my dad said stick with the alco line and i am because i really like the alco line. i know i got the n scale great northern engines, but they are going to be stuck in a display case and i will use them when i am home alone and not showing to someone.but when i am showing it to some one i will have the Chicago & North Western engines on the layout plus when i am at a train show. i will also have a little bit from the Chicago & North Western in wisconsion near winona mn. Chicago & North Western Railroad bed and passes through three rock tunnels. The Kendall and Wilton tunnels are ¼ mile long and the Norwalk tunnel is ¾ mile long.
i am still thinking about if i should model the tunnels
I think when I, and most people, think about the Alco line – so we are talking somewhat informed C&NW fans I suppose – they think of dirty old Alcos treading their way down somewhat rickety track pulling 40 ft boxcars through amber waves of grain and somewhat desolate terrain. Those static grass applicators that are sold nowadays would do a wonderful job of capturing that look.
The classic scene would include modest streams, some farms, and grain elevators, wouldn’t it? And how close was the closest grain elevator to one of those tunnels? Not real close I have to think although I have not studied the map closely enough to say for sure.
The problem with tunnels, neat though they may be, is that if you make them any kind of realistic length and size, and plausible, the amount of hidden track takes away from other things you’d like to feature on the layout. And since the kinds of hills that call for tunnels don’t usually just sprout up out of flatland, the rest of the layout needs to look like foothills or in other ways “prepare” for the tunnel to make it realistic.
The alternative is a very short tunnel that comes out of nowhere, and that tends to look toylike, like plopping down one of those LikeLike paper mache tunnels that you’d put on a train set.
My own feeling is to save tunnels either for a really large layout where there is plenty of space for the other stuff, or for a layout which appropriately can really be dominated by tunnels.
If you want an informed visitor to come in and say “wow you modeled the Alco line!” you have to focus on the typical and expected, not the rare and unusual. Gently rolling hils, erosion from streams and rivers, modest vegetation, and vast expanses of grain, are maybe not spectacular scenic features but if done really well can be a real conversation piece. A few years ago a modeler named Lance Mindheim did a simple stream scene
thanks for your info and i wont be doing the tunnels. i actuly live in the city where the alco line starts and i know a part of the alco line that has not been modeled yet (i dont think so)and that is where it goes up on to the praire from the valley . i am not going to model it. it would be for a bigger layout. i am from winona mn the city that the alco line starts in.
Ya, folks not familiar with Winona might have a hard time picturing the semi-mountainous terrain around there, it’s a pretty tough climb from the Mississippi into the agricultural land. In N scale you probably could have some of both - the rugged SE part of Minnesota along with the flat prairie lands of southern MN.
The climb out of Winona up Stockton Hill is rather impressive. Winona was a really impressive river town with two railway swing spans and 5 railroads(CNW/CGW/MILW/CBQ/GBW). Good luck with your modeling!
Jim
For sure! Winona remains an interesting railroad town although the CNW evidence per se is not so strong. But I fully agree, someone not familiar with the area would be astounded by the landscape – unexpected for the midwest but common along the Mississippi. Having said that, again i return to a point I made earlier – if you want a visitor to immediately see that it is the Alco line you need to go for the typical.
Dave Nelson
True, i am modeling the alco line on the prarie. i am going to have a 1 grain elevator, 2 farms, streams, rolling hills, and etc. i am now a fan of the alco line and i was a fan of the great northern. people from winona call the place where the trains went up to the praire the arches because the railroad crosses over stone arch bridge while going up. now the old alco line is owned by dm&e. i see the grain cars with cnw on them in winona downtown all the time.
just to let u know u missed 4 railroads in winona ( winona st peter, winona western, winona southwestern, BN.
- Winona & St Peter was the original Minnesota Charter railroad that is now the ex-C&NW/DM&E/CP line.
- Winona & South-Western went bankrupt and became the Winona & Western, and was bought buy the CGW(which was bought by the C&NW)
- BN of course was a result of the merger of the CB&Q/GN/NP/SP&S
Then there was the Winona Street Railway, and Winona Bridge Company(owned by the CB&Q/GB&W). As I mentioned, Winona was a fascinating place.
Jim
http://cs.trains.com/TRCCS/forums/t/184135.aspx I had to swich to great northern because i have ten great northern engines from my dads professor friend who was clearing out her basement after her husband died. But I have alsways liked the Great Northern Railroad so I think doing the layout for it will work out well.
Well if you have access to a supply of nice Great Northern engines – hey go with the flow! Don’t forget Duluth MN/Superior WI where the Great Northern and C&NW and many other railroads such as Soo Line and DM&IR interchanged in a pretty intense operation centered around iron ore and great lakes shipping of grain.
Dave Nelson
oh ya