# Truth or Consequences Shortline Railroad



## Ko Improbable (Mar 15, 2017)

Here goes (fair warning, I am fairly loquacius):

Having decided to get back into model railroading, I've had to recognize the fact that it is entirely possible I will be moving any layout I build, and possibly multiple times. As such, I'm pretty set on making it modular such that all pieces will fit in my little "truck." I haven't gone to the trouble of actually measuring the maximum size that would allow for, because I've seen enough people saying to keep everything in reach. I can comfortably reach 26", so I'm going with a maximum depth from edge of 24". This gives me an "ideal" layout consisting of four 2' by 4' modules arranged into a 4' by 8' rectangle. Should space become less of an issue, it should be insignificant to build additional modules to fit between them. I was, for a while, considering having a second level atop the first, but, despite the prevalence of them, I hear so much discouragement against building helixes (helixi?), especially if they're going to have a diameter of less than 12".

I may consider a BendTrack or NTrack setup, instead, but I feel that a 4'x8' arrangement fits my current space issues better than a 2'x16' arrangement would.

Dimensions aside, the foundation of my idea is for a short line railroad or a major railroad's spur that primarily runs between Truth or Consequences, New Mexico (that's a real town name!) and Hatch, NM, with little stops for towns along the way for something of a commuter train. While it's not totally off the table, I was originally thinking of having a second level above the first that would be a BNSF or UP spur between El Paso, TX and Albuqueque, NM that interchanges with my shortline at either end.

The first module I want to have mostly revolving around a copper mine, and likely a related smelter. I'll have to have some pepper farms in/around Hatch, of course. Still deciding what else to put on there.

The big part of indecision I'm having is in whether to construct each module totally independently, as funds become available, and thus "have to" start with a loop on the first module. Alternatively, build the actual tables for all four modules and then have temporarily attached track and structures around the other three tables, flesh out the first module, and then, as money becomes available, flesh out each new module. The first idea requires some fairly sharp turns to have both a loop and connecting spurs for other modules. So sharp that they will be less than the manufacturer stated minimum radius for the two locomotives I want most (NW2 and RS-3, though, I can live with a GE 70-ton instead of the NW2).

The other part of the indecision is whether or not I should stretch my sizes out and make the modules 37"x60", L-shaped, such that there will be a 14"x72" hole in the middle that I can climb up into to rescue anything that derails outside of my reach. That will, thus, mean I'm taking up more space than I'm entirely sure I want to take up, but give me enough room for the 11.25" minimum radius of so many locomotives. It will also mean a helix to a second level has a much more generous turn radius.

Since I am likely to want to avoid repainting locomotives and making decals to put on them, as I likely will not produce as nice of an appearance as factory liveries, I am rather up in the air as to what railroad to have running on the ToCRR. The primary contenders are Southern (yes, I know, they didn't go that far west) or Rio Grande. I'm aware that ATSF actually had a spur in this region, and that BNSF and UP service it, today, but, well, everyone does ATSF, BNSF, and/or UP.
If I were better at painting (and I have zero experience applying decals), I would actually rather repaint the locomotives into my own liveries. I have some ideas for that, but N scale is really small and I don't know how feasible it will be to apply those decals everywhere.


----------



## traction fan (Oct 5, 2014)

*Different shape?*



Ko Improbable said:


> Here goes (fair warning, I am fairly loquacius):
> 
> Having decided to get back into model railroading, I've had to recognize the fact that it is entirely possible I will be moving any layout I build, and possibly multiple times. As such, I'm pretty set on making it modular such that all pieces will fit in my little "truck." I haven't gone to the trouble of actually measuring the maximum size that would allow for, because I've seen enough people saying to keep everything in reach. I can comfortably reach 26", so I'm going with a maximum depth from edge of 24". This gives me an "ideal" layout consisting of four 2' by 4' modules arranged into a 4' by 8' rectangle. Should space become less of an issue, it should be insignificant to build additional modules to fit between them. I was, for a while, considering having a second level atop the first, but, despite the prevalence of them, I hear so much discouragement against building helixes (helixi?), especially if they're going to have a diameter of less than 12".
> 
> ...


