Erie1951My next layout is based on a mythical exchange yard between the DL&W and the Erie set in Paterson, NJ. I grew up with the Erie main line almost in my back yard and the industrial city of Paterson was right across the Passaic River from my town.
.
OK... I think I figured out this thread... how does this sound:
My next layout will depict a small section lifted from the Eastern operating district of the STRATTON AND GILLETTE RAILROAD from the city of Centerville Eastward to the seaside town of Port Annabel. A hidden loop will simulate operations North to the town of Great Divide and West to the township of Manchester.
I am trying to recreate the actual roster of SGRR locomotives as closely as I can to the fleet that operated out of Centerville in the Summer of 1954. My research has shown these to be mostly EMD diesel of various F unit types. There are some basic designs of steam locomotives still operating in the targetted operational year.
The SGRR locomotives that were based on standard USRA designs have been easy to find, but the articulated locomotives are another matter. No one seems to make any models of the SGRR 2-6-6-4 locomotives that ran out of the division point in Frary City, and I need these to complete my roster. My research shows that I simply must have one, or even two.
The SGRR will interchange with the DAWDLE AND DELAY at a grade crossing that is located about 10 miles outside of Centerville. I will need to compress this distance significantly on the model layout because of space constraints. I am planning to use a hidden loop to increase the run length to improve the illusion of distance on the layout.
Reasearch on the D&D has proven to be more difficult than researching the SGRR. There is not as much information readily available. I have had to simply fill in a few blank spaces as best I could. I hope that future research into the D&D does not show that I made any unforgivable errors.
The city of Centerville seems to be well made for representation on a model railroad layout. There is a business/industrial district of brick buildings where all of the structures happen to be nearly identical to models produced by Magnuson and City Classics. The locomotive facilities in Centerville can be modelled to good standards using kits from Walthers.
Amazingly, all the structures in Port Annabel seem to be exact matches for Laser-Kits from Branchline Trains, even the iconic lighthouse near the wharf. The warehouse on the waterfront is a dead ringer for the Front Street Warehouse from Walthers Cornerstone. That is quite fortunate. That would be a challenge of a building to scratchbuild.
How was that?
-Kevin
Living the dream.
I DID try to go the "less is more" route.
My layout was specifically designed to capture the "wide open spaces". Especially in the desert scene, vegetation is sparse (more so now that one cat took out the few palm trees, but you get my drift).
So for that very reason, the dominant features are terrain, rock formations (however imperfectly executed--they represent Utah or New Mexico red cliffs), and just not very much else.
There is a fall scene with the pumpkin patch and small cornfield and a barn and a small "wheatfield" all of which continues off the layout into one's imagination...
For me, it's all about the trains and trying to present them against whatever sparse western terrain caught my fancy. Track work was minimal. Two current passing sidings and one little stub siding. Otherwise, single track mainline. Though passenger trains and 4-8-4's can negotiate the layout, it is pretty much a sellout to freight railroading.
I love passenger trains, but don't have room or budget for everything.
John
Wayne, you have a great layout, but it is flawed by Bertram's which looks totally out of place. That one structure should be removed, and if you cannot bear to toss it, send it to me.
Rich
Alton Junction
While my layout is freelanced, it does interchange with prototype roads, too, so I often modify existing models to be better representations of real cars. I do enjoy the research which that entails, and it often leads me down diverging paths, sometimes even more interesting than the original subject.I also try to keep my freelanced locomotives and rolling stock believeable-looking, despite occasionally having a few too-modern cars running on my late '30s layout.
I've also modified a number of steam locomotives (mostly brass) for friends, to make them match photos of particular prototypes, and hope to soon get busy on doing several for my own layout, both in brass and plastic.All of the place names on my layout refer to real locations, but none attempt to replicate those places. Many of the industries in those towns are based on real ones, too, but for the most part, I'm not interested in anything more than having a venue that generates traffic for my railroad.I use a lot of Walthers structures, but modify and/or combine them, to suit my needs, often adding scratchbuilt portions. Many others are scratchbuilt - some very simply done, and others which were more major projects - they fulfil my requirements, both for the layout and for expanding my capabilities.
