I recently attended an ops session, which got me to thinking about my own layout (still in the design phase). I want to model the Madison District of the CNW in the early 1950's. I did some digging and realized that I selected towns from two different subdivisions. I had planned on modeling Madison, WI to Winona, MN. The reason I picked the towns along this line was for operating and scenic potential. For those not familiar with the area, the southwestern part of WI is very hilly with many bluffs (and yes, even a few tunnels). Anyway, I am wondering if this scenario would be plausible? Would trains move prototypically in this manner? Would I be better off picking either the first sub or the third sub instead? Any insight from prototype modelers who also value operation would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks,
Scott
I think the question is what you're trying to accomplish in your hobby. On one hand, you're clearly trying to balance what you prefer in a potential layout against what you think other guys in an op session might approve of. A question I would ask myself would be whether anything I did would ever completely satisfy someone else, and how hard I wanted to work to make a bunch of guys at an op session happy.
Tony Koester had a Trains of Thought column not long ago more or less saying his layout wasn't really his layout, since he was having to rely on a large group of op session guys to operate it. I would think hard about whether that was where I wanted to go with my time and budget. If it is, great.
My initial response just looking at the lines, without knowing the prototype operation is, no the two lines wouldn't really fit well together. What makes me think that is that the CNW spun off some of those lines and that route is not a through route on the UP. Since it didn't survive that leads me to believe that there wasn't much through traffic between the two routes. As a matter of fact, the UP doesn't even serve Madison directly anymore. I would think if there was a significant amount of business interacting over those two routes, they would have survived into the UP.
I'm sure you could create some sort of scenario, but it probably wouldn't be prototypical.
Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com
The only thing there is that the rail industry changed greatly from the 1950s to now. A large number of routes were viable then, from Tennessee Pass to Poughkeepsie Bridge, that are gone now -- hard to conclude from current traffic.
JOHN BRUCE III The only thing there is that the rail industry changed greatly from the 1950s to now. A large number of routes were viable then, from Tennessee Pass to Poughkeepsie Bridge, that are gone now -- hard to conclude from current traffic.
Do you want to model a direct Madison to Winona line via Wyeville? If so, then the towns that existed on that stretch of track are the ones to model. Wyeville could be an important junction point where other C&NW lines connect. If you want to include SW Wisconsin, (Platteville, Dodgeville, etc.), then you're talking about an additional branch. If SW Wisconsin is to be located on your mainline between Madison and Winona, then you're getting into the realm of fiction. Presumably, that fictional C&NW line would run from Madison to Fennimore, then along the Mississippi to Winona. All of those scenarios are valid, depending on what you want. It's your project. The layout will reside in your basement. You're the one who will do the lion's share of the work. The opinions of others may be interesting and entertaining, but yours is the opinion that counts.
How far have you made it in planning? I ask, because initial thoughts on trackplans are usually far too ambitious and have to be cut back considerably to make things fit. It may be the case that you find that just wasn't all going to fit anyway.
If you're going after the look of two locations that otherwise aren't well-connected operationally, just go ahead and model what you want to see. You can still have plenty of fun with ops, even if there are differences between what ran and what you do. The fact that ops weren't already well-established in your mind connecting these locations suggests that you've already concluded that such compromises may work for you.
Mike Lehman
Urbana, IL
The line west out of Madison was double track to Elroy, WI(except for the Wisconsin River crossing). Elroy was a junction of the C&NW and it's subsidiary, the CMStP&O(the 'Omaha' Road). North to Wyeville, 'Omaha' crews were used. The direct 'tunnel' line(now the famous bike path) had 3 tunnels and grades. It was usually used by passenger train and by the late 50's, abandoned. Winona bound traffic was sent up at Wyeville via the 'Omaha', and then C&NW crews moved it west to Winona, The two C&NW lines came together at Sparta, WI. Eventually the 'Omaha' was merged into the C&NW proper, crew districts were merged, and crews worked from Winona to Madison via Sparta, Wyeville, and Elroy. I have some Madison Division employee time tables from the 40's. I will research this and get back to you. Modeling the Elroy terminal would be interesting. Double track east to Madison, single track C&NW west via the 'tunnel line', and single track 'Omaha' going north out of Elroy. The C&NWHS Archives should have station maps and will research/copy the info for a fee. All these lines are very scenic, and are typical Wisconsin.
My layout models the Milwaukee and C&NW in Southwestern Wisconsin. Most of the layout is Milwaukee Road, but I have a junction/connection with the C&NW 'Ridge Runner' line to Madison. Another area of the C&NW in Wisconsin that had tunnels!
Jim
Modeling BNSF and Milwaukee Road in SW Wisconsin
While we don't know anything specific about the OP's space and overall intentions, it's worth pointing out that John Armstrong designed at least one medium size "division point" layout where operation focused on traffic on either side of a division point, with the transfer itself being the center of layout interest. So it would be an option to model two divisions/subdivisions.
Thanks for all of your replies. The main towns I was thinking of modeling were, in order from east to west, Madison, Baraboo, Reedsburg, Elroy, Wyeville, Sparta, La Crosse, and Winona, with maybe a few smaller towns sprinkled in if space permits. I model in N scale, and this will take up about 3/4 of my 1200 sq ft basement. I'm not sure how to handle the Elroy-Sparta-Wyeville triangle yet. According to my information, this area saw about 4 passenger trains and 2 - 3 freight trains daily in each direction in the 1950's. I believe these were scheduled trains, and there were other extras and wayfreights as well.
I guess I just want to know how far-fetched it is to model parts of two subdivisions. My goal is to have CNW operating layout that is for the most-part believable in one of the more scenic regions of WI.
And sadly, there is not much left of the line between Reedsburg and Sparta. Elroy, once a division point, does not even have any trains going through there any more. As Jim said, they are bike trails now.
Three quarters of your 1200 s.f. basement is 900 s.f. That's about the size of my whole basement. You could fit a very respectable representation in that space, using N scale. Your visitors can be told where one Division ends and where the other begins. As for how to operate it, I'll fall back on a tried and true mantra: Look to the Prototype.
Well, after a couple of weeks to think about this, I am leaning towards modeling just one Sub (#1). In the new plan, Elroy would be the western-most modeled part, with tracks leading to staging to the 3rd Sub (La Crosse, Winona) and to the Twin Cities on the Omaha. Madison, which was the eastern-most modeled part, would sit somewhere near the middle of the layout, and I would be adding Janesville, Beloit, and Harvard, IL. Harvard yard would be the east end, and lead into staging that would represent Chicago and points east.
I would be giving up a little in scenery from the Mississippi River area, but gaining some fidelity in how the prototype ran. By subsituting Janesville and Beloit for Winona and La Crosse, I don't lose anything from an operating potential standpoint. All four towns had more on-line customers than I could possibly model.
Again, I would like to thank all who contributed ideas and helped me out. One of the many reasons I like these forums.
Try to find the article in MR about modeling the Wicket, Wisconsin and Calumet. There are maps on there that give a good handle on how the tracks and such were arranged in MADison and Janesville.
In those towns, much of the track is still around, or it is fairly easy to see where it went. You could just model Janesville with the auto plant, and the MILW winding its way through next to, above and below the CNW, and MADison, with the CNW lines going in 4 directions and the MILW doing the same thing, with the diamond in the middle of the lake. Those two towns would probably keep you busy for quite a while.
Mike WSOR engineer | HO scale since 1988 | Visit our club www.WCGandyDancers.com