Montana Rail Link 2nd and 3rd Subs - "The Divide"

[trainzluvr]

Ah dweeb here - I forgot to mention that trackplan for Silver Bow/Port of Montana isn't finished.

There's another catch about adding more sidings to the area leading towards it:

It's on a decline:


This is where Silver Bow will be (the 1x4' area in the background, still need to add a bit of benchwork left of it):


That's why I added more tracks to Garrison, so there's extra room for one more interchange. I figured PMRR was not authorized to go anywhere beyond their little sandbox in Silver Bow. I believe BNSF would haul whatever up to Garrison nowadays, so I thought a train coming from Missoula would stop at Garrison to pick/drop cars off at one of the tracks there.

Another railmap I saw mentions MW (Montana Western?) picking UP cars at the Silver Bow interchange and bringing them up to Garrison, for interchange with MRL. Just saw this photo and according to it https://www.railpictures.net/photo/398915/#remarks they were doing this 1986-2003 which is exactly the period I'm modeling (1987-2002/3). MW returned operations back to BNSF in 2003.

This MW adds a pretty cool twist to everything, but I don't know whether I can model it all: PMRR sandbox, UP interchange, and MW interchange with MRL. Although MW could just be a train going up to Garrison from Silver Bow, and back, need to research that more now. And PMRR does whatever they do in their little fenced-off area.

I don't know what I can do about Garrison leading into Avon, that's all the space I got.

About Helena Yard, it's the only major yard on my railroad so it needs to serve everything visible (both sides of The Divide). Since space is tight as is, as you said there wouldn't be much, spur for a tank car to bring fuel, a permanent fuel tank, a sanding station, perhaps water, RIP if I can fit it somewhere. I also need to figure out how many locomotives I need to station there for locals, switching, and pushers (if at all).

Anything on Trident or Logan?

Thanks!

[nkalanaga]

Using Avon as the switch lead isn't a problem, especially if MRL is doing all of the Garrison switching.  I only mentioned it in case you didn't want the connecting railroad on MRL tracks.

If PMRR stays in Silver Bow, and MRL goes there for interchange, that does simplify things.  In that case, Garrison looks fine as it is.

If MW does switching at Garrison, you're right back to them using MRL, at least for a run-around track.  There's no reason they couldn't, assuming the two roads have an agreement allowing it.

Offhand, I don't remember ever being in Trident, and don't know anything about Logan, except what I've seen from the Interstate.  The NP never was my main interest, although my father worked for them, so I don't have much info on that area.

[trainzluvr]

I gave it more thought, and even though it would be exciting to have MW, there's already enough going on. In the interest of keeping it simple, I'll just have MRL do the Silver Bow run from Garrison.

Made a new version of Helena yard, took out one yard track and shuffled some tracks around. Added a caboose track, and hopefully 4 yard tracks for cars should be enough to cover everything. Though, my yard lead to the right isn't long enough for my maximum train length (7 ft.) It also finally got into my head from my a$$ that this benchwork is too narrow (12") to represent anything. I got no room to fit anything decently.



Been looking at Helena engine service, and they seem to have fueling racks flanking a sanding tower all on a single siding. Behind it is a spur with a tank car and what appears to be a covered hopper (presumably for sand).

Question is do they keep the fuel in the tank car, is it off-loaded to the two tanks to the south, or are those water tanks? And sand, does it stay in the hopper, or do they transfer it to the sandhouse (one of the structures there)?

[nkalanaga]

I've seen sand done both ways, directly from the hopper to the tower, and from the hopper to a shed to the tower.  The important thing is to keep it dry.

As for the fuel, I wouldn't be surprised if it was pumped directly from the tank car.  If I was running the yard, and storing the fuel in those two ground tanks, I'd put the tank car unloading equipment on the track next to them.  No point pumping the fuel both ways clear across the yard!  I wonder if the tanks are left over from the days when the yard, and engine service, were much busier?

[signalmaintainer]

It also finally got into my head from my a$$ that this benchwork is too narrow (12") to represent anything. I got no room to fit anything decently.

Glad you finally figured that out. You've been told on other forums over the past few years that building benchwork before you have a workable layout design is not the way to go. You rebuffed all the generous advice -- advice on layout planning which you asked for, by the way -- and here's the outcome.

[trainzluvr]

[trainzluvr]

I've seen sand done both ways, directly from the hopper to the tower, and from the hopper to a shed to the tower.  The important thing is to keep it dry.

As for the fuel, I wouldn't be surprised if it was pumped directly from the tank car.  If I was running the yard, and storing the fuel in those two ground tanks, I'd put the tank car unloading equipment on the track next to them.  No point pumping the fuel both ways clear across the yard!  I wonder if the tanks are left over from the days when the yard, and engine service, were much busier?

