A quick poll for interest on the DT&I

[CSXT Q-317]

I needed a break from the Ohio Division I have been working... I should say struggling with.

I am currently tracing out the old DT&I for a overhaul of the track and the addition of DEM data.

The original DT&I route was decent. However, I wanted to add in dem data for the terrain and correct track errors. Especially with what is Vauces. Living quite literally in the routes backyard in Southern Ohio I am familiar a bit of the route. No fault of the route author. I find myself comparing between Google Earth and Lidar data to pin point the routes road bed.

The plan was to add the DEM data, build tracks and roads present from the DT&I track charts that I have of the entire system. I would like to lay the track from Ironton to Flat Rock Michigan. I could do a pre 1981 routing which keeps Summit Hill open, or post 1981 version which routes the DT&I up the C&O from Greggs Hill to Vauces in Chillicothe down VA Jct over to the Scioto Cutoff to Connect into Chillicothe over the Ohio Division where it would jump onto the CH&D at Musselman to Washington Courthouse.

Right now I am thinking on doing the pre 1981 trackwork. This is definitely pre GTW operations, and before the portion through Waverly was officially abandoned, So the time period I am thinking would be while the DT&I was under PC control.

I could release a tracks and roads only for those who are interested to add scenery. If there is interest I can go that route.

[geepster775]

The DT&I route in the library has practically zero authenticity to it. I would classify it as a tabletop 'pigtail' design, where the track simply loops around and heads off in all sorts of unreal directions, as if the route builder was taking advantage of any existing tiles to avoid adding more. I barely see anything salvageable coming from it.

I noticed there are about 7 hours of new DT&I video posted by Steve Neff over on the tube of you. The first two hour-long volumes covering the south end, post-reroute. I totally understand the GT's desire to shed what was left. Such a convoluted way to interchange your coal and coke trains! Nothing south of the C&O interchange at Greggs is in the videos. Other volumes are solidly post-GT takeover. The video confirmed that GT's ex-Rock and ex-P&LE patch-job power did venture south of Springfield on occasion.

A reprint from the 1975 Railfan magazine described how the lines south of Springfield were operated in the late 60s and 70s. Operations-wise, everything was dependent upon that lone Springfield-Jackson road freight.

https://railfan.com/the-ironton-run/#:~:text=POSTSCRIPT:%20The%20Detroit%2C%20Toledo%2 0&%20Ironton%20was,Ohio%2C%20including%20the%20p ic turesque%20%E2%80%9CIronton%20Run.%E2%80%9D%20%2DO .M.V.

[kennyeaton]

I have to agree with geepster775. I dumped this route not long after installing it because of the tabletop layout. This would be a great coal route is one of the route builders started it from scratch.

Kenny

Detroit,_Toledo_and_Ironton_Railroad_system_map.png

DT&I.png

[CSXT Q-317]

So the general consensus is yes here.

I have already begun mapping the line with markers out of Ironton. At one point I had offered to provide marker files and DEM data for the route in the library. Obviously this never happened. The plan is to put dem data to a new route and go from there.

I had always taken issue with the layout, the way Jackson was laid out, and that Vauces is no where near where it is in the route. prior to 1981 or so DT&I would have never seen Vauces.

A lot to be desired in that older route.

Below is the preliminary work done so far tracing the line out.

I may have sounded like I was taking the old route and reworking it. That is absolutely not the case. Completely new project with the track and terrain. With the potential to run some GTW from Springfield to Flatrock... I&O if one wished.


Screenshot 2025-12-20 205251.png Screenshot 2025-12-20 205311.png

[jbtower]

That would be a very welcome addition, considering there are no routes available that cover even a minute portion of the DT&I.

[ebnertra000]

Sounds cool. If you're that interested in it, I say go for it.

One thing I'm doing on some projects I've been chipping away at is not necessarily sticking to an exact era if it doesn't conflict with the general era I'm going for. One example of this is the former DMIR I've been building. I started out aiming for the early 2010s or so, but then added a mine that likely closed before then, and am tempted to add a couple lines that were abandoned before that, since it doesn't interfere with modern operations, and adds a bit more for people to do