I'm a firm believer that if you want to capture a certain area correctly, you must do research. As I've progressed in my modeling studies, I've found myself increasingly dependent on maps, charts, and other websites which don't say much about the railroads themselves, but rather thoroughly explain what the terrain looks like, the plants and animals which live in the area, how wind and water shapes the land plus, but less importantly, the geology of the land. When I mean geology, I'm not talking about statistics, numbers, important points, and research conducted by geology professors who old PhD's. but rather simply what types of rocks are present.
How do all these things relate to the model? Well, just as there exists prototype information about the railroads, towns and other man made masterpieces; there also exists a vast wealth of information of the land, a sort of natural prototype information is what is needed. Why you ask, because knowing what the land looks like, what trees grow there, what rocks can be found there, even what animals inhabit the area help a modeler capture the feel and the area being modeled. Think of it this way, you don't model North Dakota with towering mountains, but you also don't model Washington State with no trees. This is an extreme example, but my point lies there.
So if I am to capture Colorado, specifically Clear Creek county, I will need to look at the natural features of the area.
Terrain in Clear Creek is generally steep mountains made of igneous rock (granite type rock) with some sedimentary in areas. Valley floors with generally be strewn with large rock debris in all sizes, however some silt will still exist, coming from the annual spring melting. Moving closer to the continental divide, the rocks become newer, sharper, and have less top soil.
Near the top of the canyon by Georgetown, clear creek is broken into three tributaries in addition to the creek; clear creek runs southwest before continuing straight west to the divide, the West Fork will continue straight west running parallel to Clear Creek, but to the north, Bard Creek sits in between the two in it's own small valley.
Major plant species to be in the area will include various bushes, but evergreen trees (a mix of fir, pine, and spruce with the occasional juniper or cedar) inhabit the steep slopes. Joining the bushes by the water, small stands of Aspen trees exist. since aspen roots are interconnected, stands of aspen can start near water, but will ranch up the slopes a ways. For slopes which face the sun (generally southfacing) the terrain is less populated by trees and more by meadows with flowers in the summer months.
Animals aren't really that important for the landscape, but if I were to include some animals in the more wild parts of the layout, black bear cougar, Rocky Mountain Elk, and a bison or two would be my choice. In addition, squirrel and chipmunk plus raccoon and skunk can make appearances in the towns modeled. And of course, people are in the town too!
So what I have to model are steep slopes with flowers where there would be sun, and dense forest in the shade or where a lot of water may come through. If near the creek, boulders with some silt will be in and around the creek, making the perfect habitat for a variety of bushes and shrubs, but Aspen will dominate that area. Towns are usually near water, so most towns depicted will be only a few feet fro water on the model. Mines may be all over the slop of the mountain, and so miner's cabins along with the supply stores and the mines themselves will be among the tall stands of evergreen trees and the alpine grasslands near the very top of the canyon. The bottom of the canyon will generally be a very tight and steep climb, but the top will be more open and leisurely.
Where do I get this information? To start with, here is a map of the region:
Image taken from the Department of the Interior website.
However there is also plenty of other useful information besides just a map:
Designing a logo for your railroad, especially a freelance railroad, can give your railway some real Character. Though the Bard Creek is named after a real creek in the area of Colorado being modeled, no such railway existed. Instead I want to have a freelance design where I can copy the equipment, standards, regulations, and operations from other railroads to best serve my imaginary line.
Logos are essential to many railroads. The Union Pacific has their red white and blue Shield, Canadian Pacific has their beaver, Santa Fe used to have the classic warbonnet scheme on their locomotives, Grand Trunk is known for their bright blue with red fronts. I could go on for paragraphs. All these logos are advertisement so that their company name is known to all. McDonald's is a great example of this type of advertisement in the real world as even two year old children will recognize the golden arches, and this is before they can even read! So in order to gain attention, plus give your railroad very well deserved character, logos are important. So What's my Logo?
For Steam engines, I plan to have a regular engine black color that would have come from the factory, but the decals I want to look something like this:
The Lower left design is my favorite and I likely would use this on tenders of steam engines as well as early diesel locomotives. The Logo on the right would look great on older, 1860's-1870's locomotives while the Logo on the upper left would look good on locomotives built into the 1920's.
