Vail and Southwestern RR wrote: Falls Valley RR wrote: Makes me wonder if a Private Gulfstream has the same "Freedom" as a ... Cessna 172 or a Warrior Archer above 20,000 feet in what I consider to be "Center" airspace over the USA. Does Rod's plane must follow instructions as provided to airliners and other craft? (Not including approach, departure etc)Once he goes over 18,000 feet (it may be lower, now, but that's the number I recall), he has to be flying under positive control, with flight plan, and following directions. It really isn't a big deal, he has as much right, under the rules, to the airspace as the airliners, and he plays by the same rules.
Falls Valley RR wrote: Makes me wonder if a Private Gulfstream has the same "Freedom" as a ... Cessna 172 or a Warrior Archer above 20,000 feet in what I consider to be "Center" airspace over the USA. Does Rod's plane must follow instructions as provided to airliners and other craft? (Not including approach, departure etc)
Makes me wonder if a Private Gulfstream has the same "Freedom" as a ... Cessna 172 or a Warrior Archer above 20,000 feet in what I consider to be "Center" airspace over the USA. Does Rod's plane must follow instructions as provided to airliners and other craft? (Not including approach, departure etc)
Once he goes over 18,000 feet (it may be lower, now, but that's the number I recall), he has to be flying under positive control, with flight plan, and following directions. It really isn't a big deal, he has as much right, under the rules, to the airspace as the airliners, and he plays by the same rules.
He does have a truly impressive layout. I to thought someone else built it for him until I read the article.. Nice job !!!!!!
alco's forever!!!!! Majoring in HO scale Minorig in O scale:)
hmmm...had not made that connection...(per Scoot's earlier post) I wonder which came first, the inspiration for a '40s flavored layout and then the Songbook albums, or maybe Rod always liked the crooner songs and that inspired his choice of era? Interesting.
One thing for sure, with the profits from all those Songbook CDs, maybe Rod was able to buy a locomotive or two.
Don't have my issue here yet, but it sounds like Rod is going to progress beyond the city...surely there will be a soccer, ah, football field included in a scene. I see 590-10075 is the item # for the Preiser soccer set. He's good to go!
rs2mike wrote: Vail and Southwestern RR wrote: Falls Valley RR wrote: Makes me wonder if a Private Gulfstream has the same "Freedom" as a ... Cessna 172 or a Warrior Archer above 20,000 feet in what I consider to be "Center" airspace over the USA. Does Rod's plane must follow instructions as provided to airliners and other craft? (Not including approach, departure etc)Once he goes over 18,000 feet (it may be lower, now, but that's the number I recall), he has to be flying under positive control, with flight plan, and following directions. It really isn't a big deal, he has as much right, under the rules, to the airspace as the airliners, and he plays by the same rules. I can shed some light here. After Fligh tlevel 180 yes you have to be in positive control. But Rod's airplane flying that low would not get him very far. His airplane is capable of going to the higher reaches of 51,000 feet. Above all those little airline guys slogging around in the thunderstorms and crap. Our Learjet goes to 47,000 feet on a regular basis and dodges all the weather and can pretty much go direct to anywhere we want to go. Not many other airplanes up that high. He does have a truly impressive layout. I to thought someone else built it for him until I read the article.. Nice job !!!!!!
Quite right on the aviation facts, plus flying at lower altitudes in Learjets and Gulfstreams and CJ2's etc, is VERY COSTLY in fuel.They are setup to fly at higher altitudes.
And yes Rod Stewart is a very skilled modeller!
markpierce wrote: As a habitual track plan analyst, I hope Rod has adequately considered his track plan to assure it meets his needs. I see potential problems with: (1) the engine terminal being far away from the yard and generally inaccessible (this is less of a concern if the terminal is primarily "scenery"), (2) the freight yard lacking a switching lead and apparent arrival/departure, repair-in-place, caboose, and related service tracks, as well as needing to be double-ended, and (3) if Rod thinks he might be interested in switching activity, the layout could use more industrial sidings and complexity.Mark
As a habitual track plan analyst, I hope Rod has adequately considered his track plan to assure it meets his needs. I see potential problems with: (1) the engine terminal being far away from the yard and generally inaccessible (this is less of a concern if the terminal is primarily "scenery"), (2) the freight yard lacking a switching lead and apparent arrival/departure, repair-in-place, caboose, and related service tracks, as well as needing to be double-ended, and (3) if Rod thinks he might be interested in switching activity, the layout could use more industrial sidings and complexity.
Mark
I find your comments laughable.
You couldn't qualify to be Rod's pool boy... yet here you are, picking apart his freight yard.
You're killing me, my stomach's hurting from laughing so hard
Driline wrote:I find your comments laughable. You couldn't qualify to be Rod's pool boy... yet here you are, picking apart his freight yard.You're killing me, my stomach's hurting from laughing so hard
Mark P.
Website: http://www.thecbandqinwyoming.comVideos: https://www.youtube.com/user/mabrunton
Brunton wrote: Driline wrote:I find your comments laughable. You couldn't qualify to be Rod's pool boy... yet here you are, picking apart his freight yard.You're killing me, my stomach's hurting from laughing so hardIs this sort of personal abuse really necessary? Talk about trying to start a flame war... hopefully markpierce will ignore the post and this thread won't erupt into a free-for-all.
Brunton read your PM.
Without putting in the quotes,
I expect that the layout was designed as a display for the structures and scenery, and not for what some would call 'operation'. His focus in the hobby right now is onthe structures, it is what he has the time and place to do. So, he designed (or had designed, doesn't matter which) a layout for that purpose. I don't think he is a a place where spending the evening switching is what he's about. When he is, he probably can build another layout!
Jeff But it's a dry heat!
I enjoyed the article about Rod's layout. I can't say I listen to his music, but he certainly seems to be a good guy all around.
His layout is quite spectacular. Just as has ben mentioned before, his scenes are detailed without being too cluttered. The skyscrapers show some selective compression with regards to girth, but the effect is really good.
I noticed, too, that the layout seems to be designed for running as opposed to hardcore operations. You know what? I'm starting to think that I'm the same way. I tried car-card and waybill ops, but honestly, I just like running trains. I suspect a guy like Rod Stewart, whose life is always on fast-forward, probably gets great pleasure just from railfanning his own layout.
Nice to know that people across the spectrum are just like us.
Modeling the Rio Grande Southern First District circa 1938-1946 in HOn3.
Vail and Southwestern RR wrote: Without putting in the quotes,I expect that the layout was designed as a display for the structures and scenery, and not for what some would call 'operation'. His focus in the hobby right now is onthe structures, it is what he has the time and place to do. So, he designed (or had designed, doesn't matter which) a layout for that purpose. I don't think he is a a place where spending the evening switching is what he's about. When he is, he probably can build another layout!
Even if the layout was intended to be a static display, the freight yard would be more impressive if the track arrangements were more like the "real thing."
markpierce wrote: Vail and Southwestern RR wrote: Without putting in the quotes,I expect that the layout was designed as a display for the structures and scenery, and not for what some would call 'operation'. His focus in the hobby right now is onthe structures, it is what he has the time and place to do. So, he designed (or had designed, doesn't matter which) a layout for that purpose. I don't think he is a a place where spending the evening switching is what he's about. When he is, he probably can build another layout!Even if the layout was intended to be a static display, the freight yard would be more impressive if the track arrangements were more like the "real thing."Mark
In general, I'd agree with that. Though it might depend on who you are trying to impress.
Printer wrote:Like the Grim Reaper on the roof of the IGA store. Anyone notice the window washer on the ledge of the skyscraper? Or what looks to be a "jumper" on one of the roofs?