So, as I've been talking about in previous posts both here in Layouts and Layout Building and in the General Discussion forum, I'm considering doing something new.
So, I've been sitting down with my drafting board and noodling out some parameters for a possible new layout. I need to get overly excited about a design, if I’m going to go to the work of tearing down my present HO layout that I’ve been working on for the last 25 years. One of the preliminary tasks of looking at maybe doing the above, would be to design a new layout on paper.
Then Northern terminus that I would like to model would be Telluride, modeling it’s branch to Vance Junction, through the Ophir Loop, then by Trout lake and finally to my farthest south portion, Lizard Head pass. Both Telluride and Lizard Head Pass have “Y” for turning trains, making them good places to have on the ends. This new layout would be a point to point design.
Using Google Earth and a website called “Route of the Rio Grande Southern, I have determined the overall lengths of each of the five Layout Design Elements I just mentioned. The Ophir Loop portion, which would be the highlight and most important LDE of the layout, can be fudged as it is a return loop, so I could model whatever portion of its’ length I wanted. I thought about 800 feet would be a goodly portion of it. I found that linking all five LDEs together, would roughly work out to 6,500 feet to 7,500 feet in full scale. So the next length I needed to know as how long would a typical train be. Narrow Gauge trains trend to be 10-20 cars long. I’m going to go with a maximum train length of 10 cars, locomotive and caboose. I’m unsure if an Sn3 locomotive can pull this many cars on a 3% grade, sort of thinking not. Looking at trains in Bob Richardson’s Book, “The Rio Grande Southern, trains look to be about that long however.
So, this is where I am right now, scratching head, thinking and making notes. You Narrow Gauge folks out there, do you have any opinions on train lengths? I think I read somewhere that the ruling grade on the RGS was 4%.
NP 2626 "Northern Pacific, really terrific"
Northern Pacific Railway Historical Association: http://www.nprha.org/
Last things first. Don't do 4% just because the RGS did. They didn't have any choice. 2.5%, maybe 3% max is much better. I have no experience with Sn3, but I suspect 10 cars on 3% is probably close to what one loco can handle. Another factor was that RGS crews often doubled trains over steep sections. So those pics of 10-car trains may be a bit misleading, as that really became two 5-car trains several times in getting over the line. Whether you want that operational headache reproduced is debateable. I could see once, but they'd have to pay me to handle trains that did it on every grade, doesn't sound like fun at all.
Here's my take on things. I think Lizard head Pass could work as one end. The facilities were pretty minimal and the only industry were the stock pens, but if the intent is mostly turning trains and staging, it could work pretty well.
Now Telluride. I guess I've never really seen it as a terminal, but I am not a RGS expert. But if it was, it was only briefly. Most frieght traffic stayed on the main and didn't venture up the branch was my impression. Telluride/Pandora definltely had plenty of action at one time. But making Telluride a terminal would be difficult. What I would do instead would be to continue north from Vance Junction into a staging loop if you have room. That way Telluride won't require additions to handle the needs of a terminal. Vance Junction to Telluride could be handled as a branch, with locals who had business venturing off the main. The Geese would also ply the branch.
Now for the line between Vance Junction and Lizard Head, Telluride is the only area of significant traffic. Ophir had a little, but other than that it was seasonal traffic like sheep, etc. Now, if it was me, I'd bring in industries from elsewhere and stick enough of them in to "correct" things, but things will be a little barren for wayfreights if you stick close to the prototype. North of Vance Junction, things were somewhat busier, but the scenery was not as spectacular.
Mike Lehman
Urbana, IL
Thanks for the input, Mike! I was not considering a 4% ruling grade, either. Been there, done that, didn't like it. As far as including Telluride, that is still up in the air. A must have LDE for me is the Ophir Loop. I included Telluride, as it is the next LDE that has some interest along the line and has a wye, next to Vance Junction. There is some difficulty with this choice, where you would think the track leaving Vance Junction would leave from the North end of Vance, it actually leaves from the south end and loops back, to gain altitude.
We're fairly just starting on this design. I was thinking it was highly likely that one or possibly two of the LDE's would need to be dropped, namely Trout Lake as my room in my basement is limited. It would be nice to have a few inches between LDEs.
Back to the drawing board: I've used a total length of 6,200 feet in full scale to link all five of the LDEs together. In S scale this works out to 1,160 feet. Now I need to selectively compress this length, as I certainly can't pack 1,160 feet of railroad in my basement!
I've found that Sn3 30 foot narrow gauge cars are exactly the same length as 40 foot cars in HO. 10 of them, works out to around 45 inches in length. So, with a loco and caboose a train might be just a bit over 60 inches long.