Paint scheme is part of the logo too. As I said, I plan to use primarily black on the locomotives because in the 1860's to the 1880's the companies which served the silver mines weren't all that worried about image. As Tourism becomes a more prominent part of the railroad, then locomotives started to have more colorful schemes. Nothing is more true ot this statement than the yellow silver, and black color of the Durango and Silverton Narrow Gauge. The cars used on the modern tourist railroad are all from the 19th and early 20th century, and it was at that time that tourism started to become profitable in Colorado. When the railroad first laid tracks to Silverton, you can be sure the painters in the locomotive shops weren't worried about how pretty the locomotives were to the public eye and more worried about covering up all that soot and grime under a fresh coat of paint.
Passenger Cars, which I would use during train shows, will definitely use the logo on the lower left of the image above, the mountain logo. The overall color of the car is undecided yet, but I might lean towards either a yellow like the D&S NGRR or towards a maroon like my favorite Canadian Pacific heavyweight cars.
Bench work is one thing about modeling that I enjoy. The smell of fresh lumber being cut and assembled into something that you designed and built is very satisfying. I'm not starting on the bench work anytime soon, sorry to disappoint. However, the planning stage is well underway. With the Bench work I want to have sections which can be put up quickly by one person (and built cheaply as well). This requires that the modules be light, simple, yet sturdy.
I have made many types of bench work. I've used the classic plywood top with reinforcements beneath. This type was cheap to build, but 3/8" plywood with 1X4's can be a bit heavy. I've also tried to use a hollow core door. This was very cheap, but was somewhat bulky. I've also built an 8' by 12' modular layout for O scale, which was effective. The plywood was heavy, but the sections were manageable. I've even built an N scale layout from nothing more than a piece of foam insulation board. This was very light, but was fragile.
Another aspect of bench work is getting the legs to be sturdy but light. My n scale layouts never even used their own legs, I'd simply put the layout on a table whenever I took it to a show. The layout had it's own table in the house at home. My modular O scale layout used a series of legs that had black plastic brackets. These legs were quite sturdy once set up, but were very unstable until every module was in place. Furthermore, bolts had to be inserted through the top, and right in the middle of the scenery of the layout. If I had been modeling summer, a few bushes and trees would have taken care of the problem; but I modeled winter. Everything looked great except for those smooth, round bumps every four feet. The HO scale layout that I built on a door also didn't use legs, but rather rested on a pair of file cabinets. A word to those wanting permanent layouts, file cabinets make great bench work because they don't take up too much space, but can double as storage for the extra trains and other equipment. A file cabinet under every joint between sections would work quite well.
The Table illustrates my experience with the following bench work types; foam, light plywood (less than 1/2"), heavy plywood (greater than 1/2"), and the hollow core door.
Foam is very easy to build with, very easy to use, and is very light. However, foam is expensive (blue, pink, or green not the white which is not very useful) and foam requires backing such as plywood. Foam is best used as a scenery base because contours can be made in the foam.
Light Plywood which is under 1/2" in thickness is versatile, but requires power tools to be useful which makes plywood significantly more difficult. Also, without a smart design, bench work made from very thin plywood can be flimsy. If built correctly however, then a very useful bench work that is very light can be built. For a portable layout, light plywood and foam board make a good pair.
Heavy plywood is very good for larger and heavier layouts that must be built at a reasonable cost. For heavy plywood, a table saw is needed or strongly recommended to make accurate cuts. Table saws are not for the faint of heart, and can be dangerous so heavy plywood is not a good idea if just starting out and you have no shop experience with a table saw. However, if heavy plywood is used, a very durable layout will be built which can withstand the rigors of cross country travel or the weight of a large indoor layout. plaster can be used in conjunction with the heavy plywood on indoor layouts. This system of bench work is one of the oldest and most trusted.
A hollow core door, though light and cheap, is not designed for bench work purposes. Hollow core doors also are not very sturdy by themselves, in fact most door framework is merely 1x2 cut lumber and a very thin plywood skin. I have proved that a small indoor layout on a door is possible, and even successful if designed properly.
