New US route under development

[buzz456]

Other than tough grades the Mid-West of the US has a endless supply of potential great routes. After all that's where it all comes together.

[glenn68]

I would love to see Bessemer and Lake Erie. Lots of long trains pulling tonnage in western Pennsylvania.

[Haystack]

I would love to see Bessemer and Lake Erie. Lots of long trains pulling tonnage in western Pennsylvania.

Good idea. Even something with the Conway yard would be awesome.

[wisrailfan]

Conway Yard is included in the P&LE route but the only place I know of to get it is from Otto's download page. I'm not sure if it's ok to post that link here - otherwise he has it in any of his posts on Train -sim.com.

[LGM118]

I'd hope for the UP St. Louis- Bloomington Illinois line, plus CN/IC/BNSF would be able to be thrown in as well

It's an interesting route, but one concern is the lack of traffic diversity. Realistically, in order for a route to be a commercial success, it needs to appeal to a pretty wide cross-section of players. The Chicago-St. Louis line doesn't have enough traffic diversity to support a commercial release. It's basically busy at the north and south ends (Chicago and St. Louis are big rail hubs), with a few grain trains and a couple of other trains thrown in along a very straight route. It's just not enough traffic across a 290 mile route (which would be exceptionally long compared to the existing body of routes). That's not to say it's a bad route or that I dislike it (I really would love for it to happen), but only that the odds of it being done as a Dovetail commercial release are probably not that great.

[whiskey219]

I know everybody might be a little sick of California routes...But I have to put in there the SF Bay area in the 70s thru present would be a great choice for a new route. SP-WP-BNSF-UP....It all came thru here.I live in the east bay area near Sunol CA...So yeah I'm looking for my area...Tons of opertunities..Oil, passenger,aggrigates,wood products,auto plants,...

[LGM118]

Other than tough grades the Mid-West of the US has a endless supply of potential great routes. After all that's where it all comes together.

And therein lies the problem...

The problem for any Midwest route is that it's basically impossible to have the "right" endpoints for a route. I'm actually a Trainz convert over to TS2014, and I also was working on a fairly big route on the former (Trainz). The original ideal was I wanted the CP C&M Subdivision, but then I realized that once I had that, I'd need the UP Milwaukee Subdivision from Proviso Yard to Shermer where it meets the C&M Subdivision, and then I realized I would need the CP Elgin Subdivision from Tower A5 to Bensenville Yard, and before I knew it, the route got too big to finish (I ended up posting a partially complete version online).

It's pretty easy with a lot of other regions to clearly divide routes. Take Marias Pass. Whitefish is the very clear western end because there's nothing (pretty much, anyways) west of it for at least 50 miles and it's a large railyard that handles traffic from Kalispell. The line pretty much also has to place the eastbound end at Shelby because, again, large railyard (also the interchange point with the fairly busy Great Falls Subdivision). Very few people (to my knowledge) are complaining that the route should have been extended east to Havre or west to Libby. Most Midwest routes would run into that exact type of scenario.

The thing that makes a Midwest route so interesting is also why it's so difficult to model; with so many different interactions and potential route endpoints, any route will be faced with the problem that there's so much good stuff that just has to go in but you can't because then the route would just be too big to manage. I mean, just consider that in the BNSF Aurora Subdivision would need Eola Yard, Cicero Intermodal (Clyde Yard), Western Avenue Yard (and with it Union Pacific Global 1), Corwith Yard, and the Metra and Amtrak storage yards. Even with just that, we'd still have a bunch of people complaining about how you can't simulate interchanges to the Norfok Southern Ashland Avenue yard, no north-south connections to CP and CN, etc.. Yes, it's an extreme case, but that's the challenge with the Midwest, and those sorts of things play out on pretty much any of the routes that are marketable.

[Bananarama]

And therein lies the problem...

It's only a problem if you fail to focus on the subject at hand. Surely you wouldn't look at a painting of the Los Angeles skyline and wonder why the artist didn't also include Pasadena in the image? By viewing the painting, however, you can imagine that Pasadena is nearby connected by roads, rail, etc., but it need not be included to know it's "out there". Same goes for routes. You might model Cajon pass, but you shouldn't worry about the UP or BNSF lines to Mojave, Yuma or Needles, or even that there is an eventual connection in Fresno or Chicago. Only a small one or two mile section is needed to generate AI traffic. You then leave it to the user to imagine a greater network beyond your painted scene.

[Bananarama]

But I have to put in there the SF Bay area in the 70s thru present would be a great choice for a new route.

+1

[LGM118]

And therein lies the problem...

It's only a problem if you fail to focus on the subject at hand. Surely you wouldn't look at a painting of the Los Angeles skyline and wonder why the artist didn't also include Pasadena in the image? By viewing the painting, however, you can imagine that Pasadena is nearby connected by roads, rail, etc., but it need not be included to know it's "out there". Same goes for routes. You might model Cajon pass, but you shouldn't worry about the UP or BNSF lines to Mojave, Yuma or Needles, or even that there is an eventual connection in Fresno or Chicago. Only a small one or two mile section is needed to generate AI traffic. You then leave it to the user to imagine a greater network beyond your painted scene.

