Paulus JasUnless you are going for four scenes. By building the Msp bridge and the barge next to each other; you have scene #3. Using the harbour warehouse as a scenic divider; the "canal"bridge could become scene #4.
Unless you are going for four scenes. By building the Msp bridge and the barge next to each other; you have scene #3. Using the harbour warehouse as a scenic divider; the "canal"bridge could become scene #4.
Well, if I do the bridge scene, it will become a 4th scene, I suppose. Nice thing about it is that it doesn't affect the track plan or functionality of layout. As Stix pointed out a while back in this thread - it would be a purely scenic element.
Paulus Jas photo <...> with the barge at the right, <...> you could also use the second track as a team, just put some tractors or a pile of wood (and the little crane?) alongside it.
photo <...> with the barge at the right, <...> you could also use the second track as a team, just put some tractors or a pile of wood (and the little crane?) alongside it.
Yes, that is also possible. Swinging the tracks a little into the room creates a little room between the main track and the dock track for stuff like a crane or some oil tanks or a harbor office or whatever.
Also - having the dockside allows me to run pretty much any kind of car to the dock track. Barges alongside dock could be coal, grain, machinery, or even fuel barges (essentially large floating tanks).
The one I already scratch built is a coal barge:
But nothing prevents me from making a series of barges than can be replaced by the dock as the mood strikes me:
Model of fuel barge
Grain barge
Bulk load barge (closest), warehouse barge (rear)
Paulus Jas Is a crossover between the tankcar track and the main an option. While switching the barge terminal you could park some cars on the main, i presume the main isn't used during op-sessions. You'll need a shorter lead and you don't have to interfere other operations.
Is a crossover between the tankcar track and the main an option. While switching the barge terminal you could park some cars on the main, i presume the main isn't used during op-sessions. You'll need a shorter lead and you don't have to interfere other operations.
I have considered a crossover between the tank track and the main. Don't think I want to do that - I want the dock tracks to be a branch off the main, not a siding along the main. Don't think I want a crossover between the two tracks by the dock either. Still - I can change that easily enough later, if I change my mind - the thing I need to get fixed to cut wood is the size and outline of the scenes.
And yes, main can be used for holding cars while switching the barge terminal area. Mostly I expect to be running with one operator - me.Occasionally I might have two operators - but then most likely one operator will be switching on the top wall (yard, warehouse district or milling district) while the other operator is switching the barge terminal.
Grin, Stein
Dear Stein
Unless you are going for four scenes. By building the Msp bridge and the barge next to each other; you have scene #3. Using the harbour warehouse as a scenic divider; the "canal"bridge could become scene #4. The word "canal" made me think barges could go even futher up stream.
You mentioned it earlier, after having seen that wonderfull photo you provided us, with the barge at the right, it can be hard to flip that scene. I really like the plan as you designed it. After having seen that photo you could also use the second track as a team, just put some tractors or a pile of wood (and the little crane?) alongside it.
All your arguments are very valid indeed, seems to me you are trying to make a perfect plan into an even more perfect one. Great job.
Succes, good luck; keep smiling and grinning
Paul
hcc25rlStein - I know your wife is from the Roseville/Midway area of St. Paul. Does she remember the Minnesota Transfer Railway?? Got any info or pics you may care to share?
Stein - I know your wife is from the Roseville/Midway area of St. Paul. Does she remember the Minnesota Transfer Railway?? Got any info or pics you may care to share?
No, my wife isn't especially interested in railroading, and doesn't really have any memories of the MTRY. But I did a bit of research on it a while back and would be happy to share.
But let's take this to another thread. I have created a thread on the Minnesota Transfer in the prototype forum.
Follow this link and post followups about the MTRY in that thread instead : http://cs.trains.com/trccs/forums/p/157484/1736946.aspx
Smile, Stein
What happens if I curve the harbor scene even further into the room - a start on a real peninsula ?