For portability, plywood and foam makes the most sense since each covers the other's shortcomings. Foam is not sturdy, but plywood is just strong enough to be useful. Plywood is not as easy to use as a scenery base, but foam can be carved with ease. Finally, both light plywood and foam board are very light, and the combined weight is easily handled by one person when designed correctly.
So what is the correct design then? Well, I searched high and low for a decent design, but the best I can recommend is the following video:
This video is titled "Building Your First Model Railroad." This video was from Model Railroader Magazine a few years ago, and has been seen by thousands of starting hobbyists. I strongly recommend picking up a copy of this video so you can watch it completely. The bench work is genius and can be adapted for portability with only slight modifications. For my module, I plant to use only one sheet of plywood, some will be stripped off for use as the frame, and the remaining portion will be used as a sturdy top.
In addition, I plan to add layers of foam so that the module can have scenery both above and below the right of way. The final layer for the bench work will be a cut-to-fit ceiling tile right of way. For G scale, I don't think foam alone can support the weight of the larger locomotives, or the pressures of hand laid track, so I'll use ceiling tile like what is seen in commercial buildings as a roadbed.
I have not yet decided on the legs, although I do like the legs used in the video. While cruising through Lowe's the other day, I noticed saw horse leg brackets. A saw horse looks like that yellow metal object in the video. The brackets are supposed to be used with 2X4 legs which are somewhat heavy, but definitely sturdy. Furthermore, a sawhorse forms an 'A' shape with the legs. A triangle, like an arch, is very sturdy. The brackets were 5.99 a pair, and then I'd have to add on about 12 dollars worth of 2x4 to make up the legs. The result is less than 20 dollars for one saw horse. The first module would require two saw horses, plus one for every module built thereafter.
For bolting the modules together, I again looked at Model Railroader magazine and saw that quikgrip clamps (similar in design to a bar clamp) can be bought cheaply and used to secure modules together. Only a light bolt or two would be needed to secure the modules to the sawhorses. One sheet of foam insulation, one sheet of 3/8" plywood, two small sheets of ceiling tile, saw horse brackets, 2x4 saw horse legs, quikgrip clamps, and a few nuts, bolts and screws would cost about $85 for each module, plus 18-20 for the extra saw horse required.
The downside to this design is that the modules must be carried in. The design of the legs in the video would allow for small wheels, or casters, to be used to simply roll the layout around if needed; a definite plus if attending a show by yourself. So the legs have not been figured out yet, or decided upon.
What I have figured out for sure is how big each module should be. In 1:20.3 scale, a train takes up lot of space. Same with the turnouts as well. A typical 3ft gauge #4 turnout in 1:20.3 scale would be at least 18" long, more along the lines of 24". Ad to this less than a foot behind and less than two feet of track in front of the turnout and the whole turnout assembly takes up a minimum of 48" of length along a module. The standard 24" by 48" module just won't due in this large of a scale. Furthermore, the trains are very wide, requiring 8" minimum space between tracks. each track can be no less than 6 inches from the front or the back of the module or else the train my go crashing to the floor if a derailment occurs. On a 24" wide module, there can be only a maximum of 2 tracks with little space ofr other scenery. In order ot avoid a test track feel, the module must be wider. I've decided that 30-32" width is a very good width for a small modular G scale layout. Up to 3 tracks can be installed, allowing for a small yard, but with only 2 tracks, there is enough room for buildings and a fair amount of scenery. In fact, on stretches of single main track, up to 20" of scenery can be placed behind or in front of the track right of way, double track still leaves 12" of module space behind or in front which allows for small buildings, hills, rock cliffs, and tunnels.
Another issue to address is the length of the module. 48" is not enough to be of use, 72" is okay, but there is limited flexibility, but 96" is a great length because the module can still be carried in the back of a truck, but are long enough that twists and turns in the track can be made to give the layout a more interesting and realistic look.
