Colorado Midland Railway Engineering Report

[davefoxx]

Dave,

Please accept this only as constructive criticism.  I recall that, at times, you stated that you were having issues with Atlas Code 55 track.  If it's derailments, whether constant or intermittent, that are causing you problems, check your rail joints.  I see a few doozies in the picture in your last post. 

DFF

[Dave V]

Dave,

Please accept this only as constructive criticism.  I recall that, at times, you stated that you were having issues with Atlas Code 55 track.  If it's derailments, whether constant or intermittent, that are causing you problems, check your rail joints.  I see a few doozies in the picture in your last post. 

DFF

Um...  @davefoxx Can you be more specific?

I've since worked out all the issues and trains run smoothly and reliably now...but if there's a bad joint somewhere you can see, please let me know which one.  I wouldn't want one to fail at a show.

EDIT:  Okay, you're talking about the boxcar picture.  Yeah...I relaid that front track because of those sh!tty joints.  That was when I was having medicine-induced fine motor problems.  That was very frustrating.  It was like I'd have the track all perfect and then while soldering, my hands would shake the track apart.  Almost quit N scale at that point.

If you look at the finished scene photos the track is way more smooth. 

[davefoxx]

Okay, you're talking about the boxcar picture.  Yeah...I relaid that front track because of those sh!tty joints.  That was when I was having medicine-induced fine motor problems.  That was very frustrating.  It was like I'd have the track all perfect and then while soldering, my hands would shake the track apart.  Almost quit N scale at that point.

That sucks!  I hope that your recent nerve pain issues are not a reoccurrence of significant and serious medical problems. 

If you look at the finished scene photos the track is way more smooth.

Yay!

[Dave V]

[seusscaboose]

I agree

I like the whistle that sounds "far away "


Only place to use it would be in the tunnel

[nkalanaga]

"As a 36' car it would not be a re-gauged narrow gauge car"

Very true, at least for D&RG cars, and I doubt that the early cars they regauged were even 30 ft long.  But, again, most people wouldn't now the difference!

[casmmr]

Dave, enjoyed the video, only problem, too short time wise.  Very beautiful layout, may you have much success with it at the show you going to attend.  Enjoy, later, Craig

[johnb]

"As a 36' car it would not be a re-gauged narrow gauge car"

Very true, at least for D&RG cars, and I doubt that the early cars they regauged were even 30 ft long.  But, again, most people wouldn't now the difference!

Oh, you would notice the difference. Imagine putting a Z Scale 40 foot boxcar on N Scale trucks...

[nkalanaga]

I would notice the difference, and you would notice the difference, but how many people, looking at his layout, would know that "D&RG 3224" was supposed to be narrow gauge, much less how long it was supposed to be?  That's what I meant, as, yes, put the model next to a properly scaled narrow gauge boxcar, the difference would be obvious.

Actually, I have put Nn3 boxcars on MT N trucks, the hard way.  When I built my first NG cars, proper trucks were nowhere to be found.  So, I took MT, then KD, archbar trucks, cut the sideframes off, built new, narrower bolsters, new brass axles, and had my Nn3 trucks, with 33 inch pizza cutter wheels.   Ugly as could be, but they ran, and proved to the O scaler who owned the local hobby shop that Nn3 would at least work.

For what it's worth, I just looked up the dates, and the RGW was standard gauged in 1889 and 1890, so any converted cars would have been long gone by 1910.  It ran as the RGW until 1908, so it's possible that an RGW boxcar could still be running in 1910, if one wanted another local road.

[nscalbitz]

Yes I do, thanks.  The Athearn versions of the car have more correct standard gauge number series.  But this doesn't keep me up at night; this isn't mean to be a balls-deep proto project.

And that's the point.
As a somewhat unique railroad experience this one is, the variety of modelling opportunities can go any way you desire. So one day maybe I'll have my split standard/ narrow  layout that will all run on N; just one will be diesel/ transition and other old time steam and shorter cars...

Un-other- Dave

[nkalanaga]

In the late 1800s there wasn't much difference, design wise, between standard and narrow gauge equipment.  Even as late as the teens or early 20s "modern" narrow gauge cars and locomotives were being built.  The D&RG's 3000 series boxcars were modern cars when new, and the EBT's steel hoppers were as modern as anything on the standard gauge after WW I. 

So, a "narrow gauge on standard gauge track", from the late 19th or early 20th century, could look like any other standard gauge of the period, except for the road name.  And who's to say that, in your world, that particular narrow gauge didn't regauge its line?  Many did, if they had enough business to survive at all.

[Dave V]

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

[Dave V]

The replacement for #34 arrived today and she runs great.  She will become Class 102 #38.

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

[SandyEggoJake]

She will become Class 102 #38.

Looking forward to this build.  Know what you plan to use for the tender?  Bmann small USRA? 

Layout looks sweet.

[Dave V]

Looking forward to this build.  Know what you plan to use for the tender?  Bmann small USRA? 

Layout looks sweet.

No build to look forward to, sorry.  I'm out of that business anymore.  Just lettering only.