Nah - access to staging tracks is getting way too poor. Workbench is deep anyways, but between the workbench and the door, access is pretty good to staging tracks in this plan:
Worse, but still doable in this plan:
But anything deeper than this would be bad when I need to lift out (or flip up) staging warehouse to access staging tracks.
Smile,Stein
steinjr Plan 61b:
Plan 61b:
... That´s it - super!
mcfunkeymonkeyI'm curious as to why you "flattened" the barge area near yr workbench.& now why you'd flip the barge & warehouse. Personally, I much prefer the barge / warehouse setup of yr earlier plans (50, 55b?), in which the siding came off at an angle & serviced the warehouse & dock, with room for another siding between that & the mainline.I don't think the sandwiched siding is totally necessary, but I very much advocate for the warehouse/barge scene to be angled into the room.Especially with the barge at the far end. This would set up some continuity with the river of the lift-out (I'm all for making lift-outs "real" pieces of scenery). I guess I just like the "feel" of sitting at the workbench and seeing the 1-2 tracks & details of the harbor scene, the main behind it, & then the 2-track staging yard behind it. While it's a staging yard, it'd also give the feeling, from that POV, that the harbour is busier & larger than it is.
I'm curious as to why you "flattened" the barge area near yr workbench.& now why you'd flip the barge & warehouse.
Personally, I much prefer the barge / warehouse setup of yr earlier plans (50, 55b?), in which the siding came off at an angle & serviced the warehouse & dock, with room for another siding between that & the mainline.
I don't think the sandwiched siding is totally necessary, but I very much advocate for the warehouse/barge scene to be angled into the room.
Especially with the barge at the far end. This would set up some continuity with the river of the lift-out (I'm all for making lift-outs "real" pieces of scenery).
I guess I just like the "feel" of sitting at the workbench and seeing the 1-2 tracks & details of the harbor scene, the main behind it, & then the 2-track staging yard behind it. While it's a staging yard, it'd also give the feeling, from that POV, that the harbour is busier & larger than it is.
Hmmm. Let me think for a moment.
I had intended to hide the two staging tracks inside a warehouse along the lower wall - a warehouse that runs from bridge to door. So only three visible tracks (two aisle side ones for harbor, plus the main).
Marc's proposal of switching the position of the barge and warehouse (so the warehouse is closest to the door) has two main advantages (in my opinion):
1) Functionally, it gives me more available airspace over my workbench, making using the workbench easier, and making it easier to reach into the scene to couple and uncouple cars. (Yes, this will be a little more problematic e.g. between the two higher buildings on the right side of the layout, between the door and chimney base, where I will have to use magnets buried under the track for uncoupling).
2) Visually, I think it makes the scene look better, when viewed from inside the room. But before I saw that, I had to mentally change my viewing point from "viewing layout from bottom/door" (as the plan is viewed) to "viewing layout from workbench".
Then it make sense (for me, your mileage may vary :-) to put the view block (building) on the left flank and make the front center more open helps create a visually more clearly delineated scene - left end of scene is harbor warehouse, right end of scene is bridge. Besides - a warehouse can always be truncated (sawed off) at the end of the scene - that is harder to do with a barge.
But the "flattened" part (ie having the two harbor tracks parallel to the main track instead of angling out into the room) is not necessarily a good idea.
That was something left over from me trying to fit in the harbor track plan from plan 55c (curved lead, two longish tracks and runaround) along the lower end using a curved turnout, without having me mentally freed myself from the ways things were in 55b.
The part I really didn't like visually about 55b is that because I tried to make the harbor spur also be a double ended siding on the main, I had to hook it back to the main, and that made it necessary to have the second hack track come off the end of the siding in a fairly weird way.
But now that I have decided to cut the harbor spur free of the main track on the end closest to the door, there is no requirement that the harbor spur is parallel to the main here.
