03-22-2014, 08:43 AM
Well, each to his own, and no question that now and then you can find a shoebox that unloads covered hoppers -- though even there, that isn't what you see on the "conventional wisdom" ISLs on forums like rmweb. On the other hand, why do that when a few blocks away, you have this:
As I asked above, which layout would you rather see, one with only shoebox industries, or one with industries that had shown some combination of research, effort, and creativity? (And yeah, Bauhaus is a school of architecture, but on the other hand, if you read Tom Wolfe's From Bauhaus to Our House, it's not something to admire or emulate. Ideas have consequences. There are places, styles, and times, the Confederacy and others, that I simply would not wish to model.)
The question isn't ISLs, although one issue might be whether ISL is an exact synonym for "small layout". I built several small layouts when I was young and living in apartments and didn't have any choice. However, I'm not sure I would have characterized them as ISLs. Nor do I think the late Carl Arendt would have said they're anything like the same thing.
The problem I have with what I would call "conventional wisdom ISLs", (CWISL) as opposed to a "small layout" in exactly the same space is that the CWISL treats only one kind of train, the retail local delivering individual cars. For whatever reason, CWISL builders seem to focus on boxcars, even though they're less than 10% of rail traffic, and less in many places. And they don't weather or tag their boxcars, or even paint the shiny wheels! (I have a feeling it's because they aren't that committed to the hobby and are worried they'll hurt the resale value -- that's the sense I get from rmweb.)
I'm interested in Malabar Yard, and I'm talking about it here, in part because I wish I'd known about it when I lived even closer in the 1970s, when there was more traffic, and I wish even more I could learn more about it in the 1950s Baldwin transfer loco era. This is because I keep rethinking how I would have done a "small layout" as a Malabar-inspired prototype with a number of features not in a CWISL, like different kinds of trains, yard operation, traffic other than boxcars, industries other than shoeboxes, or serious research into other eras.
Each to his own, it's your layout, but I find CWISLs boring, and even sort of claustrophobic. I guess it's just me, but I build my own layout.
As I asked above, which layout would you rather see, one with only shoebox industries, or one with industries that had shown some combination of research, effort, and creativity? (And yeah, Bauhaus is a school of architecture, but on the other hand, if you read Tom Wolfe's From Bauhaus to Our House, it's not something to admire or emulate. Ideas have consequences. There are places, styles, and times, the Confederacy and others, that I simply would not wish to model.)
The question isn't ISLs, although one issue might be whether ISL is an exact synonym for "small layout". I built several small layouts when I was young and living in apartments and didn't have any choice. However, I'm not sure I would have characterized them as ISLs. Nor do I think the late Carl Arendt would have said they're anything like the same thing.
The problem I have with what I would call "conventional wisdom ISLs", (CWISL) as opposed to a "small layout" in exactly the same space is that the CWISL treats only one kind of train, the retail local delivering individual cars. For whatever reason, CWISL builders seem to focus on boxcars, even though they're less than 10% of rail traffic, and less in many places. And they don't weather or tag their boxcars, or even paint the shiny wheels! (I have a feeling it's because they aren't that committed to the hobby and are worried they'll hurt the resale value -- that's the sense I get from rmweb.)
I'm interested in Malabar Yard, and I'm talking about it here, in part because I wish I'd known about it when I lived even closer in the 1970s, when there was more traffic, and I wish even more I could learn more about it in the 1950s Baldwin transfer loco era. This is because I keep rethinking how I would have done a "small layout" as a Malabar-inspired prototype with a number of features not in a CWISL, like different kinds of trains, yard operation, traffic other than boxcars, industries other than shoeboxes, or serious research into other eras.
Each to his own, it's your layout, but I find CWISLs boring, and even sort of claustrophobic. I guess it's just me, but I build my own layout.