79110 MOD - Modular Train Tunnel - Wild West style

[Murdoch17]

This model was inspired by set 79110, (Silver Mine Shootout) from the Lone Ranger theme. This tunnel can let tall objects through, such as the official caboose (set 10014, the tallest train I know of), with at least two bricks of clearance between the roof of the caboose and the tunnel ceiling.

Also, this plastic waterfall part is not in LDD and is missing from the model in two spots: http://alpha.brickli...309pb01#T=C&C=0

The middle of the model has modular pins to connect to the identical other half needed to build a complete tunnel. it can also be extended with a middle section, but I don't have one available to download like the rest of the tunnel at this time.

Proof that this tunnel lets the 10014 caboose through with room to spare.

Here is the LDD file for the tunnel only (no caboose): http://www.moc-pages...1463503949m.lxf

Comments, Questions and Complaints are always welcome!

Edited May 17, 2016 by Murdoch17

[3D LEGO]

Murdoch17,

I say that is about right for a typical western American/Canadian train tunnel from the mid to late 1800s. Bored through whatever hill, mountain, etc that stood in the way. Braced internally only when the conditions dictated it. (Yours would make it more of a fractured rock composition. Full wooden liner was used on lose rock and dirt tunnel bores, essentially unstable ground.) But obviously a safety hazard due to wood rot and ember-induced fires from steam locomotives. (Concrete Tunnels were a luxury not common until later. Mass adaption on mainlines can be found in the likes of the former Milwaukee Road and Virginian railroads - late comers who built to the latest technology standards.) Actually, I would venture to say that it is almost too wide. Take one stud from both sides and you would be set, making it nice and tight... No room for smoke, persons or anything for that matter other than the train. (The idea of safety was not exactly standard back then. AAR Janney couplers had yet to really replace the hook and pin connections.)

3D LEGO

[PeteM]

I had a similar idea, and even purchased two Silver Mine sets when they were on offer, but have yet to turn them in to anything so it's good to see what you made of it! :)

[pirzyk]

This model was inspired by set 79110, (Silver Mine Shootout) from the Lone Ranger theme. This tunnel can let tall objects through, such as the official caboose (set 10014, the tallest train I know of),

How does the height compare to the double stacked containers from 10219 (Maersk)? I believe that is 14 bricks high.

[Murdoch17]

Murdoch17,

I say that is about right for a typical western American/Canadian train tunnel from the mid to late 1800s. Bored through whatever hill, mountain, etc that stood in the way. Braced internally only when the conditions dictated it. (Yours would make it more of a fractured rock composition. Full wooden liner was used on lose rock and dirt tunnel bores, essentially unstable ground.) But obviously a safety hazard due to wood rot and ember-induced fires from steam locomotives. (Concrete Tunnels were a luxury not common until later. Mass adaption on mainlines can be found in the likes of the former Milwaukee Road and Virginian railroads - late comers who built to the latest technology standards.) Actually, I would venture to say that it is almost too wide. Take one stud from both sides and you would be set, making it nice and tight... No room for smoke, persons or anything for that matter other than the train. (The idea of safety was not exactly standard back then. AAR Janney couplers had yet to really replace the hook and pin connections.)

3D LEGO

Thanks! The tunnel was partially inspired by the 1850's-era Barretts Tunnels, as seen at my hometown railroad museum in Saint Louis, Missouri. (They were the first tunnels west of the Mississippi River, and were used up until the early 1940's.)

I had a similar idea, and even purchased two Silver Mine sets when they were on offer, but have yet to turn them in to anything so it's good to see what you made of it! :)

Thank you! I would love to see what your model looks like when you finish it.

How does the height compare to the double stacked containers from 10219 (Maersk)? I believe that is 14 bricks high.

I just checked, and no: it does NOT fit by about two bricks radiance. I'll have to tell my dad (who designed the standard this tunnel was based on way back in the 1990's) that he needs to rethink his height clearance. I too will need to extend the model to make it fit. Thanks for pointing it out, I didn't know that it was an issue!

Edited May 18, 2016 by Murdoch17

[xboxtravis7992]

Funny thing is a lot of real life rail tunnels have issues with double stack container trains. Some lines rather than making the tunnel higher actually lowered the track to fit the trains in. Of course with Lego we don't have that luxury, so adding those two bricks of height are very essential.

