Chicago and North Western Lake Shore Division

[JerryZ]

Here is a graphic of the CNW Lake Shore Division, and some notes I made on the area. To summarize, the area I'm interested in, with Green Bay WI on the east, Marshfield on the west, Fond du Lac on the South, and Ashland WI and Watersmeet MI on north formed a bunch of lines that went through Eland WI, or what I think of as a big "X".



Been going through a bit of "basement burnout" of late, so as a diversion, I started researching the section of the CNW Lake Shore division that the trains marked on the above map ran through. It is a fun diversion for me, and I'll discuss where / how I found information on-line, and it's significance to developing a layout plan. Just want to see if there is enough here to "hold my interest" from a modeling perspective. Don't think there is, and I'll discuss why that is. Maybe there is enough here to spark the interest of somebody else.

This whole area has pretty much been a one scheduled freight train per day railroad for most of it's existence . There was a fair amount of passenger traffic, with two passenger trains running from Green Bay to Ashland, and a lot more along the eastern trackage from Wiscona up to Green Bay (which I am not interested in). Most of what is shown on the map above was torn up after 1980. It went through a death spiral for the last 25 plus years of it's existence. Passenger service on these lines went away with the formation of Amtrak.

I will add more content to this thread as the mood moves me. For now, this is just a place holder.

Regards,
Jerry

[Paul S.]

This looks like a good theme for a model railroad, Jerry. I can think of a couple trackplans (one by Iain Rice, the other by Byron Henderson) that might provide "idea fodder" for that part of the planning process. Both plans have appeared in Model Railroad Planning.

[JerryZ]

Paul, I pulled up an index to see what plans Ian and Byron had published in MRP. Are there a couple you had in mind that could be good thought starters for this area?

[Paul S.]

Let me peruse my back issues, Jerry. I recall one (and maybe two) of Iain Rice's plans which incorporated a diamond where two Midwest railroads crossed.

Ah, yes, here's a link to one, Jerry: https://www.trains.com/mrr/how-to/tr...-carthage-rrs/ .

And here's another I found on Pinterest:

[Paul S.]

Perhaps Byron Henderson was a WAG. But I did find this one:

https://www.trains.com/mrr/how-to/tr...well-junction/

[JerryZ]

In order to research this line with the ultimate goal of designing a layout, I need to focus on era.

I'm going to pick 1965. Why?

• For most of this line's existence, there were up to three passenger trains daily. That shrunk to two, which were the Northwood's Fisherman, and the Flambeau 400. The Northwood's Fisherman went away in 1964. I don't like passenger trains that much, and my memories are of the bi-level equipped Flambeau 400. That train is easier to model in ANY of the major scales, N, HO, and O. And due to declining traffic, probably four cars max.
• Freight motive power consisted primarily of GP7 locomotives. I figure I could make do with only GP7s for a model railroad unless I expand my thinking to Wausau. If I model CNW in Wausau, then add an H-10-44 switcher. Also all doable in any of the major scales.
• I'm comfortable with the freight car mix in 1965.
• While traffic was on it's way down, there was plenty of pulp, lumber, LPG, and carload shipments for team tracks.

Now, what scale. I already model in HO, I will continue to model with the Spokane Southern in HO, but if I was going to do something different, I'd like to look at a different scale. You guys have convinced me that N scale is doable, even at my advancing age. Besides, I would need to find someplace to put whatever may possibly come out of this exercise. So, a design criteria is that IT MUST BE MOVEABLE. In the event I do have to move at some point, I want something that can move with me, and it would become my model railroad to work on until I transition to the next phase of life, at which time I really don't care if it moves again. After that point, I will be doing any modeling activity virtually.

So now what area do I want to focus on? Well, simply due to traffic, Eland needs to be one of the areas that has to be included. So, lets look at Eland a little more in depth. Below is a snapshot from a Topographic map off of the USGS site.



There is a wye at the north part of Eland, and the depot sat on the inside of the wye. The line heading north went to Antigo (where there was a yard). The line heading west went to Wausau (where there is a yard, and a fair amount of industry) and on to Marshfield. On the south side of Eland was a small yard, where trains swapped blocks of cars. South of the yard, the line split again. The line heading east went to Green Bay (where there is a yard), the line south went to North Fond du Lac (where there is a yard).

In Eland, there was an industry on the north side of the yard. I think it was a lumber yard.

There is a nice 1963 aerial photograph of Eland on Historic Aerials. As the image is copyrighted, here is a link to the site:

https://historicaerials.com/viewer

Type in Eland, select "aerials", and then select 1963. When you zoom in, there are a few cuts of cars sitting in the yard for pickup by either 281 / 282, or 71 /72.