Therefore each module will have a surface are of 30" by 96". With the smallest rolling stock, these modules would suffice on their own. But I also need to have larger turns than 24" radius in order to run larger locomotives and eight wheel rolling stock. I want realistic curves right from the beginning, so 8 ft diameter curves will be a minimum. With eight foot diameter curves, plus 6" of clearance on each side of the curve, the minimum overall diameter for a 180 degree turn is 9ft, but to decrease the number of cuts, and give some extra space, 10 ft will be great, allowing for 9ft diameter curves instead of 8ft. Furthermore, the extra space allows for a roomy 5ft wide center section so running trains from the inside becomes reality. Also, the overall dimensions of a 90 degree module section is 85"by about 38", still small enough to be transported easily.
Thus I have created a general concept for bench work which is very well suited to 1:20.3 scale, or so I believe. Below is the diagram of what I want to achieve within two years:
Red sections represent 90 degree turn sections and blue represent 96" length straight sections. This overall plan would allow for a switching layout that takes place along all four walls of a garage. The overall dimensions in this set up are 13 by 26 feet, taking up only one stall of a garage. The gap between the blue sections is an entry point. I do not want to have to crawl under or squeeze through a layout to get to the center for operations. this particular set up gives me a comfortable 30" wide space to walk through. That may seem narrow, but look at any mobile home or older house and most doorways are 32" wide, so 30" is not big trick to navigate. I'm also proud to say I'm not overly fat, and don't plan to get there for a couple of decades at least, so this set up is just my size. With the addition of another curve module and a straight module, the layout could become a racetrack shape with a dimension of 10 by 34 feet or 18 by 26 feet depending on the set up. Indoors, this layout seems big, and it is; however so is the scale. I'll recommend that if you don't have almost a garage sized space, don't plan on an indoor layout with realistic curves, realistic switches, and realistic track plan. Using short turnouts and sectional track, a switching layout can be built along 12 feet of wall space, but it has the tendency to look toy-like. If you like that look, by all means roll with it; I'm simply stating that I prefer more realistic settings to toy-land, unless in a very appropriate setting such as Christmas.
To transport this layout, which I intend to do, I will require the bed of my Pick up truck. My truck as a full 8ft bed plus a topper that gives 40" minimum vertical space. In this truck the modules would have to be 2 lengthwise side by side staring about 8" off the bed floor due to the fenders. Locomotives, rolling stock and buildings can be placed below this initial layer between the fenders. this leaves me with 32" of headroom for modules that will be stacked 4 high. divide 32 by 4 and I get 8" of vertical clearance for each module. So anything sticking up more than a few inches off the surface of the module will need to be removable. If I build any more modules in the future, they will require their own trailer, so that is something to keep in mind if wanting to build in 1:20.3 scale.
The first step in this railroad construction is to plan. I like to plan my projects well, being sure that everything is how I think will be best. Also, I am in college and so this railroad cannot be built except at certain times of the year, and only piece by piece. I am predicting then that these first several posts will be all planning. What I can give viewers that is exciting is valuable information and great prototype shots of the various railroads I'll be taking inspiration from.
So where do I start? My gut and my experience tells me that I should decide what I want on the railroad first, then find a way to fit what I can into what ever space limits I finds. Also, I want to have something as soon as I can build it, so whatever I start with should be simple, basic but to the point.
Do I start with a mine?
How about a small station?
Perhaps the interchange?
The best place to determine this is through the prototype. The interchange is a very busy place, however this is way too large to be modeled quickly and still look good. Going with a station or a whistle stop is okay; it's small, it's easy and it looks good. However, a station doesn't quite capture the purpose of an industrial railway plus there is not much operating potential. My first option, the mine sounds like something that could work. A mine is the reason the railroad is in existence plus the mine will require one or two spurs to drop cars. Furthermore, by going to the furthest mine, I also model one complete end of the system which is a physical starting point.
So a mine it is then. The mine will require at least one spur so that rail cars can be dropped to be loaded. If I wanted to make the scene incredibly rural, I would leave the track design as that, one spur off of a main line that abruptly ends just beyond the mine. In addition, perhaps a small platform that the occasional boxcar of parts and tools can be parked at could be included.
A second module would have to be built to serve as a staging/fiddle yard/spur lead. As long as the railroad's name is "Bard Creek" I might as well make this second module a bridge with a creek bottom.
