Does/did all the research and planning get to you?
I have spent the last year doing research on the railroad I want to model. Beforehand, when deciding on what railroad to model, the railroad had to meet these criterias:
Being that I lived in Chicago most of my life, I decided on modeling the B&O Chicago Terminal Railroad. It offers all I wanted from my list and more. So my research began.....
.......(almost a year and a half later)
I haven't really built anything for the railroad yet. We moved to a new house and that put a hold on things. Good news is I have all the space I'll ever need. Bad news is that I feel I'm in over my head.
The station I want to model, Chicago's Grand Central Station is big and overly detailed and complicated, the train shed is massive, and the two double bascale bridges crossing the Chicago river will be a nightmare. I'm starting to question if I can ever reproduce these to the level of detail I desire. To me, the hobby is about the modeling. The trains come secondary. I debated on finding something less complicated to model but then it feels like I'm leaving behind a lot of research and something I really want to do.
I have decided to quit obsessing about how I'm going to appoarch modeling those items and move on to other less complicated and simple areas. I think I will build my railroad with a one at a time modular approach. One section at a time. This way I can ejoy doing something rather than agonizing over something I'm just thinking about! I think it will become more exciting and refreshing when I start seeing the work in progress and the completion of a module.
Anyone care to any similar revelations you've come across like this that helped you progress on your layout?
Ed
Semi newbie HO scale modeler coming from the O scale world
Welcome to the club.
My desire was to model the Maryland & Pennsylvania including the Baltimore terminal in S. I need 60 ft of benchwork 5 ft deep just for the terminal. I have 30 ft at 2-2.5 feet deep. The rest of the layout has similar issues.
Now my basement is big enough at 67 feet long and about 30 feet deep (with the usual stuff to support the house above). But at 72 I will never get a basement filling layout finished. So instead I'm using 13x36 ft.
My goal is to capture the essence or spirit of the Maryland and Pennsylvania in the early 1950's. For me this means small locomotives, open platform passenger cars, terminal to terminal operation with 4 intermediate towns, etc. Scenery and structures will be what I can fit in after the all the track work is done.
Paul
I have tried.
Every time I get interested in just one main railroad and era, I find that it becomes too limiting for me. I'm not able to acquire all the rolling stock I would want, or I find that there are too many things I like to fit them all into one era, let alone just one main railroad.
I built a layout that has a desert scene, an autumn scene, and a winter scene. Could be almost any place in the American west (definitely western rock formations). I just run what I like.
There have been so many things I wanted to do...but I just like Alco Centuries and big six axle MLW M-Series units. I just always have loved them since I was a kid. My first train set had the Mantua Tyco C-430 in it. Now I have the brass big Alco's, and I don't care about mixing railroads, but will just own and run what I like and have fun.
I've dabbled in steam, owned big steam from just about every railroad that had the big articulateds, and have dabbled in modern diesels, but the Alco Centuries and M-Series units are just it for me. Nothing else will make me as happy as they do.
I should have stuck with them before.
Best Regards-
John Mock
I never did understand why so many folks feel they MUST model a proto type. I see so many new folks ask about starting, and the first thing asked of them ''witch protype'' ?
I'm inthe hobby cause I enjoy building. The trains/layout is but an excuse to build. I'll get an idea for a building , and I build it. No protype or plans,but it must look believeable. When completed I'll find or make a place on the layout for it. When the bug bites again, I'll build another. My research consist of looking at a few photos.
Can't help wondering how many things you could have enjoyed createing in the time you spent researching
If the fun is being sucked out, its because your allowing it.
While my layout is more along the lines of proto-freelanced, I thoroughly enjoy finding out what I can about the former Pennsy/PC/Conrail route that my layout is primarily focused on. I can understand some folks not wanting to go deeply into trying to recreate the real world 100% accurately, but if we all liked the same thing, this would be a very boring hobby. That's one thing I think is so great about model railroading. We can each get as involved or as simple as we want, and the only thing that matters is that we have fun doing it. If you're not enjoying the hobby, you need to step back and see what is wrong.
Kevin
http://chatanuga.org/RailPage.html
http://chatanuga.org/WLMR.html
I base my industry names by looking up industrial parks on Bing and Google maps. I then use the industry names I like on my Industrial Switching Layout. In short there is no fantasy or joke name for my industries.
The track work is freelance to my taste.
Larry
Conductor.
Summerset Ry.
"Stay Alert, Don't get hurt Safety First!"
