# How to fet 5 to 10 miles into a layout?



## KCD (May 2, 2010)

Using the formula provided to me by RECKERS (700 feet = 700 x 12 inches: 8400 inches. 8400 divided by 148 = 56.76 inches of track at 1:148 scale), it would take about 33 feet of track to equal 1 mile at 1:160 scale. If this is true, how do you ever model anything without taking tremendous artistic license?

I'm not trying to be funny here, I'm trying to understand how I might model between 5 and 10 miles with reasonable accuracy without taking up a warehouse. Do you just model sections of the line, or what?

Thanks,

KCD


----------



## tjcruiser (Jan 10, 2010)

Your math is spot on.

When modeling layouts, the proportions of length are always a challenge that require considerable liberty. I'm not suggesting compressing buildings in length, but rather compressing the "empty" distance between clusters of buildings, transitions between urban and rural, etc.

TJ


----------



## Reckers (Oct 11, 2009)

I agree. Keep in mind, this is your world you are building: you're not obligated to pointlessly represent every mile or detail. Compress it as you see fit and enjoy what you're doing.


----------



## KCD (May 2, 2010)

TJ, and All...

Thanks, TJ, for confirming my math, and for also confirming my suspicions about artistic license. 

My problem is that I don't know what can be dropped (if anything) from the line I have decided to attempt. The railroad currently operates as a tourist attraction on the Western Slope in Colorado. It wasn't always so, however. Originally it was a railroad that ran from Georgetown, CO., to Silver Plume, CO., just a couple of short miles west, but the terrain was impossible and hazardous to navigate. Georgetown was served by a railroad that terminated there (either Colorado Central or Union Pacific), so a narrow gauge (30") was built to Silver Plume to shuttle miners back and forth, to bring supplies to a variety of mines and to return ore to Georgetown for shipment on the main line to Denver for refining. Much can be learned about short bit of track on the Internet; there are maps and old photos galore.

This is a point to point type concept. The original used a variety of rolling stock, depending on what was to be delivered to Silver Plume, along with passenger cars and ore carriers. Among the locomotives was at least 1 two truck Shay. Today, a small diesel works the line, but only when the Shay is down, or two trains are needed. The rail road employed (and still does) a loop that approximately doubles the distance between the two towns. The track, muck the same today as it was then, crosses Clear Creek several time over a combination of bridges and the "Devils Bend" (the elevated end of the loop) trestle some 90' above the creek. The elevation rises by about 700 feet between the two town stations, hence the use of the loop. Even with the loop, the grade is steep in places. 

I know this may be ambitious, but to make things easier, I plan to do it in "N", not "Nn3", which would be more true to scale. 

Here are some questions for the experts...

1.) How sharp a curve can "N" gauge track model?
2.) How steep can my incline be?
3.) Should I model a section of the main line of the Colorado Central (or was it the Union Pacific) from Golden, CO to Georgetown (completed 1877) as a section of the layout?
4.) If I cannot use "N" for the "Loop", and have to revert to "Z" gauge track and "Nn3" stock, how would I modify the 1:160 scale two truck shay to run on the smaller gauge track?

What I'm looking for is ideas, thoughts, suggestions, recommendations, etc. Anything that might help me with planning of this layout (which will be particularly difficult, I'm certain), and the rolling stock that will be required.

Thanks in advance for what I know will be excellent input.

KCD


----------



## tjcruiser (Jan 10, 2010)

KCD,

Anything N (or Z) is well outside my realm of experience, so I'll defer and hope that others chime in here.

General thoughts ...

In HO, anything over a 2% grade is getting pretty steep, i.e., 2" rise for 100" run, or equivalently, 1" rise for 50" run. Now, the person saying this (me!) intentionally built a little HO layout with a 4% grade ... that's steep, and it limits how much freight/cars I can pull, but in my case, it worked for my layout / theme. Traction and pulling power depend largely upon the loco itself: mfr quality, weight, wheel traction, etc.

While your ambition to model much of the real line sounds wonderful, I suggest you pick one or two specific real-life portions (a tall trestle bridge river crossing, for example) and model your layout around those, only. I think the realities of layout space (the length issue, again!) will really dictate limiting your "world" to more focused regions.

If you think that you will have (now, or in the future) space to expand the layout (i.e., a huge basement), then perhaps consider building the layout in modular components where each is designed to attach (now, or in the future) to an adjacent "region".