And since I have relocated the warehouse to the far end of the scene (towards the door), I won't have problems with curling around the warehouse, either, so the two tracks can be angled further away from the main, creating a little more space between the main and the harbor tracks.
How about if I combine two ideas - angle the scene into the room, but still keeping the warehouse on the flank closest to the door ?
In comparison, here is the plan with the harbor parallel to main (plan 61):
And here is plan 55b:
mcfunkeymonkey Personally, I much prefer the barge / warehouse setup of yr earlier plans (50, 55b?), in which the siding came off at an angle & serviced the warehouse & dock, with room for another siding between that & the mainline.I
Personally, I much prefer the barge / warehouse setup of yr earlier plans (50, 55b?), in which the siding came off at an angle & serviced the warehouse & dock, with room for another siding between that & the mainline.I
I second that motion, Stein - gives the layout a not so "arranged" feeling and more "tang" to it
Personally, I much prefer the barge / warehouse setup of yr earlier plans (50, 55b?), in which the siding came off at an angle & serviced the warehouse & dock, with room for another siding between that & the mainline.I don't think the sandwiched siding is totally necessary, but I very much advocate for the warehouse/barge scene to be angled into the room.Especially with the barge at the far end.
This would set up some continuity with the river of the lift-out (I'm all for making lift-outs "real" pieces of scenery).
Just some thoughts.It looks like it's going to be a fun & challenging layout!Cheers!--Mark
M.C. Fujiwara
My YouTube Channel (How-to's, Layout progress videos)
Silicon Valley Free-moN
Jimmy
ROUTE ROCK!
Yes, the water scene will look better over the lift-out section, then at least it can be a reasonable size (both bridge and the height from the water / width of water)! And if you don't like it then you can always replace it with just a lift-out!
Brian
www.deadwoodcityrailroad.blogspot.com
marcimmekerI would like to make one change: reverse the position of the barge and warehouse and half the warehouse and make a (covered?) platform along the water. The water could extend towards the Washington bridge. I would leave of the short wall at the entgrance to give a look inside with freight everywhere and roof detail on the inside.
<Hit my head with my fist>.
Can't believe I didn't spot that one ! Great call, Marc - thanks !
Jury is still out on bridge over water - I think that if I am going to do one, it should be across the door, on the lift-out.
Edit: plan with those two touches added:
I've kept the water part for the barge terminal pretty small, to maximize workbench airspace. We'll see how it turns out when I build the benchwork.
Grin,Stein
Paulus JasAs you will understand i love bridge scenes. If they are prototypecally for Mnpl is your business. But i have two concerns. A brigde over a canal will probably means it has to be movable (a swing or ..) Why have a canal as no ship can pass trough. Having a switch on such a bridge his highly unprototypecally. Unless your bridge is over a waterway build for other purposes (getting rain out of town fi). The width of a bridge depends on the canal system. All bridges, locks, the depth of the canal system are standarized; canals are designed to accomodate a certain size of barges or vessels. As long as your brigde can handle one barge at a time it's wide enough.
As you will understand i love bridge scenes. If they are prototypecally for Mnpl is your business. But i have two concerns.
Unless your bridge is over a waterway build for other purposes (getting rain out of town fi).
The width of a bridge depends on the canal system. All bridges, locks, the depth of the canal system are standarized; canals are designed to accomodate a certain size of barges or vessels. As long as your brigde can handle one barge at a time it's wide enough.
Wrong kind of canal and wrong kind of barge.
Minneapolis doesn't have canals of the dutch kind - for ship/barge traffic. My kind of barges is unmotorized, and large rafts made up of many such barges tied together (e.g in five rows of three barges across) are pushed upriver by towboats (which are pushers, not towing boat). They take up a lot of space.
The Mississippi River is not navigable past the falls of Saint Anthony. The milling district is located just upstream from Saint Anthony - the mills got their power from water diverted from the river around the waterfalls in underground water channels. The warehouse district is even further upstream from the falls. No barges up there.
