Despite the now famous "South Park" cartoon show on Comedy Central. I’ve never been able to locate a town in Colorado named South Park. In fact, when I ask Google Earth to look for South Park, it leads me to a town named Fairplay. Is this South Park; but, at some point in time the name was changed to Fairplay?
Also, I don’t see mention of the DS&P or the CS in information on the Narrow Gauge Circle, so I think these lines operated separately from the D&RG(W) and the RGS in different parts of the state. I understand that the Colorado Southern was a consolidation of many previous lines and later became a part of the CB&Q. On our bus trip this past fall, we drove by the Argo Mill and Georgetown. So I've seen these famous locations!
Is there a book that discusses in detail, all the different Colorado based Narrow Gauge lines? I find it very interesting to trace where these line where on Google Earth.
NP 2626 "Northern Pacific, really terrific"
Northern Pacific Railway Historical Association: http://www.nprha.org/
I understood South Park to be a geographical feature, rather than one specific town.
Tom
ACY I understood South Park to be a geographical feature, rather than one specific town. Tom
Tom's right. South Park is the broad, open, relatively flat ground that surrounds Fairplay and stretches to the souther and east from there. There are several "parks" in the Rockies elsewhere in Colorado. The North Park is up near Estes Park IIRC. Middle Park is somewhere in between the other two, but I'm still on my first cup right now, so...
The C&S started as a conglomeration of lines competing with or nearby to the Rio Grande's lines. The UP acquired control and consolidated them, then the CB&Q later acquired them. The Clear Creek lines a la harry Brunk didn't really comepete with the D&RG, though.
The first object of contention of what was then the Denver, South Park & Pacific was getting into Leadville, then next to the Gunnison area. IIRC the DSP&P lost both races, then struggled to hold on, with the last of the NG being converted to standard in WWII. That was the Leadville-Climax line to the molybdenum mine. The rest was mostly abandoned except for a few pieces near Denver, including the line up to Golden to the Coor Brewery (which I think started as NG, but may be wrong about.) There's books by Mac Poor and Mallory Hope Ferrell, plus several new ones out, along with the DSP&P Historical Society.
Mike Lehman
Urbana, IL
NP2626Is there a book that discusses in detail, all the different Colorado based Narrow Gauge lines? I find it very interesting to trace where these line where on Google Earth.
Best book for that is "Tracking Ghost Railroads in Colorado" by Robert Ormes. Copyright is 1975, mine is the 7th printing by Century One Press of Colorado Springs. Lots of detailed maps that shows the relationships between all the lines in each location, as well as in depth attention to construction, operations, and abandonment. The much more recent Steam Powered Video series volume RR Atlas, Colorado-Utah is also useful if you just need a map.
Gotta love that DSP&P route over Alpine Tunnel and the pallisades. This scene inspired a small location on my little layout with its distinctive cliff and wall.
http://www.narrowgauge.org/ngc/graphics/tkierscey/dspp/dspp0022.jpg
You could get three guys, a card table and drinks in that smoke stack in the last image and have a poker game! Some of those giant stacks of the 1870's and 80's dwarfed the locos. There certainly were a diverse group of unusual designs during that period. I am just a straight shotgun stack kinda guy, myself.
Those old stacks served a real purpose and were not just decorative or odd to just be odd. Not burning down the country side was always a good reason to do an odd looking, but functional stack design. Another was to offer a good draft to those early boilers.
One of the most interesting stack treatments, ever, was the C&S "beartrap" stack design with clinker/cinder catcher and ballast level drop pipe.
Those little narrow gauge lines ran through a lot of beautiful wooded country that they didn't need to burn to the ground.
Richard
If I can't fix it, I can fix it so it can't be fixed
narrow gauge nuclear You could get three guys, a card table and drinks in that smoke stack in the last image and have a poker game! Some of those giant stacks of the 1870's and 80's dwarfed the locos. There certainly were a diverse group of unusual designs during that period. I am just a straight shotgun stack kinda guy, myself. Those old stacks served a real purpose and were not just decorative or odd to just be odd. Not burning down the country side was always a good reason to do an odd looking, but functional stack design. Another was to offer a good draft to those early boilers. One of the most interesting stack treatments, ever, was the C&S "beartrap" stack design with clinker/cinder catcher and ballast level drop pipe. Those little narrow gauge lines ran through a lot of beautiful wooded country that they didn't need to burn to the ground.
Although the miners loved to dump their tailings; or, overburden into the rivers, which naturally conveyed the materials from their locations, burning the woods down was likely frowned upon form the point of view that it would take buildings bridges and track with it, not because the woods had any intrinsic value; or, the fact that the critters lived there. In my lifetime, I have seen the attitude about the environment change immensely! The Animas river has finally cleaned up enough that trout are making a comeback!