Wow, this has the makings of a great thread based upon the initial post and replies so far.
Ed, you have selected an excellent road to prototype in the BOCT. As a lifelong Chicagoan, I share your love for the area and the railroad modeling opportunities that it offers. I model the Chicago & Western Indiana (C&WI) which ran a 4-track mainline into Dearborn Station, just a few blocks east of Chicago Grand Central Station.
There are two paths to follow. One is the path that you have chosen to faithfully replicate the actual prototype. But as you are finding out, the research alone could take a lifetime. The other path is to jump in and simulate the prototype.
I followed your recent thread on scratchbuilding Grand Central Station. That can be done without faithfully reproducing every brick, every window, every archway. The key is to make your scratchbuild resemble GCS, not exactly match it. When I was faced with building Dearborn Station, I simply built the Walthers Cornerstone Milwaukee Station. It was close enough to strongly resemble Dearborn Station.
As far as the bascule bridges are concerned, the Walthers Bascule Bridge is perfect for the BOCT bascule bridge although the Walthers bascule bridge is single track, and the BOCT bascule bridge is double track. So what. Just build two single track bascule bridges side by side. That's what I did when I decides to model those bascule bridges on my layout.
You are looking at the possibility of a great layout featuring an excellent prototype road in the BOCT. Put aside the research. After a year or more already invested, you've done enough research. Start building!
Rich
Alton Junction
Ed, this hobby flurished long before we had all this high detail, high accuracy product.
It flurished before we had the internet to spread so much prototype information to so many so quickly.
Your models are 1/87 of real life, you don't have enough space, time or money to model much of anything "inch for inch".
May I suggest that a better, more realistic goal is to simply capture the "flavor" of your chosen railroad, location and era. Feel free to use a lot of artistic license and just have fun.
Most of those who view your layout will not know nearly as much about what you are modeling you do already - they won't know what it's not "perfect", and they won't care, they will just enjoy what you have done.
I'm a freelancer, or Protolancer.......
I model my fictional ATLANTIC CENTRAL, set "somewhere" in the Mid Atlantic in 1954, with interchanges and trackage rights leases to the C&O, B&O and WESTERN MARYLAND.
I don't try to model any "real places", I just make my places look like my life time knowledge of this region, where I have spent nearly all my life.
Selective compression, and "close enough" are skills everyone in this hobby needs to learn, and just have fun.
I do want my models to "make sense", look as if they could have been. But there is not enouugh documentation in the world to get every detail right at the Brunswick MD B&O yard, on September 25, 1954, at 2:45 pm - so why try?
Again, just make it look like how it "might have been", like making a movie.....
Sheldon
FWIW, I do enjoy and prefer prototyping. I enjoy the research that goes into it.
mrrdad FWIW, I do enjoy and prefer prototyping. I enjoy the research that goes into it.
All of us "serious" (uh oh) modelers enjoy researching the prototype, but when the research reaches the level of sucking the fun out of it, you are doing too much research and not enough modeling.
That's why I say, stop the research and start modeling. You have latched onto an excellent railroad to prototype. I'll bet you know more about the BOCT after a year of research than most BOCT enthusiasts will ever know.
ATLANTIC CENTRAL Ed, this hobby flurished long before we had all this high detail, high accuracy product. It flurished before we had the internet to spread so much prototype information to so many so quickly. Your models are 1/87 of real life, you don't have enough space, time or money to model much of anything "inch for inch". May I suggest that a better, more realistic goal is to simply capture the "flavor" of your chosen railroad, location and era. Feel free to use a lot of artistic license and just have fun. Most of those who view your layout will not know nearly as much about what you are modeling you do already - they won't know what it's not "perfect", and they won't care, they will just enjoy what you have done. I'm a freelancer, or Protolancer....... I model my fictional ATLANTIC CENTRAL, set "somewhere" in the Mid Atlantic in 1954, with interchanges and trackage rights leases to the C&O, B&O and WESTERN MARYLAND. I don't try to model any "real places", I just make my places look like my life time knowledge of this region, where I have spent nearly all my life. Selective compression, and "close enough" are skills everyone in this hobby needs to learn, and just have fun. I do want my models to "make sense", look as if they could have been. But there is not enouugh documentation in the world to get every detail right at the Brunswick MD B&O yard, on September 25, 1954, at 2:45 pm - so why try? Again, just make it look like how it "might have been", like making a movie..... Sheldon
I get the compression issues and you can't model everything. My goal is realism. To make it look as real as possible, not "toy" looking. That is where I'm struggling just due to the complexity of the Station, Train Shed, and bridge structures. Just too many details
richhotrain mrrdad FWIW, I do enjoy and prefer prototyping. I enjoy the research that goes into it. Ed, with all due respect, this statement you just made and the title of your thread, in part, "sucking the fun out of it" referring to researching the prototype, are contradictory. All of us "serious" (uh oh) modelers enjoy researching the prototype, but when the research reaches the level of sucking the fun out of it, you are doing too much research and not enough modeling. That's why I say, stop the research and start modeling. You have latched onto an excellent railroad to prototype. I'll bet you know more about the BOCT after a year of research than most BOCT enthusiasts will ever know. Rich
Ed, with all due respect, this statement you just made and the title of your thread, in part, "sucking the fun out of it" referring to researching the prototype, are contradictory.