Which is why I was saying that such a scene with a small bridge over a small waterway was not very prototypical. As for the switch on the bridge - I know. That is another reason such a bridge scene would not be very realistic or prototype-like.
Hence my comment that this was not very prototypical. Of course - I can add something that is not prototypical if I feel like it. I either have such a scene even though it is wildly un-prototypical, or I take it out again (possibly replacing it by a road underpass), or just leaves things as they were on the left side of the room - ie flat. But that's the kind of stuff that can be fiddled as I build - it doesn't influence the track plan.
Hi Stein,
I've kept out of the discussion because you got excellent advice and now you have a design that looks great.
I would like to make one change: reverse the position of the barge and warehouse and half the warehouse and make a (covered?) platform along the water. The water could extend towards the Washington bridge. I would leave of the short wall at the entgrance to give a look inside with freight everywhere and roof detail on the inside.
As for the canal, there are islands in the Mississippi and the river is not equally wide everywere, so width is no problem, just make the banks like riverbanks and not like canals. Also, if the bridge is a stone arch you could make a small waterfall between bridge and edge, your version of St. Anthony's Falls so to speak. Maybe there were minor falls around the islands as well. If you make it a girder bridge you could make it wide enough for 2 tracks with 1 track taken out but with ties and ballst still in place.
Well, good luck in building this and keep us updated,
greetings,
Dear stein.
Smile paul
odavesteinjrOr to ditch the barge scene, Don't give up the ship - er, barge!
steinjrOr to ditch the barge scene,
Don't give up the ship - er, barge!
LOL - that old barge ain't exactly the USS Cheasapeake, but still - I agree with you - I want to keep the barge scene.
Okay - here is the scene as it is now. I even experimented with a small bridge over canal type scene on the left - but suspect it would be too small, and not very prototypical for this area of Minneapolis.
The rest of the fiddling and adjusting I will have to do as I build. Hopefully I can some more wood cut this coming weekend.
Paulus Jas thx, you provided us with some wonderfull pictures. A really great dock scene worth modelling. I was afraid (what it's worth) you wanted to build the coal terminal. All those piles taking so much space. I assume the little shed houses a scale. Are there more postwar pictures?
thx, you provided us with some wonderfull pictures. A really great dock scene worth modelling. I was afraid (what it's worth) you wanted to build the coal terminal. All those piles taking so much space. I assume the little shed houses a scale. Are there more postwar pictures?
Not sure what the little house is - could be just a roof over a pit to unload grain into - like they often used at grain elevators.Grain was exported downstream in grain barges (which had sliding lids over the bins) - like these: http://collections.mnhs.org/visualresources/image.cfm?imageid=97361
There is quite a few pictures of barge terminal - you can see some of these pictures in my first post in this thread.
Or you can click on "view details" on picture page and select the link for Municipal Barge Terminal - that will give you a search that returns all pictures with that tag.
Like this: http://collections.mnhs.org/visualresources/Results.cfm?Page=1&Subject=Minneapolis. Businesses. Municipal River Terminal.
The Minnesota Historical Society's Visual Records Collection is a wonderful web site for people modeling railroading in Minnesota.
hi stein,
thx, you provided us with some wonderfull pictures. A really great dock scene worth modelling. I was afraid(what it's worth) you wanted to build the coalterminal. All those piles taking so much space. I asume the little shed houses a scale. Are there more postwar pictures? The Liege-scene i mentioned gave me the same feeling as I had looking at the wood and tractor (un)loading facility's on your photo's.. The mills or elevators in Liege, at the back of the yard, were connected by a overhead pipe. Amsterdam had a 50 yard stroke for wood-"wharehousing" between the canal and the tracks or roads. Most transloading of wood took place between large vessels and the smaller barges that sailed the Dutch canalsystems.
