Railroad A/H challenge Maine 2 footers

I build model railroads, and I'm looking to make something plausible without ASB's.

I LOVE the Maine 2' gauge trains, and I'm trying to find a way to keep at least one of them running in genuine, and seriously profitable revenue service into at least the 1950's. Some of the revenue could easily come from tourist trains and railfans--but this also needs to be a commion carrier. It needs to be big enough to justify at least a dozen locomotives on the roster. A minimum of 4 will be steam: 1 2-6-2, 1 or more 0-4-4 (or possibly 2-4-4) Forneys, and perhaps a Climax or an 0-4-0 or 0-6-0 switcher. There will also be some diesels. (I already have the 2-6-2, 80% finished, and have the Climax plans sketched out.)

I say serously profitable because I don't want to have to model seriously bad track...
 
I don't know if it helps, but Queensland in Australia has well over 10,000km of 2' railways to carry sugar cane to mills. They run 24 hours a day during harvesting season.
 
Diesels

Diesels? Were diesels ever used on NG lines?

2' gauge diesels were built for industrial railroads--I rode behind one a few days ago--it was built in 1949. In this case, I'm advancing the line up to the 1950's, so there should be some. (The one I rode behind was a 22 ton GE, and easily hauled a 9 car consist.)

As for the sugar cane lines in various places, they are industrial lines, and not exactly whast I'm looking for. I want them in common carrier service. That means that it's a railroad that provides transportation to everyone, like a modern full sized line. This will, I think, carry slate, marble, passengers, general freight--and tourists, of course.
 
If you're looking to keep one of the Maine two-footers in service, you might begin with the completion of the Wiscasset, Waterville and Farmington line before the Depression hits in 1929. The line was designed to bring lumber down from the Maine hinterlands to the port of Wiscasset, where sailing schooners -- the Hesper and the Luther Little -- would carry the lumber on to Boston or other markets and coal to inland towns, such as the mills in Vassalboro, plus carry farm produce from inland farms to markets on the coast and beyond. It also connected with other, standard gauge lines in Maine.

If it could have survived the Depression and the various incompetent managers who owned and operated it, the line could easily have survived into the 1950s.

There's also the Maine Narrow Gauge Museum in Portland for more info.
 
2' gauge diesels were built for industrial railroads--I rode behind one a few days ago--it was built in 1949. In this case, I'm advancing the line up to the 1950's, so there should be some. (The one I rode behind was a 22 ton GE, and easily hauled a 9 car consist.)

As for the sugar cane lines in various places, they are industrial lines, and not exactly whast I'm looking for. I want them in common carrier service. That means that it's a railroad that provides transportation to everyone, like a modern full sized line. This will, I think, carry slate, marble, passengers, general freight--and tourists, of course.

Difficult as this means more transhipment (and therefor more costs) of all those things apart from tourists. Also theres no way it can manage containerised traffic either - quite a significant issue (smaller default ISO standards??) Common carriage is difficult, but keeping them for agriculture and industrial purposes is much easier.
 
Good thoughts

Completing the Wiscasset, Waterville, and Farmington line definately would help; it would connect a LOT.

I was at the Maine Narrow Gauge Railroad Museum a few days ago--saw their locos ion various states of overhaul, and a huge assortment of rolling stock. They run vintage diesels as well as steam.

Trans-shipment is a problem, but in some cases, can be overcome. For example, if the narrow gauge hauls timber from the woods to the sawmill, and sawmill to the factory, standard gauge can take it to the rest of the country--that's how some narrow gauge lines did things.

Less than carload shipments have to be broken down anyway--a pile of LCL goods is sent to the terminus by standard gauge, then broken up at the terminal.

Containerization isn't a factor in the '50's--that's later. (I wouldn't put it past Yankee ingenuity to find a way to do it, though...) But--in New England north of Boston, today, I've yet to see a container train--there's usually conventional freights with a good mix of cars.

Coal and Oil are easy to trans-ship, with the right facilities. And perhaps some form of conatainerization might develop as a result of narrow gauge running.

Also, anything hurting road building in northern Maine helps, too. Or--the teamsters piss off the people of Maine so bad that shops put up signs, "Not shipped by truck!"

Earlier, some towns bought common stock to keep the trains running...perhaps a small repeat?

Edit: I just discovered that the US Army used containers 6'4" wide, 8'6" long, and 6'10" tall. These cold go on flatcars--built them to take a load 6'4" wide and 34 or 43' long.

This IS a tough challenge--but it doesn't haver to be very likely, merely reasonably plausible. (I might even set my layout in the 60's, but not likely)
 
Last edited:
Top