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.
Grin, Stein
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.
Grin,Stein
Dear stein.
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.
Smile paul
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,
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.
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.
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.
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
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?
Jimmy
ROUTE ROCK!
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.
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
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
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.
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).
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 ?
Plan 61b:
In comparison, here is the plan with the harbor parallel to main (plan 61):
And here is plan 55b:
Smile, Stein
steinjr Plan 61b:
... That´s it - super!
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
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?
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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.