I love those Balloon stacks; however, they were long gone by the era I like to model. I also love the cinder chutes on the C&S locos. #486, the K-36 loco that pulled my train from Silverton to Durango back the 1st of October when I rode, it has some type of spark arrestors on the stack. However, when the woods get very dry, the D&S Narrow Gauge Railroad drops the fires from its’ steam locos and runs diesels on the trips up the creek.
Really neat distinctive locomotives.
I finished reading Bob Richardson's Rio Grande Southern, Chasing the Narrow Gauge Part III and have started on Tony Koester's Book on Narrow Gauge. Although I have decided not to tear down my HO layout to replace with an Sn3 new layout, I am still enjoying reading about narrow gauge.
I find it interesting that probably the least successful narrow gauge line, is one of the most popular to model and wonder why this is? Is it because of the loop?
Mark this is a very interesting topic , wasnice saturday moring reading.
Lynn
Present Layout progress
http://cs.trains.com/mrr/f/11/p/290127/3372174.aspx#3372174
Well, thank you! It has been a fun thread to be a part of.
NP2626I find it interesting that probably the least successful narrow gauge line, is one of the most popular to model and wonder why this is? Is it because of the loop?
Mark,
I think the RGS is popular for several reasons, which tend to overlap and amplify each other.
After WWII, the RGS still struggled along in comparison to the Rio Grande's also declining narrowgauge lines. people like narrowgauge, but they like the underdog even more.
The RGS really went after the tourist traffic that resulted, while the Rio Grande sort of went "meh." Didn't save the RGS, but the contrast while it lasted was something that people like Bob Richardson picked up on by way of comaparison.
The Goose -- it was the kludge that conquered. Every railfan could almost imagine owning one for personal use. And they certainly facilitated small groups traveling together. While a whole charter train was pretty cool, if you could swing it on the Rio Grande, it was a lot easier to fill a Goose. Any smaller size than a whole train from the Rio Grande was called a "ticket." Not quite the same cachet.
The RGS came preweathered In an era where weathering was just starting to be understood, the RGS offered a great example of that special effect you wanted to achieve.
The RGS was a repository for the equipment of other Colorado lines, so inherited the fans and attention they inspired. The C&S was the biggest such association in terms of numbers, but there were others, too.
Even by the standards of the day, the RGS operated antique and creaky old stuff not seen elsewhere. Heck, if they could have gotten away with it, they'd probably have used link and pins right up until abandonment.
Mike hit the nail on the head about why RGS is so popular among NG roads. The geese saved the RGS in many ways. They could satisfy and keep their mail contracts using them. (a major source of income). No need steaming up a loco with full crew if you have 4 cans of milk to take to Delores, 10 sacks of mail, 2 kegs of nails for a hardware store in Placerville and 3 passengers. Jam them all in a goose and take off. Save the steam, what there was of it in later years, for real revenue earning runs.
The lady that helped organize the government loan for the RGS before and during WWII saved the road until new automotive road construction after the war made the RGS rather useless and only the tourist trade and the mail kept the road going as long as it did. The underdog became cute and homey as the poorly maintained locos and rolling stock virtually fell apart in use.
Tourism kept a lot of NG roads, postwar, limping along.
Not to go off on a tangent, but in a 1979 issue of the Narrow Gauge "Gazette", an interesting return letter from East Broad Top management to a rail fan trying to organize a rail fan trip on that narrow gauge road in 1946 was printed. Wow!
The gist of the letter was that the East Broad Top management would be most happy to provide a Sunday railfan run for this fellow, he just had to give them a bit of notice with lead time.
He was quoted $60.00 for two coaches for the first ten hours pulled by one of their mikes and an additional $30.00 for each additional 10 hours or less. For each additional coach over the standard two, he would have to pay $12.00.
That is what I call working for tourist business! An entire two coach train for 10 hours pulled by steam with crew rented out for $60.00!
The Rio Grande Southern went away for the same reasons that almost all the rest of the Narrow Gauge Lines went away. I don't think this has much to do with why, of all the Narrow Gauge lines, the Rio Grande Southern seems so popular. It may be that this supposed popularity is many faceted (Tony Koester even mentions the RGS as being popular in his Narrow Gauge Book). I guess if we take my interest as an example, it’s possible that WHY the line is popular, might become apparent: I am interested in the fact that it would be possible to represent the line with only a few locomotives and therefore I could focus on higher quality locomotives for this smaller line. The Galloping Geese defiantly peek my interest. I am fascinated with trestles and the RGS had a goodly share of them. The Ophir Loop with all of its’ trestles, is an extremely interesting detail to model! The only thing lacking, from my perspective, is the use of a Shay, Climax; or, Heisler type logging locomotive and had I modeled the RGS, I would have gone freelance enough, to have included at least a Shay!