TJ


----------



## KCD (May 2, 2010)

Good thoughts, TJ, Thanks.

KCD


----------



## Boston&Maine (Dec 19, 2007)

KCD said:


> 4.) If I cannot use "N" for the "Loop", and have to revert to "Z" gauge track and "Nn3" stock, how would I modify the 1:160 scale two truck shay to run on the smaller gauge track?


You would not be able to modify a locomotive... They have to make Shays in Nn3 scale, I am sure of it... The problem may be price or availability... I am too busy too look online right now, but I can check tomorrow afternoon if you would like...


----------



## KCD (May 2, 2010)

B&M...

Thanks, I would appreciate it as I have no clue as to where to begin to look. As I understand it, the gear is to look large on the smaller track, although I don't understand why. I actuality, narrow gauge locomotives and rolling stock was smaller than standard gauge gear; so I don't understand this "Nn3" thing at all. Any assistance will be a great help, believe me!

Thanks,

KCD


----------



## tooter (Feb 26, 2010)

Hi KC, 

Here is a fascinating place I've spend countless hours poring over a huge treasure trove of 8 years of creative ideas from all over the world on how to artistically compress space:

Small Layout Scrapbook

Although these ideas are taken to the absolute extreme, they are wholly valid and applicable to layouts of *any* size. 

Here's an inspiring example... one of the very first small layouts, an 18"x24" narrow gauge that began a quiet revolution in railroad modelling with a limited amount of space:



















"In January 1957 Dick Andrews, a regular columnist on narrow-gauge modeling for Railroad Model Craftsman, revealed a truly remarkable layout design. It was an On2 railroad he built on a 24x18in drafting board. At the time it hit me, and many others, like a lightning bolt — a totally new concept for building a complete railroad in an extremely tiny space! Dick inspired a whole generation of modelers with this design ... and his ideas are still working for many hobbyists today."



Take Care,

Greg


----------



## stationmaster (Dec 7, 2008)

Dare I say the term?......... Selective Compression. Eegads!!! I said it!!!! That term, along with the word "prototypical", strike fear, awe, and confusion in the minds of model railroaders. 

A good explanation of "selective compression":
http://www.liveoakrr.com/tips/sc.htm

Bob


----------



## KCD (May 2, 2010)

All...

A little history that perhaps addresses my concerns with selective compression.

Originally the plan was to expand the rail service from Georgetown, CO, across the Continental Divide all the way to Leadville, Co, but the initial two and a half miles, or so, from Georgetown (where rail service terminated) to Silver Plume (the next town) were problematical. That short distance represented "...an area where the average grade is over 6 percent (too steep for most trains). UP chief engineer, Jacob Blickensderfer, devised a system of curves and bridges, reducing the average grade to 3+ percent. The plan includes three hairpin turns, four bridges and a 30-degree horseshoe curve from Georgetown to Silver Plume", according to an historical account. Bilckensderfer's short section of track between Georgetown and Silver Plume was constructed, but rather than the 2+ miles (as the crow flies) between the two towns, the track laid measured about 4.5 miles, a necessary ingredient to lower the incline rate from 6+% to a manageable 3+ percent.

I understand the concept of selective compression and have employed it in a back-up layout that I'm working on just in case the "Georgetown Loop" proves too much of a problem. However, I do not see how, in a point-to-point that substantially increases elevation, any of the footage or elements can be disregarded. I may be as numb as a hake, but I just don't see it. Then again, I'm new to the hobby and really have no idea what I'm doing. Perhaps a seasoned layout artist can offer some assistance? Search the Internet for "Georgetown Loop"; you will find maps, descriptions, and pictures (old and new) galore. I tried to attach some that I have collected that show the terrain and the elevations illustrating my problems and concerns, but couldn't figure out how to do that. Hopefully a quick Internet search will not be too much trouble.

Any thoughts and/or advice would be appreciated... 

Thanks,

KCD


----------



## Reckers (Oct 11, 2009)

KCD,

Just laying out the groundrules for clarity:

1. You want to depict the route of the Loop as accurately as possible.
2. Accurate depiction includes scale altitude changes.
3. You are limited to a maximum grade of probably 2 to 3%.
4. Since your rate of climb is restricted, having the same length of climb is essential or you can't get there from here.

