Can such a operation be done?

[CSXT Q-317]

I recently came across track charts and interchange charts for the DT&I from Flat Rock to Ironton.

I got to thinking on stripping down one of the latest DT&I routes and rebuilding. One thing that has bothered me with this route was the lack of DEM terrain.

Living in Southern Ohio near Waverly I always wanted to see this rebuilt.

While I have a feeling a new route would need to be created from scratch. I was wondering if the track can at least be raised to match any new DEM terrain.

Although I am leaning to a whole new route for this, as I get better with blender. Although any attempt at this is down the road a bit.

[eric]

My advice... start new if you have charts. Don't be constrained by someone else's track decisions.

DT&I is an older road, so my recommendation is to use 4m track centers for multiple track and yards.

MTracks and Scalerail _y_ tracks both use 4m spacing vs.the more modern 5m spacing used by Kuju. Makes a big difference for realism in my opinion.

[kennyeaton]

I looked at this route years ago. When I opened it up in MSTS route editor, this route looked like a model train set on a table. What made me curious was that with the labels visible while running it, you could see names of sidings that should have been 50 miles away.

Kenny

[CSXT Q-317]

I looked at this route years ago. When I opened it up in MSTS route editor, this route looked like a model train set on a table. What made me curious was that with the labels visible while running it, you could see names of sidings that should have been 50 miles away.

Kenny

Jackson yard, and especially the line from Ironton to Jackson. Fixing the track layout would not be hard if you did not dem the route. But the more I looked at it and looking at my DT&I/grand trunk series dvds I realized I could go a couple different routes here. Do the post abandonment of the line to Jackson where they utilized the B&O and C&O.

Or do the line as it was through Waverly. It would be an on and off project as I'm currently stripping down a version of my Ohio Division to update. I recall years ago I had offered to terrain the route and provide some marker files. That never did occur.

Sent from my SM-S134DL using Tapatalk

[CSXT Q-317]

My advice... start new if you have charts. Don't be constrained by someone else's track decisions.

DT&I is an older road, so my recommendation is to use 4m track centers for multiple track and yards.

MTracks and Scalerail _y_ tracks both use 4m spacing vs.the more modern 5m spacing used by Kuju. Makes a big difference for realism in my opinion.

That might be the quicker option. I know Ironton looked nothing like I have seen. That is my eye catching the errors. Much like my Ohio Division I'm currently fighting to upgrade.

With the DT&I or any new version u would want to terrain and get grades in. But your advice makes the most since and is quicker with the track laying.

I feel with me getting better at blender I can get a better result.

It really is up in the air if I want to lay track for this or the NS Columbus and Sandusky districts. Sandusky district being an old territory of mine. But I'm feeling the DT&I. But wish we had more available in DT&I equipment.

Sent from my SM-S134DL using Tapatalk

[eric]

With some planning ahead of time, track laying is always the easiest part.

What I'm doing with my rebuild of the UP-Gila is a set of KML files I can load into TSRE. I work in one direction (currently west to east) and the grade changes are marked with a pin so that I can see when I'm getting close.

Also, if you flip on the UseImperial setting in TSRE, your terrain elevation will be displayed in feet, which helps greatly in seeing how close you are to elevations on the charts.

Lastly... I use Google maps as terrain textures, so I can cross-check elevations at roads/bridges where it's marked on the UP charts. It adds some weight to the space used by the route, but it's worth it for the scenic value.

[CSXT Q-317]

With some planning ahead of time, track laying is always the easiest part.

What I'm doing with my rebuild of the UP-Gila is a set of KML files I can load into TSRE. I work in one direction (currently west to east) and the grade changes are marked with a pin so that I can see when I'm getting close.

Also, if you flip on the UseImperial setting in TSRE, your terrain elevation will be displayed in feet, which helps greatly in seeing how close you are to elevations on the charts.

Lastly... I use Google maps as terrain textures, so I can cross-check elevations at roads/bridges where it's marked on the UP charts. It adds some weight to the space used by the route, but it's worth it for the scenic value.

Working in one direction is what I do as well.

Didn't know about the Use Imperial setting doing that, Ill have to try that out.

I haven't fully mastered google maps as terrain textures just yet. But I'll have to try it when I get a better understanding of it.

[geepster775]

The DT&I routes in the library are more of a fantasy extension of the GT Flint sub stuff with a few more curley-Q loops and directionless rambling, twisting and turning added to mimic the additional length. Leave the old routes alone, save them for those who want southern michigan to stand in for southern ohio.

There is nothing, - repeat, nothing, - that is prototypical about the DT&I track layout in those existing DT&I routes.

[CSXT Q-317]

The DT&I routes in the library are more of a fantasy extension of the GT Flint sub stuff with a few more curley-Q loops and directionless rambling, twisting and turning added to mimic the additional length. Leave the old routes alone, save them for those who want southern michigan to stand in for southern ohio.

There is nothing, - repeat, nothing, - that is prototypical about the DT&I track layout in those existing DT&I routes.

For the most part the section between Waverly and Jackson was twisting. A reason why DT&I restricted to 4 axle units between Springfield and Jackson and Ironton. Any new version would be the same with a bit of modification to track layout. For example, Vauces was no where near where it is.

You'd still deal with the sharp curves. One idea I had was create it using the GT routing over the C&O and B&O through Chillicothe to Musselman over to Washington CH and north. While most of the trackage is OK in terms of general layout there are glaring errors. My issue is how it's laid out. Jackson for example isn't laid out anywhere near how it should have been.

Going over the DT&I photos and DVDs I have makes it obvious.

But I agree, simplest option would be starting new. I had offered to terrain this route, and provide markers but for some reason that never came to pass.



Sent from my SM-S134DL using Tapatalk