And that’s what gave the G&D its “wow!” factor and why it appeared in MR,RMC and several catalogs on a routine bases. There was nothing like it back then and why its still popular today.Very few of today’s layouts has that G&D “wow!” factor.
They didn’t call John the “Wizard of Monterey” for nothing.
Not going to get into the how realitic is the G&D, but rather, for the sake of argument, just assume it did exist. I see the modern G&D as only a fraction of it’s original self, most likely steam tourist with possibly some freight. But, it’s also much larger because it leveraged Federal and state funds to either purchase or win the operating contract on a dozen or so short lines and regionals (think G&W) so modern G&D EMD’s and GE’s show up around the country.
Now Pennsy and NYC merging and being taken over by a couple of small southeastern railroads? Nah, that’s just pure fantasy.
jim
^ Hey! B&O/C&O weren’t THAT small! (even went to Chicago and Saint Louis and stuff)
Why do we seem stuck on the idea that the railroad must have some justification for its’ existence? The G&D’s’ justification for its’ existence is that John wanted it to exist. That is the only real reason for the need for every model railroad that has ever been built, be that a hard core reality based modern day layout; or, a complete fantasy line like the G&D; or, Disney’s real railroads operating at their theme parks.
The fact is that no model railroad is ever going to be a real railroad! They won’t ever make money from operations, the reason that real railroads exist.
I do see a chauvinistic attitude about building model railroads by some, who feel the only justifiable reason for building one, is the goal of very closely copying the prototype. For these people a fairly myopic view of how model railroading is to be performed, exists. That’s is fine for them, I just wish they could let those of us who have slightly different spin on things to have our way, too! In the end, my perception of how well a modeler’s work looks, is by his ability to make a scene look realistic. I hold nothing more important than that simple parameter.
I know that people have copied the original G&D layout and have even heard that some have copied the large G&D. I don’t have need to copy in this way; but, don’t have a problem with anyone who does. I guess for me, my reasons for being a model railroader, is it allows me to express my artistic interests. I also love to see the artistic abilities of others whether it meets the ideas about how model railroading is supposed to be done by others; or not!
Mark,Many of us like to emulate the prototype as closely as possible and many do not… What ever floats a modeler’s tug boat is fine by me.
I fully agree there is room for both but,I like sharing my thoughts based on my study of short lines that covers around 40 years for basic thoughts and not a absolute.Knowing some basic facts can give a fantasy layout pausability…
A example would be.
My Slate Creek Rail and Summeret Ry switches a single industrial park and is loosely based on a prototype that serves a single industrial park.
NP 2626:
The original question had to do with our opinions as to the likely course of the G&D, had it actually existed. For some, the answer is limited only by one’s own imagination. For others, the answer is tempered by the realities of operating an actual railroad through extremely forbidding terrain. In a sense, everybody’s answers are a bit chauvinistic because they reflect the opinions and preferences of the respondent. As much as I admire the artistry of John Allen, I personally prefer a more realistic approach than he did. My responses reflect that. I responded to a hypothetical question. My answers are no more and no less valid than anybody else’s.
Think of it this way: The Gorre and Daphetid was something like a model version of the Fiddletown & Copperopolis. Tony Koester’s NKP is a model version of the Nickel Plate Road. Both approaches are valid because they satisfy the wishes of the builder. Both exhibit excellent craftsmanship, and even artistry. Neither John nor Tony would suggest that his way is the only way.
Tom
(edited)
The railroad shunts it 15 miles to the rock yard and county concrete company in town near the 4 lane highway.
There is a small prototype rock yard that is rail served in the middle of no where next to an interstate interchange about 20 miles a way that serves as creative inspiration.
Creating an industry or a railroad out of thin air requires suspending reality. If it was really economically viable, there would be one.[;)]
I thought I was coming across as a proponent of free will and the hobby being about personal choice. Although my response maybe didn’t completely address the O.P.'s thoughts, people made responses which I was responding too. While I easily can think outside the box of what might be termed mainstream model railroading, my comment meant to convey that I enjoy all aspects of the hobby, maybe better than someone else might be able to.
Not really…One just has to do some homework on short lines and base their freelance short line around that and then think outside the well worn model industry box.
Like the prototype rock yard you mention there are hundreds of such yards use for many things.
A example would be a mine to river port (rail to barge) simply because rail can haul more coal efficiently then a fleet of coal buckets.
For years C&IM made their living hauling coal from on line mines to on line power plants.