But as much as I love double stack container trains, single stack trains are prototypical in areas where tunnels haven't been extended yet! For example the Moffat Tunnel in Colorado can accept single stack trains, Amtrak's Superliner cars, and piggy backed trucks: but it can't fit double stack trains. That is part of the reason Union Pacific routes most of its trains via Echo Canyon instead of the Moffat.

Any way enough train detail talk :) I like the tunnel a lot. What it needs is a huge mountain to plow through now!

[pirzyk]

I just checked, and no: it does NOT fit by about two bricks radiance. I'll have to tell my dad (who designed the standard this tunnel was based on way back in the 1990's) that he needs to rethink his height clearance. I too will need to extend the model to make it fit. Thanks for pointing it out, I didn't know that it was an issue!

Or you could just say you are doing period based tunnels :) as Jacob points out there are other places where it won't clear either. Our club standard is 14 1/2 brick clearance, yet when I run the train doublestacked the upper containers can bounce and run into bridges, etc. So I also only run it usually singlely stacked.

Funny thing is a lot of real life rail tunnels have issues with double stack container trains. Some lines rather than making the tunnel higher actually lowered the track to fit the trains in. Of course with Lego we don't have that luxury, so adding those two bricks of height are very essential.

But as much as I love double stack container trains, single stack trains are prototypical in areas where tunnels haven't been extended yet! For example the Moffat Tunnel in Colorado can accept single stack trains, Amtrak's Superliner cars, and piggy backed trucks: but it can't fit double stack trains. That is part of the reason Union Pacific routes most of its trains via Echo Canyon instead of the Moffat.

Any way enough train detail talk :) I like the tunnel a lot. What it needs is a huge mountain to plow through now!

[ShrikeArghast]

I like it, but it could definitely use foliage (and I would love to see the rest of the mountain, complete with goats and a snow cap :D). Also, generally speaking, a tunnel either had a complete portal structure, or it had nothing (and was as much of a ragged mess as your average hard rock cave) - the inclusion of a very definitive arch here is kind of jarring when the rest of the tunnel front is just raw rock.

and

vs.

A nice compromise might be to extend your internal timber bracing to the exterior, like such:

Funny thing is a lot of real life rail tunnels have issues with double stack container trains. Some lines rather than making the tunnel higher actually lowered the track to fit the trains in. Of course with Lego we don't have that luxury, so adding those two bricks of height are very essential.

But as much as I love double stack container trains, single stack trains are prototypical in areas where tunnels haven't been extended yet! For example the Moffat Tunnel in Colorado can accept single stack trains, Amtrak's Superliner cars, and piggy backed trucks: but it can't fit double stack trains. That is part of the reason Union Pacific routes most of its trains via Echo Canyon instead of the Moffat.

Any way enough train detail talk :) I like the tunnel a lot. What it needs is a huge mountain to plow through now!

I wish they would just reopen Tennessee Pass :/. At least the rails are still there.

Edited May 19, 2016 by ShrikeArghast

[xboxtravis7992]

I wish they would just reopen Tennessee Pass :/. At least the rails are still there.

Exactly! One of the trains in my area the ZDVSC is a double stack/piggyback intermodal train that the Denver and Rio Grande Western used to run over the Tennessee Pass then through Soldier Summit up to Salt Lake City. After the SP/DRGW-UP merger and the closure of Tennesse Pass; the Union Pacific has been running it up to the Overland Route into Wyoming, then through Echo Canyon, and then back down into Salt Lake. It drives all the local railfans here nuts to think that if Tennesse Pass was just reopened or the Moffat was expanded to allow double stacks; then the UP could take a more direct route through the Rockies from Denver to Salt Lake; rather than this route around them they are doing... Not to mention the traffic on the Overland Route is getting bad enough its starting to bottleneck the Overland Route anyways...

Sorry, a bit off topic. But I just had to say it!

