03-27-2014, 09:17 AM
Well, I was never arguing only in favor of the Vernon-and-nearby area; as I said, there are other areas, like Chicago or East St Louis, that are just as varied in the post-2005 time period (Epoche VII now?). However, several things strike me about building any model. If you're focused on a single prototype, like Jack Burgess trying to model every significant detail of the Yosemite Valley, that's one thing. Most of us aren't like that. Interests change. In fact, if you've been in the hobby into middle age, you've got the problem of what to do with the "up to date" models you got 20 years ago that are now scrapped, painted for merged railroads, etc. A few guys, like Allen McClelland, would sell them off. Why? I got them for a reason, why should I not want to keep them?
In addition, trying to model an exact scene, or a whole railroad, just doesn't work. If you go to Google Street View, that's already out of date, and if you go to the same area next week, they'll have torn down the most interesting building. You can't capture anything exactly. You can't model a whole railroad, it takes billions in capital and thousands of employees to make it work. You have to make artistic decisions, which means you have to add your own preferences. There are many times when guys like Lance Mindheim make them very arbitrary -- a session can't be longer than 45 minutes. You can only have 50% of the area be track. So forth. That's good for Lance, but he's full of it if he thinks that works for me.
Here's what I think in general:
-- push the limits.
-- find ways to add variety.
-- budget your effort to make an overall product.
-- make full use of all resources (time, energy, money, space, research opportunities).
Push the limits -- heck, add as much track as you think you can get away with. A railroad yard has a lot of track, as do important junctions, as do large industrial areas. Mountain passes have track looping around, back on itself, over itself. Add spots wherever you can, for instance, on a dual-use track, main in one session, spur in another, especially where something like a lifting panel is involved. Use things like crossings as scenic features.
Add variety -- different kinds of trains, uses for different kinds of freight cars, excuses for different road names. Mike Kieran is advocating less-is-more, though I would challenge Mike to actually build a layout, either the ones he plans or some other way, just build a layout. Theory is great for theoreticians. Put track down and find ways to maximize its use. There are times and locations on the prototype where there's lots of variety: early Conrail, early BN, early Guilford, early Amtrak; Los Angeles, Chicago, East St Louis, Potomac Yard, White River Jct, etc. This is another area where Lance Mindheim keeps telling people to impose arbitrary limits -- there's lots more to railroading, even in a fairly small space, than just a GP switching a car or two.
Budget your effort -- why spend all that time tearing down and rebuilding?
Make full use of all resources -- as one example, you have four corners in your room, but as far as I can see, you use only two of them for scenery, leaving trackwork aside. That might go into the question of budgeting effort. I'm puzzled that you aren't looking into operational opportunities your plan provides as it exists -- again, arbitrary limits. It's sometimes frustrating to watch.
In addition, trying to model an exact scene, or a whole railroad, just doesn't work. If you go to Google Street View, that's already out of date, and if you go to the same area next week, they'll have torn down the most interesting building. You can't capture anything exactly. You can't model a whole railroad, it takes billions in capital and thousands of employees to make it work. You have to make artistic decisions, which means you have to add your own preferences. There are many times when guys like Lance Mindheim make them very arbitrary -- a session can't be longer than 45 minutes. You can only have 50% of the area be track. So forth. That's good for Lance, but he's full of it if he thinks that works for me.
Here's what I think in general:
-- push the limits.
-- find ways to add variety.
-- budget your effort to make an overall product.
-- make full use of all resources (time, energy, money, space, research opportunities).
Push the limits -- heck, add as much track as you think you can get away with. A railroad yard has a lot of track, as do important junctions, as do large industrial areas. Mountain passes have track looping around, back on itself, over itself. Add spots wherever you can, for instance, on a dual-use track, main in one session, spur in another, especially where something like a lifting panel is involved. Use things like crossings as scenic features.
Add variety -- different kinds of trains, uses for different kinds of freight cars, excuses for different road names. Mike Kieran is advocating less-is-more, though I would challenge Mike to actually build a layout, either the ones he plans or some other way, just build a layout. Theory is great for theoreticians. Put track down and find ways to maximize its use. There are times and locations on the prototype where there's lots of variety: early Conrail, early BN, early Guilford, early Amtrak; Los Angeles, Chicago, East St Louis, Potomac Yard, White River Jct, etc. This is another area where Lance Mindheim keeps telling people to impose arbitrary limits -- there's lots more to railroading, even in a fairly small space, than just a GP switching a car or two.
Budget your effort -- why spend all that time tearing down and rebuilding?
Make full use of all resources -- as one example, you have four corners in your room, but as far as I can see, you use only two of them for scenery, leaving trackwork aside. That might go into the question of budgeting effort. I'm puzzled that you aren't looking into operational opportunities your plan provides as it exists -- again, arbitrary limits. It's sometimes frustrating to watch.