All of this is just rough dimensions, which likely will need to be tweaked. A siding for a 60 inch train will likely need to be 80 inches long.
Given that information, I can make Telluride 180 inches long, including the yard and wye.
This gives a total length of the model railroad of 650 inches. This length is a basis to start with. The next step is to see if this much RR can be stuffed into my basement.
If the RGS had 4% grades, were there runaway tracks for the downgrade? The CPR had runaway tracks on the "big hill" that were manned. The engineer had to give a toot on the whistle to indicate all was well, or the guy would throw the switch into the runaway track. Having to signal at these points would add to the operation (any chance to blow the whistle) You could still add the runaways even if you go with 2% grades. That is if the RGS had them?????
Brent
"All of the world's problems are the result of the difference between how we think and how the world works."
Brent,
AFAIK, no runaway tracks on the RGS. There just wasn't enough traffic, because if they ever had a problem like that, the whole RR would've been shut down until things were adjusted back to "normal." Normal on the RGS included lots of mishaps and close calls, along with minor daily derailments.
Hey NP I was thinking of your plan to model the RGS and was thinking what if I were to do that and what would I model, just a dream mind you, just for fun.
I would start with Ridgway and model the engine facility and beautiful station there. Have that basically serve a short branch into pandora and model one or more of the mills there (very cool mills there). Kind of mash Telluride, Ridgway and Pandora togher, no worries about exact replication of specific track arrangement. Model the Ophir high line of course. Ricoh with the pro patria mill (also a beautiful mill). Passing siding at Ricoh. Wildcat canyon, with its neat looping bridge there and a coal mine. Then down to the Durango coke ovens and smelter. Cross the Animas into Durango. Again, not worrying about specific track arrangement at Durango. Put the station there and everyone will know its Durango!
I have always wanted to model the Durango smelter. (I have collected drawings and photos of it). Serving the smelter would really give the railroad I think some action and a complete self fulfilling purpose. But the size of things would probably mean HOn3. Add some other industries, sheep, cattle, logging, even a short fake farmington branch for oil. I dont think I would worry about staging, if so, minimal, or use a couple tracks as open staging at Ridgway and Durango. More important to me would be modelling the buildings, bridges, mills, and smelter to the originals as much as possible, at least in style.
But I think you were saying, modelling the rolling equipment was more to your liking so, just like everything else, everyone has their thing right?
Ahh its only space, time, and money! Enjoy
I'm doubting my being able to fit the small portion of the RGS I've proposed, into my basement, let alone what your suggesting.
Yeah, not in S scale for sure. I might be able to compress Ophir in my space but that would be about it! I might not mind that actually...
We left for the weekend, it was my brother-in-law's 53rd birthday and we had to visit the wife's family and her mother, who is in a nursing home. On the way home from the nursing home, we followed the old N.P. Manitoba Junction tracks. I had noticed on previous trips that there were still “W” signs along the right of way. These were N.P. “Whistle” signs telling the engineer to whistle for a grade crossing. I thought one would look good in the layout room. However, the sign was about 7 feet off the ground and I could not even reach the bottom bolt on the sign. Oh, well, maybe some dark night I will bring a step ladder along!
No design work has been done, since Friday night. But, I will get after it this morning, along with doing some operation on my N.P. layout and working on a Gloor Craft Northern Pacific 24 foot Caboose.
Has everyone completely acclimated to the time change? I realize that the time change in Minnesota may not coincide with other states. I am not acclimated to the change, yet; however, I did manage to stay in bed until 5:00 am standard time.
Looking at the room I have available, it looks as though I may just have room enough for an Sn3 layout. However, it still doesn't mean that it will happen.
I spent a few hours today looking at what I could put in the space I have available. It appears I would be able to run each of the five LDE right up against each other. However the broad 36 inch radius curves really eat up the available space very quickly. I've been told that I should look at 36" as the minimum for Sn3. Right now, I'm thinking this just really won't work for the space I have availble and I don't see tearing down my HO layout and going to HOn3, just because I have found I like Narrow Gauge. This isn't over yet, however the fat lady has moved onto the stage.
Are the 36" min radius curves a operational limitation or an appearance one? Is it the sort of situation where it's only a tight spot or two to make everything fit or is it one of those cases when even a diet won't help the overall bloat?
I purused the PBL website to see what was said about minimum radius. It wasn't listed for most locos. It was listed at 26" for a group of K-27s, though. Since the Rio Grande's K-classes all had pretty close to the same driver wheelbase (about 12') , the bigger power should be OK there, too, I would think.
