Colorado Midland in N scale 2.0

[davefoxx]

A bit of a moot point, now, but have you tried it?
I have a test oval built with Kato Unitrack in which the end loops start and end with a section of 718mm radius curve track, followed by a section of 481mm curve track and the rest is 381mm or 348mm curves.  IMO, the passenger cars flow quite smoothly in and out of those loops.

N scale on 348mm (13.7") radius curves?  Hahaha!!!  No problem.  I'm running HO scale Amtoobs on 18" radius curves.  "If it's got flanges, I can squeal 'em." 

DFF

[DKS]

A bit of a moot point, now, but have you tried it?
I have a test oval built with Kato Unitrack in which the end loops start and end with a section of 718mm radius curve track, followed by a section of 481mm curve track and the rest is 381mm or 348mm curves.  IMO, the passenger cars flow quite smoothly in and out of those loops.

They flow in and out nicely, but while they're on the curve, they look absurd. IMO, anyway.

But you're right, it is moot.

[Dave V]

The longest thing I'll be running is the Athearn/Roundhouse Overland passenger cars, seen here on a 10" radius curve:



They do well on trainset-style transitions.

And I apologize for assuming folks could read my mind...  All I was asking for was help in planning the track and scenery, but I didn't make that clear.  I'm 100% committed to staying with the Colorado Midland as my primary prototype and a 1905 +/- 10 era.  To that end I may find myself running some early D&RG stuff or lettering a Model Power 2-6-0 for the Colorado Springs & Cripple Creek District Railway but the era will be fairly strict.  The reasons are twofold:  1) I love the era and the challenge of modeling it and 2) the supporting scenery including structures, vehicles (wagons), and people will be correct for 1905...not so much for later eras.

[wm3798]

So no Penn Central then?

[davefoxx]

So no Penn Central then?

The Transcontinental Penn Central?  Somewhere on the West Coast, @eric220 just threw up in his mouth at that suggestion. 

[Philip H]

The Transcontinental Penn Central?  Somewhere on the West Coast, @eric220 just threw up in his mouth at that suggestion. 

yeah well he has gone G scale, so the transcon is being rethgouhgt as well - though I'm sure there's an empty big box store somewhere he could buy.

[eric220]

The Transcontinental Penn Central?  Somewhere on the West Coast, @eric220 just threw up in his mouth at that suggestion. 

That’s more than “in the mouth!” Cleanup on aisle 4!

yeah well he has gone G scale, so the transcon is being rethgouhgt as well - though I'm sure there's an empty big box store somewhere he could buy.

The garden railroad is merely a diversion. The Transcontinental Pennsy shall live again in N!

Now, back to your regularly scheduled Dave.

[Dave V]

That’s more than “in the mouth!” Cleanup on aisle 4!

The garden railroad is merely a diversion. The Transcontinental Pennsy shall live again in N!

Now, back to your regularly scheduled Dave.

I'm glad the Juniata Division is back with a purist...I'm sure all that PC and Conrail that I ran on it left some emotional scarring!

[wcfn100]

You need a third level...



Jason

[davefoxx]

You need a third level...

Did someone say helix? <ducks for cover>

[packers#1]

Did someone say helix? <ducks for cover>

But with two loops, wouldn’t he need 2 helixes?

[Chris333]

But that line has no curves?

[wcfn100]

The Manitou Incline gains 2000' in less than a mile.  No helix needed. 


Jason

[Dave V]

Turnouts have been ordered.  Now...for such a small layout I don't need a box of 30 pieces of flex.  10's cutting it close...15 would be ideal (for screw-ups and such).  I know you "save money" by buying in bulk, but I'm going to keep hunting for a decent price on 15 rather than the big box o' 30.

EDIT:  Also, one of the things I liked about the current version of the CMRy are the appearance of the bridges...using Micro Engineering Bridge Track.  If I went that way again, I guess I could do one of two things...

1)  Use the code 55 bridge track but solder the code 55 rails on the ends to the top of a cushed joiner on the Peco code 55/80 rail.  I dd something similar between the two sections of the Juniata Division, but it was on a straight section, not a curve under tension.

2)  Use Micro Engineering code 70 bridge track and not worry too much about the 0.010" difference in rail height.  Not sure that's the better option either, although maybe with some fiddling I could line things up better.

This is one of those where I'm open to thoughts...I have no pre-determined solution.  If I could disguise the Peco 55 and bridge track somehow (I'm at a loss of ideas for that...but that doesn't mean someone else hasn't nailed it) I would consider doing that too.  These are primarily trestles (steel and wood) so the decks are kind of in-your-face...I want them to look right.

[wazzou]

Option #1 is what I did on a previous layout. 
The biggest difference is the height of the ties, not so much the difference in rail height