpin Gold Tram)
• Central City

The scenic LDEs would include:

• Clear Creek Canyon
• The Central City Switchback
• The Georgetown Loop
• Mines and Mills galore!

One of the challenges, would be modeling the Gilpin Gold Tram. And herein enters T-gauge again. N-scale is 9mm between the rails representing 4'8.5". A 24" gauge line in N-scale would have a gauge of 3.8mm. At 3.2mm, T-gauge is a little tight (20.2") but it is certainly close to Nn2. I even have an Nn2 prototype of one of the tram cars made through 3D printing. More interesting is that for Z-scale, the track gauge is 6.5mm, and so Zn2 would be 2.8mm, and so T-gauge scales out at 27" in Z. It is not implausible to represent Black Hawk in N-scale, and transition to z-scale while climbing to the mines outside of town. As long as the individual towns are kept correct, I think that T-gauge equipment could be the basis for both Nn2 and Zn2. 

The idea of doing something with the Gilpin Gold Tram has definitely hooked my interest, and I have decided to at least build a small 22"x42" Zn2 layout to test out some ideas and determine technical feasibility. I've include the track plan. 

The plan is based on the Jerome and Southwestern, with some modifications. The key questions are Turnouts, track and equipment. I was able to 3D print a car easy enough, fortunately, there are some T-gauge mechanisms that look to be good candidates for the diminutive little shays that plied the line, and so in my mind, the last hurdle is couplers - at least in terms of the equipment.

But, just in case, I ran another calculation and discovered, that Z-gauge track (6.5mm) is very close to HOn2. Not HOn30" as as been done and popularized by Dave Frary and Bob Hayden, but actual HOn2. Okay, it is a little tight at 22.3" instead of 24", but that is close. Track, turnouts and equipment is easy. Some Z or Nn3 cars are actually kind of close to HOn2, or at least the cars on the Gilpin Gold Tram. There are some possible Z-scale mechanisms that could be motive power, and link and pin couplers are do-able. A shelf layout in HOn2 to have a little bit of the kingdom of Gilpin, is possible. In fact, this post took a long time, because I wanted to finish this.

Description: A Gilpin Tramway Ore Car from the 3rd order of cars, ordered in 1895. The cars were numbered 86-155. Requires some 28 gauge wire to represent the spacing rods across the top of the car, and to represent the brake stems, as well as Z-scale Archbar Trucks. To complete the model, Link and Pin couplers and the Brake Wheel should also be purchased, which are designed to be compatible with this model. In addition, 2 M0.5 0.50UNM Metric Screws are necessary to secure the link and pin couplers. The link can be simulated with 0.7mm wire (such as that used in a paperclip. The car is HO scale, 2' gauge, represented using Z-gauge tracks (6.5mm) which equates to 22.3" in HO scale. Recommended in Frosted Extreme Detail or Frosted Ultra Detail options. Polished materials may have reduced detail.

I am quite pleased with the result and eager to hold the prototype. Getting these files done, became my goal so that I could open my Shapeways shop, and also order my prototype car to see if this vision could be realized. The shop can be found here.

Or, check out the blog post.

This line is interesting to me - but it offers small narrow gauge power, 2-6-0s and 2-8-0s, but it is interesting. It would b a lower key operation, and more of a model building exercise. I am not sure this is the layout - but it is interesting to consider.