So long as everything runs smoothly around it, a tight curve or two is just another design factor to be overcome. More than that it can get to be an overall problem. And bigger is better. I wish I could've spared more than a 24" r at several spots with HOn3, just didn't have the room
mlehmanI purused the PBL website to see what was said about minimum radius. It wasn't listed for most locos. It was listed at 26" for a group of K-27s, though. Since the Rio Grande's K-classes all had pretty close to the same driver wheelbase (about 12') , the bigger power should be OK there, too, I would think.
Also keep in mind that nothing larger than a K-27 ever ran on the RGS - the trestles (and probably the right-of-way in general) couldn't handle the larger K's.
Oh yeah, just thinking out loud what's the biggest thing that might ever get run on a layout in practical terms, not prototypical ones. Got no idea if NP2626 would fudge things in such a way, but I certainly would
I thought the 36 inch radius came from the Yahoos Groups Sn3 users. However, now I can't find where that was stated.
Keith Hayes just stated the follorwing at the Yahoo groups, which changes things quite a bit and will cause me to do some further study.
"The bigger, the better. I would not go less than 30, especially with K-28s. 36" radius is nice. MRH published some interesting rules. You take the scale length of the car and convert it to actual feet:
I guess P.B.L. would be the best source of info on the absulute minimum radius required for a K-27, so I'd contact them. Then with that info in hand, I'd try to design a layout where all the visible curves are as generous as possible; but tighter curves (within the K-27's physical capabilities) would be used in less visible areas. These less visible areas could include cuts where the view of the train is at least partially obscured, but the equipment is still accessible in case of problems. Another possibility is to put the curve behind an easily removed large building. The visible operations should have curves that are more believable.
This problem came up when I helped a friend design his HO Appalachian shortline layout many years ago. He wanted to depict one long, relatively straight section of his prototype's track, but had only a modest sized space. There were two significant scenic switching areas, and between them was a straight track through a cut; but there wasn't enough space to put those scenes in line along a single wall. We had to place them along two adjacent walls, at 90 degree angles from one another. In the final design, the two scenic switching areas looked like the prototype areas with nice, gentle curves. Between them, the track went into the deep cut, made a sharp curve of about 21" radius, and emerged from the cut, coming into view on a straight alignment. Nobody ever saw those trains going around an extremely sharp curve. If operational problems occurred, which was rare because he built his track pretty well, you just leaned in to get a look from overhead.
It worked.
Yeah, watch the K-28s, as that's a familiar issue in HOn3, too. I think they actually had the longest wheelbase by some inches among the Rio Grande narrowgauge Ks. The design of the rear frame, ashbox and truck also presents less generous space than on the others K class locos in models, so somewhat more restrictive min radius in most cases.
Finally some concrete information of minimum radius for locomotives! From P-B-L, they stated that all their locomotives will handle a 28 inch radius. They will look better on larger radius; but, will handle 28 inhes.
That's good to know. With the visual tricks that ACY mentioned, that gives you a little more flexibility if you need it. Tighter curves can also allow you to visually convey the line is passing through a more difficult, curvy piece of line, for instance, by contrasting with wider min radioius curves. I'll bet 36" curves will really look great wherever you can work them in, though.
Yes, I've left most of the curves I've drawn so far, at 36". However, tighter radius at Ophir Loop allows me to get the highline and lowline more closely aligned as they really where. Even so, the five LDEs are still jammed up tight against each other. Other than the loop, there ain't much running through the country side. So, Trout Lake is going to be dropped from the design. (Correction, I won't drop trout lake, I might drop Telluride and switch to Ridgeway, per Mikes suggestion in post # 2 above).
So, I'm sitting here, looking over what I've drawn and thinking although the run from end to end looks as though it will be pretty short, what I have drawn looks as though it certainly would be doable. A bigger area to construct a layout such as I'm considering, would certainly be nice! I'm guessing this pretty nuch would be the case with all of us!
I've seen in the Richardson book that Ophir Loop had a siding on it at one time and it was on the high side, just before the Ophir Depot. While I'm studying this, I determined that something about how I've drawn the loop is wrong! Because we need to compress everything and my basement won't allow me to build the land as it really is, I have inadvertently drawn the high and low sides of the loop, reversed from how they really are. I'm still thinking about this and wondering if I can re-draw this detail to get it correct.