Based on what I describe, here is my 3D rendition:
154 years ago an event happened that would change the economy of Colorado forever, gold was discovered! Over 100,000 people flocked to Colorado as the new gold rush began. Though the initial rush lasted only a few years, other materials became profitable as well. First gold, then silver, zinc, copper, and other minerals followed after. Each major vein or veins in a region were blocked off into districts. These districts could be found all over Colorado Territory from Durango to Loveland and from Glenwood Springs to Lakewood. Within each district were hundreds to thousands of private claims of one person or one family trying to strike it rich. Many busted, but the larger mines bought up the land and rallied enough labor to dig down into the rock hundreds of feet deep following the gold veins.
One District, known as the Clear Creek district, was centered around Georgetown where the present day Georgetown Loop Railroad runs. Only a few miles to the Northeast of Georgetown lies Black Hawk. In between were several smaller towns that were served by several railroads. Downieville, Lawson, Empire, and Idaho Springs sit in between the two larger towns in the district. Silver Plume lies to the West of Georgetown by only 2 miles, however the dramatic and steep climb that the train had to take to get to Silver Plume required a loop in the narrow valley that acted like a helix, lifting the train up the valley across a tall steel bridge famous for being called the Devil's Gate.
Several railroads operated in the district; the Colorado Central was the largest however. These railroads were all narrow gauge which allows for trains to negotiate the steep terrain better than their larger 4' 8.5" gauge cousins. Because of the abundance and the variety of trains in the area, Colorado is a modeler's version of heaven. Even today, 9 major tourist Railroads still operate in the state with equipment representing every decade from the 1890's to the 1950's. In addition, several regional and commercial freight lines still exist today. What results is that even in 2013, someone can still accurately depict any point in Colorado railroad history. But one question still remains, with such a rich history, how does one depict Colorado while also capturing it's rich heritage and legend?
Well I believe I have found a simple solution, pseudo-prototype modeling. What I mean is that even though I'm looking at historical pictures, the models will be displayed in a fashion that best displays the image of Colorado railroading. In addition, I want the public to be able to learn from this railroad, understand the aspects of mining and the people who worked in the districts. Finally, I want my models to be in a setting that draws attention. I want realism in a dramatized scene, and I want to feel, smell and hear the sounds of the mining camps, the mines, and the railroads.
I therefore have found what is perhaps the best method of combining everything I want in a railroad. I'll be modeling in Fn3 scale, which is 1:20.3 scale trains running on gauge 1 (45mm) track depicting 3 foot gauge. Actual gauges varied railroad to railroad from 3ft to 12in gauge, but the Fn3 (3ft gauge) is the best commercially available scale that meets my standards. Currently, I have several pieces of equipment that runs on gauge 1 track, however I only have three pieces that are the right scale, and one piece is from a different era. Finally, Fn3 scale is very large, and in a train show or at a historical event, a large scale display is hard to miss.
I want the layout to be portable, so I will be looking at modular or sectional layout options. The easier to set up, the more sturdy, and the cheaper the build, the better. This also allows me to expand, contract, or rearrange the layout whenever I please. However, this can be challenging because Fn3 is not exactly light footed. In order to give a more realistic and authentic feel, plus bring down the costs, I will be scratch building and kit bashing (perhaps some dumpster diving) much of the layout's buildings, track, details and trees.
Lastly, I want the layout to evoke feeling, emotion, and an understanding for the brave and hearty men women and children who, despite the harsh conditions, constant danger, and the complete remoteness of the region still hung on to carry forward the American Dream. If people walk away knowing and comprehending what life was like, the layout will be success.
So it is with great pleasure that announce the birth of the Bard Creek Railroad, a fictional 3ft, narrow gauge, railroad southwest of Empire that interchanges with the Colorado Central while serving the small mines that dot the area which the larger CC railroad simply passed over in favor of the larger mines closer to Georgetown. The Bard Creek's major competitor in later years is the Argentine Central that originated in 1905. While Bard Creek will generally represent 1880's, I want to give a sort of overall story which tells the rise and fall of the line, similar to the other railroads in the area.
I can feel that this project will be fun, exciting, and educational. Stay tuned for more and have a good day!