I completely agree Rich. There is contradiction there....intentionally.
What I was getting at is "stop overthinking" on my part. Just do it. I need to tackle this a little at a time, not all at once on paper or in my head.
mrrdad I get the compression issues and you can't model everything. My goal is realism. To make it look as real as possible, not "toy" looking. That is where I'm struggling just due to the complexity of the Station, Train Shed, and bridge structures. Just too many details.
I get the compression issues and you can't model everything. My goal is realism. To make it look as real as possible, not "toy" looking. That is where I'm struggling just due to the complexity of the Station, Train Shed, and bridge structures. Just too many details.
Scratchbuilding the Grand Central train station and shed should be no big deal for anyone with at least some scratchbuilding experience. And it can be done to make it look like the actual station without trying to pin down every last excruciating detail.
Ed, I do lots of research for my freelanced ATLANTIC CENTRAL, understanding how and why the railroads in this region did what they did.
And I want my B&O, C&O and WESTERN MARYLAND models to be correct, and to make sense in the context of the layout.
And, your basic layout concept, model a single "place" and modeling the comings and goings of trains at that place, is basically the same as my approach.
But "balance" between "inch for inch" modeling, and artistic "capturing the feel", will make your goals obtainable, trust me, been there, done that.......
One of my research projects was to fully understand the developement of the Super Power Steam concept by LIMA, and the developement of the 2-8-4. A locomotive class our beloved B&O never had. Why?
My reason? I wanted to build the ATLANTIC CENTRAL some freelanced Super Power Mikado's like the DT&I 800 class, which are pretty much little baby Berkshires.
But I wanted to build mine from current Berkshire models, with 70" drivers. Would this be believeable? Could it have been done? Turns out several big Mikes were heavier and more powerful than the classic LIMA Berkshire and had 70" drivers. So I built five of these from Bachmann Berks, picture is before the paint shop:
It took a lot of research, it was fun, and now if someone looks at them on my layout and says "what are those?", I have more than enough facts about actual locos to justify their existance in my "protolanced" world.
I read this whole thread and did not understand any of it.
.
May I am doing Model Railroading all wrong.
-Kevin
Living the dream.
SeeYou190 I read this whole thread and did not understand any of it.. May I am doing Model Railroading all wrong.
I read this whole thread and did not understand any of it..
mrrdadMy goal is realism. To make it look as real as possible, not "toy" looking.
Ed,That's been my goal for years that's why I use real industry names,avoid "Time Saver" looks.. Infact my last three ISLs lacked runarounds because the majority of the industrial parks I looked up on Bing and Google maps didn't have them.
I enjoyed the research because of the modeling ideas. A Polymer company out in Texas received boxcars,coverhoppers and tank cars.
Did all the research and planning get to you?
You answered your own question. If you are not enjoying what you are doing, change it. There should be a happy medium somewhere.
Much of the past 20 years I didn't have a space for a layout so research was one thing I could do.
Anyway do what you enjoy. If research isn't fun, don't do it, or don't do as much.
Problem solved. Now where is my Staples button.
Rio Grande. The Action Road - Focus 1977-1983
This is called paralysis by analysis. It's so common in the hobby that it actually does keep some, a few, from having much fun at all.
Welcome to that august membership.
The term 'selective' has been introduced already. Select three, four, eight, key features that are essential for you to 'buy-in' to the realism you need. Start with one, then add another, and go until you feel that will suffice.