This brings up an interesting problem with attempting to design a real railroad, to fit your basement. The only way to really do the Ophir Loop as it really would be, would be to have it on a peninsula. In this way, you could have the tracks leading one way, turn to the right and go out onto the peninsula and loop back and then turn to the right again and have the line pick-up the general heading it was going before the loop. If I was free lancing the design, (which I actually will be doing, as I have no other choice in the matter) you would just live with however everything came out and say: Good enough!
There is another problem with reality and attempting to model Vance Junction! Coming from Ridgeway and entering Vance Junction heading south, at the south end of Vance is a wye, the left tail of the wye heads to Telluride and the right heads towards Rico. The Telluride branch goes south of Vance a mile, loops back crossing the river and starts climbing up 500 feet up to Telluride. Possibly there was a wye or balloon at Vance Junction, allowing trains from the south to access Telluride, I don’t know? However, this looping back from Vance Junction is another difficulty to designing a layout featuring as realistic of track work as you can.
The point of this discussion is to point out that prototype modeling has its’ difficulties and not having been a prototype modeler before, I am learning that just a matter of copying what the prototype did, is not so easy!
Can't speak for others, but I'd have an easier time with this if I saw some diagrams. Possibly one diagram showing your available space; another set showing your proposed modules; and a third showing how you're thinking of putting it all together. Maybe several variants.
Agree that the Vance and Ophir modules might be hard to handle, depending on your space and how you have to put it all together. I've seen photos of model versions of these areas, in which the Ophir loop is reversed, or the grade goes the opposite way. I personally would favor a plan that matches the prototype as much as possible, and I think you would, too. So a lot of this will be determined by your own priorities. How much compromise can you accept? At what point will you decide "No, that's too much compromise. I won't go there."
NP2626There is another problem with reality and attempting to model Vance Junction! Coming from Ridgeway and entering Vance Junction heading south, at the south end of Vance is a wye, the left tail of the wye heads to Telluride and the right heads towards Rico. The Telluride branch goes south of Vance a mile, loops back crossing the river and starts climbing up 500 feet up to Telluride. Possibly there was a wye or balloon at Vance Junction, allowing trains from the south to access Telluride, I don’t know? However, this looping back from Vance Junction is another difficulty to designing a layout featuring as realistic of track work as you can.
I've driven to Vance Junction from Illium before, but I think I didn't really have this figured out until you wrote this. There is no wye at Vance Jct, but Illium is so close it doesn't really matter. I can't find pics or a map with documentation of it, so am a bit hazy working from written descriptions. There was a wye at Illium, but this must've required backing up the branch towards Vance from it in order for trains to be properly oriented to go south from Vance after they turned on the wye. Rather odd, but it's the RGS.
Does anyone have visual proof of this?
EDIT: OK, here's a link to the present day view. The Illium wye was just down the hill from Vance after the Telluride Branch took off from there. The tail of the wye was just 120' long.
https://www.google.com/maps/@37.9294685,-107.8981258,359m/data=!3m1!1e3
I've dealt with this issue myself. Both Animas Forks and Red Mountain are somewhat twisted from the originals. This can be disconcerting at first, but soe long as the visual cues of where you're at are there, it grows on you as you use it so long as you can still perform the essential prototype switching movements for the location...but then again I'm a bit dyslexic so maybe this works better for me than others?
ACY Can't speak for others, but I'd have an easier time with this if I saw some diagrams. Possibly one diagram showing your available space; another set showing your proposed modules; and a third showing how you're thinking of putting it all together. Maybe several variants. Agree that the Vance and Ophir modules might be hard to handle, depending on your space and how you have to put it all together. I've seen photos of model versions of these areas, in which the Ophir loop is reversed, or the grade goes the opposite way. I personally would favor a plan that matches the prototype as much as possible, and I think you would, too. So a lot of this will be determined by your own priorities. How much compromise can you accept? At what point will you decide "No, that's too much compromise. I won't go there."
Although I had asked about cheap CAD programs in another thread, I really don't want to take the time to learn CAD and had decided to use my drafting skills to draw this layout on paper; so, I can't reproduce any electronic copies of what I've drawn, at this time. What I have on paper is in it's formative stages and I am not ready to darken the lines so they would show up is a photo. I'm also uncertain on how to post photos here and sort of like learning CAD, lack interest in learning how. I have posted photos before and forgot how and am unsure how I did it way back two years ago and am pretty certain it is no longer how it is done anymore!
ACY, I apologize for my lack of confuser skills. I’m retired now and quite frankly the constant change of computer technology leaves me both in the dark and in the cold! Since I no longer need to be computer savvy, I may never be any better at fooling with all this electronic gadgetry, than I am right now. So, now, I can devote my time to doing the things I like to do and not the things I probably should learn to do!