True, but in the Midwest, a lot more of those connections are "there" in the sense of being directly next to the mainline, etc. Of course you don't need everything in your route, but the things that are next to it do matter and those do need to be there. The example I gave of the BNSF Aurora subdivision has three passenger yards (Aurora Metra and the Metra and Amtrak downtown yards), and then there's Eola Yard, Clyde Yard, and the BNSF Western Avenue Yard that are all adjacent and parallel the mainline. BNSF's Western Avenue yard is integrally connected to UP Global 1, meaning you'd need to at least partially do that one. All in all, that's basically seven railyards for a 35 mile route. Those "one or two mile section" you would put in for AI traffic will add another 3 or 4 railyards in that example (Corwith and NS Ashland pretty much unavoidable, and probably Clearing Yard).

Even outside of that extreme example, pretty much any Midwest route that includes Chicago would end up having quite a number of railyards and other complex issues. If you decide not to include Chicago, you lose almost all the passenger traffic, plus you lose out on a lot of the traffic. I personally think there are still some pretty interesting routes out there if you forgo including Chicago. There's even a few routes in the Chicago area that would be doable (particularly the UP commuter lines). At the same time though, would most people want a route that's basically a straight line for most of its length?

[Ericmopar]

I know everybody might be a little sick of California routes...But I have to put in there the SF Bay area in the 70s thru present would be a great choice for a new route. SP-WP-BNSF-UP....It all came thru here.I live in the east bay area near Sunol CA...So yeah I'm looking for my area...Tons of opertunities..Oil, passenger,aggrigates,wood products,auto plants,...

Yep .
BNSF was still Santa Fe all the Way back then. Youngsters...

[JohnTrainHead]

I know everybody might be a little sick of California routes...But I have to put in there the SF Bay area in the 70s thru present would be a great choice for a new route. SP-WP-BNSF-UP....It all came thru here.I live in the east bay area near Sunol CA...So yeah I'm looking for my area...Tons of opertunities..Oil, passenger,aggrigates,wood products,auto plants,...

Yep .
BNSF was still Santa Fe all the Way back then. Youngsters...

A Midwestern Santa Fe route would be nice... How about the Marceline Subdivision in Missouri, early to late 90s era?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vN9RNOveewg

[Rbsanford]

What about a frontier route set sometime in the 1800s? Maybe with 4-4-0s?

[Bananarama]

Even outside of that extreme example, pretty much any Midwest route that includes Chicago would end up having quite a number of railyards and other complex issues.

You cited an extreme example, yet generalize that doing most Midwest routes would be equally difficult and would need a half dozen yards within a short distance. View blocks can help quite a bit, unless of course you're into helicopter viewing.

An example I will use is the areas of San Bernardino and Colton. Within a 1-mile radius there are 5 subdivisions (Cajon, Mojave, San Bernardino, Alameda, and Yuma), 2 branch lines (Riverside and Redlands), plus 4 yards, 3 of which are substantial (SB A-Yard, SB B-Yard, and West Colton). If modeling one, you needn't include much of another, other than perhaps a section of track to indicate the connection, and as illustrated above, to generate AI traffic. The area doesn't have tall buildings - most of which are sub-3 or 4 stories, plus there are freeway overpasses and other non-rr clutter to hide what's on the "other side". Any one of these subs could be modeled without leaving the user frustrated that an adjoining sub wasn't included. However, that user could easily create their own connections beyond what's presented. The tools are there and aren't too difficult use.

Nevertheless, I'm sure that even in the Midwest you have plenty of structures and vegetation to camouflage much of what's outside the focused area. If not, and the area is so flat a void of general scenery, then the author (including RSC) would be wise to rethink their choice of what route to build. For every extreme example, there's a hundred other interesting lines that needn't be so complex, yet still challenging enough to hold the attention of most interested in the region.

[nsl714]

On the subject of Chicago and interweaving railroads, that is an issue that has crossed my path on the North Shore Line. The CNS&M goes under, over, and along side multiple bits of the Chicago and Northwestern Railroad for a good portion of its length. At 2 points, the two are directly parallel for about 12 miles. For the most part, it is no big deal. The track layout is not more complicated than the North Shore's in those locations. Most difficult will be in Milwaukee, WI, where the North Shore crosses over a large-ish C&NW Roundhouse and yard on the outskirts, and then the Milwaukee Road Coach Yard and station just before reaching its own terminal. The amount of detail to be included in the competitor's facilities has not been decided yet. On the other end in Chicago, I won't so much have to worry about the large mass of railroads, as the North Shore used the Chicago L system. That I will have to worry about however, and decisions will have to be made about how much of each interfacing line should be included, (All of them come together downtown in the loop). In short, it's not impossible to include a midwestern hub. If you select the right route you won't be stuck in miles and miles of yard trackage.

Zach