I looked up on Google Earth and those two tanks have been around since the 1990s, but I can't see much activity around them, nor any tracks leading to.

Maybe they were left behind because it costs to remove them, and they aren't struggling for extra yard space either, so status quo.

[nkalanaga]

That's entirely possible.  Also, if they've ever leaked, there might be cleanup costs if they're removed, that can be avoided as long as they're in place.

[trainzluvr]

Eh, been awhile since I posted something...

Work has been killing me with overtime, so not much time left to do anything else. Still working on the layout plan, now inches away from completion.

In the mean time I managed to grab some new MRL acquisitions to the fleet. I thought these would never arrive as the package tracking had no updates for 2 weeks...was ecstatic when it showed up.

[dem34]

ns, just check that F45, the decoder likes to wiggle out of the frame in transit.

[mark.hinds]

WRT the 12" wide section of benchwork, you actually can model at least a section of mainline.  They had a couple of points on the old NEB&W layout (HO scale BTW) where they did that.  It was accomplished using the backdrop, which was a composite of a 2D sky/clouds section, behind a 2D distant scenery section, behind a bas-relief 2.5-D transition section, with regular 3D scenery in front.  The 2D and 2.5D layers were in in progressively smaller scales, to produce a forced perspective effect.  There was an article in MR on that particular layout location, but I don't recall which issue.  Anyway, the concept should be comprehensible. 

EDIT:  I just found the article, which was in March 1984 MR magazine, and entitled "Summit scenery on the NEB&W".  The HO scene was actually 2 feet deep, but that is roughly the same as 1 foot in N-scale. 

[trainzluvr]

Thanks for the tip on F45 decoder, I'll open it up and look. The loco is pretty heavy otherwise, much heavier than anything I have, I wonder what's it made of, pure lead?

I wonder what would be the impact of scaling down scenery/objects towards the backdrop with such a narrow benchwork though, because the operator will be pretty close to it. The benchwork is all around 12" and should fit at least a main, a siding or two, and a full size industry building, which are normally 4-6" in depth in N Scale.

Obviously there will have to be many flats, but that was a compromise to gain the maximum mainline run in this space, without going through scenes twice.

[mark.hinds]

(text removed)
I wonder what would be the impact of scaling down scenery/objects towards the backdrop with such a narrow benchwork though, because the operator will be pretty close to it. The benchwork is all around 12" and should fit at least a main, a siding or two, and a full size industry building, which are normally 4-6" in depth in N Scale.

Obviously there will have to be many flats, but that was a compromise to gain the maximum mainline run in this space, without going through scenes twice.

There is a spot in my layout where the mainline is 5" from the backdrop, and the terrain is essentially flat.  I was building a small, stand-alone scenery test section to see how the NEB&W techniques would look in my situation.  I was going to experiment with forced perspective towards the rear of the 3D scenery portion, in addition to the forced perspective incorporated in the NEB&W backdrop technique. 

WRT the operator being close, I imagine that the height of the layout would have a significant impact on whether forced perspective worked.  If you were above it, it wouldn't work well, but my layout is pretty high. 

[trainzluvr]

There is a spot in my layout where the mainline is 5" from the backdrop, and the terrain is essentially flat.  I was building a small, stand-alone scenery test section to see how the NEB&W techniques would look in my situation.  I was going to experiment with forced perspective towards the rear of the 3D scenery portion, in addition to the forced perspective incorporated in the NEB&W backdrop technique. 

WRT the operator being close, I imagine that the height of the layout would have a significant impact on whether forced perspective worked.  If you were above it, it wouldn't work well, but my layout is pretty high.

My surface is set to 54 3/8" off the floor and it's the same all around. The plan was to modulate the scenery rather than making grades that N Scale might not be able to overcome.

I suppose it will work for everyone else but me, as I'm over 6 ft. but others shorter will probably get that forced perspective effect. Myself, it'll be the "helicopter" view.

[mark.hinds]

My surface is set to 54 3/8" off the floor and it's the same all around. The plan was to modulate the scenery rather than making grades that N Scale might not be able to overcome.

I suppose it will work for everyone else but me, as I'm over 6 ft. but others shorter will probably get that forced perspective effect. Myself, it'll be the "helicopter" view.

I designed my layout so the average scene is at a level appropriate to my height.  I have a couple of sturdy 1-foot-wide platforms which can be positioned in front of the major scenes, to accommodate short individuals such as my wife.  Since your benchwork seems to already be constructed, making your layout higher probably isn't an option for you.  If your aisles are wide enough, you perhaps could view your layout from a sturdy, adjustable-height, wheeled stool...