The eight towns/cities on my layout are, by necessity, too close together, but as the lone operator, it's easy enough for me to imagine those few feet to be many miles.
I've built (and am still building) my fantasy railroad. Some of it, I think, is quite realistic, while some of it is simply meant to be interesting. This meets my requirements, allowing me to pursue both prototypical modelling and the "please myself" stuff which others might classify as trivial. I do, at times, count rivets, but only those in my own layout room or workshop.
I have, in the past, fallen into the trap of trying to recreate a large prototype in HO scale, working from actual blueprints - all the prints used for the real one were available to me, free, although I initially started with about only two dozen which pretty-well covered the basics of the main items: a blast furnace and its ancilliary structures - stoves, stockhouse, scrubbers and baghouses, etc. At the time, it was the largest in Canada and, perhaps, in North America. I soon realised that it would take more room than was available in our at-the-time one bedroom apartment, or later, in a layout room in our first house.
Buying materials was also an issue - not as much, particularly in styrene, was available at that time, but the costs were also outstripping my income, and I decided to put the project aside.The portions already-built languished in storage, gradually deteriorating and I finally had to admit to myself that my appetite was larger than my stomach for completing the project, and I began to dismantle what was left. I doubt now that I ever would have finished it...it was more likely that it would have finished me.
Looking at a large aerial photo of the entire plant (which I rescued when the mill in which I worked was being demolished), I think that the intended model would have used-up at least over half of the 560 square feet in which my layout now resides.
My only regret is not keeping the blueprints. I am, however, enjoying what I have.
Wayne
Dave said:
"...Personally I think that the research he did has been hugely successful. He has researched enough to realize that his original idea wasn't going to work for him. That's wonderful. Knowing where NOT to go is as important as knowing where to go..."
Excellent!
To where should one turn if one doesn't know where one is already?! Part of the meta of this hobby is finding out what you don't know, and then understanding what to do with the information once you know it. Being bound by self-imposed 'rules' or notions is a recipe for disaster in a hobby if one isn't prepared to change course or to address a growing dissatisfaction over the way things are developing.
How many of us have dreamt long and hard of a dream layout only to find, partway through its construction (finally!) that it's either too ambitious or that it no longer meets the requirement due to our development and evolution since the dreams started? Or, we find that a chunk of the track system is just poorly executed or poorly conceived? At that point, we have to take a step back, rethink, and then start a new and improved process. This is what keeps the hobby vital for us and us for the hobby.
Know thyself.
SeeYou190 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. . -Kevin .
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.
Not my first at all. My Other layouts were O scale though.
Ed
Semi newbie HO scale modeler coming from the O scale world
Travis, that's interesting background info. I used to watch the Thomas TV show with my son when he was growing up and enjoyed it because there was a sense of realism to the trains and the way they performed. Even if it was a watered down version of the books, it seemed rooted in realism more than what I thought the average viewer would notice. Obviously the equipment was drawn to be a kids show, but I always thought the creator of the series must have been a model railroader at heart to have gone to the lengths to make the other aspects of the show more realistic than it had to be, IMO.
- Douglas
riogrande5761 If prototyping is sucking the fun out of your life, here is the cure: Thomas the Tank Engine!
If prototyping is sucking the fun out of your life, here is the cure:
Thomas the Tank Engine!
I belong to a club whose layout is freelanced 1950s. As such, I tend to model in trains, rather than a complete era. I model two eras: Erie Lackawanna (pre-merger to early Conrail); and modern-day Union Pacific.
As such, my constraints are as follows:
1- My UP train is cars that were in service from 2000-today. So, no 40' box cars or cars with running boards. I have a ton of the old PS-2 ribbed hoppers, but their paint schemes aren't era appropriate
2- My EL trains let me run the older stuff without much compromise. 40' running boards, have at em. I can also run my UPS trailers on both eras, and I don't lose much sleep over a couple of the trailers having the modern UPS logo.