Ko Improbable;

Why not use your 2'x4' sections in an "L" shape in a corner of the room? That leaves most of the room available for other purposes. It also gives you a shape that is more like the shape of a real railroad; long and thin. By adding small 1' deep x 2' long sections to widen the two ends of the layout, you would have more room for turn-back loops of a bigger radius. 
You can build your railroad one-section-at-a-time without incorporating tight radius loops in each section. As long as you plan the track locations at the adjacent ends of the mating sections accurately. You can do this either by being patient, and not having a train chase its tail around a tiny loop consisting of one 2'x4' section; or by building the loop end sections first. The other sections could then be built as time permits, and added to the middle of the layout. 
Since you already know that the layout will need to be moved, building it in sections is very wise on your part. An additional benefit of sectional construction is being able to take one section at a time to a work area and turn it upside down to work on wiring, switch machines, and anything else that mounts to the underside of the layout. This is worlds easier than trying to do the same work above your head, while contorting yourself under the layout. Speaking of contorting yourself, I strongly recommend you forget the, "duck/crawl under, to a hole in the middle" idea. No matter how young and agile you are now, you won't stay that way for the rest of your life; or even till next week, should you have an accident. I certainly hope that doesn't happen, but we can never know for sure. Duck unders get old, very fast. It is far better to avoid them by having a walk in configuration instead.
If the railroad will be moved quite frequently, You may want to route all wiring through plug and jack connectors at each joint between sections. 
On the other hand, if the moves are likely to be years apart, terminal strips would serve the same purpose. I use terminal strips with mating strips of screw on "U" shaped connectors on my own sectional railroad.
It would also be wise to use lightweight construction. Extruded foam insulation board is good for this. Glue it on top of a piece of 1/4" thick plywood. This provides a place to attach any under the layout hardware.
Painting, and applying decals, are not difficult. They are simply skills that can be learned, like riding a bike. You could buy locos undecorated, or adapt some real railroad's color scheme and name with a change of some of the letters.

good luck;

Traction Fan:smilie_daumenpos:


----------



## Ko Improbable (Mar 15, 2017)

traction fan said:


> Ko Improbable;
> 
> Why not use your 2'x4' sections in an "L" shape in a corner of the room? That leaves most of the room available for other purposes. It also gives you a shape that is more like the shape of a real railroad; long and thin. By adding small 1' deep x 2' long sections to widen the two ends of the layout, you would have more room for turn-back loops of a bigger radius.
> You can build your railroad one-section-at-a-time without incorporating tight radius loops in each section. As long as you plan the track locations at the adjacent ends of the mating sections accurately. You can do this either by being patient, and not having a train chase its tail around a tiny loop consisting of one 2'x4' section; or by building the loop end sections first. The other sections could then be built as time permits, and added to the middle of the layout.
> ...


I've considered doing the layout along a wall, but that means the two points where the track is turning around are going to put trains out of my reach. I'm wanting the "main line" to have a minimum radius of 15". That radius isn't set in stone, but I'm wanting to have passenger cars look at least mostly right on that line, and I suspect I'll never get my hands on some short "old time" passenger cars, unless I buy a whole train set from Bachmann to get three. Or scratch-build them, which is a whole different kettle of fish.

The Bend Track thing has been getting a bit more tempting, of late, since, with two straight, divided modules, and two "balloon" modules, I could have at least four of the little towns between T or C and Hatch represented.


----------



## rkenney (Aug 10, 2013)

Most old time short lines (are there any new ones) had 'Armstrong' turntables on either end. 

Lacking the space for a turntable you can fashion a suitable straight length of track to a section of board mounted on a dowel and fitting a recess on the table. 

When it comes time to turn the train, this section is lifted above the adjacent tracks, with the engine on-board, turned 180 degrees (with the dowel as center) and re-inserted to the table. 

This may not be realistic enough for some people but it gets the job done and allows switching cars in a limited space. It also offers the realism of 'turning' the train as the short lines did.

Imagination is more important than knowledge!


----------



## Ko Improbable (Mar 15, 2017)

rkenney said:


> Most old time short lines (are there any new ones) had 'Armstrong' turntables on either end.
> 
> Lacking the space for a turntable you can fashion a suitable straight length of track to a section of board mounted on a dowel and fitting a recess on the table.
> 
> ...


I saw a video, recently, of a short space style of switching, called "drift switching," where they basically uncouple the locomotive from the train, and pull it off onto a spur. Then, releasing the brakes on the cars, they let gravity roll the cars past the switch, so that the locomotive can then come back out and pull the cars the other way.

With the exception of a streamliner sort of passenger train, I expect most of my locomotives will be switchers and road switchers that work (or work well enough) running either direction. I may also double things up, later, so that I have a traditional pair of locomotives, one facing each way.


----------



## rkenney (Aug 10, 2013)

Short lines fulfilled all kinds of needs. They served as commuter trains before major highways, they moved fresh produce from the country to the urban markets, when coal was king they provided the heating fuel to communities along the way. they moved freight including building supplies needed to expand suburban housing and farm construction and supplies. Many favored mixed consists (freight and passenger) that did double duty on daily schedules. Passengers were often picked up at 'flag' stops along the way. Milk was delivered daily before refrigeration. There was a time when you could order a house, right down to the last nail, delivered in box cars.


