Gibbon, Cozad & Western - "The 100th Meridian Line"

[Cajonpassfan]

It's amazing what can be done when you move the junk out of the way:



I'm debating about another brace in the middle there. It's not needed structurally, but the way it is now looks like a missing tooth.
...

Mike, rather than installing unneeded braces, why not paint the wall belowdecks a matching grey color to make the railroad "float"? The white wall is just calling unwanted attention to itself, IMHO...
Great progress!
Otto

[C855B]

Novel idea, Otto! Long plan is skirting to cover the cabinets underneath some of the RR, but that sounds like a great idea. I'll check with the resident interior designer for the requisite approvals.

[jagged ben]

No, no problems anticipated there. That's just an industrial lead into the refinery pick-up/drop-off tracks. Concern is the center switch at the north end of the crossover maze.

...

Since the diverging route of that switch curves in the same direction as the curve, I don't think that would present you any problems. 

Now, on second look, the left switch at the north end of the crossover maze presents a similar S-curve to the other one that I noted.  Could be a bit of a problem there.  It seems like you have a decent easement from the curve, but you might want to try to get at least 6" of tangent track extending from the points before any curve starts.  I'd probably go for straight track in between the curve and turnout and if necessary sacrifice any horizontal easement.   A 25" radius curve is going to be very forgiving in N scale no matter how long your trains are. 

[C855B]

Not a bad idea. While you're right, there is a fairly generous easement into that far left track, there's also plenty of real estate through the entire complex. Moving turnouts to the south a few inches will not be an issue, it's only that top switch in the center that is more or less fixed due to the diverging curve. They're all #10s, anyway. Adding a small tangent will make the vertical and horizontal transitions out of the refinery basin a little less drastic. I'll try to get that down on paper electrons tonight.

There's also temptation to change the whole east part of the layout and turn that junction into a classic merging of two two-track mains instead of two doubles converging into three. Three tracks follow the prototype in this area (Nebraska "race track" between Gibbon and O'Fallons), but there was also a period where it was double-track with center bidirectional sidings, a rather unique practice. It might be more fun operationally to feature a center siding instead.

[packers#1]

At the moment I'm 80/20 in favor of reliable operation and will keep the junction on the same plane as the refinery. But that may change after sleeping on it.

You can have the prettiest, most interesting scenery in the world, but if the trains don't roll, then it's basically just a fancy diorama

[C855B]

Agreed. In fact, last night I drafted a curve realignment of one of the oldest sections of the layout because a transition turned out to be too abrupt and certain combinations of long and short cars with MTL True Scale Couplers were lifting the short car off the rails. Fixing it is high priority.

Anyway, to the curve and junction in question, I went with @jagged ben 's advice and moved the crossover maze a few inches south. That should take care of the major concern.

[learmoia]

Agreed. In fact, last night I drafted a curve realignment of one of the oldest sections of the layout because a transition turned out to be too abrupt and certain combinations of long and short cars with MTL True Scale Couplers were lifting the short car off the rails. Fixing it is high priority.

Anyway, to the curve and junction in question, I went with @jagged ben 's advice and moved the crossover maze a few inches south. That should take care of the major concern.

How long are the long cars and how short are the she cars?..
I think the proto UP's regs say you can't couple a car longer than 70' to a car less than 45'

During my TCS testing, I didnt come a cross an issue in a curve that I didn't also find in a switch.

~Ian

[C855B]

60' SD24 and 27' ore jenny is the current issue - it's just this one location on the railroad, and at the moment I'm getting around it with a 40' idler car. I am, however, concerned with future ops with 85' DDs and the ore cars (with no idler), which is how they were run in my modeling era.

[wcfn100]

60' SD24 and 27' ore jenny is the current issue - it's just this one location on the railroad, and at the moment I'm getting around it with a 40' idler car. I am, however, concerned with future ops with 85' DDs and the ore cars (with no idler), which is how they were run in my modeling era.

Which version coupler adapter are you using on the first ore car?   

Jason

[C855B]

Latest, with unmodified long-shanks.

[wcfn100]

Latest, with unmodified long-shanks.

Does the problem curve have an easement?

Jason

[C855B]

According to plan it should, but distant memory recalls alignment issues in laying this particular curve and there may be a pinch point. This isn't the first time I've had TSC problems here and they were before the ore car project. I've already drawn the new curves to a minimum 28" with easements, and that will take care of it.

[Santa Fe Guy]

Watch for the loco body swing on the curve. Might just be too much for any coupler to handle on those long locos.
We had a similar issue on The Thompson River Canyon display layout we made and only on one scratch built curved turnout.
We thought is was the turnout but turned out the big GE loco just had to much body swing knocking the first car off the track.
Need a smaller loco to solve the issue not the turnout.
Rod.

[learmoia]

85' DDs and the ore cars (with no idler), which is how they were run in my modeling era.

I'm gonna call 'pics or it didn't happen' on this.   Not that I don't believe you, but it seems highly unlikely that you'd coulee your longest cars to your shortest cars in regular train service.

They are so particular now.. you can't couple a 70' car to a 44' 11" car.. but you can couple a 45' car to a 69' 11" car all day long..

~Ian

[C855B]

Good point, I'll keep looking. No luck online, but utahrails.com has an article discussing the particular Atlantic City (WY) to Salt Lake City train I am modeling. This train was assigned SD45s in 1968, SD24s including B-units in '71, followed by U30Cs in '74. All of which are good for the 1965-1975 period I'm modeling. Don (Strack) says "unknown" before 1968, but I think there was an article in the UPHS journal about the DPU-equipped SD45s being preceded on one trainset by a DPU-equipped DDA35 on the point with a DD35 remote mid-train. Per Don, "UP 82B was equipped for Radio Control (RC) operation in May 1968, serving as the remote unit, matching UP 82 which served as the control unit." This may have been an unsuccessful test, but there were several DPU-equipped SD45s possibly in this train service. The SD24s that came later were never equipped for remote operation, so it is possible I might be getting my power assignments scrambled in my head. Lots of experimentation by UP in the '60s, that's for sure.

I have a UPHS journal on my desk (away from the office at the moment) with a cover picture of the Atlantic City train with A-B-B SD24s pulling the train through a cut near Ogden. You need to consider that UP built the Atlantic City line explicitly for this ore train in 1963, and given that the DDs and the other double power were delivered the following year, it would make perfect sense that alignments were engineered to accommodate the long power coupled to very short cars.

But I'll look for pics or other authorities. Photos of that particular operation are extremely rare since it went from nowhere through nowhere and, essentially, to an area not exactly known for its thriving railfan population.