3- My passenger trains for the EL mimic reality rather than an exact model. I have a Lackawanna passenger train that I run behind my Trainmaster. It has a diner even though a short train like that may not have one. I am not going to lose any sleep over it.
I have two overall philosophies: don't let the facts get in the way of a good story; and better is the enemy of good.
When I build a home layout, I will build it in an era I can run any of my trains. But even then, so what. I want to run what is visually appealing to me, and accurate as a second.
Couple thoughts here. I really don't think that "prototype research" is the root problem here. The real problem is that that he has chosen an huge set of givens and druthers and as a result he has been overwhelmed.
His choices:
There is nothing wrong with them, but they are large and complicated goals and he even admits he is including stuff he really doesn't like. Why do that?
mrrdadThe 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.
Personally I think that the research he did has been hugely successful. He has researched enough to realize that his original idea wasn't going to work for him. That's wonderful. Knowing where NOT to go is as important as knowing where to go.
I personally have used research to both help decide where to go and where not to go.
I originally wanted to model the PRR/PC, but it seemed too big. I then looked at the LV, but in the more modern eras it didn't haul much coal and I wanted coal trains, plus there proper engines were available (very few good Alco's in the 1970's) and 90% of the tonnage was carried on 10% of the mileage. So then I went to the Reading Co. Much better size, they offered passenger service into the CR era. I first was interested in the Tamaqua area but I realized that it ran waaaaaaay more trains than I could accomodate in the space I had. I picked the Cattasaugua area because it had so many other railroads (LV, CNJ, LNE, LHR, Ironton) but the more I researched it I decided it wasn't the best choice for what I wanted. (Research note: The Illinois Railway Museum has an LNE 0-6-0 that was asigned to Cattasaugua, it has a blind center driver because the connection between the LNE and the RDG was so sharp.) I eventually changed to the Reading Wilmington & Northern Branch and have been modeling that for the last 15 or so years. I did backdate eras from 1950 to 1900 though.
All through that process I have been researching whatever prototype I was modeling. In the process of research I have found more cool things that gave me more opportunities than I have found things that have limited me. My frustration is that I know more cool stuff and cool things than I have room to include on my layout. Research doesn't end with building the layout, I am 4 years into the current version and I am still researching things.
Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com
I have been trying to model, reasonably faithfully, most of the Casper subdivision of the CB&Q for years.
On and off I spend a few days researching different parts of the line. Over time, I've learned a lot of specifics, and try to incorporate many of them into the layout. But I'm not a fanatic about it.
The thrust of all my efforts is to do a faithful enough representation that people familiar with the line will recognize parts of it when they see the layout. It will "feel" right, to them and to me. Maybe that would work for you, mrrdad.
As far as toy looking, I agree. A LOT of otherwise great layouts have industries that are clearly too miniscule to support the traffic they provide for the layout. I avoid this by making my still over-compressed industries a bit larger than most. For example, there are the Standard Oil tank car loading racks in Casper that will handle about 14 cars at the same time. Or the icing platform long enough to handle 16 cars at a time. A respectable cut of eight to ten sugar beet cars fit at the Worland sugar plant, and the cars will not dwarf the plant itself. Average train size for my layout is 14-16 cars plus loco and caboose. Long enough to look like a train, but it will still fit on a moderately sized layout without overwhelming it.
Mark P.
Website: http://www.thecbandqinwyoming.comVideos: https://www.youtube.com/user/mabrunton
My next layout is based on a mythical exchange yard between the DL&W and the Erie set in Paterson, NJ. I grew up with the Erie main line almost in my back yard and the industrial city of Paterson was right across the Passaic River from my town. I'm going to model the industrial "flavor" of the era, but not prototypical industries. Most of my research has gone into making sure that I have correct motive power and rolling stock in use for the '50-'54 time frame that I want to represent and that's as far as I need to go. I can understand the research behind modeling a particular scene, but as far as being "correct" right down to the smallest details goes, I have to cut it off at "typical and generic".