There was a Shay in the early history of the RGS. The Silverton RR, another Mears property, bought a Shay, then found it too slow and unsuited for their needs. It was transferred to the RGS, where it possibly served briefly.
But the RGS used it even before it arrived after purchase by the SRR in 1890, as Mears diverted it enroute to help with constructing the RGS. The RGS sold it in 1899 and The Rainbow Route indicates it's uncertain it was even used by the RGS the second time around.
http://digital.denverlibrary.org/cdm/ref/collection/p15330coll22/id/30875
mlehman Mark, There was a Shay in the early history of the RGS. The Silverton RR, another Mears property, bought a Shay, then found it too slow and unsuited for their needs. It was transferred to the RGS, where it possibly served briefly. But the RGS used it even before it arrived after purchase by the SRR in 1890, as Mears diverted it enroute to help with constructing the RGS. The RGS sold it in 1899 and The Rainbow Route indicates it's uncertain it was even used by the RGS the second time around. http://digital.denverlibrary.org/cdm/ref/collection/p15330coll22/id/30875
Mike, that Shay would be a neat model to have. It is unlike most of the Shays you see and shows its’ early Shay linage. I don’t think I have ever seen a Shay model like It, offered.
My biggest problem when it comes to posting threads here on the Model Railroader Forums, is assuming things. When you assume, someone will always find a flaw in your assumptions. In this case, I am happy that Mike not only knew that the RGS did at one time have a Shay locomotive; but, also where to find a photo of it, to post with his comeback! Thanks Mike, the depth of you knowledge on Narrow Gauge is impressive.
Yeah, that was one of the earlier Shays. IIRC, one could take an appropriate-sized later build model and backdate it with the right details.
I've also gone with your idea of a logging branch to justify having a Shay, which was in part what the Cascade Branch is all about. Still don't have the Shay yet. A sweet 3-truck Shay is what I hope to eventually get for it, but wouldn't mind taking a swing at the SRR Shay, either.
I've probably forgotten more about Colorado narrowgauge than I remember at this point. Fortunately, I've got my library for reference.
I know what you mean about assumptions. I come here to have an interesting discussion I can learn from. A lot of the back-and-forth hair-splitting that goes on is just silly. I suspect, don't want to assume, that it's because knowledge has become such a commodity everyone that knows even a little bit about a particular niche of knowledge fancies themselves an expert. And they may be on a particular point.
But the fact is even those who are experts in one or even many aspects of trains, model or prototype, can't know it all. If you're not willing to have a thoughtful conversation and try to learn from it, displaying that knowledge can come of as rather tenditious. I prefer to simply say "This is what I know..." and then discuss with the goal of either helping others learn or learning myself.
Mike, Totally agree about some of the one-ups-manship that goes on here. In fact there appears to me to be many who simply have little to say, unless they can correct some detail; or, misstatement. It's sort of like they are proving they are the smartest person in the world!
Yeah, if there's something to be added to a discussion, then do so. Oftentimes, it's not even that the original comment was wrong, but rather someone thought it wasn't "complete enough." By adding what they have to say, they seem to want to rectify that -- and they do so long as they don't turn it into, "You were so wrong about x...." Hardly the case. That's what they think is important and it's good to say so. But it never really needs to be framed by the other person's "incompleteness" or "failure." Simply add it to the conversation, as that brings far more respect for what is being added than anyone ever does by calling someon eout on something.
Part of the problems may be that folks arte watching too much TV. I watch Saturday Night Live. That's pretty much it. All this reality show yelling at each other over who spilled the milk tends to set a tone, along with much of the useless tumult at the core of our government -- well, that's politics and we won't go there other than to point out there are lots of bad examples of how to have a frinedly and usefull discussion about trains. I try to set a good example of how to do it.
I watch more TV than you; but, really haven't taken to the reality programs as I don't find anything real about them! I love the nature programs and the wife like here NCIS and that type of programs.
An interesting twist to my modeling interests is my turn back towards freelancing! I started my layout convinced that freelancing was the way to go. My layout followed only my imagination when I designed it. The scenery is on the dramatic side and like John Allen's Gorre & Dephetid Lines, would never have existed in the locations it was depicted in, as its’ being too expensive per mile to build. I had some design elements that I wanted to see in a layout and those became the basis for the design.