All that stated, the real problem is the size of the room you are going to put it in. If you had a warehouse, you could do it in G scale. Lacking that, you have to approach it differently. If the 1:1 scale requires a space of 10 miles x 5 miles, you have to determine what scale your workspace is in relation to that 10 x 5 miles. Unfortunately, the math may tell you that your layout area is a Z scale equivalent of the real thing (1:220). If you go here, you can see an example: http://z.about.com/d/modeltrains/1/0/d/1/-/-/JOConnell3a.JPG

It sounds like a great locale to model, but you can't change the math of rise and run: you have to run so far to rise this much. The only thing you can change is to alter the scale of the distance to shrink it so it will fit into your workspace.

Best of luck on it, and let us know how you are doing with it.


----------



## tjcruiser (Jan 10, 2010)

I'll help you out with the pic post ...

I guess my quick thought is that you can't fight gravity ... If it's important to you that your layout encompasses a realistic height rise, and you face the same grade issues (rise-per-run ratio) that the real trains did, then you'll need to encompass an equally proportional amount of run ... i.e., horizonal layout distance or circumference.

I suspect your options are to reduce the "zone" of your layout to a more isolated section, or consider a bigger overall footprint.

EDIT ==> Or consider a smaller scale, as Reck says!


----------



## Reckers (Oct 11, 2009)

Yeah---what he said!


----------



## KCD (May 2, 2010)

Thanks, guys. 

It's great when you two get going. Thanks for the picture post, TJ... Great shot. I appreciate your (both) comments; they are confirming what I basically already knew... it cannot be done correctly and accurately. And, if it can't be done properly, it shouldn't be done at all. I don't believe there is any room for "selective compression" while still maintaining the integrity of the prototype. Neither do I believe that a "Z" scale layout of the Loop would do it much justice. I was even concerned that 1:160 was to small to appreciate what actually was happening on the run from Georgetown to Silver Plume.

Oh well, it was a great idea. Now its on to concept #2, a run that can be selectively compressed... Minturn to Glenwood Springs. We'll see how that one turns out.

Thanks again, guys...

KCD


----------



## Reckers (Oct 11, 2009)

Well, keep in touch and show us what you're working on!


----------



## stationmaster (Dec 7, 2008)

Now, KCD, it can be done, though it may not be EXACT, one could depict the scene pictured to a reasonable degree. The overall length and rise-fall would have to be compromised. But, you can do it and still show the essence of the terrain. I had a similar problem with my layout, though not to the degree you face, in modeling the Ouabache(Wabash) River Basin, more commonly known in these parts as the Wabash Cut. It is the ancient riverbed of what is now known as the Wabash River.

With an elevation change in some areas of over 250', I knew that I could not model it in any realistic detail. However, using selective compression(Lord, I hate that term) I was able to give the scene the flavor of a deep, ancient river(now dry) bed. I did use a part of my background to achieve the scene but it gives the viewer a semblance of reality. Obviously, the scene does not lend itself to a 360* focus. But I've got 1/2 of it. The train disappears behind a "hill", though the background, and reappears elsewhere on the layout after running behind the backdrop.

Again, if area is at a premium, this undertaking may not work. But there are options to be considered. A reasonable facsimile can be done. You just have to think outside of the box. The essence of the scene can be captured.

Bob


----------



## KCD (May 2, 2010)

Thanks, Bob... 

This is the second time I've put the Loop project aside to work on the other; so, you see, I do keep coming back to it. Who knows, I may take your advice and return to it once more.

The second project is a doozie. It will allow for your selective compression and some artistic license as well. That part of Colorado is particularly beautiful and very rugged. The single standard line runs from Minturn Colorado along the Colorado river to a point in Glenwood Canyon where there is no more room along side the river so the UP just went through the canyon in place after place after place. There would also be an opportunity, if a fictional routing were contemplated, to combine this beautiful canyon with some of the wonders of the Royal Gorge (both of the same line).

As for Minturn, it's a railroad modelers dream, a valley freight yard under high peaked mountains filled with silver and copper mines galore. The nice part of it is that I believe all the tracks (Mine, yard, and mainline) were standard gauge. This layout provides the opportunity for freight, passenger, and localized mine traffic. It can also be done within moderate space constraints, like a hollow core door.

Anyway, that is in design progress while the "Loop" rests for a while.

Thanks for your thoughts; they are always appreciated.

KCD


----------