Russ
Modeling the early '50s Erie in Paterson, NJ. Here's the link to my railroad postcard collection: https://railroadpostcards.blogspot.com/
Jim, regarding this:
The gentleman's last name was Mies, he added "van der Rohe", to make is name more aristocratic. Ludwig Mies van der Rohe, born Maria Ludwig Michael Mies, architect, 1886-1969
His two famous quotes:
"Less is more" refers to less ornamentation, not less size.....
His other would sometimes seem to contradict the first, "God is in the details".
Considered one of the father's of modern architecture, he fled Germany when the Nazi's took over.
His notion of "less is more" never implied that having more is a bad thing, it simply expressed the idea of simple elegance over gaudy.
Sheldon, the old house guy.....
Back to the OP's layout construction issues, I can say this. The area that he is considering modeling, and that meets all of his criteria, is a 10 block stretch from Harrison Street (6th Street) where Grand Central Station was located to 16th Street where the BOCT bascule bridge is located. Between those two landmark features was a freight yard, coach yard, and a large train shed. That's it. So, how much research can a fella do, and how much space would a layout require to model a 10 block by 2 block area in HO scale?
I like to research PRESENT DAY railroads so I can learn modern operations around the industries they serve. That is what I base my layout planning on, and to a large degree the types of equipment that I accumulate. My freelanced shortline uses no particular type of loco, so I don't bother to worry about which exact details are omitted or included on any particular model. One well detailed GP38 or MP 15 is as good as the next.
I like to research PAST railroads as simply a matter of interest, but it has little influence on how the layout will look or operate. To me, its interesting to understand why they existed and why they merged, which usually comes down to diminished traffic.
But understanding the particular details or differences between one loco or boxcar and the same loco or boxcar from another railroad, or in the OP's case a train station and assorted buildings, becomes minutia that crosses the line of diminishing returns on enjoying my time. I can't imagine how far I would cross over the line of dimishing returns if I spent time trying to build or accumulate the exact details or models.
Rio Grande. The Action Road - Focus 1977-1983
Maybe it can be boiled down to this, and not just confined to our hobby:
Some dream. Some do.
Reinds me of the man who went to see his doctor.
"Doc," he says, "Every time I slap the side of my head I get a ringing sound that won't stop for 10 minutes."
"Well," said the doctor after consulting several medical journals. "Don't do that."
I have a friend, a now retired truck driver. He was very much a perfectionist about his layout--did get it started. Rather than using simple plywood like some of us, he insisted on glue laminating his custom layout top. Walter insisted on hand-laid turnouts, and I believe some Truescale track. He bought many dozens of the old Ambroid kits and other vintage freight car kits.
Walter never finished more than about 20 linear feet of track and maybe two turnouts and a parallel siding--enough to run his brass models back and forth. His ballast was done to a perfect knife edge. The unfinished helix woodwork remains in a corner of his basement.
He has enough trains to fill a typical small train store...but that layout will never get done. He hasn't completed any additonal trackwork in 25 years, unless you want to count a "temporary" oval on a table in the living room upstairs...
Walter is still my friend, but don't be like him: build something--anything--learn from it and then build something else. Even the little 4' modules could be a wealth of learning and fun to get started!
I’ll put a different angle on it.
i get the part about research, and I enjoy doing it; however, I would rather go for the suggestion rather than complete accuracy because the space requirements mandate it. We can count rivets and place them in exact locations on our models,which is all well and good, but the farther we get away from the track the less accurate our modeling can be.
Then our own experiences enter into it.
Example, if and when I can start a layout, I wish to loosely model the Union Pacific Kansas Division, particularly the area from Manhattan, KS to Salina, KS.
i grew up in that area and when I first got out of high school I worked for the UP as a section hand for a month. So, I’m not only familiar with the trackage, but have actually walked and worked on several miles of it.
But funny thing, life happens and one gets exposed to other things. Having lived in LA for several years, I developed a liking for the SP.
Solution, still model the Kansas division, but run SP on the same trackage just taking elements of the locale tomodel.
The point: it doesn’t matter what you model or to what extent you model it,as long as you have fun and enjoy doing it. If it stops being fun, time to re evaluate.
Jim (with a nod to Mies Van Der Rohe)
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.
Ed,
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
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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