I like to see your work. Even more now i've seen the pictures;
Keep grinning and good luck
Don't give up the ship - er, barge! It's not clear to me that the extra staging would be a good tradeoff for you - you favor switching and I think removing an industry would reduce the amount you have. Unless you consider the staging to be an interchange point and actively switch it. But the barge scene seems more fun to model to me. I can't think of any better way to handle the tracks than what you have. Having the tracks parallel to the benchwork would not bother me, but it's your call.
Brian, Dave, Ulrich and Doug --
Thanks for the suggestions.
Dave - good point about making the yard tracks on the top front scene a little longer using a curved turnout. I'll look into that.
Ulrich - I hear you about the RR bridge instead of road overpass. And you are right that that on the left side, next to the freight house, would probably be a good place to do it.
And Doug - you are totally right about me making that corner curve in the upper left sharper. Had to take it down from 23" radius to 20.5" radius to be able pull the main forward a little in the front center along the upper wall.
I still haven't decided on the staging and scene along the bottom wall.
There are several interesting options - e.g. to keep the barge scene (possibly along shelf of at an angle, jutting into the room towards chimney base) and than hide 3 or maybe 4 staging tracks (of which one is a run-through track that can used for continuous running) behind a low backdrop or a building.
Would be reasonably prototype-like to have a hillside with some retaining walls just behind the barge terminal. Observe that the warehouse can even be on a fill that goes into the river - loading dock on one short side towards barges, on the long side towards the railroad.
Prototype pic: http://collections.mnhs.org/visualresources/image.cfm?imageid=81148
Maybe something along these lines:
Or to ditch the barge scene, and fill up the space with more staging tracks instead. Either hidden, visible unscenicked staging or a visible scenicked staging (e.g masquerading as a group of curved yard A/D tracks for an unmodelled yard where 3-4 trains either have just arrived or is just about to depart).
Maybe something like this:
Have to think more about what I want to do here.
Very nice Stein.
It looks like you tightened the radius on the mainline just slightly, which allowed you to pull all of the tracks towards the front of the benchwork and add depth behind them. I like the depth that's added with the full 3 dimensional structures and flats in the corner.
I agree with some others who believe the harbor scene should ultimately remain on the bottom like the original, along with the staging being concealed.
Please post photos as you progress.
Doug
- Douglas
I think that with plan 56c you are nearing perfection of what can be done in the space you have available. Just a few things for consideration:
All of the track at the lower part is paralleling the layout´s edge. To break that I´d suggest to put the track leading to the warehouse and the barge at an angle.
The plan shows 3 street overpasses - turn one into an underpass and you have one more scenic element, a bridge, without overburdeneing your layout. The one to the left could easily be converted...
I like very much the street behind the buildings adjacent to the upper yard, followed by back drop buildings. This will give a lot of "viewing depth".
GREAT plan, Stein!
Being that I'm in the less-is-more camp too, this plan looks good to me. I like the open feel, and the buildings-on-same-axis is a good fit with your prototype image. The fact that they're not parallel with the front of the benchwork adds depth, and I like that you can fit in another street's worth of buildings in the upper-left.
I agree that the barge scene fits better on the bottom.
The only thing I would suggest is trying to get another car or two of length in the bottom yard track, maybe by using a curved turnout near where the yard office is now. That would bump the office down a bit, but I think you've got the room. Or maybe it won't buy anything, given the angles and the edge of the benchwork. But it's something to play with.
Stein
In response to 56c, the yard looks better now in that access is easier from the staging tracks. Also you have a longer run-round. I know you've still got more to do with the staging tracks and barge terminal but I think it would look better if the staging tracks were still partly hidden. Also to swing the barge track parallel to the barge terminal. Visually the layout looks fine now, not too cluttered. Operationally 56c would work as you say with more than one switcher, probably two, one for the warehouses and one for all the other locations.
wjstixEven on a smaller layout I think it's important to let the layout "breathe" a little with some open space. How about a model of a railroad bridge over the Mississippi, like GN had near their depot?? Ya something like that doesn't increase the operating potential of the layout, but it may make it more balanced and interesting.
