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

[Scottl]

My last layout was based on a prototype across the country and I found a lot of helpful information available to make it as realistic as I wanted.  However, I would not get too worried about getting it 100%.  You have lots of license to build what appeals to you and to get the flavor of the prototype.  I wouldn't take the input in this thread as critical- it seems pretty helpful to me and there are clearly folk with a lot of knowledge about the line.  Just don't worry about checking everyone's box- it's for you after all.

[signalmaintainer]

It has been brought to my attention through a private message by another member that I'm apparently asking too many questions, and can't make a decisions for myself.

No idea who that other member was (it was not me) but he has a point about decision making. You are stuck in analysis paralysis.

[wazzou]

Agreed. 
Your bench work is a little too linear to do your prototype complete justice.
As I’ve mentioned before, the distance you have between Helena and E. Helena is far too great relative to other distances portrayed on your plan.
Montana is a big place with lots of scenery.  Sometimes, less is more.

[trainzluvr]

I'm asking all these questions because I honestly don't know, and I'm trying to learn. This would be my first meaningful operating layout based on a prototype, and figured that asking people with more experience will lead me to finding out what are the parameters for going that route. It's probably my structured and analytical approach (everything has to have a reason for) that's clashing with creative and abstract ideas which are sometimes needed to overcome the logic.

I have definitely found input in this thread very helpful which set me on this path I am on now. I truly appreciate everyone's answers as I was stuck in analysis paralysis mode for a long time prior to this. Obvisouly, I'm still suffering from shell shock, but I'm also struggling to understand what you are telling me at times.

wazzou said that the distance between East Helena and Helena is too great, and I've already corrected that in my next revision:



But then he said that my benchwork is to linear (and I presume narrow), and Montana being a big place with lots of scenery, less would be more. Does that imply I should shorten the modelled area to more closely reflect available space? How will that affect the industries and traffic on the line, following the prototype?

I chose to do 2nd and 3rd subs because most of the action I've seen in the prototype was happening/used to happen there. My understanding of following the prototype is not taking too much creative license (aside from jumping 100 miles from Missoula to Blossburg in a matter of inches which I did in the first peninsula blob).

Are there different guiding principles and rules then that should apply when someone is modelling based on a prototype?!

[signalmaintainer]

Are there different guiding principles and rules then that should apply when someone is modelling based on a prototype?!

Layout Design Elements. If you have picked up and read any issues of Model Railroad Planning in the past two decades, you would be familiar with the term and its application to layout design.

But moreover, there is an element to building a successful, enjoyable model railroad that I'll call "creative intuition." I don't mean to be uber harsh, but from following your posts on various forums over the years, it is apparent to me that you have a significant deficit in this area, especially in assimilating abstract information and converting it to concrete outcomes, ie, a realistic track plan. Or even just following simple advice, like not building benchwork until you have a workable track plan.

I don't know of a cure, unfortunately.

[trainzluvr]

I have a feeling that many of you have had real in-person "help" when you were starting in this hobby. Your mentors have held your hand and guided you through the process all the way, and I doubt that their approach was "You have been told...now repeat it" because that is not education, with any level of understanding, nor creativity of any kind.

Unfortunately, I have to work withing the boundaries of my present "deficits", both in my head and in the layout room - the benchwork is there and that's what I got to work with. What I'm asking for is help/guidance in converting the abstract information, as you put it, into a concrete outcome - a realistic track plan. This will both let me assimilate the information and the process itself, thus becoming usable knowledge and experience I can apply in the future.

[trainzluvr]

Following the comment from @wazzou, I went back to the LDEs I was considering and created two shorter versions of my railroad, excluding Missoula and DeSmet. Instead I included Garrison, Phosphate, Sliver Bow. Helena will be the only main yard and source of local traffic.


I like the Option 1 for its diversity, having both Three Forks (5th Sub as a branchline) and the Port of Montana at Silver Bow as an interchange (although sharing the space with Garrison).




I like the Option 2 for its simplicity, the True North orientation of the railroad and somewhat larger spread between elements. But it does not have as much variety as the Option 1, though the potential is there to be added.

It has also occurred to me that @coldriver was talking about this exact route few pages back as his modelling interest prior to opting to build the Oregon Joint Line instead, so bonus.



Your comments would be much appreciated.

Thanks.

[nkalanaga]

Your questions don't bother me a bit, for several reasons:

I model a fictional GN/BN line, in 1974, between Helena and Whitefish, so this is very close to my territory.

I've been through this area numerous times, from the 1960s on, and think it's a very nice region.

With both of those, I've also done quite a bit of research on the area, although not much specifically on the NP/BN/MRL line, and have quite a few sources at hand.

And my father worked for the NP/BN in Pasco, so this was his railroad.

