Colorado Midland in N scale 2.0

[davefoxx]

I like that...but the challenge for me regarding the J&S has always been the impossible grade to go from the junction the lower left to the flyover. If you looks at the J&S articles and books, you never really get a good solid look at what that grade looks like.

That could be remedied by building some of the grade into the roundy-round part, i.e., at Jerome Junction, the mainline begins to drop in elevation as the branch begins to rise.  That could effectively cut the grade in half (or at least minimize the grade).  Also, I remember the J&S very well, as I was a preteen when these articles came out in Model Railroader.  I couldn't wait for the next issue.  But, unfortunately, I don't remember the specific details.  Maybe it's possible that the elevation of the mine could be reduced, which would also reduce the grade.

However, this is probably moot, since you have your line drawing of the two loops, which probably makes for a better layout to show with two trains running simultaneously.  Besides, would you really use the branchlike on the J&S when displaying the layout at shows?  So, back to the show!

DFF

[GimpLizard]

That could be remedied by building some of the grade into the roundy-round part, i.e., at Jerome Junction, the mainline begins to drop in elevation as the branch begins to rise. 

That's exactly what Olsen did. Though I don't recall what the grades actually came out to be, I'm pretty sure they were still rather steep. You can see it in this shot.

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

On my plan there's about 3-1/2 to 4 feet of combined distance between the junction and the fly-over. So that would be somewhere between 4 & 7%. Ain't mountain railroading wonderful? 

[davefoxx]

Wow, @GimpLizard, I didn't remember that.  I wonder where he made up the rest of the grade to being it back to the same elevation.

On a separate note, I look at that layout construction with my 21st century eyes and now cringe when I think of how heavy the J&S must have been once John Olson was done with that sturdy wood benchwork and plaster scenery base.    Thank goodness for 2" foam!

DFF

[Dave V]

Thank goodness for 2" foam!

[Dave V]

That's exactly what Olsen did. Though I don't recall what the grades actually came out to be, I'm pretty sure they were still rather steep. You can see it in this shot.

(Attachment Link)

On my plan there's about 3-1/2 to 4 feet of combined distance between the junction and the fly-over. So that would be somewhere between 4 & 7%. Ain't mountain railroading wonderful? 

Wow, yeah...  That's sort of the opposite of what I'm going for but good catch!

Doing the two separate loops avoids grades and saves me the two turnouts required to connect' em.

I shoulda listened to @DKS the first time, LOL.  He is wise.  As are the other who suggested the same.  This is a display layout.  I do want a small yard for storage and maybe to show off a little switchin' for the spectators but otherwise it's for roundy-rounding.

[davefoxx]

Okay, so the two loops it is.  I believe that this is the correct choice for displaying at shows, not to mention that the simplified plan saves money, because that equals less turnouts by not trying to tie it all together with a single operational plan.

What's the scenic treatment?  You described the current CM as cartoonish, and I don't really understand that characterization.  What look are you going for?  Are you modeling the same town as the current layout?  Era?



DFF

[Dave V]

Dunno.  We'll see.  I think I'd like to see what fits without overstuffing the scene.  I'm not a yuuuuuuuge fan of how the scenery came out on the first Midland but I've since learned a lot abut modeling Colorado high country.

Oh, and now...  I don't need that goofball Heljan plastic trestle.  Now that I conquered RGS Bridge 45A I think I can scratchbuild something in N scale that looks a little more natural.

[wm3798]

I'm glad you've settled in with two loops concept.  For what it's worth, if you ever fall under the spell of N scale again, you can always pull the old JD trick and stick a junction in a corner somewhere so the loops become balloon returns, then you can run a shelf layout around the room to do the ops gig.

Assuming one day I'll have some more room to work with, that's what my mind's eye is telling me to do with my roundy rounds.

And really, with five feet of straight run behind my skyboard, I could easily convert the scenic part to an endcap of a peninsula.

Track plans are drawn so that when necessary, they can be rebuilt and adapted.  You're off to a great start!!

Lee

[wm3798]

Fist Midland?

... and I'd like to call dibs on the retro Heljan trestle!!  No idea what I'd do with it, but being a part of Railwire history, I'm sure I can think of something!

Lee

[Dave V]

Fist Midland?

... and I'd like to call dibs on the retro Heljan trestle!!  No idea what I'd do with it, but being a part of Railwire history, I'm sure I can think of something!

Lee

If I can extract it whole, it's yours!  The fist, the whole fist, and nothing but the fist. 

Even if I do decide to got the plastic route again the track geometry would be sufficiently different that I wouldn't be able to reuse it as-is.  FWIW, it's a 20" radius curve with a two percent grade.

[DKS]

I like your simpler version. I rendered it in AnyRail to be sure the curves would work. Minimum radius on the upper loop is 11" and on the lower 12".

[Dave V]

I like your simpler version. I rendered it in AnyRail to be sure the curves would work. Minimum radius on the upper loop is 11" and on the lower 12".

Well BOOM.  There it is, yo!  Thanks, man!

Which turnouts are these...the "medium" radius or the "short" radius?

[DKS]

Not sure. AnyRail only lists them by model # and description. There's only one "regular" turnout in the plan anyway--the rest are curved, wye and 3-way.

SL-E386F, N Peco Finescale Code 55 SL-E386F. Right curved turnout 10º (conductive frog)   2
SL-E387F, N Peco Finescale Code 55 SL-E387F. Left curved turnout 10º (conductive frog)   3
SL-E396F, N Peco Finescale Code 55 SL-E396F. Left turnout 5.37". (conductive frog)   1
SL-E397F, N Peco Finescale Code 55 SL-E397F. Wye turnout 10º (conductive frog)   1
SL-E399F, N Peco Finescale Code 55 SL-E399F. Threeway turnout 6.03".   1

Plus approx. 36' of flex.

[Dave V]

Not sure. AnyRail only lists them by model # and description. There's only one "regular" turnout in the plan anyway--the rest are curved, wye and 3-way.

SL-E386F, N Peco Finescale Code 55 SL-E386F. Right curved turnout 10º (conductive frog)   2
SL-E387F, N Peco Finescale Code 55 SL-E387F. Left curved turnout 10º (conductive frog)   3
SL-E396F, N Peco Finescale Code 55 SL-E396F. Left turnout 5.37". (conductive frog)   1
SL-E397F, N Peco Finescale Code 55 SL-E397F. Wye turnout 10º (conductive frog)   1
SL-E399F, N Peco Finescale Code 55 SL-E399F. Threeway turnout 6.03".   1

Plus approx. 36' of flex.

Excellent!  Thanks!  That ought to save space! I only have one more request… It’s not obvious by looking at the plan which turnouts are which. Any way that AnyRail will identify them?

[wazzou]

Just a quickie...

That's what I say...