Plan it out on graph paper with realistic dimensions and placements so that your track plan works. Then practice building some kits if you need some development, and finally start building the big dream. It will take many weeks before you can run a train, and somewhat longer before you have semi-realistic scenery. But, a day or two a week and you'll eventually get there.
Don't forget.....have fun!
Hey Ed
I'm not sure I understand your problem. Well, actually, I do understand your problem . . . but I don't see incompatabilities in building a moderately-highly-detailed, interesting, and working prototypical layout with collecting and maintaining a world-class research library on all things B&O Chicago. The two activities are not mutually exclusive, and no reason for one to overshadow and smother the other.
Continue your research. Collect plans, specs, photos, artifacts, memorabilia, etc . . . devote a shelf or a drawer or a file cabinet or an entire wing of your house/office/workshop to your accumulations and become the world's leading expert on that particular neighborhood of Chicago and curate a museum that would make any of the recognized historical societies green with envy; all the while playing with trains like the rest of us. A lot of guys do both, or at least some semblence of both.
Here's an example . . . I have a complete set of design and construction plans for the Eiffel Tower. Plans that show every detail and every dimension in excruciating minuteness: every nut, bolt, plate, brace, collar . . . everything, including temporary falsework and scaffolding and specialized one-of-a-kind tools and equipment required to build the darn thing. The plans are in French, and the dimensions are Systeme Internationale, but it doesn't matter. I enjoyed seeing how engineers assembled a set of plans 150 years ago, and I enjoyed re-running the calculations. I have no intention of building an exact scale model of the tower, but I suppose I could. I did ponder the idea of building a diorama of sorts of one of the piers in the early stages of construction and taking prints of the plans and specs and making a photographic and 3D exhibit for one of the local museums. I haven't gotten around to that yet, but I still might . . .
I have no idea if this helps, but anyhow . . . good luck.
Robert
LINK to SNSR Blog
Ed,
I agree with Sheldon. Remember, Model Railroading is Fun. There are so many ways to approach this hobby. I have great respect for all the prototype modelers if that is what brings them enjoyment buts it's not for everyone. My "prototype" is John Allen's Gorre & Daphetid which was a Colorado Midland type pike but set in a layer era. My Gorre Northern is set in the northwest because that's where I live and that's how I want it.
You should do what's right for YOU and what gives you hobby enjoyment. I leave you with some names: Frank Ellison, Bill McClanahan, John Allen, Whit Tower's, Linn Wescott, W. Allen McClelland, Bruce Chubb, Eric Brooman...all these created freelance but true to life and similar to some prototypes and they had a blast doing it. Find what you love and do that. Steams up...let's roll
Boyd
Great advice from everyone.
I know the direction I'm heading now. I guess it was the sum of all the parts that seemed overwhelming to me. If I just tackle things one at a time and enjoy what I'm doing, while I'm doing it, all will be fine.
Mrrdad: Is this the first time you have constructed a Model Railroading layout?
If so, please do not concern yourself too much with anything that delays actual construction.
Robert,
Few care about what you're trying to replicate. I'd suggest following what others mention and capture the idea of what/where you want to model.
Doing too much research can (and sometimes does) take away from the fun factor. No one expects you to have an exact replica of reality. You don't have the physical or other types of resources. Do what you want with the research, but understand that getting too detailed detracts from enjoying what this hobby offers.
I get what you write. Being a research-oriented person, I have trouble avoiding analysis paralysis. You just have to break away and go with what you have.
When it comes to trains (engines, rolling stock, etc.) I am striving to put together a roster of equipment that is as true as possible to the period I am interested in. That is mostly where my research has gone - after all, the trains are the main actors on the stage.
As far as the layout goes, I will be going for the general look of the area I am planning to model, but not going to get too obsessed with the details too much.
When I was in my "armchair" phase I was a Pennsy modeler but of the most vague and disorganized sort as to locale and era - I was interested in the Ohio lines that used articulateds, the high speed line into Chicago, the electrified lines ... everything and anything and thus, from an actual layout planning standpoint, nothing. But I collected lots of PRR rolling stock and lots of PRR related books, slide duplicates, and research materials. Decades worth.
Then LifeLike Proto2000 released the very C&NW switcher that my best school buddy and I had watched switch my hometown in the 1960s. That changed everything. Suddenly railroad, locale, and era were fixed in my mind. Years of PRR acquisition went by the wayside. The research -- it is never ending and I continue to find new stuff and learn new facts. But at least in my case, being an actual prototype modeler was motivating and liberating and pushed aside years and years of dithering.