----------



## Ko Improbable (Mar 15, 2017)

ToCRR is temporarily on hold, pending better income or a better than expected tax refund (I am, at this point, unsure whether I will get penalized for having no health insurance in 2016 or get back every penny of the premiums I paid, either way due to being literally too poor last year to be paying for health insurance). I am also seriously considering selling a thing that could net me ~$500 to help fund this.
I probably could do the whole thing on the funds I would have from these two things, but I worry I'll run out of money (>$400 in turnouts makes that a fair possibility) and then take for EVER to finish things.

Either way, here is the current track plan. It has undergone numerous revisions, but I'm pretty confident this is the one I'll build. The different colors help show that there will be four modules, with scenic dividers to break it up into four different layouts. I downgraded from four L-shaped 36"x60" modules because I suddenly realized that I'd need three sheets of plywood and foamboard to produce the four modules, instead of doing just one of each.
If you can't tell, I'm big on industrial switching. There should be thirteen industries and four little passenger stations when I am done.
That spur that runs through the center of the modules will be the kingdom of one or two GE 70-tonners that Bachmann claims will run on a 7" radius. Those turns are 10" radius.

Yes, I am likely enough to do all flex track instead of all the little track pieces you're seeing. More because fewer connections means fewer chances for problems.

Industries I've decided to do will be: Copper Mine, Copper Smelter, Oil Well/Pump, Freight Depot, Solar Cell Factory, Gravel Pit, Dandelion Farm, Recycling Plant, Dairy Farm, Oil Refinery, Pepper (the area is famous for them) Farm. Many of these are quite apt for the region. I have two more to decide on (my previous - larger! - plan only had eleven industries).


----------



## Nikola (Jun 11, 2012)

Ko Improbable said:


> ToCRR is temporarily on hold, pending better income or a better than expected tax refund (I am, at this point, unsure whether I will get penalized for having no health insurance in 2016 or get back every penny of the premiums I paid, either way due to being literally too poor last year to be paying for health insurance). I am also seriously considering selling a thing that could net me ~$500 to help fund this.
> I probably could do the whole thing on the funds I would have from these two things, but I worry I'll run out of money (>$400 in turnouts makes that a fair possibility) and then take for EVER to finish things.
> 
> Either way, here is the current track plan. It has undergone numerous revisions, but I'm pretty confident this is the one I'll build. The different colors help show that there will be four modules, with scenic dividers to break it up into four different layouts. I downgraded from four L-shaped 36"x60" modules because I suddenly realized that I'd need three sheets of plywood and foamboard to produce the four modules, instead of doing just one of each.
> ...


That's really nice. If it were me, I would probably sneak in a second loop around the outside since much of the track is there already, but that's me. It is really nice as you've laid it out.

Do make one or two of those spurs 'abandoned', or perhaps a short disconnected spur that was abandoned long ago.


----------



## Ko Improbable (Mar 15, 2017)

Nikola said:


> That's really nice. If it were me, I would probably sneak in a second loop around the outside since much of the track is there already, but that's me. It is really nice as you've laid it out.
> 
> Do make one or two of those spurs 'abandoned', or perhaps a short disconnected spur that was abandoned long ago.


Heheh. I'd like to have two lines, but it's already feeling rather cramped as it is, and that line along the bottom will be pretty much at table's edge (I know, not as visually pleasing as having a little scenery at the edge. I do plan on having a plexiglass shield along all the edges, though.). That would also mean even more turnouts, and it's already feeling like I should buy some stock in Atlas before I start. Maybe on the next layout, years from now.

Abandoned spurs doesn't quite mesh with the over-reaching ideas I have for this. However, I may change my mind, later, once it becomes obvious how much money will end up pouring into this thing over the years with buildings and rolling stock.

I've actually changed the track plan slightly, so that the three-spur industry at the upper left doesn't have to use the line of the industry at the upper right to get cars in and out.


----------



## Nikola (Jun 11, 2012)

Ko Improbable said:


> Heheh. I'd like to have two lines, but it's already feeling rather cramped as it is, and that line along the bottom will be pretty much at table's edge (I know, not as visually pleasing as having a little scenery at the edge. I do plan on having a plexiglass shield along all the edges, though.). That would also mean even more turnouts, and it's already feeling like I should buy some stock in Atlas before I start. Maybe on the next layout, years from now.
> 
> Abandoned spurs doesn't quite mesh with the over-reaching ideas I have for this. However, I may change my mind, later, once it becomes obvious how much money will end up pouring into this thing over the years with buildings and rolling stock.
> 
> I've actually changed the track plan slightly, so that the three-spur industry at the upper left doesn't have to use the line of the industry at the upper right to get cars in and out.


That's cool. Final comment on abandoned spurs: use them wherever you might want to add a turnout later. So you can spend less with Atlas now.


----------