About 5 years into its’ construction, I happened upon the Northern Pacific Railway Historical Association (NPRHA) quarterly magazine, the Mainsteeter. I grew up watching both the Great Northern and the Northern Pacific run along Highway 10, north of the twin cities and became very interested in the N.P. and joined the NPRHA. I decided to only have Northern Pacific locomotives and got rid of anything that wasn’t N.P., excepting the inclusion of a small logging branch as I knew I wanted a Shay, Climax, and would never get rid of my very old Varney 0-4-0 Docksider “Little Joe”. So, in a nutshell, this is where I have been for about 20 years, “modeling” the Northern Pacific.
While I have always been in touch with freelancing and discussed its’ virtues when the question arose, during the last 20+ years, I considered myself a prototype modeler, as I modeled the N.P. My ride on the Durango and Silverton on the first of October this year, got me to thinking that a change might be fun. As is shown in this thread, I considered long and hard about tearing down the above layout and starting over with the Rio Grande Southern layout in Sn3. I went so far as to design a layout to see if I could fit what I wanted in the space I have available. It finally dawned on me, that the gauge of the line had very little to do with my enjoyment of this hobby. I have a layout that models the type of railroad action I like: mountains, bridges-trestles and tunnels! So, why change gauges. I like my N.P. equipment, I like the layout I’ve built! So, why not just free-up my thinking to include some equipment the N.P. likely did not use during my time period? Due to short yard trackage my trains need to be short, anyway, so why not use shorter open platform passenger cars and as I love to build models, the Labelle 50 foot cars might serve.
Prototype modeling has it's place and it's an important one. Heck, I even do it myself
But it's NOT the only way to conceptualize a layout. Yet that's all many people have any more to go by in making plans, designing, etc. Generally none of that is a bad thing -- but it may not, in the end, result in a viable, interesting to operate layout. It'll be a very nicely done representation of something, but it could easily be rather incomplete and badly organized model railroad.
Then there is the art factor, which I found receives mixed reactions. Some people think I want various Picasso-style layouts -- whatever that means. Some think calling model railroaders "artists" mis simply a way to smear and sneer at all they hold dear.
But this "other stuff" that goes beyond what is strictly prototype to ensure the model world is as interesting and useful as the real version is pretty darn important if you want a model RR that satisfies YOU. You have to know what to model, how, when and where. Some adhere strictly to those rules, others like me take them and run with them. The protype remains important for me, but primarily as a point of reference for what I create that satisfies me. I think your experience on this project likewise suggests there's something important here that prototype modeling doesn't always give you ready access to and that's your creativity
I have read both Tony Koesters article in the December issue and have viewed the video of his layout and I will admitt it is very nicely done and very impressive! Had I started with his knowledge and the room he had available, maybe I would have gone total prototype. Taking the room he had to use, a guy could do a pretty good job of building a lot of the Rio Grande Southern; or, some division on the Northern Pacific.
Like you, I have some artistic needs that need fullfilling. I like where I am with Model Railroading at this point in time. I'm also wondering if I am any much happier, because of technology? I would go back in a heart beat to when I was so amazed when I finished a Bowser; or, Roundhouse loco kit, put it on the tracks and the danged thing actually worked!
I have finished Tony Koester's new "Guide to Narrow Gauge Modeling" book and have a short review elsewhere in this forum topic.
I was just thinking the other day if you want to keep modeling the NP loosely but would also like a narrow gauge fix, there were some points in Montana where the Northern Pacific connected to 3' gauge lines in the late 19th century. It wouldn't be too farfetched to have some HOn3 on your layout and just imagine one of those lines survived longer.
Just a thought.
Chris
SPV Mark, I was just thinking the other day if you want to keep modeling the NP loosely but would also like a narrow gauge fix, there were some points in Montana where the Northern Pacific connected to 3' gauge lines in the late 19th century. It wouldn't be too farfetched to have some HOn3 on your layout and just imagine one of those lines survived longer. Just a thought. Chris
I was aware that there was a Narrow Gauge line(s) that were in Western Montana and joined with the N.P.
My layout really has no usable space left for additional track.
I have been looking at my layout as almost narrow gauge, it has more in common with a narrow gauge than a Class I. So, I don't feel a need to specifically model a narrow gauge line when what I have is close enough.
Thanks for the suggestion, it has peaked my interest in reading up about the narrow gauges lines in Western Montana!
This Christmas card received from Leonard Bernstein, Assistant to the Operations Vice President for Passegner Service and Company Catering, just before his transition to Liason Officer to Amtrak, might be of use in designing your layout:
And RGS freight with leased D&RGW power