Date
1 - 3 of 3
Why not model actual train consists? (UNCLASSIFIED)
|
Gatwood, Elden J SAD
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
Caveats: NONE For those many of us that cannot/couldn't host a "full-sized" (whatever that implies) layout, the "railfan" layout is a great compromise. I had just one fully-scenicked scene through which I ran my trains, and operated it by myself most of the time for the industries on that "museum-box" layout. The British have a long history of doing this. The rest of the layout was just staging. I liked it very much and am considering not ever going full-scale for many reasons, the biggest being, "who is going to help me operate a giant layout"... Elden Gatwood -----Original Message-----
From: STMFC@... [mailto:STMFC@...] On Behalf Of Richard Hendrickson Sent: Monday, May 23, 2011 1:23 PM To: STMFC@... Subject: Re: [STMFC] Why not model actual train consists? On May 23, 2011, at 7:52 AM, Jim Betz wrote: Hi,JIm, many years ago the late Terry Metcalfe had found a cache of wheel reports for the location and date he wanted to model on the Union Pacific and was well along with the research that would have enabled him to model specific trains. I helped him with that research and provided numerous photos of the car series in the wheel reports. At that time, there were fewer models available of the cars he would have needed, but today, with the profusion of styrene and resin freight car models that have been introduced since that time, it would be much easier to replicate those trains exactly. Regrettably, Terry's unfortunate and premature death brought that effort to a halt. I know a number of other modelers who are doing essentially what you describe, and I'd be inclined to do it myself if I had the documentation it would require. Bruce Smith's objection that modeling specific trains would make it impossible to do prototypical operation is, of course valid. but modeling specific trains is a viable alternative for those of us who don't have the space to build a model railroad that's suitable for prototypical operation. My diorama is intended to be what Bruce refers to (I hope not condescendingly) as a "railfan's" model railroad; sit down on a stool (standing in for a pile of crossties) and watch the trains run through a scene that is, as accurately as I can make it, a miniature of a real place at a real point in time. I find prototypical operation rewarding, too, but when I feel the need for an operating fix I can get it at the La Mesa club's Tehachapi Pass layout in San Diego or at Bill Darnaby's in suburban Chicago. On both of those large model railroads, operations are realistic enough that it's well worth the air fare to get there occasionally. Richard Hendrickson [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Classification: UNCLASSIFIED Caveats: NONE |
|
|
|
Richard Hendrickson
On May 23, 2011, at 10:53 AM, Gatwood, Elden SAW wrote:
Classification: UNCLASSIFIEDWell said, Elden. My thinking exactly. To model prototypical main line operations realistically requires a hell of a lot of real estate. I' don't know of any small (e.g., bedroom-sized) layouts where the potential for operations is at all satisfying, with the exception of of a couple of room-sized or bookshelf-type layouts representing switching in a particular city, or part of a city (Keith Jordan's bookshelf switching layout representing a part of Los Angeles comes immediately to mind). Richard Hendrickson |
|
|
|
Gatwood, Elden J SAD
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
Caveats: NONE Thanks, Richard. When I first started seriously reining in my expectations (yeah, Horseshoe Curve was long off that list), I went from wanting to model the entire Monongahela Division from Pittsburgh to Brownsville (~50 miles)...."selectively compressed"....then understanding what that entailed (approximately 50 freight trains and >10 passenger trains), to wanting to model just the Mon from Port Perry south to West Elizabeth (now down to ~30 freight trains and 2 passenger trains), still with massive selective compression, through several more iterations...to last-go-round < 3 miles of the Mon at Clairton, PA, with USS Clairton, and a half dozen industries around it, plus an interchange with Union RR and the P&WV, and guess what...I STILL need over 500 cars, dozens of engines, and the ability to makes up around twenty through drag freights, transfers, locals and local switching, just to make those 3 miles work...AND look right doing it. Trains that move through the scene and never stop...those that drop off blocks and pick up and leave...locals that do local switching and leave, and a local switcher. NO spaghetti bowls, once-thru scenery laid out like the real thing, none of that cramped scenery that I liked when I was a little guy, and the ability to make and break consists in invisible staging. Even that fills most of an entire 2-car garage. I don't know how others have the resources to do larger "operations", but I have to give them credit. It is beyond me, and I still have hundreds of freight cars to build....right. Elden Gatwood -----Original Message-----
From: STMFC@... [mailto:STMFC@...] On Behalf Of Richard Hendrickson Sent: Monday, May 23, 2011 2:06 PM To: STMFC@... Subject: Re: [STMFC] Why not model actual train consists? (UNCLASSIFIED) On May 23, 2011, at 10:53 AM, Gatwood, Elden SAW wrote: Classification: UNCLASSIFIEDWell said, Elden. My thinking exactly. To model prototypical main line operations realistically requires a hell of a lot of real estate. I' don't know of any small (e.g., bedroom-sized) layouts where the potential for operations is at all satisfying, with the exception of of a couple of room-sized or bookshelf-type layouts representing switching in a particular city, or part of a city (Keith Jordan's bookshelf switching layout representing a part of Los Angeles comes immediately to mind). Richard Hendrickson [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Classification: UNCLASSIFIED Caveats: NONE |
|
|