How about a model of a railroad bridge over the Mississippi, like GN had near their depot?? Ya something like that doesn't increase the operating potential of the layout, but it may make it more balanced and interesting.
Well, a railroad bridge scene is not a must-have for me. But if I should decide I really want to add a river railroad bridge scene, the most obvious place to put it would be on the lift-out in front of the door.
It seems to me that I could in principle fairly easy move the lift-out down a bit, put bridge pillars on the lift-out, add water around the pillars, put a bridge deck on top and put up a low background along the outside of the lift-out (towards the door).
I have seen pictures of such a solution (on a swing gate) in these forums, and it looked good.
Anyways, thanks for the suggestions!
One thing that I remember John Armstrong saying (and that's seemed to be proven correct in my modelling experience) is that if you put in all the tracks you think you'll need in doing a trackplan to do what you want, and then remove about 1/3rd of the track, you'll end up with the right amount. Even on a smaller layout I think it's important to let the layout "breathe" a little with some open space. How about a model of a railroad bridge over the Mississippi, like GN had near their depot?? Ya something like that doesn't increase the operating potential of the layout, but it may make it more balanced and interesting.
Hi guys --
Thank you for a lot of thoughtful (and thought provoking) comments. It is fun to see almost everybody picks a different favorite plan, or different favorite elements of the plans! At least it makes me feel quite a bit better about not having been able to decide on my own :-)
Having slept on it, I guess that my main problem is trade-off between trying to preserve as much as possible of the "look and feel" of the prototype (which I am starting to know almost "too much" about after having looked at many pictures and having read quite a bit about the area), and making a layout that can be operated in a sensible way.
Two interesting blog posts about this trade-off can be found here: "Carricature, copy or close enough?", and "Selective obsession". (as always - just right click and "open in new tab" or "open in new window" to follow links without losing you place in this post).
Basic point Byron makes is that it is a trade-off. Being too prototype true can make the layout not work very operationally. And going to far in the other direction makes the layout become just a "generic" layout, with little of the "look and feel" of the prototype that inspire you in the first place. The only problem is figuring out where the famous mid-line between Scylla and Charybdis lies :-)
And sometimes (see the second blog post above) you have to be prepared to give up some of your favorite elements to make a plan that is better overall. Hanging on too hard to one favorite element of a plan can compromise the whole layout.
One of the big decisions about my layout plans is: Three visually separate scenes, or a mix of stuff from different scenes?
I know I have a tendency to overemphasize tracks to the detriment of look and feel. Let me try to steer a little closer to look and see what we get.
Stix - you are totally right about the name "West Bank" being weird to anyone who knows this area, and also with the (implied) comment about how the top scene loses a lot of the prototype "look and feel" if I try to stick the barge terminal in the front part of warehouses - those scenes are miles apart in the prototype.
I started out calling this layout "The Warehouse District", and the desired main visual focus of the layout, and the main scene of the layout (along the top wall) was to give the impression of a mass of yard tracks (belonging to the Omaha Road) in front of a straight row of tallish buildings (mostly warehouses - hence the name of the area in real life - the Warehouse District), between the river and First Street North, maybe with a low railroad freight house in front of the tall warehouses.
Here is a link to a prototype picture showing my starting point: Warehouses on 500-700 block North First Street
I later found two more scenes I wanted to include a visual impression of - switching in the more cramped confines between the mill buildings of the milling district (downstream from the Warehouse District), and the railroad/barge transfer at the the barge terminal downstream of Washington Avenue Bridge (even further downstream).
My initial design tried to create three visually fairly separated scenes here. The three scenes are not in the right prototype order (which going upstream looking south/west would have been barge - milling - warehouse, but are instead based on how much space I felt I could allocate to each scene.