Since all the while I had been a member of the C&NW Historical Society and had all their magazines, I had resources which I now needed to entirely re-read because in the past I had just skimmed. And I could kick myself over the annual meets that I failed to attend and the special issue C&NW freight car models and decals that the historical society issued that I failed to buy.
So in my opinion and experience, prototype modeling sharpens and narrows the focus and makes motivation easier, not harder. The one thing not to do is to hold everything in abeyance until you have total and perfect knowledge and information. That day never comes!
Dave Nelson
mrrdadI have decided to quit obsessing about how I'm going to appoarch modeling those items and move on to other less complicated and simple areas. I think I will build my railroad with a one at a time modular approach.
Ed, I was somewhat in your boat when I started about 1½ years ago. I got discouraged because I was building a railroad, but nothing was running on the railroad.
Finally, I laid track in a large loop and got a train running. You can't imagine the satisfaction of actually having something moving.
I always felt that I would enjoy nature scenery the most, but after I got started, I have found I enjoy scratch building structures the most.
I mentioned this when I first go on the forums: I had a friend that had begun building a layout when he was in his 20s. He is now in his 70s. He bought tons of equipment, started layouts by the dozens, grew dissatisfied with each because it wasn't quite what he wanted, started over, and started over, and started over.
He has never had a train running -- in 40 years. He has never finished a single part of any layout. He has boxes and boxes of locomotives and rolling stock that have never been on a track, let alone move. Last time I talked to him, he was deciding to start to sell some of his stuff. He realizes he probably will never reach his dream of a large operating layout.
Get started with something. It doesn't have to be (and can't be) perfect.
Please let us know how you come out. Good luck!
York1 John
I have been in your shoes many times. It may be genetic. My family can be pretty intense about projects, hobbies, sports, etc. My niece likes to say that we take things “right to the edge of being fun”. While there is lots of truth to that statement, I think it has more to do with what one might consider to be “fun”.
I think of it as “serious fun”. Some people like to make things more complicated or difficult because they feel if they aren’t being challenged then it doesn’t fit their definition of fun. Others are seeking a high degree of realism or accuracy and that drives the intensity level and defines their version of “fun”. Nowhere in any of this is the inference that this intense approach is a “superior“ way to enjoy the hobby. It is just one of many, equally valid approaches.
To your point of wanting things to be realistic: I struggled with this for years until I realized that building models using the prototype as a guide was the easiest way for me to end up with something that looked “realistic”. The challenges presented by this approach were offset by the cool end product.
I am not saying that in order to be realistic, the model has to be 100% prototypical. I find that freelance modeling can be very realistic as well. It is possible to use the skills, techniques and approaches common to prototype modeling and apply them to freelance models to increase the realism.
It seems to me that you are struggling here with technique. How to shrink the whole station scene into a manageable size and still have the feel of the real deal? It might help to precisely define the space you have for the model (even if it is an arbitrary decision). This puts some limits on the options and might make it easier to decide how to compress the scene. I have built mock ups of the models from cardboard to play with to see how things will look on the layout.
I also find personally that I need time to let the best solution rise to the surface. This can take hours, days or weeks depending on the particulars. I have models on my layout that ran into a snag and sat for years before I came back to them with a good solution. The reason that it can take years is that I move on to something else in the meantime to keep things moving while I ponder the situation and then time slips away.....It is, after all, a hobby....
I think that Sheldon has explained a reasonable description of freelancing with realism as a goal. My approach is similar (my layout is a freelanced road). I have gone a few steps further in that I build lots of models of prototype buildings and rolling stock, but combine them in ways that never actually occurred. The idea is it looks like it could have happened (plausible).
In designing my track plan I went through all of my railroad books and picked scenes from railroads that I liked and then stitched them together into a track plan. The scenes are from different roads but follow a logical sequence and work well together. You can see more in the website link below my signature.
More than enough from me,
Guy
see stuff at: the Willoughby Line Site
BrammyI work as an analyst, and I LOVE doing the research on something. It is very easy to get into a situation where you know something is not accurate, and you are either powerless or unwilling to change it. A friend put it great once: Model Railroading is like a play. We are selling an illusion.
I'm an engineering student and that sums up my view in a nutshell to. Must be epidemic to us in these types of fields.
But being a student... research is a lot cheaper than building big model railroads. Other than a few slow going projects on the workbench 95% of what I do in the hobby is research.