Edited May 19, 2016 by xboxtravis7992

[ShrikeArghast]

Exactly! One of the trains in my area the ZDVSC is a double stack/piggyback intermodal train that the Denver and Rio Grande Western used to run over the Tennessee Pass then through Soldier Summit up to Salt Lake City. After the SP/DRGW-UP merger and the closure of Tennesse Pass; the Union Pacific has been running it up to the Overland Route into Wyoming, then through Echo Canyon, and then back down into Salt Lake. It drives all the local railfans here nuts to think that if Tennesse Pass was just reopened or the Moffat was expanded to allow double stacks; then the UP could take a more direct route through the Rockies from Denver to Salt Lake; rather than this route around them they are doing... Not to mention the traffic on the Overland Route is getting bad enough its starting to bottleneck the Overland Route anyways...

Sorry, a bit off topic. But I just had to say it!

Unfortunately, talk on several of the railfan forums I follow is that once the coal traffic dries up, even the Moffat route will be 'Homesake'd,' definitively marking the end of heavy Colorado Rocky Mountain railroading. I shudder at the thought, but acknowledge it is a possibility, with only Amtrak remaining a viable user of the line. Sadly, all the thrust lately regarding American railroads is a new round of mergers, which would almost certainly lead to further spin-offs and closures. Much as I want to see Tennessee Pass open, I think the future looks even bleaker.

At least they're running through freights over Siskiyou again.

[xboxtravis7992]

Unfortunately, talk on several of the railfan forums I follow is that once the coal traffic dries up, even the Moffat route will be 'Homesake'd,' definitively marking the end of heavy Colorado Rocky Mountain railroading. I shudder at the thought, but acknowledge it is a possibility, with only Amtrak remaining a viable user of the line. Sadly, all the thrust lately regarding American railroads is a new round of mergers, which would almost certainly lead to further spin-offs and closures. Much as I want to see Tennessee Pass open, I think the future looks even bleaker.

At least they're running through freights over Siskiyou again.

Yeah I've heard a lot of similar talk to... If Union Pacific sold the former DRGW routes to BNSF maybe it would find new purpose; BNSF is already operating occasional trains over the former WP and DRGW routes to Provo Utah. It was one of the requirements of the SP-UP merger that BNSF be allowed access to Utah via those routes to allow fair competition. So they might be interested in it... But even then I doubt they would jump on it :(

I know on the Utah side of the DRGW we also have the Utah Railway operating over Soldier Summit to. But their operations would hardly help the Moffat, as UP could theoretically tear up rail from Green River through the Moffat Route without interrupting any Utah Railway operations. And since so much of the Utah Railway's operations are tied into the coal business which is being killed off right now... Not a good sign.

Sorry, we literally derailed this part of the topic!

[ShrikeArghast]

Yeah I've heard a lot of similar talk to... If Union Pacific sold the former DRGW routes to BNSF maybe it would find new purpose; BNSF is already operating occasional trains over the former WP and DRGW routes to Provo Utah. It was one of the requirements of the SP-UP merger that BNSF be allowed access to Utah via those routes to allow fair competition. So they might be interested in it... But even then I doubt they would jump on it :(

I know on the Utah side of the DRGW we also have the Utah Railway operating over Soldier Summit to. But their operations would hardly help the Moffat, as UP could theoretically tear up rail from Green River through the Moffat Route without interrupting any Utah Railway operations. And since so much of the Utah Railway's operations are tied into the coal business which is being killed off right now... Not a good sign.

Sorry, we literally derailed this part of the topic!

Eh, forums are for talking. I think perhaps the happiest outcome would be, as a result of a future mega merger, BNSF demands the Tennessee Pass as a concession, with traffic rights into Salt Lake City over the western half of the Moffat line. This would make some sense, since the TP is fairly close the Raton route. I couldn't imagine a major traffic shift off of the Transcon, but, then again, it would open up a new market opportunity, and with intermodal continuing to grow, a short-to-mid-haul routing for BNSF that way could be a logical move.

Edited May 19, 2016 by ShrikeArghast

[xboxtravis7992]

Seeing that UP only allows BNSF to run manifest freights through the Nevada-Utah trackage rights, if UP ever wanted to get rid of those lines and BNSF acquired them I'm sure BNSF would rush to upgrade intermodal traffic in the area. It is basically a nearly straight shot from San Francisco to Chicago via that route.