The above is no reflection on you guys who are techno savvy!
I just came across a collection that includes some RGS subject matter, but certainly worth looking through for lots of great color pics:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/railphotoart
Search under "Rio Grande Southern" inside the album. That also reminded me of this other great album of RGS views by John W. Barriger:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/barrigerlibrary/sets/72157640595666535
Don't apologize, Pardner! I'm in the same leaky boat when it comes to these Infernal Machines! I'm a guy who believes you correct your mistakes with Wite-Out, & have managed, with one keystroke, to obliterate an hour's worth of carefully written text. More than once. I feel your pain.
Try this for size: Forget Vance/Ilium/Telluride/Pandora. Too complicated, and the reverse loop between Ilium and Telluride would be almost impossible to do effectively in limited space. Build a peninsula parallel to the longest dimension of your space. Build a nice turning loop where the peninsula abuts the wall. Then build a hidden staging track from that loop toward the end of the peninsula. No tunnels on the RGS, so the line emerges from a disguised deep cut at the end of the peninsula, curving to the right onto Butterfly trestle. Follow the peninsula back upgrade to Ophir, by the wall where you started. Curve sharp right through Ophir (directly above your hidden staging loop). Run upgrade along the peninsula, over the various trestles, then curve left at the end of the peninsula, high above Butterfly trestle. Curve left and leave the Ophir scene. Trout Lake is on the other side of the peninsula. Continue to the first wall and leave the peninsula, coming into Lizard Head. Then continue as space allows, terminating in open staging at Rico. Rico can be anything from a plain staging area to a full-blown replica of the real place, depending on your space and preferences. This plan loses the yard at Ridgeway, but gains an equivalent yard, plus at least one mill, at Rico. It eliminates the scenic problems involved in connecting Vance /Ilium/Telluride with Ophir. Since Trout Lake would be at a fairly high elevation, there would be no problem providing access to your staging area under Trout Lake. Of course, that's just one suggestion.
Tom
Thanks, Mike! Those are a great photo albums! Going to take a while to wade through all those!
Mike, I was just looking at Ilium Colorado on Google Earth and I do see what appears to be traces of a wye and small yard there. The book I'm reading now on the Durango & Silverton has a chapter on the RGS and the author talks about there being 20 train loads of ore coming from Telluride per day. This was around the turn of the last century, I don't know what amount of traffic came from Telluride in the 30s, when I want to set the clock. It would seem weird to me that there would be a yard at Ilium and one at Vance, too, less than a mile from each other!
Google Earth has been indispensable in my quest for information on the RGS! I think I’ve spent more time looking at Google Earth, then I have at the drawing board.
mlehmanI've driven to Vance Junction from Illium before, but I think I didn't really have this figured out until you wrote this. There is no wye at Vance Jct, but Illium is so close it doesn't really matter. I can't find pics or a map with documentation of it, so am a bit hazy working from written descriptions. There was a wye at Illium, but this must've required backing up the branch towards Vance from it in order for trains to be properly oriented to go south from Vance after they turned on the wye. Rather odd, but it's the RGS.
I'm not an RGS expert, but I seem to recall reading about Telluride being treated as a terminal and served primarily by trains from Ridgway, so trains coming from Telluride into Vance and then south to Durango may have been quite uncommon. This seems like an odd arrangement geographically, but from an operational standpoint, the RGS was primarily built to reach the mines around Telluride, so treating it as a terminus makes some sense in that light. I did just see a newspaper clipping in Dorman's RGS book from the early 30s discussing rumors of the RGS abandoning the segment between Vance and Rico - the writer is unconcerned because Telluride is served by trains from Ridgway, while Rico and Dolores are served by trains from Durango, so little would have changed in his estimation.
On the other hand, I would think at least some of the ore from the mines and mills on the branch would have been processed at the smelter in Durango, but maybe it went elsewhere after transfering to the Rio Grande standard gauge in Montrose?
On another note, I've long thought that just the Telluride Branch itself could make a great layout, and could be done very faithfully. Operationally it would be more interesting in the early years, but that could be said of the whole line and can be mitigated somewhat by modeling fall or spring with the stock rushes. Ophir is certainly spectacular and distinctive, but it's an enormous space-eater, has very little operational potential, and has been modeled to death.
You seem pretty set on the northern division, but another interesting area of the RGS that has been virtually ignored by modelers is the logging around Dolores - those little lines interchanging with the RGS in that area could make for a very interesting and unique layout.