CN Monk Subdivision - A Wholesome Approach

In the following series of articles, I'll revisit the Monk Subidivision layout proposal and explore a few operation and design approaches implemented.  This newer proposition will scrutinized aspects of design that are sometimes considered outdated and meshes them with observations acquired over the last few years and fruitful discussions with fellow modellers. I hope it will inspire you...

Many years ago, probably two or three since I can’t remember, I started working on a layout design at home that would help me to achieve different goals than the one already covered by our Murray Bay Subdivision project. Among these goals, I wanted to breathe a new life into my transition era motive power and rolling stock, provide continous run to enjoy trains and model the quaint Appalachian landscape. A layout not intense on switching, but that could replicate running a mainline instead of a branchline. I spoke a lot about that over the last few years isn’t it! I also always desired to do something with my old Quebec South Shore Railway that was the starting point of that madness years ago. And add in the mix an unhealthy fascination with small rural engine facilities.

You have been all witnesses to this exploration of ideas… which intersect each others and are constantly reverberating. As I moved forward with the project, Monk yard slowly disappeared from the project to focus simply on the mainline run with hidden staging. As much as I was fond of that idea, three issues appeared : too much hidden track, the lost of a visible originating point/destination (yard) and a humongous helix that was both too small to run reliably long passenger trains and too big for the room. Don’t get me wrong, that helix farm scene would have been beautiful, but a nightmare to build and would have provided very little return on the investment except for maintenance headaches.

Interestingly enough, while browsing a recent Rail Québec magazine issue, I stumbled upon a neat track plan of Quebec Central’s Lac-Frontière station on their Chaudiere Subdivision. It was a branchline running on the valley parallel to Monk Subdivision. It shared a similar topography, economy and infrastructure. Interestingly enough, this small terminal had a 3-stall engine house with a turntable. A very spartan affair and very rural. Exactly what I wanted. Thus it came to my mind such a small facility could be implemented in Armagh to create a division point. It already had a few sidings mimicking a yard…

QCR Vallée-Jonction simplistic engine facilities (1924)

At that point, the helix was still there… and I still had that lingering idea to add some interchange with the historic John Breakey Railway to give a purpose to my 4-4-0 and 0-6-0T. It didn’t take long before the helix disappeared and was replaced by a nolix, which is a fancy word to hide it’s a dreaded twice around design! At that point, I asked myself what could be done if more hidden trackage was visible for ease of maintenance… let’s say some parts are completely visible, others run in trenches are aren’t directly visible when looking at the layout from a scale human eye.

One thing appeared clear… If Armagh – a rural station – had an engine facility and a small yard, it was now no different from Monk, but simply more contrived. Thus, I went back to my archives and dug up my original sketches drawn last year. The old track plan was stiff and cluttered, but still working well for its purpose. It was just a matter of implementing what I had learned from the later iterations and lengthy discussions with Chris Mears to bring life to it. 

Let’s just say that train of thoughts was quite productive and after less than 1 hour, I had something that was both appealing from an operating stand points and highly achievable.  Yes, I was back to old design practices that aren’t no longer fashionable (for obvious reasons), but who had some merit. You won’t be surprised this track plan instantly recalled memories of Bill Henderson’s Coal Belt Railroad. Bill’s layout was a fascinating little gem with a sense of purpose and a sense of place even if it was all fiction (to some extent). Analyzing Bill’s layout, I found out why his runaround worked… The answer was simple. He had design each scene in such a manner that one track as all the attention and embody the location depicted (often a town/station) and the other track is subdued and merged into the scenery. Yes, a train will travel twice a scene, but only one track is the main focus. The other is often running at a different elevation, behind trees and most importantly, depict only a stretch of mundane mainline. Had Bill given equal or near equal importance to each track on a given scene, the illusion would have collapsed completely.

It’s interesting to hear Bill Henderson constantly referring to Frank Ellison during his interview with Allan Keller. For fun, I read the six-part article Frank wrote for Model Railroader in 1944 and discovered he barely never touched what Bill had done with his layout. Frank was more oriented toward realistic operation than the scenery aspect. When you look at his layout track plan, you fine none of Bill’s finesse. Was it intuitive, was he inspired by someone else? I’ll never know and don’t need to know, but itw as interesting to go back to the pioneering time of model railroading in HO.

Early concept sketch of a scenic lower level

Anyway, Bill’s vision surimposed itself to another observation of mine, that 16-20 feet for a scene on a home layout is quite large… too large to be honest. I recall writing here about how I found out over time that itw as difficult to immerse yourself in a scene that is more than 7 or 8 feet long. Everything else is out of your field of vision and you loose interest. On our Murray Bay Subdivision layout, the same apply. Except the less than perfect Villeneuve scene, all the ones in Clermont are about 7-8 feet long… Wieland, Clermont Yard, Donohue… It means you can stand there, sitting on a chair, looking at trains at eye level and feel completely immersed.

Chris Mears cleverly framed John Breakey as a cameo scene

This is good information, because it means the layout can be broken in different small stories or cameos, all linked together… The pulp mill, the feed mill, the interchange, the yard, etc… The layout now can provide a glimpse at several different activities taking place along the rails of the old NTR main line to Moncton. This, I feel, is a compelling way to envision a layout with limited scope and space.

Even Monk, that is quite large, can be broken in two scenes : the depot, where operation is less intense, and the yard/roundhouse, where intense work can take place. For this reason, I could locate (at different level) the interchange and the depot because what happens at the station doesn’t require direct access. However, when dealing with the yard, you want to be close to the scene. Between, when you stand by the yard, your eyes can look down toward the depot, creating a beautiful scenic S-curve to railfan trains.

Curved yards are cool and Neil Schofield knows it!

Breaking down the layout in smaller scenes sharing a common color palette sot hey merge flawlessly is also a good way to provide a good range of operation scenarios depending on your mood. Often, I like to perform short 30 minutes sessions. This layout provides many occasions of doing that. You can build or break a train in the yard, switch the engine facilities, run a local train to the feedmill or simply perform a few tasks at the pulp mill. Also, all these tasks are somehow related to Monk in a way or another. Pulpwood can be loaded at Monk and brought to the interchange… the same with goods bound to the feedmill. Loaded wood pulp boxcars can be picked up at the interchange by the local and brought to Monk to be put on the next through freight train that will leave for Edmunston or Charny. The goal is not to provide a lot of operations to occupy many people at once or to give the impression of that the railway has a purpose and provide modelling opportunities (structures, freight cars, etc.).

The John Breakey Pulp Mill in 1960 is quite achievable

Certainly, this track plan isn’t complete yet. I still have to figure out how the staging yard under Monk would be designed, but I suspect a solution quite similar to Bill Hamer’s Boston & Maine layout would be the safest bet for accessibility and maintenance.

Hard to resist to this scene! (C.E. Winters/Old Time Trains Archives)

Finally, I’m quite happy with this plan. As Chris Mears remarked, it can be build in phases. The runaround and staging would be first, ensuring trains can travel the layout quite quickly. Later, Monk could be expanded, then Ste-Euphémie and finally the John Breakey mill scene. As experience has taught me, if you can’t run quickly your trains, a layout is doomed to fail. Indeed, it’s when you see them in action that you can feel the impetus to build, improve and enhance your work.