13 mile long Ohio Midland Power & Light Railway hauled coal off the C&O and N&W to a power plant at Pickway.I’m not sure when this operation cease due to the power plant closure but,it was still in operation in the 60s…
So,why completely suspend reality when there’s hundreds of examples? I could easily model a modern Ohio Midland by using two SD9s or maybe 2 SD40s since the power plant would still need coal…That would be completely plausible.
Regardless of whether or not the G&D could exist in the real world… If a modernized G&D did buy diesel road switchers, they would be unlikely to designate them as long hood forward. The prototype railroads that did so had safety in mind, placing the long hood between the crew in the cab and any obstacles on the track that they might collide with (such as a rockslide or cars at a grade crossing). Considering the twisty, mountainous character of the G&D’s track and the slow speed of its trains that implies, I would think the better forward visibility offered by running short-hood forward – thus offering engineers a better chance to stop short of a stationary obstacle – would be a greater safety advantage.
^ I agree with that with one proviso. If for some reason the G&D was dieselizing in the early 50’s, long hood forward was normal setup and would be expected especially with Alco’s such as RSD-5’s. Otherwise, by the late 50’s short hood forward was well established to the point rs-2/3s were being converted to it. Whatever games were played on the G&D with scenery, the equipment and operations seemed close to standard practice. I believe the OP was talking about dieselizing in the early 60’s so LHF would be an outlier east of the appellations.
For some reason I can’t get G&D diesels out of my mind. It is easy to see the late 70’s early 80’s with the Akin back’s being worked by well-groomed and updated RSD-12s, RSD-33’s (DL733), and H 16-66’s that had been updated with FDL-8’s (cheap U18C’s). Move to the 90’s and they would have been Super 7’d by GE (they talked of doing Alco’s). That’s mostly cause I can’t see the G&D doing bland all EMD
Probably I missed the link, but it seems nobody has posted the track-plan of the G&D - this one I believe is from 1972
Playing the devil’s advocate and looking at locomotive history…If I was purchasing diesel locomotives for replacing G&Ds steam the last thing I would want is a roster of Alcos,Baldwin or FMs… I would opt for EMD GP9s and SD9s simply because EMD locomotives was more reliable then Alco…I would opt for SW9s for yard switchers.
Having a all EMD roster would save money since we would need to stock only EMD parts instead of part from various locomotive builders.
The GP9 was produced from early 1954 through the end of 1959. SD9 would be close to that. It is right for a N&W style dieselization. Not so good if it is suposed to happen in the 60’s as per proposal #2. Any modifications in that case? How about the advantage of turbos at high elevation.
Your response to this is welcome.
Good question…It would depend on the year but,SD35s as well as GP38s and GP40s if the change over took place in the mid 60s if in the early 60s then GP35s and SD35s For yard switchers I would use SW1200s.All road engines would be equipped with DBs.
How about the advantage of turbos at high elevation.
Excellent question…I really don’t know the technical stuff but,seeing UP,SP,WP Rio Grande,Milwaukee,CB&Q and GN use those engines I mention through the Western mountains I wonder if there was a advantage or disadvantage?
I was under the impression that LHF was used by roads who were used to running steam since this puts the engine in front of the cab, like on a steamer. Since G&D seems to practically worship steam, I thought they might run LHF for this reason.
While there are variables, my answer would be definite advantages to turbocharged diesels.
Cheers, the Bear.
There’s no reason why the G&D couldn’t be like N&W,PRR,NYC,B&O(except for the ex-C&O geeps*)Southern and others that opt for LHF operation.The G&D Geeps and SDs could have high short hoods as well.
I prefer LHF operation.
*C&O sent several of their Geeps to the B&O after the C&O took control of the B&O…These C&O Geeps retain their numbers and C&O looks and was operated SHF.
The G&D could never have survived using its original principles for all the reasons given early in this thread. Those reasons were obstinant mangement, limited product movement, mines playing out, road building, large scale trucking, etc. All this combined in reality to kill both steam and short roads in rugged terrain.
Such is the case in my fantasy narrow gauge road, the P.U.P., 1939-1952 It was not even built by a railroad company at all, but by a mining corsortium of big companies realizing that cheap, older, narrow gauge loco’s, scraped track and old NG cars were in abundance at that time. The few automotive roads in the newer,expanding Colorado mining district were washouts half the time and with WWII looming, and a virtual sure thing, they built a 56 mile road to haul their product. They knew it would not last, (the war or their railroad), but they knew the tonnage needed would be great and rapid delivery would be the key in war time. In 1952, after the war, they gladly tore up their road, without a tear being shed, and went into trucking on the newly constructed post war road expansion effort. Business is business there is no sentimentality!
So, the G&D might have also gone away totally and not survived for the same reasons.