So, no, not "too many questions".  That's the first step in "planning" - gathering information.  And "engineering" has to start with plans.

Besides, if the questions offend someone, they can always skip the topic!  Nothing says one has to read every topic, every day.  I skip quite a few that don't particularly interest me.

[packers#1]

I don’t really have thoughts on your track plan, other than you really ought to go ahead and put in the industries and yards instead of throwing on a mainline and saying oh well that looks right. But really, the main thing is to think of your layout as a type of painting. Are you going for photo realistic , where almost everything is identical, a realistic impressionist where it looks very real but captures just a similar look with minor details changed, an impressionist painting where you just capture the look and few and don’t worry about the details, or an abstractionist where you’re just building a railroad. Or you could do Fauvist, but then you’re just throwing colors down and messing around 

[trainzluvr]

After aggregating the suggestions/advice from @nkalanaga and @coldriver, I've created what I believe to be final LDE layout. This one looks simpler, is shorter, and appears to have slightly longer separations between elements. Beside that, it is a True North layout orientation which should be helpful geographically and operationally. A bonus feature is a Port of Montana which will be its own switching area feeding into the interchange at Garrison.



Matter a fact I've already started adding some trackage and industries in Logan/Trident, not fully based on the prototype but approximation. I added a Three Forks interchange to Logan so some talc hoppers could be shoved there as well. It's a first pass on the area and I'm sure there'll be more. I added some rolling stock to the sidings/spurs to gauge their capacity.

[nkalanaga]

Does the UP go to Garrison now?  It used to serve the Port of Montana, and Butte, but that was it.  After the MILW pulled out, the BN/BNSF was the only railroad from Garrison to the port area.  BAP/Rarus served, and may still serve, the Port and Anaconda from Butte, and the UP comes up the I-15 corridor from Idaho.

Garrison would be a BNSF/MRL interchange, as they (oddly) never turned the Garrison-Butte line over to MRL.

Except for that quibble, I think you've got a good plan.  Missoula will work a lot better as a staging yard, given your limited space for yards.

[dem34]

My own quibble, I see a lot of dead straight track in the negatively spaced parts of the plan. Is that just to keep things organized? If not may be worth just putting a couple gentle curves in the track to break things up visually.

[Scottl]

I like it and the prototype choice a lot.  I agree with putting in some curves where you can to make it less linear feeling.

I am sure someone mentioned that you have a few narrow aisle pinch points.  You can pack a lot of layout in as configured, but it might be hard for you and visitors to move around. Hard to improve that without losing a peninsula, which is a major trade off. Just a thought. 

[trainzluvr]

We got a lot of snow (looks like 2 ft) overnight and during the morning, so beside work,I spent a lot of time shovelling and didn't get a chance to work on the plan much.

But I managed to squeeze in some time last night and add some sidings, housing and I-90 overpass in Garrison.



@dem34, @Scottl everything that's not scenicked is a placeholder while I'm working my way around in this first pass. I had to put some main line as a reference so it's all straight as an arrow. I will definitely try to slant the tracks against the facia wherever I can but with 12" depth it doesn't leave much room to play with.

@nkalanaga , the maps I saw also show that track belongs to BNSF, and UP might still only be going to Silver Bow/Port of Montana and interchange there. Would it make additional interest if they came all the way up to Garrison?

Question for all is how many sidings would suffice in Garrison? I managed to cram 3 altogether, but the prototype has 5 and a passing siding. I really do not have an idea of the traffic that will be happening in that area right now. Presumably cars will be coming and going down to Silver Bow and then there's Phosphate next door. So I'm left with 2 tracks if I reserve 1 for a passing siding, which now does not seem much to me. I have another siding on the way to Silver Bow, but it's on a grade (1.1%) and might be a bit tricky to use. I intended to put some kind of a breaking system there for cars to keep them on the grade, etc.

I'm thinking I need to re-work the Lombard Canyon portion because the track is on the wrong side of the Missouri river, but I don't know if it's doable going on the inside curve as that would significantly reduce the track radius. Does it look awkward in this configuration though because most people are used to seeing these views:





while my point of view would be more from this end looking up at the tall hills:

[nkalanaga]

For Lombard Canyon, I'd say leave it.  The river looks flat, so it would be hard to tell which way it's flowing, and the track curves both ways, so your scene should look fine.

For the interchange at Garrison, I don't think it matters whether the UP comes there or not.  If you like the UP, and want to see their locos, let them come.  If it doesn't matter to you, leave them out.  Technically, two interchange tracks and a passing/run-around track would be enough.  Leave cars in one, pick up the cars in the other.  For example, BN puts their cars in track 1 for MRL, MRL puts the cars for BN in track 2.