Oh, and I almost forgot. The ENTIRE CNW system track chart for 1959 is available on-line.

https://www.multimodalways.org/archi...%20Charts.html

Here is a snapshot of Eland showing the track layout. The line left goes to Wausau, the line right goes to Fond du Lac.



Regards,
Jerry

[Paul S.]

Ah, Jerry, now I see the trackplans I posted are far too complicated, viz. having the CNW cross itself at grade, as I had simply assumed it might.

What the track chart above shows is, to my thinking, much easier to accommodate in a given space. Once you figure out where to orient the wye, the rest looks like it would fall into place pretty easily.

One challenge I see, just from a potential "armreach" problem, is that the setout yard is opposite the wye.

Any signals at this junction, or just "pure" TT/TO?

[JerryZ]

Hi Paul, the only thing I have seen in photos is the CNW style train order signal. Late era photos from when the Marshfield - Green Bay line remained, but the Ashland sub was gone show just a sign identifying the point between the Eland and Bowler block.

[JerryZ]

Here is a question for you N-Scalers. Since this design would need to be portable, what is your preferred construction style. From what I can determine, there are four I could consider. I do NOT want to re-invent the wheel here, I want to use tried and true methods. I am NOT looking to participate in FreeMo setups, just want to have portability for storage and moving, if required. Links to various possibilities at: https://ntrak.org/Standards

• Free-MoN
• oNeTrack
• Mod-u-Trak
• BendTrack

Regards,
Jerry

[Cody]

Super general response: if you're doing something small enough that the whole thing will fit on a table, hollow core door, shelf, etc. (but you still want to break it up to make it easier to move), use T Track type connections. Meaning short lengths of usually Unitrack (gasp! God forbid!) that connect and align the sections when you snap them together. Transition to flex track just beyond those short lengths of Unitrack (or one of their competitors). You can build super light weight, foam only sections with that method because they just rest on the actual benchwork.

If you want something larger, standards like Free-MoN excel. Usually you'll put legs on each section and clamp to align. Sections are still pretty lightweight, but have to be sturdy enough that they essentially are their own benchwork.

This will be great stuff for an article.

[Paul S.]

Here is a question for you N-Scalers. Since this design would need to be portable, what is your preferred construction style. From what I can determine, there are four I could consider. I do NOT want to re-invent the wheel here, I want to use tried and true methods. I am NOT looking to participate in FreeMo setups, just want to have portability for storage and moving, if required. Links to various possibilities at: https://ntrak.org/Standards

• Free-MoN
• oNeTrack
• Mod-u-Trak
• BendTrack

Regards,
Jerry

I'm betting that Allen , Greg , Karl , N Scale Brad , and Steve H AC&Y will have some good input, Jerry. Hope I'm not leaving anyone out.

[Steve H AC&Y]

Very interesting project Jerry. Good choice of prototype and operating scenario.

Since you don't plan to mate your sections with anyone else's section you can do whatever makes sense for your needs. That said I'd look at what the Mod-u-Trak guys are doing. Keep in mind that all of these standards are designed for quick set 'em up, take 'em down situations. And tough enough to withstand the rigors of frequent travel. Your section do not have the same requirements and can be designed accordingly. I've been building in sections since forever and believe it is the only way I've been able to sustain hobby interest through multiple housing changes.

I have it on good authority that MRP 2025 will have an article addressing many of the questions you have raised. 😉

[Paul S.]

I have it on good authority that MRP 2025 will have an article addressing many of the questions you have raised. 😉

Spoiler alert!

[N Scale Brad]

Most of my current N scale layout was built in sections that range between 3 and 11 feet in length over a period of about 8 years. Each section is mounted to wall brackets and bolted to it's adjoining sections with a continuous hard board fascia. Track was permanently connected between sections and scenery applied after each section was installed. So it appears just like a permanent layout but could be in theory, dissembled and then re-assembled in a new location. Like you, I did it this way just in case we ever moved. Of course moving a layout would depend on the space available in the new location. One big advantage I found in building this way was that it was much easier to get all the track, wiring, and even some of the scenery done with the section while it could be handled on a work table or saw horses before mounting it into the layout. As mentioned by Steve, as you don't plan to use these sections with any type of modular layout you don't have to be concerned with anyone's mechanical or electrical standards.

I have kept a detailed build history of my layout on my blog: https://palisadecanyonrr.blogspot.com/

[Karl]

I’ve run through the standards (build NTrak, FreemoN, and Modutrak modules). For me, the flexibility of FreemoN was a natural fit for a home layout. I’ve moved my layout 1500+ miles (twice). I build my normal straight sections 6’3” long (1000’ long in N). I built my modules 18” wide, which has been an absolute ideal module depth for me. I love the simplicity of the wiring as well.