Visually, I pictured the three initial scenes as the Barge Terminal along the bottom wall,a corner of the Omaha Road yard and First Street North warehouses in the Warehouse District along the top wall of the layout, and cramped Milling District switching on the right side of the room.
For someone who are familiar with the area, it would be visually jarring to stick the barge terminal in front of the warehouse district. Ulrich also commented on the barge terminal visually overloading that scene. Paulus also mentions how the barge scene would work better along the bottom wall.
I agree with you guys. If I end up with the barge terminal here, it will be because it makes the layout operate better, not because it makes it look more prototypical.
For looks, the best place for the barge terminal (if I don't drop it altogether) is visually well separated from the other two scenes - probably about where I have it in the first place.
Also, I would like a straight row of warehouses in the main scene, with yard tracks in front.
Hmmm - how about if I go combine the straight row of buildings in 56 with the yard scene from 55b - would that work both visually and operationally ?
Plan 56c :
It could work visually. But would it work operationally ? I suppose it would - I can actually combine having transfer runs into the yard with having one RR switch the warehouse district and having another switch the Milling District and the Barge Terminal.
Have to look some more at the barge terminal and staging tracks area later.
Stein:
So what is it that appeals to you about a modified 46, rather than going with 55c ? Keeping the warehouses in the upper left, or keeping things like in 46 in the upper right or something else ?
To be honest, I liked 46 right off because it seemed like you maintained all of the industries you started with, had two or three dedicated yard tracks, and a decent switch lead for 1st street, and you still had a lot of open space which was occupied by Omaha warehouse. I thought better use of that space would be the harbor. Then I realized those mods just about made 55c. I'm not sure I like either one better. If you go with two grain elevators total (instead of Security warehouse and Lindsey Bros), I think the railroad might want to have the yard tracks to store some extra grain hoppers close by.
After looking again, I'm not sure how the IH building would look best. Something you might have to work out on site, so to speak. Could possibly sneak in another building or spur in that upper right, really having buildings and track on top of each other in that small space, on the far side of the road. Kind of an "old town" district. Wouldn't want to have it that crowded over the whole layout however.
I like all of the plans, really. The other plans line up the buildings straight along the tracks. Depends on what you think will look better. Midwestern river towns are usually crowded and laid out at funny angles, having to follow the the river, with streets and buildings having funny angles as well. So having things line up perfectly straight might not be in keeping with the area your modeling, if being that accurate matters to you.
On the other hand, I think I recall you writing in another thread that you weren't totally satisfied with the minimal third dimension cut up background buildings provide (the photos look great to me). So pulling the buildings away from the wall might give you more depth with the buildings.
On the latest version of the plan, I like the top side, where you made the changes. It seems like it provides yard storage and long enough switch leads without having to move cars out of the way. If you decide to lower the harbor a bit, you have some space there to slope the scenery away from the main line little, instead of having to rely upon only a retaining wall to make the vertical change. Can't really visualize how the inclined tracks will impact the whole layout that well. Might make your sectional benchwork idea a bit more complicated.
You've provided a lot of info in this thread, and you seem to know where every switch and building is on each plan, along with the details of your operating plan. Its probably hard for me to keep up (but fun to try). So my comments are offered in a way that might not make sense to an aspect of your layout that you envision, but that I can't.
Not that anybody cares, but Minneapolis "West Bank" area is actually about a mile east of what you're talking about. It's across the river from the University of Minnesota main campus (although the U now has a "West Bank Campus" on the west side of the Washington Ave. Bridge. The area around the Milwaukee depot, the big mills etc. are considered to be "downtown".
Keep in mind too that it's a long way down!! The city is built up fairly high compared to the river in many places. It's pretty close to water level near the GN depot and the Post Office, which is near the area you're modelling (north side of downtown) but then, barges can't get up the Mississippi that high because of St.Anthony Falls which is due east of downtown. There was a pretty large coal unloading area in the West Bank that was served by rail, getting coal from barges coming up river.